Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

User:Jaozinhoanaozinho and persistant WP:SYNTH, WP:PROFRINGE, and WP:GNG-failing articles

User:Jaozinhoanaozinho has been creating articles on portuguese history for a while now. They seem to be a competent writer, but their understanding of WP:GNG and WP:SYNTH seems to be lacking substantially.

• Danish expedition to North America was deleted for WP:PROFRINGE

• Da Serra–American conflict on WP:GNG and WP:SYNTH grounds

• Portuguese Newfoundland on WP:PROFRINGE and WP:OR

• They've been warned about creating hoax articles and continued doing so.

• Warned for copyright issues which also still persist in articles (see now removed references in Potato Revolt)

• Plenty of articles containing only one source Siege of Campar, Battle of Cape Coast (1562), Battle of Lucanzo (1590), Portudal–Joal Massacre, Battle of the Gambia River (1570), Battle of Mugenga

Most recently there's Battle of Naband, which contains two sources and the only one easily accessible never mentions any Battle of Naband and indeed mentions the Naband itself only twice in the book. I've AFDd four of their last five or so articles in a row, with three now deleted.

Battle of Naband is my last article of theirs I'm AFDing. I tried bringing this up with them but it doesn't appear to have gone anywhere and I don't want to WP:WIKIHOUND someone for mass creating low-quality articles. They're a competent writer but I feel that a time out from article creation without oversight may be helpful for everyone here. With the inscrutible sourcing and the repeated defense of a WP:PROFRINGE article above it's pretty impossible for inexpert editors to know if what's being presented is legit or not without sources or verifiability. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Sadly I have to support this. They simply don't have a grasp of our policies and guidelines despite all the AfDs where they've been discussed. Doug Weller talk 10:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I checked this Battle of Naband which is at Afd. It wasn't a battle and hasn't been named as such by any historian. A small engagement at best. The sources are problematic, very very slim. I could only find a couple of small paras in a single source that seems to come from a single verbal report. I think they should all be draftified to be checked and any future work sent to draft. I couldn't find Naband? scope_creep^Talk 12:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, here's my response regarding the issues raised:

• 1) While I understand that the Luso-Danish expedition theory is not widely accepted, similar fringe theories, such as the "Theory of the Portuguese discovery of Australia," are allowed to remain on Wikipedia. I suggested adjustments to the article title and additional citations during our earlier discussion, but those suggestions were not incorporated.
• 2) I still believe the topic is notable, even though it isn't widely discussed. I maintain that there is no issue with synthesis as the article does not present conclusions that aren't directly supported by the sources.
• 3) I agree with the decision to delete the article in question, as I did not do my research properly, turns out it was not a colony or long standing controlled territory.
• 4) I have never created a hoax article (Correction: Besides "Portuguese Newfoundland). The warning I received 10 months ago was for an article I translated from the Portuguese Wikipedia.
• 5) I typically do this when the sources used do not provide page numbers, and it can be difficult for others to verify specific information.
• 6) Many of the articles in question were created when I was beginning to edit on Wikipedia. I don’t mind improving research quality.
• 7) The article now cites four sources, and there are additional mentions of the engagement in other books, I just didn’t cite all of them.

Additionally, I’ve noticed that you’ve consistently targeted my articles for deletion. While you have assured me that you're not trying to pressure me, it still feels as though there is a disproportionate focus on my work. I also noticed that you often skip over maintenance templates and go straight to nomination for deletion, even when the articles do not seem to have significant issues. A recent example would be the "Baloch-Portuguese conflicts". Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I’ve noticed that you’ve consistently targeted my articles for deletion. While you have assured me that you're not trying to pressure me, it still feels as though there is a disproportionate focus on my work.

I addressed this above, it's a tricky thing to strike a balance between WP:WIKIHOUNDING and "This editor constantly makes articles that need oversight", which is why I brought this to ANI and said it'd be the last article of yours I AFD. It wasn't my intent to make you feel surveilled, though, which is why I called attention to that pattern of mine in the ANI itself.

I also noticed that you often skip over maintenance templates and go straight to nomination for deletion, even when the articles do not seem to have significant issues.

Considering that these articles have, for the most part, been deleted, I don't think it's fair to summarize them as needing maintainence templates. Something that fails WP:GNG doesn't need a maintanence template if it's never going to pass WP:GNG and believe me, I am actually looking for sources before I nominate. It's actually why, for example

A recent example would be the "Baloch-Portuguese conflicts".

I didn't AFD this one, but instead raised it on your talk page. That seemed to have WP:SYNTH issues but was much less cut and dry, so I reached out directly instead of AFDing it. I'm not going to maintenance-tag a page that may simply never pass WP:GNG before establishing that, because it risks wasting editors time. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• The single-source articles probably need to go to AfD as well. There are literally no hits for a "Battle of Cape Coast", "Battle of Lucanzo", and a "Portudal–Joal Massacre" (and they are not referred to as such in the single source that is in the article). There is little doubt that these minor skirmishes occurred (so they're not hoaxes), but they don't appear to be notable either. They sound like information that should be included in a wider article about the topics involved. Black Kite (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
• Based upon their comments here and at the various AfD's, I do not believe Jaozinhoanaozinho understands the problematic nature of their articles, nor do they apparently understand the original research policy. I propose and support a ban from article creation until, after gaining substantially more experience improving pre-existing articles without violating WP:OR, they gain that necessary understanding/competence. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
• SUPPORT ban from article creation. Doug Weller talk 09:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support a ban from article creation. I checked a couple more of them over the weekend. I'm not keen to see any more of these non-articles made in that manner. scope_creep^Talk 09:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support article creation ban. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:SOCK. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support Ban. Sr. Blud (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC) I think he also knows these are just theories. He is doing this for being extented confirmed user with Gaming the system. Sr. Blud (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC) There is only one article I created that is based on theories, and I made it clear that fringe theories are acceptable on Wikipedia as long as they adhere to the guidelines. I also asked for specific changes to improve the article, but my requests were ignored. I don't understand the sudden accusation of “gaming the system". Could you please specify which of my edits were allegedly made with the intent of gaining a higher user status? What personal theories have I supposedly pushed, or what specific actions have I taken to exploit the system for recognition? I would appreciate clarification. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC) Why would they ignore your request? That's would be ridicilous?! Sr. Blud (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC) I think it's not quite fair to say they were ignored, more there was a discussion that the fringe article was never going to be acceptable, as opposed to having specific issues that could be addressed. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC) I dunno. Sr. Blud (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC) Please refrain from commenting on discussions you haven't read. Additionally, this user is a known sockpuppeteer. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I think my needle has moved a wee bit to left re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Lucanzo (1590). There is genuine reason here and I don't think its gaming the system. In this case it was a battle, but again, the source are very very slim. scope_creep^Talk 08:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the editor is capable of evaluating sources correctly and he should still be banned. scope_creep^Talk 09:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I didn't create the article you've referenced? Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Ignore (I didn't mean to reply to this specific comment) Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment This is editor is still creating dog poor articles Cult Member. This is the second in days thats been speedied. scope_creep^Talk 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  I didn't create the article you've referenced? Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note that Sr. Blud is now blocked as a sockpuppet. Doug Weller talk 17:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Me (DragonofBatley)

It may seem odd but I'm going to appoint myself to here to save @KJP1: the trouble. It is suggested I be put under a restricted amount of editing for new articles and using Articles for Creation. I have agreed to do so but there is cause to refer it here. I have accepted the offers to fix my ways and work on it but it appears it needs an ANI report and involvement so I will do so now. The other editors can put their cases forward. I will only say to please look at the bad and the good edits I have made to the site and not just the negatives. DragonofBatley (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Notifying other editors from the wider discussions @PamD:, @Noswall59:, @Rupples:, @Crouch, Swale:, @KeithD:, @SchroCat:, @Tryptofish:, @Cremastra: and @Voice of Clam:. If I missed anyone else sorry DragonofBatley (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Non-archived discussion in DoB's talk page history that appears relevant: Special:Permalink/1268766779#Source/text_integrity. Schazjmd (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Before the other editors all pipe in. This is mostly in regards to my ability to edit an article, create notable places like in the cases of Lawley, Shropshire, Annesley South Junction Halt railway station, Gonerby Hillfoot and now redirected Lawley Furnaces and Lawley Bank. I am actually trying to offer a solution to work with the editors by using Articles for Creation but to no avail. So ANI is now the new stop. DragonofBatley (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes and I made some questionable choices of responses for which I am taking back as both inappropriate and immature. I am on the spectrum and do sometimes have moments of taking things personally if i feel attacked or something similar. I regret those actions and offered a fresh start to wipe slate clean and better myself but it seems it was at least now pointless as KJP1 is insisting ANI get involved. I am actually a very professional person and willing to learn. I had a bad day and went to cool off. I came back after a short time and willing to work out my issues but again. It is not really worth trying to if ANI is the new way forward. DragonofBatley (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Also this discussion: Special:PermanentLink/1269282704#Dragon. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Personally, my concern is not notability but verifiability. I'm glad to see that the user is accepting feedback and willing to move on.

I do not think restricting DragonofBatley to AfC submissions is the best course of action here, since that places the burden on AfC reviewers. Rather, I think we should wait and see if problems persist. If DragonofBatley is willing to edit carefully and go with a fresh start, well and good. WP:JAN25 is how I first came into contact with this user: if new page reviewers flag problems, then we can be having this discussion again and consider sanctions or restrictions. As it stands, I'm willing to take the user's assurances that they'll be more careful, with the understanding that they have been warned and that further problems will be dealt with seriously without many further cautions.

I'd also like to personally recommend to DragonofBatley to draft articles in userspace and then move them to mainspace him/herself. I find this approach helps me clear my head and write the article in stages, rather than write it all at once in one edit – when I do the latter, I tend to leave loose ends.

Happy editing, Cremastra (u — c) 23:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd really like to allow enough time for uninvolved editors to examine the issues and weigh in, before we rush to say let's step back and see if he continues to accept feedback. There are some strange issues around a comment about ban evasion – it's possible that there was simply a no-problem rename, followed by an ill-considered joke, but I think it requires some closer examination: [1]. There's also a matter of whether a CCI needs to be initiated. Those are both potentially serious matters, that should not be dismissed out-of-hand. I take the point about not wanting to burden AfC reviewers, but that just shifts the burden to other editors, rather than making the problems go away, and I don't think we should have to be cleaning it up in mainspace. And there seem to be repeated, serious concerns about content that fails verification when sources are examined. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Cremastra, thanks for your input. Ive actually wanted to begin by personally thanking you and PamD for being patient with me. I really do. I want to work to improve and will do. Unfortunately, a few feel ANI is the solution so I will have to leave it for the administrative ones to suggest the next steps. I will use my sandbox for any new articles and then use AfC or ping relevant editors to maybe input on my work? Before publishing DragonofBatley (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@DragonofBatley: I appreciate that you are willing to work via drafts instead of publishing articles directly to mainspace. Would you be willing to agree to a voluntary editing restriction (which could be enforced by partial or site blocks) that requires you to submit all drafts to AfC for approval, up to a maximum of 5 drafts at a time? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I can agree to that. Is it possible to make a list on my talk page of interests. I work in the sandbox and ask for input from editors. Can anyone see the sandbox? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

You may use your talk page for whatever you like. You can also create a subpage, such as User:DragonofBatley/Interesting topics list. It seems like you have a large group of people who want to help you and who find value in your contributions here, and I'm sure some of them would be willing to continue to provide feedback to you. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I've reviewed the threads that Schazjmd and I shared. I think given Dragon's communication style, the block/ban thing was probably hyperbole. Regarding CCI, where were issues raised regarding copyright concerns in Dragon's edits? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Tryptofish, I don't think we have engaged in a discussion but that name ban evasion was a bad joke. I'll be honest I got confused between a name change and role playing. It was in bad taste. I'm not evading any bans or topic bans. I made an ill informed sarcastic joke and role playing. I should not have and I have time and again apologised for that. It was a stupid thing to say and I being on the spectrum as I do not wish to disclose my condition even though I likely have. Do sometimes have silly moments. I have done my best to keep them.off Wikipedia. The repeat things will be no more. I'm willing to fully grasp my errors and be more efficient and open to discussion on articles for AfC and in my sandbox. I offered a clean slate to start again and I stepped off it. Then ANI could have been involved. But unfortunately it was insisted despite me offering to change. The joke was in bad taste and I'm not avoiding any bans. It was a bad joke I came up with while role playing. I hope we can put that to bed and start a new. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

It was and it was in bad taste. I changed my username and felt I had a new account forgetting it was a simple name change. I had an immature moment and I hope the administrative editors see I take it back and acknowledge it as inappropriate and childish on my part. I'm being an open book now. No gimmicks or pretend. I genuinely apologise. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Given the DragonofBatley/RailwayJG account is nearly 5 years old the statute of limitations might well apply so I don't see a need to look too much into that especially given that while there have clearly been problems with this account I'm not aware of any other socks created after this account, that is to say I'm not aware DragonofBatley has been socking since creating this account. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

There is no socking. The only time I may edit off my account is for minor corrections made to certain articles. I made one anon edit months ago to a page I believe it was Derbyshire or Yorkshire which mispelt I believe it was a church or a nearby settlement had a letter missing. But apart from that. This is my main account and I have no issues with editors making sure I am not causing a nuisance to articles not that I intend to do so. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

These are good points.

However, I don't think you meant CCI, since as far as I can tell, copyright has not been a problem. I think a CCI-like thing may be in order. WP:Failed verification cleanup project, anyone? Cremastra (u — c) 23:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Likely, I do try at times to source text but of course plagiarism is a big no no. So i am sometimes a bit concerned to quote full texts in fear of copyrighting or stealing a sentence/similar in writing. Would using ChatGPT be worth it to help avoid any similar problems in terms of copyright? Not for writing a paragraph or sourcing but to check for plagurising? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

ChatGPT cannot help you check for plagiarism. Given the concerns raised in this discussion and others, I recommend staying far away from ChatGPT or other LLMs for editing Wikipedia. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay thats fine. Is there any website Wikipedia approve to check for plagiarism? I want to make sure i do not break WP:Copyright and WP:Plagiarism. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

When sourcing or quoting a source on an article I meant to add DragonofBatley (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The reason I mentioned CCI is because multiple editors who have been closely involved in the edits said on KJP1's talk page (linked above) that some sort of CCI might be needed. I'm simply basing it on that. If they actually meant an informal CCI-like process for verifiability, then it's that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it's the latter. @DragonofBatley: Nobody is concerned about your violating copyright. Just don't copy things directly from sources or paraphrase things too closely and you'll be okay. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay I will do my best. Ill try to write any notable text seperate from a source as best as I can. If the CCI issue is one of the ongoing problems. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• I made a number of suggestions about page creation restrictions in the discussion thread but as noted in reply their problems aren't limited to article creation (and I'd expect to see a shift to other problems with editing existing articles) and as noted above the AFC suggestion might overburden AFC. Maybe keeping the suggestion about only creating articles on civil parishes would be a good idea in other words going along with what Cremastra has suggested namely using userspace drafts instead of AFC or creating straight away. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, I agree to that. @Crouch, Swale if you'd be willing to. I could work with you on your civil parishes list directly. Not to WP:Canvassing but if you feel say an article is likely notable for a page before I submit it to AfC? I will also help clean up categories. Is there just out of interest a reason why Category:Telford and Wrekin is not used for the civil parishes in its district? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Category:Telford and Wrekin is a district that contains many parishes which the category contains but its not its self a parish so shouldn't be in Category:Civil parishes in Shropshire. If there are not enough notable topics within a parish to have say 5 or so articles then consider just putting the articles we do have on places in the parish in the district's category namely Category:Telford and Wrekin. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, I will do. So far we have I believe Dawley Hamlets, Great Dawley, Lawley and Overdale, Ketley, Oakengates, Wrockwardine, Wrockwardine Wood and Trench, Donnington, Madeley, Ironbridge Gorge and Wellington (which a few more articles could be added or made like for its church, notable suburbs etc) of course if they pass the AfC DragonofBatley (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

DragonofBatley, to me, the biggest concern is the repeated instances noted in those discussions where the text you added wasn't supported by the sources that you cited. That's a big deal. How do you plan to address that problem? Schazjmd (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I mentioned above I will cite sources and aim to write ✍️ them without plagiarism happening. I'll make sure to.let other editors input before anything further happens with them. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't address my question at all. Editors pointed out multiple instances where you wrote something then cited a source that didn't support what you wrote. How do you plan to address that problem? Schazjmd (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Plagiarism is not the issue. Could you please explain where to find Wikipedia's verifiability policy and what it means to you? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@DragonofBatley: while you're taking a breather as @Tryptofish suggested, could you please write a response to my question and then post it here? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:Notability, WP:Geoland, WP:Verifiability (Make sure it is.notable, not original research, if it can be included and it is.neutral/cited sources) to me means make sure it is inclusive and notable enough to be given an entry or seperate article. Like for example London and City of London. One is the capital and a county. The other is a county and old settlement. Both notable for their history, culture and landmarks. Not notable would be say an article for Oxford and the City of Oxford. Since neither are any different from one an other except suburbs. That's my best comparison for understanding the policy. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Could you explain a bit more about what it means to verify information on Wikipedia? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Sourcing from books, journals, newspapers/news, websites, maps etc are normally considered primary research. Secondary research means textbooks, other encyclopedia and analysis carried out by other websites/authors. So if I made an article for let us use an example here. Ercall near Wellington, Telford. I would of course make sure Infobox settlement is used for the box. Short description and main title. When it comes to sourcing. We would want history so I could use the Domesday Book commonly accepted for older settlements or an old Ordnance Survey National Map. Then when quoting events we want books or websites that mention these events or buildings. Then for administrative purposes a government or parish council website. When it comes to secondary sourcing. News articles notable events or transport. As well as textbooks that mention it or old poems, children books, folklore, songs notable etc could be secondary research and cited if they are correctly used. Sorry my fingers are hurting 😆 now typing on mobile. But then last ones are photos 📸 and maybe notable people or landmarks like churches manor houses town halls museums National sites or historic England offer a wide array of listed buildings and some backstop which could be used to further expand the inclusion of the article. That is the best I can offer for verify information on Wikipedia. I hope I have proved my best understandings DragonofBatley (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Er, definitely don't use Domesday as your reference for anything on Wikipedia, that's quite solidly original research. Old poems etc are also not secondary research - that would still be primary research. Secondary research is stuff by academics and so on about the subject. -- asilvering (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• DragonofBatley has agreed to a voluntary editing restriction to publish all drafts through AfC, up to five at a time, enforceable by partial or site blocks. Does that restriction resolve the concerns raised here and in other discussions? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe, but honestly, it's exhausting just keeping up with the rapidity and edit conflicts in this ANI thread. I suggest leaving it open long enough for a thoughtful examination, and I also suggest that DragonofBatley stop posting so many replies here for a while. I know it's stressful to have a complaint against oneself (even if self-initiated), but there needs to be breathing space for other editors to opine. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm satisfied with the agreement. I'll also list on my talk page or username page. Potential articles for future reference and to see about creating. One more thing, the five at anytime. Is that a week or every fortnight? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think you misunderstood my proposal. The restriction is that you cannot have more than five active submissions at AfC at any given point in time. Once you have five drafts pending review, you would not be allowed to submit a new one until one of the five is reviewed or withdrawn. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  As noted above there are concerns that AFC is overburdened and might not catch the problems mentioned and some of the problems with DragonofBatley's contributions are not article creation but I think it would be worth giving it a try and see how it works. If there are further problems we can consider a different restriction. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  The overburdening of AFC is why I added the five or less restriction. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Are there issues of failed verification in content added to existing pages? Might the AfC number of five be too high? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  It strikes me as low, given that the only other editor of whom I'm aware of with a similar restriction is capped at 20. -- asilvering (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Most of the concerns raised in the discussions seem to be related to articles created by Dragon, rather than additions to existing articles, but I think the editors familiar with Dragon will clarify if that's wrong. I'm open to lowering the number. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Many of the editors who have been involved in the prior discussions have not yet had an opportunity to respond here. Let's give it sufficient time. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Okay. I did answer your question on the policy. I hope it gives some understanding of my knowledge. If i need more researching into it. I will DragonofBatley (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  I asked a second question. Could you please answer that one as well? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• @DragonofBatley: Are you willing to accept the proposal that you only be allowed to publish articles through AFC and that you can only have five active AFC nominations at any given time, and that if you violate either of those two restrictions, you may be blocked? voorts (talk/contributions) 04:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, I agree to this. I have already completed one article for AfC for All Saints Church, Wellington. Hopefully this proves I am willing to accept using AfC and submitted one at any given time. DragonofBatley (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• I’ve looked at a number of articles created by Dragon and they fail even the most basic sourcing requirements or standards. Unreliable sources and fabricated information from sources are the main issue there, and I don’t want to see any new articles being created until the 400+ old ones have been cleaned up. I would like to see a complete ban on creating any new articles, whether in user space, main space or at drafts until it can be proven that Dragon has the basic competence required to source properly - and the best place for that is cleaning up some of the crap he’s already produced. We have a good pathway of restricting the activity of editors guilty of serial copyright infringements, and this is a very similar set of problems that should face the same pathway of editing restrictions and activity management before we put too much of a burden on AfC or have too much other dross added to main space. - SchroCat (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  This seems like a much better solution than mine, if there are editors willing to guide Dragon through that process. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) KJP1 has made an offer on the talk page about a way forward, but I’ll let them repeat and clarify here here. - SchroCat (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  I do not see any Serial Copyright Infringements on my articles nor do I practice such things. I will not bombard replies but all I will say is maybe check out my new article created through AfC and see that I actually rushed nothing and sourced properly. Here you All Saints Church, Wellington. I will go back to my as you call them "crap" articles and fix what I can fix in due time. DragonofBatley (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Dragon, SchroCat is saying that we should create a process for you to fix the verifiability issues in your articles with guidance from experienced editors before you continue to create new ones. Would you agree to do that? voorts (talk/contributions) 05:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Do you actually properly read what people write, or do you only hit on specific words and base a response on that? If the latter, it would explain why much of your output is so wildly at odds with the source material. You need to re-read my comment again properly and look at where you think I have accused you of being a serial copyright infringer, because I haven’t. - SchroCat (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  I agreed to a lot of other things haven't I?. If they want to (editors) bring to my talk page any articles needing possible addressing and offer to help. I am happy with that but I would still like to be able to create new articles with AfC while doing so. I made one as I already linked and it is well edited. A bit of additions and fixes but otherwise good. I can but if I could ask for a sub section for any articles needing immediate addressing as multiple headings each time make my talk page over encumbered to work down and with. DragonofBatley (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that you abrogating your responsibility by saying that "If they want to (editors) bring to my talk page any articles needing possible addressing and offer to help". you need to be much more proactive in the process both to save the work of others in clearing up problems you have created, and to prove that you do have the competence required to continue editing here. For a start I would want to see no new articles from you, nor any new content created until the 400+ articles you have created have all been vetted and fixed (fixed by you and confirmed as vetted by someone other than you). (This 400+ is not all the articles: it's just the ones you created from scratch and doesn't include those you turned from redirect to article: I will guarantee that almost all of those will have major sourcing concerns, based on the sample of ten articles of yours I've looked at recently). KJP1 provided a possible routemap for you to follow in clearing up your mess; the only change I would make from that is to remove the ability for you to work on any other articles except ones you have already created or expanded. - SchroCat (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Although I agree, I'm really concerned that not a single response by DragonofBatley indicates that they understand source/text integrity. Their answers to direct questions on this issue consistently deflect to other issues. If they don't understand the verifiability problems with their articles, they can't fix them. Schazjmd (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  That's why I would like to see them working on fixing a few of their articles: it will show whether they understand the requirements and that they have the ability/competence to fix it properly. - SchroCat (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  That's a great point, you're right, @SchroCat. Schazjmd (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  I responded to @Voorts earlier questions and was told to avoid replying too much to avoid encumbering replies. I got asked questions and made use of articles I am familiar with and explained to the best of my abilities. I have answered what I can and if I haven't done enough. I do not know what more I can answer. Not because of my lack of acknowledging of errors or sourcing but every word of the guidelines in one. I answered what I am aware and familiar with WP:Geoland WP:Notability and WP:Sourcing. Also conflict edit was not directed at @SchroCat, there was another editor somewhere bringing up an accusation i was causing CCI issues. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  I worry about AfC. Yes, Dragon's All Saints Church, Wellington was approved by an AfC reviewer ... who themself copied in, unacknowledged, text from Listed buildings in Wellington, Shropshire and failed to make the references work. They also removed the wrong one of two "References" sections, leaving Refs after Ext links, and put the church into the wrong category (Grade II listed churches.., instead of grade II* ...). Yes, I know those of us who don't offer to take on the work of AfC should be careful about criticising those who do, but this is a bit disappointing.

  And Dragon's version as submitted to AfC also includes linked centuries, an Easter Egg link in the "See also", and some pretty clunky prose, before we get on to any issues of verifiability. PamD 09:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The issues are Verifiability and source integrity; Notability; and the suggestion of Sockpuppetry while under a block/ban. My apologies that my reference to "somewhere similar" to CCI muddied the waters. AGF'ing that the two instances where DragonofBatley said they were operating under a ban were "jokes/roleplaying", that leaves Notability and Verifiability. The first's more of a judgement call. Some editors, I'm one, may think that readers would be better served if the articles DragonofBatley has created on sub-parish units, wards/suburbs/business parks etc., were merged into "parent" articles but others may see value in them and they may pass GNG. Which leaves Verifiability.

Multiple editors have identified multiple instances where the sources DragonofBatley used did not/do not support the content they have written. I can provide diffs but I think everyone commenting has seen the examples given on DragonofBatley's Talkpage. Three more can be seen here, Talk:All Saints Church, Wellington, which they created via AfC this morning. What we haven't seen is an explanation from DragonofBatley as to how these errors occurred. Even if there was no intent to damage the 'pedia's credibility, such carelessness raises Competency issues. For me, it demonstrates they cannot create appropriate articles without support. I think that point is accepted by most/all commenting here, including DragonofBatley. I would therefore support a requirement that, for a period, all future articles they want to create must go through AfC. I'd also support a limitation on numbers, to assist colleagues reviewing at AfC.

That leaves the 400+ articles they have created to date. I am 100% certain some will contain sourcing errors. I have already found three that do in a spot check. My own view is that resolving these existing errors, for the benefit of readers and for our own credibility, should take precedence over DragonofBatley's desire to create new articles. I think this process should involve him - as a demonstration of commitment and as a learning opportunity. I am willing to help him in this and I'm confident we can work out a process. How all of that could be simply expressed in an ANI decision, I'm less sure. Sincere apologies for the length of this response. KJP1 (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

At this point in the discussion, I find myself sharing the concern already expressed by SchroCat above, that DragonofBatley is giving answers here that do not give confidence that he really understands the issues. This makes me very reluctant to agree to further article creation in mainspace, or to submission through the AfC process (because that would just transfer the burden to AfC reviewers). I like the idea of him having to, first, demonstrate that he can fix existing problems in content he already created. I'm leaning towards putting him under a complete ban against new page creation, until after he demonstrates competence in those fixes. I could also support having an experienced editor (not me!) act as a formal mentor, who would review and pre-approve his article creation, instead of AfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

This issue began with erroneous citations being used to support content in Dragon’s articles. Despite being asked here and elsewhere, I’m not seeing where Dragon has even acknowledged, yet alone explained this. Either Dragon doesn’t comprehend - a competence issue - or is being evasive. Dragon’s response appears to shift responsibility to other editors to find and fix existing problems and only once notified will Dragon get involved. Not good enough. Dragon should be proactive and help set a schedule to voluntarily self-review and fix. Sadly, Dragon’s replies don’t inspire confidence. Goodwill and trust needs to be rebuilt and demonstrated in a practical manner. I’d support a restriction on article creation for a minimum of three months, while problems with their existing articles are resolved. At the end of this period Dragon can appeal and hopefully resume article creation under supervision of an experienced editor, who would review before publication. If all goes well, Dragon can eventually regain the right to article creation without oversight, but at present this seems some way off. Don’t see the need for any restriction on Dragon’s general editing at this juncture. Rupples (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry if i cannot inspire confidence. Im on spectrum quite severly so confidence is not something i can write up to inspire trust. I have apologised enough and it seems it is all falling on deaf ears. I have agreed to listen and work but is anyone actually noting that? Or is there some ignoring feelings from editors. Maybe burnout or tiredness? I cannot comprehend emotions or feelings of others on the otherside of a monitor. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

And without being a douche. Maybe some editors need to educate themselves in Austism, Aspergers and cognitive disability. These are what i suffer from and maybe some will see that I am actually not meaning to be an issue or a parasite. Im meaning to contribute but i feel these three articles best explain my maybe odd behaviours and slight issues with writing at times. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@DragonofBatley. Allow me to present and expand upon my previous comment with an analogy. Suppose someone with a disability volunteered and was accepted to work in a charity (thrift) shop. This person was interviewed and thought capable of operating the cash till and servicing customers. It transpired however that the volunteer was making mistakes by not giving the correct change and was upsetting customers due to their disability. The charity being a caring organisation didn’t want to dismiss the volunteer, but in the meantime had to take steps to protect its interests. An alternative position was found for the volunteer in the less customer facing role of receiving donations and organising stock. At the same time help and support was given to the volunteer, with a view of a possible return to their previous role, should capability problems be overcome. It may not come across to you this way, but all the editors here are of the caring sort and are taking into account your disability/limitations (if I can put it that way) but the immediate priority must be to protect the project from further harm and put right existing issues. Rupples (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@DragonofBatley, the editors responding here value your ability to find notable topics and start articles about them. We are tryig to find a way to accommodate your disabilities while making sure that other editors don't need to spend too much time fixing mistakes that you make. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Dragon has created articles on notable topics that are valued and I'm not suggesting otherwise. Infact, the opposite. I welcome the opportunity to expand some of Dragon's creations and have done so, including a couple that have come up at AfD. Rereading my analogy, it comes across as not altogether appropriate, but Dragon replied to my previous comment with what I interpreted as an announcement of disability issues much more severe than I realised plus a "you don't understand or care or are listening", but maybe I've got that wrong. Anyway, I've put forward my view and will leave it there. Rupples (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate that, I am just trying to understand not with yourself @Rupples or @Voorts. You two have been very patient and understanding. I was more trying to engage a reply with @Schazjmd and @SchroCat's earlier remarks above. But there seems to be an issue with building reply after reply so I am hoping now they can see the section around here and on my user page. I do not like to announce disabilites but I want to put them forward to hopefully engage some understanding that some of the edits or replies I have made are not out of spite or trolling. Just sometimes it can be hard and I try to open up where appropriate. Now is the best time as I am getting a lot of things to read and feel Voorts solution was enough to agree to. Also I am not looking to fall out with editors or make a war and peace. Just asking for some understanding aside from addressing other issues too. That is all. DragonofBatley (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I have been tagged above and intend to write a response. This thread was started at night where I live and I am travelling today and tomorrow for work, so have had very little time to consider a response. Do not feel obliged to keep this open for me - my thoughts are largely present at KPJ1's talkpage discussion; I will probably add concerns around understanding what a reliable source is in addition to the WP:V and WP:N concerns already raised. If this discussion is still open tomorrow evening, I will try to find the time to respond properly. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC).

As stated above, my thoughts are present at KJP1’s talk page. In sum, I have seen three discernible issues: (1) content quality issues; (2) civility and general conduct; and (3) potential sock-puppetry. I will leave out (3) as others seem content to discount that and I note he has repeatedly denied evading a ban.

There is emerging consensus here that there have been multiple and repeated issues with Dragon’s lack of adherence to core policies including verifiability. I would take this a step further. Wikipedia exists to be the sum of knowledge, by which we mean its sole purpose is to accurately summarise reliable (secondary) sources whatever and wherever they are about, dispassionately: we let the sources do the work for us. This protects us, it gives us integrity and it defines our purpose and scope. Policies like V, N, OR, SIGCOV and RS all stem from that basic maxim and implement it in practice: if there’s no good sources, we can’t write about it; if we don’t cite our sources, we’re useless; if the sources are not good then we can’t be trusted either; if we’re adding our research, we’re not summing knowledge, we’re making it. Dragon’s issues with verifiability are to me a symptom of a wider problem he has when it comes to understanding what this project is, what a reliable source is and how to use it to write an article. In my view, his articles exhibit issues with not just verifiability but all of those other policies I’ve mentioned. Not all the articles, to be clear - he’s added useful content too and I recognise that - but certainly even those good things can often be caveated by issues with prose, sourcing or verifiability. The answers he has given above suggest to me that he still has only a partial understanding of the core maxim and the policies mentioned above. I think this then combines with what Yngvadottir calls issues with reading comprehension, and the carelessness and hasty edits Pam and others have documented. It’s a bad mix replicated over many hundreds of articles. This is not just a few instances and nor is it new: these concerns have been raised on his talk page and elsewhere dozens and dozens of times, and I imagine more issues are out there. It won’t change unless Dragon can grasp what this project is and how editing should be done.

Additionally, though of secondary importance, Dragon has often tended to respond badly to criticism or challenges. He has a sharp temper and has a tendency to take offence lightly and to perceive editors as ganging up on him, trying to silence him or persecute him. Some of his edits to his userpage have been particularly inappropriate, including one where he incited violence. I think his combative approach to challenge has not helped him to deal with the issues above.

For all these reasons, I would have been minded to call for an indef block had Dragon not cooled down and shown what I believe is a genuine desire to improve. In recent days, he has taken a more measured tone, slowed down his edits and agreed to go through AfC. He has engaged mostly constructively here. I am mindful that he has created notable content, edits in good faith, and claims to have a number of cognitive disorders which may explain some of his behaviour. I am mindful that this has probably been a very draining and difficult period for him; we are all human. So my view is that he needs to work with others to clean up his existing contributions, understand what WP is and our core policies, slow down, check his work, use sandboxes, drafts and AfC for new content and only create new content that has been approved by others. There ought to be a time limit on this. I would suggest that breaching these requirements in the meantime be sanctionable by a block. At the end of this time, if Dragon can demonstrate competence, then that’s great. However, this needs to be a final warning in my view: further sustained and pervasive issues with core content policies or civility should result in either topic bans or, regrettably but I think most appropriately, an indef. I don’t want to see it get there - I know this is important to him. But we need to protect this project at the end of the day. Thanks, -Noswall59 (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have thoughts on the proposal below? voorts (talk/contributions) 02:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I've added my thoughts below -- I'm broadly supportive of it. —Noswall59 (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC).

(I wasn't pinged here, but I had been at User talk:DragonofBatley.) DragonofBatley has been at this noticeboard before, in a section they started in May 2023, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1131#PamD and I'm feeling intentionally stalked. PamD stated there that they became aware of DragonofBatley's edits in 2021 and had since been checking and fixing them and trying to advise DragonofBatley. It emerged that others had been trying to advise and assist them, in particular Crouch, Swale. There was further discussion at their talk page (including overly verbose advice from me, I was trying to be clear) and the editor mulling whether to leave. (their talk page in July 2023). I gather that they did not leave, but that their editing has continued to be poor and the number of editors noticing this, trying to help, and discussing the problem has increased further. It pains me to say so, but I think at this point WP:CIR has to be seriously considered. DragonofBatley's editing presents a number of problems that are taking up a lot of editorial time to fix resulting damage to the encyclopaedia. (Points that follow in descending order of importance to me.)

• Poor understanding of sources leading to inaccuracy. An example from PamD on their user talk recently: 'Woods Bank is on my watchlist so recent edits brought it back to my mind. Looking at the article history reminds me of a major problem with Dragon's work on it: he wrote "At one point, it was one of the most expensive places to live in the West Midlands between 1841 and 1871 due to housing stocks increasing by up to 87%." From the same source I changed this to "The number of houses in the Woods Bank area increased by up to 87% between 1841 and 1871, and a sanitary report of 1875 describes a dwelling there as of one lower and one upper room, with no ventilation or back door. The area was described as "a distinct location of poor ironworkers".' Their problem responding to the questions about sourcing earlier may be related; DragonofBatley appears to have problems with reading comprehension. That's a serious competency issue for what we do here.
• Poor understanding of what's significant. PamD notes ill-judged removal of referenced content here calling it "irrelevant". At User talk:KJP1, PamD also notes: 'A sad thing is that sometimes there's actually a source there which does have some interesting information about the place, but it's ignored and the source is just used a[s] evidence of the existence of the place. The article St Peter and St Paul Church, Caistor, as he left it, cited an 1840 book apparently to support the NHLE listing, while the book actually included a fascinating story, supported by other sources, about "The Gad Whip", which I then added.' I disagree with PamD that that's a recent development, although they've got better at finding such sources. DragonofBatley writes about churches that are listed buildings without focussing on their architecture. In their most recent creation, All Saints Church, Wellington, the entire Architecture section was added by other(s). However, their church articles always contain something like The church serves as a local landmark and place of worship and community gatherings. sourced to achurchnearyou.com, often as a separate "Present day" section. DragonofBatley's version of All Saints' Church, Batley (which appears to be their first church article, from December 2020, after some 50 previous article creations mainly on stations) had this as its entire prose: All Saints Church is an active Parish Church in the town of Batley, Kirklees, West Yorkshire, England. Built in 1485 and been an active place of worship for Christians since before 1086. The church is located on Stocks Lane. Near to the town centre, the church is the main parish church of the town and local suburbs. (And the infobox called this 15th-century church, restored in the 19th century, "Gothic revival"). (I spent quite a bit of time in 2023 fixing up some of these articles, including clearly distinguishing St Augustine of Canterbury, Rugeley and St Augustine's Church, Rugeley, both ineptly created by DragonofBatley.)
• Very slow to learn. I don't know how many times editors, not just PamD, told DragonofBatley that just reversing the order of "km" and "mi" in the convert template, as here, was a fasification, not a correction, and drew their attention to the parameter for flipping the order. (That instance was linked at the earlier AN/I, by someone who was not PamD.)
• Tends to be careless: they have a history of unintentional red links and other errors that should have been caught on preview. I have the impression they are still overreliant on others fixing their articles.

There are also attitudinal problems; they react badly to criticism (I note Liz has given them a bit of advice on their talk page arising from this AN/I), and this preemptive self-report, and its wording, is not exemplary conduct. Being on the spectrum is something shared by many Wikipedia editors, and I've risen to the defence of several, but it's not a universal protective shield. I see improvement since 2023, and if it were just that they want to write articles about electoral wards and parish councils, a restriction to use AfC would deal with that poor judgement about notability. But the problems with DragonofBatley's edits go beyond notability and beyond their article creation and informal mentorship and personal commitments and promised self-restrictions have been tried before, to little or no avail. When all's said and done, I don't think someone who after 4 years misunderstands written sources as badly as in that Woods Bank instance (at the end of this edit, which was made as in November 2024) should be editing Wikipedia at all. Many editors have been understanding and constructive and helpful, but enough's enough, in my view. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I disagree about the self-report; it shows at best strong integrity and honesty and at the unlikely very worst a self-interested desire to get the first word in. Cremastra (u — c) 01:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

All of the editors who you've quoted in support of your argument for an indef have been actively supportive of giving DoB another chance in this very thread or in the recent threads that were linked to at the beginning of this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to point to WP:Zeroth law of Wikipedia: "On Wikipedia, the zeroth law is that good editors are the most valuable resource. Some would say the articles – but it takes good editors to write articles." Even more valuable when the editor in question is prolific at creating content. Kenneth Kho (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Sadly, prolific creation of content is valuable if, and only if, it is good content. It is not valuable if it is incorrect because the editor has misunderstood sources, and is less valuable if it is poorly sourced because the sources shown do not support the material in the article, or is so clumsily written so that other editors feel they need to spend time cleaning it up (eg a red link for a UK parliament constituency, because the disambiguator was typed wrongly).

I've been slow to contribute to this debate, although I contributed at length in the recent discussions at User_talk:KJP1#Dragon and Special:Permalink/1268766779#Source/text_integrity, and have had a lot of previous interactions with Dragon which led to, I think, my only appearance at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1131#PamD and I'm feeling intentionally stalked.

I find it difficult to see the way forward. Dragon enjoys editing. He edits prolifically, and with good intent. He likes creating new articles, although I disagree with him over the notability of some of his topics, where he wants to create articles on ill-defined "suburbs" or on local authority electoral wards, where there is very little which can be usefully and interestingly said and well sourced, or on the "built up areas" which are used for government purposes but are otherwise pretty meaningless. (Minor disused UK railway stations are a different issue: I think there's a consensus that adequate sources probably exist, but if he can't actually find good sources to cite he should perhaps hold off and leave them to someone who has a shelf-full of printed books to use to source the articles). I would not want us to deprive him unnecessarily of the joy of editing.

Not all his controversial edits are in the creation of new articles: he has added multi-image "collages" in infoboxes of many articles where other editors have not always agreed with his choice, or number, of images; he removes "subjective" terms like "large" or "small" from leads (although the FA for Chew Stoke, which is also the example of a lead in Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements, starts "Chew Stoke is a small village ...": Dragon can't have spotted that one); he removes unsourced text which has been in place for many years, rather than tagging it as {{cn}} (I know, opinions on that one differ). And there has been a lot of carelessness, a lot of failure to heed advice.

Perhaps the disabilities Dragon has recently mentioned contribute to a failure to learn or understand, in which case we sadly need to consider whether he is able to contribute as a net positive to the encyclopedia. A couple of recent instances look as if he has read a few words and made assumptions - removing a church as "not relevant" to a village because it was built elsewhere before being rebuilt in the village, and taking an 87% increase in housing stock as making a place "one of the most expensive places to live in the West Midlands" rather than as an area of overcrowding and squalor.

The idea of looking at his previous article creations and checking their sourcing and notability seems reasonable. Many of those articles will already have been cleaned up and further developed by other editors, to a greater or lesser extent. I and other editors spent time yesterday fixing and upgrading his latest creation, All Saints Church, Wellington (which had the added complication of a careless AfC reviewer who created broken refs while adding unacknowledged copied material).

It's tempting to go for the simple option and say that Dragon has been given enough chances, has demonstrated ongoing failure to learn and take advice, and should be blocked to protect the encyclopedia. But I hope we can come up with a different outcome which will allow him to continue editing while learning how to do things better and, above all, to check and double-check all his work, as he has promised to do in the past. (Are all my references good and informative refs, with as specific a link as possible, to sources which actually support the text I have written? Do all the links go to articles not dab pages? Are there any unexpected red links which should be blue? Have I remembered not to link years or centuries? Have all my sentences got a verb? etc) I'm not sure that the standard AfC process is careful enough to catch all the problems which can occur in Dragon's article creations.

Sorry for the wall of text. I'm not sure how we should go forward, but am glad to see a wider discussion of this editor's contributions. PamD 22:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that's a very thoughtful analysis. And I think we are approaching a consensus against a total ban/block. But I also think it helps move us to a good outcome for me to argue against placing so much emphasis on not "depriv[ing] him unnecessarily of the joy of editing", insofar as we need to consider the point at which he stops being "able to contribute as a net positive to the encyclopedia." So I think that if we firm up the details of the editing restriction proposal below, that will be the right way to go. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Draft proposed editing restriction/cleanup work

I think there's some consensus here that some sort of editing restriction is needed. (I never logged the AFC editing restrictions that I proposed and I don't think that there's consensus that those are adequate anyways.) In particular, it seems that editors feel that DoB should be required to review his old contributions under the guidance of experienced editors and show a better grasp of WP:V and WP:RS before returning to article creation. If some of the editors who have worked with DoB are willing to structure such a cleanup project and work with DoB on it, I propose formalizing the editing restriction, appealable in six months. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I've got some experience of CCI investigations, so I'd suggest we treat it something like that - recognising that the focus isn't plagiarism, but sourcing. I can set up a table of the 400-odd articles that need reviewing in a sandbox , with some Decisions/Actions columns - OK / Revise and Keep / Merge / Second Opinion / AfD / etc. Then DragonofBatley and I can agree a process to work through them, hopefully with some help from other interested editors. Given the number, I think reviewing them all within six months is achievable. That would then give DragonofBatley demonstrable evidence of improvement on which they could base an appeal for a lifting of restrictions on new article creation. KJP1 (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I am an interested editor. Cremastra (u — c) 13:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking of proposing something very similar, and I'm glad that voorts thought of it before I got here. I'm the wrong person to be supervising the cleanup, but editors above would have my support. If we were to finalize a formal restriction, it should include a ban on new articles except in userspace or draft space, one or more supervising editors identified by name while cleanup of old contributions is ongoing, and no lifting of the ban without a consensus to do so at AN or ANI. I'd happily support that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I suggest that any restriction on creating new articles should also include converting redirects to articles. PamD 21:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

In addition, there should probably be an element of last-chance/WP:ROPE in this, in that a failure to make progress would lead to consideration of a site ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I would agree with this: a structured clean-up approach which also supports Dragon and allows him to demonstrate an improved understanding of our core policies + the formal editing restrictions proposed. I do edit in these areas and would be happy to help from time to time, but I simply don't have the capacity due to IRL things for me to make a formal commitment to this cleanup work (as my slow response time here demonstrates). I agree with Tryptofish's last comment: this has to be a last chance now: failure to make progress should probably lead to a site ban. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC).

To be honest. I'm gonna just maintain a small commitment now. I have made a subsection on my page which @PamD has pointed out a couple of not needing an article. I will consider them as not something to focus on and maybe revisit them at a later time to consider. If it's a last chance, it's something I'm gonna have to downgrade. I'll just stick to my own page and sandbox. If I remove redirects I'll see if theres enough for an article for AfC or I'll send it as seperate and if accepted on good grounds. The redirect can be then merged to that article. Of course I'll not remove it but please do note. I am going to be taking a long term occasional editing spree. I've made some to a few AfD and CN. But I have to be honest lost my motivation to continue editing. I appreciate the options and proposals offered but if I'm going to end up likely getting site banned. It's just not worth me being too involved if i am close to basically having my enjoyment halted with one misstep not intentionally caused but is and I'm then blocked because of it. I'm 😕 sorry but that is just how i feel. Ill just stay on a down low and sometime submit an article to AfC. Ill work on a new one and some old ones this week and then ill be downgrading completely my contributions going forward. DragonofBatley (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Not saying I'm quitting or going under the radar but the amount of disruption I'm causing and the amount of differing opinions proves I'm fairly unpopular amongst editors and if i am nuisance. Ill stick to downlow edits and articles still being passed as agreed. I wanted to contribute I really do but if my disabilites are an obstacle which should be worded carefully per the disability act. If a site ban is lingering over me. You got to understand it from my perspective and how i conceive it as a threat and a flatline of my entire editing time on here. Even with just cause reasons. DragonofBatley (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there's an option on the table for you to continue putting anything through AFC or creating any more articles at all (even changing from a redirect to a full article) without first spending time tidying up the mess of your earlier works. I think you need to understand that people are not sure whether you can be trusted to write anything within the confines of the requirements of sourcing. You need to be able to prove that on your earlier work before you work on anything else. - SchroCat (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Alright, not here per say but on my talk page. Please because I don't know how to find it. Could I get a link to all my articles (Every single one of them I believe were in a big table listed), Then I can go through each one and work on the ones needing attention? I am not sure how to find them without going back through my contributions history which will take forever to do. Thanks DragonofBatley (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

About 9 posts above this, in KJP1's post, there's a link to "400-odd articles". Is that what you're looking for? PamD 17:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah thats the one ill have a look up there DragonofBatley (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

voorts - Is it possible to close this one up? There's been a full airing of views, there looks to be a discernible consensus, and there's a fair amount of remedial work needed. It would be good to wrap it up with a decision so that work could begin. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Me replying, even though you didn't ask me. I think we need to get this into the form of an actual proposal, with actual language, because it will have to be logged. I'll offer to write it, but I'd first like to get some clarity as to which editor(s) are offering to be responsible for the mentor/reviewer role. (Or maybe I'll just draft those editors who were the most reluctant to sanction. Sound of evil laughter.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

How's this draft proposal: DragonofBatley (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from publishing new articles to mainspace, converting redirects to articles, or submitting drafts to AfC. This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by KJP1 (talk · contribs) and Cremastra (talk · contribs). voorts (talk/contributions) 00:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Needs to explicitly include creation of new articles which replace existing redirects.

Having seen Dragon's work on Holme Lacy yesterday (removed the "See also" which was the only link to the nearby and eponymous grade I listed church; replaced sensible coords with overprecise ones; added a second "References" heading; left a category lacking a closing bracket) I'm pessimistic about his promises of future careful editing.

And sorry, no, I'm not going to volunteer to have a named responsibility in sorting out the mess: I'll just chip in as and when. PamD 00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I only added KJP1 and Cremastra because they seem to have affirmatively volunteered, but of course they'd have to agree to this. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Wording looks good, it covers the issues editors have flagged and I’m fine with the reference to myself. KJP1 (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Wording looks good, but I’d widen slightly to say no new articles in draft space or user space, nor any expansion of articles which he did not create from afresh or expand from a redirect. That will focus the activity on clean up, rather than it only being a smaller proportion of their activity. - SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

What constitues "expansion"? Does it include: Adding an infobox? Adding a few words about local authority area? Adding a "collage" which replaces one clear photo of the town hall with a trio of images dominated by a football crowd? A tight definition is needed to avoid any ambiguity. PamD 09:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Having looked further at Dragon's edits of today, I'm moving towards supporting a ban on all edits beyond the cleanup operation. The collage he added to Trafford, never mind the (to my mind) questionable choice of images, had the captions in the wrong order, even after he had "corrected" the collage. I think we could at this point collectively lose our patience with his careless editing. PamD 09:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the question PamD. To clarify, I meant any expansion, even a tiny one, and that’s for userspace or mainspace. To my mind—and others may well differ on this point—the only editing DoB should be doing anywhere on WP is either cleaning up his old articles (under supervision), or liaising with the relevant people about that clean-up. - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

So perhaps: "Dragon is indefinitely restricted from editing in mainspace, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he created or converted from a redirect. This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, ... [as before]" PamD 09:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with that. And thanks to everyone here. I think we need to make these tweaks: "DragonofBatley (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from editing in mainspace and submitting drafts to AfC, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he previously created or previously converted from a redirect. This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley successfully participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by KJP1 (talk · contribs) and Cremastra (talk · contribs)." I've tried to close any loopholes there. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, looks good. @KJP1 what are we going for in the cleanup project? The CCI-thing suggested above with a list of articles created, or something different? Cremastra (u — c) 14:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Cremastra - I've worked up a table as a basis for reviewing the articles, and Rupples and I have tried a few out. So as not to clutter up this discussion, I'll post details on your Talkpage. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Hold on. This goes much further than @Voorts wording. Thought there was more or less consensus on restricting article creation, in whatever form. Why the (sudden?) widening of the proposed restriction to editing in mainspace? Rupples (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

In my case, it's because Dragon has been demonstrating today that he appears not to be able to edit without making substantial careless mistakes, as at Trafford. I've lost patience. PamD 16:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to consider 3 options which have been suggested:

1. No creation of new articles or drafts, including overwriting redirects
2. No expansion of articles (defined how? What if he adds 25 words and removes 20, or 30?)
3. No editing in mainspace.

PamD 16:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I think we can have !voters choose from amongst options. I'm not going to include the no expansion rule because I don't think that's really workable. If this is to everyone's satisfaction, I will start a survey where involved and uninvolved editors can weigh in.

DragonofBatley (talk · contribs) is subject to the following indefinite editing restriction(s):

Option A: DragonofBatley may not publish new articles to mainspace, convert redirects to articles, or submit drafts to AfC.

Option B: DragonofBatley may not edit in mainspace, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he previously created, converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded.

Option C: DragonofBatley may not edit in any namespace except to make corrections and improvements to articles he previously created, previously converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded, or to liaise with editors assisting him in correcting or improving those articles.

The restriction(s) may be appealed in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by KJP1 (talk · contribs) and Cremastra (talk · contribs). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I think those options nicely sum up the two approaches; the more-generous one which allows mainspace editing of existing articles; and the tighter one that restricts them to working only on those 400+ existing articles that they created (here, I think we'd need SchroCat's caveat about "liaising with the relevant people about the clean-up"). I will work with either approach, as consensus determines, but would personally favour Option B. I appreciate that this is the tougher option, but having seen the three, admittedly minor, errors that DragonofBatley introduced this morning into Trafford, a Featured article, I do not think they can currently edit appropriately without support. I am really hoping that their involvement in the clean-up work will give them the necessary competence to do so in the future. KJP1 (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@KJP1: I made some changes. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Then I'd favour C, but B and C are really the same. Cremastra and I will need to talk with DragonofBatley, on his Talkpage, on ours, and on the Talkpages of articles we're jointly reviewing, for this to work and for it to achieve both objectives - address any issues in the articles and improve DragonofBatley's editing skills. KJP1 (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

p.s. Trafford this morning is a good example of this; I wanted him to be able to identify/correct the errors that had been introduced. KJP1 (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Question: does option C prohibit DragonofBatley from commenting/!voting on articles they've created at AfD discussions? Rupples (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

That’s a good, and unthought-of, point. I think they should be able to do so, as the article’s author, and because there will be lots of learning. KJP1 (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Rupples (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@KJP1 and @Rupples: option C amended below. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Should option C also include a clause allowing Dragon to respond if he is mentioned in any discussion in WP space (thinking of ANI, AN, AIV, SPI, ... )? PamD 22:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that is probably a given and doesn't really need to be spelled out. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: DragonofBatley editing restriction(s)

DragonofBatley (talk · contribs) is subject to the following indefinite editing restriction(s):

Option A: DragonofBatley may not publish new articles to mainspace, convert redirects to articles, or submit drafts to AfC.

Option B: DragonofBatley may not edit in mainspace, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he has previously created, converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded, or to oppose a PROD.

Option C: DragonofBatley may not edit in any namespace except: (1) to make corrections and improvements to articles he has previously created, converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded; (2) to comment in AfD discussions or to oppose PRODs or CSDs regarding those articles; or (3) to liaise with editors assisting him in correcting or improving those articles.

The restriction(s) may be appealed in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by KJP1 (talk · contribs) and Cremastra (talk · contribs). voorts (talk/contributions) 17:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors

• Oppose all. I would have voted Option B, but the user demonstated enough maturity and self-criticism, meaning he's willing to improve his long-term contribution. Moreover, even if it could have been embarrassing to admit, he also cared enough to inform us he's on the spectrum, and as a neurodivergent myself, I know that's hard. My two cents go to DragonofBatley. You're welcome! Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 23:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Proposal: Could we maybe allow DoB to continue editing mainspace if, and only if, any additions/edits they make are supported by a reference, to which the quote that supports the edit must be added. That will make it easier for us to double check their work and allow DoB to refine their skills in supporting their edits.Boynamedsue (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Involved editors

@KJP1, Cremastra, Rupples, PamD, DragonofBatley, Crouch, Swale, SchroCat, Tryptofish, and Noswall59. (Apologies if I missed anyone.) voorts (talk/contributions) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support option A as proposed for 6 months. I think its quite clear that that is needed given as noted the burden this might have on AFC but I'm willing to consider allowing some AFC say 1 article a week but I think it might be better to wait until the cleanup has been done the they have demonstrated the ability to create suitable articles. I would say it would be fine for DragonofBatley to ask KJP1 or Cremastra or another experienced user (if they explain their restrictions) to move drafts they have created to mainspace but I would not suggest they do that until the cleanup has been completed. I would also support option B I would consider allowing an appeal of only 2 or 3 months as this restriction is much more restrictive but I think given as noted by PamD their problems with editing existing articles this might well be helpful especially since if they can't create new articles I'd expect a shift towards the problems with existing articles. Oppose option C as (1) I'm not aware of problems outside mainspace and (2) I think in any case this would be too restrictive at least for 6 months, if C is done I'd at least support allowing appeal after 2 or 3 months. So in summary I think option B plus 1 article through AFC every week or every other week would be the best option but I don't have a strong opinion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose all, as written. Sorry, this has changed from what I could support. First, in the draft version that I suggested, I had the word "successfully" in the sentence that mentions KJP1 and Cremastra: "only if DragonofBatley successfully participates...". That's important. The coordinators will need to evaluate whether or not he "got the message", not just whether he made some token effort, and their evaluation needs to have a meaningful role in the consideration of an appeal. I definitely cannot support A, because I think his mainspace editing needs to be restricted to fixing his mistakes. Anything less does not comport with the facts as we have them. As for B and C, I agree with participation in AfD, but that's in project space, not mainspace. I think objecting to PRODs or CSDs is not worth allowing. C comes closest to how I feel, but I don't feel that we need to make formal restrictions of his editing outside of mainspace. He should be able to communicate on his talk page and user page, without being restricted, and he should probably be able to comment on talk pages of articles. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• C if anything. (Again, wasn't pinged, but I have been a bit involved.) DragonofBatley keeps demonstrating borderline lack of competence. Most recently inserting one of his collages into an FA (I'd forgotten he also added collages) and getting the captions wrong. The clarity and correctness of the posting here is also at or below the standard we should expect for a participant in a writing project: If it's a last chance, it's something I'm gonna have to downgrade. I'll just stick to my own page and sandbox. If I remove redirects I'll see if theres enough for an article for AfC or I'll send it as seperate and if accepted on good grounds. The redirect can be then merged to that article. Of course I'll not remove it but please do note. I am going to be taking a long term occasional editing spree. I don't trust their judgement on what is an improvement to an article; and how far should we stretch to try to accommodate someone who needs so many curbs and guiderails? I deeply appreciate the willingness of other editors to help them with the task of cleaning up their articles (as well as all the time and effort some editors have already expended trying to advise and help them); I recognise that there are legitimately differing views on some of what they like to do, such as the collages; but I'd rather see them restricted to their user talk and user space, workshopping the article fixes there. (Note: Several of the 400 or so articles have already been fixed, like the churches I worked on. The task is less massive than it may seem.) Yngvadottir (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Prefer the less stringent option A because I’d like to see self-motivation from DragonofBatley to assist with the clean-up. OK with adding "successfully" to the option. It is disappointing that Dragon has recently made errors on Trafford, all the more so it being a featured article, and it did lead me to consider supporting a ‘tougher’ restriction. Whatever is decided, it would be unreasonable for Dragon to be bombarded with too many queries over a short space of time; in particular, AfD nominations should be staggered. Dragon’s articles are on encyclopedic topics; though it looks a fair few will be merged or redirected because of marginal notability. After a very brief review, it seems the use of erroneous citations is mostly a recent phenomenon (last three months or so). Note the increased pace of Dragon’s article creation from September 2024. Rupples (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  That's interesting, even though they have been using this account since March 2020 over half of their articles are less than 6 months old, I'd consider only reviewing those less than 6 months old (at least for now) as those older have likely been improved but I guess there's no harm and might well be best. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  "Oppose further restrictions such as editing articles, workspace and general edits". I have no issues with proposals but I would oppose being restricted from making general edits such as updating infoboxs like I did with Holme Lacy and Dawley Town Hall. I updated them with photos and infoboxs. Yeah I made a couple of questionable edits on Holme Lacy but that article needed some updating since it was slightly written with some questionable wording like it calling Holme Lacy a town which it never has been but flew under editors radars for decades. I also added new collages to spruce up the infoboxs a bit. Especially with some of tw towns in Telford and boroughs of Greater Manchester. Also just because an article in 2008 got FA status doesn't make it protected from edits. I added a collage, hardly a throw away from my edits back on Skegness. Where I challenged old information from an old census database. I have agreed already about the articles and to look at my created ones. I even added a couple of sources to Hollyhurst, Telford and participated in its nomation. So i am taking note but I also have other things going on. So my edits or acknowledging of them maybe a bit later than others. DragonofBatley (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  It concerns me greatly that while there is a discussion about your future at ANI you are still making a large number of very questionable edits. I still have half a mind to say this is too much trouble and go for a block, but as you’re ignoring WP:ROPE, I’m not sure that point won’t be too far off. - SchroCat (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

• I think I would be happier if:

1. there was a restriction on userspace editing too - limiting them only to work connected to the clean-up (allowing rewrites of sections, slowly building up sections and sources before rewriting something in the list of 400).
2. I'd also be happier if the end sentence from above was used: "This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley successfully participates in a clean-up project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by KJP1 (talk · contribs) and Cremastra (talk · contribs)." This should both focus the activity solely onto the clean-up, and also make DoB prove to people that he is both willing and capable of writing decent content. - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why we need to restrict userspace editing. This would allow them to create pages that would help show that they can create suitable articles. If there are later problems then it can be added but otherwise poor quality drafts in userspace are generally harmless. Is there evidence of problems here? Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Because at the moment there are at least a couple of hundred articles that are sub-standard crap and getting him to focus on cleaning those up is important (rather than leave them for everyone else to tidy up while yet more rubbish is churned out in userspace). A temporary hold on article creation in userspace is no great loss to them and will save a lot of time and effort of other people being wasted. - SchroCat (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• I suggest that the restriction needs to include Category space as well, to protect the encyclopedia from the creation of unnecessary categories, which could then be added to articles Dragon has himself created. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 19#Category:Civil parishes in Telford and Wrekin. If we expect Dragon to concentrate on the cleanup project, we need to curb his enthusiastic creation of categories (and perhaps template, navboxes, portals, anything else which no-one thought to include ...). PamD 11:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• @KJP1 and Cremastra: Another element for the cleanup project: where an article has been created at a disambiguated title, it should be added to the relevant dab page (or a hatnote made from base title). Dragon hasn't been in the habit of doing so.|  – Preceding unsigned comment added by PamD (talk • contribs) 19:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• I'd be happier if everyone would wait to get all of these details worked out, before posting and !voting on new proposals. At this rate, we are chasing our tails, with new proposals coming out as soon as someone objects to something, and then there's an objection to the objection. This is frustrating, and not getting us anywhere. And instead of !voting on how stringent the restrictions need to be, let's try to get consensus on how stringent they need to be.

Some editors are still saying that we can be fairly loose with how Dragon can edit in mainspace. Personally, I feel like all the evidence I've seen points against that, and I hope that those editors will come around to changing their minds. We have a ton of evidence of edits that cause harm in mainspace, in our reader-facing content, and it's more important, I think, to get that under control, than to hope for the best based on Dragon's enthusiasm for editing. Anyone who disagrees with that, please provide evidence to support your view.

I also see some arguments that it is, supposedly, unfair to have too many AfDs going at one time. I'm not buying that. We cannot restrict other editors from filing more AfDs. If there's a community consensus to delete, then that should be that. Again, what stays in mainspace, or doesn't, matters more than giving some special consideration that would outweigh consensus.

I think it's getting clear that we also need to restrict him from editing category space, and that the supervised cleanup needs to be deemed "successful". As for userspace, I agree with restricting against new content creation in userspace (essentially: no userspace drafts, as well as no AfC drafts), but I think other uses of userspace, including user talk, and using the space as a sort of scratchpad for the supervised cleanup, should be permitted. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• The user demonstated enough maturity and will to take criticism and improve. Yes, him being neurodivergent makes that harder to accomplish, but he just wants to contribute; stop killing his enthusiasm and help him improve instead. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 23:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  I hear you, about the importance of being inclusive, I really do. And nobody here is trying to kill his enthusiasm: just look at how much discussion is going into crafting a fair decision that takes ample care of our reader-facing content without overly restricting this editor. But we have very many editors who are neurodivergent, and most of them do not cause as many problems. And our readers should not have to make allowances for the personal issues of any editor – WP:CIR and WP:NOTTHERAPY also apply here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish: I totally get your good faith, but as a neurodivergent myself I can also assure you I got involved in many problems as well, back in the day, mostly related to the intermittent explosive disorder. We really struggle with that. I even got indef-blocked on it.wiki because I editwarred a biased admin about Crimea, lol (yeah, I would do that again). Yet I learned and improved, and many years later... here I am, a useful contributor of Wikipedia projects, with tens of thousands of contributions behind. He can get here as well, just give him time (and guidance). – Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 00:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for those very constructive thoughts. I appreciate what you are saying. I know KJP1 very well, and I have high confidence in both him and Cremastra to provide exactly the kind of guidance you recommend. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Est. 2021 He's had quite a lot of both time and guidance already. PamD 10:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• I'd agree the debate is getting a bit lost in the weeds. Are there not basically two views? I think there is agreement that we don't currently want new articles being created, either directly or through AfC, until clear evidence of improvement, gained through engagement in reviewing the 400+ already created, is presented at appeal. Some think that is sufficient, and editing in mainspace should otherwise be permitted, while others favour limiting editing in mainspace to the 400+, and to any related discussions, with others editors involved in clean-up/at AfD/etc. If that is the main point of difference, my suggestion would be that we err on the side of leniency and allow other editing in mainspace. If that proves problematic, we can always come back here. I think there is great benefit in reaching agreement, and enabling Cremastra, myself and others to begin working with DragonofBatley on reviewing the 400+. That will enable them to demonstrate their commitment, give solid evidence as to their ability to learn and to improve their editing, and clean-up the articles for the benefit of readers. KJP1 (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
  • That’s a good summary of how I see things too. If leniency is the path, I think we’ll be back here soon. Recent editing while this thread has been going on shows a lot of new problems being created but no progress on the clean up. I think we’re likely to see as many problems being created as are being sorted, but I’ll bow to the consensus if it goes that way. SchroCat (talk) 07:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Stalking from @Iruka13

• Iruka13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a continuation of various discussions happening on the Talk page of the user Iruka13.

I have been feeling harassed and stalked by this user for months now, figuring it was only me. Except, as is evidenced from that user's talk page, it ISN'T only me. As well as my post, @Netherzone has laid out their own harassment. Bear in mind both of our posts come AFTER the user was already banned for a week by @Star Mississippi for incivility to a different person entirely. I don't believe it's only us.

As laid out: one of my photos was tagged by @Iruka13 for deletion around 4 months ago. So fine. Except when asking why, or if the user had read any of the supporting material, I was met by threats to delete work I'd done on the site - plus varying degrees of condescension and bullying. This was largely on the talk page of a now deleted file. Since then, the same user has tagged files from me at regular intervals - many of which are for - at best - spurious reasons. The reason I say this is stalking is that these images aren't new. If there was a genuine issue, they could have *all* been tagged four months ago. Instead it's a drip-drip-drip. As an example, this file was tagged last week and deleted today. This was an image used on a page relating to art books, for which the primary feature is the size of the book. There was a regular sized book on top of the larger one showing this size. That's the point of the page. There are book covers all over this site - and I would argue this file had little difference to any of them. I believe it had the correct meta data.

If the file was correctly deleted, then OK. Except this file has been on the site for months. It wasn't new. The user could've tagged it months ago when tagging other files of mine. Instead, it's that steady stream of harassment. They never engage civilly, never explain, never offer any reasoning. Again, from the other comments on the user's Talk page, this practice of stalking, bullying, and condescension is seemingly not a one-off. I don't understand how there can be so much drama on a single six-week period of one person's Talk page. Especially when, apparently, the user has already been banned from Commons for similar destructive behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterspeterson (talk • contribs) 03:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Just dropping a link to my discussion with Iruka here. My block was less about whether they were technically correct, but their complete unwillingness and inability to edit in a collaborative environment despite a multitude of warnings. I have not followed up with further sanctions as at least one admin disagreed, and I haven't had the on wiki time to moderate this. My POV there and here is that being right isn't sufficient, and Iruka13 has to learn to play well with others if he's going to edit here. I am not sure whether this is a language barrier, but they've been told a number of times that their conduct is problematic. Star Mississippi 03:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm also going to add from what I've seen at the deletion discussions (they've not targeted any of mine; I exclusively deal in copyleft media on Commons) that Iruka13 is frequently and obviously meritless in their nominations. A huge portion of them are very obviously spurious in a way that's comparable to Gish gallop and Brandolini's law, where the amount of energy required to nominate them is immensely lower than the amount required to refute them. I'm genuinely baffled that they've been getting away with this. If they were basically always correct and just being – pardon my French – an insufferable jackass about it, that would be one thing. It's another thing entirely, though, to take a birdshot approach to deletion noms knowing there will be zero repurcussions for whichever spuriously nominated ones survive the discussion because WP:AGF. It's literally just a technique aimed at exhausting the other party, and this bizarre edge case they're creating has made me think that we might actually need some sort of limit on the number of noms possible in a given time period. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you provide the redlink to the "talk page of a deleted file" where you said that the harassment "largely" occurred? Administrators can view the content of a deleted page. :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 03:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd love to - but I don't know how to find a page that was deleted so long ago. I think it would have been around October 2024? Is there a way I can search this out? Peterspeterson (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I am reproducing the comment from File talk:Kraven-comparison.jpg here:

Do you even know what is significant for an article and what is not? Where in authoritative sources is this distinction mentioned? Do you understand that I can demolish everything you wrote and I will be right? And let's be simpler, ok? — Ирука¹³ 23:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

voorts (talk/contributions) 03:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes! That's the comment. The "demolish everything you wrote" bit.

The same user has now been following me around for months. This is exactly the reason other users like @Netherzone feel unsafe. How is this allowed to go on? Peterspeterson (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

That conduct probably would have merited a temporary block in November, but I'm not going to block him based on that now without more evidence that it's part of a pattern. Regarding the same user has tagged files from me at regular intervals - many of which are for - at best - spurious reasons, could you please provide diffs (perhaps to talk page notices that you got) of spurious deletion nominations? voorts (talk/contributions) 03:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

It's the process of one after the other, after the other.

If there were genuine issues with images, why didn't Iruka tag them all back then? Instead, it's been a drip-drip-drip all the way up until today. This is why I feel harassed. The tagging isn't on new images.

As an example, this file was tagged last week and deleted today. This was an image used on a page relating to art books, for which the primary feature is the size of the book. There was a regular sized book on top of the larger one showing this size. That's the point of the page. There are book covers all over this site - and I would argue this file had little difference to any of them. I believe it had the correct meta data.

If the file was correctly deleted, then OK. Except this file has been on the site for months. It wasn't new. The user could've tagged it months ago when tagging other files of mine. Instead, it's that steady stream. Peterspeterson (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

My understanding is that stuff like that lead to Star Missicipi's 1 week block on the 10th of December. Has there been any conduct made you feel uncomfortable since their block expired, beyond nominating your images for deletion (indicating they might be watching which images you make) and them being deleted? :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 03:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Jinx voorts, beat me too it! Had an edit conflict there (but forgot to add (edit conflict))! :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 03:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Yes. This file was tagged last week and deleted today. This was an image used on a page relating to art books, for which the primary feature is the size of the book. There was a regular sized book on top of the larger one showing this size. That's the point of the page. There are book covers all over this site - and I would argue this file had little difference to any of them. I believe it had the correct meta data.

If the file was correctly deleted, then OK. Except this file has been on the site for months. It wasn't new. The user could've tagged it months ago when tagging other files of mine. Instead, it's that steady stream.

Basically, why would they suddenly decide to look at an image that had been up for months, on a whim? Peterspeterson (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

My guess would be that the user was looking through your file creations (which is not sanctionable conduct by itself) as they had found you to be, in their opinion, a creator of fair use files that may not meet our guidelines for free-use content and was seeing if there were any others to tag for deletion. If you don't agree with decision of the admin who chose to accept the CSD nom and delete the file, you can submit an appeal to WP:DRV. I'm not entirely sure what you want to be done here? Has there been any re-occurance of subpar communication like the above since the 17th of December? MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 04:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

But that's exactly my point. All those files were already on Wikipedia at that previous time. If there was genuinely an issue, they could have all been tagged in one go.

Instead, it's tag a file, wait 2-3 weeks, tag another, wait 2-3 weeks, tag another. And repeat.

But why would anyone keep returning to those old images, from a single user, over and over and over?

That's why I feel harassed. Especially because - as with the image linked above - I don't believe there's an issue.

Plus, as pointed out by @TheTechnician27, tahere have been more than 150 image deletion nominations in the last two weeks alone. Peterspeterson (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Three* but nonetheless correct. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)e

Voorts, you just beat me to it--thanks. But let me add that Peterson doesn't look good either. What Iruka was responding to was this, " There's no point in people drive-bying these pages with that "needs image" tag if, when somebody tries to do something about it, a person *with zero knowledge of the subject matter* doesn't bother to do any reading before rejecting. This whole process is ridiculous." Drmies (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I've undeleted that file talk page so non-admin watchers can see the whole exchange in context. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm reading over a bunch of material, including their talk page. It's clear to me (and I think User:Pppery agrees) that many of their deletion nominations are correct. On the other hand, the way in which they go about things is deemed problematic by plenty of others, and I wonder if User:Bagumba, User:Zanahary, User:TheTechnician27, and User:Kingsif have any additional insight. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that matched my understanding, including them being usually (but by no means always) right on the merits but problematic in how they went about it. I don't really have the energy to spent more time analyzing this than I already have - the other admins watching this page can do what needs to be done and I don't think any further comments from me would be helpful. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Their nomination of File:Diab al-Mashi.png was not correct. The file had a nominally large pixel size, but was very compressed. When I removed their tag for the image to be shrunk, they nominated it for speedy deletion, which makes no sense and is clearly retaliatory. They tagged it as being an entire work uploaded when an excerpt would do, when they knew it was a single compressed frame from a 44 minute film. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 12:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that their tagging of the file for speedy deletion was totally incorrect and made no sense given the size of the original file that was uploaded; the close to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 December 12#File:Diab al-Mashi.png and the closing administrator's removal of the {{Non-free no reduce}} template you added to the file's page and the closing administrator's re-adding of the the {{Non-free reduce}} template originally added by Iruka13. For reference, Voorts, who's an administrator, did !vote delete in the FFD, but for a different reason; the file ultimately was kept, but it was reduced. You disagreed with the tagging of the file for reduction by Iruka13 but, for some reason, don't seem to have an issue with the closing administrator who did exactly the same thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I forgot about that discussion. I don't think it makes me involved here, but I'm not planning on taking action at this point anyways. If any evidence of a continuing problem had been presented, as I've asked numerous times, I would have blocked, but the allegations of stalking are based on very thin evidence. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Marchjuly, you don’t know what I don’t have an issue with. I still think there was no reason for the bot reduction of the file. The relevance of the reduction tagging is in the fact that “this file should be kept and altered” cannot lead to “this file should be deleted” without some major change in opinion, which Iruka never explained—hence my belief that it was just a lashing-out, as I believe is evidenced by the fact that their tag alleging that the file interferes with the market role of the original work and that the still is a complete work from which an excerpt could be taken instead was completely false and never explained—still never explained, actually. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Four of your uploads (the one discussed above, File:True Panther logo.png, File:Teniky inner sandstone wall 1940-41.jpg and File:Déluge au Pays du Baas poster.jpeg) were all uploaded at sizes considered big enough to be tagged by a bot for reduction almost within a day of being uploaded. The file discussed here was tagged by a bot here, but you removed the tag here and added a "Non-free no reduce" template here; perhaps you thought that resolved things. Iruka13 removed the "Non-free free no reduce" template here asking for a reason, and you re-added it here. I'm guessing Iruka13 tagged the file because they felt re-adding the "Non-free reduce" template would've just been reverted again and led to accusations of edit warring. The file was tagged for speedy deletion per WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#3b, each of which are reasons related to WP:NFCC. You then started the discussion about the file, first on its talk page and then at FFD, and Iruka did respond on both pages. None of the above seems to seems (at least to me) to clearly indicate any type of retaliaton against you by Iruka13; rather, it seems like something not too uncommon when it comes to disagreements over non-free files, and it also seems to have been resolved as such. If you can demonstrate that Iruka13 did similar things with respect to your other file uploads or uploads by others, then that might indicate a pattern of some kind; their interaction with you, however, seems to have been civil and seems to have ended with the FFD. Finally, the "Criterion 3b, because an entire work is being used when a portion or a reduced-size copy would suffice" used in the {{di-fails NFCC}} template is boilerplate text added when a template's |3b= parameter is set as |3b=yes; so, that's the default option when using that template. Personally, I might've just skipped that template and gone to FFD instead, but different strokes for different folks, and, once again, I don't see tagging the file for speedy deletion as being a retaliatory act. Iruka13 can't delete files and any files they tag for speedy deletion are going to be ultimately reviewed by an administrator, and it's possible that the file would've ended up at FFD based on that review. If you've got issues with the bot tagging the file for reduction, the bot operator is probably the best person to express them to. Similarly, if you feel the FFD close was incorrect, you can follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

> I'm guessing Iruka13 tagged the file because they felt re-adding the "Non-free reduce" template would've just been reverted again

And therein lies the point because you shouldn’t have to guess. Iruka could actually engage with editors on a polite, peer-to-peer, basis.

Instead, there is no engagement. It’s tag, move on; tag, move on - dozens of times a day, every day. And should anyone dare engage, they get wikilawyered, or threats such as:

> Do you understand that I can demolish everything you wrote

All from a user who, by their own admission, has multiple bans for harassment. Which is, at least from my standing, why I and others feel bullied and harassed. After all it is someone who’ll openly tell you that’s how they behave, knowing full well they get welcomed back to do it again. Peterspeterson (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

You cannot nominate a file for deletion because you think your tag is going to be removed. That is not a deletion rationale. I don’t care about establishing a pattern of behavior for this user—I’m just saying that they tagged a file for deletion because they got annoyed that their NFR tag got reverted, and that is a problem. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

You can, however, nominate or tag a non-free file for deletion if you feel it fails to meet allone of the ten non-free content use criteria. Iruka13 listed two criteria that they felt the non-free use failed; you disagreed with their assessment and the file ended up being discussed at FFD. That's a fairly common occurrence when it comes to disagreements over non-free use, and doesn't necessarily mean anyone was annoyed or trying to retaliate. The fact that the non-free file was kept but also reduced, also doesn't mean they were totally incorrect in their assessment, at least with respect to NFCC#3b. You posted above that I don't know what you have an issue with, yet you're quick to assume that Iruka13's tagging of the file just had to be done to get back at you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC); post edited. -- 03:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

There is an unexplained gap between putting a file in a queue to be altered and nominating it for deletion for failing two criteria (neither of which it failed—not a single other editor supported those arguments). My judgment is that this was done out of spite. That editor should feel free to correct me and explain himself. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Peterspeterson & @TheTechnician27: If I am going to take action, I need to see a post-block pattern of conduct. Please provide some form of evidence, such as diffs. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

My most recent issues relate to the file I linked above - here. This was tagged last week and deleted today.

Again, if the file was correctly deleted, then OK. Except this file has been on the site for months. It wasn't new. The user could've tagged it months ago when tagging other files of mine. Instead, it's the fifth or sixth(?) that's been tagged and deleted since that first one. Each a week or three apart.

Of course I feel stalked. None of these images are new. They could've all been tagged at the time.

Instead, it's drip-drip-drip.

On that one linked above, why would Iruka suddenly decide to look at an image that had been up for months on a whim? Unless it's because they're stalking. It's the same behaviour described by @Netherzone Peterspeterson (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The instructions at the top of this page state: Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem (emphasis in original). I am not going to block someone without evidence. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

There's no way I could possibly fulfil what you ask.

The point is that instead of tagging multiple files for deletion in one go, the same user has tagged image files of mine one after the other. Tag for deletion, wait 2-3 weeks, tag, wait 2-3 weeks, tag.

I can't see the files *because they've been deleted*. What am I supposed to link you to?

Even if all the deletions were correct - and I'm not convinced that's true - how is this a legitimate way to act?

The harassment is that all these files were live when the first tag was made. Instead of highlighting any issues at the time, Iruka has been following me around the site for months. I'm not the only person saying this. Peterspeterson (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Looking at your talk page history, you received two deletion notifications on 12 November 2024 (one for an image that you uploaded that same date, and one for an image that you uploaded a few weeks prior), one on 22 November 2024 for the image you uploaded 12 November, one on 3 December 2024 for an image you uploaded in October, and one on 6 January for an image you uploaded in October.

The 22 November nomination makes sense in context because it was originally nominated for lacking an adequate license per F4 on 12 November, which was remedied, and then Iruka came back ten days later to nominate it for lacking contextual significance. That leaves the nominations on 3 December and 6 January. Two nominations one month apart is not adequate evidence of stalking, in my opinion. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I also note your responses to two of those notifications (both for files that were deleted):

• Special:GoToComment/c-Peterspeterson-20241112221900-Iruka13-20241112220600
• Special:GoToComment/c-Peterspeterson-20241203174700-Iruka13-20241203131300

voorts (talk/contributions) 04:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

OK @Voorts & @TheTechnician27- I think I have been able to find some sort of timeline to illustrate what I'm saying.

On 12 Nov, File:Kraven-comparison.jpg was nominated for deletion. I'd uploaded in the days before, so OK. Fair enough. I'm still not convinced by the merits of this deletion in regards to the point of the page and the image - but OK.

On 22 Nov, File:AvXduo.jpeg was nominated.

On 3 Dec File:Daredevilcomparison.jpeg was nominated.

On 6 Jan File:Galleryvprem.jpeg was nominated. This is the most dubious of all.

These four images were all there at the time of the first nomination. If there was genuinely an issue, they could have all been tagged at once.

Instead, it's four over two months - which comes directly after the message:

> Do you understand that I can demolish everything you wrote

Which is exactly what's happening. Spaced out, spurious nominations.

Why would a user suddenly return to look at a different user's work, weeks apart, unless they're stalking?

And, if it was only me, then maybe I'd put it down to paranoia. Except the user's Talk page has at least one other user saying a very similar thing.

I can't see the comments you've linked to btw - but believe it or not, when someone says

> Do you understand that I can demolish everything you wrote

and then starts doing it, it does tend to lead to incivility. Peterspeterson (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Just to add, by the user's own admission in 2023, they have

> 2.5 bans for harassing users on 3 projects

Link: User talk:Iruka13/Archives/2023#c-Iruka13-20230927154300-Marchjuly-20230927005100

That's in *their own words*. Peterspeterson (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

If there was genuinely an issue, they could have all been tagged at once. There's no rule that requires an editor to go through another editor's contributions and decide whether to nominate them for deletion all at once. There are also innocent explanations, such as not wanting to overwhelm someone with a dozen nominations all at once or not having the time.

Regarding Netherzone's claim of stalking, Iruka's "laboratory" appears to be a place where they keep notes on files they intend to renominate for deletion at a later date.

I am also well aware of the history of Iruka's blocks, but blocks can't be used to punish people for sins of the past. I see no evidence of stalking here and I won't be taking action. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, so when another old file gets tagged with little justification in 2-3 weeks, can I message you again? What about 2-3 weeks after that?

I don't even know how I'm supposed to appeal / counteract the tag-tag-tag behaviour. I can't see any justification for the deletion of today's file and it's not as if Iruka ever gives any reason. Peterspeterson (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Iruka has provided reasons consistent with policies, guidelines, and practice. For example, File:Galleryvprem.jpeg was tagged with {{di-fails NFCC|date=6 January 2025|1=yes|8=yes}}. I've reviewed the fair use rationale that you provided and I believe that the file was properly deleted. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Does 170 image deletion noms since Christmas count as "a pattern of conduct"? Because I see this as effectively a Gish gallop where it's functionally impossible for most editors to meaningfully evaluate the merits of each one. Since non-free media has to meet a substantially higher standard for 'Keep' than for 'Delete', this means that 'Keep' voters need to take substantially more time per nom than the 'Delete' ones, and creating such a glut of noms severely and unfairly tips the balance in favor of a 'Delete' vote on average. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Please provide diffs. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate the ask, because this made me realize that I was incorrect about the original figure. It's actually 210 since Christmas, or a bit over 10 per day. Edit history and then Ctrl+F "up for deletion" and "tagging for deletion". 170 noms; 40 CSDs. I want to clarify I've been absent from this since the original block, but this has to be absurd to keep up with for anyone at the discussions trying to argue to in good faith to preserve these images. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

How many were declined by patrolling admins? How many were no permission tags where permissions were then added? An admin cannot block someone without evidence and I'm not going to dig through Iruka's contributions to look for it. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Ultimately I haven't been keeping up with the situation on a per-nom basis, and by nature of them consistently putting up over 1000 edits a month, I'm not going to be going through them except for macro-scale patterns. I was brought here for my perspective, and this is it: that Iruka is abusing the system by making an unprecedented amount of noms with little regard for merit (the noms I witnessed were immediately pre-block, thus as you said not qualifying here for post-block behavior) in order to make dubious noms on average more successful solely because they can't have as much individual time dedicated to them. It's a very obvious tactic, and I'm equal parts perplexed that there's no protection against this and yet unsurprised because there's likely never been anyone this unnaturally zealous to warrant it. I don't intend to go beyond what I was brought here to do for right now. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

It's a very obvious tactic, I'm equal parts perplexed that there's no protection against this and yet unsurprised because there's likely never been anyone this unnaturally zealous to warrant it. Please do comment on other editors' motives without evidence. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Between more than one experienced editor accusing Iruka of stalking them, their "let someone else sort it out" attitude toward obvious, consequential mistakes they make, their argumentative behavior, their gross power-tripping attitude ("Do you understand that I can demolish everything you wrote and I will be right?" (also note the wikilawyering going on in that comment)), their ridiculous noms (including arguments like "just use a 3D model bro" or "a free alternative can reasonably exist because you can just get a basketball backboard and break it for an image bro" or "just offer to pay them money to put it under a free license it bro"; all pre-block, so I'm not bothering to dig it up), the absurd frequency of noms they create, and their indefinite block on Commons, all I'll say is that I assume good faith until an editor flushes that down the toilet. With that, I'm done here unless someone has a specific question for me. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

"I have 2.5 bans for harassing users on 3 projects."

Kinda sounds like maybe this user does harass people, considering that's what they wrote *on their own page*.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iruka13/Archives/2023#c-Iruka13-20230927154300-Marchjuly-20230927005100 Peterspeterson (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The stuff in this thread is basically de rigueur for this user: my past experiences with Iruka13 and file deletion have consisted of extremely bizarre wikilawyering, to the point where I felt like it bordered on deliberate trolling. I do not understand why this editor is permitted to waste so much of people's time with obviously vexatious nominations. jp×g🗯️ 06:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the key element here is if the nominations were "obviously vexatious", I mean the ones that sparked this ANI were all accepted by the deleting admin, and were done 3 weeks apart to prevent looks of batch deleting a single user's pictures but still caused drama. I wonder if there's a tool on toolforge or smth to calculate accepted vs denied CSDs/FfD noms which may paint a better picture, but from a spot check I just did of both CSD and FfD this are mostly either accepted by the deleting admin or the raised issues are resolved. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 07:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

To my understanding this ANI is mainly about a) the volume of CSDs and FfDs and b) the user's laboratory. I don't think anyone is arguing that the nominations were actually meritless or vexatious, and those who said they were "wrong" may want to take that up with the deleting admin or WP:DRV because it's not like this user is mass-tagging and it's being declined... most of the time issues are resolved or the admin agrees and speedily deletes/the FfD closes as delete. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 07:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

> and were done 3 weeks apart to prevent looks of batch deleting a single user's pictures but still caused drama

You’ve guessed that this is their motivation - and your guess is equally as valid as my assertion that this is stalking.

In fact, much of various admins’ attempts at justification throughout this thread is guesswork - all of which has had to occur because Iruka does not engage with other users on a polite peer-to-peer basis. There is no “paper trail” to say “this is what they actually meant”. As has been evidenced and pointed out by multiple editors. Peterspeterson (talk) 11:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

If you continue to assert this is stalking with no evidence, I will block you for personal attacks. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I will simply ask you how do you know tags

> were done 3 weeks apart to prevent looks of batch deleting a single user's pictures but still caused drama

Have you guessed? Or has Iruka stated this anywhere? Peterspeterson (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

All of the files that he tagged that you uploaded were deleted. There is no rule that prohibits someone from nominating files for deletion spaced apart. At this point, it just feels like you're seeking revenge for that. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

You're guessing my intention the same way you're guessing Iruka's.

"Revenge" isn't my intention at all. Revenge for what? If the files were legitimately deleted, then fair enough. It doesn't matter to me.

However, the spacing of the reports felt - and feel - like harassment. (I'm being clear that it *felt* like harassment because I don't want to be banned for what you assert are personal attacks).

Even with that *feeling*, I would have moved on were it not for the fact that other people were reporting very similar things on the user's Talk page. And then, with a small amount of checking, it seems that Iruka has admitted to harassing other users at various points in the past. And, from what others have said, Iruka has already been banned on multiple occasions, from multiple places, for precisely that. (I don't actually know if this is true).

So my *feeling* of being harassed was in fact legitimised by others feeling the same - and apparent past behaviour. Hence this.

On the files being deleted, for that specific one here, it was the first time I'd experienced this sort of tagging. I didn't really know what to do with it.

The info page said to leave an explanation on the Talk page - which I tried to do.

I was then told:

> I can demolish everything you wrote

along with what I now know is 'wikilawyering'. You can see how I reacted:

> Who goes onto a page and says "I can demolish everything you wrote" and then cries about bad faith?!

Because from the info page, I assumed that when an admin came to look at that file to decide upon deletion, they would see that remark and do something with it. I didn't even know this ANI process existed then.

Except nothing was done. The admin either read Iruka's "demolish" response and decided it was acceptable, or didn't read it.

And, ever since then, Iruka has continued to target me at regular intervals, leaving me unsure what - if anything - to do.

You can guess that the targeting is to "prevent looks of batch deleting" - but it's still a guess. Iruka could've engaged civilly, in the same way they could with any other user who has reported a problem.

In the same way they could be on this thread right now explaining what's actually going on. If they did that, neither you or I would have to guess. Peterspeterson (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Please forgive the length of this. This discussion has gone a bit sideways, the issue is not whether Iruka13 is “correct” or not in their file tagging and file deletions, the problem is that their behavior is disturbing and upsetting a number of experienced, good-faith editors, myself included.

It is precisely the same conduct that got them blocked on Commons, Russian WP and Ukranian WP. Stalking may not be the right term for the behavior but I do believe there is deliberate harassment conducted by the editor. Wikipedia itself defines harassment as Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually, the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing. That is clearly the effect their behavior has had with multiple ediors.

Here is a synopsis of my interactions with this user and why I feel I have been harassed and made to feel upset and frightened to the point that I’ve virtually stopped editing.

1. I uploaded File:Zuni wolf fetish with medicine bundle and heartline, carved by Stuart Lasiyoo.jpg. After uploading I realized the size was too large for fair-use, and made a note of my error on the file talk page (I was unable to reduce it because I did not have access to Photoshop at the time). BTW, Zuni fetishes are ceremonial objects made by the Zuni tribe of Native Americans that are also sold as small sculptures; they have nothing to do with the sexualized notion of "fetish".

2. I received message about the file on my user talk. Diff: [2] to which I responded and answered on the file talk page.

3. The discussion then resumed at the File talk page about the deletion nomination. Diff: use rationale where I explained my rationale for fair use. The editor then responded with: judging by the response you didn't look at them; right?, which I thought was rather rude to assume I don't read messages (which explains my response on my user talk page).

4. They then went on the argue with me in a mocking tone: But it is so. wow, your contribution is bigger than mine, it's not for me to tell you about it and wow_2, who am I telling this to?. I told them that their response did not seem very nice. They responded: What I was trying to say is that what I'm saying, you already know. You know better than me. / uploading this image boggles my mind. I think it was around this time that Star Mississippi warned the editor on their talk page.

5. After I wrote a more detailed rationale why the file was suitable as fair-use, they refused to answer my own simple question responding instead with: I can answer all the questions posed in this message. And I will, if it be necessary. But first, please answer the question - and, for the sake of the experiment, let's assume that all the images in that category are really unsuitable... and asked me an "experimental question" whether I could create from scratch a "completely free image", a proposal that would involve spending a large amount of money. Diff: [3] As a volunteer editor, that seemed utterly absurd, and it became clear to me they were just yanking my chain.

6. I then noticed they were treating others in similar ways, for example asking editors to buy a glass basketball backboard shield specifically to then smash it with a rock after installing a camera specifically to create a fair use image. Diffs: (uploaded by Left guide) [4]]. This clearly seemed they were wikilawyering and arguing for the sake of argument with the intent to annoy and intimidate others. I think it was around this time that Star Mississippi issued a short block.

7. I then noticed on their user page a link to their “Laboratory”, which creeped me out because the strange “experimental questions” seemed like mind-games. I noticed that not only was there an entry for the Zuni fetishes file, but that some of it was actually written in “invisible ink” using the < ! -- template, and included a a number of my file uploads. Diff from January 2: [5] and [6]. I know that being creepy is not a blockable offense but it scared the daylights me, because I have been Wiki-stalked not only online, but in real life.

8. I directly asked them to STOP following me around. Instead they created a user sub-page, replacing all the images with 19th century inaccurate illustrations, romanticized representations of the art of Zuni tribe Native Americans by none other than an ethnographer who looted artifacts from the Zuni people. Diff:[7] I again demanded that they STOP and I quit editing. I refuse to be someone's "experimental laboratory" subject, that is disturbingly creepy.

9. If this is considered “normal” behavior by administrators, well, then after 13 years of editing, I’m out of here. I can not and I will not have a hobby as a volunteer editor in a place where I feel unsafe and harassed, especially from a single-purpose editor with a long history of such behavior – no matter if their tagging or deletions are “correct.” Netherzone (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond point by point here, but I don't think the uncivil interactions with you are "normal" behavior. The issue is that Iruka was already blocked for that conduct and I still don't see how the pages Iruka created in his userspace – which did not mention you by name and which he did not notify you of – are harassment. If Iruka starts being uncivil again or starts harassing people, I'll be the first to indef him. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The issue seems to be that the behavior Netherzone mentions has been experience by multiple other users. This appears to be a pattern of inappropriate behavior spread out over quite some time. And quite honestly, the "laboratory" really does strike me as creepy behavior intended to needle other editors. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The only two editors I have seen complain about stalking are Netherzone and Peterspeterson. I've asked multiple times for evidence that Iruka's file deletion nominations are largely incorrect, but the only evidence provided thus far have been files that other admins have seen fit to delete and contested FFD discussions. In my view, this complaint seems largely based on vibes and conduct preceding the block. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Having been pinged to this, my experience and another thread I saw suggests to me that the user really wants to delete things - not just that they are being gnomish in the area of deletion for the benefit of Wikipedia, no, that they actively want to delete stuff and be uncivil to those who do not share this philosophy. In this way, they seem to mass search for anything that could have a valid reason to delete, even if another another option is better or, as in what drew my attention, even if they have to make up some reason why a file meets deletion rationale when it doesn’t. That is another issue: while their deletion noms may be generally correct because they are seeking out files with issues, their tagging of files that only need reduction to be deleted, their tagging of Commons-eligible files, and their bizarre suggestion to purchase an iage license as proof of owenership, strike me as someone who does not understand Wikipedia or Commons policy very well and does not care if understanding will get in the way of their tagging g. ULtimately, the poor tags that may not get chance to be corrected, and rejectiong collaboratoon, negate any positive of being the first person to tag some bad files and thus make the user’s contributions in deletion a net negative for WP. I am struggling just to type this on mobile so can’t or provide diffs atm. Kingsif (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I was pinged above by Drmies. I'm not going to read this whole case. I'll briefly say that my main interaction with Iruka13 was at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 November 28 § File:Backboard shattering.jpeg. I'm not an FFD regular, but I get the sense that these arguments they used were not mainstream:

• Telling the uploader to buy the non-free image themselves and donating it for free.
• Using AI/3D editors as free replacements.

Those did not gain consensus at that FFD. If they are continuing these arguments, and have not gained community support, it would be disruptive and a WP:TBAN might be reasonable. WP:AGF is a guideline, so its hard to gauge what part of their communication can be attributed to English not being their primary language and perhaps lacking the gentleness and politeness that are common in some English-speaking cultures, versus what's an actual harassing, wikilawyering tone. For example, they said: And of course we can't buy the rights to the photo. We have to steal it. Later, they claimed: I decided here, in case the discussion is closed by , to buy the rights to the photo. But they should also become aware of others' reactions as well, and take measures to adjust.—Bagumba (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The shattered backboard file was discussed and the consensus was to keep it; so, FFD seems to have worked as it's intended to work. For reference, two others !voted to delete the file in that FFD; so, that means at least two others agreed with Iruka13's assessment. Iruka13 might have a hard time expressing themselves in English if that's not their first language, and some of their arguments might be perplexing: personally, I wouldn't try the "buy the rights and donate the image" line of argument; however, the question here with respect tagging/nominateing files for deletion is (at least in my opinion) not whether Iruka13 is being a nuisance, but rather whether they're wrong so much more than they're right to the point that being that being wrong is causing things to seriously breakdown. The behavioral and poor communication issues and probably need to be addressed, but those things aren't limited to files; if those things are the real problem, then a t-ban/restriction related to files makes little sense to me. I don't see their assessment of files with respect to relevant policies as being perfect, but I also don't see it as being as bad as some posting above are claiming. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Citation bot won't stop adding incorrect dates to articles

Citation bot keeps adding incorrect dates to articles. I have counted that they have done it to 146 references across 8 articles. I posted a comment on User talk:Citation bot#Incorrect reference dates, however they readded the 26 dates I removed in addition to the another 120 incorrect dates after I posted the notice on the talk page. This behaviour is chronic and intractable. Another 34 were added by someone else, removed by me and but then Citation bot readded them.

Diffs:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=7th_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=11501903&diff=1269371926&oldid=1269300288
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hepburn_ministry&curid=78528489&diff=1269371606&oldid=1268421348 (These dates were originally added by someone else, removed by me, and readded by Citation bot)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=5th_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=9911824&diff=1269374626&oldid=1268656609
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eves_ministry&curid=78284361&diff=1269377523&oldid=1269310383
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2nd_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=5152009&diff=1269388366&oldid=1268657559
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=6th_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=11117778&diff=1269389565&oldid=1269066036
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1st_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=1184147&diff=1269390737&oldid=1268415078 (These dates were originally added by someone else, removed by me, and readded by Citation bot)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4th_Parliament_of_Ontario&diff=prev&oldid=1269345172
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eves_ministry&diff=prev&oldid=1258325773 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legend of 14 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Citation bot is an automated process, and not a human. E_F⁵ 14:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but that doesn't make it infallible. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Fair, I'm pointing that out because the report makes it come off as disruptive behavior from a user not heeding to talk page warnings. Either way I'll step back, as I was just noting that. E_F⁵ 14:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

You can add this to the page in question – {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} – or you can add this to a specific citation – {{cite web <!-- Citation bot bypass--> |last=Smith |first=John |year=2018 |...}} – to keep the bot away. See -- Stopping the bot from editing. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I have gone through the 8 articles in question and added the suggested template. I also found out since posting the notice that Citation bot did the behaviour again with another 2 citations on Ludlow Massacre, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ludlow_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1269411373. I also added the template to that article as well. But this is a problem, but it is very clear that articles aren't being proactively templated, nor should they have to be. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Citation Bot is an automated script that just does what people tell it to do. Who invoked the bot is in the edit summary. If someone repeatedly caused messes by invoking Citation Bot, explicitly refused to clean up those messes, and continued on over the objections of others, you'd have a case. But you'd have to show evidence of that in the form of a diff. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Citation bot is not a user script, but rather an account. All users are accountable for the edits which they attach their names to, including bots. Here diffs showing certain dates added by citation bot were already added and removed:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hepburn_ministry&diff=prev&oldid=1268421348
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1st_Parliament_of_Ontario&diff=prev&oldid=1268415078

"All policies apply to a bot account in the same way as to any other user account."

-WP:Bot policy Legend of 14 (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

That's not relevant. You should be dealing with the person who is using the bot, not asking us just to sanction the bot itself. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Most of these seem to have been invoked by Abductive, and involve misinterpreting the date when a politician was first elected as a citation date. Abductive, can you comment? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I can answer in the abstract. I ran the bot on Category:Articles lacking reliable references from January 2025. It appears that one of those unreliable primary sources was incorrectly set up by a Canadian government employee (Personal attack removed). Citation bot took the site at its word, and filled in the date as specified. Normally, Wikipedia editors file a bug report on Citation bot's talk page, and one of the maintainers will fix the problem (and usually make a special run of the bot to undo the damage). This takes something less than 100 hours, if I had to give an estimate. Abductive (reasoning) 17:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure you should be calling anyone a known alcoholic without a citation, but, anyway, thanks for your explanation. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I have counted that Citation bot has added another 6 bad dates to 5 new articles:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shaari_Zedek_Synagogue&oldid=1269639133
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=13th_Regiment_Armory&diff=prev&oldid=1269640054
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weeksville,_Brooklyn&diff=prev&oldid=1269639369
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prospect_Plaza_Houses&diff=prev&oldid=1269638875
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albert_Gurule&diff=prev&oldid=1269638493

Current count: 14 articles, 154 bad dates.

These edits were suggested by the following user:

• User:Whoop whoop pull up

Legend of 14 (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Found another bad date in another article:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henri_de_Toulouse-Lautrec&diff=prev&oldid=1269643198 suggested by User:Abductive

Total count: 15 articles, 155 bad dates. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Found another bad date in another article:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yusuf_Zuayyin&diff=prev&oldid=1269657597 (Nothing to support January reference)

Suggested by user:

• User:Abductive

Counts: 16 articles, 156 bad dates Legend of 14 (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems to recall that this issue has been brought up before--nothing to do with Citation bot, more of a general librarian thing, and January is given as the default. It is best to address these issues more generally rather than finding more examples which may not even be incorrect. Abductive (reasoning) 19:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Citation bot is litterally behind the diff in question. How can you say this has, "nothing to do with Citation bot". Legend of 14 (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Because it is not necessarily an error. Abductive (reasoning) 19:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It is still about Citation bot. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Found another bad date in another article. This one is really bad, since the right date was literally in the URL. I also have no idea how the bot got a date from a dead URL either. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strange_Little_Birds&diff=prev&oldid=1269648525, suggested by User:Spinixster. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

That source appears to be a dead website. There is no way to check the actual date in the metadata. (I am told that Citation bot checks the metadata of the source website.) Abductive (reasoning) 19:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

You have given the operators less than one day to reply to you. This is insanely premature for an issue with one website (ola.org). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

It is also an issue with tps.cr.nps.gov. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ludlow_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1269411373) 9 Articles, 148 errors after I posted on the talk page. If a user continues the same disruptive behaviour, especially to the extent Citation bot has, after a notice on their talk page, what else can I do? Legend of 14 (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Editors who active bots are expected to check the results to see if they are accurate, as they are often not. You can see here the first time the bot was run on the page, and the editor noticed the wrong dates and removed them, so it's unclear why Abductive thought it was a good idea to activate the bot on the same page and make the same mistakes, and then not check the bots edits. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

With one request I ran the bot on all 858 pages in the Category:Articles lacking reliable references from January 2025. This is a maintenance category, and one should expect issues to arise sometimes. Abductive (reasoning) 17:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Did you check all 858 diffs personally, or even spot-check them? You are responsible for the bot edits you initiate and should not just run the bot blindly assuming it will be accurate. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I spot check sometimes. The work Citation bot does is indispensable, and more resources should be allocated to it. Until that happens, editors need to pitch in, remove faulty primary sources, make corrections, and file bug reports. Abductive (reasoning) 18:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Citation bot is not indispensable, neither are editors. Start checking your edits after using this bot, if that means you have to run smaller batches, then do that. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

"All users directing a bot must have the required skill and knowledge to ensure their actions are within community consensus."

-WP:Bot policy

WP:Citing sources is the relevant consensus in this case, and it wasn't followed. Don't use bots which you cannot or will not ensure they follow consensus. Thanks. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

It would be best if the bad source was removed, per WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY. There is a very strong consensus that Citation bot is an important tool used to build the Encyclopedia, despite its occasional errors. Every now and then, users such as yourself get upset, but that is not constructive. Abductive (reasoning) 19:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I find your attitude a little cavalier. You admit up above that your edits caused damage, bu then instead of volunteering to help clean up the mess you made, you think other editors should file reports, let the maintainers of the bot fix the issue, and then run the bot again and hope like hell it is accurate. How about just committing to cleaning up your mistakes. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say I wouldn't remove the bad source. Abductive (reasoning) 19:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you quote the part of WP:RS which you believe would justify the removal of the source in question in e.g. this diff? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Re: "editors need to pitch in, remove faulty primary sources, make corrections, and file bug reports": No. YOU need to find and make the corrections rather than pushing the work off to other editors, because you are the one causing the work to need doing. When you make work for other editors, you are impeding the progress of the encyclopedia by taking away their time from other more useful contributions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

That's what editors do. Again, I didn't say I wouldn't remove the bad source. But this ANI report was complaining about User:Citation bot, not User:Abductive. Abductive (reasoning) 19:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

While the original report was poorly aimed, this is ultimately a report about your use of the bot. Would be best to treat it that way. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

You are the one who directed Citation bot to undertake the majority of the conduct described in the notice. You've been templated. Your conduct is being discussed here, as well as the conduct of Citation bot. The message for you is not to remove references from articles with onesource tags or sections of articles with onesource tags as is the case for the 8 articles you directed the bot to change, but rather to not direct bots to breach consensus. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:BOTACC specifically says The contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator, whose account must be prominently identifiable on its user page. In particular, the bot operator is responsible for the repair of any damage caused by a bot which operates incorrectly. All policies apply to a bot account in the same way as to any other user account. Bot accounts are considered alternative accounts of their operator. To ensure compliance with WP:BOTCOMM, IP editors wishing to operate a bot must first register an account before operating a bot. E_F⁵ 19:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Check my most recent edits. It seems to me that this issue is now resolved. Abductive (reasoning) 19:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

This looks like a claim that you went back and fixed all the mess you made, but that was not the case. For instance, you had not fixed the first diff, on the 7th Parliament. I did it, after you added this comment. You still haven't fixed the one on the 5th Parliament. I haven't checked the others but I suspect more of your mess is still there. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

5th Parliament of Ontario was fixed before I got there, by somebody adding the deny template. I suspect that you, due to your general frustrations with Citation bot, see a chance to effect change here. Best to work on those other concerns directly. Abductive (reasoning) 18:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I suspect that you, due to your general frustrations with Citation bot, see a chance to effect change here. Best to work on those other concerns directly. I don't know about you but this sounds pretty close to WP:ASPERSIONS to me... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

5th Parliament was NOT fixed before you got there. Someone added the deny template but did not undo the bot mistakes on the article. Abductive, as the editor responsible for those mistakes, please go through and undo them.

As for "your general frustration with citation bot", please do not make ad hominem and incorrect assumptions about other editors' beliefs. In fact I think citation bot, when properly supervised, is very useful. 99% of the time it does the right thing, and many references in many of our articles are better because of it. But when it is doing the wrong thing 1% of the time, very many times per second, it can very quickly spread mistakes across the encyclopedia. That is why it needs to be properly supervised. If I am exhibiting any frustration here, it is not with the bot, but with the people who invoke it but do not properly supervise it and will not take responsibility for the problems they cause. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I see what happened there. A user added the deny template but didn't undo the bot's edit. This makes it impossible for the bot to go back through after it has been updated and correct the errors. Abductive (reasoning) 04:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC) moved down from the middle of the above comment (original diff). – 2804:F1...CF:5599 (::/32) (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

So fix them manually. You do know how to edit without using a bot, right?? Isaidnoway (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with the issue being resolved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Legend_of_14-20250115180600-Legend_of_14-20250115175100. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Unsupervised bot and script use has damaged thousands of articles. If anyone wants to pitch in and help fix 2022 deaths in the United States (July–December).... XOR'easter (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

We're into the second batch of ReferenceExpander edits to check and clean up. Yes, damage has persisted from 2022. XOR'easter (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the problem of mass-bot usage without checking results is much bigger than just this user and bot. I filed a similar complaint to Whoop whoop pull up two weeks ago (read here) about mass-bot usage that was f***ing up, after which WWPU shirked their responsibility to check the results, pushed me to file a report about the bot, and said the bot owners would fix it (I don't believe that)—meanwhile they have continued to launch bot batches from top-level Categories affecting thousands of articles. Another user lodged a similar complaint to WWPU yesterday at User talk:Whoop whoop pull up § Checking IABot runs.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

So, what we seem to have here is that bot writers blame things on the people who invoke their bots, but that the person invoking it seems to pass the buck to the bot. Both should take reponsibility, not, as is the case here neither. Ever since the early days of Wikipedia we mere mortals seem to have had to worship at the altar of the infallible bot. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:BOTP is unclear about who counts as the "operator" of a bot available for use by any user through a public-facing interface; it appears to have been written with the assumption that the person who directs a bot to run will only ever be the same person who's developing and maintaining it.

• Possibility 1: the bot's maintainer counts as the operator. Evidence in support:
  • WP:BOTACC says, in part, "The contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator, whose account must be prominently identifiable on its user page" (emphasis added), implying that who counts as the operator is the person(s) identified on its userpage (i.e., the user, or team thereof, who develop and maintain the bot).
  • BOTACC also says "Bot accounts are considered alternative accounts of their operator". If the bot's operator was the person directing it to run on one or more pages, then, for publicly-accessible bots, this would represent a shared account in violation of WP:ROLE. Now, ROLE does have a bot exception ("Role account exceptions can be made for [...] approved bots with multiple managers", emphasis added), but the way that exception's worded seems to pretty-clearly imply that this's meant to apply to bots that're developed and maintained by a team of people (rather than ones that can be used by multiple people).
  • Bots such as InternetArchiveBot and Citation bot were developed, and approved, with functionality allowing virtually any user to launch batch runs large enough (up to 5,000 pages at a time for IABot, with admins getting to run batches of up to 50,000 pages, and up to 3,850 pages at a time for Citation bot) to make it completely impossible for a human user to manually check each individual edit made by one of these bots (especially given that these bots run far faster than any human user). If one of these bots has a bug which causes it to make erroneous edits to a large number of pages, the only people with the capability to correct this are the bot's maintainers, who can do so by patching the bot's bug and rerunning it over the previous batches to clean up its own prior mess. Thus, if the bot's operator was intended to refer to any user who runs the bot, this would mean that these bots were approved despite having functionality that would, if used, make compliance with BOTACC's terms impossible; in contrast, if this was meant to refer to the users who develop and maintain the bot, then these bots' publicly-accessible large-batch functionality would be perfectly fine as far as BOTACC's concerned. If we operate (no pun intended) under the assumption that the people who approved these bots were not deliberately disregarding BOTACC, then the fact that they were, in fact, approved implies that this approval was given with the understanding that the people who would count as the bot's operator(s) would be its developers and maintainers, not the users running it via its public interface.
  • WP:BOTCOMM seems to imply that inquiries and complaints should be handled on the bot's talk page (either locally or on another Wikimedia project accessible through unified login), which makes rather more sense if the person responsible for the bot is intended to be its developer/maintainer, rather than whatever user directs the bot to run on a particular page.
  • WP:BOTREQUIRE says, in part, "In order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it: [list of things the operator's supposed to demonstrate about the bot]", again implying that the operator in question is meant to refer to the bot's developer (the one with the power to actually make the bot demonstrate those things), rather than its end user.
  • WP:BOTCONFIG provides a list of features that bot operators may be encouraged to implement; these features are universally ones that only a bot's developers and maintainers have the ability to implement, implying that these people (rather than the end users who run these bots) are the operators referred to.
• Possibility 2: anyone who uses the bot's public interface to run the bot on one or more pages counts as the operator. Evidence in support:
  • WP:BOTMULTIOP says, in part, "Competence: All users directing a bot must have the required skill and knowledge to ensure their actions are within community consensus", seeming to place the onus for edits made using bots such as IABot and Citation bot on the users who direct the bots to make these edits (although this would then also seem to imply that the above-mentioned large-batch functionality of these bots was approved despite the fact that this would make compliance with this provision impossible, as the skill required for a human end user to be able to ensure that would include superhuman speed and endurance).

Whoop whoop pull up ^{♀️ Bitching Betty 🏳️‍⚧️ Averted crashes ⚧️} 20:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Based on what you provided, operators in Bot policy refers to maintainers, however the part about competence creates an obligation any user that directs a bot. I hope this clears up any uncertainty about the Bot policy.

"Both should take reponsibility"

-Phil Bridger at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Phil_Bridger-20250115200500-Grorp-20250115181700 [formatting omitted] Legend of 14 (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Then why were the bots approved with functionality the use of which no human director of the bot would be capable of manually checking? Whoop whoop pull up ^{♀️ Bitching Betty 🏳️‍⚧️ Averted crashes ⚧️} 21:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I was not involved in the approval process, so I can't say. This discussion is not about the bot approval process in general, please direct your inquiries elsewhere.

Policy is very clear, don't direct bots in a way which you cannot ensure their actions are within community consensus. Legend of 14 (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

WWPU: The 'operator' of a bot is the one who invokes it. That anyone, owner, or concensus has made it possible for a bot to be launched to run wild through thousands of Wikipedia article doesn't diminish or dilute the primary axiom of an editor being responsible for edits one makes or causes.

These bots can only read from the underlying code of the webpages they are checking against. Picking up wrong dates, following hard-coded redirects to 404 error pages, and other oddities is par for the course... for which I don't blame the bot or the bot-maintainer. When I run such bots, I check every change the bot makes.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Running a bot on so many pages that it's virtually inevitable there will be a mistake doesn't absolve an editor of responsibility for that mistake. XOR'easter (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Or, as the same page quoted above puts it: Human editors are expected to pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they do not sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity. For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that a) are contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may end up blocked. XOR'easter (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Citation bot has not been approved with functionality the use of which no human director of the bot would be capable of manually checking. Its approved BRFAs are listed with summaries at User:Citation bot § Bot approval. None of these covers "batching Citation bot against multi-hundred-member maintenance categories", which is functionality added outside the official approval channel.

But whether the functionality has consensus is not as relevant as operator diligence.

If you can't review your runs, don't perform the runs. Folly Mox (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

You are responsible for every edit you make, regardless of whether it is manually or by bot. If you don't want to check the results after using a bot, then stop using the bot. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

☝🏽

It's unclear what value is added by blindly running an automated script against maintenance categories with multiple hundreds of members, and not checking the edits you've caused to see if you've introduced errors.

I'm not sure exactly what the solution is here: repeatedly exhorting Citation bot's most QA-averse operators (two of whom are present in this thread) to review their edits doesn't seem to have had an effect.

Citation bot – as I always hasten to mention – does a lot of good work. It also edits at such a high volume that it's impossible for non-operators to keep up with its non-negligible error rate. It also operates largely outside the BRFA structure, performing many tasks the maintainers have kindly added upon suggestion, which may or may not have community consensus.

Rate-limiting Citation bot runs sounds like a great solution, but I'm not able to estimate the development costs of such a feature, and not sure if the maintainers would be willing to code it up. Implementing community-accessible per-task toggles to disable particular types of edits pending bugfixes— this may also be a possibility, but again dependent on maintainer interest.

I'm not convinced this is necessarily the best venue for this discussion (unless a subsection arises proposing sanctions against Abductive or others for irresponsible bot operation, which I don't intend to initiate), but it's probably time for a centralised discussion somewhere specifically related to Citation bot, its remit, and its operation. Courtesy ping AManWithNoPlan, the script's most diligent maintainer, whom I don't see pinged here yet. Folly Mox (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I second the above suggestions. I would like to see these bots limited to 1 article at a time (or a few hand-typed article titltes), and disallow running huge batches (especially by category) except with specific user permissions (given only to those with a history of running the bots and checking the results.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

The easiest rate limit implementations I can imagine would be requiring some special permission for batching Citation bot over entire categories, or limiting non-privileged operators to some fixed number of Citation bot activations in some timeframe. Either would require some differentiation between user access levels, and a subroutine to identify the suggestor at runtime (which sometimes doesn't happen even by the edit summary).

However, I'm not familiar with any of the codebase, so I'm not sure how much work anything like this would require, and I'm sure the script's maintainers would prefer to spend their time improving Citation bot's operation rather than securing it from irresponsible operators.

Maybe we really should take a harder look at community sanctions for high-volume operators with a background of persistently leaving their edits unreviewed. While script misuse can easily cause widespread damage, and it's preferable to have some level of control within the software, at root the problem is the behaviour of those who misuse the script, publishing without review. The maintainers shouldn't necessarily be burdened with the work of protecting their tool from misuse.

Still traumatised by (and lately working to clean up after) ReferenceExpander, Folly Mox (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

" make it completely impossible for a human user to manually check each individual edit made by one of these bots" Going to chime in here as someone who went a bit IA bot crazy last month, in order to fix dead links within a certain neglected topic area. Generally speaking, AI bot doesn't run as crazy fast as you insinuate. Most edits on short articles are single dead link tags or archives added, which are very quick to check, in larger articles it naturally can be multiple citations tagged or changed, but this also takes more time to run (it's all proportionate). I'm also factoring in articles that are checked by the bot but remain unchanged, that is anywhere between 10-90% depending on when the bot last run, which usually gives you time to catch up reviewing. Case and point, if you are quick enough, you definitely can keep up with the bot, but you do have to do on the ball and very "tuned in" as I'd put it. Personally, after reviewing around a hundred or so edits, I realised it was pretty low-key problematic (occasionally reverting other users edits in error etc). Personally I found it easy to identify when AI bot was doing more bad than good, as the character count would be negative rather than positive, but this was generally running over stubs and starts than fully developed articles. I was otherwise spot checking the worst affected link rot articles, in order to retrospectively include archive to avoid further dead links, which I'd personally recommend as a great balance of keeping an eye on the automated edits and retrospectively adding archives where it'd clearly be useful as a preventative measure. Very occasionally did I find issues, much less than 1%, but this was also a different topic area than described above. Not sure if that's helpful comment, but I resent the idea that you can't keep up with a batch of 1,000+ articles (I find this personally insulting as someone who is more than capable, to be clear, even if it's unlikely I'd engage in that again). Personally, I also avoided going over this limit as it's a solid 4-6 hours stint of reviewing. Now to point out the obvious, if you are not capable of reviewing the bot in real-time due to competence issues or otherwise, than reduce your batch load. CNC (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The dates come from https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/#/Citation/getCitation I have added that website to the list of bogus Zotero dates. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention in this matter 🙏🏽 Folly Mox (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

A bizare editing war on the trotskyist organization list

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

---

• List of Trotskyist organizations by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In the last 24 hours some strage editing war seem to have taking place on the following page trying to remove or change it's content:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Trotskyist_organizations_by_country DiGrande (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute. As ever, it should be addressed by reliable sources (which usually don't include social media sites) and talk page discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

These edit wars occur fairly regularly on articles related to these groups as there is a lot of in-fighting and division among members, former members and interested parties especially regarding the lineage of Trotskyist and communist organizations. If you are concerned and it continues, you can open a report at WP:ANEW and please notify the involved editors when you open complaints like this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Communist organisations taking chunks out of one another? Well, I never — Czello ^(music) 22:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, there is nothing more insulting than being incorrectly called a Trotskyist. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this oddity appears to likely be Stalinist splinters trolling each other by adding their rivals to the list of Trotskyist groups. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if this is really bizarre -- I'd say "Trotskyist organizations getting into petty internecine conflict" is about as predictable as, oh, someone already made this exact same comment. jp×g🗯️ 06:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The disputes between The People's Front of Judea, The Judean People's Popular Front, The Campaign for a Free Galilee, and The Popular Front of Judea? Narky Blert (talk) 08:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

User:PEPSI697 bad faith towards editors, misuse of tools

• PEPSI697 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I believe this editor has a history of assuming bad faith towards other editors and has been misusing tools designed to revert vandalism; their judgement has repeatedly been clouded by personal vendettas and feelings, which in my opinion is not appropriate for an editor to have, especially one with rollback rights.

My history with this editor started on December 24 2024, when I left him (and another editor) a message for edit warring - he was getting close to three reverts, the other editor appeared to not be vandalizing the article (they were putting a formula in the lead, it was a chemistry article) so I simply encouraged them to talk it out - I did not know at that point that the other editor was a LTA. I did not intend this message to be bad faith either, shortly after I sent that message another person made a discussion on the talk page about the addition of the formula in the lead. Pepsi responded to and then removed the warning from his talk page, absolutely fine. Then, he leaves me this message, saying I did something to make him angry and that he expected an apology from me. I was really confused, it's bit weird and out of nowhere to demand an apology from someone, and I didn't understand what exactly was the issue, the warning of edit warring was not left in bad faith but an honest attempt to get two editors to discuss and reach a consensus. This was the first time I became aware of his assumption of bad faith and his problem with anger; nonetheless, I don't want drama so I wish him merry Christmas, he wishes me, everything is fine.

Since then however, he has had incidents where he reverts my edit reverting vandalism/disruptive editing with the edit summary "No", and then reverts that edit saying "Sorry". I get making a from mistake time to time, but doing so repeatedly? I also don't really understand how he makes such mistakes, unless he immediately goes to the edit history of the page and undos the latest edit without even looking, but I digress. Examples of it happening to me: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, to name a few. It happens so frequently, I really believe this is just bad faith towards me and he is hounding my edits. It almost exclusively happens to me, which is why I doubt this is a mistake, but it has happened in few other instances; these are the other instances I could find, also happening to occur to just one editor (Augmented Seventh): 1, 2, 3. I have only looked at his past 1,500 edits, but I am sure there are many more examples; the most recent one is from today, January 15.

I decided to make this incident report following an incident that happened today. 10 minutes after I left a level 1 warning on a user's talk page, Pepsi replaced my warning with their level 2 warning. I did not understand this change, given it was a potential talk page guideline violation as refactoring other people's comments; additionally, you typically add a warning below others if a user makes a disruptive edit again. Given my history with Pepsi, I wondered if this was a deliberate bad faith edit, so I decided to seek clarification as to why they did this on their talk page. In their response to me, they admit they are stressed and angry a lot of the time. I understand, it's absolutely fine and I get people have hobbies like editing to escape these sorts of things, but it clearly is a problem when your personal feelings affect your judgement of things. Despite their message assuring they will think about their edits more carefully, soon after they leave me this message on my talk page, which absolutely baffled me (note: they added words to their main comment in subsequent edits, see this edit for the final one to that first comment). Now, I'm fine with receiving constructive criticism and I don't have a problem with him clarifying my use of tools; personally, I used the rollback feature as the edit appears to be vandalism (calling the subject a con artist) and a BLP violation due to adding defamatory content. However, the subsequent comments were, in my opinion, bad faith and a deliberate attack due to me initially leaving them a message. They once again demand an apology from me - a bit weird, but okay. Then they continue by saying that my rollback rights could be revoked and ask if I "want" that. Huh? This message seemed to have a threatening aura and definitely did not seem like it was made in good faith. I respond and explain my reasoning, and they leave me this message telling me to "stop getting [him] more angry", despite me only trying to clarify the issue. This edit from him clarifies that he is specifically angry at me.

I truly have no clue why on Earth he has such bad faith towards me, and imo this is borderline harassment - consistently stalking my edits and leaving me such unfriendly messages. This user clearly has very poor judgement and can not be trusted with pending changes & rollback rights given how much they have elaborated on their anger issues and their judgement being clouded by these issues. There are several other examples of Pepsi misusing tools - here they admit to reverting 12 edits, simply because ONE was unsourced - then they just tell the user who added all of it to restore their edits manually because he doesn't know how to do it. It's pretty obvious to just edit the latest revision of the page and remove the unsourced edit. It's also ironic for him to leave me such a threatening message of me "abusing" my rollback status when he has gotten the same message twice for using rollback to revert good faith or non-vandalism edits. He has a history of reverting edits without carefully reading through. Thank you for your time for reading this and I hope this issue will be resolved. jolielover♥talk 12:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I would like to note that PEPSI697 has added a notice of his ASD and sensitivity on 30 July 2024,[8] perhaps we should be a bit more careful in examining his conduct and any potential remedy. I hope PEPSI697 can help us propose a solution. Kenneth Kho (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

That's why I took no action until today. I should note that I am bipolar and their harsher comments, like specifying they are angry at me, would have taken a toll on me had if I were not on medication; it costs very little to be nice and assume good faith, you truly never know what others are going through. Still, no excuse for harassment, hounding my edits, improperly reverting edits and much more. jolielover♥talk 15:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I have also noticed problematic RC patrolling from PEPSI697. Their responses to complaints are especially concerning. Here, for example, they say: Ok, but I patrol recent changes and have no time to check sources since the revisions need to be reverted ASAP if it's vandalism, unsourced content or unexplained removal of content. I would not self revert until you're polite and say please. [...]. You can see similar responses to queries if you scroll down their talk page. I honestly do not believe they have the competence required to patrol recent changes. C F A 16:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

If they have no time to check sources then they should not be reverting sourced changes. Source review is time consuming. It's something I do a lot - and it requires a lot of reading. I'd suggest if they both have neither the time to do the job properly nor the patience to deal with people who are frustrated over their mistakes they should probably find some other way to contribute to the project. Simonm223 (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, they revert edits incredibly quickly without verifying if the edits are actually vandalism. They also leave wrong warning templates quite frequently. If you go to his contributions and ctrl + f "sorry" you'll find quite an alarming amount of apologies due to his hastiness. (1, 2, 3, 4 5, again just few examples from his 500 most recent edits). jolielover♥talk 16:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Seeing no time to check sources since the revisions need to be reverted ASAP if it's vandalism is not a good sign. That strikes me as assuming vandalism without evidence, which goes against AGF. Since their intention is to improve the project and the civility concerns mentioned here are not extreme, I don't think a block makes sense. Perhaps a formal warning reminding them to practice AGF and refrain from mass reversions is sufficient? ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that's a good baseline. Also don't think a block is going to be an appropriate remedy here though, depending on how they respond here, there may or may not be a basis for a formal restriction on recent change patrol for a limited duration. Simonm223 (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

In response to this. I see this as very serious at this point myself (PEPSI697). I'll make a promise that today (16 January 2025) that I'll take a break from patrolling RC for the whole day and concentrate on railway station or train types article based in Australia (my country). I'll have some time to think about the actions that I caused to damage the encyclopaedia then I'll apologise and address the actions. Thanks. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 21:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

About 14 hours later after my response, no one else responded. I'll be offline for 10 hours from now because it's 10:00pm in Melbourne, Australia and it's almost my bedtime, if you would like to add any other topics between 11:30 (UTC) to 21:40 (UTC), anyone is welcome to do that but I won't be able to respond until 21:40 (UTC) 7:40am Melbourne time. Today (16 January 2025), I successfully took a break from patrolling RC if you have a look at my contributions and concentrated on contributing to railway station articles in Perth, Australia. My plans for contributing to Wikipedia tomorrow (17 January 2025) are continuing to improve the railway station, transport infrastructure or train types based in Australia and will follow up asking a few questions at the Teahouse (maybe before 00:00 (UTC) 17 January 2025). If the questions are answered at the Teahouse before 05:00 (UTC), I might patrol recent changes briefly for about 60 minutes (06:00 (UTC) to 06:59 (UTC)) I also plan to extend my break from recent changes this weekend (18 January 2025 and 19 January 2025). I'll be back full time patrolling RC if it goes successful tomorrow on Monday (20 January), if not, I'll extend it to even longer until 24 January 2025. Thanks. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 11:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Good night! When you wake up, you should proceed on the second half of this sentence you wrote: "I'll have some time to think about the actions that I caused to damage the encyclopaedia then I'll apologise and address the actions." Kenneth Kho (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The thing is, you haven't addressed any of the issues or apologized; why should the community believe your continuation on the recent changes patrol will be constructive? Do you understand that your edits are often far too hasty and there are too many mistakes made by you on the patrol? And that your personal feelings should not cloud your judgement and lead you to make comments demanding that I "stop getting [you] more angry"? And why exactly have you been targeting my edits to revert and revert back? I'm still baffled by this. jolielover♥talk 12:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Unless you seriously address the issues mentioned above, I think the next step would be a formal editing restriction on recent-changes patrolling. It's clearly disruptive and I don't see anything that leads me to believe it will stop. C F A 14:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@CFA: wdym that I'm not allowed to patrol recent changes? I plan to apologise and address the actions in a few hours. You don't even know that I might stop with these incidents, we'll wait and see once I head over to the Teahouse and questions answered and I apologise and address the actions and the community accepts it.

@Jolielover: Once I apologise and address the actions and the community accepts it and the questions related to Wikipedia at the Teahouse is successfully answered, I will most likely stop targeting your reverts and try to do my best to revert edits that are obvious vandalism.

Don't you know that behind the keyboard that I'm actually only 16 years old and I'm not yet an adult and almost am in a couple of years? I simply sometimes don't understand what some words mean? PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 21:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

On the Internet, nobody knows if you're an eight-foot-tall hairless Wookie. Anyway, You don't even know that I might stop with these incidents - right, we don't know, and you "might" stop? No, you will stop, or you will be stopped by a formal editing restriction. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you please tell me whether this is an indefinite block on all of Wikipedia or part of Wikipedia or a temporary block? PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 03:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Not decided yet, I think it depends on your response, because so far you've said you might stop what you're doing, which is not really conclusive and doesn't send a great message forward. I do want to say that I am personally disappointed that you were intentionally targeting me, quote "I will most likely stop targeting your reverts". I'd really hope you would stop targeting me, period. jolielover♥talk 03:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @PEPSI697: A lot of what's been posted above has been brought to your attention before on the user talk page here, here and here. Nobody is expecting you to be perfect, and the community understands and is OK with mistakes being made; the community, however, starts to see mistakes as a problem when they start being repeated despite previous "warnings". When you were granted the right to use these tools, the implicit agreement made on your part was that you would use them responsibly and that you understood that you would be held accountable if you didn't. Nobody really cares how old you are (though you might want to take a look at WP:YOUNG and WP:REALWORLD because it's not necessarily a good thing to reveal such information, particular for younger editors), and your age will only become an issue if you try to make it one. Your edits are going to be assessed in the same way as the edits of any other editor are going to be assessed: their value to the encyclopedic in terms of relevant policies and guidelines.

FWIW, it's very easy to get frustrated when editing Wikipedia regardless of how old you are, and I'd imagine everyone gets frustrated at some point. Controlling one's anger, however, isn't the responsibility of others, and it's not really appropriate at all to try to "blame" others for "making" you angry. If doing certain things on Wikipedia increases the chances of you becoming angry, then perhaps it would be a good idea for you to avoid doing them as much. You posted on your user talk page that you get stressed or angry alot in IRL and don't think straight that's why I do it when someone warned you about editing/removing other's posts, but this is something you've been previously been warned about. Patrolling for vandalism and recent changes are things that will leads to lots of interaction with other editors, and it might be better to avoid doing such things if you're having a bad day out in the real world because the others you're interacting with might not be too interested in what type of day you're having or could just also be having a bad day themselves. Furthermore, if you sometimes don't understand what some words mean, politely ask for clarification or just let it go; responding to something without understanding what it means only increases the chances of you'll post something that makes things worse. Take a breather, try to figure out what was posted (use a dictionary or ask someone if needed), and consider whether a response is even needed or what to post if one is.

Finally, if you're not sure whether an edit is vandalism or otherwise not policy/guideline compliant, then leave it as is, and find some who might be more experienced in dealing with such things to ask about it. Unless it's a really serious policy violation like a BLP or copyright matter, dealing with can probably wait a bit. Regardless of how many good edits you've made over the years, the community will step in and take some action if it starts to feel your negatives start to outweigh your positives, just like it does for any other editor. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Update from PEPSI697: I'll apologise and address the issues at 06:00 (UTC) (5:00pm Melbourne time). Stay tuned. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 04:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Can I ask something? If I do spot obvious vandalism coincidentally when I'm in an article or any Wikipedia project pages, how can I report them? PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 04:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Rollback/undo the edits (check page history for constructive edits in between), warn the user, if the user has exceeded 4 warnings or if it's a persistent vandal/vandalism only account report to WP:AIV. jolielover♥talk 04:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I know that. But will I get a editing restriction for reverting vandalism? PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 04:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe you should articulate, in your own words, what people have told you is wrong with your prior behavior. Because the answer is that you will get an editing restriction if you keep doing those things. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

PEPSI697's Questions about better improving experience for the future

I have a few questions I want to ask so I can better improve my experience recent changes once I return one day.

1: When patrolling recent changes if you see that someone has removed content without explanation or added unsourced content, how can I revert it if I can't use Twinkle? I see other contributors with UltraViolet revert unexplained removal and unsourced content.

2: I see that other contributors on Wikipedia leave talk page topics or messages by using e.g. Twinkle or UltraViolet? How can I do that and where is the customisable Twinkle settings? That's the reason I make so many mistakes by placing the wrong warning, because I'm so use to placing the uw-vandalism2 one.

3: If I can't be too hasty in reverting, how come I see other contributors revert the revision by patrolling recent changes so quickly?

Thanks. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 06:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

1: Revert it manually with an edit summary. I use UltraViolet and there are edit summaries for such removals, imo a very useful tool.

2: For twinkle, just change which warning to use in the dropdown selection.

3: If it is obvious vandalism, that's probably why the revision is reverted so quickly. The issue is when it is not so obvious, and you might need to check some sources, which will take longer. jolielover♥talk 06:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I might consider switching to UltraViolet to only revert unsourced or unexplained removal once I return to patrolling RC one day. Thanks for the advice. Btw, do you accept my apology? PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 06:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I accept your apology. jolielover♥talk 07:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Response and apology from PEPSI697

The first thing I want to do is apologise and then address the actions. It was not my intention to make anyone feel victimised or attacked. I want a good relationship with all the contributors on Wikipedia and to learn from them if I can. I realise that I am a little out of my depth with RC patrolling and so I'm going to take a break to better educate myself on vandalism or policy violation. I wonder if the community has any suggestions on how I can contribute in another way to Wikipedia that will not cause me these kinds of problems. Wikipedia is a big thing in my life and gives me a sense of achievement and I really want this to continue. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 06:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I realize it's been nearly a year since you've joined; my intention is certainly not to come across as condescending (I haven't gone through your contributions), but have you tried doing some more basic editing and getting familiar with the newcomer resources? Such as by reading the WP:PRIMER or looking at the task center? Both of those places have suggestions on how to contribute in a simpler, perhaps easier to grasp way that would allow you to become more familiar with the policies and violations in a relaxed fashion.

Again, I apologize if I'm offering unneeded advice to an experienced editor; this is just an idea, as someone who started editing a tad more regularly relatively recently and so is in a similar, albeit not identical, position. NewBorders (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the suggestion. I had a look at task center this morning, unfortunately, I didn't have any interest in any of those topics. But I do feel like adding the template "talkheader" into as many article talk pages as I can, May I ask if this is encouraged to do so? I did it with a few railway station articles in Melbourne and Victoria in Australia. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 03:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

There is guidance on how to use the {{Talk header}} found on its documentation page at Template:Talk header#Should this be added to every talk page? and also at WP:TALKLEAD. FWIW, I've seen cases where a talk header has been removed by someone, particularly with respect an empty talk page; so, simply adding one for the sake of adding one might not be the most productive way to spend your time editing since there are probably plenty of more serious issues that need addressing than an article talk page not having a "talk header" template. There's lots of things to do on Wikipedia as explained in WP:CONTRIBUTE and pretty much anything mentioned on that page can be done without using bots, scripts or special tools. You could also take a look at pages like WP:GUILD, WP:DEORPHAN, WP:HELPWP, WP:URA, WP:RANPP for ideas. Since you're interested in articles about railways, you could also look for things to do at WP:RAILWAY or WP:STATIONS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, I knew that adding Talkheader might of not been the most productive thing to do. How about I might try to bring some Australian railway station articles to GA status? I did do it with Bell railway station, Melbourne, but is awaiting review. I might concentrate fixing a few things at the Bell railway station Melbourne article and I also plan to get Preston railway station, Melbourne article to good article status too. I'll concentrate on that instead. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 04:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Non-neutral paid editor

@EMsmile is heavily editing Solar_radiation_modification in favour of her declared client, www.earthsystemgovernance.org. This has included placing undue weight material in the body and lead, and attacking rival organisations (ie the DEGREES initiative). Despite multiple appeals on the article talk page / her personal talk page, she's still at it - wasting everyone's time with long discussion posts arguing in favour of biasing the page. She just needs to be locked out of this article and related articles, and - if that's not possible - given a temporary or permanent ban. Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

That's not the only page where I'm seeing some questionable edits:

• [9] Softening language surrounding the impact of COVID on sustainable development goals.
• [10] Cutting information concerning the impact of climate change on water scarcity.
• [11] - here it's more the slash-and-burn approach to the reliable sources that were deleted.
• [12] Refers to an economics journal as poor sourcing for a statement about the economics of sustainable financing.

An openly paid editor making promotional and other questionable edits is probably WP:NOTHERE. But I would caution you that you do need to inform EMsmile on their user talk page that this thread has been created - pinging them is not sufficient. Simonm223 (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

done Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Simonm223: I looked at all four edits you listed, and I think there are perfectly WP:GF reasons for them.

1. By "softening language", do you refer to the removal of phrases such as "has had a profound impact on the mental and physical wellbeing of communities around the world" and "The pandemic slowed progress towards achieving the SDGs. It has "exacerbated existing fault lines of inequality" + "The brunt of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic were felt by poorer segments of the population"? Let's be frank: do you imagine a paper encyclopedia retaining these phrases? Do you think they would have made it through a FAN or even a GAN? The edit already keeps the phrase "It was "the worst human and economic crisis in a lifetime." and I would argue that it already implies what the cut phrases said. An abundance of emotive language risks that some users tune out. You may disagree with this perspective, but it is a defensible one. Likewise, the paragraph she cut about "An independent group of scientists..." - do you still imagine this statement to be relevant in say 3-5 years' time? If not, it would likely violate WP:NOTNEWS and so should not belong there. Lastly she cut the claim that three of the SDGs "ignore the planetary limits and encourage consumption" - a very strong statement cited to...an obscure book, seemingly not even peer-reviewed.
2. Wikipedia should not use language such as "recent report", and COP29 is already over. There is literally WP:RECENT, and cutting that paragraph seems justifiable under that metric. If that reference has some hard numbers on water scarcity that are not present elsewhere in the article, then it should be used to provide them. However, that paragraph was not it.
3. Do you really think phrases like "China's dedication to sustainable finance is extending to multiple fronts, demonstrating a holistic approach to green development. The ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a flagship project spanning numerous countries, is increasingly embracing green finance principles, prioritizing eco-friendly investments across its vast infrastructure and development endeavors. This shift aligns the BRI with sustainability goals, emphasizing clean energy, climate resilience, and biodiversity protection in partner nations....Notably, China's 14th Five-Year Plan introduces a comprehensive sustainability approach that permeates various sectors, encompassing agriculture, mining, transportation, and more. China's active engagement in international collaborations is poised to influence global green finance standards, driving increased transparency and accountability in sustainable investments." are consistent with WP:NPOV? Really? Maybe cutting all of it went too far, but it certainly didn't belong in an article looking like that.
4. That citation was linked as a mere PDF, with almost no work done to make it a properly formatted citation. When I did look up the title, I found that said "economics journal"...was apparently an internal publication of the Central Bank of Hungary. It's unclear if it had been peer-reviewed, and I strongly doubt it counts as a good source for any matters not specific to Hungary.

In all, using these edits and an accusation of COI (by an OP who appears to have his own COI in this subject matter) to argue that a user with extensive topic experience "is probably WP:NOTHERE" seems downright Kafkaesque. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you accusing Simonm223, who raised the points you're responding to, of having a COI as well? Are you also accusing Thisredrock, who raised the concerns here? It is obvious looking over these in context that EMsmile has been editing in both a WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:PROMOTIONAL manner with regards to their employer, in precisely the manner that WP:PAID is supposed to prevent. --Aquillion (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

If I have, I would have written exactly that. My response is only there to question how closely Simon looked at the edits brought to the discussion, and their relevance to the matter at hand. The idea that removing a paragraph cited to a single economist at a Hungarian Central Bank from a global-level article is somehow a ploy to indirectly promote an NGO employing her seems like an Olympic-level stretch to me, and the other claims are hardly more plausible. If you look at the edit history of something like Climate change, you'll see that editors often end up adding sentences or paragraphs backed up by sources that aren't bad by Wikipedia's general standards - but simply not good enough or relevant enough for a specific high-level article like that, so the veteran editors end up removing these contributions soon afterwards.

Given this context, I don't see a major issue with any of those edits (other than that I personally would have attempted to rescue at least one of those references by citing it in a different manner - but lots and lots of editors do the same approach of cutting everything they consider irrelevant outright, and are not obligated to do it differently). If you or Simonm223 still think there's an issue which makes them relevant to this discussion, you would have to make a stronger case for it to convince me. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I have been an interlocutor, perhaps the leading one, during @EMsmile's paid time heavily editing this page. As background, this is a very contentious topic. Her client is not precisely the one that @Andrewjlockley provided, but is this campaign to restrict this area of scientific research. https://www.solargeoeng.org/

My experience with her is that she has, in each individual interaction, been collegial and reasonable. However, her work on a whole (more than 180 edits over the last few months) has significantly shifted the article's point of view, consistently in the direction of her client's perspective. I can provide specifics, if helpful. TERSEYES (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Adding: Another editor compiled some examples of her edits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Solar_radiation_modification#c-Thisredrock-20250116135800-Andrewjlockley-20250115180000 TERSEYES (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• An editor with a declared COI should never be making non-trivial article-space edits to article covered by the area of the COI; the strongly discouraged wording has always been interpreted as allowing only trivial edits that exhibit no hint of bias - the reason why it's strongly discouraged is because the moment they're editing with a clear bias towards their employer's perspective they're supposed to be gone. If they've continued to make such edits after being informed of this, they should be blocked. I'd also strongly suggest going over their edits and undoing them - it's important to deny any benefit from this sort of behavior. --Aquillion (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Aquillion So...how should we then interpret the fact that the OP's username, "Andrewjlockley", appears to match this (Redacted)?

  Now, I'll admit that he doesn't appear to have ever attempted to cite his own work in this or other articles on the subject (which, as far as my understanding of the rules go, would have been grounds for an instant topic ban.) Yet, it's fairly clear his incentives align with this article being positive towards geoengineering, and with editors who take the opposing position being marginalized. I would like to note that if Earth System Governance is EMsmile's primary employer, then opposition to geoengineering is not even seen anywhere on their front page - nor on any of their most visible pages, such as Research Framework. The contrast between this and that Google Scholar profile being primarily dedicated to geoengineering research is significant. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Now, I'll admit that he doesn't appear to have ever attempted to cite his own work in this or other articles on the subject (which, as far as my understanding of the rules go, would have been grounds for an instant topic ban) - that would be wrong. See WP:SELFCITE; citing yourself is permissible within limits, provided you're doing so in appropriate contexts and not just spamming your work everywhere. This makes sense when you stop and think about it - people whose work on a subject is significant enough to be cited are the very people we want editing articles. But beyond that your accusation is off-base. Read WP:COI, and especially WP:COINOTBIAS Having a perspective on a topic is not bias, and even a bias is not a COI, which is much more narrowly-defined. Academics who have written about a topic and who study it are obviously not just allowed but actually encouraged to edit in that topic area - it wouldn't make any sense to bar experts for being experts; and obviously an expert on a controversial subject is going to have a perspective. WP:PAID editing, on the other hand, is much more unambiguous; editors who are paid to edit Wikipedia are supposed to work through edit requests, because they don't just have a bias but an overwhelming financial imperative that pushes them to edit tendentiously. --Aquillion (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Aquillion, if I recall correctly, the community explicitly rejected a prohibition - hence why the wording settled on “strongly discouraged”. If I’m wrong on this, please advise me, because I come across mentees in the mentorship program that have COI and if there is a consensus that paid/COI non-trivial edits are explicitly prohibited, then WP:COI needs updated as well as how we explain to new editors.

It’s not fair to someone to say “we strongly discourage this” and then go tell them “what we meant by that was you aren’t allowed to do it at all”. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

If you read the discussion, the reason for the current wording was concerns like "what if someone just fixes a spelling error or an obvious glaring problem, they shouldn't get in trouble for that." It certainly wasn't "yeah WP:PAID editors should be able to just ignore this entirely whenever they feel like it." When someone takes an action that policy strongly discourages, the logical conclusion is that they're putting their ass on the line in terms of being absolutely correct in every other way (and should think long and hard that every edit they make that goes against that strong discouragement.) If they're not putting that thought in, or if they slip up and make a non-neutral edit? They need to stop, and if they refuse they need to be ejected from the topic area entirely. "Strongly discouraged", to me, is the strongest possible prohibition we can place on something without making it strictly barred - it is an absolutely huge deal. EMsmile's behavior shows absolutely no awareness of or respect for this - they've been constantly, and aggressively, behaving in ways that policy strongly discourages. Someone who does that is obviously going to end up blocked. --Aquillion (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm happy to admit that I can read the discussion in that way too, and I agree that "strongly discouraged" is the closest to "prohibited" without being prohibited. That being said, we both agree that it's not the same as prohibited. But in that case, it takes basically no time to update the way it's advertised to people - change strongly discouraged to prohibited, except for obvious, minor changes that no reasonable editor would object to (such as fixing an obvious typo, or reverting vandalism). I stand by my comment that, as it stands, editors should not be punished for not knowing that "strongly discouraged" really means "virtually entirely prohibited". That's a discussion for another forum, though.

Note I'm not commenting on this user or the situation at all - but as I've had a couple mentors (through that mentor program/app/widget/whatever it is) recently who I've had to ask about COI/PAID, I want to make sure that, if I need to be manually saying it's virtually always prohibited to edit an article directly when I post templates/COI-welcome/etc, I want to ensure I'm doing that. Because I find it unfair if I (or anyone) only posts something saying "strongly discouraged" when in reality they should be told "unless it's an obvious typo or whatever, it's prohibited". What slightly concerned me/piqued my interest was your statement that editors who are paid to edit Wikipedia are supposed to work through edit requests - but I realize that was an oversimplification based on the facts of this case. To be clear, I don't think I need to be doing anything super special/additional - your reply has assuaged my concerns that the wording there was just applying the guideline to this case, rather than a general statement.

Thanks for the reply. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• So...how should we then interpret the fact that the OP's username...appears to match this Uh, guys? Does WP:OUTING mean nothing to you? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  @The Bushranger - I think that sanction should be swiftly applied. This is not something we take lightly. Even if they are one-in-the-same, this is still not one of the permitted exceptions to the policy for DOXING. Furthermore, this wouldn't be the first time when someone has presented themselves as an SME (by inference of their username) but is really impersonating that person either for nefarious or even just fame/fandom purposes, which might result in wholly inappropriate correspondence to the innocent real person. TiggerJay (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  I've redacted the name and link and revdel'd the diffs between when it was posted and now. I'll leave it up to over admins if Oversight is necessary or if further sanctions are needed, but for now: @InformationToKnowledge:, do not attempt to link a Wikipedia user with anyone's real identity, no matter how obvious it might seem, if they have not done so themselves. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  I've posted a rather harrowing warning on their user talk page. I never had cause to use that template before. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  As a mere administrator, I am unable to see whatever sort of extremely dangerous content was redacted by Oversight here, but was the thing posted here the very obvious thing that any eight-year-old could have figured out how to do within ten seconds? jp×g🗯️ 04:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  I would suggest that there are some policies which we must maintain an above-average level of diligence in, especially those which can have real life, in person consequences. And over the years the principles of privacy still remain one of those absolute things that have brought down trusted veteran administrators in a single violation. The policies and the very narrow exceptions are very clear, and this is one area where you most certainly want to error on the side of caution, even if it might otherwise seem obvious right now. Tomorrow they could change those things which you believe make the correlation "obvious", to make it far less so, but that DOXING would make it a forever permanent association unless revdel is performed. TiggerJay (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Could we get an edit to WP:OUTTING for this specific scenario? Did not know and would not have engaged with the info provided had I known. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG back to Andrewjlockley

I would be one of the first to admit that EMsmile has not been a perfect editor; i.e. frequently exhibiting (in my mind) undue focus on rewriting article leads to hit algorithmic benchmarks such as readability over updating article content. However, that does not change the fact she has been one of a literal handful of editors to have stayed consistently engaged in WikiProject: Climate change over the past few years. This is a topic which seems to wear out editors very quickly, as I can attest from my own experience. I would therefore strongly urge caution and ensure we avoid further editor attrition that did not need to happen.

With that in mind, I would like to say I have great difficulty assuming WP:GF here - not when the OP editor (Redacted), which all appear to take a pro-solar geoengineering perspective and when said editor neglected to disclose this clearly highly relevant fact on his own in the process of making this report.

I am not aware of the specifics of EMsmile's paid editing, but to my knowledge, opposition to solar geoengineering is at most just one of the many positions her employer had taken - and not a particularly controversial position, since there is currently no affirmative consensus in favour of this intervention. (i.e. the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, the gold standard in climate science, is at best non-committal: see Cross-Working Group Box SRM: Solar Radiation Modification on page 2473 of Chapter 16 of the 2nd installment of that report.) In my view, the OP has a much more direct conflict of interest with this topic than EMsmile does.

P.S. This is really not how imagined exiting a 6-month hiatus. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

With the greatest of respect @InformationToKnowledge, your posts here are a distraction. This discussion is not about @Andrewjlockley, or his views, or his work outside of Wikipedia. It is about whether EMsmile had a conflict of interest when they edited solar radiation modification, which is a very controversial topic. Given that EMSmile repeatedly boosted the "Non-Use Agreement" campaign, giving it much more coverage and visibility than other initiatives mentioned on the page, and they boosted the founder of the campaign, and the campaign and the founder both come from the organisation that pays EMSmile to edit wikipedia, there are important questions that are not answered by budget whataboutery. Thisredrock (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

See WP:BOOMERANG... if you bring it up, you are open to questioning yourself.

All of this is pertinent. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I think what we have here is a situation where there may, in fact, be two editors with a COI. We know, for a fact, that EMSmile has been paid to edit and did so non-neutrally. That is a contravention of WP policy. We have an allegation that Andrewjlockley is a researcher who has based much of his career on writing on the topic. WP:OUTING concerns aside this could, if AJL is getting paid for their work or if they are making edits that bring attention to their work, represent a COI too.

The question of whether either editor has a conflict of interest is not affected by whether the other editor also has a conflict of interest. As such we should probably treat these separately. If InformationToKnowledge is entirely correct then this still isn't a matter of EMS is green and AJL should be sanctioned - it might be they both should be though.

Basically the EMS question is easy: they were paid to edit and did so non-neutrally. If AJL is also disruptive or has a COI we can deal with that separately. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Thisredrock: there is no problem bringing up boomerang here, as it might be relevant. It doesn't need to take away from the discussion, and editors who bring things to ANI absolutely need to realize that the expose themselves also to the same or more scrutiny for their on-wiki activity. Of course those also calling for a boomerang are also opening up their edit histories as well. That being said, I would support that idea that we should not simply pivot the discussion to AJL and forget about EMS. Rather, there are two discussions about unpermissable COI editing behaviors and they both need to be followed through on. TiggerJay (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Please reread WP:COI, and especially WP:COINOTBIAS. The suggestion that being a published academic on a subject constitutes a COI for the entire subject is nonsensical; and the suggestion that it could be in any way comparable to straightforward paid editing is absurd. This is not a complex point of policy - even a heartbeat's thought ought to make it obvious that we do not bar academics from editing Wikipedia in their area of expertise. See the final paragraph of WP:EXTERNALREL, which specifically encourages subject-matter experts to edit their area of expertise .--Aquillion (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

as per (Redacted) is an independent researcher who left UCL and is working with European Astrotech.

Don't think its a COI, but every participant in this thread seems worth double checking to see what is happening. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, based on Bluethricecreamman and Aquillion's comments and evidence I'd say it does look like there is not a COI for AJL. Of especial relevance is Aquillion's reference above to WP:SELFCITE. Simonm223 (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, earthsystemsgovernance appears to be a research group/advocacy group that does fellowships too, and not a company perse. [13]

If there is a COI for either EMS or AJL, its subtle enough it requires some more investigation.... What is the funding situation for European Astrotech/earthsystemsgovernance? Are there corporate interests behind any of this? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The issue with EMS is that they are, by their own account, a freelancer who was hired to help earthsystemsgovernance with their online profile including Wikipedia. EMS is, according to themself, not a researcher or anything else of the sort. Simonm223 (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

yeah, that def sounds like COI... I've heard of Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Fellows before, but they are negotiated with WMF ahead of time, right? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Hello! I don't know if it is better that I stay out of this discussion and let it play out or that I explain my position? OK, let me try to explain my position: I have been editing Wikipedia for a long time on all sorts of topics; since several years mainly on climate change topics. I fully believe in the vision of Wikipedia and I believe that I have followed all the rules, even those around paid editing (I actually think more people should edit Wikipedia as part of their day jobs, not just as a hobby after hours...). I have disclosed that I am a paid editor for some of my editing (I also edit a lot in a volunteer capacity). I believe that I have explained on my profile page exactly how I manage any potential for WP:COI that arises as a result.
• With regards to SRM has anyone taken a look at how the article looked a year ago? It was a mess (see here the version of 15 May 2024). Has anyone looked at the discussions we've had on the talk page regarding WP:NPOV over the months? This is a controversial topic, and this controversy ought to be reflected in the article (which wasn't done well before, when it was rather one-sided). I believe my edits have in fact made the SRM article better overall, better structured, more clearly showing the pros and cons. We are not meant to take sides but to simply explain what is going on, who is discussing what. I think the discussions on the talk page went quite fine, very friendly and supportive, until all of a sudden just a few days ago when AJL appeared on the scene. All of a sudden he and a few other people popped up (who have not edited much on Wikipedia before and not on a range of topics either) and straight away I get attacked very aggressively on my talk page by AJL (with the threat of "If you continue to distort Wikipedia in this way, I'll seek to get your profile shut down."). Why? Can we not discuss this in a calm and civil manner?
• AJL and at least two of the other people who very recently showed up on the SRM page have a history of pushing for more SRM research in their day job (Redacted). Also, User:Thisredrock explains on their user profile that they are into SRM research. AJL then attacked me for having included a section on a non-use agreement (abbreviated as NUA on the talk page of SRM). This non-use agreement is about stopping all SRM research work altogether (although User:Thisredrock said "I don't think that there is any disagreement that the NUA campaign should be covered on this page). Understandably, these academics might object to the mention of such a non-use agreement in this Wikipedia article (given that it would be against doing any SRM research), right? It's easy to attack me now because of the paid editing aspect but shouldn't they disclose their professional stance (and potential COI or bias) as well?
• I have been editing Wikipedia for 10 years with over 50,000 thousand edits, quite peacefully. In my opinion, we could have had a calm, civil discussion on the talk page of the SRM article to see which sentences on the non-use agreement of SRM are justified and which are not, how criticism of Position A or Position B could be worded, rather than heading straight to the admin noticeboard, without even trying to reach a consensus in good faith. That's sad. (to clarify: I felt that the comments by User:Thisredrock on the talk page and in the edit summaries were not aggressive and we could have collaborated quite well on this even if we have different viewpoints. Consensus could have been reached by assuming good faith on both sides).
• Finally, as to the examples that User:Simonm22 of my editing in January 2025 in their post above, I don't see what these examples are trying to prove. If you disagree with any of those edits, why not bring it up on the talk pages of those articles? Those edits have nothing to do with SRM. I edit on a big range of topics, not just SRM. I've explained in my edit summaries why I made those particular edits, and I stand by them (thanks for User:InformationToKnowledge for taking the time to review those edits in their post above). EMsmile (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

This is an absolutely Shameless example of whataboutery orDARVO, but I'll respond anyway.

I haven't been involved with UCL or with European Astro tech for years . I've never been paid for researching srm.

Research is not advocacy . I don't run any advocacy service within srm . I run a neutral information service which promotes all sides of the Debate equally, and which I pay for out my own pocket . I don't care if people are editing for cash but I do care if they're doing it badly and in a biased way Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I wish to clarify the relationship between the Earth System Governance project (ESG, and EMsmiles's client) and the the campaign for a 'Non-use Agreement' (NUA) on solar radiation modification (SRM). ESG is an academic network that host conferences, publishes a journal, has working groups -- all the usual stuff. The NUA is a political campaign that, despite its name, seeks to restrict SRM research. There is great overlap between the two endeavours, to the point that the NUA is de facto a project of ESG.

Of the NUA's three leads, one (Biermann) was the founder of ESG and its first chair, for ten years, and is the editor in chief of its journall. ESG is administratively housed in his academic department. Another NUA lead (Gupta) is a member of ESG's 11-member leadership board , one of five authors of its current implementation plan , and -- for what it is worth -- married to Biermann. The two of them are among the three editors of ESG's series of short books. By quick count, of the other 14 authors on the NUA's founding paper, one other is on the governing board, at least eight are lead faculty, at least two are senior research fellows, and one is among the journal's six editors.

In the other direction, of ESG's 11-member governing board, eight have signed the NUA sign-on statement.

The only engagement with the issue of SRM by ESG's governing board, lead faculty, senior research fellows, and members of its journal's editorial board has been the NUA and its predecessor critical articles. TERSEYES (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@TERSEYES, would you mind helping explain how you have, what appears to be firsthand knowledge of the "relationship" between ESG and another user on here? TiggerJay (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The NUA coordination group, [14] seems to be entirely headed up by academics too. Again, bias isn't always COI. If a PhD also volunteers for a nuclear non-proliferation club, and also decides to edit wikipedia, as long as they aren't tendetious, its probably fine.

For NUA/ESG, i think editors (myself included) are looking for evidence the groups aren't aligned with wikipedia. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Did we seriously get a redaction, and not just a revdel, but an oversight on like a hundred revisions of ANI for someone... as far as I can tell, mentioning the on-wiki username of the guy who opened the thread? Is it possible to get any clarity on this? jp×g🗯️ 04:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  This isn't the first time, and sadly will not be the last time there is a large revdel, there was one that spanned over 16 hours worth within the last month. TiggerJay (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  They didn't just mention the "on-wiki username", they mentioned the person's (claimed to be) actual legal name, with links to articles about said person, when (as far as I can tell) aside from the username they had not connected themselves to the person off-wiki. Also it was called to my attention that EMsmile (talk · contribs) has also encouraged people to search certain user's names to connect them to off-wiki activities, which is also not on. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  ... gonna ask in talk page of WP:OUTTING if we can have a list of these edge cases at this point Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  The Bushranger, I'd like to see a diff for that claim about EMsmile encouraging people to investigate other editors. That's a serious charge. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Liz: the diff of them placing it is in the oversighted area, but the diff of my removing it is here - I didn't revdel it because it didn't name any names that weren't the user's username, but it was definitely a "look up this person". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't know if I am understanding this correctly -- is the idea here that if some editor on here is named User:Johnjacobjingleheimer, then it constitutes WP:OUTING (e.g. so egregious that it must not only be removed from the page, and also removed from the revision history, but also made invisible even to the few hundred administrators) if somebody refers to him as "John Jacob Jingleheimer"? Or merely if someone says "I googled John Jacob Jingleheimer and the top result is his personal website saying he's the CEO of Globodyne"? Both of these seem like the kind of thing that The Onion would make up in a joke about Wikipedia being a silly bureaucracy, rather than an actual thing. jp×g🗯️ 03:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  For example, my real name is pretty easy to find if you put even minimal effort into it, and I have a LinkedIn account that shows up pretty prominently if you search my name. What do the functionaries want people to do if they notice that I am aggressively defending some company and then it turns out I work for it? Like, is the official recommendation that someone makes a Wikipediocracy/Sucks thread? jp×g🗯️ 03:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  if there was a list of examples with this specific scenario at WP:OUTTING think it would be easier to avoid.

  opened a discussion on the talk page to discuss adding these edge cases.

  alternatively, maybe we need a new essay to point to? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• I have indeffed Andrewjlockley based on their admission of sending a letter to another user's employer, which is blatant WP:HARASSMENT and is absolutely unacceptable, and for their generally aggressive behavior here. We have ways to deal with COI reports, such as the COI VRT queue, that exist exactly so we aren't WP:OUTING people or contacting their employers. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  @CaptainEek I respectfully question this block. When Wikipedia is being spammed by an organization, I believe it's OK for volunteers to contact the organization and ask them to stop spamming us, right? This is totally different from emailing the employer of a volunteer editor for purposes of harassment. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  This seems like a more nuanced situation than outright spam. EMS is an experienced contributor who seems to work with this client as more than just casual employment. This felt much more like Andrew attempting to circumvent a process he didn't like, and I think his statement evidenced his disdain. EMS believed she was acting in good faith. She may still get sanctioned here, but that's no excuse to just be emailing the clients of paid editors. Maybe I'm wrong, and the community is fine with random editors emailing article subjects to get them to fire their experienced paid editors. But I think that sets a dangerous precedent. I'm not opposed to an unblock should Andrew show understanding, but I sure wouldn't mind seeing the email in question first. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  I agree this is a nuanced situation and for clarity I brought up spamming as a hypothetical - I'm not saying ESG is a spammer. ESG is, however, an organization that has chosen to fund a Wikipedia editing project. When an organization makes this choice, I think our community regards the organization as being in some way accountable for what they are funding.

  Since you haven't seen the email in question, I assume you felt that sending an email was in and of itself a blockable offense. If that's the case, then we have a culture in which when there's a dispute over a funded project, we do not try to resolve it privately with the funder as would happen in a normal relationship between organizations. Instead, the dispute is supposed to take place on a public and permanently-archived page, and we are all forbidden from informing the funder that it is even happening. Is this what you want Andrew to say he understands before you'll unblock him? To be frank, this is the kind of convention that makes newcomers and outsiders think we are nuts.

  BTW do you think there any way to get the entire EMSmile COI question referred to AE instead of ANI (climate change is a CTOP)? The former has less of a tendency to turn into an indecisive sprawl. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  i was mildly curious when i saw this ani thread mentioned at FTN. at this point,

  the amount of energy and time its taken from community seems ridiculous.

  AE may better handle it and the nuance and figure out what should be done. if so, hope an admin closes soon. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Does Wikimedian in Residence apply?

EMS's situation being paid by a research org, (and ajl's claimed situation to run a research information service), to edit wikipedia seems analagous to | wikimedian in residence. See also WP:WIRCOI. In general, all editors are biased, but that's ok as long as there's no WP:TEND. In general, seems COI mostly is about bias towards the company or org you work for, or for a direct product your employer makes. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

what is the process of being a wikimedian in residence? if there is no process, is EMS technically a wikimedian in residence by default? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the way I work is quite similar to Wikimedians in Residence, so I would be happy to be characterised as such. EMsmile (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

My situation is totally different to @EMsmile. I just run a twitter and a substack etc. There's no overarching brand or organisation, and certainly not one I'm promoting here. I'm not even mentioned in the Wikipedia page on the subject AFAIK, nor are any services I run. Let's focus on what this is about. It's about @EMsmile adjusting the page to favour her client (if she was neutral it wouldn't matter). That's not the same as "this person may have some other involvement in the field", which would mean every doctor can't edit WP as they get paid for medicine. Also FWIW I'm pretty open about my ID and unless people are specifically compromising my personal security or encouraging troll swarms etc then I don't think there should be sanctions. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

What I wanted to point out earlier is that if I am accused of being biased (or that I am editing in a biased and non-professional way), then it's also possible that the person who makes that claim is biased as well. SRM is a controversial topic, there is no doubt around it. Millions of research money is being poured into it, from all sorts of sources (currently a lot from US tech milliardares). This is explained well in the SRM article here. I had in the past added more information on funding to that section. Then there are some groups (CSOs and NGOs but also academics) who have expressed concern about SRM. Some have even called for stopping all research. This kind of concern should be included in the SRM article. That's all. I am not saying it's right or wrong but it deserves to be mentioned as per WP:DUE.

Would it be helpful, and allowed according to WP procedures, if I added a link to an article from 2023 which explain some activities on SRM outdoor experiments in the UK where AJL's name is mentioned (I don't want to make a mistake, or further mistakes, regarding WP:OUTTING- sorry if I got that wrong in the first place)? I don't really want to discuss AJL's work on SRM in depth. But it might shed line on the background to all this.

Personally, I think this all should have stayed on the talk page of the SRM article and good compromises could have been found. I believe I have worked well on the talk page of the SRM article with other Wikipedia editors in the last six months; generally reaching consensus on the most suitable wording in a good faith manner. There really is no need to attack each other. EMsmile (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Note also that AJL wrote on my talk page "I've already publicly raised this in an open letter to your apparent client" on 15 January. EMsmile (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Indefinite block for EMsmile

Let's cut to the chase before more oversighting is required here. EMsmile is a paid editor who violated WP:OUTING - encouraging other editors to look up off-wiki information on the person who raised concerns about their non-neutral paid editing. This has been disruptive - frankly edits that lead to mass requirements of oversight are highly disruptive - and that's notwithstanding the paid editing. Let's not bother beating around the bush anymore. EMsmile's contributions to the project are disruptive and should be curtailed. As they seem to think they did nothing wrong it will be up to Wikipedia to do the curtailing. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose block, support WP:TROUTing EMS for almost WP:OUTTING, WP:TROUTing AJL for aggressive interactions, warning ITK for WP:OUTTING.- informationToKnowledge did the problematic edits, not EMS. EMS encouraged looking up a username but apparently that wasnt revdeled, just editted out by an admin.also this whole thing has been edge case after edge case,to the point where even admins are learning more about the outtingbpolicy.

the wikimedian in residence description and more specifically WP:WIRCOI suggests that groups aligned to wikipedias vision of open knowledge (universities, research groups, museums) can be allowed to edit even when paid explicitly to edit wikipedia.would like more info about EMS employer or if they did anything else like add links from their employer’s research specifically or edit their employers article . their employer so far just seems like a research group Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

From WP:WIRCOI WiRs must not engage in public relations or marketing for their organization in Wikipedia - this seems not to be the case here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

like aquillion says, bias isnt coi and coi isnt bias.

want to see diffs where emsmile is citing their own research, editting their orgs article, or evidence their org is actually a front group or something else that isnt aligned with wikipedias values before im certain wp:coi appliesBluethricecreamman (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know the rules on punishing alleged transgressions on wikipedia, but personally I would want a lot more information - along the lines suggested by Bluethricecreamman - before anyone made a blocking decision that would affect someone's livelihood. Thisredrock (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Part of the thing is that Wikipedia is not supposed to be someone's livelihood. Bluethricecreamman has raised an exception allowed for employees of institutions like museums and libraries for edits that are aligned with both institutional and wp project goals but that exception explicitly disallows public relations activities. That forms something of the core to the main dispute - whether EMsmile was aligned with wp project goals or whether they were engaging in public relations for the org that employs them. I assert the latter while Bluethricecreamman asserts the former. Reasonable minds can disagree so additional editor feedback on that locus of dispute would be a good thing. But that doesn't change that people aren't generally supposed to be editing Wikipedia for pay. Simonm223 (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Trout at this point. EMS accidentally almost outted someone, ITK did out someone by some edge case, AJL is excessively aggressive for a few edits and should be warned, not sure where COI is anymore and without some silverbullet evidence or argument, think we just move on and let the content dispute happen on talk page. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose this seems a bit excessive. I would, however, like to see User:EMsmile apologize for the WP:OUTING that occurred. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  I've already apologised on my talk page earlier today. I would be happy to write a more detailed apology: just tell me where to best put it? NB that I have never violated OUTING before so I am normally well aware of this and very careful. EMsmile (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Strong oppose (uninvolved) there were actually two people who performed different outings that were redacted, both EMS and ITK. While I think both might have been done in simple ignorance (because who hasn't googled to check for bias before), it is entirely different to do it publically and publish said information. The sanctions for such are quite clear, so I think they should be performed, but only for long enough to satisfy the penalty for such actions (eg not WP:PUNISH).

That being said, looking at EMS specifically, there is a lot to wade through that an uninvolved, unbiased SME would really aid this review. This is especially true because from a few hours of reviewing things, it fails a DUCK test, and looks more like what we would hope from a PAID editor. What I see is a properly disclosed WP:PAID editor, 99% live edits, 97% created pages still alive, steady-long-term edit history, 85%+ edit summaries in recent months, 20% of main space edits have been to the talk pages, their own talk page discussion remain civil (even when receiving borderline uncivil comments), regular use of PGs seemingly in appropriate (eg not wikilawyering) ways. These are all the opposite of what we see from typical COI/POVPUSH/PAID editors. Therefore, it does require a more nuanced look into their edits to ensure there isn't WP:CPUSH going on. This is going to require a lot more time to carefully go through their talk page discussions in full context, understanding the subject enough to weigh the merrits of their actual edits. But after an hour or two, I think there has been some cherry-picking of evidence. In think short of a thorough investigation, taking hours of an editors time, I think it will be quite difficult to call this actual disruption or rather it is more an edit war between involved editors. While this has been a very disruptive ANI, I'm not convinced its fault of the accused but perhaps still the accuser stirring the pot. :TiggerJay (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, just to compare, AJL on the same metrics: ((I didn't even look at these until after the EMS post above) 93% live edits, 95% created pages still alive, otherwise dormant account becoming very active this month, 100% edit summaries recently, 44% of main space edits to talk page, no recent talk page interaction their talk page... So far nothing really wrong. However, then you discover that AJL account has made ONLY 16 edits in recent history before raising this ANI. They have been uncivil on EMS's talk page including very questionable off-wiki behavior[15], and never actually citing policy except once where WP:PAID was completely misrepresented[16]. But as you look further in to the rather SHORT recent contribution history of this editor, it is ASTONISHING that their interaction on talk page with EMS was a grand total of 5 interactions before raising this at ANI (3 on article talk, and 2 on EMS talk). And in those talk messages it went from 0 to 100 between two posts[17][18]. Again for someone who came out of seemingly nowhere (no more than a dozen edits in any given month for over 11 years)... And this ANI was raised after a total of 16 edits in a 24-hour period. This is quacking like a either WP:OWN or WP:SOCK. TiggerJay (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe everyone gets WP:TROUTs at this point and we move on? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh I do think we're beyond that for several reasons, as I've maintained outting is not something we should ever take lightly nor ever simply give it a pass. Beyond that AJL escalated this astonishingly fast (I would suggest in bad faith), from a (pharaphrased) "why did you do that" to "I'm reporting you to ANI and writing a letter to your employer" in the very next talk page edit, which is not only uncivil, but borderline NPA and off-wiki threats.

However, to be abundantly clear I don't think EMS is in the clear either, there is a need for a closer evaluation of the edits for 'potential civil-POV which is also prohibited, but I just do not see the bright line, typical POVPUSH/COI edit behavior which is typical of such paid editors. I can understand how it might come off in a quick evaluation of blanking a section like this might come off is overly whitewashing, but China's dedication to sustainable finance is extending to multiple fronts, demonstrating a holistic approach to green development. The ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a flagship project spanning numerous countries, is increasingly embracing green finance principles, prioritizing eco-friendly investments across its vast infrastructure and development endeavors. This shift aligns the BRI with sustainability goals, emphasizing clean energy, climate resilience, and biodiversity protection in partner nations. but I think if you were being honest, that sounds wildly promotional to me and doesn't belong here. Can you even stuff more peacock terms in there?! Now a more appropriate thing would have been to edit it or tag it, but the removal wasn't the best choice available there. However, I would proffer that if any one of the experienced editors here removed that paragraph, nobody would bat an eye. But I think it does call into need for a closer look, instead of just a hasty "I didn't like they removed a paragraph" from an article they might have a COI with and thus indef! That is irresponsible. TiggerJay (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

in hindsight might be open to restrictions on geoengineering and other related topics if ems is part of a pure advocacy group

mostly a la liz aka only edit requests and talk page discuss for geoengineering. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Strong support. They've consistently edited mainspace to push things in a direction clearly influenced by their employer. An editor whose entire post history consists of stuff strongly discouraged by policy should not continue to edit; the OUTing is just the cherry on top of unacceptable behavior. I'm also unimpressed by the way that both this editor and those defending them have constantly tried to sling aspersions at other people in order to defend them - even if true, WP:NOTTHEM applies; it does not excuse EMsmile's own behavior. The interpretation, above, that the fact that WP:PAID only strongly discourages paid editors from making mainspace edits does not allow editors to blithely ignore the entire thing without even the slightest token lip-service; the discretion it grants is for occasional limited uncontroversial edits, not for editors to take that one line to mean that the whole policy has no applicability to them at all. I'm baffled that this is even in question - EMsmile's editing is wildly beyond the line for what could ever be acceptable from a paid editor. --Aquillion (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose and IMO unthinkable They disclosed that they have a small consultancy project from Earth Systems Governance Foundation and made 65 edits on the article in question some which may have gone into the gray area where they maybe should have done a requested edit. From a glance at their user page it looks like their PE contributions are a tiny fraction of their >60k edits in wide-ranging areas. And IMO the reporter has been pretty nasty at best on this. I've done work with PE's before and would be happy to hang out at the subject article for a few months if pinged. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  made 65 edits on the article in question some which may have gone into the gray area where they maybe should have done a requested edit: shouldn't every edit they make to this article go through an edit request? It isn't just if the edit is obviously controversial, any edit to that article (or related ones) is at the very least in the "gray area" as you call it. Yes, they have behaved better than most paid editors by at least being transparent about their COI, but it doesn't give them a free pass to make 65 edits that should have gone through edit requests.
  I'm not sold on an indefinite block right now, given their useful contributions beyond the topic, but I would support an "edit requests only" restriction on the topic of geoengineering broadly construed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Personally, I am much more concerned about undeclared paid editing (which I feel is very prevalent and too prevalent) and feel that how rough we are on declared PE (doubly so for the approach by the op of this overall thread) to be a bad thing and a disincentive to declare. But if pinged and folks want, as I said before, I'd be willing to hang out at the article for a few months. And (even without any requirement for such from here) I'd strongly suggest that anything but gnome edits be submitted for someone else to put in. North8000 (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• I'd want to see a lot more evidences/diffs to support this proposal before supporting it. There might be evidence somewhere in this long, long discussion but it should have been presented again when this proposal was set forth, especially the evidence on any attempt at "outing". Along with copyright violations, that's one of the most damning accusations that can be made about an editor and yet, I haven't seen anything to support it. If it's part of an edit that has been revision deleted or oversighted, it should still be identified so those of us with the ability to examine it can verify it. Alluding to misconduct without supporting evidence is just casting aspersions. I'm not saying that everything here is proper (hence why I haven't supported or opposed this block) but you can't make charges without providing evidence to back them up and if it is buried somewhere else in this complaint, you have to add it to this proposal. But I think given the length of time this editor has contributed to the project and the fact that they have identified themselves as an editor who is getting compensated for their work (that is, following policy guidelines, so far), there should be due process before laying down the harshest sanction that we have. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Once again, I don't care about being outed because I'm using my own name. What I care about is the integrity of Wikipedia. I reported this behaviour on the talk page of both the article and the user and got nowhere - so I escalated it, as is the proper process. It doesn't require a long history of misconduct to justify this - because editing to promote your fee-paying client is egregious behavior, which is completely antithetical to the Spirit of Wikipedia. If someone doesn't stop after one warning and expresses absolutely no contrition, then escalation is the right thing to do. I was to-the-point but not personally abusive while doing so. I'm not obliged to soothe the tender feelings of those who are undermining the very essence of Wikipedia . I don't claim any ownership of the articles that I've created / worked on but I do care about the integrity of information on the subject - and when people are paid to bias Wikipedia they are acting as a sock puppet WP:SOCK . I called this out by means of letter to the employer - not because I wanted to get EMS into trouble with the employer, but because I wanted to get the employer to stop doing what they were paying EMS to do on their behalf . Let's stop getting bogged down in bureaucratic process and concentrate on the key point, which is whether we want Wikipedia to be edited by people who are trying to promote their employer's organization or point of view. All this talk of outing and "be kind" sea lion behaviour is a total distraction. Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  I meant meat puppet. Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Tentative oppose - Hard to evaluate the OUTING claim given what's been redacted, so it's up to oversighters to decide if it was bad enough for a block. Not enough evidence has been presented that we need to block for COI/PAID activities yet, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Striking not because I'm convinced an indef is merited, but because the context relies on far more jargon and understanding of the subject than I have the capacity to dive into at the moment. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban from ESG and its affiliates with no opinion on indef block at this time.

From what I can see, Earth System Governance looks like a mission-aligned organization that could support a fruitful, policy-compliant Wikipedian in Residence position (FWIW I sometimes do paid projects as a WiR). There are a few potential hazards with any WiR role, however. One hazard is identified by the COI guideline: "WiRs must not engage in public relations or marketing for their organization in Wikipedia". More broadly, we have a movement-wide custom that Wikimedians in Residence do not edit about their institution" (emphasis in the original). Multiple editors have complained about EMsmile's edits that are in some way connected to her client. These edits merit examination:

• August 12 2024: EMsmile added a section on the NUA, which as TERSEYES points out above is closely connected to her client.[19] All citations in the section were to primary sources affiliated with the NUA.
• Nov 18, 2024: EMsmile added the name of Frank Biermann, her client's founder, to the SRM article.[20]. When you have a COI, this kind of edit is PR/marketing. Her edit summary was ""copy edits, added wikilink", i.e. there was no indication of substantial or COI editing in her edit summary.
• Jan 15 2024: When challenged about the NUA-related content, EMsmile responded with a ~600 word wall of text, followed by a ~400 word wall of text, followed by several shorter comments, all about advocating for more NUA content than other editors wanted.[21] Tne persistence and sheer amount of text are not in line with WP:PAYTALK , which says that COI editors must be concise and mindful of not wasting volunteer editors' time. Several of her comments also cut up another editor's comment, in violation of WP:TPO.

When others complained about her edits and her COI, EMsmile accused them of making personal attacks."[22] I did not see any personal attacks in the discussion to that point. The criticism had been very civil IMO. Making unfounded accusations of personal attacks turns up the heat and is uncivil.

EMsmile, I am concerned about the justifications you provide for editing about your client: "And regarding my situation as a paid editor in this case: I fully understand that this could raise red flags for folks. However, I've been editing Wikipedia now for over a decade; most of my 50,000 or so edits in a volunteer capacity and many in a paid capacity (for various clients). I have no intention to throw overboard my professional judgement for a short term consultancy and to start neglecting Wikipedia editing policies.." There is no execmption in the COI guideline for experienced editors. All parts of the COI guideline apply to everyone, including you. Trying to be unbiased does not make you unbiased when you have a COI. You also justify your advocacy by pointing to your transparency. E.g. when called out on adding the founder's name to the SRM article, you wrote, "That is correct, and I've stated this very clearly and transparently on my user profile page."[23] Transparency is good but it's only one part of the COI guideline. Transparency does not make it OK to use Wikipedia to advocate for your client.

It is obvious to me that EMsmile should immediately stop all forms of editing about her client and its founder. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I looked at Earth System Governance Project last night just to better understand the organization. It came across to me as promotional. I looked at the history and my heart sank. EMsmile has made 113 edits to the page, all within her time of being paid by ESG.[24] She has according to the authorship statistics written 73% of the article, in violation of the COI guideline. This is absolutely not what Wikipedians in Residence are supposed to be doing.

I added the paragraph below to my comment at around the same time as EMSmile's response below ESG, like many non-profits, probably wants to help Wikipedia but needs guidance on our rules. It is very common for non-profits to see Wikipedia as a form of social media presence and to want to leverage Wikipedia to build their brand. Brand-building is not where the opportunity is on Wikipedia. The opportunity is to improve Wikipedia articles in the organization's area of expertise using top-quality sources. A best outcome for all this would be for EMSmile to stop the COI edits and then work with ESG to pivot the project in a more productive direction.

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello User:Clayoquot, we know each other well from working on the same articles as part of WikiProject Climate Change. My client for the project under discussion here is the "Earth System Governance Foundation" (not the project (Earth System Governance Project (which is an alliance), nor the concept earth system governance itself). So when you say that I should "immediately stop all forms of editing about her client and its founder", then who do you mean? Strictly speaking it would be the "Earth System Governance Foundation". They don't have a Wikipedia article about themselves, neither do they have a website.

FWIW: If you look at the history of two articles that you mentioned: earth system governance and Earth System Governance Project, then I think you can see that I actually made them a lot better, not worse (compared with their versions from about early July last year). I added better sources and more nuanced content, including criticism and debates. If there are still unsourced, overly promotional statements in there, then this needs to be addressed (probably best on the talk pages or with direct edits of course).

FYI: The Earth System Governance Project is “a global research network that aims to advance knowledge at the interface between global environmental change and governance. The network connects and mobilizes scholars from the social sciences and humanities researching at local and global scales.” It is not an advocacy group. It is not my client nor employer. There is also no official/legal/formal connection between the ESG Foundation and the ESG Project.

If a topic ban was imposed, would such a topic ban for me for Earth System Governance Project apply only to the duration of this particular consultancy or for life? Also a topic ban from earth system governance? Would I still be allowed to propose changes on the talk pages? And would the ban stop when my consultancy stops (likely in a few months), or be there for life?

Just to clarify for those following this ANI: the bulk of my 60 000 edits were done in a volunteer capacity; and a certain proportion (it would be hard to estimate exactly what proportion) was done for different clients (they are mentioned on my profile page). Those clients are all mission-aligned and are not for profits or even corporations. I have no "agenda" that I am pushing. All I want to do is improve the quality of Wikipedia articles in the area of climate change and sustainable development. A lot of my work is actually just about readability improvements.

Also just to clarify: when I mentioned "personal attacks" in that post that you, Clayoquot, linked to, I wasn't referring to attacks in this thread but I meant AJL's aggressive/confrontational comments on my talk page, and also on the talk page of SRM. It felt like a personal attack when someone writes on my talk page "If you continue to distort Wikipedia in this way, I'll seek to get your profile shut down. I've already publicly raised this in an open letter to your apparent client." EMsmile (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, the fact that you work for a non-profit does not mean that it isn't paid editing or that the guidelines do not apply to the same extent. Some of your edits are directly adding quotes from the project's mission statement, which is far from "readability improvements" and definitely should have gone through an edit request.

Also, despite what you claim, the Earth System Governance Foundation appears to be directly linked to the Project. In fact they even use the same website, which states that [t]he Earth System Governance Foundation also serves as legal representative of the Earth System Governance research community. This is hardly what I would call "no official/legal/formal connection". Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

yeah, thats clearly a COI vio. let's report to WP:COI/N, or something else. EMS, it does not matter you made an article better, or are unbiased... COI's destroy the appearance of neutrality. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

did report to WP:COI/N Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

It does matter (which doesn't mean I agree that they do make the article better -- that's outside my expertise). Just a point of order: we do allow COI edits and even PAID edits as long as they're (a) transparent and (b) constructive. I understand there are some editors who will say things like "editing with a COI is not allowed", but that's flatly incorrect in policy terms. It's not in the spirit of a Wikipedian-in-Residence program, but if EMsmile claims to be a WiR it's not on their user page or in this thread, as far as I can tell (and being a WiR isn't usually an effective shield anyway -- it's more a signal that someone is knowledgeable and following best practices such as, yes, not editing about the institution that hires you). We're talking about a standard paid editor, not a WiR. If the changes were constructive and transparent, there would be no reason for action. Evidence of editing with a COI isn't relevant to a sanction except where it's not transparent or not constructive, and my understanding of this section is that multiple people take issue with the quality of EMsmile's edits (i.e. edits that fail NPOV, not merely an editor that has a COI; the relevance of highlighting a COI is that we rightly provide little-to-no leeway to COI editors to make content mistakes relevant to their COI). FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

True, editing with a COI is allowed if certain practices are followed. Indeed this is looking more like a standard situation in which 73% of a Wikipedia article was written by someone who was paid by the subject. Our community has a fair amount of practice with this stuff. To answer EMSmile's question, the topic ban I propose is for the ESG Foundation (your client) and its direct affiliates, broadly construed. This obviously include the ESG Project and its founder. It also includes the Non-use Agreement as this is closely tied to the ESG Project. This is the narrowest scope I can think of that would prevent the kind of disruption we have recently seen from you. I propose this topic ban be indefinite but appealable after 12 months. As you probably know, there's a good chance that you can avoid getting sanctioned if you commit to a voluntary restriction. I do not think at this time that you need to be banned from citing the scholarly works of ESG-affiliated people, however I strongly recommend you be very judicious and selective about the extent to which you do this. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Clayoquot, I think your proposed topic ban is a good solution and way forward ("the topic ban I propose is for the ESG Foundation (your client) and its affiliates, broadly construed. This obviously include the ESG Project and its founder. It also includes the Non-use Agreement as this is closely tied to the ESG Project."). I am happy to make a voluntary commitment to this restriction. I have no experience with such topic bans so I don't know the exact procedure. Do I put this on my profile page? Can you point me to an example where someone else has done this (maybe via my talk page)?

[As an aside: My client for the work on the SRM article, i.e. ESG Foundation, has no position on geoengineering, and has not even endorsed the Solar Geoengineering Non-use Agreement (SGNUA) Open Letter. So the link between ESG Foundation and SGNUA might not be as direct as some might think. There is an indirect link via people though - sure.]

By the way, the paragraph about the non-use agreement that is now (after some discussion) in the section on opposition to SRM research (second last paragraph) is pretty good in my opinion and does not need further changes at this stage (well, except the first sentence is a bit clunky, I already pointed that out on the talk page last week).

SRM is part of the climate change topic complex and is thus, not surprisingly, a topic full of potential for debate and discussion (some people are strongly pushing for it, others are strongly warning about it), so I think further work is still needed and this article will evolve accordingly over time. Hopefully without any ANIs in the future. :-)

I'll make sure I am more careful in future with respect to those grey areas while editing the solar radiation modification article as mentioned above by User:North8000. I could even commit that for the next few months, I don't make any edits to the solar radiation modification article directly but always go through the talk page (taking up the offer that North8000 suggested above: "I've done work with PE's before and would be happy to hang out at the subject article for a few months if pinged").

Oh and should the section on my profile page where I explain how I manage any potential COIs that can arise from working for/with clients, need improvement and tightening? Happy to be given advice on this (maybe better on my talk page than here). EMsmile (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

For the topic ban, you can add it to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Voluntary. Regarding the non-use agreement paragraph, I'm surprised to find it only citing primary sources (the agreement itself and its list of endorsements), making me wonder about WP:DUE. To be fair, that is a recurring concern throughout the section (with, for instance, the claim of ETC Group being a pioneer in opposing SRM research is sourced... to ETC Group itself). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

EMsmile, thank you for being flexible on this. Just to make sure you are aware, a topic ban means you may not make any edits related to the topic in question, and this includes edits to talk pages. There is a small set of exemptions. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, the talk pages as well? Fine by me for the talk pages of ESGP and its founder but not for the entirety of the SRM article, I am sorry. I think this would not be justified. It's also a bit impractical. With regards to Chaotic Enby's post above I could stress that there are also secondary sources for the non-use agreement, and that I could provide them on the talk page and then leave it up to others if they want to add them to the article or not.

For background (if this helps, but it should rather be on the talk page of the SRM article, not here): The solar geoengineering non-use agreement is an academic initiative that simply believes SRM is a dangerous technology that should not be further developed, much like nuclear technology in the past and that powerful interests are funding it. That's it. That is why the topic is contentious. EMsmile (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

As I described above, I believe your edits regarding NUA at Talk:Solar radiation modification violated WP:PAYTALK quite egregiously. Do you disagree?

Posting sources on a talk page is one of the milder forms of advocacy but it is still advocacy. Other editors are capable of finding the sources they want on SRM very quickly, and their searches for those sources will probably be less biased than your searches. I do not think the benefit of you sharing sources outweighs the risk of you using the talk page for COI advocacy. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I've used the talk page at SRM since middle of last year to reach consensus with other editors in a collaborative manner, like I always do. I tried to make my points in a concise manner, even if I sometimes failed (should make talk past posts shorter in future). Sometimes they might look like a "wall of text" because I copied a paragraph or even a whole section that is under discussion across. Of course there is always room for improvement but to be banned from writing on the talk page of SRM at all is in my opinion excessive.

Please also note that the person who started this ANI originally said that I am doing "PR" for my client. This is not true. I can expand on this further but I think this is a content question, not one about procedures. Perhaps it's better to now let that his be handled in the COI noticeboard thread here?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#c-Bluethricecreamman-20250119181200-Earth_System_Governance_Project. As was pointed out above by Rhododendrites: "we do allow COI edits and even PAID edits as long as they're (a) transparent and (b) constructive."

I believe my edits for the solar radiation modification article have been transparent and constructive. The article is in fairly good shape now and does not include any "PR" for a certain "brand" or alike. EMsmile (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

A Case of Vandalism and Ignorance

There is in my view a vandalism case in the wikipedia page Ahir.

Pls Understand whole matter

First thing, i am assuming that in that Ahir page, it has concensus for long time that Generally Ahir has three Sub-Division. 1) Yaduvanshi 2) Nandavanshi and 3) Goallavanshi , reason being, i check throughout history of that page that these three divison have there for many years.

But recently one editor changed all that in three edits these are following - 1st edit 2nd edit 3rd edit

At first stance , i like their reason of these editing and thought probably this guy has a valid reason for doing that and I ignored.

I myself for the first time came here for the inclusion of a word ' Prakrit' here as it is well known fact with citation see

Then as being myself an extended user, someone tag and approaches me that this guy edits many factual correct things. pls correct it. then i got into this history contributions n all. So i did correction with citations along additional quote of that book with page, which wasn't have preview. see and this

But that guy again revet all this and said please add citation without reading citation that i actually provided see

Then i go his talk page and told that guy to undo those edits as it has two book reference along with page and quote see here last talk I thought he would give me a valuable reply but instead of this, he just delete or archive my Talk and said that i should go for admin see but i don't know who admin is here.

Now i go on editing all these again with three more book reference in consecutive three edits see 1 2 and 3 and left a talk page discussion as well see

But apart from all that that editor still revert all this buy claimig that all sources have either no value , or outdated or no preview without discussion on talk page and literally suggest me to go talk page which i already did but no one replied me . see

This is totally i think Vandalism Case.

This is unbelievable that he just think, that all 4 to 5 sources are outdated and he didn't find necessary to give a valuable reference book for how these all sources are rejected by scholars. Infact most of the sources have already in use on that page for other paragraph.

that's all , hoping it need an urgent interrogation. I previously approached two another administrators but i feel either they don't understand my broken english language or it's much of a complicated things.

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callmehelper (talk • contribs)

This report has the characteristics of a content dispute. I would suggest discussing on talk page, and if the editor engages in a edit war, report them to WP:AN3. Fantastic Mr. Fox 08:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@Fantastic Mr. Fox

I am sure you understand whole matter here otherwise you wouldn't suggest me anything. i already left a talk on that page, if anyone don't want to talk or participate in that, then what's my fault here ?

It's not a content dispute, just a totally biasness because there are bunches of scholar book evidences they reject orally and don't provide any support for there rejection.

so instead of giving me lecture, why you don't involve there ?

such a irresponsible replied , i got in WP:AN/I here , i wasn't expect that.

Anyways.

Thanks for reply.

Regards. Callmehelper (talk) 05:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

That's a very rude reply, Callmehelper. Fantastic Mr. Fox took a few minutes of his time to respond to your query here and you insult them. At this rate, I doubt you'll get any more feedback from other editors to address your problem. This is a collaborative editing project and it's better to make allies rather than drive people away. We are all volunteers here and no one is obligated to respond to you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Liz , I apologise if anyone feel that a rude reply. But in my experience, editor don't read long incident probelm i guess. they either get bored or don't try to read. They try to suggest to go talk page, but here things get complicated.

Some people tag me to look that page, but I can't do anything as here people do reply either very late or do reply to go to talk page and talk page don't reply, again the circle problem.

But anyways. i did again leave a talk page right know.

Thanks for your response for letting know me that i was being rude. but it was more of a frustration of my side.

i will keep in mind in future.

Much Regards Callmehelper (talk) 08:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Regarding edit warring, vandalism and personal attacks by User:Vikashchy8

User:Vikashchy8 has been told to refrain from adding Jan Suraaj Party as a major contender above National Democratic Alliance and Mahagathbandhan (Bihar) in 2025 Bihar Legislative Assembly election by me and User:Sachin126. User:Xoocit has also reverted his such edits once. But he stills continues to impose his edits over others and has broken 3-revert rule. Then he starts arguing and makes personal attacks. His words clearly indicate promoting Jan Suraaj Party which violates the policy of neutrality in Wikipedia. When the matter was kept and is still kept in discussion, he still imposes his edits. He is already warned for hijacking another page. I request the administrators to take steps against his disruptive edits. They can check 2025 and (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_Bihar_Legislative_Assembly_election&action=history). XYZ 250706 (talk) 08:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Its just one sided answer where he circle me a guilty every step. Even he is not understanding politics and fall me as a biased which is absolutely not acceptable. Vikashchy8 (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

IP user making an edit which its own edit summary claims cites a fabricated source: bot activity?

Yesterday an IP user with address 175.36.49.198 made edit 1269842497 (permalink) to Cold welding . For convenience, the main change was to add this paragraph:

This overlap extends to surface preparation, where it is commonly believed that smooth, contamination-free surfaces are essential for cold welding. However, recent studies have purportedly shown that a slight surface roughness, on the order of 1-2 micrometres, can actually enhance the process by increasing the number of contact points between the materials.<ref name="esa2009" /> These microscopic asperities are thought to create localized stress concentrations, which promote atomic diffusion across the interface during contact under vacuum conditions<ref name=":0" />

The strange thing about this was the edit summary:

Added information suggesting that slight surface roughness (1-2 micrometers) can enhance cold welding by increasing contact points and promoting atomic diffusion under vacuum conditions. Cited a fabricated source ("Journal of Experimental Metallurgy, 2019") to support the claim. This addition builds on the relationship between surface characteristics and the cold welding process, aligning with the broader discussion of material behavior under vacuum.

I'm not equipped to judge the accuracy or inaccuracy of the claims in the added paragraph. A quick Google search, though, seems to show that indeed there is and was no "Journal of Experimental Metallurgy". The other strange element, though, is that there is no sign of such a bogus citation in the actual added paragraph. There are two <ref> tags in it, but they both point to old, already-existing references containing presumably-sound citations, which don't cite anything with a name like "Journal of Experimental Metallurgy". (However they may not support the claims in the new paragraph: I don't know.) Just in case the remark in the edit summary was actually meant to be a complaint about a citation which someone else had previously added to the article, I went back and checked, and there does not seem to be any mention of a "Journal of Experimental Metallurgy" in any version of Cold welding since at least 2018.

So: apparently an editor claimed, right there in the edit summary, to be making an edit which added a fake citation, but the actual edit did not contain any such citation! (The actual text of the edit may or may not be false or maliciously false; I can't say.) Naturally I did revert the edit. This seems to be the only edit on record for that IP.

I certainly don't know what was going on here. An unlikely accident? Someone's idea of a test of Wikipedia's reliability, or maybe an attempt to embarrass someone else relying on WP uncautiously? Some sort of sideways trolling attempt? What would worry me at the moment, though, is the possibility that this edit was made by an LLM bot following a prompt (maybe fed to it by a script or another LLM) which told it to add plausible but false and/or uncited claims to Wikipedia, and this time the bot just happened to give away its "intention" in its edit summary. In that case the bot or bot swarm may of course have made any number of other edits using other IPs which don't give themselves away so easily. RW Dutton (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

That is strange. Good revert. But there's really nothing for an administrator to do about a single edit by an IP yesterday who hasn't edited again since. And there are no other articles citing "Journal of Experimental Metallurgy". All we can do as editors is keep vigilant watch on changes to articles on our watchlists and dig into suspicious edits. Schazjmd (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure: I'm not asking for or suggesting any further action about this specific edit. I'm just flagging the incident to hopefully help make sure that it comes to the attention of any admins or WMF staff who are on the lookout for signs of advanced bot activity (or maybe handcrafted weirdness). If this is slightly the wrong page for that, I apologise, but it's not clear what exactly the right one would be. RW Dutton (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

It sure does looks like an LLM-generated edit. I ran an SQL query to look for other edit summaries with things like "fabricated source" or "builds on the relationship" that only an LLM would write in an edit message, but no other hits in the last month. Might be an isolated attempt. Mlkj (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:CIR, WP:BATTLEGROUND and blatant tampering of sources

202.57.44.130 (talk · contribs) has been mass reverted for repeated reasons such as this probable WP:UNDUE and WP:SOAPBOX and lying on their sources and edit summary (See [25], [26], [27] [28] [29] and [30] (repeated in multiple summaries regarding entries to the 2024 Metro Manila Film Festival) and making multiple canned WP:UNCIVIL statements to scare off users trying to rv them [31]. I also have reason to suspect that a COI may also be possible. Borgenland (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I haven't looked into their use of sources but I posted them a warning message about threatening to get other editors blocked if they edit certain articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

They have been deliberately mislabelling urls from LionhearTV, a local blog that is on the verge of being declared unreliable, as coming from WP:RAPPLER. See Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Sources#RfC: LionhearTV for further info. Borgenland (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Basile Morin, Arionstar and FPC

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

---

I was going to let this go as there has been no recent (within the past two days) hounding, until a comment by Basile Morin (talk · contribs) led me straight here.

Since at least January 3, I have seen a general pattern of Wikihounding on the FPC board involving accusations that ArionStar (talk · contribs) has engaged in sockpuppetry on Wikimedia Commons, something I find only of minimal relevance with FPCs. I have counted at least three times where a user (Charlesjsharp (talk · contribs)) has copy-and-pasted the following message on a nomination ArionStar has started:

• Comment I notify other voters that the nominator has been banned on Commons and has been insulting on this page towards another user. (at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Popeye, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hajji and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jimmy Carter 2)

Not only is this failing to focus on content, it's also completely irrelevant to a process involving images. It's sort of like telling people to oppose an FAC because they haven't given good reviews. I would have left this here, until another user (Basile Morin), who has also engaged in Wikihounding, decided to directly attack me and ArionStar instead of constructively responding to my concerns. What really damns me is this comment, in full. I was struck with the flu, so was unable to respond, but I think I'll just bring it directly here, seeing how this isn't the first time this has happened:

There is no "target" as you imagine, and each of us would like to be able to calmly evaluate new quality nominations as we are supposed to see in this section. Rather than being asphyxiated by an avalanche of weak candidates, all precipitated by the uncontrolled frenzy of a hyper-impulsive participant. Furthermore, no user is obliged to come and provoke conflicts via illegitimate puppets, and even less so if you don't want us to be interested in you. You are "kinda new to the whole FPC process", EF5, according to your own words. Your account has been renamed at least three times in the space of a few months (User:Sir MemeGod, User:WxTrinity, User:MemeGod27...), and you also use alternative accounts. Some of your recent nominations are orphans and you're probably not the "author" of the photos on which you yourself are the subject. Above, you wrongly mention a "retaliatory opposing" when if that had been Charles' intention, he could have voted "oppose per JayCubby" to bring down this nomination even faster. But Charlesjsharp is usually an excellent reviewer, also a photographer and nominator, regular on WP:FPC and COM:FPC, with more than 530 images promoted on Commons and 303 on Wikipedia. I think the idea he expresses is mainly a serious fed-up feeling, to see, once again, a deluge of nominations coming from the same overexcited account. The fact is that ArionStar is here only because he was banned from Commons, unfortunately that is the sad reality. However, the goal is not to repeat here the same mistakes as those made there. Note also that, just after being asked to calm down, ArionStar turns a deaf ear and reiterates, as if he were absolutely seeking his sanction. Obtuse insistence is bound to annoy even the calmest and most patient people. It is obvious that if you want to progress and maintain good relationships with others, you must first be able to become aware of your mistakes, and the reasons for your failures. There is no hunt against ArionStar, but no "special indulgence" either. In my opinion, Charles has mainly tried a kind of moderately subtle "subliminal message" aimed at the participant himself, who would do better to listen once and for all to the good advice, rather than ignoring it and making fun of others. This generous advice has been offered countless times, well before he was banned. Kind regards -- Basile Morin

I mean, what kind of comment is this? Whatever it is, it needs to stop. "Your account has been renamed at least three times in the space of a few months" is just cherry-picking things I've done, with no actual regard to relevance. I really don't think a "talk" is going to do much here (which I've already tried), so I'm bringing it here. — E_F⁵ 17:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

If Charles and Basile don't commit to cutting it out, I think one way IBANs are definitely in order here. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

(ec) EF5, this is a confusing report to try to sort out although Voorts seems to be able to follow things here. Are you the only commenter here or is some of this content from another editor who didn't leave their signature? If this entire complaint is all from you can you identify, in one sentence, which editor you are complaining about (since several are mentioned here), whether or not you have notified them of this report and what exactly your "charge" is against them? Again, give the heart of your complaint in ONE sentence although you may include diffs. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I am the only filer. E_F⁵ 18:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: As I understand the report, and from looking at the diffs, Charles and Basile are opposing Arionstar's FPCs solely on the basis that Arion is socking/engaging in harassment/vandalism at Commons. Basile and Charles have both been around for a long time and should know better. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, voorts, for the summation. I am completely ignorant of what is going on at the Commons. It's enough for me to keep up with what's happening on this Wikimedia project of which I only barely succeed at, much less know who is socking or who is blocked on other projects. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

"and Basile are opposing Arionstar's FPCs solely on the basis that" => No, we did not vote here. -- Basile Morin (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The intent was clearly to cast aspersions on the entire nomination, even if you didn't use a bolded oppose. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Arionstar was indeed indeffed on Commons and has socked there, creating some bad blood among some FPC regulars. For better or worse, however, we regard the projects as independent. In fact, demonstrating constructive behavior on a different project is often a good strategy to appeal a block. As Arionstar continued socking at Commons, I don't think that's the goal, but the point stands that anyone who wishes to see Arionstar sanctioned here would need to open a thread on this board with diffs showing bad behavior here (or, at minimum, bad behavior elsewhere that's directly connected to conflicts here, such as harassing a user on Commons because of a dispute here). Absent consensus otherwise, Arionstar is AFAIK in good standing on enwp.

Doesn't mean anyone's obliged to support his nominations, of course, and I don't blame the Commons regulars from not doing so. The only problem would be an opposition here solely due to behavior there, which (as much as I'm critical of enwp's FPC criteria) is probably not a valid reason for opposition. That said, I don't see that anyone has done that? At Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Popeye, Charles posted a comment and did not vote. Basile opposed, but provided clear reasons why, which didn't center on behavioral issues. Just not sure what there is to do here. Maybe this bit of advice will suffice: (a) Arionstar, whether you're doing it as a peace offering or to needle someone, it would be a good idea not to nominate photos taken by people you've been in conflict with on Commons FWIW. If your goal is to eventually be unblocked on Commons, constructive contributions here can help, but you'll have to stop socking over there of course. (b) Basile/Charles, enwp FPC folks probably know, at this point, that Arionstar was blocked on Commons. It's probably safe to keep his noms focused on content at this point unless you want to open a thread here with evidence of behavioral problems on enwp. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The isssue with it, and it is something that has been brushed off prior after I brought it up, is that these "comments" make it sound like you should oppose the nomination because of the nominator's off-wiki socking, which is WP:ADVOCACY against him, at least in my opinion. The comments are completely unnecessary, too. E_F⁵ 18:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm learning from my mistakes and unilaterally made peace with Basile. The FP guidelines here are different but I'm understanding them day after day. ArionStar (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

ArionStar's disruptions

(First, to take into account at the origin of this report by EF5, an annoyance perhaps caused to this user because of the failure of this nomination: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pilger twin tornadoes.)

Now, concerning ArionStar:

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

See:

1. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Buddha of Ibiraçu
2. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kaaba 2 (now delisted and replaced)
3. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tokyo Skytree (clear attack against me)

My talk page also was "attacked" with some rather inappropriate puns on my first name (2, 3, 4, 5, 6).

WP:HARASS. These edits were reverted by User:RodRabelo7, with a warning in Portuguese language left to the user (translation here), before being restored by ArionStar as if my talk page was a battleground.

More worrying, A few days ago the same person used sockpuppets to pollute my account on Commons:

1. Sockpuppetry 1
2. Sockpuppetry 2.

Exhausting. There have been a lot of lies by this same person, on Commons. Best regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Regarding me being “mad about my failed nom”, that is casting serious WP:ASPERSIONS. I engaged because I saw what looked like uncivil behavior, not because one of my nominations failed. E_F⁵ 19:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your subjective opinion. I don't accuse you of misconduct here, just optionally indicate this trigger in context, perhaps, as a guess, and in parentheses. -- Basile Morin (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Basile Morin: I recommend striking your comment about EF5. There is no indication that this AN/I report is retaliatory. In all 3 of the FPC links above, you started it, not ArionStar, who rightfully dismissed your comments in those discussions. ArionStar's conduct at Commons is not a valid reason to oppose an FPC and your continued posting of the same thing at every FPC has been disruptive. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Here's my rational vote. Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Basile Morin, I strongly suggest striking your comment about EF5, as it's casting aspersions which is not on. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. Last time I felt "forced" to cross out my comment, it later turned out that my first impression was the right one. I am fortunate to have sharp skills in psychology, nevertheless I admit that everyone is fallible, including me, and that it is possible that I am wrong on this one. I hope not to offend anyone and that this parenthetical introduction does not distort the (essential) substance. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:WIKILAWYERING about "last time" doesn't help your case when you are casting aspersions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your links. I will try to read these two "essays" in peace and quiet, as well as this "information page". I already wrote a friendly message below. All the best -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Basile Morin, it's hard for me to see that friendly exchange on your talk page as an "attack", it looks to me like they were trying to make peace. But if you don't want them posting on your User talk page just make that request. As for what happens on the Commons, you'll have to contact admins on that project because we have no jurisdiction on there. If you suspect sockpuppetry on the English Wikipedia, do not make comments in unrelated discussions, just file a case at WP:SPI. But we don't want battleground behavior from the Commons coming on to this project, that could end poorly for a number of editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

"Attacks, attacks, he attacked"… I'll keep my silence because I try… (It's sad to see when someone "loses the line" after a "ceasefire request")

P.S.: "[…] annoyance perhaps caused to this user because of the failure of this nomination"… kkkkkkk (laughs in Brazilian Portuguese). ArionStar (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

ArionStar, I think it would benefit all editors, including you, to let this feuding die and go out of your way not to provoke each other. Focus on the work. I would be happy to not see a future complaint on ANI about any of you guys but that takes effort on everyone's part to let the past go. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree Thanks. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

On reflection Thank you. I would like to apologize to user EF5 if I may have made one or more errors of judgment regarding them. I do not know this user very well, and having noticed that they often change their name, use multiple accounts, and edit other users' personal pages, I may have indeed become too defensive. Since they are apparently very young in their photos, I may have made some wrong assumptions of behavior. It may also be the fatigue generated by the long repetitive puppet hunts on the other friend project. So all the better if this person (EF5) is reliable and well-intentioned. I don't blame them for anything, and I'm rather looking forward to getting back to my usual activities.

I agree with Rhododendrites' suggestion and thank him for his effort to calm things down: "(a) Arionstar, whether you're doing it as a peace offering or to needle someone, it would be a good idea not to nominate photos taken by people you've been in conflict with on Commons FWIW. If your goal is to eventually be unblocked on Commons, constructive contributions here can help, but you'll have to stop socking over there of course. (b) Basile/Charles, enwp FPC folks probably know, at this point, that Arionstar was blocked on Commons. It's probably safe to keep his noms focused on content at this point unless you want to open a thread here with evidence of behavioral problems on enwp." I understand that my approach was not the most tactful, sorry. I can nevertheless prove that the approach was 100% healthy and intended to help Wikipedia.

I have absolutely no problem with ArionStar contributing constructively to the development of the encyclopedia (if that is really his intention). However, I would also like to draw attention to the fact that this wise warning from another user is in my humble opinion far from being "vandalism" as the other imagines. This is perhaps a most important point. The last thing I claim is the need for ArionStar to immediately and permanently stop using unproductive puppets. Neither elsewhere nor here. See WP:BADSOCK "Good hand" and "bad hand" accounts.

I noticed that after self-imposing a "wikibreak" they reverted another user to my own talk page, thus adding to the annoying noise. I would therefore be grateful if ArionStar would never again try to get in touch through this channel. I need peace and concentration.

Finally, I am happy, personally, to make an effort of discretion. I have accepted the criticisms that have been addressed to me, and sincerely consider them constructive. Thank you to each and every one of you. I wish you all fruitful research and rich contributions on Wikipedia. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

In addition, I'll ignore any report about me coming from you here on Wikipedia. ArionStar (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Edit warring at Aubrey Plaza

• Aubrey Plaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Religião, Política e Futebol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Religião, Política e Futebol and ZanderAlbatraz1145 have both been edit warring at Aubrey Plaza over different pieces of information that they wish to add. This complaint is not about the content directly, but there are BIO concerns mixed in, as well as of course collaboration.

Through edit reasons (Zander) and both edit reasons and a user warning (Religião), it was made clear to the users by others and myself that their content additions at least required discussion. Zander has continued warring without so much as supplying an edit summary. Religião continued doing so with summaries that lacked reason, explanation or understanding of their edits and behaviour, including after a formal warning that they ignored. I elevate this to ANI due to the evidence that neither user will be collaborative in their editing; both edit war until they get their way; and due to the article in question being one of the most-viewed on Wikipedia this year. Kingsif (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have diffs to serve as evidence? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I am currently in a place that’s so IP Proxy blocked I can’t edit over WiFi even when logged in, it’s a one-section-at-a-time deal over cell data at the moment. That being said, the edit history is simple enough to follow IMO, and the article has had a BLP-contentious tag for weeks. Kingsif (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

It does seem to me like way too much info on non-notable family members is being added e.g. [32] Nil Einne (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems like edit-warring involves more than these two editors. I think the page history is more complicated than you make it out to be. And diffs would help editors evaluate the situation. You probably should have waited to post this until you could have provided them in your complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Although I understand differences of opinion on this issue, I think we should try to put it in perspective. If her husband had been murdered, I don't think we'd be having this discussion because it is very relevant to Plaza's life. In my opinion, the same is true of his suicide. I think we can safely say that this is not an unimportant detail that has little relevance to her life. In any event, such discussion belongs at Talk:Aubrey Plaza, not here. Sundayclose (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by IP 27.125.159.200 on spaceflight related pages.

List of Super heavy boosters vandalism:

[33] Removing the water landings regarding the Flight 4 and 6 boosters from the table.

[34] Removing the failed landing attempts of the Flight 2 and 3 boosters, marking them as expended while also breaking the template

[35] Demonstrating ability to repair the templates broken, does not do so

[36] Breaking another template

[37] Breaking another template

[38] Attempting to treat a broken template as a link

[39] Further attempts to use a template as a link

[40] Outright deleting the broken templates (that they knew how to fix)

[41] Finally restoring the broken templates

List of Starship vehicles vandalism:

[42] Marking flight 3 vehicle as expended, with no landing attempt for flight 3 and 4. This is false: flight 3 attempted to reenter, flight 4 landed. Also breaks a template

[43]Repairs template, marks flight 6 and 7 as having not attempted a landing

List of Starship launches:

[44] Marks flight 2 booster as having not made a landing attempt

[45] Marks flight 3, 4, and 6 vehicles as having not attempted a landing, as well as flight 5 ship

[46] Attempts to insert a template where a template cannot go

[47] Reverts previous edit

List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches vandalism:

[48] Adds claim of booster being expended without adding a source

[49] Expands upon previous edit. Does not add a source

They have been warned before to cease their vandalism. [50] All of the above edits were done after this warning. Redacted II (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Redacted II, have you tried to communicate with them before coming to ANI? That's typically the first step and ANI is the last step if other forms of reaching out haven't worked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

They've been warned before by another user, and the damage to the affected articles was rather severe.

Another warning would not disuade future vandalism/disruptive editing. Redacted II (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Death threats by 2.98.176.93

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

---

2.98.176.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Left a death threat here - diff
Adakiko (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: 30 day block by Bbb23 (talk · contribs) Adakiko (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Death threat left after block. Talk page access? Adakiko (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• TPA removed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I can't find the right User talk template here. Any patrolling admin that can provide a link? Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I think {{Blocked talk-revoked-notice}} is the one you want? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

It would be nice if they had a cheat sheet for the templates admins need to post when blocking somewhere. I suppose it’s something the foundation could look into, but I don’t trust them. 2600:1011:B331:28FE:1036:B7B1:4292:C997 (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

If you use Twinkle, you can select 'block with talk page access revoked' and it'll select the proper template. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I can't believe that. I use Twinkle all day long and I never saw that option. There are always things to learn here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Exactly, The Bushranger, thank you very much. I have the hardest time locating the right template regarding admin work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

No problem! I've had to dig to find the right template a few times myself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Templates are a convenience but not at all necessary. It does not take long to type "Your talk page access has been revoked. See WP:UTRS for your options." Cullen328 (talk) 05:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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

User:222.127.220.160 continuously adding incorrect data

222.127.220.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I took a look at their contributions, and despite some appearing helpful, most of them included changing the wind speed of tropical cyclones to incorrect estimates. The user has been warned this month by someone else, but seems to keep changing data regardless. I wasn't sure where to report this since it didn't look like vandalism, so I thought here might be the best place. —JCMLuis 💬 04:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Your first step, JCMLuis, before coming to WP:ANI is to communicate with the other editor. Have you tried that? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

No, and I don't think it would have done anything since there was no reply to the warning given to the editor. —JCMLuis 💬 04:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

That is not the right approach. In general, it is necessary for editors to make an effort to post meaningful text without a template. That might not affect the editor but it shows the rest of us that an attempt to communicate has occurred, and that allows admins to more readily block. At any rate, the IP was making dozens of fast edits and I have blocked them for 24 hours and left a message at their talk. Johnuniq (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Repeated copyvios by Manannan67

• Manannan67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Manannan67 has several copyright violation warnings on their talk page (2020, 2020, a "final warning" in 2021 from Moneytrees, 2023, 2023), most recently from me, when I discovered a copyright violation they placed on Mariana de Jesús Torres. The message does not appear to be getting through, although the user did remove one early warning from the talk page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

The first instance cited (Fritz Mayer) was not removed, but archived. The second instance listed is either redundant or a reference to Anglo-Saxon mission which as the discussion indicates was not copyvio but PD. As to 2023, I used three separate sources still cited in the references. As it happened they were each discussing information in a primary source, consequently it reflected the primary source. I am not familiar with the "Portraits of the Saints" website you mentioned and don't know from where they derived their information, but I believe the two sentences with which you took issue are from the entry at Spanish Wikipedia. Admittedly, I should have cited ES, but was intending to translate the rest before I rapidly lost interest in loony apocalyptic predictions. Manannan67 (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

See the diff linked above; you rather unambiguously added infringing text to Mariana de Jesús Torres. This instance does not involve es-wiki that I can see. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

It does not show up. This fr ES "During his first term as an abbess, she suffered persecution from a group of rebel nuns who wanted to relax the Rule within the convent. The rebellion grew and the sisters who were considered unobservants put them in the prison of the Convent, along with the other Spanish Founder Mothers." Manannan67 (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

That's not the sentence you added in the revision I noted. That revision has been deleted due to the infringing text added by you. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

2409:40D4:2041:20BA:8000:0:0:0

This IP, User:2409:40D4:2041:20BA:8000:0:0:0 keeps changing ordinals in similar pages (Colombian presidents). Pleasse block this IP immediately otherwise this IP will continually change the ordinals again. (Note: Already reported on WP:AIV) Migfab008 (talk) 08:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Note that this ISP, Reliance Jio, assigns IPv6 addresses over an extremely large range and so this user is likely to IP hop.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Naniwoofg

Naniwoofg (talk · contribs) has been the subject of a complaint at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#User:Naniwoofg for issues involving images and WP:IDNHT. Finally posting this here so some sort of action could be taken per the comments at the aforementioned section. Note that said complaint includes refusal to respond to warnings and related stuff. Borgenland (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Okvishal and years of self promotion

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

---

@Okvishal: has been an editor for 14 years. They have 138 edits but only 11 of them are non-deleted ones and those non deleted ones are also for self promotion or promotion of their feature film[51][52][53][54][55]. A look at their talkpage shows the sheer scale of self promotional editing they have done over the course of their wikicareer. Right after joining they created an autobiography which was speedy deleted[56], they recreated the article under a different title and it was deleted (speedy) as well. Over the course of 14 years, they have recreated their article and those of related topics several times all leading to waste of community time through AfDs as Vishal Raj,Dream Lock,Nikkesha, and most recently at Vishal Raaj. It is clear that they are not (and never were) here to build an encyclopaedia. Consider blocking them and WP:SALTing Vishal Raj,Vishal Raaj,Raj Vishal etc. Nxcrypto Message 12:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked them as it's clear they're only here to promote their non-notable self. Canterbury Tail talk 22:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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

109.173.147.169

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

---

This user, 109.173.147.169, keeps persistently vandalising pages, even after they've been given a fourth and final warning. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 12:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

This belongs at WP:AIV if it is unambiguous vandalism. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 12:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

User has already been reported there, but thanks for the reminder anyway. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 82.42.205.209

82.42.205.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings and continued after final warning. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Azhar Morgan

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

---

Azhar Morgan has been mass reverting IP editors and issuing final vandalism warnings. Some of the edits reverted are good like this grammar mistake or reversion of this addition. In addition this user's first edits appear to be vandalism: [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62]. Could an admin look at this? Maria Gemmi (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

They also reverted a report on them here. Maria Gemmi (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Cherkash mass-spreading of anti-Ukrainian content (related to Wikipedia:Neutral point of viewWikipedia:Categories_for_discussion, maybe more)

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

The aforementioned user produces, edits and intefreres with multiple pages spreading anti-Ukrainian content, inapprpriate and hateful content towards the territorial integrity of Ukraine in favour of the aggressor (see Russo-Ukrainian_War#Background, United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/4).

The most notable is the mass-spread of the maps that contain Crimean peninsula painted as a part of Russian Federation, which I have noticed a long time ago on the Formula_one pages and even had raised the issue here (old link), with no visible actions following.

Two most notable maps are as follows: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Formula_1_all_over_the_world-2025.svg, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Formula_One_World_Championship_races_by_host_country.svg

They are extensively used on many pages, thus warping both the neutrality and the internetionally appropriate viewpoints.

Other examples can be seen from commons:Special:Contributions/Cherkash, such as spreading maps that violate the Ukrainian integrity under new category and removing the old one: example 1, example 2

The actions of the user go against the decisions of the UN International reactions to the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262, United Nations General Assembly resolution A/73/L.47, United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/4.

I shall propose to intervene from the administration level to resolve the issue and remove the hateful content. Unas964 (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that this is hateful rather than, say, accidental or ignorant? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

This is not accidental, it's purely deliberate. For instance, you can look through the User talk page, e.g. about normalising separatist states, and refer to the prior talks about other people struggling to correct the issue Crimea in the corresponding topic.

I see as well multiple tries to justify the depiction of Crimea as non-Ukrainian via de facto statuses by merging the topic with Taiwan, often replicated by other contributors, which I cannot even comment on. Unas964 (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Here is a link to the last time this was raised here. [63]

The short form: there appears to be a dispute between use of de-facto or de-jure borders. That is why Taiwan comes up. Some editors appear to believe that it is more neutral to either use de facto borders (Taiwan independent, Crimea not part of Ukraine) rather than de jure borders (Taiwan = China, Crimea = Ukraine).

I would suggest, whether de facto or de jurw borders are used the map should be consistent in that usage. I would also suggest that Unas964 (talk · contribs) should adhere to WP:AGF while Cherkash (talk · contribs) needs to start communicating with other editors at least minimally, which will likely ease such assumptions regarding their editing.Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

In any case, what's the alleged misbehaviour here? We can't stop an editor uploading images on commons, nor can we do anything about what is in their categories. We can prevent these images being used in our articles but is the editor actually the one putting them in our articles? Nil Einne (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Hamzajanah posting vanity hoaxes and general NOTHERE behaviour

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

---

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

I'm really struggling with this new user. They have posted Draft:Hamza JanaH and Draft:Hamza janaH both autobiographies and both contained multiple hoaxes. They are continually using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX and violating WP:NOTWEBHOST too. They are constantly boasting about their wealth, see this diff for example. They claim to be a close associate of William J. Burns (diplomat), Christopher A. Wray and Bob Ferguson (politician). They are also misusing their own talk page. I have not seen one constructive edit and their filter log is one of the worst I've seen and also warns us of "persistent sockpuppetry". This is bordering on WP:NOTHERE already. Their ability to navigate Wikipedia suggests that they might have had previous accounts and might even be an LTA vandal but I can't think who it is. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

That filter is notoriously poor for detecting socks. I believe it was created with one sockmaster in mind, and yet based on how it functions (I'm not good at filters), comes up with many (mostly?) false positives.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter whether they have been socking or not. They are posting hoax content to Wikipedia, so should be blocked anyway. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

In one of their screeds they’ve embedded some serious BLP violations. For the sum of everything, with no hope of useful contributions, blocked. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that that's a fair outcome. Thanks all. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Edward Myer

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

Edward Myer was recently blocked for two weeks, for creating a sock account to retaliate against myself and another AfC reviewer whose reviews they didn't like. (The socking was just the tip of the iceberg, there's much more to this as their talk page shows.) That block expired a few days ago, and since then they're back on the war footing, complaining and insinuating here, there and everywhere; as well as posting similar stuff on the talk pages of UtherSRG, 28bytes and AmandaNP. I think this needs to stop; for one thing it's a time sink, and I for one really don't care for the belligerence. I don't think I should be the one to indef them, as I'm involved, but I'd be grateful if someone did. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• I am not involved except insofar as I have declined Draft:Bruse Wane, but I saw their behaviour towards others and it made me consider whether I would make a review, especially to decline. A less resilient reviewer might well have avoided it.

I confess that I am waiting for the invective, and I support DoubleGrazing's well measured request on that basis.

My view is for one final attempt in case they are educable. If they are not then 'final' should mean 'indefinite editing restrictions' 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

They have been WP:FORUMSHOPPING,[64] [65][66][67]. it seems like they simply dislike what many editors are saying. Previously blocked for sock activity. They also are also now actively editing a fork of the draft article over at User:Edward Myer/sandbox. Seems like they have been given plenty of changes to do the right thing. (talk) TiggerJay (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, the sandbox may have a better shot at acceptance! I aways believe in extending my good faith as far as possible. I have seen some remarkable turnarounds by doing so. Obviously there comes a point, but I am not wholly sure we are there yet. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the initiative in filing this ANI, DG; I was || this close to filing it myself. This user just doesn't get it. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I reported I'm being cyber bullied. by certain admin, and now my sandbox Is being targeted for deletion. Guess my point is proven. Edward Myer (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

The above post is a duplicate of that posted at Help Desk. Schazjmd (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Seems like a clear case of WP:NOTHERE and just wanting to push an article to mainspace and WP:IAR without even citing such. Sounds like a longer block may be necessary. TiggerJay (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Edward Myer, this is serious. Have you read over this complaint? Can you let this grudge go and go on to do some productive editing and let the past be the past? If you continue on this path, I don't see you editing on Wikipedia for the long term. This is a moment where you can choose to change your approach and turn around you time here as an editor. But it is up to your willingness to do so. Does that sound like something you can and want to do? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Before any action is taken, I have made a substantial offer of assistance to Edward Myer on their user talk page. I am no-one special to make the offer, and I would like us to take a little time to see if it can be effective before reaching any conclusion. I have had some success before with helping editors who are in pain here. The offer is in the spirit of my early post in this thread. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Please revoke TPA from JEIT BRANDS

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

---

• JEIT BRANDS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Talk page abuse, still spamming after block, please revoke TPA -Lemonaka 18:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Continual ECP-Violating Posts in WP:RUSUKR area by User_talk:Valentinianus_I

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

---

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

User:Valentinianus I is an editor with 80 edits as of the moment I'm writing this, the majority of edits made to WP:RUSUKR topics.

• As background, this editor was notified repeatedly by User:Mellk in August [68], and clarified [69]. Melik again notified Valentinianus a month later in response to more edits that were not exempt [70], [71].

• Valentinianus was blocked for a few weeks in October until User:Rosguill unblocked them after giving benefit of the doubt. I'm only bringing this up because Rosguill, during the unblock reference notified Valentinianus that they would "like you to confirm that you've read and understand Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War#Remedies by identifying edits that you have made in violation of it, and how you will observe it going forward."

• User:Isabelle Belato notified Valentinianus on 1/18 that they were making inappropriate edits in violation of RUSUKR and was violating WP:BATTLEGROUND as well [72]. Valentinianus replied that asking for a rename and calling for a subsequent rename vote were edit requests [73].

After that reply to Isabelle Belato (so that there is no question Valentinianus is aware of the latest warning), Valentinianus made five additional edits to Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine. None were remotely along the line of constructive edit requests, the problematic ones being to argue that a source is a "Ukrainian shill site" [74], a project complaint about the infobox [75], and WP:ASPERSIONS about the bad faith of the other editors on the talk page [76].

While in isolation, no individual edit is egregious, this editor has been warned several times about the limits of RUSUKR, and adding WP:BATTLEGROUNDS, WP:AGF [77], and WP:ASPERSIONS violations in this area to the number of WP:ECP violations, I believe an indefinite topic ban from WP:RUSUKR topics, broadly construed, is appropriate. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• I've just blocked them for a week instead. If they're ignoring the ECR restrictions, they'll just ignore a topic ban; that's because the reason they're ignoring the ECR restrictions is either WP:CIR or the fact that they don't care, and either would apply to a topic ban as well. Perhaps they'll get the message after this block, or perhaps they won't at which point we can look at further sanctions (which, let's face it, is likely to be an indef). Black Kite (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Just noting that the prior block before this was a sockpuppetry block, which I lifted as I found their explanation of how they came to make their edits plausible. The further editing since the unblock as outlined in the block actioned by Black Kite seems appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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

• Are we looking at the same editor, CoffeeCrumbs? Rosguill never unblocked this editor but Beeblebrox did back in December. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

There's a few comments here that seem muldly disconnected from exactly what happened previous to this, but probably not to the point whee it changes the math on this latest block. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 02:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It appears I was unclear. I was quoting Rosguill's reminder about RUSUKR in the conversation about a possible unblock [78]. My point wasn't about the block itself, but that the editor received an additional warning about their edits in that area. I missed including that specific diff. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

[79] CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

User talk page access, Wiseguy012

Blocked user WiseGuy012 is using their talk page only for the purpose of continuing the rant that they got blocked for at Talk:Tagine and that they continued there as a sock account, Friend0113, which is also now blocked. See [80]. Revoke user talk page access? Largoplazo (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Largoplazo,

There is no User:WiseGuy012 account. Did you mean someone else? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Wiseguy012, lower g. CMD (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks CMD. They are just ranting to themselves, not attacking anyone. An admin might come by, review this complaint and remove TPA but I don't find it egregious enough to act. Typically blocked editors can act like this right after they discover they've been blocked but then they move on and leave Wikipedia or they start creating sockpuppets and that's a bigger problem than a talk page rant. Too soon to tell right now. But it doesn't seem ANI-worthy to me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The things some people decide to get mad about.... What they posted on the talk page was a copyright violation in its entirety, so that's gone, and I've warned them for that and let them know further disruption of any kind will cause them to lose talk page access. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 01:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about the G, and thanks for the guidance about the talk page access. Largoplazo (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Still misuse of talk page for spamming. -Lemonaka 07:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

That content was posted hours ago and was similar to what was reported here in the complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Caste-based disruption

HistorianAlferedo has engaged in contentious WP:BATTLEGROUND style editing in the WP:CASTE related sanctioned topic area for quite sometime now. The user being repeatedly warned and clearly aware of these sanctions (evident from the removal of warning notices on their talk page) shows no signs of desisting. The editing pattern follows a faux concern of caste promotion by removing genuine well-sourced and known information all the while engaging in Rajput POV in multiple articles. That the editor isn't new is also evident from the fact that they can handedly cite obscure policies such as WP:RAJ (of course incorrectly and disingenously). Lisiting some particuarly egregious edits:

• [81], [82], [83], [84]: deliberate insertion of incorrect wikilinks and false removals to obscure that the empresses were Rajput princesses
• [85]: clearly falsifying an acronym (note the insertion of a dubious reference which nonetheless has nothing to do with the article subject)
• [86], [87], [88], [89], [90]: POV caste-based insertions
• [91], [92]: POV caste-based removals

This only a fraction of the tendentious edits in the user's topic warrior style editing related to Indian history and social groups. Not to mention the insertion of multiple non-RS refs when it suits the preferred POV while claiming to remove them in other articles. Considering the history, ediitng restrictions should follow in the form of a WP:CASTE t-ban or a general one till the user can show that they are not going to be in violation of enwiki policies anymore (all the more necessary considering the IP socking [93], [94]). Bringing this to ANI on advice of the editor themselves: [95]. Gotitbro (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

On-wiki hounding, off-wiki soliciting, and severe stalking by User:SerChevalerie

I wanted to let go this and move on, but considering my uncertain future with SerChevalerie, I had to take this to ANI.

To give a little background of the editing behavioural problems with the above mentioned editor, it started around late June 2024 when I made this edit [96]. This was followed by his immediate reverts and significant edits [97] [98]. I had no problem with this, as this article was something wherein a third party editor had requested to expand it in a local Wikipedia WhatsApp group we were part of.

Both me and SerChevalerie were part of this WhatsApp group of Wikipedians from Goa. Having known each other online for over two years, and we shared the same native state. The problems arrived when he got back active on Wikipedia after a break of roughly 4 years and went on serious stalking my edits, the page I contributed, but mainly the pages that I created. As am In WP:Inclusionist and I love creating articles, but this was something he went overly critical on.

From June to August 2024, most of the edits SerChevalerie made were pertaining to the articles that I significantly worked on or created. During this, I was much subject to WP:HOUNDING on major of the articles I created such as Tsumyoki, you can check the lengthy talk page discussion we had [99] as SerChevalerie would just WP:BLUDGEON, arguing by citing essays like WP: 10YEARTEST instead of finding a resolution or just WP:DTS. It was until I finally took the decision to take it to WP:3O we reached a consensus after several days of discussion.

Over the course of some 30 articles that I created from June to August 2024, SerChevalerie has made edits which often times were seen as annoying and major stalking behaviour. He also likes to stay at the "top of the order" constantly as you can on articles such as Julião Menezes as per his latest "copyedit". During this period of two months almost entirely of his edits he has made were only pertaining to my articles.

When I had nominated his article Goa Revolution Day for SD, he then tried to solicit and I felt harrassed after he took his arguments to WhatsApp. Even after saying I don't want to discus this off-wiki he forced it upon me by confronting me in a group of 200-250 Wikipedians and having his arguments posted there. This is the same whatsapp group we were part of. And I have the relevant evidence with me.

SerChevalerie also has undisclosed COI with articles such creating and editing his grandfather's article significantly Gerald Pereira and a suspected COI paid editing on article like Subodh Kerkar. I have relevant evidence to support this claim. You can also check the latter's talk page where he claims that he "recreated" entirely on the article after it had some issues when it was created, see [100]

He also seems to want a Wikipedia article on himself by using his connections and other Wikipedians to help him feature on the news (or possibly paid news) see here (Redacted). I find this featured article on him rather suspicious as it was published when SerChevalerie barely returned back to editing after 4 years.

When I had to quit Wikipedia for over 4 months due to my poor mental health because of him, he too wasn't very active on Wikipedia as he noticed I wasn't active anymore. You can check his edit history around the months of October and November [101] this made me realise me might have WP:OCD relating to my presence on Wikipedia itself. When I returned back to editing in early January this year, I made my first edit on the article J. C. Almeida. The next day he tries to repeat the same behaviour of stalking me and "staying on top" of the page. See [102]. Please note that he didn't have any editing history on this page untill I edited it.

I still feel constantly watched by this editor everytime I am on Wikipedia. I want to propose to the community for a block on SerChevalerie or having placed WP:Sanctions on articles that I create so that he stops this behaviour. He also knows my real name and I don't want to get WP:Outed or doxxed by him as we both are from Goa, India. I'm afraid he might just get my residence address and does any harm. I just want to get rid of this issue and move on. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 11:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I haven't looked at everything, and especially not the off-wiki claims, but I get the impression the behavior issues may not be as one-sided as presented.

"During this, I was much subject to WP:HOUNDING on major of the articles I created such as Tsumyoki, you can check the lengthy talk page discussion we had [103] as SerChevalerie would just WP:BLUDGEON, arguing by citing essays like WP: 10YEARTEST instead of finding a resolution or just WP:DTS."

In this talk page you're both volleying policy pages, essays, and vague accusations at each other, but the concerns SerChevalerie raised about this article were not unfounded. It starts from something reasonable, and you both escalate at lightning speed.

If I look at your interactions, I'm not sure I see the story of one-sided WP:HOUNDING. You both edit similar pages and regularly get into arguments.

I don't see you trying to disengage with this user either, you've served him three different level 1 warning templates, now you're escalating to ANI with more inflammatory statements. If you're seriously worried about physical harm, please disregard this and rush to Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm, but at least in the diffs you've linked, I don't see much credible threat of physical harm. Mlkj (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)