The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have not been successful at communicating with ATG. Today ATG sent two articles that I started to AfD. In one AfD-related situation, [[1]] ATG has been edit warring the article to favor deletion, even threatening me with ANI if I add that this guitar player has been sponsored by PRS Guitars. I have tried to discuss with ATG but they just go about refactoring the article to favor deletion - tagging, erasing, and reverting - just now, ATG stubbed the article. A talk page discussion with ATG did occur but it did not find resolution. I also see now that this topic was canvassed at WPO and that seems to be a recurring problem. Because I am involved with the "Did You Know" section, I was aware of the ATG/DYK discussions of last month; I observed that when ATG thinks they are right they can be very hostile. I think ATG referred to us all as "idiots". So I guess I am here to say that this all feels lousy for this editor. I understand that articles get deleted, and editors can disagree: today is making me wish for serenity now! Lightburst (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Did he say anything that wasn't civil? If so, do you have a diff? If you want a third opinion for a content dispute, this is not the correct venue. 107.116.165.98 (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
A one-off likely identity-evading IP doesn't get to police a veteran editor on what is or isn't a proper venue. The target is a well-known uncivil editor and frequent flier to this board, which is the proper venue. Zaathras (talk) 04:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Regardless of Andy's previous behavior, this appears to indeed be a mostly content-related dispute. Both users have made comments that might not be the most elegant (Andy talking about removing your blatantly promotional crap from articles and Lightburst saying You need to get a grip), but nothing really breaching the barrier of civility either. I wouldn't say removing primary-sourced claims of awards really counts as "editing to favor deletion" rather than standard cleanup, and I really don't see this point really deserving to be at ANI. The WPO issue might be a little bit more concerning, but Andy doesn't appear to have been the one to bring it up (as far as I can see, he was only replying to another user by the name of Phantom), so I don't think it's fair to blame Andy for the canvassing. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 04:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Since we are treating WPO as a sister project, ATG said, "Lightburst is an imbecile." "The imbecility continues." and here is the canvassing..."Bent's Camp Resort Another masterpiece by Lightburst" (he promptly sent it to AfD) and more canvassing by ATG "I've started an AfD on Robertson. As noted above". Lightburst (talk) 04:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
WPO is the traffic cop that monitors bad driving on a site that pays precious little attention to driving skill but wants everyone hopping behind the wheel to feel happy and actualized regardless of the highway mayhem. Carrite (talk) 05:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I wanna do one too! WPO is a bar near a corporate campus where employees, ex-employees, and other interested parties socialize. There's shop talk, carpentry talk, garden talk, bears-in-trashcan talk, and more. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, if every discussion in that bar was transcribed, posted online, and searchable on Google. If they were, people wouldn't openly talk shit about their co-workers in that bar (or publicize names and photos of their co-worker's families and so on). Levivich (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, much of the names/photos aren't indexed by google (I don't know the actual amount, but I'm under the impression that almost all of the doxing/dox-light material isn't indexed), and if you've been watching the forum I'm sure you've seen the significant pushback against such activity. I guess we could all just read it clandestinely and have all of the same information published there by the same parties that are already not beholden to en.wiki policies?
I agree that some of the contributions cross the line, and when I see that I make a fuss. The other option of the same information being published but without any pushback or fuss doesn't seem like an improvement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I didn't see significant pushback to this activity, almost none. I saw more people joining in as this thread and that one progressed. It was pretty ugly. But let's keep going with the whole after-work bar analogy. The public WPO forums (not to be confused with the private forums or the blog) are like an after-work bar that's livestreamed 24/7 and transcribed and the transcription is searchable on the bar's website. And on this livestream, "Billy" (not his real name) is caught calling his coworker "Joey" (not his real name) a bunch of names (none his real name). So Joey complains about it to HR, and then in the middle of the HR hearing, a bunch of regulars from the bar bust in and start calling for no punishment against fellow bar regular Billy, and instead for Joey to be fired, because it happened at the bar and that's not on company property or during company time. Any real HR would tell the bar regulars to get the f* out and what the hell are they thinking even getting involved in this?! But Wikipedia doesn't have a real HR. In fact, on Wikipedia, a bunch of the bar regulars are from HR. Levivich (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, it really is a pickle. The open source discipline issue means that at any HR hearing any number of people can smash in and and cause a ruckus, but I think in this particular case the numbers don't bear out an actual effect from the bar patrons versus the other employees shouting. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
The real pickle is that this bar has two rooms, and only one of them is livestreamed, so maybe you could ask your friends to take the bullshit downstairs so we don't have to have any more HR hearings about it, thx. Levivich (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't know the actual amount, but I'm under the impression that almost all of the doxing/dox-light material isn't indexed. I was curious so I checked and the second public thread on WPO right now seems to belie that point. If, out of the half-dozen times I've opened the site, I've seen Wikipedians doxxed twice, I'm not really convinced it's as secluded as you claim.
Of course you’d say that. You participate there. This cute “WPO is just the pub where the boys go to have boys’ talk” facade is starting to crack. Dronebogus (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Since it seems to be in the spirit of this entire mishegas, I'll add thjs: Wikipediocracy is a boot, stomping on a human face -- forever. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I saw your two delete !votes on the AfDs discussed here - unfortunately coming here gets that kind of !voting. It is tongue-in-cheek calling it a sister project. Last month an admin linked to them like a sister project and I complained to anyone who would listen. Nobody cared, and the link is still there, so what do you call a project like that? I can start a WPO account, call people names, dox them, canvass others, and then link to them here to show off my work. Seems like a sister project to me. Lightburst (talk) 06:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
It's front page makes it clear that its purpose is to be critical of what goes on here. When someone says that something is a sister project, to me that says the aims of both projects are mutually beneficial. TarnishedPathtalk06:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
It's not a 'sister project', an affiliate, or any other part of the official Wikimedia ecosystem. From what little of it I've seen linked in behavioural fora here over the years, it's not even a particularly cogent place for discussing Wikipedia, let alone an actual outgrowth of the project. So I'm sorry, but most of what transpires there is not within our purview to control or moderate--including even the grossest of insults, I am afraid. So your even bringing any off-project PAs is pointless. Besides, we hardly need to look off project to find examples of Andy violating CIV.That said, there are off-project activities which do run afoul of our policies by more directly touching this site. For example, canvassing: if he's really attempting to generate !votes by advertsiting to/coordinating with other parties to abuse process, that's a brightline violation of policy.SnowRise let's rap07:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
However, regardless of the limitations of our reach to conduct taking place at WPO, let me add this: Personally at this juncture I am absolutely willing to support any community resolution to indef or even CBAN Andy from the project--and I'm certain I'm not the only one. Andy's unremitting hostility to contrary views, complete lack of basic decorum and inability to adhere to our most basic of behavioural norms, his refusal to exercise self-control over virtually any aspect of his behaviour during conflict, and a bevy over other basic CIR issues has made him in my eyes probably one of the most clear-cut case of a net negative for the project of any legacy editor still allowed to edit here. And unfortunately for Andy, he's going to keep creating opportunities for a ban to happen, because he is still firmly lodged in his years-long and Wikicareer-spanning marathon refusal to ever acknowledge that there is any issue in his approach to conflict here. Let me hasten to add here that I have no personal axe to grind against Andy; I've never run into him "out in the wild" of project space and had one of the editorial/personal run-ins with him that so much of our community has. My entire experience of him that I can recall has been here at ANI. But that's still been enough for me to be familiar with a good half dozen threads concerning his behavior over recent years (which is probably about 1/5 of the total reports here) in which his naked aggression and arguably unmatched propensity for personal attacks were on full display. Many are the editors who have joked that at least Andy's name warns people of his disposition. Hell, I probably hand-waved away some of the first reports regarding him that I saw here in that fashion. But I don't believe I agree at this point: I believe his name would have to be AndyTheBully to fully prepare anyone (and I do mean anyone, as far as I can tell) for what is in store for them if they happen to disagree with him about something he cares about. Is this thread the most exemplary demonstration of the issues with Andy's conduct here? Nope, but it still involves violations of CIV and canvassing, at a minimum, and I for one am unwilling to countenance his drain on the community's time, patience, and good will. Enough is enough. I'll be !voting to support any ban proposal until it either succeeds or Andy makes some sort of credible acknowledgment of the issues and commitment to stop treating the people of this community as viable targets to unload on anytime he feels personally outraged. And although it's been years in the coming, I'm pretty confident which one will come first... SnowRise let's rap07:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Something I really hate about the way a lot of veteran editors approach Wikipedia is the assumptive treatment of those who disagree with them as inept morons or as conniving scum, or both. Andy, from what I see, absolutely embodies this terrible attitude—but so do a lot of other editors. I’d like for this phenomenon to disappear from the wiki, but if Andy gets blocked or banned, I hope it’s acknowledged that his problem is far, far, far from unique. I believe contribution to the encyclopedic project trumps being a friendly fella, but Wikipedia is far too tolerant of bullies with high edit counts representing not-that-valuable histories of contribution. If Andy goes, I want the standard to be that people who treat others like shit are not welcome. ꧁Zanahary꧂06:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
What is this attitude? We don’t play on ranking. If someone’s comment is wrong, it is wrong, and their relative apparent experience does not matter. ꧁Zanahary꧂05:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I'd have to suggest that if Lightburst wants successful communication, this is a poor way to start it. [2]. As for the rest, I stand by what I have done in regard to the two articles. Neither is on a notable topic. Both were appallingly badly sourced. Both cited blatantly promotional sources in order to concoct 'notability'. And the Robertson biography in particular raised WP:BLP concerns, given that its subject matter is a fourteen-year-old boy who has done nothing beyond winning a couple of junior busking competitions. Lightburst is apparently under the misapprehension that articles subject to deletion discussions can't be edited to remove questionable material: this is entirely untrue, as anyone remotely familiar with Wikipedia policy should be aware. More so when the content has BLP issues, is improperly sourced, or is completely, utterly, and impossibly wrong. [3] I have no idea what motivated Lightburst to cobble together these two muddle-headed stubs, but whatever it was, it appears to have been done without even a minimal regard for encyclopaedic practice. If that sort of behaviour attracts external commentary, nobody should be surprised... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) An identity-evading IP and a five day old account with only two edits, including the above reply? Call me Captain Obvious, but something strange is going on here. - ZLEAT\C04:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
"muddle-headed stubs" yikes - that language is the problem. I have written many articles including GAs, rarely ever stubs. The article in question was moved to main just hours ago so it was in progress. I have the NPP perm, I review and promote articles for DYK - I do not consider myself a poor editor. There are ways to work together and my point is that this way feels sickening. It seems like some of the drama is for this audience at WPO. I have not been reading there lately, but I checked today to see why ATG would AfD two of the articles I started in one day, and it became clear. For my part I do not even post to ARS because of previous canvassing claims. But canvassing and posting uncivil remarks on WPO is ok? Lightburst (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
If claiming that someone born in 2010 "won the Junior Coca-Cola Battle of the Young Stars" the same year isn't muddle-headed, I don't know what is. And I'm still trying to figure out why you thought that Bigfoot allegedly being spotted somewhere in the same county merited inclusion in an article on a 12-cabin lakeside resort. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
It was an error, and you punished this simple math error by erasing the award entirely and then you immediately went to WPO to let them know that I was an imbecile. I had just moved the article to main and missed an error, it happens. Collegiality advises that another editor would catch the mistake and correct it. I am a reasonable person and I respond to reasonable people. I erased the other concern on my own. But "gotcha you imbecile!" does not engender collegiality. Lightburst (talk) 05:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Presumably it wasn't 'a math error' that led you to describe the thirteen-year-olds junior busking-prize wins as a 'career'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I am starting to believe that you cannot add value to the project. When you think you are right you blast away without regard for other editors. For some reason your aspersions and gleeful-takedowns are tolerated. I spent the majority of my day trying to respond to your AfDs, your many comments, your accusations and your erasures. I only came here because you threatened me with it so you could keep your preferred version of the article. I will take a break now. Lightburst (talk) 05:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Andy, you have no idea how unimpressive you look being unnecessarily rude on WP and then running to WPO to show all the other guys who post there every day how much of an awesome grump you’re being. The rest of us have figured out how to deal with content issues and even total ineptitude by others without sounding like the mean blonde girl in a teen movie. ꧁Zanahary꧂06:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Oh, did Andy go to WPO to further push harassment of Wikipedia editors, as he's done in the past? Can you link that thread, Lightburst? It's good to have his harassment activities be out in the open. SilverserenC06:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I see you added it to the original post. Good to know. I doubt much will be done. The other members of WPO who are editors here will likely defend Andy's ongoing harassment activities. They usually do. SilverserenC06:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, is this you? Andy, you have a long term history of harassing and insulting editors, along with organizing said harassment on WPO and being involved in purposeful outing of Wikipedia editors. The diffs for that are the dozens of prior ANI threads about your actions. Your history is well known by anyone who has been on Wikipedia for any meaningful length of time. SilverserenC06:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
No to both. Anyways, I'm off to bed (it's 2 in the morning here). I doubt anything will come from this thread anyways. Apologies, Lightburst, but there's no negative activity Andy could do that would realistic result in any detrimental outcome (though the 31 hour block a couple weeks ago was one bright moment). Ultimately, though, nothing will be done. Many, many past ANI threads have shown that. SilverserenC06:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
While there do seem to be issues with the Noah Robertson article in general, as it looks like some of the articles suggested to me in the Newcomer Tasks, Andy's response of "I'm not going to stop removing your blatantly promotional crap from articles" and the backpatting on WPO seems like a bad combination. It looks like Andy sees something arguably/blatantly wrong and then blows up while being encouraged to do so elsewhere. While sometimes his points are correct, for example the SurrealDB issue last month, other times it's way more arguable, like coming to ANI over seeing a quote from Andrew Tate in the DYK box the month before. Civility is usually a concern when he is relevant in ANI discussions, and Andy takes the suggestion to be more civil as a support of whatever issue he's bringing up, like when someone pointed out that obviously saying "fuck off, you crooked little grifter" would lead to a block. If he's right, the incivility issues are sucking the air out of conversations about the other issues at hand. If he's wrong, he blew up at someone for no good reason. This is definitely a problem, and it seems like a pattern that's been building up for awhile. I'm not sure what the solution is since the 31 hour block hasn't changed much. CREEDIXMO(TALK)06:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
As a fellow grump I just wish Andy (and anyone else, for that matter) would stop reading and contributing to the childish Wikipediocracy and make any comments about Wikipedia at Wikipedia, where they could lead to improvements. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
As an uninvolved editor, I am amazed at how often AndyTheGrump appears in this noticeboard, having upset multiple editors and creating a massive timesink. It seems very odd that he is repeatedly given so much leeway when other offenders are very swiftly dealt with. Orange sticker (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm surprised I how often I've seen this name pop up here. This is something that back when I was a new editor would have absolutely probably scared me off. Even just by looking only at the recent ANI threads I'd absolutely support a longer block then the 31 hours one for incivility. Not to mention doing what seems to be Canvasing on an off-wiki drama forum. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me!13:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Did you miss the first sentence of that policy, which reads "Inappropriate or unwanted public or private communication, following, or any form of hounding, when directed at another editor, violates the harassment policy"? TarnishedPathtalk13:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
OK, so do you have evidence that 1) ATG has inappropriate tried to either publicly or privately communicate with the filler of this complaint and that 2) this was following hounding? TarnishedPathtalk14:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
He is clearly publicly mocking them on the Wikipediocracy board. I guess you could argue it's not harassment if its done behind the victim's back, but that's both a feeble argument and a moot point, seeing as they're now aware of it. You keep mentioning 'hounding' but user:1AmNobody24 has only brought up harassment in general.
1. WP:OWH says "directed at another editor" not "with that editor", you can think that calling another editor an imbecile is not directed at them, but I disagree. 2. I didn't say anything about hounding. Nobody (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Directing words at someone means to try to communicate with them. ATG did not harass LB on Wikipediocracy by saying not nice things about him, and ATG likely didn't even realize LB was a regular Wikipediocracy reader. How would that constitute harassment? Off wiki gossiping more like it. 107.116.165.98 (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
As the IP above states, "directed at another editor" means precisely that the other editor is trying to be communicated with. What's happened at WPO is akin to pub talk, with no obvious intention that the OP be part of their audience. It is not actionable under WP policy. TarnishedPathtalk03:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm trying to decide whether the appearance of the word oblivious here is intentional or inadvertent. EEng06:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I think tarnished path is an imbecile. Luckily I haven't sent this to them, so I rest easy knowing it's a perfectly constructive comment. Obviously this is for demonstrative purposes and not an actual belief of mine, I don't actually know anything about the user. XeCyranium (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I think you should read WP:POINT. Obviously this is for constructive purposes and an actual belief of mine, I don't actually know anything about why you needed to say this stuff to make your point. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm unable to see that, because I'm not a Wikipediocracy user like you. Are you outing an editor? I don't see a disclosure on their user page here. You aren't allowed to link to editors social media profiles without their permission. 107.116.165.98 (talk) 06:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
You've just bewrayed the existence of your own Wikipediocracy account - only your account is not under your WP username. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi Traumnovelle, I don't have an account at WPO (yet). Since many of the discussions are viewable without an account, you can simply use the search function to find out if a certain term has been used or quoted in a comment. Using that you can find specific accounts even without having one yourself. Nobody (talk) 06:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
In this edit - [4] - you linked to a members only view. You can't see the link even if it comes up in a search, unless you are a member. Why were you so confident this numeric id was this editor here if you couldn't see it? 107.116.165.98 (talk) 06:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
All comments at WPO have a link to the respective editors profile. You can find a comment by using the searchand use the comment to find the profile. Finding a profile can be done without an account. Seeing the profile page can't (I also only see the login page on that link, as I don't have an account.) Nobody (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
The evidence is the WPO comment of ATG that says "Lightburst is an imbecile". I get why you, who I believe is a WPO user, doesn't want that WPO comments can have consequences on wiki. But if you seriously believe that calling someone an imbecile is ok and not harassment, then we don't need to continue this as you cleary have a different idea of what civility and harassment looks like. Nobody (talk) 07:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
An insult on another website is not "harassment" jfc. And yes, also a WPO user, so I suppose you can toss out AGF for me as well ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. nableezy - 07:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I believe that insults can be a part of harassment. But thats debatable i guess. I'm not assumg bad faith with all WPO users, I actually agree with what you wrote here. Nobody (talk) 08:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
That is not evidence of WP:OWH. Other editors and myself have told you that, but you refuse to listen. Yes I've recently created an account at WPO, however that does not justify your WP:ABF. I didn't write anywhere that anything is OK. It's clearly not a WP:OWH violation though. TarnishedPathtalk08:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
There's many comments in this thread that call it harassment, so don't say the me having a different opinion than you and a few other editor is WP:IDHT. WP:IDHT literally says "Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with"." I hope you see the difference. I've stricked the WP:ABF sentence as I agree that it was too much. Nobody (talk) 08:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I concur with everything said by User:Silver seren. IMO anyone dog whistling on WPO should be blocked for disruptive behavior, plus a three strikes and indef. WPO is disruptive and intentionally subversive of this site's norms. -- GreenC15:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Andy is blatantly failing at the core behavior policy of assuming good faith that frankly that alone deserves a block. Off-wiki insults are clearly hostile, period. Frankly, Andy is being an unhelpful, hostile detriment. Time to boot him. oknazevad (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought -- that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc -- should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods.AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Alternate version of 1984 where there's no totalitarian government, Oceania is a liberal democracy where Winston just works for the government doing a normal job, but eventually gets fired (no torture, just a normal pink slip) solely because he goes on a message board to call his coworkers fuckwads like nine hundred times in a row jp×g🗯️16:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
This is sad. I was hoping that your recent incivility block would have changed you for the better, but now I see that you were actually proud of your actions. I suppose it was foolish to have such hope. Wikipedia is not some Orwellian dystopia, but chronic incivility from long time editors could fool some users into thinking it is. The last block gave Andy a chance to change, but since he either could not or would not, I strongly support an indef block to prevent further disruption. - ZLEAT\C16:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
It takes a lot for me to support an indef of a long-term user, especially one who's usually right on the content (and even here, Andy's probably right on the content). But we're past "enough is enough". — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of WPO. I don't have an account there and I will not get one but I think having a site outside Wikipedia that scrutinizes Wikipedia is a good thing. I think having Wikipedia editors there is a good thing. I also think it would be a good thing for those editors to remember that your actions follow you. Calling a Wikipedia editor names off Wikipedia when you, yourself, are a Wikipedia editor does affect the community negatively. We can't police other sites nor should we, but we can police our own community and our own actions within that community directed at fellow editors, whether on Wikipedia or off, when it comes to light. There are a million ways to express dissatisfaction with someone's edits without calling them names, whether it's considered being brutally honest or not. Sometimes it can become more about brutality than being honest. When we get there then we lose all ability to remain collegial and if that happens the message about the quality of content is lost. --ARoseWolf17:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
So its alright for editors to call AndyTheGrump a bully like User:SnowRose has done in this thread - which appears to be on Wikipedia? Why is no-one proposing any action for that?Nigel Ish (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps because the word is perceived not to be a PA but rather an accurate description of how Andy treats countless of his fellow editors? Putting that aside, do you really not see the fairly obvious semantic and functional distinctions between the words 'bully' and 'idiot/imbecile/moron' (all of which Andy uses regularly and with abandon)? One defines a person in terms of their conduct--the choices they make and the consequences of those choices for this community. It can be used to identify and address policy violations. It is (whether you agree with it's accuracy or not) intended to perform an informative role in our analysis of what to do about the user to which it was applied. The other word is a plain insult. It exists, in every functional context that applies to this project, exclusively to abuse the person it is applied to. It speaks not to their choices, but rather their (supposed) inherent and negative qualities--specifically low intellect. It has no role to address policy violations, nor any other accepted functional role on this project consistent with policy. There's also the fact that in my some-odd fifteen years on this project, I have used the word 'bully' exactly once, and it took exceptional circumstances and what I perceived as a profound need to get me to do it, after seeing numerous threads here presenting voluminous evidence of Andy launching PAs against others. By comparison, Andy has called people idiots or imbeciles three times this month already (even if we exclude the off-project insults) and possibly hundreds of times overall in his tenure here, and he does so for reasons as flippant as the fact that somebody disagreed with or reverted him once. Does any of that explain to you why your comparison is a false equivalence and why my term assessing Andy's behavior is permitted (in limited and appropriate circumstances) by this project's behavioural guidelines, and Andy's term assessing the intellect of other users is not? SnowRise let's rap11:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
And if for some reason none of that convinces you, what more do I really have to point out than this: we have a policy page titled WP:WikiBullying. Clearly it's not a PA if it's an actual defined term for describing problematic behaviour within our very policy language. Now, can you imagine a policy page called "WP:WikiImbecile"? SnowRise let's rap12:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment This discussion was rapidly spiraling, so I close the subsections that were ready for it. The remaining ones need a little more time to cook or for a consensus to emerge, so I've left those open for now. The WordsmithTalk to me20:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I'll say it here since the section was closed below. Nableezy says people will work with others after they called them an idiot and imbecile off wiki and they might, I will not. I will not work with someone that repeatedly trashes and insults me off-Wiki, on-Wiki, by emails or otherwise if I know about it. No one should be subjected to the demeaning position of accepting that behavior and quite frankly no one should be forced to, as you are suggesting, as a requirement to edit on Wikipedia. We have the civility policy to promote a collegial atmosphere of editing and when there are issues we have venues like this where all the drama (I wish there was less) and all the legitimate discussion goes to find solutions. I don't think it is a matter of growing up and accepting that not everyone is going to like you. I think we all know that and I think the answer is you better faux act collegial and work together and stop this nonsense or you don't belong on a project and in a community where civil interactions is required. --ARoseWolf20:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree people need to fake collegiality here, I do not agree that this requirement extends beyond the domains owned by the WMF. We do indeed have a civility policy, but it itself says that it applies to interactions on Wikipedia, not anywhere on the internet. nableezy - 20:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Nableezy, Andy has called people idiots or morons in edit summaries three times just since the beginning of this month: Special:Diff/1232090946 (“go away and be a moron somewhere else”), Special:Diff/1232193948 (“more idiocy”), Special:Diff/1232697583 (“rv another idiot”). And our reaction? Oh, well, he was right to revert those things. He's apparently too valuable to be subject to our normal requirements for behavior. Valereee (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Then bring those up? I havent said one word about Andy's behavior on-wiki, only the idea that anything off-wiki that is not actual harassment is not relevant here. nableezy - 21:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I mean, I've just brought them up...? The behavior pattern isn't exactly a secret. Andy's been benefiting from an assessment of his high level of competence vs. his high level of disruptiveness for a very long time. Valereee (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
@Valereee, all three of those diffs that you provide were directed at disruptive editors. The first was ATG reverting a disruptive IP that left a message on ATG's usertalk claiming that they shill for TechLead. The second was ATG providing a link to an edit by an account which has now been indeffed. The diff provided by ATG demonstrated obviously juvenile vandalism. The third diff you provide is ATG reverting more juvenile vandalism. I know that we should be maintaining civility with all editors but at the same time I don't exactly think it's a high crime to be incivil against editors who are only here to be disruptive. TarnishedPathtalk03:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
all three of those diffs that you provide were directed at disruptive editors... I don't exactly think it's a high crime to be incivil against editors who are only here to be disruptive.
That’s immediately contradicted by the implication that it’s sometimes okay, though. It’s not - civility is a bright-line policy regardless of what the other editor has or hasn’t done. TheKip(contribs)06:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath, yes, and I pointed out that And our reaction? Oh, well, he was right to revert those things. And below, Were the reversions correct? Sure. But do we have to call even disruptive editors idiots and morons in the actual edit summaries? Is it really not a problem that an editor would call anyone idiots or morons three times over the course of less than a week? And when an editor has been warned and warned and warned and warned for this exact issue, given "final warnings" multiple times, and still continues to do it regularly, can we really not decide we're going to follow through? Valereee (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
It is not policy but I think it describes this situation perfectly. One of the principles I strive for, emphasis on strive, is "One of the least enforced but most critical policies on the project is our need to remain civil at all times, no matter the provocation. If something you might say would be unacceptable at a large meeting of professionals in a conference room, then it is unacceptable here. Insults very often are an insight into the person making them, not on the target of the aspersions. Insults will never yield positive outcomes. Incivility reduces productivity, engagement, and idea generation." I have never seen an issue involving insults result in anything positive because of the insults. I know what I said above is specifically about on-Wiki interactions. But you can't expect to go on social media attacking your boss and co-workers and making hateful remarks specific to them and not expect it to cause tension on the job and, if done enough, will lead to termination. Andy's actions off-Wiki were harmful to the community. Andy knew what he was doing. He purposefully did it on a site whose stated purpose is to be critical of Wikipedia because that's where he felt he would get the most support. He also knew, because it's connected to his WP user name, that it would be seen and he knew the affect it would have. He is not a new editor and this isn't the first time he's been called out for incivility and personal attacks. He felt he could ignore civility and attack LB, whom he has had disagreements with justified or not, and garner support in doing it by putting it where he did. My hope is he heeds what editors are saying here. Only time will tell and that is one thing none of us but him can control. --ARoseWolf20:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I note that while WP:CIV explicitly applies only on-site, WP:PA, which is also policy, does have a subsection WP:PA#Off-wiki attacks which states that off-site behavior may be considered aggravating factors [for on-site disputes]. This does seem to agree with you that off-wiki behavior is (absent egregious violations like outing) not, by itself, sufficient to sanction an editor on-site. It also invites debate. The policy says, Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it, which suggests that some degree of off-wiki behavior is indeed considered a personal attack.
I think we would all agree that a hate-filled diatribe, pseduo-psychoanalyzing an editor, demeaning them, etc. would constitute a personal attack. I think many of us would agree that if someone posted to their X account, "Man, EducatedRedneck is such a cunt", even if that account was clearly linked to a user here, a one-off and off-the-cuff statement like that isn't worth considering a personal attack, even if it would be had it been said on Wikipedia. So I suggest that there's a line somewhere, past which we consider even off-wiki behavior to run afoul of WP:PA.
I also think that, per WP:BEANS, we shouldn't try to determine where exactly the line is in advance; this invites folks to tap dance right up to the edge. Instead, it's a judgement call over whether ATG's behavior has crossed this line. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
The very first line of WP:NPA is Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. The section on off-wiki attacks says, in full, Wikipedia cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it, especially when such attacks violate an editor's privacy. Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases. While it certainly does create ill will among people here, being "harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship" is not a prohibition, and I do not believe Andy has violated an editor's privacy, though I do not claim to have gone through every post he has ever made at WPO. nableezy - 21:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I respect that your interpretation of that policy is that it applies only to on-wiki behavior. I believe that, given its placement in that policy page, and using language similar to the lede of that page (Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collaborative atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia.) that off-site attacks are also prohibited. I hope you can see how someone might come to this interpretation.
I mention all this so we can focus the discussion on the areas where we actually disagree. I don't believe others are saying we should police what our editors do everywhere else on the internet, or that ATG has doxed anyone. I don't believe you're saying that we should disregard personal attacks. I believe the crux of the disagreement is on this policy we're discussing now, how it should be interpreted and applied, and perhaps whether we should change the policy pages to clarify (to reflect whatever consensus develops here).
I'm also going to plug SnowRise's point below that there would be a privacy concern to extending WP:NPA to off-site. In particular, it'd open a door for bad actors to try to dox editors by finding accounts that could be related which say mean things, and ask the editor, "Is this you?" Regardless of the answer, that editor and external account are now associated, and the bad actors are protected from reprisal because they were "just trying to enforce WP:NPA". This is what gives me pause about enforcing WP:NPA on off-site behavior, even if my interpretation of the policy is valid. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
My “line” is either calling people idiots etc. or accusing them of anything resembling real-world criminality. Which seems like common sense but we’re nevertheless here. Dronebogus (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Because there's no clear proposal above, I propose that AndyTheGrump be blocked for one week for incivility, with the understanding that further incivility in the future leads to an indef.
Above, some users have called for or supported an indef. They are welcome to propose their own, harsher sanction if they feel it appropriate. Conversely, if other editors feel his actions were in poor taste but do not warrant a sanction, they may wish to instead propose a not cool to express displeasure but that they do not believe it to be actionable.
I propose a one week block for these reasons:
AndyTheGrump is a prolific editor. That does not warrant special treatment, but it does mean an indef would deprive the encyclopedia of his well-acknowledge expertise. (The consensus seems to be that he is generally right on content.)
An escalating block would leave the door open for improvement. Conversely, if he does not improve, saying "he didn't improve after a 31 h and 1 week block" is more persuasive than only "he didn't improve after a 31 h block". Thus, it would also make it easier to indef in the future.
There is disagreement over to what degree ATG's comments on Wikipediocracy constitutes off-wiki harassment or canvassing. A harsh sanction has a high burden of proof. A lesser sanction may be more palatable in an ambiguous situation. This may allow users hesitant to indef to express their disapproval of his behavior.
This is a matter for the community because 1) the off-wiki nature of the alleged offenses requires interpretation of policy and 2) there is disagreement within the community on to what degree sentiments expressed off-site are disruptive within Wikipedia itself. Both of these make it less likely that an uninvolved administrator would be comfortable unilaterally issuing a sanction without the community clarifying its stance.
This thread has the potential to be far more heat than light. I'd like to have a proposal on the table so we can resolve this situation more quickly and either let ATG get back to editing or else administer a sanction to prevent disruption.
To clarify, are you opposing because you see a one week block as preventing an indef, or because you see a one week block as worse than no block? (Or some third option I didn't think of?) I realize I was not clear in my post that I view any one week block as being automatically superseded by, rather than preventing, an indef. The one week is more, "Can we agree on at least this sanction" rather than "this is the only sanction." 21:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC) EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
3 1 week block; I don't really see how this particular case should end up in an indef. The logical reasoning is sound, and what's called canvassing above reads to me more like frustration over a clear-cut case for deletion at AfD. Andy obviously cares a lot about the project, if maybe not so much about the people running it... but 3 weeks are going to sting already. ~ If he gets a 3 week ban every time he steps this egregiously over the line of civility, things are bound to change. My main question is why that hasn't been tried before. I feel like the community is trying to make up for prior inaction instead of trying to seek appropriate punishment. JackTheSecond (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Switching my vote to a procedural oppose as links to only 1 off-wiki comment have been given. One comment might be interpreted as an unguarded moment. I'd need diffs of actionable behaviour concerns since the last block to change my vote again. JackTheSecond (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
3 reversions of blatant vandalism, but sure. The space is to be kept clean for the rest of us sharing it. (And about whether I was aware of the situation prior (raised below): no I wasn't, so process it is.) JackTheSecond (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Support Again ATG is in the right, that is a terrible article about a minor who is not notable (that's a separate discussion), and the response to it be nominated was uncivil, but ATG has to dial down they're responses. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°20:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Support...but more than a week. A month ...plucked from the air. As ActivelyDisinterested says, ATG is obviously right in the instant case. But does he have to do it like that? As someone else has said, it's amazing how the same stuff keeps reappearing at ANI about ATG on a regular basis. They seem to have a clean block log for the last decade or more [Subsequently added correction: until the 31 hour block last month]. I suspect that's more to do with the old story of the balance between supporters and detractors here. (Supporters, as often is the situation in cases like this, are doing few favours for the editor they are supporting.) I think the bottom line is that something like a month block to grab ATG's attention is worth supporting, otherwise, he's heading for a CBAN - maybe not now but perhaps in 2 or 3 future ANI reports time. It's now got that trajectory and that would be a shame. ATG, tone it down. I'm going to put 'oppose' in the indef section. DeCausa (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Support a month, per DeCausa. Given their clean log I don't think we're at the point of an indef yet (unless there is evidence of doxxing), but it needs to be made clear to Andy that their behavior has to change. BilledMammal (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Moral support although I know it's not happening. ATG's incivility is not new, and this block of any duration isn't going to prevent more incivility so I guess by that definition, this isn't block eligible. But WPO is a long way from a reddit or twitter discussion where the audience isn't wikipedia editors, which it is on WPO (blocked/former/active or otherwise). Andy knew what he said would get Lightburst's attention, and mission accomplished. To say it's not worthy of a block is the ultimate in unblockable nonsense because he's an editor of long standing when less tenured would be blocked for much less. @BilledMammal: he literally just came off an incivility/PA block. You may oppose but calling it a clean log is disingenuous. StarMississippi22:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Support although I'd prefer to see a month-long block. Andy, I've defended you several times before, and I've taken some rather harsh criticism for doing so. By continuing to treat other editors in an increasingly reckless and uncivil manner, you've made your defenders look foolish. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Support for a month, I do not think ATG should be anywhere near the project and maybe one month will give them perspective to modify their behavior. ATG should have been blocked many times for worse. The project does not need anyone who cannot follow our core policies. Lightburst (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Support, even for a month, given the long-running incivility issues. Behavior at Wikipediocracy is very much impacting what happens on Wikipedia, and shouldn't be ignored. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose I'm not seeing sufficient diffs which support this. The OPs claim is that ATG was following them around by nominating two of their articles for deletion and this is not substantiated. The WPO stuff is not within our remit to police. Frankly I think there should be some sort of discussion about OP continuing to have the autopatrolled given the two obviously deficient articles they produced which are before AfD. TarnishedPathtalk03:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Support based on what is being reported here. I haven't read the actual WPO thread and don't plan to read it. ATG seems to have unlearned a lesson that served him well for a decade. Some sanction is needed, between 1 and 4 weeks. An indef is not warranted at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose after reading all this I'm more concerned by @Moneytrees report about Lightburst using multiple accounts to support his votes than anything here. What Andy said isn't polite, but much worse behaviour happens all the time, including from admins. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Support I was not happy with the incivility directed at the DYK crew recently, and with this it is seeming like a pattern. Bruxton (talk) 06:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Support I’m an uninvolved user with zero stake in this. But judging from this report, I do see that many of Andy’s comments are indeed uncivil and I’m a little surprised at how he’s able to get away with it for so long. I presume there is more leeway for experienced editors because if Andy hadn’t been one, I feel like he probably would have been blocked relatively quickly. While I understand that a sockpuppet might be a bigger issue (which will probably be taken care of if lightburst is indeed outed/proven to be sock), that doesn’t excuse Andy’s behavior. I think a week at the very least is needed. He’s been doing it for a long time so it’s clear he doesn’t have any intention to stop.
But that’s just my opinion. I have no ill will towards Andy and haven’t even interacted with him. I just randomly came across this and decided to give my two cents based on what I’ve read. I hope that with time he can come to the understanding that he can’t be uncivil here if he’s not indef blocked by the end of this. He’s a prolific writer so I hope he does come to terms and change. But we’ll see. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Support one-month site ban – this is unacceptable conduct. Not to the point of needing indefinite ban imo, but we can't let him keep doing this and significantly contributing to other editors' retirements because they had enough of attacks from this user. — AP 499D25(talk)09:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose – since this proposal specifically references "incivility" as the reason for the block, then evidence is required in the form of diffs that a block is needed and/or required for incivility in relation to Andy's interaction with Lightburst, here, on Wikipedia. The diffs that Lightburst provided up above do not warrant a block.Isaidnoway(talk)10:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
We can all see the post on Wikipediocracy though, right? And we all know that it was Andy that posted it? How is this not the very definition of wikilawyering? – Joe (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Support 1 week block to 1 month block I came across this thread thanks to a non-WPO offwiki discussion. The fact that ATG is uncivil is not under question at all, just whether or not he is "productive enough" to evade sanctions. This double standard, applied by so many admins and more, is too not how Wikipedia is supposed to be. I oppose sanctions based on off-wiki conduct. But even in this thread, he has skirted the civility line enough that I support sanctions. Soni (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Support. I read all the carry on here and I am disturbed that Andy was calling another editor "an imbecile" (regardless if it was off-wiki). It's good if Andy writes good content on Wikipedia but his behavior recently is inexcusable and he cannot continue to make comments like this. Then it might lead to an indef block. Alexeyevitch(talk)10:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
If the indef proposal falls through I will support literally any other sanction there is consensus to implement. My personal fallback proposal is 1 year followed by indef for next infraction. Dronebogus (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose as over the top, although I understand the community's concerns for one of our founding principles. However, I also note that civil incivility is far more intrusive, far more common and frankly, far more damaging to said community. Civility is often seen as being a cement that glues it together; but, rather, passive incivility—greater concern for words rather than meaning?—is a solvent that eats away at that cement. ——Serial Number 5412912:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I don’t know what you’re on about. Andy is notoriously difficult to work with because he lashes out like this regularly, and this is openly tolerated and even defended. That is corrosive to the community. Dronebogus (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose A block of any type for such a puny, off-site slight would be nothing other than punitive. Here's a radical idea: How about spending an order of magnitude less time wailing about feeble scoffs like this and, instead, spending that time constructing a well-sourced, reliable encyclopedia? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
If it's a consistent pattern that is not changing in the face of previous sanctions, than an indef (not another timed block) becomes preventative and not punitive. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)14:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't, it prevents the rest of us from having to interact with them on this site. I don't want to have to work on this website with people who harass or regularly talk shit about me or other editors in public off-wiki fora, as a general principle. I think it's an overreaction in this particular case, but in other cases -- where what people said was worse -- I think an indef from this website can be an effective preventative measure, preventing disruption to people on this site. Levivich (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Weak support as second choice to indef now that that's not happening, I guess. But I see a timed block as more punitive; no less hope that we see real change going forward. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)19:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Support - While the indef doesn't have consensus, I still believe something needs to be done. As Valereee points out, Andy has been calling people idiots and morons this month on-site. He's been warned in the past about this behavior, he's been blocked recently for this behavior, and still hasn't made any noticeable changes in how civil he is on-site since the warning or the block. And, as I pointed out earlier, the incivility takes the air out of conversations that should be happening. You can see it here, where in some arguments calling the pattern of incivility unacceptable might as well be a defense for "making bad articles", "COI issues", "sockpuppeting and vote manipulation", and so on. He's been warned about it, there's been no acknowledgement of this issue or want to change, and it's a drain to have to fight through it. CREEDIXMO(TALK)22:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Additional info It's been suggested above (I guess assuming maybe people aren't aware of the ongoing issue) that I bring up that Andy has called people idiots or morons in edit summaries three times just since the beginning of this month: Special:Diff/1232090946 (“go away and be a moron somewhere else”), Special:Diff/1232193948 (“more idiocy”), Special:Diff/1232697583 (“rv another idiot”). So there it is. Were the reversions correct? Sure. Should Andy learn to adult? IMO, yes. Valereee (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Support. Purely for the fact that it will at least log the discussion and the community's continued exasperation with his behaviour. Based on the extensive record of Andy's failure to acknowledge community concerns or adjust his approach, I entertain not the slightest wisp of a hope that this will actually result in a tangible adjustment of his perspective or behaviour, and anticipate that we will be back here soon (if the pattern holds, within a couple of weeks or months at most), with another voluminous timesink of a thread and much acrimony--in which I suspect 40+% of commenting community members will still somehow fail to see that this user is WP:CIR-incompatible with the baseline level of self control expected of our contributors. Ad infinitum, ad nauseum. SnowRise let's rap22:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose any blocks at this point per Johnuniq, Serial Number 54129, and the adage hard cases make bad law. I am very wary about applying Wikipedia’s civility norms to people’s conversations elsewhere on the internet. If we are unwilling to police the personal attacks in this very report (“Moneytrees has no integrity” is perhaps the worst of them, but by no means the only one), then we have no business trying to police the rest of the internet. 28bytes (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Support, per my previous support for an indefinite block. I agree that working on the project is better than doing this business; perhaps Andy will consider the feelings and needs of others in the future. Mackensen(talk)01:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Support Uninvolved here...I've surmised that Andy has adopted the online character/persona of a bitter, resentful, crotchety old man, presumably for comedic value, but what I've seen on-Wiki and off-Wiki is "committing to the bit" a bit too much for a place like Wikipedia, drifting into WP:NOTHERE territory at times. I think a week (or a month) off would give him some valuable time to re-think his approach. With that said, he does seem to make some good points, and to poke his nose into some dark corners that merit scrutiny, so I would oppose an indef. Pecopteris (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
since the indef proposal was closed, support at least some kind of block. longer is preferable to me, but it really comes down to Andy needing to understand that he has run the community's patience very very very thin - when he inevitably gets brought to ANI again in a month or two, an indef might stick. ... sawyer * he/they * talk02:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Not seeing enough evidence to warrant a sanction at this time, but the behavior of ATG could certainly be improved. Let'srun (talk) 03:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Support for at least 3 weeks or a month. I once again hope that Andy will finally learn his lesson, but I'm afraid we're only delaying the inevitable. I also recommend that any further incivility cases go straight to ArbCom. - ZLEAT\C04:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
OK let's cut this short I'm not going to deny I said some unacceptably rude things on Wikipedia (which is clearly within the remit of this noticeboard), and off it (where the potential negative consequences of claiming to have a remit clearly haven't been thought through, in my opinion), so If people want to block me now, do so. And then, after preferably taking a few minutes to go through this thread and taking note of just how many entirely evidence-free accusations of behaviour well beyond rudeness I've been subjected to here, and perhaps reflecting on whether everyone screaming at once is really an appropriate way to deal with issues, those of you here who actually do anything useful on Wikipedia can get back to doing it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Support any length 1 week to 1 month, since we now have Andy's permission to hold him accountable. If this happens again, next time I'll be supporting an indef. Andy, the amount of drama you cause by your lack of patience and decorum vs. the good stuff you do is getting out of proportion. Levivich (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It takes a lot for me to support an indef of a long-term user, especially one who's usually right on the content (and even here, Andy's probably right on the content). But we're past "enough is enough". Copied from above — Rhododendritestalk \\ 18:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Let me be clear, since the Unblockable Turn has begun. This is not an indef merely for calling Lightburst an imbecile, but for long-term intransigent incivility mixed with a healthy does of canvassing (yes, in case there's any doubt, canvassing applies to (a) partisan audiences, (b) off-wiki recruitment, and (c) non-neutral messages -- take your pick -- and Andy has both participated and been willing to be canvassed). If putting on blinders to the past with an incredulous "block over this one thing??" isn't already part of WP:UNBLOCKABLES, it should be. Even if we do look at this one thing, here's what happened: Lightburst has been harassed at WPO in the past, with users diving into a range of personally identifying information that, to the best of my knowledge, LB never disclosed on-wiki. Andy knows about this because he participated in not just that very thread but the thread where that personal information was copied over on-wiki. This is all just context. Now someone posts a link to an article Lightburst wrote and Andy was only too happy to be canvassed to nominate it for deletion. Then Andy dug into LB's contribs and found another problematic article, canvassing on WPO and overtly insulting LB in the process -- again, in a forum where Andy knows LB has been targeted in the past. When confronted on it here, Andy not only fails to display any sort of self-awareness or contrition but but continues to dig in. I would spend time, as anyone should, taking a stroll through the noticeboard archives to link to some of the copious past discussions where Andy is asked/warned/pleaded with, but I'm skeptical those opposing don't already know about all that, so I'd want to know exactly what sort of pattern would be convincing. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 19:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
That thread discussing Lightburts's RL identity revealed that he had been editing articles to which it could be reasonably construed he had a conflict of interest. Obviously Lightburst felt harassed by the (off-wiki) disclosure of his personal information necessary to reveal the COI, but I don't really think it was an attempt to harass him, as he wasn't the intended audience of the conversation. Obviously, getting the balance right between properly investigating COI and trying not to harass Wikipedia editors is tricky, but I think discussing personal information of editors off-wiki is reasonable when there is the reasonable suspicion of COI. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
It's not like everything on WPO is evil, but this is easily the least defensible and most stupidly excessive thing that happens there. He "felt" harassed when he got doxed on a messageboard by people who afterwards followed him around to call him nasty names and make fun of his articles indefinitely? Is this a joke? jp×g🗯️20:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
No, it is not a joke. I don't agree with the tone of all the comments and threads made about Lightburst by the various Wikipediocracy users, but there were legitimate COI issues that were worth discussing in an off-wiki venue, and that required discussing his personal information, which is completely impossible to address on-wiki. Were Nihonjoe or Thmazing "harassed" by the Wikipediocracy discussions exposing their real-life identities that led to them being sanctioned for COI issues that couldn't otherwise be discussed without understanding their real-life identities? Also, as recently revealed Lightburst is a sockmaster who engaged in deliberate and deceptive votestacking in dozens of discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
@Hemiauchenia:That is a complete bullshit report, opened, closed, and concluded by Moneytrees based on zero evidence. I welcome any checkuser looking at my account. I have no socks and I have asked Moneytees to have the integrity to retract his half-assed accusation. And BTW, I am glad that you and I have not feuded in years. At the same time I am saddened that you are still jostling around with the WPO crowd. You are a better editor than that. Lightburst (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
"Well, officer, before I threw the bowling ball through his windshield he was double-parked across a handicapped spot and a bike lane." I mean, true, it's bad to do that, but I don't really see a connection between the two. There wasn't any other action available? What was even the connection? jp×g🗯️23:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Given one of the articles that started this was about a non-notable minor and originally contained the name of they're younger sister I think it's more "Well, officer, before I threw the bowling ball through his windshield he was drunk driving down the street erratically." -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°00:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Support indef - Over a decade of civility issues with no signs of even an attempt to improve means I cannot support anything less than an indef. This has gone on long enough. - ZLEAT\C17:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC) (moved from 1 week block proposal section)
So, if I'm against any block at all over this contretemps with Lightburst (in which I'm surely not alone), am I supposed to oppose twice? OK. Strong oppose. Bishonen | tålk18:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC).
Oppose Unneccessary. I don't see why calling out Lightburst's incompetence (which wasn't even done on-wiki) is deserving of an indeff. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Calling out incompetence and calling someone an "imbecile" are two very different things. - ZLEAT\C19:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I've noticed that every time something like this happens, the WPOsters will show up to say stuff like this about how it's a gigantic witch hunt, but nobody (or at least nobody worth taking seriously) is saying that everyone should be put under 24/7 offsite surveillance, or people should be indeffed for having a drink with their mate and saying "that guy on wiki sure is a dick eh?", or that all WPO posters should be blocked, or that the site should be seized by INTERPOL, or that all pseudonymous WPO posters should be dramatically unmasked, or whatever other dumb strawman -- just that you shouldn't make an account with your same username on WPO and then say indef-worthy stuff to other editors there, continuously, for months/years. I feel like even a child could understand not to do this. Is it really that complicated? jp×g🗯️19:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Support indef at this point. While the specific issue reported probably isn't enough for one, it's moreso the long track record of incivility, consistent failure to assume good faith/resorting to insults and biting, and seeming utter failure to learn from past sanctions (Seriously, quoting 1984? Using that to imply that you're being "silenced" isn't a great way to defend yourself). The WPO thread (insulting another editor, on another website entirely) is a cardinal sin, at least in my opinion. As I've stated in numerous other forums here, we cannot continue to let experienced editors perennially get a pass for policy violations solely because "their content contributions are too valuable" or "but they were correct." If ATG had <1,000 edits, an indef wouldn't even be a question here. TheKip(contribs)19:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. The off-wiki comments cited as the justification for this don't merit an indef. If all folks who have ever thought me an imbecile were to be blocked, there would be only tumbleweeds remaining here. Lightburst needs a thicker skin. Deor (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't have a firm opinion on the section above, but an indef of AndyTheGrump would be harming the project, and an over-reaction. Andy does difficult and necessary work here. And he's not perfect. I'm not condoning the over-the-top use of "imbecile", but I do understand the frustration. I'll also note that a couple of the people anxious to see Andy punished, while not saying the word "imbecile", sure are free with the personal comments themselves. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
an indef of AndyTheGrump would be harming the project, and an over-reaction. Andy does difficult and necessary work here
There's been countless examples of "valuable" editors getting away with policy violations that newbies would be immediately indeffed for, purely because of some conception of opportunity cost that their contributions outweigh their bad behavior. The buck has to stop somewhere - the completely arbitrary class system this treatment enforces, in which users gain effective immunity from punishment if their contribution count can outrun their violations, will ultimately harm the project in the long run. TheKip(contribs)19:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm required to support an indef, rather than something else, or else I'm some kind of class warrior letting Andy "get away with" something? Ugh. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
No, but it’d be nice if you acknowledged that Andy is basically abusing his status as BMOW (big msn on wiki) to get away with literally anything. Dronebogus (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Support per Kip. The histrionic reaction to be called out for failing to work collegially and engaging in detrimental behavior shows a lack of comprehension of the problem in itself, let alone atonement for the issue. This is just obvious as an uninvolved editor seeing just what's in front of me here. oknazevad (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose complete overkill. Agree with FLoquenbeam, Andy actually does some good work here. And that some of the supporters are at least very close to making personal attacks. Yeah, no free passes, but a block won't be a free pass. @Deor:, I love your comment. Doug Wellertalk19:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
You might want to read some of the other comments in the thread first, regarding the fact that he has been doing this for a very long time, was blocked for it previously, and responded to people asking him to stop calling other editors imbeciles under his same username on WPO by posting a 1984 quote about totalitarian censorship. What, of this, makes you think he's stopped doing this, or has any intention to stop? jp×g🗯️20:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
So to clarify: you are asserting the stuff he said is not blockworthy, but you have also literally have not read the stuff he said, and refuse to do so, even though the site he said it on was apparently so bad as to make anything posted there presumptively hateful (but not bad enough to block people for posting it)? jp×g🗯️20:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Support not because of any specifics but for violating WP:JERK for the 10 millionth time and because it would set a precedent that talking shit about editors elsewhere is not tolerated. There are always more potentially good editors, but they’ll always be driven away by the toxic culture created by ATG and his fellow unblockables, creating a vicious cycle where we can’t block people considered valuable to the project because there’s no-one else to take their place. Dronebogus (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
But they weren't, however they have recently been blocked for 31hr due to incivility. We're in the middle part of "Stop it, no really stop it, you can't edit again til you stop it". If we back here again in a month's time, I will agree with a stronger sanction. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°23:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
While I also support a month-long block instead of an indef, I think the message of "Stop it, no really stop it, you can't edit again til you stop it" is only conveyed by an indef block. A time-limited block will expire whether or not Andy has stopped it. And there's realistically little reason to believe that he will. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I worried that wasn't very clear, were at no really stop it (the middle part). The you can't edit again til you stop it part is the next step if we're back here discussing the same issue next month. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°23:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
By my math, it looks like we're at the end of Stop it, no really stop it, you can't edit again til you stop it. The lead-up to the 31hr block, when he came to ANI about the Andrew Tate DYK, came with a Stop it, saying if it happened again it was a block. Then the SurrealDB instance happened, which put us at no really stop it with the 31hr block. This right now is step three, we're at you can't edit again til you stop it. If that means nothing should happen, and we wait until step 4, that's different. But it looks like we're at the end of the line. CREEDIXMO(TALK)23:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose - as whatever happens outside of en.wp, outside of actual off-site harassment, is not something that en.wp has the jurisdiction to police. See nothing on wiki that merit an indef or even a long block. nableezy - 21:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Doxxing, coordinating hounding campaigns, email spamming. Somebody said something mean about me in a public forum is not that. nableezy - 21:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Lightburst was doxxed by ATG? I won't ask you to link it, but if you can maybe email the evidence to ArbCom? If true, that would warrant a site ban in my opinion. BilledMammal (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I've not seen evidence provided for that specific claim. I've seen some editors opine that WPO is not a good place because doxxing occurs there, however no evidence of ATG doxxing LB. TarnishedPathtalk08:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
After thinking about it, support indef. I think I've had enough of WPO people talking shit about us, and off-wiki harrassment should be punished the same as on-wiki harrassment. Criticism is fine, but calling us imbeciles isn't. LilianaUwU(talk / contributions)21:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Who is us here? Is Andy, or am I, not of this body because of our participation in a forum that discusses Wikipedia (and its many faults)? nableezy - 01:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Andy is part of this community. That's why we are having this discussion. When you agree to edit you agree to afford other editors a certain level of respect, even when you absolutely disagree. We are to act with civility to be part of this community. That includes off-wiki. You don't stop being part of this community when you log on to another website, with your WIkipedia username by the way, and trash talk specific editors and tear then down no matter what validity the content claims have. Editing on Wikipedia is a privilege. You can shit talk off Wikipedia but to claim that when you do, it should no affect on how fellow editors interact with you here because they should just ignore you shit talking about them is just absurd. We aren't policing those websites. We are policing our community, regardless of where comments are made when it comes to light. There is nothing we can do if we can't prove it is you and you deny it but we can in this case. We have the evidence Andy trashed talked another member of his and our community. We can not tolerate that if we are to be taken serious, if we are actually here to build the encyclopedia and improve on it according to foundational principle. Andy wasn't discussing Wikipedia and it's faults, of which their are many. Andy wasn't even only discussing bad edits by Wikipedians, of which we can agree there are issues. Andy was trash talking a specific Wikipedian and fellow member of this community, degrading their intellect in a manner he knew would be found almost as if in defiance of previous blocks he has received for this very action. He shouldn't be a part of this community if he doesn't want to police his actions on or off Wiki or have his actions policed when he presents himself with his Wikipedia username on those sites where it can be linked and everyone knows it is him. --ARoseWolf14:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Re We are to act with civility to be part of this community. That includes off-wiki.WP:CIV specifically says it governs interactions on Wikipedia. Of course people are going to look at Andy a certain way when they know what he thinks about them, but part of being a grown up is understanding that not everybody likes you, some people think you're an idiot, and you work with them anyway. I am 10000% certain that people I edit with despise me. That is a normal part of having conflicting views and ideas. I do not think requiring people to maintain a faux respect for one another outside of the four walls of Wikipedia is a reasonable thing to ask for. nableezy - 19:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Support - Even leaving out the WPO stuff, it's pretty clear that the incivility on-wiki is a recurring problem. As I mentioned before, it sucks all the air out of the problems being brought up (the articles do seem genuinely not good! There are obvious issues with COI here!) and then issues with his incivility are treated as de facto defense of whatever issue Andy brings up. There doesn't seem to be much acknowledgement that the civility is an issue, and it largely seems like Andy views the incivility as justified. He's already been blocked once, and already had major issues with civility before said block, and is still having these issues. It's clear something needs to be done to keep this from happening again. CREEDIXMO(TALK)21:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per nothing actionable here in the initial complaint. Seems clear to me that Lightburst was hoping for another round of drama with ATG at ANI, and they got their wish. The article they created should have been nominated for deletion, which is in delete snow territory now, and getting pissed off about an AfD, isn't a good look for Lightburst. It also seems obvious to me the only reason LB brought up WPO was to fan the flames, which again, isn't a good look for LB.Isaidnoway(talk)21:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Support indef I'm seeing actual harm being caused here, both to the project as a whole in the time spent on the multiple debates over his behaviour and the precedent it may set in regards to acceptable levels of civility, and to individual editors who are being bullied both by ATG and his supporters. There is no amount of positive contributions that could ever outweigh this. Orange sticker (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose this would be shooting the messenger and pretending the actual problems (articles which the community is producing a strong consensus to delete being created) are not problems. * Pppery *it has begun...22:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't see how holding Andy accountable for chronic incivility (for which he has already been shown considerable grace) is tantamount to ignoring the other issue. The article problem is being dealt with at AfD; why should that preclude us from dealing with the behavioral issue here? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Indef. Though being right is not enough, is an indef really warranted because of ATG's repeated usage of the word "idiot"? I've heard worse from elementary schoolers. I'm aware NPA reads Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans. However, this implies that the severity of the attacks matters. If Andy were to call someone an idiot in every diff, I'd support. If there have only been less than a dozen occurencez this year, a block is overkill. Sincerely, Dilettante00:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Support indef, mostly per the opposers because it's clear they won't support any accountability for Andy and Andy won't change on his own. Separation from this project is really the only option left. Being right isn't enough. Plenty of people manage to be right without being offensive, with the side benefit that those people aren't creating a distraction and making the issue about themselves, instead of whatever the real issue was. Mackensen(talk)00:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Strong support. I can count on one hand the number of times I've supported an indef that amounts to a CBAN for an established editor. If anyone wants my impressions on why I think Andy represents a more than large enough cluster of issues and timesinks for this community to justify one in this case, I have a post towards the top of this thread that should more than adequately explain my impressions. I'll only add here (and I don't normally like to made broad stroke observations about my fellow community member's !votes, but I think it's necessary on this occasion) that a number of the opposes I have seen here seem to have not done very much in terms of due diligence in looking at the long term behavior here. When looking into the current issues, I opened Andy's contributions history and I couldn't even find the edit I was looking for on the very first page before stumbling across an edit summary where Andy called someone an idiot. In fact, this kind of hostility is peppered throughout the history, and those are just the edit summaries.I mean, people, it was less than two months ago that Andy opened a thread here at ANI titled "Are the idiots who run DYK under the mistaken impression that WP:BLP doesn't apply there?", while there were already multiple threads open on the page examining his conduct. It's like he's flaunting his belief that he will never face consequences for this kind of thing. Honestly, if someone were to present me with evidence tomorrow showing that Andy's entire tenure at Wikipedia was part of a social experiment to examine just how broken our processes are for arresting the disruption of serial civility violators once they have achieved a certain level of social cache here, I honestly wouldn't be surprised. It's no wonder the WMF and the broader movement is slowly encroaching on our independence in the area of moderating abusive conduct. I don't agree with it, but you don't need to look beyond this situation to understand why some feel it is necessary. It's not just that Andy is unrelentingly hostile in the face of the least amount of conflict; he also just never seems to have given so much as a syllable's worth of acknowledgment that there's anything in his approach that needs addressing. I'm sorry, but if you think he hasn't earned an indef at this point, you either didn't really put much effort into looking into the history of issues involving him, or you might as well just support the codification into WP:CIV of a standard that it doesn't apply to longterm contributors. Because arguably nobody has been wiping their ass with it longer and with less consequence than AndyTheGrump. Bluntly, it's an embarrassment for all of us on an equivalent level of Andy's own inability to control his temper. SnowRise let's rap03:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose No diffs have been presented which would justify an indef. The OPs claim is that ATG followed them around by nominating two of their articles for deletion. That claim is not substantiated as nominating obviously deficient articles for deletion is not evidence of following someone around. At best we have some minor incivility which does not justify an indef. TarnishedPathtalk03:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose - Much ado about nothing or much ado about very little. The drahmabordz need their pyres periodically... Carrite (talk) 04:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per established procedure where actions off-wiki can be reported to Arbcom but are not a breach of Wikipedia policy. The diffs presented of on-wiki events do not warrant this sanction. Johnuniq (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
If we aren’t indeffing could we at least make it a little less of a slap on the wrist? Maybe a block of one year, with an indefinite block on the first offense (no matter how minor) after that? We cannot tolerate Andy racking up moderate infractions any more because he’s already racked up so many and refuses to change. My patience has personally run out, but I’d tolerate him if he can contribute without further incident. Dronebogus (talk) 11:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I do agree that some sort of non-small action definitely should be taken against ATG here. I feel that a one-week block is too small, but that a one-month block might be enough to turn them around. They edit everyday regularly enough that missing out on 30 days of editing would probably suck a lot. Also consider that they were blocked once previously for personal attacks last month, for 31-hrs, and the last blocks before those were more than 10 years ago, and so don't count towards my ban length decision here. From 31-hrs to 1-month seems like a good step up in length for repeat offending to me. — AP 499D25(talk)13:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose - I don't much care for taking sides in these kinds of things, but I am concerned that there is even a suggestion that an editor who, all agree, does a good job might be indefinitely banned because of comments they made off wiki about an editor who brought it here, and, per Moneytrees, has a long history of evading responsibility. This is not indef worthy. Also concerning would be the aninymous editor(s) who jumped on to this with talk of 'unblockables' to manipulate for some kind of decusive action. I don't think we should be manipulated. No indef for this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
This attitude of “it’s okay for a good contributor to be abusive if their target is bad” attitude is why we’re here in the first place, and why we’ll back in a month if nothing is done. Dronebogus (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
39 comments from you and rising. If we are back in a month with something banworthy, we will deal with it then. But not for this. No, no, no. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Let's not put up straw men. The oppose voters largely maintain that 1) off-wiki discussions are not in the purview of on-wiki behavioral norms, and 2) insufficient evidence has been presented of on-wiki incivility. Both of these are valid points, even if I'd disagree with their premises. I would suggest that your desired outcome is more likely if you find on-wiki diffs of incivility by ATG and present those. If no such diffs exist, it's time to accept that this isn't a "right vs wrong" situation, but just two groups with different interpretations of what the guidelines encompass. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose - site ban for calling someone an imbecile is an overreaction. There are options to choose from between "do nothing" and "death penalty." There are options between "be perfect" and "be gone." Levivich (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I believe the the argument for the site ban is a long-term pattern of incivility, not just this latest incident. Snow Rise sums it up best above. – Joe (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose, while calling somebody a gump is well worthy of a site ban and this user does so repeatedly on a daily basis, not piling on community pilings on frees up time to pursue other fresh meat. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Support - due to continuous pattern of OWH and insulting editors for no other reason than because he thinks he's right. The more I think about it, the more I realize that WPO is a worthless rag and waste of bandwidth. Purge this incessant drama for good by giving timeouts to both editors lasting until they can explain why they should be let back on. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)13:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Quit trying to win content fights by bringing up the same nonsensical whining about what happens other places. If this was anywhere but WPO, people would be calling for heads due to doxxing. Lulfas (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Andy's on-wiki actions were nominating two subpar articles written by Lightburst to AfD and trying to bring one of those articles, on a minor, into some sort of BLP-compliance pending deletion. I'd be frustrated too. An indef for this particular incident is not warranted, in my opinion.-- Ponyobons mots15:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Support Andy has made it very clear over the years that he considers WP:CIVIL to not apply to himself. Any editing dispute can quickly turn into an excuse for him to insult, berate, and otherwise put down those who disagree with him. Carrying it over to WPO is just icing on the cake. I do not believe that the community must simply pretend it didn't happen because it's on another site, especially since what happend on WPO is just an extension of his behavior here. Enough is enough. His history of good editing should not allow him to ignore one of our central pillars. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite16:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Support - the civility policy applies to everyone, and it dictates that all Wikipedia editors deserve dignity and respect from their colleagues. Publishing juvenile insults about a specific identified editor is unacceptable, and it does not magically become acceptable just because it's done on a "criticism" website. That's an absurd argument, just as absurd as arguing that recruiting editors to support your point of view isn't canvassing if you do it on Reddit. On that note Andy has also very clearly violated the sockpuppetry policy by recruiting users from WPO to support their deletion crusades. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Does WP:OWH matter or does it not? That’s what I’m wondering here. Either you can make abusive remarks off-wiki, because OWH is functionally toothless due to “not being our jurisdiction”, or you can’t, because it’s valid and enforceable. Dronebogus (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I don’t think having a plurality of edits (including trivial edits like agreements and jokes) in a very active discussion is bludgeoning— to me bludgeoning is a very narrow offense that consists of aggressively replying to every single opposing vote or statement. But everyone is clearly getting itchy in the trigger finger so I’ll back off now. Dronebogus (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
As has been expressed multiple times - it’s one thing if it’s someone anonymously complaining on Reddit, or if their WPO account isn’t explicitly connected to their Wikipedia account. It’s something else entirely, and IMO sets a terrible precedent, if one is allowed to:
Go on a Wikipedia-focused site
Under their Wikipedia username
On an account that they expressly declare is the same person as their Wikipedia account
To repeatedly insult/belittle other editors
And does not receive any sort of sanction.
At least to me, it’s in effect letting one off on a near-technicality - the idea of “well, it’s the same person, and they’re personally attacking another editor, but because it’s not on Wikipedia itself it’s perfectly fine” seems ludicrous.
Again, this isn’t a call to police off-wiki behavior entirely - most of the time, such policing would venture into doxxing, and that’s obviously a non-starter. It just feels as if the “it wasn’t on Wikipedia” argument here is a weak/technical defense when ATG is explicit about his identity on both sites, and not to mention, is wholly unapologetic of his comments. TheKip(contribs)18:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proposal 3: Let arbcom decided the behaviour of AndyTheGrump, and the length of block
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
While some support longer block, some support shorter block, there is clearly we cannot got consensus on WP:ANI since there are too many users trying to purpose different length of their block. Why not turn this hot potato to Arbcom?---Lemonaka03:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Support It seems that the community is divided on this issue and is unlikely to resolve it so it should be escalated to ArbCom. Lightoil (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
@Ceoil No, nearly any consensus got may annoy some users in the community, due to the complex behaviour of AndyTheGrump. While arbcom can make a whole review of all these incidents, one by one. -Lemonaka07:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
This was already proposed and closed. If somebody wants to make a case request, then make it. ANI consensus is not a prior or relevant requirement. Bon courage (talk) 07:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Agree with above two comments. It's not how it works. Community needs to do the work. There is actually no deferring to Arbcom, which is the final instance and for the final instance to activate the previous ones need to be exhausted. For an Arbcom case to begin, the community needs to have tried and failed. That's not the same as saying "we were half-way done, and were trying, and some of us thought we might be failing, so we decided to turn this hot potato over to you". No. You need to actually, palpably, fail. This section should be closed.—Alalch E.09:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Frivilious. No consensus verging on no action needed does not mean that the community can't handle it. Ceoil (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I’d agree this is an invalid attempt to use ArbCom to deal with problems the community doesn’t want to deal with, even when it’s in their court; it’s already been discussed anyway. I don’t doubt it will eventually end up at ArbCom without a community ban, but even I think it’s too early, especially when there is a mounting consensus for some kind of block. Dronebogus (talk) 10:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose, and I would close this subsection – we've already discussed this previously below. I agree with what User:Alalch E. said, let's only go to Arbcom if this thread truly can't be closed without some form of consensus in one way or another. — AP 499D25(talk)12:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Perhaps only marginally related to the above, but per @Moneytrees: at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lightburst: If this had been discovered at the time, the Lightburst account would have been indefinitely blocked. LB was engaged in votestacking at AFD and at RFA. The fact that it wasn't noticed until just now means a block would be punitive, but I don't feel like we should just act like it never happened. Frankly I'm profoundly disappointed, whatever differences LB and myself have had, I didn't expect this. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today23:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Support. I think a more in depth discussion of Lightburst's behavior is also warranted, particularly WP:IDHT. AndytheGrump's behavior has been contemptible, but that doesn't mean their underlying point isn't valid. BilledMammal (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, I know I literally just said blocks aren't punitive, but this is proving the point about unblockables, and how experienced editors will get less sanctions than newbies. LilianaUwU(talk / contributions)23:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
In lieu of a long, complicated oration about how this is a regrettable and shameful betrayal of the community's trust: "lmao". jp×g🗯️23:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Also, I don't really know why this is in question at all, but I believe Moneytrees to be a thoughtful editor and a good arbitrator who is actively trying to promote the best interests of the project and the safety of its editors. And I am supposed to believe he is maliciously persecuting Lightburst??? See, this is why we need Wikipediocracy. It's not just the lèse-majesté of a credibly accused sockmaster making an accusation like that. I like a bit of lèse-majesté myself, sometimes, with a nice wine and a bit of cheese. I am sorry. I will come back when I have stopped laughing. A sitting Arbitrator is competent to make that finding. Of course he is. Lightburst really should be quiet now for the sake of his own dignity, and should get something just for being here after spending all day flouncing out, and being here to trash-talk an honest Arbitrator to boot.
Support. Seems preventative, allows that Lightburst hasn't socked in four years, but has teeth if there's recidivism. (I didn't realize WP:3X only applies if the sockmaster has already been indeffed.) EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
It is 100% BS, and Moneytrees has no integrity. Moneytrees used 4 year old inferences to convict me in absentia. JSS, you lost your arb flag for your participation on WPO, and now you are degrading the office of admin by taking your marching orders from WPO with this meaningless proposal. I only have one account, please check. This is my last day on the project, and you can insult and dox some other editor who wants??? to volunteer. Lightburst (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Support. I thought there was in effect such a restriction on all of us, absent good reason, a declaration, and no double-dipping in discussions? So: duh? Yngvadottir (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Support - This is extremely poor behavior. I know Lightburst believes this SPI was done incorrectly, but assuming that this is a correct finding that's definitely something that cannot happen again. CREEDIXMO(TALK)00:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Support, sockpuppetry is sockpuppetry, and even if this happened years ago, it would still be preventative to put Lightburst on a one-account restriction per this precedent. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment. Lightburst says they have left the project, scrambling their password on the way out, which mean there is little or no practical value in pursuing this proposal. Can we close it and move on to other things? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I never would have expected this.[sarcasm] - ZLEAT\C
Support precisely because the Lightburst account has allegedly been retired. A one-account restriction will be a useful reference should they attempt to avoid further scrutiny by editing under another account. And listen, I completely believe Moneytrees. Insulting their integrity is garbage behavior. Confession time: I drafted a Wm/LB SPI report in 2020 and didn't file it because I got sidetracked by the global pandemic, then didn't bother later because the Wm account stopped editing. Same evidence plus some IP info from logged-out editing. Absolutely slam dunk obvious sockpuppet behavior. Would have saved a lot of time and hassle if I had filed in 2020, so my apologies for not doing my duty then. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Support - I can't be the only one who suspects that Lightburst may not have scrambled their password username (?). Regardless, they did violate the community's trust, and if they decide to return, they should be restricted to a single account. This obviously does not change my opinion of Andy's actions. - ZLEAT\C02:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Nice Indignant Flamingo. you have always been so mean to me. I have not quite closed the door at the moment and I corrected the username gaffe. FTR your report would not have revealed anything about at all about socks. I encourage you to file an SPI report. Lightburst (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You know, there's no reason the Badsites Brigade can't link to Wikipedia's own masterful article on the dastardly website in question. Here, I'll do it: Wikipediocracy. Don't type it three times, though.Dan Murphy (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Support the restriction as a minimum. We already know that Lightburst has a history of evasive conduct, and will be back somehow. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Robert that is certainly an aspersion. I have no history of evasive conduct. You are usually much more careful with your words. Lightburst (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Andy, I’m impressed with the ballsiness of someone being scrutinized for their unacceptable behavior dancing on the line of acceptability. That doesn’t mean I condone it. This is exactly why you should be blocked— this impunity, your belief that you can say whatever you want in the middle of an ANI case against you with zero consequences or even raucous support. Dronebogus (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Support and I'd go further insofar that if they would have been indeffed back then, why aren't they now? Socking is one of the biggest betrayals of community trust and I'd think that they should go through the process of having to request having a block lifted after a period of time like anyone else who has been found to have inappropriately used a sock. TarnishedPathtalk04:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
look I am obviously angry over the MT conclusion. I never have had or plan to have a second account. I was very upset over an SPI report with like five year old inferences. Imagine DoRD already communicated with me years ago over a shared computer, and then MT comes back years later and changes the outcome. It was out of left field. Lightburst (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Support at a minimum and SUpport CBAN. Blocking would indeed have been punitive as JSS has noted, but as far as I know no such restriction exists for community bans. Their comments in this thread alone, as well as the alleged password scrambling antics, indicate to me that they are no longer interested in contributing constructively, and therefore I also support a CBAN. Pinguinn🐧08:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Confused Aren't we only supposed to have one account anyway unless they're WP:GOODSOCK accounts? So, is the proposal really saying Lightburst can't have a GOODSOCK account? DeCausa (talk) 08:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose on a technical basis because we aren’t supposed to have more than one account unless it’s a GOODSOCK, which LB obviously isn’t using. So this is like telling a robber they aren’t allowed to steal. Dronebogus (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Query. I realize now that I know even less about wikipolitics than I initially thought. I'll be asking a few questions (in my own userspace) once this has all been resolved. My pressing question is: what precisely is a 'one account restriction'? I was under the impression that we were permitted only one account (unless, for example, an admin testing account). *Flees from this noticeboard and scurries back to WikiProject Denmark* Svampesky (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
You can have multiple accounts if they’re disclosed appropriately. I think some people have like one for mobile or something; others just have them because reasons. Why we’re arguing about whether a sockpuppeteer can have such an account is beyond me. Dronebogus (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I kind of question whether they will be back, but with LB it’s hard to tell. Add on socking and subsequent denial and we’ve got a whole new can of worms. Dronebogus (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Support this will be necessary regardless of whether the proposal below passes. This is because if they do appeal successfully it will automatically prevent any new litigation over new accounts. No messing. ——Serial Number 5412912:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. This gram of flesh is more performative than anything else--a way to say "See, they're contrite and have suffered a sanction". A sanction for the sake of a sanction (I don't feel like we should just act like it never happen is pointless. If Lightburst decides to sock illegitimately, this measure is hardly likely to stop them. On the other hand, if Lightburst needs a LEGITSOCK in the near future, this does harm but no good. Sincerely, Dilettante15:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment since a few have asked: users are normally allowed to create multiple accounts, full stop. I have three. It's when they use multiple accounts problematically (as described by the sockpuppetry policy) that they may draw sanctions, and it's not that unusual for repeat multiple account offenders to be sanctioned with a single-account restriction, if their behaviour has not already warranted banning. I don't think it's the right move here, we're talking about an incident from five years ago with no evidence that any problem has continued past that report. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Just Step Sideways et al. Two things: 1; when I made this block I wasn't intending it to derail the discussion here, I've only read like 10% of it and I'm not sure of the block's relevance to the rest of it-- I discovered Lb's sock back in the middle of May, and only have had time to block it now. I didn't think he would deny it, as I think the evidence is pretty definitive, I thought he would admit it and apologize, and an ANI section or anything further wouldn't be necessary.And as far as I know, we were on good terms before? So I'm not sure if this discussion needs to happen here?
2; does this really address the problem though? Lb is right; This was ultimately about some socking that stopped four years ago. I purposefully didn't block Lb's main because I legitimately don't think it's fair in most cases to block someone for socking that old-- no matter how "big or small" they are. As far as I know, Lb hasn't socked since October 2020. But that's the thing.
He denies the socking here in the face of overwhelming evidence. He said in this talkpage message, where he "scrambled his password" (he is still arguing with people here as I type this though), that I didn't provide any evidence. There are over a hundred diffs which implicate him in the EIA I cited. "355"-- the socking is literally in the name, but Lb denies it. He accidentally admitted the socking with the screenshot he uploaded in 2019-- and any Commons admin can confirm this-- and now he's denying it. He says above that I have "no integrity". All I did was tell the truth. There were no rebuttals to what I said, just empty attacks and aspersions. I don't actually care if someone attacks me or whatever, But that's the thing.
Lightburst is anti-accountability and has evaded several sanctions because of this. This Tban is just another notch in that. In June 2019, under his previous username, he narrowly avoided an indefinite copyvio/disruptive editing block in this giant mess of an ANI thread (compare Levivich’s comments to this discussion), and then was later blocked for copyvios and edit warring; the comments at User talk:Lightburst/Archive 6-28-19 indicate nothing has changed over the years. An indef was only avoided because WP:CCI was mostly inactive at the time. Further copyright issues were found, and I know close paraphrasing continued into at least 2022. Then, there was the socking from 2019–2020. Then, there was the six month AfD Tban in November 2021, where Lightburst "retired" for just a bit over six months after the result. It seems like this was to dodge the sanction. Then there was the 2022 COI issues; Speaking on what I've seen as a functionary, Lb was cleared for it moving forwards and it deserved to go away, but if some of it had been brought up earlier in his editing career, I believe it is likely he would have been sanctioned. Then there was the 2023 AE warning for GENSEX/BLP issue, where Lb skirted a TBan. Then there was the May 2024 ANI thread on the same subject. Then there was the early 2024 RfA Tban vote; would that have passed if thegameplaying and votestacking was known about? If this edit warring to add suppressed content at RTH's RfA had been cited? If this oppose from Spicy's RfA had been cited?
Review the discussions I have cited, little has changed over five years when it comes to the way Lightburst interacts with others. Look up "lightburst" through the archives of ANI, or any WP: space, for the last few years, and you will find plenty of other warnings, examples of evasive and uncollegial behavior, unnecessary attacks, and nonsense aspirations, directed towards editors new and old. This is happening in this very discussion right now. WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIR have been violated a million times over, there have been countless pointless dramas, and it is a tragedy that so much time has been sunk over someone who is only partially here in good faith, and should’ve already been blocked three or four times over. Anyone who is a regular at Wikipedia noticeboards knows this, and something is only happening now because I have the “time” and "evidence" and the "social capital" (the only time I'll ever say that phrase) to say something and be "safe" afterwards. And that's not fair for anyone else, it's against the spirit of this website. I rarely post to ANI because I hate writing at length about this kind of stuff, but that's what this kind of drama does; it wastes time, it drains people. Lb has been harassed, and there has been bad conduct from various other parties, but that does not justify the attacks and the evasiveness.
I want to give leeway to Lb, who is someone I see as a contrarian, which I think we need more of. We need editors who can say the unpopular thing, or point out the overlooked error, or the unfair policy. But there is overwhelming evidence that that is not the role Lb has ever played. I do not trust Lightburst when they say they are not coming back, so I think he should be either community banned, or topic banned from everything sans uncontroversial GA and DYK work. We need to end some of these narratives of people getting away with things again, and again, and again. It’s not cool that there’s one rule for people who know how to “play the game”, and another for those that don’t. That does not preclude anything else going on in these discussions-- please don't let this derail them, because that would go against the point I'm trying to get across right now. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)09:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
It's not really that damning. It's very easy to create a new account, follow someone around and agree with them on various things, and then -- viola! -- an EIA that looks "damning." The EIA isn't Money's only evidence -- there's apparently a deleted Commons upload, for example -- but EIA's are very easy to joe job. Levivich (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
FWIW, I spent a while yesterday reviewing the connection between Lightburst and Wm335td, and the evidence I found (not the same as Moneytrees' evidence) makes me basically 100% sure they are the same person. —Ingenuity (t • c) 14:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I have only been editing since Sept 2018 and I guess it is clear I was not very good. We should be proud that our systems work because like everyone, I am a work in progress.
5 months after I started editing I was accused of CCI. - it never happened again
8 months after I started editing, I was blocked for edit warring a blockquote - it never happened again
3 years after I started editing the community did not like the way I operated in deletion discussions - I was TBanned for 6 mos - It never happened again
3 years after I started I was accused of a COI - a functionary decided I did not have a COI - Moneytrees disagrees wants it reopened? More about that later - anyway it never happened again
Last year I was warned about Gensex after I questioned a hook we were going to run at DYK about a trans person - I never did that again.
My RFA behavior - I will own it. I stick up for the minority voters and I also vote angular to the majority sometimes - Not really sure what else to say about it, but I vote my conscience and it irks some editors
Some of this - I am not even sure how to respond to what seems like hyperbole and aspersions evasive and uncollegial behavior, unnecessary attacks, and nonsense aspirations, directed towards editors new and old. WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIR have been violated a million times over...countless pointless dramas and some editorializing like skirted a TBan, and - dodge the sanction
And now a full 6 years after I started editing, I have gotten pretty good at it. But Moneytrees goes all the way back to the start. And back to a five year old closed case, where the presiding admin did not accuse me of being a sockmaster and took no action against me. On their own, Moneytrees reopens this closed case and labels me the sockmaster. Next Moneytrees connects me to a username that has guitar numbers in it; the folks at WPO are always talking about my alleged guitar collection. Do you know how many 300 series guitars there are, just in the Gibson line? The ones I can remember: 320, 330, 333, 335, 339, 340, 340, 345, 347, 355, 359, 369, 390. Then all the other guitar companies that have 300 series? And cars? And who knows what other significant numerical combinations are relevant to an individual? Also this connected account has been dormant for four years? The other evidence is that this account edited in areas where I edited. And the screenshot? I remember sending a screenshot to the admin (five years ago) to show the locked screen on a shared computer because the browser was locked. So we have inferences and a five year old closed case that Moneytrees was compelled reopen and overturn. I am wondering why is Moneytrees is going back so far to reopen a 5 year old case about me. And then insted of just defending the sock investigation, they bring up all of these old cases where my editing and behavior was improved by the process? Why now, and why is this seemingly directly from the WPO's longstanding socking accusation against me - and with the same exact accusation? And why is Moneytrees trying to connect me to a dormant account on slim evidence. Again this is from a half a decade ago. And now moneytrees has indicated they would want to overturn the results of the COI conclusion? This exact COI claim is a long running accusation against me on WPO. So thanks to all who made me a better editor, everyday is a new opportunity to learn. Lightburst (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Proposal: Removal of Lightburst's autopatrolled right
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is clear that Lightburst has created two very obviously deficient articles given the result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noah Robertson (musician) and the extremely likely result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bent's Camp Resort. Given that it's not clear to me that their articles should be marked as automatically patrolled and I think that any future articles they create should be subject to the usual NPP. They've stated on their user talk that they've scrambled their username (Not sure what that means. Do they mean password?) and left the project, however I don't think we can guarantee that they won't be back and I don't think we should leave to chance. TarnishedPathtalk04:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Seems like an overreaction. Check my contributions before making a proposal. Would you propose that I unreview the GAs that I have reviewed, or unreview the hundreds of articles I approved during new page patrols? Or maybe that I not be allowed to review and promote content to the main page as I have done almost 500 times? At this point you are being punitive. Lightburst (talk) 05:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I disagree that that AfD/article is fixable (at least on current evidence), but I agree with the general comment that the article was a less egregious failure. Yet it has existed for a year and the creator is now saying they don't have time to go looking for sources to show notability. After it has existed a year. It should not have been created without such sourcing by an auto patrolled user. So no, they should not keep autopatrolled. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
@Sirfurboy: This Bent's article may be a close call, but as I said, I have worked with Lightburst and they are competent. If they applied for the NPP perm without the backdrop of this place it would probably be granted. Bruxton (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
The point that another editor is fixing it now is actually a point in favor of removing autopatrolled. Autopatrolled has no effect on the actual editor, if LB isn't really retiring it seems clear his creations benefit from being reviwed by others. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today18:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose anything else you want to bring up? Have you checked if Lightburst has ever made any spelling mistakes? Are they up to date with their taxes? Any outstanding parking tickets? Would you have ever brought this issue to ANI if they hadn't had the audacity to criticise ATG? This is a very obvious attempt at obfuscating the issue at hand, which is ATG's conduct. It should not be Lightburst's contributions that are under examination here, but the way they are being targeted by a WP:TAGTEAM organising off-wiki - and this just proves that point. Make a new thread if you are so concerned, and let the issue of ATG remain the topic here. Orange sticker (talk) 09:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Support. When I posted about their NPP, I thought maybe I should check whether they were autopatrolled. Thanks are due to Carrite for improving one of the articles, but Lightburst is wholly responsible for their quality when they moved them to mainspace. Like any editor starting a new article, it was up to them to demonstrate notability and to make sure the article reflected the sources, followed BLP rules, and didn't contain embarrassing errors; or at least to catch and fixdeficiencies as soon as possible. Most editors don't have the autopatrol right, which is for the benefit of NPPers so they can skip articles by such editors if they choose to, because those editors can be trusted to almost always get it right. Lightburst has been getting it wrong, or been in too much of a hurry to mainspace their work, or something. Whatever's happened, their articles should be checked as is usual for new articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Support this will be necessary regardless of whether the proposal below passes. This is because if they do appeal successfully it will automatically grandfather in. No messing. ——Serial Number 5412912:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose on a technical basis LB is a sockpuppeteer. He shouldn’t be coming back ever unless he sufficiently apologizes for his bad behavior so throwing a minor sanction on top of a very likely CBAN is pointless, borderline punitive. It could be part of their unblock conditions that they will lose not only autopatrol but arguably even the ability to create pages, but that’s purely hypothetical. Dronebogus (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I created the below section after Moneytrees report, because until that time I didn't think about proposing a CBAN. When I created this section what I was clear on was that there were two AFDs for shocking articles and when looking at the articles I saw purple ticks, indicating that they had been created by an autopatrolled editor. TarnishedPathtalk12:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I was just about to do this - it has no actual effect on LB, and the consensus seems quite clear - when I realized (a) Lightburst probably thinks I'm biased against him, and (b) due to my post below, everyone else probably thinks I'm biased for him. I don't think I'm involved, but it would still probably be unwise. But someone uninvolved should enact consensus here, to prune the open subthreads on this mess. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. Two articles. Two obviously deficient articles that have no place in this encyclopedia, but I am far from convinced this is a long-term problem. Queen of Heartstalk17:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Support This merely means that articles they create will get looked at by NPP. This is the norm in Wikipedia, not some type of severe measure. North8000 (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Support/this doesn't actually need a vote anyway Any single admin can take a look at users' page creations and determine whehter they should have the autopatrolled right, it isn't a big deal to revoke it as it doesn't have any actual effect on the users' ability to edit or create new pages, but it does seem there is a grwoing consensus here to revoke it, so if LB should want it back in the future it would need that would need approval from the community. From what I've seen I do think his creations benefit from being reviewed by others and if it were up to me I'd revoke it. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today18:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is no consensus for a community ban (WP:CBAN) at this time and it seems unlikely that even a WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS will be established with additional time. Also noting that there was a perm revocation and an account restriction (sanctions imposed elsewhere in this thread). Accordingly, I am closing this proposal at the minimal time requirement (a few hours early in fact) as having failed to pass. El_C05:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would really prefer someone merging the sections. All it did for the above sections was create a false appearance of consensus against. Just make one "Sanctions on ATG" section and one "Sanctions on Lightburst" Soni (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
@Soni, I've reorganised all the sections so that the proposals for each editor are together under headings for each one of them. Does that look better? TarnishedPathtalk11:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose, blocks and bans should be preventative, not punitive. The socking took place four years ago, so "warning" Lightburst with a one-account restriction should be enough, barring evidence of more recent socking. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
@Chaotic Enby My comment is supporting a preventive ban, independent of the socking. There’s years of evidence of disruptive behavior which Lb has continued to engage in— the socking revelation just brought more of it out. So a ban is not punitive. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)10:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment I really feel like these multiple proposals to sanction Lightburst, regardless of their individual merits, are not in good faith, and seem like a blatant attempt at obfuscation and possibly also intimidation to show the consequences of criticising ATG. This entire thread has long stopped being productive and now reflects incredibly badly on the community as a whole. Orange sticker (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
@Orange sticker, I would have went straight with this proposal if Moneytrees had written the comment I reference above before I proposed the the removal of autopatrolled. There's no bad faith here at all. I'd presume that most editors know that when they file a report here that it could very well turn into a WP:BOOMERANG because their own actions will also be subjected to scrutiny. I'd suggest you strike your WP:ABF. TarnishedPathtalk11:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Boomerangs usually come as a result of the reporter's conduct in the thread itself or the edits/articles being disputed, it seems here there's been an attempt to rake up old dirt. The timing of the SPI is very strange and the counter accusations do seem to be successfully distracting from ATG's ongoing poor conduct, so I stand by my belief this is an example of bad faith reporting. Orange sticker (talk) 11:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
No, this is not bad faith reporting. And the counter accusations do seem to be successfully distracting from ATG's ongoing poor conduct, is simply not true as evidenced by at least a dozen comments/!votes being made today (so far), in the sections pertaining to the proposals for ATG.Isaidnoway(talk)12:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Support I believe that a ban for the misconduct of socking should be implemented as we ban socking editors regularly with WP:3X which does not apply to this case. Nevertheless, we should stop turning a blind eye to Lightburst's repeated misconduct, we should not continue to put up with such behavior just because they contribute to building an encyclopedia. Lightoil (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Support CBAN with WP:STANDARDOFFER after 6 months (with a preference that a CU confirms this SPI, behaviourally or directly). Moneytrees gives strong evidence and Lightburst's accountability-evasion isn't something new. I am particularly reminded of ExclusiveEditor as a counter-example, where an editor willingly disclosed socking, was not disruptive at all since, and still had multiple admins oppose any unblocks. Here we have someone who clearly should have been blocked much before for various reasons, refuses to accept their socking, and continues to prove the unblockability. You do not handle that with "Okay now pinky promise to only have one account", you treat them like you would any other user caught socking. Otherwise what's the line Lightburst needs to cross to really get blocked? Soni (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Support as proposer, with standard offer after six months. What Moneytrees detailed above suggests that the editor is a net negative to the project. TarnishedPathtalk10:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Support LB has already been T-Banned in the last couple of years for disruption; They are the bull that has been in the arena more than twenty minutes. I'm not sure that six months will be enough, to be honest: several of these problems, including those with ARS and deletion, as well as passive-aggressive incivility (see ANIs passim), go back well before my time and are still dragging editors back here on a semi-regular basis. I do not see a CBan as incompatible with PUNITIVE: indeed, policy regarding the latter makes no mention of the former, for the very reason that it only applies to blocks. And in this particular case, I could have supported an argument for a block on the grounds that not withstanding time passed, it was still preventative. Of future socking, of course. But that's by the by. The CBan is where it's at, and Moneytrees' indictment os convincing. Sorry LB! ——Serial Number 5412912:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
This proposal relates to a ban, not a block, and neither WP:NOPUNISH nor WP:BANPOL refer to punishment or punitive at all. So arguing that a ban needs to adhere to the conditions of a block is a misinterpretation. Probably wilful? Happy days! ——Serial Number 5412916:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
It's a valid point that it's not explicitly required by policy, but WP:PUNISH (essay) well-describes why it may be worth acting as if it does in this case. Reasonable minds may, of course, differ. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Support we have a zero tolerance policy on sockpuppeting. Unlike other things it’s not something you can ever “get away with” by not doing it for x years or having good contributions. Unless Lightburst openly admits and apologizes for betraying the community’s trust they have no business here. Dronebogus (talk) 12:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
We don't, actually. First time and/or not very disruptive sockpuppetry is frequently met with just a short block or a warning. The standard offer is also often extended to sockpuppeteers, even serial offenders, meaning that they can expect an unblock after six months without abusing multiple accounts. – Joe (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I’m putting LB in the “should know better” category. If it was some newbie, yes I’d let an isolated socking incident slide, but not such an established user as LB Dronebogus (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken the socking happened in 2019 and 2020. Lightburst started actively editing in late 2018. – Joe (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
"Without abusing multiple accounts" is not the only criteria when considering an unlock request, from what I've seen, they are also expected to acknowledge that they engaged in socking. So far, LB has not done that, and instead, has insisted that the didn't sock in spite of the overwhelming evidence.Isaidnoway(talk)12:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Sure, had LB been blocked for sockpuppetry at the time, I doubt they would be extended the standard offer unless they admitted it. I was just commenting that our policy towards sockpuppetry is quite far from "zero tolerance".
Since they weren't blocked, however, I think it's easy to understand (without defending) why they didn't subsequently own up to it: doing so would have no benefit, and carry a substantial risk of getting them blocked after the fact, as is happening now. I'm sitting on the fence here but I think it's important to be clear that what Moneytree's has proposed is banning Lightburst for a long-term pattern of uncollegial behaviour and evading accountability – not for just sockpuppetry that happened four years ago. – Joe (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Moneytrees report detailed more than socking. If it was socking alone, it would still be problematic, because LB has refused to acknowledge it in the face of indisputable evidence. TarnishedPathtalk12:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Denying an accusation is not disruptive at all. It literally does not disrupt anybody from editing anything. "Admit it or we ban you!" is fucking witch hunt stuff. Way over the top. Levivich (talk) 13:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
The longer an ANI thread goes on, the closer the probability of someone accusing someone else of a witch hunt gets to 1 Dronebogus (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
@Zanahary: The evidence is pretty hard to refute. See my link to the Shaggy defense— LB isn’t denying an accusation, he’s denying something we have clear proof of never occured. Dronebogus (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Strong support for creating needless drama- Lightburst is always the first to run to ANI when AtG does something they feel is bad, never hesitates to call for sanctions. The attacking of Moneytrees here is also telling. They have added "retired" banners to their userpage now rather than admit any wrongdoing of their own; at this point, we should assist them in that endeavor. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)13:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I sympathize with that (I also have a still-open ANI thread here), but my support comes from the totality of the situation, including the user's own placing of a "retired" banner in the face of overwhelming votestacking accusations. FWIW, I have also supported the proposal for an indef of AtG. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)13:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Support. The editor has left the project and disabled their account but they will come back. Let's presume that. I can not not presume it because I know what it feels like. I had also left the project by locking myself out impulsively. So ... how should Lightburst return? Can someone describe a plausible scenario of their return that is also a desirable scenario? I can only imagine one such scenario: A return to editing that coincides with a return to good standing. Lb should have something to appeal to be able to return. That's a much easier path for them to return than any alternative. Banning (or blocking) Lightburst is actually leaving the door for them to return. It signals: "When you decide to return, there is a clear process for you to use". A one-account restriction for a user who has locked themselves out is not a clear process. Imagine: "Hello, I am an editor who socked and refused to admit it, and was also disruptive in other ways, and I left and locked myself out of my account, and then I got a one account restriction, so now can you please lift the one-account restriction so that I can edit again using a new account, which will be my only account as my existing account is non-functional?" Total joke. We need to recognize here that locking yourself out is disruptive in itself, as it complicates things for everyone. The only way to come back is to appeal and say that the ban is no longer necessary because what will follow are only productive contributions, and that the editor has learned how not to repeat past mistakes, including that when they are under stress in the future or under threat of sanction, they will accept what's coming for them and not lock themselves out again.—Alalch E.12:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Support Lightburst apparently scrambled their password and walked away. Do we take them at their word for this? Who's to say they don't create another account? The CBAN isn't on the account, but the person behind it. As with others here who support the block, regardless of the fact it happened 4 years ago, its not just the socking that's the issue. it's persistent behavior that's already led to a topic ban. I'm of course not against lifting the ban if implemented in 6 months, with the understanding that their behavior MUST change in order to continue to edit. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Strong oppose, so the sock was found in May, hasn't edited in four years and no evidence LB has socked since October 2020 per Moneytrees. What problem are we solving besides punishing Lb for raising an issue at the noticeboard? This seems a ridiculous overreaction to this whole thread. StarMississippi13:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
How should Lightburst return now that they have made themselves lose access to their account? Create a new account and start editing again, just like that? —Alalch E.13:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Support I've had conflicts with Lightburst in the past, so you can take my opinion with a grain of salt, but in my opinion Lightburst continuing to deny responsibility for socking in the face of basically overwhelming evidence that they did shows that they cannot be trusted. In order to continue to be a member of this community, they actually need to acknowledge and apologise for socking. There are also long-term competence issues with editing as demonstrated elsewhere in the thread. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand why we can't just have a modicum of grace here. LB has (if I understand correctly, I haven't visited WO to verify, but if I'm generally right then details don't matter) been at least partially outed fairly recently. Sure, they've created 2 articles on non-notable people, but that's not why we're talking about a cban. They're a gadfly - an inclusionist gadfly - and that drives people up a wall. Socking from 4 years ago is a useful thing to latch onto, but they're really being cbanned because they're annoying. I would like to live in a world where we don't indef Andy or cban LB, we just smooth the rough edges enough so we can continue to have contributions from both. WP:ANIWP:Votes for banning seems to be set up to only use sledge hammers, even when some WD40 is what's needed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
This entirely. While I believe Moneytrees' comment that they only read 10%, actioning a sock now that you found in May that was long stale even then is a bad look because regardless of how it was intended it comes across as looking for dirt on a reporter. Also, Lightburst's behavior now or in May is no different to ever. It's the same reason Andy likely won't be blocked either, oddly enough. (And yes, I say that as someone who believed Andy should face a short term but not indef block). StarMississippi15:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam, The outing violations weren't so recent, it happened in late 2021, or early 2022 I believe-- I don't think that changes the situation Lb is in much, as the current mentions of their identity amount to harassment via petty taunting. But, it does provide some more context as to why AtG and Lb would dislike each other so, and I think that's worth noting. I really hate the ANI trainwrecks and pile ons too-- this is the first Cban I've ever thrown my support behind-- but I feel like I'm being irresponsible by not saying anything, when I know there's a problem, and I see evidence that the problem is continuing unabated.
@Star Mississippi I'm glad to discuss this further with you-- I want to be totally transparent with everything I say here. I came across the sock by accident in May via the Checkuser exclusive Masz, which generates user similarity scores based off of editing/speech habits. When "scan" one user, it generates a list of 20 or so accounts in order of similarity. I was investigating a completely unrelated sock farm when I saw Lb and Wm come up as high similarity scores. There was no way the person I was looking at could be Lb, but I wasn't familiar with Wm, so I ran a scan on them. Lb and their previous username still ranked high, so I out of curiosity I looked into the connection, which resulted in the SPI. The other earlier socks are visible in the CU log. I was planning on blocking the account that week, but I got busy in real life and yesterday was finally the first day where I was able to sit down and action it. I was planning on blocking a series of other socks I had been investigating at the time, although that's been derailed by this Ani a bit unfortunately... I was hesitant because of this ANI thread though. But, I decided to go forwards, for two reasons; I thought that Lb would admit to the socking and things would basically go away from there, and that I've spent too much recently worrying about the optics of situations, and making the right "political" moves. I should be more honest and upfront than just sitting on things, because that's the best way to try and change things.
I've spent these last few months reading through a lot of the Arbcom archives and learning about the site's history. One thing I'm seeing is all these same narratives recurring over and over again. The offsite drama between some critic forum and some ARS editor they don't like. Unnecessary attacks and outing over various article details. New people coming in, being contrarian for a bit, and then eventually falling in with the groups they used to criticize. I now know stuff other editors don't-- I think that makes it my responsibility to try and fix things and help where I can, if that makes sense. Context and understanding is key in what it explains
"Also, Lightburst's behavior now or in May is no different to ever. It's the same reason Andy likely won't be blocked either, oddly enough."-- That's basically my rationale for the ban. The socking is just one small part of the story. There's the three dodged indefs for copyvio, the one for COI, and the one for socking. for I won't further belabor my points-- I think people know the diffs and my position, and if people think a lesser sanction is good then reasonable minds can differ. I am unconvinced we won't be in a similar situation within the next four months, but that's how it is sometimes... Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)00:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Support as a net negative to the project. Moneytrees linked to the old CCI discussion, and I see in re-reading it that I argued then that the copyvio issues were significant enough that LB should've been shown the door at that time. If anything, LB's behavior in the years since have only made it clearer that the drama they bring to WP outweighs any value. Grandpallama (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose I believe we are going way too far with this proposal. I am sad to see a process that sprawls out looking for ways to punish, based on old news. I am not sure who would have enough street cred to survive this process. Bruxton (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose as obviously punitive. Also interesting is that the blocking admin "didn't have time" to take action for months, but found it hours after this unrelated report was made. Charcoal feather (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose as punitive. I don't often agree with Lightburst. My only NPA violation was against them. However, the socking (if true) is ancient history; this prevents nothing. If I were Lightburst and were CBANned, I'd be more likely to sock (block/ban evasion is one of the most common reasons for socking, after all). If, in the future, it turns out they are still socking, I'll support a ban. Sincerely, Dilettante15:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Acknowledging I've seen Serial Number's point that BANPOl does not mention punishing (though I was not aware of that prior to this). However, I still maintain that using blocks or bans to punish is contrary to their purpose. Sincerely, Dilettante17:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Changing vote to neutral. I’m still feeling insulted and betrayed that Lightburst refuses to acknowledge he was engaging in socking but it’s obvious to me now the socking was not bad enough to justify an indef and neither is lying about it. If people think LB is sufficiently disruptive to ban him for general conduct that’s fair but I washed my hands of that crap a long time ago. Dronebogus (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose indef per Star Mississippi and Dilettante. Considering their sock hasn’t edited in almost half a decade, it doesn’t feel like it meets the bar for “chronic and intractable” behavior. That said, I’d support a temporary block/sanction, simply because sockpuppeting is a bright-line rule and they failed to disclose they used one. TheKip(contribs)17:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Weak support, regrettably. While I greatly appreciate Lightburst's DYK and GA work, I am unconvinced that this negates his copyvio, inability to not stir up drama, and sockpuppetry. Cheers, Queen of Heartstalk17:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Weak support - sockpuppetry from five years ago would be pretty much entirely irrelevant, if not for their obstinate denial of what was confirmed by a checkuser at the time, which has included a number of over-the-top personal attacks. It's also just such a waste of time when editors bring their WPO drama here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Support This isn't just about the old socking (although if they'd just admitted it we probably wouldn't be here), it is about the ridiculous amount of time the community has spent trying to get this user to drive between the lines. Their own "report" above details one instance after another where they caused needless drama, saying "this exact specific thing never happened again" doesn't cut it when the user just caused a different problem the next time around. And their attitude has always been terrible. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today18:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. Overkill. Even though I'd be a fairly extreme deletionist and find LB a bit much at times, I don't think any of the incidents listed above individually deserve more than a weeks block, much less cumulatively an indef. LB is a net positive, and I can understand recent - at times - erratic behaviour given the off-site scrutiny, which is bound to be very upsetting, and perhaps perplexing given they are undoubtedly acting in good faith in their volunteer time. To put it another way, I really don't want LB's countless hours working here to be capped by a ban notice on his talk page, but at the same time, if he's going to choose to create articles on the edge of notability, then he has to choose his battles and accept that he in turn doesn't have to go nuclear for all. Ceoil (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose - per Star Mississippi. LB is now subject to the 1 account restriction, and the socking is stale (albeit it would have been much better if they admitted it). I think that's enough, and the full indef CBAN looks a little punitive. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose I have to agree that this feels like it is a bit too much of a reaction for the moment. There is no impending danger of disruption, so I think it's best to wait and see if the stern reactions and restrictions they are receiving here has a corrective effect. Curbon7 (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I disagree, but @Curbon7 I think that is a good point about stern reactions. Sometimes near misses need to happen as "wake up calls"-- it doesn't necessarily mean discussions were a waste of time. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)00:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Question: could someone familiar with the multiple accounts involved summarize or detail the vote-stacking allegations? I would like to understand if it’s just one or two cases or something more extensive. Apologies if there’s already a link and I didn’t see it; there is a lot of text to wade through here. 28bytes (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
@28bytes See the overlap here; there were six rfas double voted on in my count, and around 40 or so AfDs and a few other spare discussions. There are some AfDs that one account just made a listing edit at before the other one would vote though. That editing went from late 2019 to late 2020. That all said, I don’t think the socking alone is worth a ban, it’s more the history and pattern of further issues. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)01:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
@Moneytrees I am not 100% confident how SPI internal processes works, but can (another) CU confirm this behavioural similarities? Even if the Checkuser tool is not used, I assume a CU looking at the same data and saying "Yeah this is beyond the level at which we consider it confirmed" would be much stronger proof. So far it's the analysis only from you I think? Soni (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I think Moneytrees did a great service in laying out the timeline of the duration and extent of our community's efforts to manage Lightburst. Despite butting heads with Lightburst a few times over the years over copyvio and source/text issues, I'm sympathetic to the defense that they are improving. That's undeniably true in some ways. But from my perspective, even though the best of their edits have improved, the worst seem stuck at the same level, for reasons that appear completely entangled with their approach to participation in the community. Like Floquenbeam, I wish there were some way to just make their worst 10% of edits more like their best 10%. That would be so great for the encyclopedia! But that doesn't seem to be one of our choices. So, considering the entirety of the evidence and reasoning in Moneytrees' presentation (not simply on the evidence of the Wm/LB socking situation, which I independently spotted years ago and have no new feelings about) I support a community ban. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Support: The actions taken by this user warrant this sanction. Socking isn't ever acceptable, no matter when it happened. The evidence by Moneytrees is quote compelling. Let'srun (talk) 03:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Support for their continued deceptive behavior. The initial complaint filed against ATG had no merit to begin with, and was a bad faith report; getting pissed off because two of their subpar articles were rightfully nominated for deletion, doesn't merit a report being filed at ANI. And the accusation of canvassing is without merit as well, and is an example of deceptive behavior. And then in their report about Moneytrees report, they mention WPO three times as if there is some grand conspiracy against them, when the on-wiki evidence is clear and convincing documenting their deceptive behavior. They need a forced break from WP, and can come back in six months via the standard offer if they so choose.Isaidnoway(talk)06:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
There was no merit to their complaint, which is why it is deceptive behavior. The intent of the complaint was for the community to believe something that was simply not true. They cited this diff as evidence. There is clearly nothing in that diff that was actionable. And the other evidence presented was canvassing with a link to WPO, which again, was clearly not canvassing. And you were one of the first to comment on the initial complaint, saying: I really don't see this point really deserving to be at ANI and I don't think it's fair to blame Andy for the canvassing. In my view, this bad faith report was a continuation of their deceptive behavior.Isaidnoway(talk)08:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I have voted to CBAN Lightburst, but wanted to address this - And then in their report about Moneytrees report, they mention WPO three times as if there is some grand conspiracy against them. There kind of is. Some WPO users have doxxed Lightburst, and multiple others, troll him or monitor every edit he does. That is as close to a "grand conspiracy" as you get.
I personally think the monitoring is pretty warranted because I consider Lightburst's edits shoddy and their attitude towards fellow editors worse. And I completely understand with people who troll him. But there definitely are people actively malicious or worse specifically against them. Moneytrees is definitely not one of them, however. Soni (talk) 07:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
From what I've seen and heard about WPO, they have doxxed editors and administrator before, and monitoring/scrutinizing any edits on WP is kinda what they do. So there is no grand conspiracy against Lightburst.Isaidnoway(talk)08:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose CBAN. The removal of NPP and patrolled rights, and one account restriction, is sufficient here. IMV LB is not a net-negative. It also appears the suspected socking finished 4 years ago; furthermore I am not convinced the EIA is the total slamdunk evidence it is being accepted as, with a number of the Afds showing up purely because LB had added them to the relevant discussion list (e.g. [8], [9], [10], [11]). ResonantDistortion07:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose The removal of autopatrolled seems like enough. An indef cban which requires a community appeal is always the absolute worst-case scenario for any editor. Lb had a complaint and brought it here, and the community seems to have decided for whatever reason that Lb's colleagues are free to loudly call him an imbecile while standing around what amounts to the water cooler and in his earshot. Fine. Lb should at least be allowed to complain about it without the community deciding he's the problem. The problem is that we tolerate the water cooler and those with sufficient social capital here and there even enjoy it; they know they're safe. Or are they...? Mwahahahahaha...Valereee (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Lb should at least be allowed to complain about it without the community deciding he's the problem. I know you're aware of BOOMERANG—though an essay, it's common practice and hardly something to complain about given it serves a necessary function. Also, the Mwahahahahah when talking about a highly active editor's block (or the potential blocks of numerous highly active editors who frequent the cooler) seems in poor taste, whether or not you agree with their conduct. Sincerely, Dilettante17:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
The mwahahahaha was a joke about people assuming they're safe from being doxxed or called imbeciles. It had nothing to do with people being blocked. Sorry for the miscommunication. Valereee (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose although I reject the idea that any editor should be able to raise a complaint here with immunity, I don't believe this is the right step at this time. There are problems here, and let's be honest if this was a new editor they would have likely been blocked outright. Hopefully though Lb will listen to some of the concerns expressed here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°10:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Strong oppose: I obviously don't love the socking, but they haven't edit on those accounts in four years. This would be a very clear bad community ban to use evidence from 4 years ago to indefinitely block someone. If you want to propose a block do so based on other behaviour or something more recent. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Strongly support a community ban on this individual given the circumstances here and their horrible treatment of other people, myself included. Net negative. Acalamari13:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose - this feels punitive and over the top. I feel like the results of the SPI is being used as an excuse to punish an editor for unrelated things. They haven't used a sock for 4 years, and with this much public admonishment I doubt they would start doing it again. I was under the impression blocks are intended to change behaviour - if the behaviour has long changed then what's the point? BugGhost🦗👻14:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Looks like overkill regarding the current situation. I discounted two of the items in the time line. Regarding "Failure to admit", IMO admitting should only demanded when admitting is a necessary to fixing a problem such as with ongoing bad behavior. And "wp:COI" is written so broadly and applies that nasty-in-the-real-world term to many common and benign situations. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Support a site ban for the combination of a history of sockpuppetry, and current personal attacks. The history was old enough that it could be left in the past, except for the combination of a history of evasive behavior and a present of disruptive behavior. Too much is too much. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. I appreciate that the timing can't really be helped, but the message sent is this: if you make a complaint about a vested contributor, we'll dig into your past and find a stick to beat you with. WP:BOOMERANG is a useful short-hand for dealing with bad-faith reports but it's also one step away from victim-blaming, and there's plenty of that in this thread. Mackensen(talk)23:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. I recognize that Lightburst has never been an unambiguous net positive, and in the past, I have criticized him very strongly. But I've been watching his talk page for a long time, and, despite things being far from perfect, I have come to believe that he is making an effort to improve, and actually has been improving. What started this were some AfD issues, the remembrance of socking long-past, and non-admission of guilt. As for the first, it's historically a problem with the account, but as I say, things overall are improving. The second is far past its sell-by date, and as Mackensen says just above me, the third smells of victim-blaming. Of course, there's also bad will towards Lightburst over his style of opposing at RfA, but if that bothers people that much, a narrow TBAN would be a better fit, and it should be evaluated separately from any boomerang here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
oppose ... tired of all these proposals to ban dedicated editors who do a lot of good work. Yes, there are rare cases where I would support a ban despite the good work in main space, but this is not one of those cases. ---Sluzzelintalk00:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Support: first choice. Changing my vote from first choice being a short block, because of the editor's recent comment that I think it was very sloppy for Moneytrees to trash my reputation based on what appears to be slipshod checkuser work, posted despite numerous people arguing that he should have another another chance. What does it say that he cannot even refrain from re-offending until this thread closes? And I am someone inclined to give credence to the possibility of actual innocence, and who was previously taking into account that they did indeed get mocked at Wikipediocracy. SMH. Note that when I have checked statements there about this editor, they have been quite true. But putting that to the side, it would have been very possible to maintain his innocence without attacking Moneytrees, even if Moneytrees was every bit as bad as he says, which I absolutely do not believe, by the way. As I have recently said in another context, editors need to be able to believe what other editors say, and gratuitous and apparently unfounded personal attacks, while a sanction for previous personal attacks is being considered, is so far over the bright line for me that I really see no other choice but to call for the removal of this waste of time. Elinruby (talk) 04:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I wasn't originally going to comment here, because despite the quarrels we've had onwiki, some small part of me has a kind of begrudging respect for Lightburst. His behavior is contrarian, belligerent, and more than a little frustrating, but there's something about his consistency and advocacy that I've been impressed by in the past. But then I saw a comment he left on Tamzin's talk page, in which he basically said "I was suspicious of your close of the ADL RfC because you're Jewish, but I guess it wasn't so bad so you're fine". That is a disgusting thing to say to a Jewish editor and, had I not had prior disputes with Lightburst in other areas, I would have felt fine immediately levelling a block for it. Lightburst's comment also reminded me of his previous warning at AE for his conduct in a GENSEX/BLP case, his personal attacks against other editors and refusal to treat trans people with dignity – for everyone here saying this is just about socking, it isn't. Look at all of the evidence in Moneytrees' comment linked at the top of this section. With a heavy heart, I support. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
theleekycauldron I really like Tamzin! I stopped there to say that after seeing her work today below. I think you misunderstood. Here was my comment on Tamzin's page,
I saw your name today so I just stopped by to drop you a note. I raised an eyebrow when I saw you helped close the ADL discussion because of the star of David on your user page. However, I could not find fault with the close. Another thing, if I had been actively editing when you stood at RFA I would have opposed based on your political stance. But now, I would not oppose a Tamzin RFA. Have a great weekend!
"I was suspicious of your close of the ADL RfC because you're Jewish" seems an unfair interpretation. The Star of David is a symbol of Israel (and many other things) not just Judaism, and I think it'd be unsurprising for someone to raise an eyebrow at someone with a Star of David on their userpage (or a Palestinian flag) closing the ADL discussion. (I did.) Nowhere does he say anything about being "suspicious," that's not what "raised an eyebrow" means. It seems to me a positive message and I'm surprised that you're interpreting it as a negative message, so much so as to support a siteban over it. Levivich (talk) 13:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Raised an eyebrow can mean surprise or disapproval. Either way he had no business mentioning the Star of David in the first place. And there were three admins who closed that RfC, but he only chose to "compliment" one on the panel, the one who happened to have a Star of David on their userpage? In my view, it shows a poor lack of judgement and a lack of awareness that comments like that may be interpreted as inappropriate.Isaidnoway(talk)14:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
What's inappropriate about saying "I thought because you have the symbol of the state of Israel on your userpage that your close of the ADL-Israel discussion would be biased, but I found it free of bias, good job"? (By the way, I think it's a cool tattoo and I understand it is not a pro-Israel statement in any way, but I can also see how some would misinterpret it as such.) That doesn't strike me as siteban-worthy. Socially awkward, yes, but that's not siteban-worthy. Levivich (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
It isn’t a symbol of the state of Israel. Israel has on its flag a symbol of Judaism, but that doesn’t transform the Star of David into an Israeli symbol any more than Islamic Shahada is a Saudi symbol (shudders). nableezy - 14:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I highly doubt LB is an antisemite. Everyone’s a little on edge about Israel/Palestine because of the war in Gaza, it’s understandable to be paranoid about people’s motivations in the area. This section seems unproductive and should probably be collapsed. Also, @Levivich: please make the Israeli flag smaller or just link to it; I thought the page had been vandalized. Dronebogus (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I'd support such if all they're doing is causing conflict in the area. While we're on the topic how long should this last? I'd recommend at least 6 months. --NYC Guru (talk) 09:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Has (Redacted) free pass eventually expired. Gets caught socking. Nothing happens. Get caught violating copyright. Nothing happens. Get caught writing about his friends and then lies about it. Nothing happens. Falsely accuses others of outing and gets an admin to oversight a change of signature. A full ban is in order but will be redundant since (Redacted) has absolutely no respect for anything but his own ego. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Can't figure out where in this mess of a thread is the appropriate spot to say that MoneyTrees' post is compelling that LB could or should have been blocked indefinitely for various reasons at multiple points in the past; the evident aggression and evasiveness of LB's responses seems like a good reason to make up for those oversights and impose a sanction now that will prevent the various problematic behaviors from continuing. I am ambivalent about what exactly the appropriate sanction would be. --JBL (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Putting aside the earlier issues (discussed above) that Moneytrees brought up, Lightburst casted, during this very ANI discussion, multiple aspersions and personal attacks, most notably at Special:Diff/1233811486 and Special:Diff/1233802881. Civility norms apply to every user, and a short block could dissuade Lightburst from continuing this behavior. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC) (Edit 15:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC): The proposal originally suggested one week, I have left more flexibility around the duration based on comments below.)
Support, for at least a week and possibly longer, for all the reasons given above if the WP:CBAN doesn't get up. TarnishedPathtalk14:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)(Edit 15:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC): I've adjusted my comment as the proposer has adjusted their proposal).
Oppose those two remarks are heated but excusable in context. They weren’t at the level of name-calling or severe attacks on character. If AtG’s persistent incivility gets a 1 week block, this barely reaches the level of a warning. And do we really need any more proposed sanctions in this one thread? Dronebogus (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Does Lightburst have a similar record of incivility as ATG? If so, I would support (what's good for the goose is good for the gander), though might suggest a shorter block if LB has not had one before. If LB does not have a history of PA, then I'd oppose as punitive; editors do lose their cools sometimes, but as long as 1) it's not an ongoing pattern, and 2) they step back and stop after being called on it, there's no need for a block. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think incivility is the only issue we should consider. I think we should consider all the material given by Moneytrees. TarnishedPathtalk15:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
While it can be good to consider context, this proposal is specifically for the personal attacks, and not for the issues raised by Moneytrees. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
@Chaotic Enby I was thinking 31 hours, if there's a pattern. As for other material, @TarnishedPath, this proposal specified NPA. We could expand the scope, but if you're referring to the socking, it's four years old, there's no evidence of further socking, and so the behavior seems to already be changed, so there's no point in a block intended to change behavior. Were there other elements to that report that I missed? EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I'll ask you, then, what behaviors in Moneytrees' report concern you that you've seen repeated? The recent links I saw were either about RfA behavior, or a resolved GENSEX dispute. What's the current disruption you think the block will help with? EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
From Monetrees report he stated that there had been "examples of evasive and uncollegial behavior, unnecessary attacks, and nonsense aspirations, directed towards editors new and old". If I'm to believe Moneytrees and I do, that behaviour continued into this discussion with LB's continued aspersion casting that Moneytrees "has no integrity". TarnishedPathtalk00:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
It's not a matter of belief. The community cannot judge evidence that has not been presented. Hearseay has never been a substitute for diffs. If there's information that cannot be made public, it should be sent to ARBCOM per procedure, and ARBCOM can judge and take action as necessary. The aspersion you mention has, as discussed above, been struck. I will allow that the denial of socking could be interpreted as evasive behavior. But it is plausible that LB might be innocent, and so denials could be unvarnished truth. (E.g., joe job.) I'm also not sure what policy or guideline "being evasive" breaches. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: Just saw this, I will strike my angry comments. I think I got both of those - sorry. I was pretty riled up and I should know better. Lightburst (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I understand, and I'm happy to see you acknowledge the issue. I don't think it's necessary to have this thread open for much longer since you've retracted the comments, especially given the number of ongoing threads. I'm not opposed to an uninvolved user closing it in light of this. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Lightburst, I appreciate you striking those comments. Are you ready to confirm that the accounts Moneytrees says are yours are in fact yours? I think a lot of people (not everyone, of course) are willing to put the sockpuppetry and vote-stacking in the rearview mirror and move on, since it was four years ago and doesn’t appear to have recurred. But we currently have a tension between what a checkuser says about these accounts and your initial response to those findings, and I think that tension needs to be resolved one way or another. 28bytes (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it's reasonable to demand a confession. If LB were blocked and needed to convince the community, that'd be different. As it is, there's a possibility, however slim, that it was a joe job or misunderstanding or somesuch. If LB is being told that confession is a requirement for not being blocked, it's a Forced confession, and unlikely to yield credible information for the community. With the implemented one account restriction, I also don't see a confession (true or otherwise) changing LB's behavior. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I had considered supporting this and if it comes up again at ANI I would support it. I oppose for now due to the apology and strike of the comments. --ARoseWolf20:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
ARoseWolf I think that is a valid position, but possibly does not give enough weight to the fact that the comments were struck days into a mega-thread about them. If he had struck them within an hour or two I would probably agree with you. Elinruby (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. Please see my oppose rationale for the CBAN above, which applies here as well. Expanding on one part of that, in terms of the NPA issues raised here, I will say again that we should steer clear of victim blaming. Getting upset over some partly unfair accusations and sounding off about it, followed later by apologizing and striking, does not justify a block. If the purpose of the proposed block is to make sure Lightburst gets the message that the community doesn't like what he said, he has demonstrably already gotten that message. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Support - (second choice to an indef) I actually think an indef would not be unwarranted, given the obnoxiousness of the behaviour, but I can also see how the editor may have felt a sense of impunity until now. I am however convinced that the editor is a net negative. Supporting this as the absolute minimum warranted by their remarks about Moneytrees, whose intervention I applaud, by the way, as well as the sentiments they expressed in doing so. I may cast a vote for in indef as first choice as well. Still torn between mercy and the good of the project. Elinruby (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, the best evidence against socking is a message spreading holiday cheers LB sent to seemingly half the community in 2021, including WM. [12] Also, this successful AfD of an article WM started. [13] (None of the 4 deleted pages started by WM were commented on by LB in the deletion discussions.) Anyway, I oppose sanctions. Though I will note that there is enough here that may look like a pattern if constructed poorly. While instances that could reasonably be construed as vote staking were a minority, the two accounts never disagreed -- even when consensus went the other way. JackTheSecond (talk) 06:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I have not looked very deeply into the socking, or I probably would not support the short block at all, just the indef. As to the socking, my position is that I believe Moneytrees and have not independently verified his findings because I consider that unnecessary. My position is entirely based on LB's behaviour in this thread. I initially refrained from voting because I had not myself encountered him at wikipedia. But AGF has a lot to answer for already when it comes to this user. Elinruby (talk) 07:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
28bytes I did not really do a deep dive into the analyzer but I did some checking after I saw your message. In the report Moneytrees said, From what I've seen, the accounts never voted differently from each other when voting togetherlink It turns out that is false because an editor pointed out that some of the AfD participation was me delsorting and then the WM account voting. Aat one time I delsorted every single AfD and I do mean all of them. And in the majority of AfDs I did not vote.
An editor found four AfDs where I sorted and did not vote Here is their link
How many more are there? You would expect a checkuser to know. But Moneytrees left me this provocative message when they dropped the report on my talk page: I guess I'll just ask; why the votestacking?link And when I protested they said If you're not Wm, how do you explain about every vote matching? So it appears they did not check links to see why links appeared on the analyzer. I do see some similar voting and editing, so I understand Moneytrees seeing two editors in the same AfDs or articles is something to look at but the Moneytrees socking and votestacking conclusions are wrong and irresponsible. In the DoRd communication of 5 years ago, I had just started editing and I was using a shared computer because it had a 27" screen. I was never contacted by anyone from Wikipedia and was not part of any case, but I sent an email off somewhere because the computer was locked out. DoRD responded as the acting admin and I showed them a screenshot of the 27". When I told DoRD that I had a shared computer they said they could block me but they did not. They also did not warn me or even mention socking. But Moneytrees said in their report, Lb had been extensively warned for [socking]link I have never been warned for socking let alone "extensively warned". Why would Moneytrees say that? It is because of these conclusions that I have lost the trust of the community, the autopatrolled right, and I may yet be community banned or now blocked. I think it was very sloppy for Moneytrees to trash my reputation based on what appears to be slipshod checkuser work. Additionally, it shows an extreme lack of awareness, that Moneytrees sat on this report and chose to release when I was at ani about a WPO related issue. Above Moneytrees unleashed a torrent of grievances about me. I am troubled that Moneytrees is a sitting arb who is comfortable actively campaigning for my ouster by saying I am unhinged, incompetent (Battleground and CIR have been violated a million times over) and more. It was surreal for me to read. Finally, I emailed arbcom multiple times in May and June 2024 about WPO issues and Moneytrees is an arb so theoretically they would have received the emails. Arbcom as a whole basically ignored me. But then this checkuser report by Moneytrees landed and it uses the same five year old DoRD diff as evidence of my socking. The WPO has aslo been grinding about that same 5 year old DoRD diff for a long time so I found it curious that Moneytrees used it to put my name on a socking case. The Moneytrees report on ANI seemed to detail other WPO grievances too, like COI claims against me - claims which were already closed by General Notability. My reputation here will not recover from this but I stuck around to make sure nobody thought I was hiding. Lightburst (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose - Let's just move along and hat the works. This whole super super breathless dramah is stupid. (I can still call dramah "stupid", can't I???) Carrite (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment: the incivility, insinuations of bad faith and casting aspersion continues at Special:Diff/1234182567. The editor who was the subject of the filing has been blocked for a week for incivility, but it's all fine if LB does it because some WPO users have a beef with him? TarnishedPathtalk02:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
When Lightburst says in this thread that: I think it was very sloppy for Moneytrees to trash my reputation based on what appears to be slipshod checkuser work, this is a fresh personal attack on an honest arbitrator posted since I voted for a short block thinking the editor might not have previously understood that the off-site criticism of him did in fact have a strong basis in policy, and so perhaps another chance was in order. Since he is re-offending before this thread even closes, I am changing my vote, for whatever it is worth, to first-choice indef. Perhaps he can learn something at simple or at Commons, although I am not holding my breath. Elinruby (talk) 04:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
This has all been overwhelming @Elinruby:. I am going to give myself a break from the project now. If you see a PA in that or any of my comments, please action it with (Personal attack removed) or strike it. I appreciate it. Have a great weekend. Lightburst (talk) 07:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Sigh. And I was trying so hard to remove myself from this thread too. LB, I am not certain why you would invite me to strike your remarks. I would say that yes, sloppy, slipshod and trash my reputation are the stuff that personal attacks are made of, not to mention torrent of grievances, which I saw somewhere above, and which is definitely a personal attack when directed at a functionary who is supposed to remain neutral and as far as I can tell does a pretty good job at that. The insinuations that you improperly removed elsewhere without striking (this is all a wikipediocracy thing) are also PA-adjacent. Why would you ping me in the first place? I think you overestimate both your importance to me and the importance to other people of me switching my vote, as I had said all along I might. I have done my best to AGF here, and voted my conscience. I don't really believe that you are going to take a break from the project, since you have already failed to do so five or six times, but I don't really have anything else to say about the matter, although I am curious about this personal attack that was removed. Thank you to whoever did that, I guess. Either way, please do not ping me into this discussion again; I have all sorts of things that I should be doing other than contemplating whether you should be given an nth chance, especially since you have basically spit on the one some people here were trying to offer you. Whether you wind up at simple or Commons or are allowed to God help us continue what you are doing here, for your own good you should review WP:NPA, because your behaviour in this thread is making me wonder whether you fundamentally somehow do not understand the definition of the term. Free friendly advice: it would probably be a good idea to get some sleep at this point, and you have already been advised several times to stop talking. You are not doing yourself any favors Elinruby (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Why are we calling every negative remark LB has made a personal attack after struggling to block AtG for a history of calling people idiots, morons, imbeciles, fuckwits, and grifters at every opportunity? Dronebogus (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose - TP and Elin are two of the most active participants in the WPO thread about LB that is the subject of OP (where not just LB but DB and bunch of other editors are getting trash talked). I don't like it when people talk trash about someone off-wiki, then collude to try and get that person sanctioned on-wiki. Much of what's being called a personal attack here aren't actual personal attacks, I don't see anything recent that predates the trash talking thread on WPO, and the worst attacks are on WPO from some of the same people hypocritically calling for sanctions on-wiki for personal attacks. This whole thing is gross victim blaming and you all should be ashamed. And this is coming from the guy who raised complaints about LB socking and COI years ago before it was cool. But this episode is just embarrassing. He writes a couple deleted article and is descended upon by a clique from WPO and subject to all kinds of character assassination. "Slipshod" is a personal attack?! Give me a break. The one account restriction and pulled auto patrolled is enough. Dear WPO regulars: it's time to stop attacking Lightburst. Levivich (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Hehe and here I thought I was just being paranoid when I reviewed my participation in the thread last night. I had commented almost not at all about this thread, actually, until I called for the Wikipediocracy thread to be moved to the private area. I did say "Again?" on reading that he had "retired". That remark came before saying it should be moved to the thread about "Wikipedians too embarrassing to discuss in public (because we don't want to throw them under the Google bus". So maybe Lightburst isn't the only one in this thread with a reading problem. Levivich is fairly smart, so I will say that *his* is probably "*not* reading. TarnishedPath can speak for himself but given it's midnight in Australia I'll point out on his behalf that be has just now broken into double digits over there and I don't recall a post about Lightburst being among them. I could be wrong though, maybe there was one or two. I can assure you that none of them "celebrated" anyone being sanctioned.Elinruby (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC) PS: My name is also not Elin; please don't call me that. El is acceptable if you don't want to type out all the syllables. Elinruby (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
How many times did you post in the WPO thread about LB that was started 4 days ago, which is the subject of this ANI complaint? Was it more than 10? More than 20? And how many of those posts were directly about LB?
Did you say in that thread that Andy calling LB an "imbecile" and an "idiot" was true, that truth is a defense to libel?
Somebody said they were going to take LB to Arbcom, and you said "the sooner you do it the better", didn't you?
Of course, LB isn't the only editor who you talked about in that thread, is he?
And I'm not asking about how many times you've posted in WPO threads about LB in general, including in the private forumsm, I am just asking about the one that was started a few days ago in the public forums, which is the specific subject of this OP.
Omg so it isn't that you haven't read. It's that you went looking for what you thought was dirt. What's your username over there? I will however answer before I go get coffee, although I am not going to look up exactly wording over this sort of trolling. a) pretty sure I already said it was once ("Again?") before I called for the thread to be moved. That would be twice. Assume my fast ctl-f missed something, nowhere near the yuck-fest you are insinuating. I have exclaimed several times in the past 24 hours in the members-only section, granted. b) I did not say it was true that anyone was an imbecile. I offered a journalism 101 adage. You are not going to bait me into commenting on imbecility. c) Yes, in the context of the private evidence getting through the email queue and how it would be good if the relevant parties did not have to go looking for it if and when the matter came up. As I clearly specified. d) No idea what you are talking about here. e) I took that down because it seemed stupid to have two parentheses in a row when nobody else was specifying their involvement. I stand by mine being none to just possibly minimal if we count "Again?"And of course none of what you just said is a personal attack either, right? Elinruby (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Are you seriously claiming you only posted twice in that thread? You are either the #1 or #2 poster in that thread. I counted 16 posts from you over 4 days (I haven't checked today).
One of those posts, in response to someone writing "It’s not uncivil if he is an idiotic imbecile, though… Making a poorly sourced BLP about a kid and naming his non-notable minor siblings in the article is idiotic, imbecilic behaviour.", you wrote, "the first and primary defense against libel is truth, just saying." And now you say, I did not say it was true that anyone was an imbecile. I offered a journalism 101 adage. "I'm just offering an adage!"
The other editor you talked about in that thread is Dronebogus.
oh good criticizing other editors is not a personal attack? because I swear it feels like it *will* be if *I* do it. I can't fathom why you are sinking so much energy into the idea that Moneytrees does in fact lack integrity, but I think I will leave you to it. I suggest you re-read, because I said a) pretty sure I already said it was once ("Again?") before I called for the thread to be moved. You are smarter than this. I also literally did not type anything about ANYBODY being idiotic. The remark about libel is true, though. I don't recall saying anything about Dronebogus except "aha'. Well, just now I said that I had clicked on one of his Commons uploads, which are being discussed, and that I was sorry I had done so. As for 16, I didn't count, but I am pretty sure that you are counting a) emojis and b) people reacting to my wtf about "deletion crusades", which, while it is in the thread because it is in *this* thread, was not about Lightburst. It *is* ridiculous though. There are no deletion crusades. If there were I would not be in them because that is not what I do. But anyway, you've now misquoted me twice, which feels deliberate, and *is* a false statement about another editor, so yanno... you do you, but I am done trying to reason with you here. Elinruby (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Suggestion: The closer can separate fact from fiction. Instead of commenting ad nauseum on other editor's motives, the nature of WPO, and privacy issues (which are not germane to the proposed short block to LB for NPA) let's avoid bloating the thread and trust the closer to do their job right. The truth will out. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
This thread is further evidence, if it was needed, that participation on sites like WPO does nothing but harm inter-user trust and divide the community against itself. Dronebogus (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
This thread is further evidence, if any is needed, that Wikipedia has lost its mind over civility when merely learning in a thread that another editor is in the habit of uploading bad porn cartoons to Wikimedia Commons is interpreted and talking bad about that editor. I also doubt that this is an honest reading of the thread, but the thing is half the people in *this* thread have their fingers in their ears and are chanting BADSITE BADSITE BADSITE so this is going to get enshrined in the record, so hey, if I supposedly say derogatory things about Dronebogus, I may was well actually SAY derogatory things about Dronebogus. The world does not need more dick pics and Wikimedia Commons in particular does not need more dick pics and yes it seems someone at Wikipediocracy has made fun of your drawing skills before, and you hold a grudge about that, enough so to defend someone who has cast aspersions in front of God and everyone else at an elected Wikipedia official who is has done nothing more than his honest best to do what he was elected to do. And I will probably get sanctioned for saying that Wikipedia has lost its mind, because Wikipedia has in fact lost its mind. I should not have to risk an incivility sanction to point out that some editors in this thread are simply not telling the truth and this does not appear to be an honest error. Please never defend me at ANI, Dronebogus. You have now derailed the thread to where it is about you. It is not about you, it is about how Lightburst talks to people, and his defensive unwillingness to accept criticism until he has a gun to his head. Elinruby (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't want to paint everyone who participates at WPO with the same brush, and I do think it sometimes is useful. But I also have to say that if you've been participating in WPO threads that disparage your colleagues, quoting those disparaging remarks in a way that doesn't show disapproval, and celebrating when one of those colleagues gets sanctioned, and then you come into a discussion here about that colleague complaining about being disparaged on WPO, you probably should at minimum be transparent about the fact you were involved. Valereee (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
As an administrator I am quite certain that you would never say such a thing without the diffs to back it up. Looking around to see who you are talking about though, because I am not, actually, invested in this at all, either here or there. I initially supported a 31-hour block for casting aspersions at Moneytrees, and didn't change my vote to indef until he cast *more* aspersions at Moneytrees. I mean, are you actually saying that it is ok to make fact-free insinuations that a sitting arbitrator just has it in for LB and is lacking in integrity because spoke up in a proceeding? Surely not. I am off to get my own reading glasses checked. How could I ever think such a thing. I am quite certain you will be happy to disabuse me of the notion that you could ever make such a fact-free assertion as that. Elinruby (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
No idea whether you ever participated in such a discussion, quoted disparaging remarks in a way that didn't show disapproval, or celebrated a sanction. As I said, if you [did so]...you probably should at minimum be transparent. And seriously, threre's a thread for colleagues too embarrassing to discuss in public, and people recommend -- in public and by user name -- that a thread should be moved there? Jeez. Again, not wanting to paint all of WPO with the same brush, but jeez. I feel like that's being cruel and calling it kindness. Valereee (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
It's not in public now, that was the whole point. Jeez yourself. However, I accept your apology for believing Levivich. Elinruby (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
But, El, just saying 'Let's move this thread about Lightburst to "Wikipedians too embarrassing to discuss in public (because we don't want to throw them under the Google bus)"' is throwing them under the google bus. It's telling the world 1. he's an embarrasment and 2. we'd really like to take off the gloves and 3. If you want to read the really juicy stuff, create an account.
Sarchasm is a good word. I assumed that that was what you were trying to do, based on your emphasis on "if". I didn't enunciate the entire name of the thread, btw. But that is its title. It does strike me as a good place for a discussion of this thread though, since you now seem to be saying that respect for another editor's privacy is a bad thing. But enough of this. I really need to go get these glasses checked, because surely not. Elinruby (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
You're saying I didn't enunciate the entire name of the thread, btw but about an hour ago you wrote That remark came before saying it should be moved to the thread about "Wikipedians too embarrassing to discuss in public (because we don't want to throw them under the Google bus".
Of course respect for another editor's privacy is a good thing. But the horses have left. If there's a thread publicly disparaging someone by name, and at some point someone suggests moving that thread to a private forum, it's too late. You're in many ways making things worse by calling attention to the fact there's a thread by that name and we're moving this discussion there. Valereee (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Vast respect unneeded, I have no idea how Google indexing works. :D But I don't think I said anything about Google indexing, other than to quote you on the name of the private forum? My point was that when a thread has done damage, announcing it's being moved to a private area doesn't mitigate that damage and may compound it. If someone has been disparaging a colleague around the water cooler for some period of time, it's not really a kindness to announce the conversation is being adjourned to the bar to be continued in a place slightly less public. I doubt there are many of this editor's colleagues who don't know how to follow the conversation to the bar if they want. Valereee (talk) 12:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I am accepting this as a genuine question and will come back to it with an explanation and some links for your perusal. For now. since it is the name or the forum that seems to be bothering you, let me see if this helps. You are an admin. Is some of the stuff you see not embarrassing? If not, what is revdel for? The name of the forum is irrelevant since it was not spoken in the then-public thread. You do understand that the thread where I said "yes, I think we should move the thread now" is no longer public, right? In some degree because I agreed with the person saying that it needed to be moved? So there is no post saying "Lightburst is an embarrassment to Wikipedia" hanging out in the public area, as you seem to be thinking. At least not as an immediate result of my comment; the thread has since split and I am not certain which posts are in what area, but I can assure you with complete confidence that any mention of LB's name is definitely in the private area. Now I am thirsty and need coffee. I will come back later and explain how indexing works if you still want to know. Elinruby (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
As the person who started this proposal (and also voted to sanction AtG earlier), I do not have any kind of connection to WPO, and honestly don't hold this site in very high esteem. Lightburst did make personal attacks by saying that Moneytrees has no integrity and that Just Step Sideways was degrading the office of admin, but these have since been struck and this thread has been spinning out way past its intended purpose. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
@Chaotic Enby: Sorry, to be clear, my comment was not at all directed at you or at this proposal (which I think was a reasonable proposal to make at the time it was made), it was mostly in response to the two comments directly preceding my vote. I agree with you that the two lines you quote were personal attacks (and I also agree with you that now that they have been struck, this thread is unnecessary). Levivich (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Still no strike of your patently false statement. Do you plan on either providing evidence for your WP:ASPERSIONs or striking and admitting that you've made false and misleading statements about others? TarnishedPathtalk09:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I haven't made any false or misleading statements, at least not that I'm aware of, or any aspersions, as my claims are all evidenced. To your earlier post, I didn't say you were trash-taking (and I already explained at your user talk page that in this case, that's a distinction without a difference), and the evidence of you colluding is your posts here and your posts there. I don't expect you to agree with my view of things, but I'm not going to strike it just because you disagree. Levivich (talk) 11:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
You have made claims without sufficiently providing evidence to substantiate those claims. That is casting WP:ASPERSIONs and making false and misleading statements. You should strike your false claims. TarnishedPathtalk11:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
You freaking have. If you want to talk about Wikipediocracy at least tell the truth. TarnishedPath's comments in the thread were a) it is ridiculous to portray this conversation as canvassing and b) Bishonen said Dronebogus is bludgeoning the thread. Elinruby (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Support as a second choice to a site ban. Yes, the socking is old news, but the fact he continues to deny he was socking, while casting aspersions about Moneytrees, shows a pattern of deception that is likely to continue.Isaidnoway(talk)14:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Money made a bunch of aspersion in #Moneytrees report about Lightburst, no one seems to mind that. Let's remind ourselves of what the first sentence of WP:ASPERSIONS says: On Wikipedia, casting aspersions refers to a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or particularly severe. So, what exactly is the repeated or severe accusation of misbehavior without evidence? Because "sloppy, slipshod and trash my reputation" are not aspersions (or personal attacks). Those accusations were backed up with evidence (in some cases, admission). Levivich (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Unnecessary sanction that seems more like a consolation prize for failure to get a site ban, than a constructive solution. -- GreenC05:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Very good point. This proposal was exclusively about the personal attacks made in the ANI thread (which have since been struck), but editors are now treating it as an alternative to the site ban and restating the previous discussion topics, which is neither constructive nor its intended purpose. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment - re: Lightburst's response, claiming an RFA where votes do not match. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GermanJoe, it's worth noting that while LB voted neutral in GermanJoe's RFA, they said: the candidate has 66.4% of edits in the main space, and that is the only reason I am not in the oppose camp at this time. and later: Zero article creation and I still did not oppose. But I am leaning oppose.. Nearly exactly 24 hours later, WM votes oppose with the similar reasoning: I see that there has been zero content creation by the candidate and no experience in conflict areas.. Also worth noting that there were 160 Supports, 4 opposes and 5 neutrals - both LB and WB were on the minority "non-support" side of the vote. This isn't evidence of contradicting behaviour between LB and WM. BugGhost🦗👻09:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Clearly no consensus for this. Any serious attempt at establishing this type of policy or guideline should be run through the village pump, not tacked onto an already spiraling ANI thread. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per WP:OWH, can we establish that comments made by editors in forums related to Wikipedia about editors are covered by Wikipedia's civility rules? At times, our ability to enforce this may be limited, but turning a blind eye to it isn't conducive to a productive and congenial editing environment. BilledMammal (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Whenever someone proposes this, one of two things happen.
a) Someone with a WPO account shows up to say "Strong Oppose requiring everyone to send ArbCom their screen names on every forum they post on"
b) Someone with a WPO thread shows up to say "Strong Support requiring everyone to send ArbCom their screen names on every forum they post on"
I would aver that both of these are extremely dumb, and we should instead establish some dead simple bar-is-on-the-floor baseline like:
"If you use the exact same screen name on a well-known offsite as you do here, and you're posting there about people you're beefing with on here, this is functionally the same as if you were saying it to them directly"
I don't think we need to set up some kind of Inquisition -- WPO serves some purpose and is not pure evil. It would be very dumb and paranoid to demand that everyone disclose their entire Internet posting career -- but it's deranged to have people just lean their heads out the window to shout сука блядь пиздец иди нахуй, it's obviously them, no sane person could possibly doubt that it was them saying this directly to the other person, and then they say "neener neener my head wasn't in the room so it wasn't against the rules". We came up with all kinds of stupid stuff like this in second grade, and by the end of second grade I think we figured out it was silly rules-lawyering. jp×g🗯️20:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it's so much having the same username but rather the user here linking that the account there is theirs. Also it doesn't matter if it's WPO or Reddit, it's still disruptive. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°20:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I mean: WPO, Reddit, Xanga, AIM, whatever. If I make a freaking YTMND called jpxg-enwp and say "yeah, that's me" and then go off on huge rants daily about how User:xXx_sephiroth_xXx aka Billy Bob Joe is an idiot deletionist twat, I feel like it requires some serious mental cartwheels to say that I, specifically, am not breaking any rules by doing this. Like, disregarding anything else -- if someone else responds with "👍" maybe that's in poor taste but who cares -- how could me saying that in public to all and sundry not be against the rules. jp×g🗯️21:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I strongly support cracking down on off-wiki misconduct and abuse. Sites like WPO may not be “pure evil”, but they’re still used by big-name users to say what they really want to say about other users without fear of repercussions, and probably worse misbehaviors like canvassing and harassment as well. Dronebogus (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
And just exactly what is wrong with saying what you really want to say on a site that is not affiliated with Wikipedia, and takes a bit of effort to actually find some of the threads there? If you're venting on Twitter or Bluesky, those are highly public forums, and it's easy to run across something directed at you. WPO at least makes an attempt to keep some of the discussions for members only. What's next, saying that if you want to vent, it has to be on a Facebook post set to Only Me?--SarekOfVulcan (talk)21:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
If you’re on a site about Wikipedia, using your Wikipedia username, you’re one step away from outright saying it on Wikipedia. You’re only saying it there because you know it’s hurtful and/or defamatory but still want as many people as possible, who are colleagues of the target, to hear it. Can you not see how this is inappropriate and wrong? Dronebogus (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, my proposal is the thing I said, not this other dumb thing you have made up.
"If you use the exact same screen name on a well-known offsite as you do here, and you're posting there about people you're beefing with on here, this is functionally the same as if you were saying it to them directly"
Is it really that difficult to just have the account on the shit-talking forum be named "John Doe" or whatever? I feel like even the most minimal imaginable token gesture is being given the same amount of resistance (and indeed met with the same response) as an expansive proposal. jp×g🗯️21:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I like this approach, especially because it's so easy to defend against. If someone says to me, "Hey, there's this account EducatedRedneck on this other platform, talking shit about editors you interacted with. Is this you?" All I have to do is say, "No." Even if I'm lying, that promotes civility within Wikipedia by, on-site only, disavowing incivility. This firmly establishes that, at least on Wikipedia, we cannot endorse harassing messages, just as we wouldn't allow racist dog whistles on a user page.
I also disagree that this is policing other websites. It is not. It is simply saying that if a user has obviously been linked to an external account, and that behaves in an uncivil manner, Wikipedia does not want an uncivil editor. There's nothing stopping them from saying what they want elsewhere, but as with all things in life, there are consequences for actions. If I go on a racist diatribe on X, which I acknowledge as me and do not disavow, I would expect to be indefed. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I think it seems like a case-by-case basis thing. In general, it seems like the way WPO talks about people they dislike, and the gleeful doxxing of those people, is Kiwi Farms adjacent. In this specific instance, it seems like Andy gets a lot of support on WPO for being so rude and mean, which then causes issues on-wiki when he brings that same energy here. However, I could see an instance where someone is off-site in general, complaining about specific biases on Wikipedia or criticizing a specific user's on-wiki bigotry or any number of reasonable criticisms, and having that brought up for unrelated issues or disputes on-wiki. So while it may be useful to bring up off-wiki instances you see, by that point it would just serve as further evidence of a larger on-wiki issue. CREEDIXMO(TALK)21:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who doesn't care about the conflict above, I strongly oppose policing other people's behaviour on websites that are not part of Wikimedia. People have the right to bitch about people they don't like in venues that allow for such. If there is a coordinated effort to harass someone (as in directly contacting them; not just saying [So-and-so] is a mean poopyhead) that's a different story. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I am so weary of seeing Andy's name here. AndyTheGrump, I do not understand why after all these years you haven't learned to control yourself. I guess it's because nothing ever actually happens? We value you so much that you can get away with basically anything? Are we really sure Andy is a net positive at this point? I know he does a lot of really good work, but the amount of time spent dealing with his inability to just flippin' act like he understands his colleagues need to be treated with even a tiny bit of respect is ridiculous. Andy, you don't have to actually respect people. All you have to do is pretend that you do. And Bishonen, Floq...no, it's not this. It's the ongoing neverending...I'd call them 'little straws', but from any editor who wasn't otherwise as valuable, they wouldn't be considered little straws. Valereee (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
How so? If it’s provable that "Andy the Grump" on WPO is "Andy the Grump" on WP, then policing it should be pretty easy? Of course, when it’s not provable policing it will be impossible, but we shouldn’t turn a blind eyes to the cases we can address just because there are some cases we can’t. BilledMammal (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I do get what you're saying, but I'm just wondering what's to stop one of the members of my fan club from going to another forum, setting up an account with my user name, posting a bunch of inflammatory crap, and then coming here and complaining about it? Additionally, there are times when I have gotten absolutely fed up with some people on here, but hold my tongue because that's the policy. But I wouldn't want to be brought here for venting elsewhere. Bgsu98(Talk)01:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
It would be policed like this:
Someone sees a LiveJournal from jpxg-wiki saying "User:xXx_sephiroth_xXx aka Billy Bob Joe is an idiot deletionist twat."
I have the LiveJournal account linked on my userpage, or I have explicitly said this is me on-wiki.
Someone makes a thread called "JPxG is doxing xXx_sephiroth_xXx and calling him a deletionist twat on LiveJournal".
I am blocked for some amount of time, or at the least told very unambiguously to cut it out.
This seems very possible, and indeed easy to me. The only difference is that the block/warning would happen without eighteen thousand words of jurisdictional argle-bargle. jp×g🗯️21:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
The end result of this is that people will just not link their user's elsewhere with WP. You create a dual tiered enforcement system where people who are upfront are held to a different standard than people who are not. Beyond that, WP:BADSITES is not a new idea, and it was not a good one back then and it is not a good one now. nableezy - 22:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Which is why I'd prefer "provably the same person", rather than "disclosed the connection on Wikipedia", but either way - why should we tolerate identifiable editors harassing other editors, just because they are using a different website? It isn't conducive to a productive and congenial editing environment. BilledMammal (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Is it a "dual tiered enforcement system" to forbid shitting on the floor, while looking the other way when people shit in the toilet? They're different things!
One of them is anonymous peanut-gallery trash talk which nobody is under any obligation to take seriously, the other is a scanty fig-leaf over mafioso-larping nonsense which would get you blocked in two seconds on here if not for the fact that every time somebody does this, there's a thread on WPO about it, where everyone with an account there gets flashed the Bat-Signal to show up here and talk about it's not canvassing unless it's made with genuine hemp otherwise it's just canvas-weave cotton etc etc etc jp×g🗯️23:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
No, it is ignoring some people shitting on the floor and then demanding others who are shitting on the floor be strung up at ANI. I wasnt flashed a bat signal anywhere, I have ANI on my watchlist. Does that make my view less worthy than yours? I dont even think Ive seen a thread on WPO about this for that matter. You keep saying the same nonsense expecting that people will just accept it if you repeat it enough, but it remains nonsense. nableezy - 23:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
There's no way to prevent 100% of murders either, yet we still arrested the guy that shot a bunch of people and was like "Yep, that was me, I shot all those people, it was awesome". Objectively speaking, this was a better choice than letting him go and saying "gee whiz there's just no way to know for sure whether anything is good or bad".
You're right though: it is probably coincidence that post count on WPO has a mysterious and unexplainable positive correlation with the uncanny tendency to incessantly notice totally unrelated procedural issues with any proposal regarding it. jp×g🗯️23:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree too, subject to the WP editor explicitly acknowledging that they are the off wiki forum user in question. Because of that it may have limited application. But so what? There's no reason to tolerate it. DeCausa (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
No - Wikipedia should not try and take on the role of policing the internet. If off site behaviours are affecting on-site activities, then it should be dealt with privately by the appropriate channels (i.e. Arbcom or T&S) - otherwise we will just turn the Admin boards here into a reflection of the worst bits of the so called criticism sites.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
hmm, I don't see it as policing the internet. If I make it clear here on Wikipedia that it's me saying things off wiki that I wouldn't be permitted to say on wiki then I would see it as more of a loophole to get round our on wiki rules. It's just plugging that loophole. DeCausa (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I think we would really need to have a discussion at VPP to implement something like this, rather than an ANI thread. I don't think something like this is a good idea. People should have a broader behavioural remit for what they can say off-wiki rather than on-wiki, and that includes forthright criticism of other Wikipedia editors, unless they are engaging in a very deliberate and intentionally targeted harassment campaign like what got Icewhiz ArbCom blocked, which is not what has happened in this case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
What an outrageous notion. We cannot enforce our site policies on a different website. What's next, if someone makes a facebook post we don't like, we'll ban them for that? I don't care for the name-calling either, it is not really useful criticism to just say "so and so is dumb" or whatever, but, with certain exceptions of which I am all too aware, what is said on WPO has no relvance here. I would add that in general, the specific thread where the name-calling took place is actually one of the best ongoing threads over there, as it is usually aimed at problems with actual article content as opposed to going after spoecific users. I can tell you for certainty that its existence has resulted in real improvements to content. It's an unfortunate reality that many threads over ther wander off topic, there's even a custom emoji for tagging it. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today23:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
It feels like it makes no difference at all what people are actually proposing, because nearly every time WPO is mentioned you give virtually the same response.
We cannot enforce our site policies on a different website Who said we should do that.
(What's next, if someone makes a facebook post we don't like, we'll ban them for that? Well, here's my genius plan: we won't do that because it's stupid and nobody wants to do it.
what is said on WPO has no relvance here Later in the same comment, you say that that "its existence has resulted in real improvements to content". Well, which is it -- does it have no relevance whatsoever, or is it resulting in real improvements to content?
You really think that calling people imbeciles on here is blockworthy, but if the same guy goes onto wikipediocracy.com and types the same thing, under the same username, directed at the same person, on a website read by all the same people, a one-week civility block brings us a hair's breadth away from the Fourth Reich? Come on. jp×g🗯️23:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I will even go further than that, and wager that if I made a gigantic twitter thread/public facebook post/etc cussing out a bunch of people here, or registered www.[username]-is-a-dumbass.com, I would probably be blocked within an hour, regardless of policy quibbles -- there's really only one public website I know of where this wouldn't be the case. jp×g🗯️23:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
We cannot enforce our site policies on a different website Who said we should do that. Did you not read literally the first sentence in this section? ...can we establish that comments made by editors in forums related to Wikipedia about editors are covered by Wikipedia's civility rules? seems pretty clearly aimed at that. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today23:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
We're not enforcing them on a different website, we're enforcing them on our editors. If someone wants to harass or attack other editors, then they can do so - but if they want to retain their editing privileges they shouldn't connect their harassment or attacks to their Wikipedia account. BilledMammal (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I would compare it to a teacher being sanctioned by their school for inappropriate comments made about their peers on Facebook.
Wikipedia cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it, especially when such attacks violate an editor's privacy. Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases.
Wouldn’t this apply to that Wikipedia-related forum?
Doxxing someone over a Wikipedia-related beef is a very different animal from insulting them. If you have already compromised the privacy protections of this project with regard to a fellow editor, then there's an argument to be made that there is a net gain to enforcement of said protections by taking action against the offending editor here. However, I have mixed feelings even about that. For one, no sanction placed here is going to have the effect of restraining the individual in question from continuing the off-project disclosure--in fact, in most cases it might arguably trigger continued disclosures and harassment. But either way, it definitely is more of an edge case than acting against someone on-project over an insult made elsewhere. And all of that said, Macaddct1984, you didn't label where this comes from? Could I trouble you to provide the link. Because actually, we had community discussion about this very topic on the Village Pump about two years back (an admin had been undertaking an off-project investigation that the community felt very uncomfortable about) and as I recall, the exact idea presented here was kind of roundly rejected. (FYI, I'll also link to said discussion when I have time to find it). SnowRise let's rap01:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
"We're not enforcing them on a different website, we're enforcing them on our editors." In this respect, I think you're right, BM. This isn't about whether or not we can enforce our will over other websites. It's about the advisability (and frankly, feasibility) of this community following it's members off of the four corners of the project in order to monitor their comings and goings, associations, views and opinions, and actions and then judge all of that for compliance with our expectations of how they should conduct themselves. It is a bridge way too far. It violates an essential dichotomy that this project is built on. We hold eachother accountability for conduct taking place within our collective volunteer work environment. But not one inch outside it. It has nothing to do with the practical limits of our technical abilities off this project. It's about our own self-restraint and a longstanding community value not to follow our fellow editors into their off-project lives outside of any occasion other than where they expressly invite us. SnowRise let's rap02:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Except that we're already acknowledging that off-project activity can affect on-project matters. If, say, a user goes on another website to canvass people to an AfD, they can still get blocked on Wikipedia for this. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, and I agree that this seemingly blurs the lines a little, but I think the distinction is to be found in the fact that the results of that off-project conduct create direct impacts upon process here. Anyway, if the choice were to be between doing away with penalizing people for off-project canvassing or enabling and encouraging our community to dig into off-project PAs (for the sake of some sort of sense of uniformity), I would elect for the former. Allowing the latter is just too fraught and too at-odds with standards for the division of our on-project and off-project lives and identities that were wisely embraced by this community a long time ago and still too integral to the project's stability to muck around with in this way. SnowRise let's rap03:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Allowing the latter is just too fraught and too at-odds with standards for the division of our on-project and off-project lives and identities that were wisely embraced by this community a long time ago and still too integral to the project's stability to muck around with in this way.
I agree, but I don't see that as applying to this case. We're only talking about cases where the editor has chosen to erase that division, and if the editor has chosen to do that then we shouldn't pretend that the two are separate - it's a legal fiction that harms our efforts to create a safe and congenial editing environment.
If they don't chose to do that - if, for example, they want to rant on Twitter about an editor under a different identity - then absent doxxing, threats, or other matters of concern to T&S there is no reason for us to care. It doesn't affect our editing environment. BilledMammal (talk) 04:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Let's walk this out. "X is an editor in good standing who publicly attacks other editors on a third-party website. We know this and think this is fine and he should face no consequences. I also post on that website and I deplore that attacks occur, though not these attacks in particular." When we went through this cycle with #wikipedia-en-admins fifteen years ago it was fun and interesting. Now it's just boring. Mackensen(talk)00:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I rise in defence of the right to call a spade a spade on Wikipedia and a bloody shovel in off-site fora. Providing it is a spade, which is the test that matters given our mission is not to be a support group but to jointly produce a reference work. This brouhaha arose because Andy used the term "idiot" followed by the term "imbecile" in a sub-thread on WPO that was started by a different person. Unfortunately, the two articles highlighted in that off-wiki conversation were very poor work. One Lightburst moved to mainspace last October when it looked like this. The other was a draft when it was first highlighted off-site, and Lightburst nonetheless moved it to mainspace in this state. I would rarely be as robust in my choice of words as Andy, especially the second term, but as others have also noted, he was right about the articles. Thinking either of those was ready for mainspace was stupid, and moving the second to mainspace with the name of a non-notable minor relative in it (even if I'm the first to highlight this at this noticeboard, IMO that should be rev-deleted in case the article is kept) and with the claim that the subject won a singing prize in the approximate year of his birth, after that or a similar error had been pointed out in the WPO thread they had just read was cavalier at best. Lightburst has lost their way as an article creator (and IMO shouldn't be judging others' work at NPP). I'm sorry to say that this kind of poor work is one of the best arguments for the existence of an off-wiki criticism site. I wish it wasn't needed. I wish friends and associates had pointed out the problems with their articles to Lightburst first. (Checks self for fleas, flees AN/I for yardwork.) Yngvadottir (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely not.BilledMammal, I want to preface this by saying that I like you and that I know that your often ambitious suggestions on how to shake-up policy on this project since you joined come from a good place. But that said, I have to be honest with you that this is not just the worst of the major changes to longstanding policy that you've proposed, it is quite possibly the single-most ill-advised and potentially destructive to the project's core ability to function that I have ever seen proposed by anyone in my time here. That might seem like an unnecessary preamble to my thoughts on this proposal, and I hope I have judged your character correctly in that you will understand it is for emphasis, and that you will not take the observation too personally. But I very much mean it. This community installed precisely the firewall you are proposing dismantling (with very conscious intent from its earliest days) for a bevy of reasons impacting everything from the functionality and culture of the project to the safety of its contributors. I honestly don't think that it is an exaggeration to say that without a strong conceptual divide between a person's on-project work and off-project identity (and the bulwark of privacy protections with regard to the latter) the whole endeavor of this project may never have reached a fraction of its size, in terms of user base and accomplishment. I honestly don't have the time today to even begin to list the ways in which such a change as you propose would create knock-on effects which would drag our administrative spaces in a morass of privacy-invading drama and unmitigated, unprecedented harassment which would extract a toll on our already hurting editor retention numbers. It would eviscerate privacy protections; encourage unceasing efforts at outing; proliferate on- and off-project joe jobs (the latter of which we would lack the technical tools to properly assess); instantaneously create the single largest category of administrative overhead and headaches that the community would then have to try to manage on a daily basis, to the detriment of other vital areas already underserved; and in rare but non-trivial (in number and level of consequence) incidents, present numerous, varied, and uncontrollable risks of real world harm for our contributors. To say nothing of the fact that allowing such behavior would directly conflict with numerous existing policies, further amplifying the chaos. And again, that's the most slap-dash, meager summary of the possible...no, pretty much certain, knock-on effects of turning the aggregate surveillance capacity of this project and it community lose on it's editorial base. And no, I don't think that is an unfair or hyperbolic description of the behavior your proposed change would unleash. No matter how tightly you imagine you are going to construct the rules for when and where members of this community are allowed to follow their fellows off-project and monitor them for "good cause", the abolishing of the strict dichotomy between our on-project and off-project conduct will absolutely enable and encourage a flood of investigation, tracking, and harassment of users. And on a purely personal level, I have to tell you, if this change were to come to pass, for me it would probably be the straw that broke the camel's back in convincing me that this community had lost its way and abandoned both its most basic cultural values and good sense, and I would, with great reluctance, probably have to abandon the project. And I would expect that I would probably be part of a larger exodus of experienced contributors in doing so. In short: no, no, no--a million times no to this notion. This is not just your average case of the cure being far worse than the disease; it's akin to injecting someone with ebola on the grounds that it will certainly take care of their tape worm...eventually. SnowRise let's rap01:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Okay, how about my proposal, which applies exclusively to people who have confirmed their offsite identities on public sites. Yeah or no on that one jp×g🗯️02:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
To be clear, this is what I mean by "provable". If, for example, you've disclosed your Wikipedia identity on WPO. If it requires more effort to connect the two than that then I don't think it matters for this. BilledMammal (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
That would be significantly less worrisome to me than a standard that allows free-roaming investigations and reports here, but I still don't think that would be a good idea. At the end of the day, we would still be loosening our privacy rules to allow scrutiny of off-project conduct and opinions. And let's be honest, for many of the most tendentious parties in our community, they will quickly embrace this opportunity as encouragement to stalk their rhetorical opposition or editors who represent their longterm bugaboos. Any realistic advantage that our community could extract from permitting such snooping (and I believe it would be minimal in the aggregate, but even if it weren't my overall opinion about allowing this would remain the same) cannot possibly justify the abrogation of our privacy standards and the safety of our users--nor indeed the many headaches it would unleash on the community as a whole. Even if a user has previously acknowledged a non-wikimedia account as belonging to them, WP:OUTING and privacy concerns with surveilling that account's activity do not disappear. And consider also the situation in which a user is asked to confirm a connection between accounts and, to protect their privacy, disavows it (which for the record, I've seen happen here); are they thereafter subject to accusations that they tried to obfuscate prohibited conduct relating to the unkind opinions they disclosed about other editors? We are not meant to have the ability to force editors into difficult choices like that which make them elect between doing the right thing under policy and endangering their privacy (and in some cases, their livelihoods, relationships, safety, or freedom). One is not prohibited by the terms of their involvement on this project not to have unkind, unflattering, or even downright unsavory opinions about their fellow editors, nor from sharing such opinions. They are merely meant to not share those opinions in offensive terms that would rise to the level of a PA while operating in our shared communal workspace on this project. That is all that we do, should, or realistically can ask of our community members when it comes to self-moderating their behaviour or expressing their opinions in their private lives--most definitely including other online spaces. Any additional level of looky-louing into the lives and heads of our volunteers would have prevented this project and this community from becoming what it is today, and would quickly begin to rot it from the inside out if we began to allow it now. Anything else runs the risk of allowing the substantial capabilities of our crowd sourcing and organizational systems to be weaponized to do great potential harm to people who came here to serve our collective vision of free knowledge. Many of whom rely upon our guarantees of privacy being as ironclad as possible. Even when one of them has chosen (perhaps unwisely) to disclose information which expands the community's knowledge of their identity, we should not take that as an invitation or excuse to bring any information that such disclosure allows us to gather into the workings and public view of this project. It's not reasonable, it's not safe, and it's not healthy for us as a community. That firewall needs to stand as whole and unbroken as it ever has: pull even a few bricks out, and you're going to find that said barrier crumbles in important places a lot faster than you can possibly anticipate, I guarantee you. SnowRise let's rap05:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
@Dronebogus:, every time WPO gets mentioned here, you try to revive some version of the old, failed WP:BADSITES proposal, when really, it's none of your business. Really, all they would have to do is turn more of it into a closed forum, and then they could malign people in perfect peace, at least until someone registered there under false pretenses. The whole "they're being mean to us over there!" thing comes under the heading of "well, you don't have to read it." Really, if you don't like it, you can ignore it. You are allowed to ignore it. And as I seem to have to say every time this comes up, they are under no obligation to play by rules that you make, no that "consensus" on WP makes. Mangoe (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
@Mangoe: This goes beyond randos bitching about me or whoever on a random unrelated forum. We obviously can’t sanction that. This is users, respected users, going on an anti-Wikipedia forum under their own names to insult, dox, and stir up hatred against users they don’t like. Dronebogus (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree in principle with BM and JPxG wrote above. "Don't talk shit about editors in public forums" is not a big ask. At least don't do it routinely. Take it to private forums if you must. Levivich (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Agree with Lev. And maybe don't swim in the cesspool if you are an admin/arbiter who later adjudicates matters involving the proletariat. Much of what happens is in real time, like JSS and ATG getting marching orders and then bragging on WPO. Lightburst (talk) 05:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
marching orders?? is there any evidence whatsoever that anyone in those AfDs came there as a result of a Wikipediocracy thread? As someone who uses the same user name on both sites, let me clarify that the reason is simple. I yam what I yam and I said what I said. I don't think it's a good idea to police what usernames Wikipedia users may use on other fora, and a) I can't imagine a world where this would be good for editor retention b) requiring hypocrisy as a condition of membership seems like something Wikipediocracy is very unlikely to implement. I can hear Jake and Tarantino laughing from here. Some Wikipediocracy members use another screen name, and I assume they have their reasons, but if it boils down to where I can use the name Elinruby, I am sorry, but I am not on board, Wikipedia should not flatter itself on being the reason for the name, geez. If I change my username anywhere it would be at Wikipedia, and in fact I have often considered doing so. Elinruby (talk) 06:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I stand corrected, Randy from Boise says he is going to fix up the article about the camp. I just noticed that. Elinruby (talk) 07:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Opposed to extending the civility policy in that way, for the practical reasons mentioned above as well as broader philosophical ones. That said, this is a big pivot from the common reluctance to discuss off-wiki activities at all, we do not need to move that far to be able to consider public behaviour elsewhere as part of discussions here. CMD (talk) 06:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment while this seems like an issue that needs addressing, I think this topic is becoming to unwieldy to deal with all the various issues that are cropping up. However, I will say, when you look at this thread and the WPO page side by side you can see that this doesn't feel like your regular, organic kind of WP:BOOMERANG by Lightburst and more a case of brigading/tag teaming, doxxing and harassment that is being organised off-wiki then transferred wholesale over here. It wouldn't be fair not to look at the two together Orange sticker (talk) 08:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
This whole thing is a shitshow, a tiny thread the issue of unhealthy WP/WPO entanglement. This is where I have a problem: people use WPO to get around inconvenient rules “for the good of the wiki”, basically treating it like a shadow-WP, and then flip around and say it’s an unrelated site that happens to discuss Wikipedia. Dronebogus (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. Too many issues with this - firstly, you can never be certain that someone with the same username on WPO actually is the WP editor. It could be a troll seeking to cause problems or get a legitimate editor banned. Secondly, clamping down on this would only drive WPO editors to edit under alternative accounts making the new rule unenforceable anyway. I'm a bit on the fence about whether I think WPO is a good thing or not. There is certainly a lot of unpleasantness there and things that constitute harassment of WP editors, but there are also many contributors who are motivated by a genuine desire to make Wikipedia a better place and to air good-faith views about what's wrong here without being bound by certain WP policies that make such criticism difficult. — Amakuru (talk) 09:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm a bit on the fence about whether I think WPO is a good thing or not. A great editor was doxxed by WPO in April and stopped editing Wikipedia almost immediately after. For me, that was a wake up call about the dangers of websites that facilitate off-site doxing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Suggestion Only on case by case basis. Only when one can determine beyond reasonable doubt that the account offwiki making the personal attack on another editor to the editor onwiki, we should then sanction the editor in question. – robertsky (talk) 10:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, a case by case basis sounds fine. There should be a simple two-step test: “can we be reasonably sure editor X is making this comment/action” and “is comment/action clearly a personal attack or otherwise a violation of basic decency (i.e. doxxing)” Dronebogus (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am not at this time recommending that these disputes should go to ArbCom, but this thread now consists of at least two disputes that need to be resolved, and, if the community cannot resolve them, then ArbCom should. ArbCom is the last stop for conduct disputes that the community cannot resolve. The two distinct disputes are the alleged civility violations by AndyTheGrump, and the alleged past sockpuppetry by Lightburst. If there is rough consensus for a time-limited block for ATG, then that matter does not need to go to ArbCom. A statement has been made that Lightburst engaged in sockpuppetry four or five years ago, and Lightburst denies it. Either the community should accept the conclusion of Moneytrees that Lightburst engaged in sockpuppetry in the past (and I was taking the word of Moneytrees as trusted when I said that Lightburst had engaged in evasive conduct), or the rest of ArbCom (with Moneytrees recused) should look into the claims and counterclaims.
Can the community resolve these disputes, by acting on ATG, and by accepting the finding of Moneytrees, or does this dispute need to go to ArbCom?
Robert McClenon (talk) 06:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Admins find socks all the time, and very often socks deny being socks. Business as usual. What's special about this case which means it needs to go to Arbcom? Bon courage (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
You're basically saying that unless your position is adopted this should be escalated to ArbCom. Which I suppose you are free to do, but if the consensus of users is that ATG doesnt merit a block for his comments off-site that doesnt mean that we have failed to resolve the issue. It just means that your preferred resolution isnt what others think is necessary. nableezy - 08:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I don’t think the LB situation needs to be escalated, he’s almost certainly going to be blocked anyway. I don’t know if ATG will be blocked as much as he deserves it, but I think if it ends no consensus (likely) then it should be taken to ArbCom as part of a broader case against ATG’s abusive behavior and lack of accountability. Dronebogus (talk) 08:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I think this should be with ArbCom now. There is a lot more that could be said about Andy's activity on WPO, but as I understand it we should not be linking to or quoting posts from there per WP:OUTING (though many editors above seem to be getting away with it, is oversight asleep or have they changed their standards?). A full and fair hearing of a matter that involves off-wiki conduct has to happen at ArbCom. – Joe (talk) 08:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Unless there's further private evidence related to the socking that can't be discussed here I don't really see where ArbCom would need to come in. Pinguinn🐧08:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
About Lightburst, I meant that if anyone wanted to challenge the finding that Lightburst had been socking, ArbCom was the only appeal, and could hear private evidence. Since it appears that the community accepts or agrees with Moneytrees, ArbCom is not needed there. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
About ATG, I meant that the case should go to ArbCom if the community was unable to decide on a sanction, as due to a deadlock between a block for a time and an indef block, not if there was a consensus with which I disagreed. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is obviously not a serious proposal. Discussion is entirely redundant with the other subsections, and it has already been pointed out that a policy where the first line specifically says "on Wikipedia" doesn't apply to places that are not on Wikipedia. The WordsmithTalk to me19:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We have a policy, called no personal attacks, which says do not make personal attacks. Yet above we also have multiple experienced editors—admins, people with decades of combined tenure—saying that a blatant personal attack (Lightburst is an imbecile), doesn't matter: it's much ado about nothing, a contretemps, not an actual problem, call[ing] a spade a spade, acceptable as long as you do it less than twelve times a year. The recipient just needs a thicker skin. I understand acknowledging the personal attack but not thinking that a block is the right response, or worrying about the jurisdictional implications, but this isn't that. And this isn't the first time this this has happened. Can we really can still claim that "no personal attacks" is a policy this community follows? – Joe (talk) 09:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I would very much support WP:NPA being actually enforced, as civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. We don't get to avoid our responsibilities to make this a healthy, collaborative environment just because we have enough edits/contributions/tenure. ArbCom itself stated that being right isn't enough (WP:BRIE), and I would prefer to see people (in general) care more about working together in respect, rather than about thinking they are exempt from civility for being on the right side of some issue. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
NPA is a Wikipedia policy, and Wikipedia policy does not extend outwards to all the corners of the internet. If such a thing had been said on Wikipedia then sure, thats a NPA violation. The very first sentence of WP:NPA reads Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Nobody, as far as I know, has made any such attack anywhere on Wikipedia. nableezy - 09:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I mean, them making personal attacks is what led to this very AN/I report. It's just harder to enforce on prolific editors, because they are "unblockable", you know. New / less experienced editors would easily get an indef with this kind of conduct. And also, "unblockable" doesn't happen to just editors making attacks, but also those engaging in edit wars and other policy violations too. Deprecate NPA policy? No way. — AP 499D25(talk)09:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be NPA-free days, on religious holidays for example. I don't think NPA, even if was rigorously enforced, can make this a healthy, collaborative environment. You need healthy, collaborative people to do that. It seems more like a "You know, we're living in a society" reminder that works most of the time. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
The blatant personal attack here was done offwiki. If it was onwiki, I have no doubts that there would be admins pulling the trigger on the block button. The question should be if the said policy should be extended to what was said offwiki in an open setting if it is well established that the account/person offwiki making that statement is the same person behind the account onwiki. – robertsky (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
He got blocked for the third. The first two came made a couple of weeks after that block expired. – Joe (talk) 10:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
These two should be up in the main thread or one of the subsections calling for a block of ATG as a support for the block. – robertsky (talk) 10:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Since my collapse of this thread was reverted: This is an unfunny modest proposal and should be collapsed by an uninvolved editor because it’s clearly not helping this already bad situationDronebogus (talk) 11:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
It's neither a proposal or a joke, Dronebogus, as everyone who read past the title and isn't terminally literal-minded seems to have understood. Discussion of our repeated failure to enforce WP:NPA is highly relevant to this discussion, where we are failing to enforce WP:NPA. – Joe (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't see it as a failure to enforce NPA. I see the community enforcing NPA here by taking the NPAs very seriously; there a number of proposals made to deal with the NPA, up to and including a site ban, which has received non-trivial amounts of support. If all the proposals fail, then perhaps, but it's too soon to tell. Levivich (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Some members of the community are, at least. My argument is really directed at those denying that the PA is a problem at all, the most egregious example of which would be telling Lightburst to grow a thicker skin. In a functional conduct process, those arguments would be discarded in assessing consensus because they blatantly contradict an existing policy (i.e. WP:NPA). That's not how I've observed ANI working. – Joe (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
It’s become bluntly obvious at this point that one can gain immunity from sanction so long as their contribution count can outrun their violations, so unfortunately yes.
As has been raised above, the constant badgering of “well it wasn’t on Wikipedia so we can’t judge it” is almost hilariously technical/nitpicky when the insult was made on a related site, under their own username, on an account declared to be run by the same person - it’s barely a step away from saying it on here. TheKip(contribs)14:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
It's leagues away and the distinction is no mere "technical nitpick" but rather a cognizant, calculated, and robustly discussed and validated principle embraced by this community from its earliest days. WP:CIV and WP:PA were never meant to be guarantees that you would be treated with respect by your fellow editors off of this site, such that one can flaunt vitally important privacy and outing considerations, which have often serious real world implications and do not disappear for us merely because someone has decided to disclose ownership of a non-wikimedia account. Which is why prohibitions against such behaviour were woven into our policies, including as express limitations of NPA and other behavioural policies, also from the very start and also in a very knowing and considered fashion.WP:CIV, WP:PA, and related principles were never meant to reach beyond the four corners of this project. They exist to keep our communal work environment relatively sanitized and free from acrimony and abusive behaviour. They do not, never have, and never should guarantee to you that no one, anywhere is being uncivil towards you for your work here. Bluntly (and I don't relish saying it, but it's the simple truth) if one cannot countenance the idea that someone (sometime and somewhere and possibly in full view of the internet) is going to speak harshly, disparagingly, or even offensively about their contributions or their character, then that concerned person simply should not contribute to Wikipedia. Because they simply are not prepared to assume the risk to have to weather a very likely (if not certain) consequence of contributing to this open, public project. And we cannot shift our policies on privacy and outing enough to accommodate anything approaching the kind of shield that would be necessarily to grant such protection from all such behaviour. And it's more than just the fact that we don't have the resources and tools to police off-site interactions (though that's true, even if you just imagine addressing such conduct in discussions here, and with sanctions here). Rather the more fundamental reason that such off-project oversight is nonviable is that it would necessarily require abrogating policies and protections which serve to prevent much more serious forms of potential harm than rhetorical personal attacks. We simply cannot do that just to make everyone who chooses to participate here secure in the notion that their fellow editors will always treat them with respect, off-project. It's not feasible, and the effort to even try to do so would profoundly damage our privacy protections and our community culture in a litany of ways. And I say all of this as someone who, as I was just telling a new friend, believes CIV to be one of our most necessary and well-advised community principles, and who is more than satisfied that there is a need to support an indef for Andy based on his on-project incivility alone. SnowRise let's rap16:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nearly all anonymously edit from the IP range 102.88.0.0/16 are disruptive since July of this year. I've reverted some of them, however, there's still some IP editing constructively from them.
Is it possible to block such a large range? Or is there any sysop who are familiar with range block can block a subgroup of them? -Lemonaka09:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
They have been causing several incidents in various pages over an extended period of time and I have been collecting evidence. Unfortunately good-faith-users arguing with them do not always realize they are dealing with this bad actor (who has used an infinite amount of socks and violated all wiki rules) and have even been threatened by him to be reported, which is profoundly unjust by him.
I can also provide a list of many of the pages he usually vandalises and of his IPs, if needed (this is stuff several admins already know about). Barjimoa (talk) 06:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Doug Weller I’m being accused of being a sockpuppet to accounts I never heard of before. Is there a way to clarify that I’m indeed not a sockpuppet to the accounts this user is accusing me of? And to the user who made this post, I can assure you I’m not the sockpuppet to those accounts, not to mention I never even edited half of the articles you have referenced, feel free to peruse my editing history to confirm. (Discopleasant (talk) 07:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC))
If admins need some of the known IP ranges of Venezia Friuliano/James Oredan to make a check I can provide them. These IPs have been marked or partially rangeblocked multiple times and include 31.221.128., 37.29.151.29, 46.6.189.143, and 80.102.210.145 (plus I am reporting here 92:191.197.200 cause it's evidently Dreom). The problem is that he likely has others. For my part I reported this account because it shares with Venezia/James:
-2)edits on a page edited by Venezia multiple times (culture of Italy) and ideas that match with Venezia;
-3)the talking point of wp:peacock on this Italian-related issue, which is common to many socks of James/Venezia;
It's certainly true he has not edited other themes that are in the interest of Venezia/James (genetics, portugal, Britain) but Venezia/James often diversifies his edits to make it less obvious. Barjimoa (talk) 08:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi everyone. A couple days ago I left a warning on Abbahabansn's talk page after reverting their WP:GENDER violation here, and just received a lovely reply in which the named editor tells me to "shoot yourself you fucking queer". Administrator attention would be very much appreciated.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 4 months ago26 comments11 people in discussion
As a kindness to all involved I am closing this before blocks start raining down, which otherwise seems inevitable given the trajectory of this thread. Let's all avoid name-calling going forward, OK? 28bytes (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user whined on my talk page about his proceedings on Commons and is now reporting me here for commenting unsympathetically there on them, or I might never have noticed them. The Streisand effect applies. Please ping me if there are questions. Elinruby (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
@Dronebogus: You have made some 65 edits to the ATG-LB thread on this noticeboard in the past 5 days; Elinruby you have made about 25. Now that bludgeoning has spread to other places and sister projects and is generating ANI reports of its own. Maybe give each other and this board a wide berth for a while voluntarily, before it needs to be imposed? Abecedare (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
sure, next time dozens of falsehoods are told about me I not be so naive as to protest. I will understand that this is simply because I am A Bad Person. I will also accept it as the nature of Wikipedia to denounce people like me who think that editors should not make stuff up and accept that some editors are allowed to say whatever they want about whomever they want, including, and this bears emphasis, not just I, who am unworthy of any civility or respect, but also elected project officials in the performance of their duties. And yes, as the IP below says, this is a report to ANI about a thread at ANI that was open at the time the report was made. Elinruby (talk) 05:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
We probably need a swift WP:BOOMERANG to get this behavior to end. It would clearly prevent more disruptive battleground reports. Everyone can see what ER said above, on this page. 12.75.41.85 (talk) 03:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I think the word from the admins commenting here were to try to deescalate this situation, not stir things up again, especially with diff-free rants. We understand you two don't get along but often trips to noticeboards make situations like this worse, not better, for both parties. LizRead!Talk!06:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
@Liz: I keep getting targeted by random IPs across three different sites. I think this is yet more organized off-wiki harassment. Dronebogus (talk) 09:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Liz I have zero history with Dronebogus [17] except that Levivich falsely claims that I disparaged him. I invite anyone to look for themselves. I *would* offer screenshots proving what a falsehood that is, except that the thread is now private as I suggested, so screenshots would violate the terms of use over there. It seems that someone else over at Wikipediocracy once, a couple of years ago, made fun of his porn stash at Wikimedia Commons and told him that he can't draw, but that has nothing to do with me and saying "Aha, that is why" in response to finding that out does not amount to talking smack except to the extent that it gives a nod, as Abecedare just did, to his 65 posts in defense of Lightburst's ridiculous claims of canvassing. Elinruby (talk) 06:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
@Dronebogus: I think you are trolling actually. A number of reasons suggest themselves. Firstly, this is not a contentious discussion; you made an accusation against another editor and no one has so far agreed with you. In fact, you have been advised to let it go and take a step back by two administrators (and a third, if you want to consider your own talk page). The fact that you try and muddy the waters by citing policies you have not read (accusing me of involvement per a discussion on an independent sister project) and vague handwaves which still convey, nonetheless, a suggestion of an aspersion (if you actually feel you have been harassed you need to present diffs; you have not done so). The latter charge—involving off-wiki coordination and socking is particularly egregious and should either be withdrawn or you file at ARBCOM. But you will not, of course, because you can't. You do not have the facts to back up your aspersions. I propose a boomerang for Dronebogus who, having been told not to make accusations unless backed by diffs, has continued to do so, and despite being advised to step away from the drama has, in fact, insisted on adding further fuel to it by reopening this discussion unnecessarily. Hence, since they insist on keeping the discussion open, they should now be made aware that it will not be kept open just until Elinruby is sanctioned, but that, when one is in a position to be sanctioned, one should be grateful for the opportunity to walk away. ——Serial Number 5412910:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Additionally, why are you so determined to close this so quickly? Why can you not just let it close organically? Especially when you’re already entangled with with whole fiasco? Dronebogus (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
(uninvolved non-admin comment): While I believe that elinruby's conduct does not rise to the level of harassment, I believe that it was unwise of them to comment on the commons:ANI (link 3). Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I’m more concerned about their incivility— for example attacking LB (diff 4) their general tone, casting aspersions left and right (see diffs 1, 2 and 6), bludgeoning every possible discussion involving me (7) Dronebogus (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm concerned about a pattern here. @Elinruby, no real activity on the Commons project space, follows Dronebogus there, and then manages to catch a block for two days after accusing Dronebogus of uploading "kiddie porn" (a serious accusation) and then refusing to back down after a warning from an administrator there. Meanwhile, @Serial Number 54129, you aren't active on Commons much either, and the only other time you were involved in a user conduct issue there was three years ago to defend Beeblebrox/Just Step Sideways, and now you're there again. That thread from three years ago makes for familiar reading. I imagine Commons would appreciate it if we didn't import more drama there. Mackensen(talk)11:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Aye, but it works both ways (or even in 3 different directions between EN, Commons and WPO); Dronebogus's bludgeoning of the AndytheGrump thread above (60+ comments) trying get him blocked or banned, was purely provoked by the fact that AtG was involved in the WPO thread about Dronebogus's unsavoury Commons uploads. Black Kite (talk)11:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
No, it was provoked by the fact that AtG has a long history of being an absolute jerk. I didn’t even know about the WPO thread when the thread here started. And in any case I’ve completely stopped replying for at least a day. Dronebogus (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Calling someone a "jerk" whilst bludgeoning a thread trying to get that person blocked for incivility seems like a pretty novel approach, IMO. Black Kite (talk)12:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
“Jerk” is really laughably tame when we currently have accusations of “kiddie porn” being thrown around, not to mention AtG’s history of calling people fuckwits, imbeciles, and “crooked little grifters”. Dronebogus (talk) 12:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
@Mackensen: (edit conflict) Well, Dronebogus seems perfectly capable of attracting all the attention, and creating sufficient drama, on his home wiki, without me worrying about his Commons stash. But I thank you for pointing out how little I involve myself in Commons drama... twice in three years? Not bad compared to the WP:BLUDGEONing highlighted by several of your colleagues. As far as the chronology goes, it's likely that Elinruby wouldn't have gone to Commons at all had DB not already mentioned it on their talk, 20 minutes earlier. You know the rules: if someone makes their way unaided and unencouraged to another editor's posts, that's a sure sign of edit-stalking. But when it gets mentioned (emotively, too: "all the crap I’m dealing with on Commons" is hardly synonymous with "it's hardly worth looking in at") on one's own page? No case. Regardless of what occurred subsequently on Commons to ER, I don't think it was the getting there from here that was at all problematic. ——Serial Number 5412912:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, Dronebogus has a history of bludgeoning and will probably catch a block before the day is out. That's not really news and that's not the pattern that worries me here. Mackensen(talk)12:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I notice you haven't provided the user with any information. You haven't used edit summaries, just edit warred with them (incidentally breaking Wp:3RR on multiple occasions), no attempt has been made to talk to them on either the article talk pages or their own talk pages (other than just to throw a templated warning.) Their edits don't appear to be deliberately disruptive and they just need to be informed as to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You should
A) use edit summaries
B) not edit war or break 3RR
C) reach out to them on their talk page to inform them why their edits are being reverted
Note I warned the OP about the 3RR on their talk page as well as here, but they removed the warning and continued their edit warring. So I've blocked them for 24 hours. Canterbury Tailtalk15:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I have also now gone to Djimon3d's talk page and informed them as to why their edits are being reverted, and given them information on edit warring and 3RR, so lets see what happens. Canterbury Tailtalk16:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
This user is continuing their pattern of incivility and personal attacks towards editors who disagree with them. Since creating their account in late 2023, the majority of their edits of been in deletion/merge/split discussions.[18] They have been taken twice to ANI before.
In April, the complaint describes an incident in which SF was uncivil towards editors who disagreed with them,[19] was warned about their incivility (albeit poorly),[20] only to double down and attack the person warning them.[21] While no action was taken and the civility warning was dismissed as being uncivil in its own right, comments in the discussion including by Snow Rise and Hydrangeans expressed concerns over SF's tone and taking digs at the contributions of others nonetheless.
In May, I brought up what I felt were several issues related to SF's behaviour at AfD, among which was their incivility. The other issues were mostly dismissed due to SF's record at AfD, but again, nearly every editor who commented expressed concerns at SF's tone towards others, including their behaviour in the ANI thread itself. Clearly a message should have been received that their tone was unacceptable, but no acknowledgement of the concerns was made before the thread was archived.
[22] In a reply to me: "There's always a home for them in Fandom. Nothing wrong with that site, though. People should think before shoving junk into Wikipedia." Bolding mine; The "go to Fandom" comment is itself bad, but again he belittles and does not assume good faith of the efforts of other editors.
[23] In a reply to another keep !voter, WP:OTHERSTUFF would have itself been a sufficient reply, but SF can't help but make a personal attack about Fandom. "Fandom is always there for fans like you."
[24] SF then adds to his initial reply to me, with what is partially a line they use often at AfD but also partially a personal attack, "and do we need an WP:INDISCRIMINATE amount of sports results to clutter Wikipedia with, especially those the most ardent minority of nerds bother with".
[25] After I warned him about his incivility, he doubles down with "Wow, such snowflakes like the modern times, getting upset by words like 'nerds', I thought nerds like being called nerds. I was a car nerd at one time and am not ashamed of that label. I call 'efforts' like this junk because people write crap."
Given that the user has not heeded past warnings to keep it civil, or even acknowledged that their lack of civility is a problem, and continues to bring this behaviour into discussions on deletion, merging and splitting whenever they face opposition that they can't just quickly reply to with a wikilink (and even sometimes when they can), I believe something beyond a warning (like a topic ban) must be done. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)03:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
SpacedFarmer is certainly assertive in expressing their opinions within the context of improving the encyclopedia, but I fail to see how calling another editor a "nerd" is an actionable insult. I've been editing Wikipedia for 15 years and if anyone called me a "nerd" for editing the articles that I choose to edit, then I will accept "nerd" as a badge of honor. Similarly with "snowflakes" which is a term that has been used, over used and counter-used so often that it has lost actual meaning in the fog of trading political insults. An assertion that specific content is "junk" or "crap" is bold and unvarnished, but the appropriate response is to advance a convincing argument that the content in question is neither junk nor crap. SpacedFarmer, I encourage you to select wording in such discussions that is less confrontational and more collaborative. Editors who initially disagree with you about "something" are not your enemy. Cullen328 (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
The exact worlds used are less of a concern than the overall pattern of immediate confrontation towards disagreement. How many more people are going to have to tell this user to be less confrontational and more collaborative before they finally get it? ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)13:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Cullen328 I had a somewhat similar response to the first ANI report about this user brought earlier this year. In that instance, I felt there was blame to go around and that the conduct being complained about with regard to SpacedFarmer constituted fairly minor violations of behavioural norms under the circumstances. When I was pinged here for this report, read it through, and reviewed the original ANI, I was initially anticipating saying something similar. But after reviewing some of the more recent comments in context, and especially after having just looked at the attitude on display in the second ANI, as well as in some other circumstances where SF has been asked to adjust their approach, I'm starting to lean towards agreement with the OP that there's an issue here that needs addressing. For one, although I don't think that they are the biggest issue here, I don't think that the "nerd"/"fanboy" comments are entirely nothing. Context is king, and the fact is that SF is demonstrating a pattern of dismissing the concerns of other editors with these sorts of non-sequitor comments, combining ad hominem and strawman elements, thus violating the principle that editorial arguments should be based on content and policy, not one's suppositions about what they imagine to be the motivations and qualities of their rhetorical opposition (or, "focus on the content, not the user", as we usually say in short). There is definitely a problematic amount of WP:Battleground seeping into SF's approach here, from what I can see. And frankly a non-trivial amount of arrogance that they are a more serious editor than those disagreeing with them and that they know best what is called for, with their all of seven months worth of experience on-project. This attitude may well have been unintentionally enabled by those of us who blew off the first few episodes, but regardless, it's clearly starting to become irreconcilable with a collaborative environment, and I think we're headed towards either a block and/or a topic ban from sport/motorsport subject matter if SF is unable to perceive the issue with their approach and adjust accordingly. I don't know that we're at the point of such a proposal yet, but (for their own benefit if nothing else) SpacedFarmer should at least get a clear warning from us at this juncture. And a clear acknowledgment from them that they understand where the community concerns are coming from wouldn't hurt. Regardless, without a rapid change in outlook concerning how to regard and communicate with their fellow editors in content disputes, I don't see how they avoid some sort of sanction at some point probably not too far down the line. SnowRise let's rap00:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
A new response on SpacedFarmer's user talk offers fresh evidence of their increasing use of personal attacks: "People like you are what is shit about modern motorsport, no wonder why the once great sport full of pussies like you nowadays." I think something needs to be done. Toughpigs (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I think it's safe to say that SpacedFarmer doesn't have the temperament to work in the deletion realm of Wikipedia. I'm proposing a topic ban from all deletion areas of Wikipedia, broadly construed. Support, obviously. Maybe this'll give SpacedFarmer a chance to change his tact around deletion. ♠JCW555(talk)♠ 01:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Support because of the constant & massive incivility towards editors and article creators within deletion discussions, as demonstrated in this and the previous ANI thread. --TheImaCow (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Despite my misgivings based on what has been presented in this thread, I wanted to wait and see how SpacedFarmer responded to the administrative block before weighing in on any additional CBAN. I have to say that I am not heartened by the complete radio silence in response to multiple admins reaching out on the talk page trying to encourage a change in tact. That said, unlikely though it is to be coincidental timing, it is at least possible that the user is simply busy off-project. I additionally have another concern: if a TBAN is advisable in this instance, I'm not sure if removing them from deletion discussions is the right fit. Afterall, I don't think removing them from deletion is going to address the hostility that seems to characterize many of their interactions in the area of organized sport topics. And on the flip side, I'm not sure that they would be as problematic when discussing deletions matters for other topics. That said, the proposal may end up being better than nothing. I'm going to wait a little longer and hope for some response from SF before formalizing an !vote in any direction. SnowRise let's rap02:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Support:Given the amount of time that SpacedFarmer has had to address concerns here, and their decision not to do so (despite being back to edit briefly a couple of days ago, I'm prepared to support the proposal now. I still have concerns that the topic ban might have been better directed at the subject matter that has surrounded their problematic conduct, rather than the process, but consensus at this point is that the TBAN be directed at deletion discussions and that's better than doing nothing. SnowRise let's rap18:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Support: They've refused to adjust their behaviour despite past warnings. The incivility towards others, as well as the disparaging nomination statements they routinely make and won't adjust from, have grown quite tiresome. They routinely fail to do proper WP:BEFORE searches and then badger those who oppose them at various times. They've shown no signs that they intend to work at it and do better, so at this point I think it's time to say enough is enough. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose as currently proposed: Most of the issues so far have pertained with sports related deletion discussions, and more specifically motorsports. I think action is warranted based on the history here, but this is too broad a sanction for me to support at this time. Let'srun (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
On one hand, I think it's entirely coincidental that the April ANI report also involved the motorsport(s) topic area and that this overall pattern of lashing out at disagreement could happen at any other XfD or merge/split discussion. On the other, the pointed comment about "modern motorsport" being "full of pussies like [me] nowadays" highlighted above by Toughpigs certainly indicates an unwillingness to contribute positively there. I'd support a topic ban from both or either area. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)23:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The account Mehedihasanbicp is the fourth and currently active account of a SPA devoted to autobiographies of MH Mehedi Hasan. User:Mhmehedibicp is the oldest account, which originally created Draft:Mh Mehedi Hasan. After that was speedied G11, User:Mhmehedihasan81 and User:Mehedihasanbicp, both of whom have been spamming the same thing at their user pages, recreated the spammy draft. SPA User:Bicpteam also spammed the same bio at their user page. "BICP" is apparently short for "Bangladesh Islamic Cyber Protector", as noted in the infobox. There's been no actual block evasion yet, but the latest account User:Mehedihasanbicp has continued to post the same spammy bio at their user talk after multiple U5 deletions [26], and hasn't responded to a post about sockpuppetry at their user talk. If this belongs at an SPI, I'll take it there. Wikishovel (talk) 10:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
@Wikishovel: My personal preference would be a formal SPI. That said, putting myself in the shoes of the article draft creator: "there's this amazing website called Wikipedia I've seen all my life, and it also allows you to make a webpage about yourself!" I think the time has come to take a less gentle approach here. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
To begin with this editor is almost certainly a sock puppet for the banned editor CanadianHistorian(MMA & History). There is an on-going sock puppet investigation requested here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CanadianHistorian(MMA & History), but the issue here is that even if this editor is not a sock puppet, there are some serious conflict-of-interest problems. This editor only edits the Rock Machine Motorcycle Club article, and in this post here [27] admits to being a Rock Machine member along with being their "historian". That is clearly is a massive conflict of interest problem. Moreover, the combative tone of this post and attacks on other editors with "personal issues" suggests that this editor has a battlefield mentality and a general inability to work constructively with other editors. And there is this claim that "police" sources are not reliable, see here [28]. I am going to phrase this as delicately as I can. This editor claims to be a Rock Machine member, and as far I can tell, this person has not committed any crimes. That is not the issue. However, the police and the overwhelming majority of RS such as newspapers and books say that the Rock Machine is a criminal organization that merely poses as a motorcycle club. The Rock Machine claims to be a motorcycle club that just happens to have some members that commit crimes. Can someone who is the "historian" of the Rock Machine really approach this question in a manner that is neutral and factual? Finally, the claims of RockGotti1813 that his membership of the Rock Machine makes him better qualified to write about this subject fails the verifiable requirements. Whatever he may know about the Rock Machine cannot be verified by other editors, something that this editor apparently does not care about. Thank you for your time. --A.S. Brown (talk) 03:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Editor with a long history of disruptive editing, culminating with making a userbox that says "this user is transphobic". Can directly be considered disruptive as per WP:HID and WP:NQP (yes they're essays rather than strict policy, but directly stating "i am transphobic" is pretty clear-cut.)
I'm sorry, I didn't realise that my Userbox wasn't allowed. I thought it was ok because it was just for me to express my opinion on my own user page. If you think it was offensive just ask me to remove it. Zakary2012 (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
If just removing it was sufficient we wouldn't be here: it's the capstone on your pattern of behavior: how can you justify both this and absurdities like
−
Daniel Michael Andrews (born 6 July 1972) is an Australian former politician who served as the 48th premier of Victoria from 2014 to 2023.
+
Daniel Michael Andrews (born 6 July 1972) is an Australian former dictator who served as the 48th premier of Victoria from 2014 to 2023.
I do acknowledge that what I did on the Daniel Andrews page was plain wrong and unjustified. But with the edit warring on Australia about the Royal anthem, at the time I didn't know about the rules of edit warring and am extremely disappointed in myself for my behaviour Zakary2012 (talk) 07:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
And what about the removal of reliably sourced material from Transphobia earlier today seemingly just because you didn't like what it said? If you think we care about your (or anyone's) perspective on the matter more than reliable sources, you're deeply mistaken. Remsense诉07:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
I just felt that a statement like that which was basing something on skin colour was racist and not the Wikipedia way. And anyway that has nothing to do with this discussion Zakary2012 (talk) 07:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Outright transphobia goes well beyond just "your opinion". What would even be the point of such a userbox? To just make sure any trans people stopping by your page would know you didn't like them? It doesn't make any sense. GraziePrego (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Bragging you are transphobic would probably get you immediately blocked. Just like stating that you are sexist, a racist or anti-Semite. Why would you want to advertise this? Only an editor wanting to be indefinitely blocked. LizRead!Talk!07:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
An indefinite block is 100% appropriate, as this editor has now engaged in 1. bragging about transphobia, 2. disruptive editing, 3. edit warring, and 4. vandalism. GraziePrego (talk) 07:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
At the time I didn't know what transphobic actually meant. I thought it meant you were against gender transition not that you hated trans people. Now that I know the definition I greatly regret my decision. I think I do deserve a punishment but something more like a week-long block Zakary2012 (talk) 07:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
(While even if this is the case, the editor has not covered themselves in glory, I think it's worth at least mentioning that their username seems to plausibly communicate that they are in a stage of their life where one can make a ton of mistakes without malice while learning very quickly about the world.) Remsense诉07:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
I was trying to discreetly point out to the other editors that I'm more inclined to take your apologies as genuine due to the possibility that you're a teenager and so these being mistakes that you will learn from makes more sense. Remsense诉07:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
I find the excuse that "you didn't know" very hard to believe. You have been welcomed and given links to look at several times, and been specifically asked to educate yourself about things like contentious topics and copyright. I've asked you to provide edit summaries which you still generally don't do. And you dont get to nominate how long a block might be.Nickm57 (talk) 07:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
I was still new to Wikipedia at the time and it wasn't until someone mentioned it in a talk page that I realised it was a thing and that it was against Wikipedia rules Zakary2012 (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Administrator note: I've blocked the user indefinitely per WP:HID. Not only they are open about their transphobia, their bias has clearly affected their edits, as can be seen here. Any admin dealing with an unblock request should strongly consider a TBAN on gender and sexuality. Isabelle Belato🏳🌈13:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion
@Qwqwer has been editing on multiple Pakistani assembly pages by changing one party to another due to a recent political case, this is completely fine, but another user informed him on Talk:National Assembly of Pakistan to not update the seats yet due to political reasons of making sure that the party has been changed. His response? He just told the editor to shut up and used the f-word. Titan2456 (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
@Titan2456it appears you've failed to warn the user in question of this discussion, which I've done on their talk page.
That said, I support some kind of sanction, given their only response to the valid questioning of their edits was "Shut the f-ck up." That screams WP:NOTHERE to me. TheKip(contribs)17:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
They are not here to contribute constructively. I've come across them on various articles, where they repeatedly change content without citing sources. I left warnings on their talk page and attempted to engage with them on the article talk page. If Titan hadn't reported them, I would have. I support an indefinite block not because they used offensive language against me, but because their disruptive behavior is causing chaos across various articles. We cannot continue like this; we have more productive ways to spend our time. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Indefinitely blocked. Regardless of the "shut the fuck up", you only have to look at their contribution history and how significant amounts of their edits going back years have been reverted by multiple editors. Black Kite (talk)18:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 months ago15 comments5 people in discussion
At discussion Talk:Steven van de Velde#RfC regarding the inclusion of the "convicted child sex offender" in first sentence I replied to User:Zaereth with this comment (over a few edits; that is what was visible by the time of replies). Before Zaereth could reply, User:Notwally did so for them here, including a literal insult directed at me, as well accusation of bad faith over my reply. It must be noted that the resulting discussion with Zaereth was civil if not friendly: they took my reply in good faith and we had a positive discussion. I do not know why Notwally, who I have never interacted with before, decided to jump the gun and jump down my throat.
I then replied to another user, User:Pincrete, again in good faith - to the point I even left a small note at the end to indicate so, after having had Notwally assume bad of me, here. And inexplicably, Notwally decided to reply to this - also before Pincrete even had a chance - and this time, here, they misrepresented what I said, again insinuated bad faith, and acted like I was showing a negative pattern of behaviour. For two replies, both engaging in discussion.
It must be noted that earlier in the thread there were multiple users who engaged with nearly every single comment, likewise furthering discussion, and that Notwally did not take to accusing bad faith of them. And, the discussion with Pincrete was also pleasant, nothing for Notwally to worry about.
At this point I was annoyed (understandably so I would say). So I did two things: I asked them to leave me alone. And, since another user had decided to join in on Notwally's comments about me and both users had the same SPI notice, I alluded to them being investigated as socks. I have already acknowledged this was unwise - and evidently it was, because if Notwally had some inexplicable grudge against me already, now they are just making blatant PA's every time I comment at that talkpage, and lying about my involvement.
I ask for someone to summarise an argument instead of link to somewhere else, and get this. I engage in a different discussion about phrasing, and get this. (Edit: They've made it clear in that last one what their bad faith assumptions about me are. You'd assume that the very pleasant, productive discussions I've actually had with the people I actually engaged with, would show to Notwally that their bad faith assumptions are incorrect. And still, they continued.)
I have to AGF, and assume that Notwally sees the situation very differently than I, and no doubt they will have some justification for going after me. But I bring this here because even assuming Notwally thinks they are doing right, I cannot reconcile one major thing: if you are doing what you think is right, and someone has asked you to leave them alone, you would not continuing prodding at them.
At this point, they have made multiple comments after I asked to be left alone that only exist to insinuate bad faith on my part. They are not contributing to discussion on that talkpage anywhere, only commenting to cast aspersions about me. I believe this is unjustified, continued harassment, and trying to make that talkpage so hostile towards me that I don't contribute. That's unacceptable. I gave them a warning about this on their talkpage and got this edit summary. Well, if I can't tell them to leave me alone, let's see if an IBAN can be implemented. Kingsif (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think Kingsif should be able to repeatedly imply that other editors are trying to benefit child predators, nor that they should be able to make baseless sockpuppetry accusations. Rather than a boomerang, it would be nice if Kingsif would just stop. – notwally (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I haven't been doing that, though. You made that assumption from my very first comment - meanwhile the user I was replying to took it in good faith and we had a productive discussion. Since then, no matter what the actual content of my comments and discussions, you have continued making it. I am trying to see where you've been coming from. Given the nature of the subject, if you have it in your mind that someone has an agenda, you can use the context to paint anything in a certain light. But it's not the case - asking for expansion rather than links to other pages, asking for explanation of rationale because I agreed with a premise but didn't reach the same conclusion - I've already explained my motives.
And look, you don't have to believe me. But as I said, my main issue is that I have asked you to leave me alone. If you were only acting to do what you thought was best, I believe you would have honoured that, regardless of what you think of me. Not only have you not done so, you've gone out of your way for it.
If you really think my contributions to discussion are so bad, I encourage you to participate in those discussions yourself. Not to harass me with bad faith accusations. Kingsif (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
When two other editors also took issue with your responses, you immediately and repeatedly accused one of them of being a sockpuppet [29][30][31] (including falsely claiming that a SPI was ongoing when it had been closed and deleted 4 days prior as a "meritless filing" [32]), while also immediately doubling down on your demands of editors who chose to not vote "yes" in the RfC [33]. You can try to put whatever spin you want on things, or you could just stop. – notwally (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
And for accuracy's sake, it was only one other user who took issue, Nemov. Presumably, the other user you refer to is Kcmastrpc - who did not take issue with my edits, but suggested that if there's a user accusing me of things, I should probably make fewer replies. You can see our discussion at their talkpage. Kingsif (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
As I said, it was unwise to bring that up. I couldn't see the result of the SPI. FWIW, I was writing it at the time you made this comment, but I've now apologised for that [34].
My replies are not targeted at people who did not !vote yes - if you actually read my !vote, you'd note how I opened by saying I thought I would vote !no, so your premise is entirely faulty. It's also continuing your bad faith assumption that I took issue with a certain side (untrue - that the !votes where I asked for expansion were predominantly from one side is coincidence), and that the issue was so serious I would accuse people of supporting crimes (also untrue - my comments discuss content).
I'd like you to address the issue that I brought to ANI, instead of continuing to make bad faith accusations against me. I asked you to leave me alone. Not only did you continue harassing me, you went out of your way to do so. If you felt like my editing was so bad, there are options to resolve this that aren't apparently watching a page to wait for me to comment and then writing personal attacks in response. Are you going to leave me alone, or will this need to be enforced? Kingsif (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
This is a candidate for WP:BOOMERANG. This editor is bludgeoning the discussion and making unfounded accusations. After accusing myself and notwally of being socks, Kingsif also templated my TALK with an unwarrented harassments notice[35]. Kingsif started this entire episode by accusing notwally of WP:BLUDGEONING a discussion. If there was anyone bludgeoning that discussion it's Kingsif as I pointed out, as well as Kcmastrpc. So far Kingsif has accused editors of being socks, bludgeoning, and harassments. These accusations lack merit and aren't in good faith. This ANI is another example that Kingsif completely lacks self awareness in regards to this content dispute. Since Kingsif brought this issue here to be resolved, my recommendation is Kingsif is restricted from further comment on that article. Nemov (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I have to believe you are heavily misguided when you falsely claim I started this. Notwally deciding to not AGF of the first comment they ever saw from me, then thinking their bad faith assumptions warranted stalking my comments to attack me, is what started it. That is when I did not accuse Notwally of bludgeoning the discussion, but of exhibiting bludgeoning behaviour towards my comments, something which cannot be disputed - insistently replying to everything I, and only I, wrote, with attacking language is exactly that.
If we're addressing the SPI mention fully, let's do it. I did not accuse you of being socks: Notwally themself has handily provided three diffs above dealing with that. In the first two, I mention the SPI case, without making my own accusations. In the second, I only refer to it for explanation why I mentioned it the first time, and also use the phrase ganging up, a clear indication that I believe there are multiple users. As for the third diff Notwally provided, I don't know why they have, as it contains no mention of socks and has the phrase the pair of them, another clear indication I believed I was dealing with two different people. I acknowledged, I believe at your talkpage, a while ago, that mentioning it was unwise. Clearly, because it doesn't do anything to calm a situation. So why did I? See it from my experience, a user is harassing you and then another user who has not been involved joins in, and when you go to ask them to leave you alone you see that they've both been cited in an SPI. It was unwise, but you can see why in the heat of the moment I made the snarky aside (indicated by small-text template) comment Aren't you that guy's WP:SOCK? Just like I can see why that comment would leave a bad taste in your mouth, but does not mean you can ignore the hostile behaviour that led me to make it.
You can also see in that second diff from Notwally that I repeated my request to be left alone, showing that I clearly felt this had not been heeded. Are you surprised that shortly after, I left you a harassment notice at your talkpage? Those notices are not accusations, the language in them is incredibly congenial; they are genuine requests for the recipient to be careful how much they are "commenting on contributors" so other users feel able to edit without feeling needlessly attacked, as I did.
I am trying to see your edits in good faith, and so I must assume you see it all with a different view. I invite you to see it from mine. At the time you got involved, I had critically asked about one argument, to which Notwally had responded rudely, and then agreed with but wanted to discuss the finer details of another, to which Notwally had responded even ruder. Bearing in mind that neither user I spoke to was Notwally, and neither user had any issue with my comments. Then you arrived and accused me of bludgeoning – for two on-topic comments. I would say that your accusation towards me of bludgeoning was (and, here, is) unwarranted.
Was I the image of grace in replying to you both? I don't think I was that bad at all. Not super friendly, but who would be: because if you want to be critical of how I responded to being comment-stalked and insulted by Notwally, you have to acknowledge what led to those responses, and I am the injured party.
Again, rather than insulting my self-awareness as you did in I believe your second ever reply to me, I encourage you to have some awareness of your own, about Notwally's provocation and how yourself jumping in mid-thread to make accusations only added fuel to the fire. Kingsif (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Since they've reappeared, I would also like to request an IBAN on Nemov, who I had assumed had dropped their stick with me, but who I also asked to leave me alone before and they continued. While Nemov's accusations of me in this thread are tamer than Notwally's serious false accusations, Nemov's are still likewise untrue. I believe Nemov is making them in good faith based on their experience from when they got involved in the original discussion, but since their involvement in that original discussion was just to pile-on comments harassing me, and they mocked me asking them to stop, I also feel that them leaving me alone may need to be formally enforced. Kingsif (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Wall of text aside, several editors have approached you about the problems with your edits and you're still assuming everyone else is the problem. That is a lack of self-awareness. I look forward to an admin addressing this and have nothing else to add. Nemov (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Actual response below, but even this comment is more of a misrepresentation that could be a PA: several editors have approached you about the problems with your edits Sorry, but one guy (Notwally) not AGF and insulting me for commenting on an argument, then another guy (Nemov) saying I'm bludgeoning for making two replies, is not that. None of the users I was actually responding to had any problems. you're still assuming everyone else is the problem I'm just asking to be left alone. Kingsif (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Surely by now you know I like to fully discuss things? ;) Ok, TL;DR, your multiple accusations against me, while I AGF that they are based on your experience, are wide of the mark and do not acknowledge that Notwally "started it" and was provocational in even their very first reply to me. That I did not make the sock/bludgeoning accusations you say I did, and that I am not wrong when I describe that I felt harassed. That the harassment began before I made any comment on Notwally (or Nemov), and my comments to them were generally variations on "you're misrepresenting me" and "leave me alone". That if you want to be critical of how I responded to being comment-stalked and insulted by Notwally, you have to acknowledge what led to those responses, and I am the injured party.
Since I already wrote you that my mention of the SPI was unwise, I clearly acknowledged where I had not helped proceedings. But you joining in with commenting on a contributor, and then not seeming to recognise even now that this is something that made it worse and directly led to me asking you to not harass me, could be termed a lack of self-awareness.
And FWIW, as noted above, Kcmasterpc did not have issue with my edits, you can see the link to their talkpage where I believe they said they didn't even read the comments, they just saw that there was heat happening and advised me to take a breather.Kingsif (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
To an admin (I put this here to not append my opening statement): while I have felt the need to defend myself against Notwally and Nemov's continued false accusations (which in Notwally's case come from an instant and unyielding presumption of bad faith against me, but I AGF of both in making them), it must be said that (most of*) their accusations are immaterial, whether they believe them or not. Why? Because I engaged in discussion with various users at that talkpage and none of those users had any problems with either my comment content (Notwally's problem) or my discussion etiquette (Nemov's problem). So whatever the pair think of my replies to those users, my comments evidently were not doing any harm. So I do not believe it is the place for uninvolved users to effectively speak over the involved users who have no problems (especially after the point of being asked not to). The comments from Notwally (and, to a lesser extent, Nemov) were in this way also actually disruptive to the discussion: without their comments, there would be no off-topic threads there, myself and the users I engaged with would have been able to just have our productive discussions. There would also not have been the threads that got heated between myself, Notwally and Nemov. That's why I said most of their accusations are immaterial. *Because while I do not think they can fairly have a go at me for perceived problems that involved users did not have, how I responded to them is something they can. Besides the diffs presented here, I have not revisited those threads, but my recollection is that I did not give as much as I got, snarky aside about an SPI (which I have since apologised for) notwithstanding. Still, I've asked for IBANs on both those users; I'd take it going both ways. Kingsif (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Kingsif, you are bludgeoning this discussion and responding to every comment that is made with long explanations about how you are the victim. It's no wonder that other editors have stayed away from participating in this complaint. You have had more than your say (times 10) so I think you can refrain from any more commenting unless a question is directed at you. Continuing to repeat your case doesn't help sway others to your point of view, it just makes other editors not want to read through all of your commentary. Additionally, this is ANI and you know that you can't determine what editors choose to focus on and your own conduct is under as much of a microscope as editors you've brought a complaint against. At ANI, brevity is your friend and I wouldn't be surprised if this gets archived with no action taken. But I could be wrong. LizRead!Talk!04:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
There had been persistent vandalism 1234832059 (vandalising existing redirect) 1233687282 (obvious vandalism removal including removing reliable source citation without explaination & with extraordinary claim WP:EXTRAORDINARY) 1232854799 (earlier same extraordinary claim WP:EXTRAORDINARY about North Korea) 1230012264 (obvious vandalism inconsistent with the rest of the article) 1232652151 (unsourced edit without sync/update to already existing citation)
I'm blocking that IP address as a confirmed proxy. Other admins are free to replace my block with another, if they prefer. --Yamla (talk) 12:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Repeated personal attacks by IP 47.69.67.250 (as well as by potential sock IPs)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The IP 47.69.67.250 has made several personal attacks targeting myself, making the following claims, continuing after I warned them that personal attacks violate Wikipedia policy (Warning Difs: [36] and [37])
"Once more, you try to fool me and others with deviating from the main problems." (Dif: [38])
"So you are now dictating others which sources to use by inventing FAQs that nicely serve your private ideas of editing?" (Dif: [39])
The IP has similar behavior (and a similar address) to the following IPs. Additionally, at multiple times, the IP mentions their prior behavior, which was conducted by one of the other IPs.
These potential socks have made the following comments:
"The "a user" who did this draft is Redacted II again, who arguably posted the first anonymous post as well" (Dif: [43]. 47.69.69.199)
"Obviously, you think you own this article and don't want to cooperate in any way. Not WP style." (Dif: [44] 47.64.131.12)
"You always try to take others for fool just to cover that you lack real arguments" (Dif: [45] 47.69.68.190)
"Don't always try to fool people" (Dif: [46] 47.69.68.190)
"This is no doubt once more one a dubious action to push opinions" (Dif [47] 47.69.68.190)
Mentions of prior comments made by a different IP:
This is an extensive history of personal attacks, all by similar IP addresses with a very similar "style".
If this belongs in a different section (like the sock puppetry section, though that isn't the main issue IMO, then please move it) Redacted II (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't see any of those diffs as personal attacks. The IP's style of discussion is not collaborative, but that's not the same thing. Also, I don't see this as socking. The IPs obviously belong to the same person, but there's no policy against using different IPs unless it's to gain an advantage in some scenario, like a vote or edit-warring. Is there any evidence of that?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
They have denied using multiple IPs (Dif: [50]) (though, that isn't the issue: it is claiming I am attempting to "fool them" and "ignoring their argument" (invariably as a response to me responding to their arguments).
IMO, making those claims repeatedly in the face of evidence, as well as threatening to report a user for giving them warnings, are personal attacks in violation of Wikipedia's policies. After all, we are all supposed to Assume Good Faith, and not claim that the editor they are arguing with is attempting to "mislead editors". Redacted II (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
They deny using several IPs at the same time; that would be an entirely different behavior from having their IP address change from time to time, which is what has actually taken place. The fact that they continue discussions and refer to the earlier addresses as their own is evidence against deceptive behavior. --JBL (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Again, my issue with them isn't that they've used multiple IPs (though their denial, at least to me, seems like an attempt to make others believe that they are not all the same person).
I've already told you the comments by the IP are not personal attacks. This thread is a waste of time.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
And I disagree. Even though you think they don't qualify, that doesn't mean that everyone else will share that opinion. Wait a few days before dismissing this as "a waste of time".
And for why those comments violate WP:PA, here is a quote from WP:PA.
The IP's comments may be frustrating and annoying, but as Bbb23 has told you, they don't rise to the level of personal attacks. I don't see anything actionable here. Sometimes we just don't get along with someone else on WP, and the only thing to do is roll your eyes, shrug off the comments, and move on. Grandpallama (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I also don't see these as personal attacks. You know you've been attacked when the comments require revision deletion. Years ago, an editor once told me that I embodied all of the worst things about Wikipedia and you just need to shrug comments like that off and keep editing. If we blocked everyone who stated another editor was pushing a point of view or lacked a real argument, admins would be spending all of their time blocking editors. This is the internet and often people are less than polite. LizRead!Talk!04:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Just found I "got a message" and thought I should comment.
First, of course every few days my provider gives me a slighly new IP. That is completely normal and I cannot change that. I never used that to appear as several persons.
Second, I never have deliberately attacked him, I just told him not to fool me over and over again by deviating from the main problem and repeating inappropriate arguments, which I saw as intentional attemps to silent me. When I learned that he might have misunderstood the word "fool", I tried even to explain this in the discussion ("you might know that "to fool" also means "to mislead", and in this and only in this meaning I used it"). So where to complain? Furthermore, English in my 2nd language, thus I apologize if I not always get the right wording, but that hardly can be punished.
I admit that I got more and more annoyed that he just put my arguments down and acted as if he owned the article, and he clearly also provoked me. Btw, he was the first to threaten to "report" me, and he accused me and others even here to be sockpuppets.
Having said that, and hoping I understand the way WP works, I would like to add that I have the feeling that even this discussion is one more attempt to deviate from the main problem, which is he is constantly using wrong references, making "original research" and . For anyone interested in details, look at the discussion. Parts of the article have been hidden now by "Redraiderengineer", "Temporarily removed vehicles for updated citation per WP:CHALLENGE on talk page.". As Redraiderengineer is much more familiar with WP vocabulary, methods and tools, please have a look on his elaborations about the flawed citations and referenced. I was accused of "nor working on the article": Despite from experience that IP-made changes get often deleted without even explanation, I just don't know enough about WP to insert multiple references into tables or similar. I just wanted to help making this article better by pointing to these problems on the talk page, but Redacted II put repeatedly everything down despite clear arguments that were supported by others as well. I think this is extremely important because Starship test flights are very high in public perceptions these times, and the article still has many issues, mainly stating facts that only derive from "original research". Thanks to all. 47.69.67.250 (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I do want to say (Again) that my issue wasn't that they had used multiple IPs. I even asked about it (Dif: ), saying that I was fairly certain it wasn't malicious. They never responded there, and denied it later on.
" just told him not to fool me over and over again by deviating from the main problem and repeating inappropriate arguments"
So, disagreeing and explaining why you are wrong is "deviating" and "inappropriate"?
"("you might know that "to fool" also means "to mislead", and in this and only in this meaning I used it")"
I understood the message. If you had been calling me a fool, that would (hopefully) be an undeniable personal attack.
"Btw, he was the first to threaten to "report" me"
Because of the above reasons. Threatening to report someone for no reason at all isn't appropriate at all.
"which is he is constantly using wrong references, making "original research" and"
The references were backed by Wikpedia's policy, there are no examples of original research, and you left the last bit blank.
"Redacted II put repeatedly everything down"
Because there were clear arguments against it (such as it being supported by the sources, the FAQ, or not even being possible). Redacted II (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Can somebody take a look at what's going on with the contributions in this range? Most of it seems to be nonsense in their talk page and the sandbox. Thanks. —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 10:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with a new user using the sandbox for its intended purpose. Though a reminder to keep testing out of their talk page may be approporiate. I just noticed they are not using their talk page for testing, but their personal sandbox. So no concerns here. Catalk to me!11:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC) Updated 11:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
By a weird coincidence, before I saw this AN/I thread I just reverted a new user attempting to add spam citations [51][52] for their website "indianbikedriving3d (dot) in (slash) indian-bike-driving-3d". The sandbox history contains huge edits that just various versions of "indian bikes driving 3d,indian bike driving 3d,indian bike driving 3d new update,indian bike driving 3d cheat codes,indian bike driving 3d game,indian bike driving 3d new cheat code,indian bike driving 3d code,indian bike driving 3d update, etc etc. Looks very likely to be the same spammer. BugGhost🦗👻13:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 months ago12 comments7 people in discussion
I want to get some extra eyes on this since I am feeling like something fishy is going on. I had believed CurlyHeadCel might be a sock but an SPI would be inappropriate for a single account. At the very least, I felt that they were trying to troll us and waste our time. I linked the discussion below that sparked this issue as well the commons contributions for them:
TBH, I'd consider a username block for them, as well as Trooncel whom they've apparently been interacting with per their talk page -- ("Troon (slur)" being an anti-trans slur, portmanteau'd with incel). ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!23:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Cool it with the smugness. Could've at least been nice enough to tell them what an SPI is instead of just immediately blocking them. OzzyOlly (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I think the IP poster was confused for the poster that this thread is about. Their two comments in this thread were to say the poster was ‘not here’ and linked the associated page, and the second one was to tell curry to read the link. They said “bruh” in their reply but their editing histories are dissimilar. Kingdom0aerith1 (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
That's correct. I said "bruh" to mock CurlyHeadCel since I find their use of the word distasteful. I was wrong for mocking, but I am not evading a block. 216.126.35.174 (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Recently, Rogers Plaza has undergone a lot of promotional edits, including additions of many photos and a directory, which violates WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. The IP user keeps reinstating the directory, claming it's "sourced" (to the websites of the businesses therein).
Furthermore, if you check their Commons page, it seems they have uploaded a ton of photos they do not actually own, including a map I drew of the mall about 20 years ago, and claiming them as their own work. Two of their images are currently up for deletion on Commons. When I confronted them about the map, which I proved by linking to the old Angelfire account where I had first made it, they falsely claimed the link was dead and that I had no proof of ownership.
It's clear they've got no idea what image rights are, or what belongs on Wikipedia. I think some blocking and deletion may be in order. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)20:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
@TenPoundHammer The Arial Bold account is stale, so it may be hard to do anything with that one. (Unless I'm missing some deleted contributions.) The IP, on the other hand, I just courtesy-reverted them over the 3RR issue. If they revert again, I'm prepared to block them. —C.Fred (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Their commons account may need to be blocked too, as they're using it to harass me over there and make false claims. My map has been put up for deletion there too. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)20:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
These are the personal attacks Aimal12345 have made against me so far. Why? Because I've told them (countless times) to cite their added info with sources (I had already listed multiple policies they could read, but they clearly don't care. [54] Another user also told them this [55]), which they are still not doing (eg their latest edit [56]). I think this user is WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
A clear case. An immediate block is needed. Aimal should follow the instructions given to avoid sending harassment. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 months ago12 comments8 people in discussion
For the past year or so, there has been an IP removing sections from articles with the summary "No citations." or "Fixed." (see Special:Contributions/64.189.18.0/24) Despite being warned multiple times on their talk page, such as here and here, they have continued without responding to any of the messages. Could an admin do something about this? Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I think the point that is tried to be suggested to you is that you evaluate a "citation needed" tag as to demarcate dubious content too easily. I found readily available sourced for some of it, and generally the project progresses from finding appropriate sources in such cases. JackTheSecond (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I once came across a 12+ year old citation needed tag. I removed all the content and the next day the content was added back and was appropriately sourced. Sometimes people need a bit of motivation. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
WP:SOFIXIT. If you can remove the tag+content, you can find the source yourself. Only after you make a reasonable attempt to cite the statement and fail should you remove the text. It's not your place to "motivate" others by just removing things on a whim. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite18:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
The point of the tag is so people can add citations later. It says "citation needed", not "dubious"—we have {{dubious}} for that. If what you have been doing was a good idea, we wouldn't bother with tagging anything in the first place. Remsense诉19:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
It depends on the nature of the content. If an editor believes it isn't possible to verify the content, or that it's outright wrong, then they could remove the content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°20:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I looked through several of his removals and all seem fine. In fact IP even added a citation here: [57] So I'm not sure why you are reporting a user for removing unsourced content, which is something he is allowed and even encouraged to do. I would say if anyone's conduct is inappropriate it'd be some of the people who reverted genuine edits with incorrect edit summaries using automated tools, but I don't think anyone here needs administrative action. Actually I just noticed IP removing unsourced BLP statements. I'd say this makes him a better editor than most registered users. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Remember: if you revert the removal of unsourced material, you're actually adding it to the article. Regardless of what the IP should/n't be doing, if you revert the IP, you're doing something disruptive, and for which we block people who are persistent. Nyttend (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
It's the default setting for the block tool. Many admins treat that as the usual starting point for blocking disruptive editors unless there are unusual circumstances. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I'll generally start at 24 hours for registered accounts and 31 hours for IPs. 31 hours is good enough to dissuade the current user and allow the address to cycle if need be. I prefer it to 24 hours for blatant disruption as it means they don't just come back the next day at the same time and try again. Canterbury Tailtalk18:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
There is no hard rule. Each admin uses their own judgement based on the circumstances. If it's obvious vandalism, I typically start with 60 hrs unless it's really egregious (racism, porn image vandalism etc.) in which case I typically go higher. For less obviously malicious stuff like edit warring I will start with either 31 hrs or sometimes 24. In the case of recidivists, I often drop a month or longer depending on their record. I prefer original mistakes. And of course, if it's a registered user and their behavior is screaming NOTHERE, then it's usually best to just indef them and move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I think it's been shown (or at least it was many years ago when 31 hours became standard) that most people edit within a 7 hour period, so 31 hours = 2 days, Phil Bridger (talk) 22:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Persistent unsourced date changes by 2601:14D:4182:6830:0:0:0:0/64
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user has been received talk page pushback for some years for adding details to biographies and film articles which don't appear in the sources they're citing. They were told in August 2023 that they appear to [be] making stuff up. They're on a level 3 warning but a level 4 is likely to be too nuanced for AIV, so I'll raise it here now.
I've just cleared out the John Carpenter and John Carpenter's unrealized projects articles after finding that a recent edit contained attributed quotes which simply didn't appear in the sources, or had been embellished; Carpenter does say A Dracula movie would be nice. in a cited interview, but he does not go on to say And a movie called "John Carpenter's Dracula" would be nicer. Maybe we'll find out here soon. to the point where Dracula can be listed as an "unrealized project". He does not say that a character in one of his films was flying like Interstellar or Ad Astra, he says that they were flying interstellar. In this edit to Carpenter's biography the cited source does not say anything about Carpenter speaking about racism in rural Kentucky or how a meteor came out of the screen and blew up in my face - and that phrase only appears once elsewhere online, in a July 2024 magazine article that post-dates the edit and may have been taken in good faith from the Wikipedia article.
Some of this could be sloppy editing where they've pasted in the wrong cite URL, some could be writing from memory without checking that it's all in the source that they've chosen to cite, but in many cases they do seem to be actively fabricating quotations. Belbury (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Last year I reverted a number of GoodEditsOnly's edits for "embellishing" and explained each revert on their talk page.[58][59][60][61] I didn't continue to watch their edits, but they received several explanations about source-text integrity at the time. If this problem has continued, it may be a case of WP:CIR; it's simply unacceptable to fabricate content while citing sources that don't support the text. Schazjmd(talk)14:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
The user edits sporadically. They don't respond to warnings; they don't talk at all (one time on another user's Talk page back in August 2023). It's highly unlikely they will respond to this complaint.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I have blocked them indefinitely. Adding fabricated content, especially after receiving so many warnings, is unacceptable. —Ingenuity (t • c) 15:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
95.248.88.77 Persistent overlink duplicates and irrelevant links
Persistent WP:OVERLINK overlinking of duplicate audio/video links & irrelevant video links.
Earlier today, anon IP 95.248.88.77 re-revert Special:Diff/1235011351 past after 5th warning in a month for disruptive editing Special:Diff/1235013971, WP:OVERLINK overlinking the same duplicate audio (d_xdMHrdm7Q & fT4vFaIzggA). These disruptive overlinking still continued past 5th warning as this incident report is filed right now: 2 same audio Special:Diff/1235025965, (3!+1) 4 same audios 1235024108, (5!+1) 6 same audios 1235022668, 2 same audios 1235019515, 2 same audios (different version ie release ver & shorter radio ver of same audio) right now...
Despite repeated warnings and a invitation to discuss why these additions are overlinked duplication and or irrelevant/not fully relevant link Special:Diff/1234828269, the anon IP 95.248.88.77 refuses any discussion nor explaining with good reason about overlinking edits.
There were also past anon IP all from same ISP all from same country, most are from same region of the same country, with overlinking duplicates/irrelevant links too:
Significant time were spent to WP:CLEANUP messy links of duplicate copies.
These overlinking links to duplicate copies & overlinking irrelevant video links, especially further more consistently re-revert these duplicates/irrelevant videos apparently doesn't contribute to encyclopedia meaningfully, which is worse than mere incompetent. Apparently this anon IP 95.248.88.77 isn't here to build encyclopedia WP:NOTHERE --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Anon IP 95.248.88.77 are back even after numerous disruptive warning past way beyond 4th time, even after ANI, seemed audacious to continue spam WP:ELNO duplicated audio links & irrelevant links.
I just asking...just asking...is there a possibility to block a set of IPs from that same European ISP in the same region of the same European country? --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC) --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just a bit concerned and wanted to escalate this issue. User:Lighthumormonger apparently runs "The Wikipedia Editors Guild".
Not sure the legality on using the "Wikipedia" trademark there.
Anyway, apparently in emails (example) they ask organisations to submit press releases so that the WEG can then publish stuff in Wikipedia.
I do notice they are actively editing in the area of the email, no conclusive diffs found yet. Just asking for some eyes on this as it may affect Wikipedia content.--Commander Keane (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
I was taken aback by the claim in the email that "a letter from Steve Altemus to us at the Wikipedia Editors Guild stating Steve's belief in this fact, would be enough to qualify as having been published under our rules, so then we could publish it in Wikipedia". Whoever wrote that has a dangerously distorted view of what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. Schazjmd(talk)23:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
So far, all of us are what I would call "long time editors of Wikipedia." Lighthumormonger registered an account just a little over a year ago. Grandpallama (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
no conclusive diffs found yet The email reply from Altemus was posted to dropbox.com and added as a source with new text, making the claims in wikivoice rather than attributing them to the company CEO, in this edit by Lighthumormonger. <edited to add> I've added attribution for the claim. Schazjmd(talk)13:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
We're not Commons, but I feel like the questions being asked in the linked thread Commander Keane provided are pretty applicable to enwiki, and the ongoing evasiveness of Lighthumormonger in answering them means we need to be asking them directly here, too. The refusal to disclose who is a member of this "guild" is troubling, since they are presumably editing enwiki in coordination with one another. Grandpallama (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
This same debate has been going on for about three days in a parallel version at the Wikimedia Commons ANI board here. I apologize but I simply do not have enough energy to repeat myself here. I would hope that you guys don't ask us to repeat ourselves here at WP. We just don't have enough manpower to try and put out multiple fires all over the place all at one time. Thanks, Lighthumormonger (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Respectfully, if you have enough manpower to organize edits across multiple wikis, you should have enough to discuss with the community in the multiple wikis you edit in. If you want to set up an organized group of editors, it should be done on-wiki and with the consent of the community, rather than in private. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Lighthumormonger, why did you indent my initial comment here when I clearly intended for it not to be seen as a response to the previous comment, but as a new step in the discussion? Stop fucking about with other people's comments, period. Grandpallama (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
In all three discussions with Lighthumormonger (here, Commons and their user talk page on Meta), they only answer questions with evasions, distractions and offhand quips. Not having "enough energy" to respond to questions here is not acceptable. This seems like a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Toughpigs (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
It is possible this is nefarious, but also possible this is harmless. Not harmless in the sense that WEG did everything right - they made several errors - but harmless in the sense that it is possible they're just a little misguided. We can't know without further questions. I understand the difficulty of dealing with multiple overlapping conversations. @Lighthumormonger: can you at least agree not to make any article edits on Wikipedia until you've had a chance to respond here? I don't think it's going to work to say "I only want to deal with this on Commons". --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Their answers at Commons are incredibly evasive, as well. I am leaning towards the conclusion that they are wasting our time here as well as at Commons. Lighthumormonger - please list the enwiki usernames of the other members of this group, or I suspect the next thing that an admin does will be to block you as WP:NOTHERE. We haven't got endless patience. Black Kite (talk)19:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I don’t know. There’s a possibility in my mind that this is innocent but misguided. A look at their edits here in the past year do not show they are not here to create an encyclopedia; if you decide to block, please be more specific than that. I can see how answering questions from a disorganized group of half a dozen editors here and a dozen editors at Commons could be nearly impossible. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Of course "but perhaps not". My whole point is we don't know yet, and that's kind of a shitty time to block. Anyway, the block has been made, ANI has again demonstrated it isn't really fit for purpose, so I'll see if the editor wants to talk on their talk page. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, fair play, there is always the faint possibility that they are doing this genuinely, though I suspect you will get the non-answers that everyone else who has politely tried to enquire has got. Black Kite (talk)20:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
The linked thread on Commons seems to indicate that they are performing undisclosed paid editing, while representing themselves under false pretenses. There is no legitimate organization on the English Wikipedia or on Commons calling itself the "Wikipedia Editors' Guild". There is no affiliate organization called the "Wikipedia Editors' Guild". The WMF does not have any record of this organization. Their user talk page on meta (where they are indefinitely blocked for continued trolling and for refusing to disclose the nature of this "guild") contains this:
The Wikipedia Editors Guild (WEG) is in agreement and alignment with all of the journalistic ideals of the Wikimedia Movement as stated within the Charter of the Wikimedia Movement.
This page will be augmented in the future however circumstances may dictate. Should anyone have any questions about the WEG and it's nature or purpose, please leave theyr questions here and we will try to address and answer these questions here in a timely fashion.
Thanks kindly,
The Commons noticeboard thread contains this PDF which was uploaded as a rationale for a file they uploaded. I would highly recommend everyone read this, as it is an extremely obvious and audacious scam email: they are trying to imply that they are officially associated with Wikimedia projects or the Wikimedia Foundation, and represent themselves as an "administrator".
They are doing this in correspondence with corporations, on whose behalf they upload images to Commons, after bizarre emails in which they claim that they are somehow involved with the projects and make decisions on their behalf. The company in this email is clearly addressing they as if they speak on behalf of the project, as they have represented themselves to the company as such.
Multiple people have mentioned that they are actively refactoring people's comments during noticeboard discussions.
Since they have refused to participate in this discussion to explain this outrageously sleazy behavior (and furthermore referred to themselves as "we" while doing so), I am indefinitely blocking them until such time as they can be bothered to provide a full and complete accounting for whatever this is. jp×g🗯️19:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
So the idea is that they're trying to offer astroturfing services? It seems just to boil down to an edit-for-hire scam with more ego and less self-awareness than usual? Remsense诉21:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
On their talkpage, in response to the block, they are significantly doubling down on claims about the length of their tenure as an editor. Either they're outright lying about that, or this is also potentially a CU-relevant situation. Grandpallama (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Feel like WP:DUCK is beginning to apply here with regards to the evasiveness of questioning on their suspicious behavior. Something is extremely fishy about this entire scenario and the misrepresentation as an semi-official WP rep is deeply concerning - support a block. TheKip(contribs)20:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
So they were a sock of an already banned account (not blocked, banned) who is running a clique of cherry picked editors as a "Wikipedia Editors Guild" which is also possibly meatpuppets. Wow. Canterbury Tailtalk20:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Worth noting that someone’s now created an account claiming to act on behalf of the “guild,” and seemingly solely as an attack account against myself. SFR blocked it. TheKip(contribs)01:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
More or less. A sitebanned LTA who apparently never entirely gave up their socking. "Troll" may be a your-mileage-will-vary kind of term insofar as this is one of those cases of someone whose behaviour has been so bizarre over time so as to create some doubt as to their intent and whether they are actively trying to waste the community's time or just have genuine...issues. The current behavior relating to the "Wikipedia Editor's Guild" is pretty par for the course, let's put it that way. Ingenuity, I'd like to endorse the recommendation above that talk page access be removed: putting aside the amount of community time they have wasted across three projects in the last few days and their continued efforts to those ends, the header of their latest section of comments seems to be a clear (if indirect and rather milktoast) NLT violation. SnowRise let's rap05:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 months ago24 comments7 people in discussion
JDiala(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)[62]this is just a rationalization to avoid including anything which could give the appearance of criticism of Ukraine/NATO. It wouldn't be "too much" for the article, you could fit in his position and counters to it within one or two sentences. The POV pushing in this topic area is remarkable.
[63]This is not serious or good faith conduct, it seems like you're just looking for a pretext to rid the encyclopedia of this properly-sourced and widely-discussed allegation.
[64]The only POV pushing happening here is your usage of exceedingly tendentious reasoning to dismiss anything remotely critical of Ukraine on this and related articles.
Vexatious complaint. I don't think a judgement call, based on sound reasoned evidence which I provided in these discussions, that a pattern of editing behaviour constitutes POV pushing is necessarily a PA. It's also worth noting that Manyareasexpert made the same allegation against me here merely because they took issue with me referring to an NYT piece as a "report" rather than an "article"; that's what my third comment is in reply to. JDiala (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Note that my comment was regarding your contribution, and I'm ready to adopt another approach, if it would be suggested to how to point out that referring to an article as a "report" is not OK and may be considered POV pushing. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. The content is more or less fine as of now, but this thread is a call for protection against other editor's false accusations and the continuing use of them as a lever in a discussion. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, let's add some necesary nuance to that. Certainly there are contexts where "report" is in some way acceptable, but typically it would need to be accompanied by a qualifier, as in the your "news/newspaper report", ideally with other marking language. There are situations where using "report" in and of itself, without proper attribution, could give the impression of an agency or institutional body as a primary source. SnowRise let's rap03:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm much more concerned by JDiala's misrepresentation of our OR policy to insert their own original research about whether something constitutes a "war crime". That's a more serious issue by far than these relatively minor civility infractions. Though I do find some irony in the fact that JDiala added Also per WP:PA, editors should "comment on content, not contributors." to their userpage just a few days before this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I'd like to second that request. Mind you, I'm more inclined to trust than to doubt that there is an issue here if TBUA is trying to highlight something, just based on my previous experience with them. But I've already read the majority of the last few threads on the page and am not immediately seeing the "war crimes" matter touched upon just yet. Perhaps it is appearing more int he edit for the article itself rather than the TP discussions, but either way, Thebiguglyalien, could you do those of us trying to follow up on your concerns a solid and provide some more specificity, with some link or diffs, or a description of where to look? SnowRise let's rap03:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
My concerns come from the underlying arguments that are clearest in these comments: Special:Diff/1233668716, Special:Diff/1233953912, Special:Diff/1234125938, Special:Diff/1234165526. To my eyes, this is an editor claiming that they have the right to decide what the sources "actually" mean based on their own definitions and interpretations, trying to invent connections so that the source's statement becomes due in the article. They're dismissing any comments about the discrepancy as "pedantry" and "technicalities", essentially beating down the discussion until they can get their own OR interpretation through. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Yup, good (albeit obvious, as it turns out) call. JDiala, with regard to your comments on this editorial issue in general, but focusing on...
"I think you are also confused as to what the standards for inclusion here are. There does not need to be a verbatim assertion "Ukraine has committed a war crime" to warrant inclusion. Demonstrably documenting criminal acts like the murder of unarmed captives and emphasizing that such conduct is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, for instance, is enough to warrant inclusion.
...in particular, I'm afraid that it's actually you who is very confused about the standard for inclusion of such statements. If you want yo say that "Ukraine committed the war crime of A" then you very much need a source that says "Ukraine committed the war crime of A"--if not verbatim then at least directly, precisely, and expressly. If you want to instead justify inclusion of that particular statement on the basis of the reasoning that "Source X says that Ukraine did 1, 2, and 3 in this and that manner, and as we all know, 1, 2, 3 would justify war crime A in this situation (according to the definition found in Source Y, and/or my own assertion)", then you are unambiguously arguing either from WP:SYNTHESIS (if you tried to link the facts asserted in Sources X and Y to reach a novel conclusion about how to label what Ukraine did, without that label being applied directly to Ukraine's conduct in either source) or just plain old vanilla WP:Original research (if you omitted the step of mentioning Source Y and are arguing from your own perspective that the label of a war crime "obviously" applies to what source X says Ukraine did. To reiterate and be crystal clear: no such highly controversial and sure to be challenged label may be used, unless you have WP:DUEWP:WEIGHT to support that label in terms of it being expressly used by RS. That would be true even in a garden variety article, let alone a a highly disputed CTOP areas such as this. It's really important that we leave this discussion being certain that you understand that distinction, because this is kind of editing-in-contentious-topics 101. SnowRise let's rap05:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
@Thebiguglyalien:@Snow Rise: I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding here. This is perhaps an understandable misunderstanding if you have not been keeping careful track of the discussions on that page over the past few days (and just had a cursory glance) — but it is a misunderstanding nonetheless. At no point, at all, did I suggest stating any claim a source did not make. Thus, for instance, a claim like "Amnesty International said that Ukraine committed war crimes because..." is something I did not propose or suggest. I have no objection to stating plainly precisely what the AI report stated, namely that it views Ukrainian conduct as an IHL violation, rather than any stronger claim. Rather, the debate on the talk page was essentially this: given that the article title is about "war crimes", does any source we cite have to verbatim use the term "war crime" to even be included the article? Thus, for instance, if I have a reliable source Y that says "country X murdered a hundred a civilians in this massacre, a blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions", but said source Y nowhere uses the verbatim term "war crime", are we allowed to use source Y in an article titled "war crimes by X"? I argued yes because "Geneva Conventions" is sufficiently closely related to the topic of "war crimes" that inclusion would be worthwhile. I am not arguing that we can state "source Y said X committed a war crime" (that would be OR); I am merely arguing the far weaker position that source Y is worth including in the article at all, in a manner in concert with the OR policy (something like "source Y said X violated the Geneva Conventions"). Manyareasexpert objected to this and argued the opposite side, claiming that such sources should not be included at all. Briefly, the discussion had to do with standards for the inclusion of a source in a given article, not how we represent the source in our writing. Thus, it wasn't really an OR thing.
Now, it's certainly possible that my position on this matter is incorrect. If someone thinks so, please do feel free to explain why. However, even if I am incorrect, I do not think this is an "editing-in-contentious-topics 101" issue — because many of the sources the article already cites do not use the term "war crime." So, clearly, if this is something I'm misunderstanding, this misunderstanding is shared by many other editors who edited this article. JDiala (talk) 05:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, as to that, we are in much more of a grey area. It's certainly true that there is no outright prohibition on using a source that fails to have terms that precisely align with the articles title, be it COMMONNAME or not. But that said, there is going to be a very onerous WP:DUE WEIGHT analysis about whether such a source is going to be an appropriate fit to the subject matter of the article in question. That may or may not be the actual basis for those who have pushed back against inclusion on that article, whether they have accurately expressed it in those terms or not. I will take a further look at the talk page discussions as soon as I can and give my impressions. SnowRise let's rap07:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Alright, I've now read the entire talk page, and have a much better idea of how things got to where they are now. Addressing Diala, I can see how you slowly lost your patience here, and that your efforts start from an understandable place and that you maintained a fairly focused and content-oriented approach for the majority of the discussion, and that the speculation on your opposition's motives is mostly something that seeped in as you went along, apparently out frustration. Indeed, I would go as far as to say that there are a couple of places therein where you had to deal with rhetorical strategies which (I think unintentionally) took the discussion around in circles. Mind you, none of that should be taken as validating your tendency later in the two threads to imply bias as motivation to the other parties you were disputing the issues with; if anything, my primary advice here is to reiterate what I said below about how poorly that will serve you and eventually get you into trouble. At the same time, though, having seen the entirety of this discussion, I am more convinced than ever that no action is warranted against you for anything that has transpired on either talk page so far.Regarding the content issue (without getting to into the weeds, as this is not the place to resolve such questions): my personal take is somewhere between your own and that of the consensus position (if we can call it that, seeing as the bulk of the dispute is between you and two other editors, with one additional comment in support of each side from a fourth and fifth editor respectively). The extent to which 'violations of international humanitarian law' fold into or qualify as 'war crimes' is very much an open question in the sources either side may rely upon, and reflects broader issues in international law and human rights standards owing to the fact that both are substantially the product of customary law, rather than more express and binding standards. The resulting wiggle room has long made these kinds of questions moving targets in the area of diplomacy, international public image, and realpolitik. It is therefore no surprise to me that, even among editors doing their best to abide by the information they find in RS, there are some wildly varying positions as to the editorial consequences of the standards and how we frame (or in this case, where place coverage of) certain events. So I am not lodging a position as to who is being more reasonable in their a priori content positions here, other than to say that neither position is unreasonable. I'd lean ever-so-slightly towards some degree of coverage of the military asset emplacement inside civilian facilities issue, based on the sourcing presented so far, but the problem is that you are outnumbered here and likely to remain that way: you could RfC the matter, but given what I have seen about how the content area has been regarded on-project, I suspect that this will not do very much to change the ratio of support very much. If nothing else, you may want to hold off on pushing the dispute over the lead. That may just be a bridge too far for the interested editors there right now. The unfortunate, dark, unavoidable truth is that, insofar as we are talking about war here, in time there will be no shortage of violations of humanitarian norms by both sides that anybody other than the most devoutly aligned will be unable to recognize. No matter how much more principled and defensible the starting positions of a given side over the other, it is inevitable that the great disease of our species will corrupt and drive abuses. There has never been a war of any serious duration in the history of mankind that did not result in the people on all sides eventually committing acts that the very thought of which would have turned their stomachs at the outset. I doubt this will be the exception. I can appreciate the perspective that we shouldn't necessarily drag our feet in coverage where we feel that this has already begun to happen, but I doubt you can get consensus to do that on this issue, on the basis of the one Amnesty International source which, the other two editors are correct in noting is not even substantially discussing this issue as much as Russian abuses. I think you have enough of an uphill task in just keeping the issue in the article at all, let alone trying to leverage it into the lead.In the meantime, you have to avoid tipping over that line of disagreeing with the reasoning of your rhetorical opponents and into expressly implying bias on their part. I'll briefly comment on that below presently, as it is more germane to your most recent post there, but suffice it to say that, having seen the entire discussion and your comments in context, I see the cause of your frustration and I feel the complaint was both premature and a little one-sided (though perhaps for the best in the longrun). But you still can't continue in that direction: the issues complained of here are weak tea so far, but they will lead you increasingly into the wrong approach for resolving these matters with the best possible results you can get for your preferred outcome on the content, given the resistance. to some of your positions. SnowRise let's rap16:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
It is true that I am outnumbered in the current discussion, but note that the inclusion of allegations that the UAF is violating IHL by operating near civilian areas (both from Amnesty International and the OHCHR) has been a longstanding issue of dispute since 2022, having resulted in several major discussions and even RfCs. Many editors do agree with me that it is worth including. There was past consensus in an RfC that it is worth including.
In light of this history, I don't think the current (comparatively small) discussion should be sufficient to undo this past consensus. It should only be undone based on the result of a new RfC. Given that Manyareasexpert is the one wishing to undo the past consensus, I also think it should be his responsibility to both start and advertise this new RfC. JDiala (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
I'll wait on further discussion of some of the forking editorial issues being raised immediately above to lodge a perspective on that, but having reviewed the behavioural complaint here and looked at the thread in which it arose, I'm of two minds as those complaints. On the one hand, JDiala, there are definitely places where you are inviting needless distraction from the issues by implying failures of perspective or issues of bias in your rhetorical opposition, where they really aren't helpful to your core point. Do remember, this is a WP:CTOP area, so the cause for (and expectation of) civility and respectful discourse are heightened. I appreciate that when you feel that other editors are being influenced by subtextual factors, the line between making a valid argument about perspective and implying outright bias can feel a little thin. But I'm going to add my voice to others here that you are tripping over that line with comments like "let's be honest, this is just a rationalization to avoid including anything which could give the appearance of criticism of Ukraine/NATO." And "This is not serious or good faith conduct, it seems like you're just looking for a pretext to rid the encyclopedia of this properly-sourced and widely-discussed allegation." is, if anything, even more of an issue." Please try to remember, not just to avoid kerfuffles like this, but for the sake of enhancing the potential viability of your own arguments, that this kind of implication of active shilling/protectionism for what you perceive to be the cultural leanings and biases of other editors is not in any way helpful.All of that said, the worst JDiala has said in this regard is, at least to this point, still comes in a bit under the threshold that would require community oversight and response, let alone sanction. Collectively, every comment brought to bear against JDiala in this thread so far does not really amount to the equivalent of even one proper WP:PA. Do their comments walk right up to the line of the wrong side of AGF with regarding to the outlooks and biases of their opposition, and even take a solid step over? Yeah, they more or less do. But on the whole, what is being reported here is pretty typical, low-level implication of lack of perspective that one is bound to see here and there in these circumstances. As I said before, not a winning formula for JDiala, and the quicker they realizes that, the better--because not only are they hurting their own efforts, but eventually sticking to and doubling down on such comments will pass a point of proper violation of expected behavioural standards. But at the moment, there is nothing I would classify as outright WP:disruption--though arguably they are treading near tendentiousness or even WP:battleground behaviour. In short, go carefully, JDiala. SnowRise let's rap03:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback and for not recommending further punishment. I am going to do my utmost to be careful with civility issues. I have already been sanctioned in the past, and I do not want to deal with allegations like this anymore. I do wish there was a way to honestly discuss patterns of POV pushing—which few editors would deny is a serious problem in many topic areas—without entering into WP:PA or WP:ASPERSIONS territory. JDiala (talk) 08:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
The problem here is that you are behind the eight ball as far as such complaints are concerned: there's always going to be POV issues coming from every angle on a topic like this, but you also happen to be coming from a weak position if you try to make the argument about supposed POV. Besides which, in terms of both principle and rhetorical effectiveness, it's just best avoided as a tactic in most all editorial disputes. Focus rather on what you regard as the weak editorial arguments which you perceive to be the result of biases, not the POV you suspect is fueling them. And try to remember three things: 1) people are rarely fully aware of their biases or often inclined to immediately recognize them when pointed out, 2) the very act of identifying them typically relies on arguments which are susceptible to counter-accusations of bias, and 3) it's entirely possible to reach the wrong conclusion (including the wrong editorial conclusion on this project) without it being the result of bias so much as just flawed reasoning. An approach that eschews attempting to look behind the curtain by speculating on the motivations of your fellow editors during talk page discussions dodges these issues and makes your resulting editorial arguments leaner, better able to withstand scrutiny, and less likely to harden your opposition's perspective or drive others into their camps. It will also, as you just identified yourself, go a long way towards avoiding accusations of aspersions, PAs, WP:TEND, and battleground mentality. It's not always the most intuitive strategy, but if you make it the your preferred, second-nature here, I promise you it will serve you well within our project's dynamics. More to the point, if you don't adopt that approach, you'll likely be back here again, and the complaints may not be perceived as much as a tempest in a teapot as I have somewhat framed them in this case. Both because perspectives vary on such things and because the longer editors embrace a strategy of carping on the perceived motivations of their opponents, the more frustrated (and entrenched) all parties tend to become, and less credit is given and the more discussion diverges into the personal aspects of the dispute. In short, such habits tend to become self-reinforcing. All that said, I saw a lot of forbearance from you in those discussions, so I would tend to believe that you do not lean towards personalizing disputes as a matter of course. Just don't let yourself get pulled into that gravity well in these exceptional cases either. Hopefully everyone agrees that's the most that needs to be said here at present. SnowRise let's rap16:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I wanted to stand against another wave of personal attacks against you there but decided to not to get involved as it was happening on editor's talk page. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
I think that was the right instinct in the circumstances, MAE. As to the rest here...good grief the overreactions on top of overreactions here.. So, first off, My Very Best Wishes, I can't imagine what helpful outcome you expected would result from visiting the talk page of an editor you are currently in dispute with and piggy-backing on top of a productive discussion that an un-involved editor was having with them (that was resulting in useful concessions and constructive dialogue) in order to tell them that they had policy wrong, essentially extending the existing dispute between you into a third space, where it definitely did not need to be, and creating circumstances where a meeting of the minds was pushed even further away. In my opinion, that choice shows very poor situational awareness and underscores just how much this dispute is not being driven by unilateral issues with JDiala alone. Further, having now followed up on the entirety of the dispute to this point, I'm inclined to agree with JD on at least one point: you seem to keep confusing the nature of their objection to your position on a core issue. You keep attempting to educate them on the specifics of what WP:BRD and WP:EW actually entail, but they aren't disagreeing with you in principle on what those policies say. Rather, their position is that the status quo and consensus version of the article is the ones that they support, and therefor it is the edits which set aside that version which first invoked the BRD cycle. Now I'm by no means endorsing every aspect of JD's position here (neither on the editorial nor the behavioural issues), but I have seen you talk past this point of his on the article talk page and his talk page a few times, and honestly, in his place I'd be a little frustrated by that at this juncture too. Now, you may very well disagree with which version of the article is the status quo or consensus version. But you need to at least start discussing how to resolve the disagreement in terms where you two stand a chance of coming to an understanding. Or better yet, you could both stop the cycle of arguing who was the one to start the edit warring and just let that portion of the dispute die, since it is serving no useful function in resolving the core editorial issue. I'll AGF that you had the very best of intentions in trying to have that discussion again on his talk page, but if nothing else, you have enough years on this project that you should have been able to anticipate just how well that was going to go over.Now, JDiala...frustrations or no, you have got to lay off the trigger a little when it comes to how you frame the intentions of others. You made all these professions about doing better in that respect above, and to Kip on your talk page, but the very first time your response was tested thereafter, you lost all perspective and immediately went into overreactive, ABF mode. It's one thing to try to point out that you don't feel your points are being addressed in a fair and constructive way, but you can't keep lacing such responses with comments like "This cannot be seen as good-faith conduct.", which have no purpose in resolving the editorial (or for that matter, behavioural) issues and can only serve to raise the heat of the discussion. And please do not interpret my tepid support for you in some aspects of the discussion here as carte blanche to assume you know which actions by which editors constitute issues, as you did in your response to MVBW on your talk page. You may find yourself going out on a limb believing someone has your back farther than they actually do. All around, I think you all need to take a pause for the cause here, because, whatever the result of this thread, any of you taking this level of combativeness back into this particular CTOP is likely to result in an AE block at some juncture. RfC this, if necessary, or use another dispute resolution process. This back-biting is accomplishing nothing except to waste your time and that of the community members responding here. Bluntly, none of you has done anything that I think could get any of you community sanctioned here at ANI (and I'm sorry My very best wishes and ManyAreasExpert, but that very much includes JDiala's assessment of your editorial approaches, hyperbolic though they have been in places). But you're all sitting on top of a ticking timebomb in terms of potential AE sanctions. Take that advice for what it's worth, because this is likely to be my last contribution in this thread. You have a content dispute here that could be easily resolved through out content processes. So do that. Or continue with the constant cycle of overreactions to eachother's positions and edit warring where each of you points the finger at the other side as the inceptor, and see where all that gets you. SnowRise let's rap07:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:LusikSnusik opened a spree of unfounded and unresearched AfDs. These take 2-3 minutes to create and potentially will waste tons of valuable community hours. He also contributes to erasing information from WP in 0-1 minutes. Admin intervention is appreciated. gidonb (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
They also withdrew the third nomination. While they could have been more careful, I wouldn't call it an inappropriate number of nominations (or even a spree). As for "erasing information", can you link to where they were doing so @Gidonb? I'm not seeing anything from their activity yesterday, and prior to yesterday they were last active in August of 2023. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
As someone who started out on an AfD spree, I feel more than a bit of sympathy for this user. He's clearly new and just learning how to AfD, a little feedback might help put him on the right track. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
The only edit they've made that actually removed anything was from here, which I believe was a good faith edit on their part even if they removed an entire bibliography section. Procyon117 (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Seems an unnecessary escalation of a new user's actions. Recommend closure and revisiting down the line if there's an unsolvable problem. StarMississippi01:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
If someone is making a bunch of trash AfDs thirty seconds apart, generally they will be procedurally closed, but I don't know if these rise to that level. Certainly, it is a good idea to spend a bit more time looking at articles before nominating them, but if they only did those four in a row, it's totally possible they had the tabs open for a while doing research and looking stuff up, and then submitted them all at the same time. I do this a lot when I'm commenting on things: I'll have the four edit windows open for half an hour while I do my research and type up my comments, then save them all at the same time, and the edits are thirty seconds apart. jp×g🗯️03:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I see user talk pages for a lot of new editors and it's unfortunate how often even experienced editors post templates and ANI notices rather than start discussions with editors, explaining what is wrong. I'm not singling out this particular instance, I just see a general reluctance on the part of many editors to have an actual discussion with problematic editors and a preference for posting notices. I post my share of general welcome notices and conflict-of-interest notices but I try to also leave a personal note when it is suitable. LizRead!Talk!04:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP pushing blatant Turkish nationalism by 188.119.21.2
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion
This IP sprang out of the woodwork after HistoryofIran opened a complaint alleging WP:GS/AA violations. They have reverted good faith efforts to fix an article, but also engaged in insulting and frankly racist behavior. Special:Diff/1235653518. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insanityclown1 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Wolffff vandalized A Grande Conquista 2 yesterday, changing its introduction from "A Grande Conquista 2 is the second season of the Brazilian reality television series A Grande Conquista, which premiered on Monday, April 22, 2024, on RecordTV." to "The big dick 328197 is the endless hundred two season of the nazist reality television series A Grande Conquista, which premiered on May 2, 1027 AD, on medieval Pornhub TV.", and then doing a series of illogical page moves on it until it ended up at the obvious nonsense title MediaWiki talk:Zjq0qlkqjqjab ?..
I've reverted and revdelled everything, so that the article is now back where it was and has the original introduction instead of the pornhubized one, but obviously the fact that this happened at all is a problem. However, given the contrast between this and their prior edit history up until now, which mainly comprised non-problematic wikignomery (including prior edits to the same article that didn't introduce anything about Nazis or Pornhub), I have no idea whether to file this under "good editor gone bad" or "good editor whose account got hacked", and I'm not an expert in investigating that sort of thing.
So wanted to ask if somebody could look into this and determine whether it's serious enough to warrant consequences or not, but also the page could probably use a few extra watchlisters just in case something like this gets tried again by that editor or somebody else. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
The problem is that they weren't immediately caught in the act, and all of it was only found and sorted out many hours later. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
The account has been blocked as a sock which I suppose answers the question. Might still be worth keeping an eye on the article. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 months ago6 comments5 people in discussion
because I think your lack of neutrality on that article is blatant and I think you are exactly the type of editor that WP works desperately to avoid since you apparently have zero objectivity, and when it appears you can't manipulate the rules enough you fall back onto ridiculous ploys like this.[75]
I'm sorry but your argument that that shouldn't be added to the article because it sounds 'contrived' doesn't hold any water and blatantly contradicts NPOV as you are introducing editorial bias. At the very least, a section on his name which explains what his name really translates as vs. what he believed it did should be added. Also, original research either should or shouldn't be allowed. If you argue in certain places that OR shouldn't be allowed, and then turn around and say "oh, well a bit of OR is fine on a talk page," that's hypocrisy, and should be evident so people can see that you pick and choose when to use certain rules.[76]
You should have your privileges to edit on this website revoked.[77]
These attacks have to stop. They are astoundingly clear that they want me indeffed for not allowing them to perform WP:SYNTH based upon Persian (Farsi) language dictionaries. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I think that anyone pitching in here should absolutely take a look at the initial conversation off of which these discussions are based (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abd-ru-shin). I think that the lack of neutrality in that specific article by the aforementioned user is entirely clear, and that anyone taking a look at that page would be able to come to that conclusion, employing certain WP rules and practices when the user sees them fit, but otherwise simply disregards them. Since this user has, by his own admission, explained his impartiality regarding this subject (on my talk page): "I'm not the biggest fan of Abd-ru-Shin," and since I don't know the individual the page is about and am only attempting to fix the errors in translation using legitimate dictionaries, I think that this user's work on that specific page should be reviewed as they are editorially biased in this specific topic. I understand that since the page regards a 'new religious movement', it can be difficult for proponents or opponents to do things without bias, but since, again, I am simply attempting to fix a bad translation, and this editor seems to have a personal stake in this (again, see the comment about the individual the page is about on my talk page), I think something needs to be done here. Vindafarna (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
The problem here seems to be 1. The "Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism" gives an etymology for Abd ru shin (a German new religious leader who adopted this name) that Vindafarma considers to be incorrect 2. Vindafarma is basing this off of his own knowledge and Persian dictionaries and has not provided an alternative source that directly discusses Abd ru shin, and is demanding that he be able to add Persian dictionaries as sources, which tg (in my own opinion, quite reasonably) objects to as original research/synthesis 3. tg has offered to just remove the Gnosis dictionary definition without adding the Persian dictionaries, which Vindafarma has rejected. Overall, I don't think tg's position in this dispute has been particularly unreasonable (ideally we would want to have a source about that discusses what Abd ru shin specifically thought the name meant, though I am unsure such sources exist) and I think that Vindafarma's comments that tg quotes above are unnecessarily personalising. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
To be clear: yes, I have a bias. People without biases don't exist. I don't know why Vindafarna thinks I seek to whitewash that article. My edits to the article indicate the contrary. I told them twice I don't like Abd-ru-shin, and they replied with I don't know if you're a member of the Grail Movement or what[78]. The Grail Movement being the cult around Abd-ru-shin. They are accusing me of It's like a child throwing a tantrum because they're wrong and can't deal with it. (same diff). They need a stern admin warning that such behavior has to stop (theirs, not mine). tgeorgescu (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
In case anyone scrolling through is wondering: this has nothing whatsoever to do with the editor called "Serial". jp×g🗯️16:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Content dispute at Gino Jennings article and talk page
Latest comment: 4 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Joefromrandb has been engaged in a content dispute alongside at least two other contributors and I regarding verifiable content on the article, Gino Jennings. They have been quite belligerent with their methods too, and it stems to their commentary on the talk page by using vulgar, combative language such as "happy horseshit" for starters. I began reverting them several times, but I do not wish to suffer punishment for a WP:EDITWAR. All of the information came from reputable sources, yet were removed for the sake of the person the article is named after self-identifying as what they ironically don't identify as. In sum, I left a warning on their talk page that stated, "Please stop. If you continue to censor or remove encyclopedic content based on the fact that it is offensive to some readers, as you did at Gino Jennings, you may be blocked from editing. Wikipedia is not censored, and attempts to censor encyclopedic content will be regarded as vandalism." It would seem, however, that they would rather be combative about this, as so many IP addresses and other accounts which apparently are Ginoites have done. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
This is not an urgent incident that requires admin intervention. Like you said, it is a content dispute, and that needs to be resolved on the talk page, so go there and start discussing the changes you want to make.Isaidnoway(talk)16:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
If the reverting continues page protection would be in order. Please discuss the issues with the article on its talk page. Mackensen(talk)16:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 months ago28 comments6 people in discussion
I first encountered this editor while working on Project 2025. Their first comment directed at me on the talk page contained a personal attack: [79] "I also notice that the user in question seems to be obsessively editing the Liber OZ page--he's responsible for 49 of the last 50 edits on this page."
Since making this personal attack, the editor in question has followed me to three article which they have never edited before based on my contributions. First to the article mentioned in the attack, which they have (IMO) defaced several times now, doing more damage each time I revert them. They have also followed me to Human rights inflation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and to Template:Thelema, where their comments on the talk page show that they really have no knowledge of the subject.
It would be nice if some admin had a discussion with them about what hounding is, because they are - as new editors usually do - pretending this has nothing to do with our disgreement at Talk:Project 2025. Wasn't going to report it, but they have since insisted on escalating this. Skyerise (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
This editor has also stalked me to Tyrannicide and removed a relevant link I added there. These actions are clearly intended to harass. I have other things I am working on, and I can't work on them due to this harassment. Perhaps a short block is in order. Skyerise (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I would also appreciate input from Admins.
Here is my version of events:
1. I visited the page for Project 2025, and noticed that the see also section included a link to Liber OZ. I found this inappropriate, and deleted.
3. I created a talk subject on the page. Another user deleted Liber OZ as well. Skyerise reverted that user's edit too.
4. Later, Skyerise acknowledged that a consensus had been met, and deleted the link.
5. In the process, I noticed that Skyerise had made the same "see also" link to Liber OZ in Tyrannicide and human rights inflation. I believed that these were similarly inappropriate, pointed to the consensus from Project 2025 and deleted. I also noticed several parts of the Liber OZ article that could be improved, and made edits. Skyerise has reverted most of these edits.
6. Skyerise has accused me of incivility and harassment. I believe this is wrong, and that Skyerise is behaving in an uncivil and threatening manner to me (see my talk page, and our discussions on the talk pages of Liber OZ and Project 2025), and is reverting my edits in violation of "revert only when necessary" and "encourage the newcomers."
I would also respond specifically to Skyerise's points:
1. I have made good only faith edits, no vandalism.
2. I have not hounded Skyerise. I have followed a pattern of (what I consider to be) bad edits from the Project 2025 page, I have not followed Skyerise. Unlike Skyerise, I have never reverted Skyerise's edits or posted on Skyerise's user page
3. Although Skyerise accuses me of incivility and personal attacks, I believe that a review of our interactions will show that this is simply not the case. In contrast, Skyerise has been uncivil to me: writing "Try me" on my talk page, and "Don't worry. I will. But not at your demand." when I repeated a request to involve admins.
4. In the spirit of disengagement, I have stopped responding to Skyerise. However, since opening this dispute, Skyerise has posted several times on my talk page and the talk pages of the articles in question. Mosi Nuru (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I mean I have never clicked "revert" or "undo" in response to Skyerise, nor have I set out to find and specifically undo a change Skyerise has made following an interaction with me.
This looks like a nothingburger to me. Skyerise, honestly I understand why the consensus was to remove that link from the initial article, and seeing as the follow-up edits regard an identical small bit of content, placed in the same section in multiple articles, I would consider all of those edits as being substantially related to the same editorial dispute. If Mosi Nuru had followed you from article to article after your initial interaction thwarting unrelated additions (which your filing here rather implied, btw, by omitting the key detail that it was the same content being deleted on each article) then you would have a clear-cut case of hounding, by my view (though note that some would argue even that is permitted if the edits were good faith improvements). But here, with MN just eliminating the same content in multiple articles...not so much. Mind you, technically MN needs to be careful of running afoul of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS; afterall, just because there was a consensus that the link was inappropriate for one article does not mean the same automatically holds true for all of the others, needless to say. However, in my opinion, if you make them have a talk page discussion in each of these cases, I expect they will win on all of them, so I'd save yourself the trouble and let the matter go. In any event, no behavioural violation here that I can see. I recommend you two attempt to part on good will here, since the issue is so limited and I don't think either of you should have good reason to expect getting under eachother's skin again any time soon. SnowRise let's rap22:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree that this is (or should be) a nonissue, and am happy to disengage. However, since we're here, I would like to mention that Skyerise is still not disengaging. Their most recent comment to me on a talk page came 4 minutes ago: "I'm sure you know by now that Wikipedia doesn't care about your view... It's too bad you feel the need to dissemble about your true intent here."
And again just a minute ago on the same talk page: "I think you just pulled is out of your [...] to [...]." [censoring in the original] Mosi Nuru (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Um, if you didn't want a reply, why did you post on that talk page? Anyway, I've reverted that comment, now that you've found an old shoe that apparently fits. Skyerise (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I posted on that page before you created an ANI about me.
And the point is not so much that you replied (although I think the appropriate thing to do after creating an ANI is to disengage in other forums, and I wish you would), it's the nature of your replies. Mosi Nuru (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
And what about the nature and reason for the threads you've opened, all on pages I've edited recently, just after having a conversation about me on User talk:Redrose64 in which you failed to ping me. You do know you are supposed to ping an editor when you talk about them with a third party, right? Skyerise (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
And again Skyerise continues to engage off of the ANI that they created, now on Redrose64's talk page:
1. This is far more clearly a case of "hounding" that anything Skyerise has accused me of
2. I am a new editor. I went to Redrose64 for advice from a recently active administrator. It is disturbing that I can't even ask for advice on the issue without being confronted by Skyerise. Mosi Nuru (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
@Mosi Nuru: You seem to be under the mistaken impression that opening an ANI thread means I have to stop replying to the threads you opened on articles I am interested in, or that you opened about me. There is no such prohibition. If my replying to the threads you opened feels overwhelming, how do you think I felt when you opened multiple threads on multiple talk pages clearly directed at me? You invited a response by making those posts. I did nothing to invite you to open those multiple talk page threads. Skyerise (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Good grief. Skyerise, however overwhelmed you feel here, you know better than to make comments like the one you thankfully self-reverted and "I'm sure you know by now that Wikipedia doesn't care about your view." Making these kinds of uncharitable comments at another editor while you have a thread open accusing them of harassment is like begging for a boomerang. All the more so because this is not the first time you have almost eaten one for incivility recently. But on that topic, Mosi, while I'm going to assume this is all just a weird coincidence, there's a reason your choice of admin to raise concerns with Skyerise about would be perceived by Skyerise themselves in a certain light. But the crazy coincidences don't stop there, and Skyerise, it's actually quite apropos that said discussion should become tangentially relevant here, because that's also the last time you started a thread here that very nearly lead to your getting boomerang sanctioned (and less than two weeks ago, mind you). Indeed, there was a run-away train effect in that thread of literally every other involved editor seeming to be prepared to take action against you on the civility concerns. Until a certain someone interjected at the last minute and pointed out some procedural irregularities in how the dispute had played out which then stopped that train in its tracks. (Add in the similarities in our names and we're really heaping ironies on ironies here). But here's the thing: while I don't regret acting as I did in those circumstances (it was the right thing to do), I also made it abundantly clear that my support was not without some caveats, and that you desperately need to learn to control your most aggressive impulses in your discussion and interaction style here. And you seemed to concede the point at the time. Please don't backtrack on that. Because there won't always be a technicality that will bring someone in to advocate for you at the 11th hour. And I don't think anything you've said in this discussion or the related disputes is likely to get you blocked, but you've already had your fair share of both community and admin blocks on civility grounds. And people are starting to associate your name with acrimony. Again I ask you: please take it down a few notches, even when you feel you have reason to feel justified in your frustration. Please? If only because I have this lame joke I really want to make about our names, and it doesn't work if you're being all surly... SnowRise let's rap02:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
@Snow Rise: Sure. I guess my point has been made and I don't want to beat a dead horse. But I am curious why someone following me to five articles or templates I've recently edited via my contribs is a "nothingburger", but apparently if I check someone's contribs and find a conversation about me on one single user talk page in which I wasn't pinged and chime in to make a note of that is somehow a "somethingburger"? And if I point out, quite rightly, that in a matter of content, an editor's views don't take precedence over what the sources say and request a source for something that seems to be an opinion made up on the spot without any basis in any sources just to start an argument, that's also a "somethingburger"? It just seems so inconsistent.
That said, I will stay out of MNs way if they will at least not pretend they are operating in good faith when they aren't - I would say "stay our of mine" but that's doesn't seem reasonable. But anyone who looks at the edits to Liber OZ (replacing short concise headings with long quoted passages) and the made-up "problems" with the articles which aren't really problems on Talk:Liber OZ and Template talk:Thelema, can easily see that MN's claims of good faith can reasonably be doubted. Skyerise (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
In any case, I've reverted all of my responses to MN on article talk pages that had not yet been replied to. They might want to consider removing any talk page sections that they started if they were not made in good faith and there are no replies to them. Or not, as they will. But I will join the conversation if the threads become active... Skyerise (talk) 04:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Snow Rise, I appreciate the time you have taken dealing with this already. If you're willing, I would like you to weigh in on one more time while we're here.
It is clear that that Skyerise and I do not see eye to eye. I have stated my grievances, they have stated theirs, I think a neutral party can judge which among us is "hounding," "stalking," uncivil, etc.
I would like to walk away. I have remaining concerns with the subject matter that was the source of this controversy, the article Liber OZ and its links on other articles.
-However, Skyerise has added a whole new paragraph about Liber OZ to tyrannicide. I do not want to edit war, but I would respectfully ask that that be removed. I would also respectfully ask that Skyerise quit adding links or references to Liber OZ to other articles.
-Skyerise has left most of my changes to the article Liber OZ itself reverted. Again, I do not want to edit war. I continue to believe that the article Liber OZ as currently written needs significant work for tone and conciseness. I am willing to stop editing Liber OZ, but I would ask that Skyerise stop editing it as well. There are surely other editors on Wikipedia who can work on Liber OZ if I and Skyerise both agree to leave it alone from this point on.
I will weigh in: you changed concise headings based on sources to headings containing long quotations from the document; problem with that is that a document first published in 1941 is still protected by copyright so you introduced a copyright violation into the article. Not good. Also, content issues are not decided on this board; they are decided on the article talk page. If you don't want to participate on the article talk pages, that's your right; but then you have no say in the consensus. Skyerise (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
a document first published in 1941 is still protected by copyright This is not necessarily true. In the case of Liber OZ specifically, Aleister Crowley died in 1947, so in the UK (where copyright duration is Life+70) it is out of copyright. Judging by this website cited in our article, the original pamphlet was published in both the US and the UK and without a copyright notice, which would mean that it is also out of copyright in the USA due to {{PD-US-no-notice}}. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough. I searched for a clear statement that it was in PD, but none of the sites I found seemed to make a definitive statement that it is; still headings can't have citations in them and quotations must be cited. Skyerise (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I would like to make one more update.
This entire ANI began after Skyerise accused me of "follow[ing] me to three article which they have never edited before based on my contributions."
Oh, please also note that the manual of style prescribes that there should only be one link per item listed: that is, that every item should be listed on its own line, and there should be no additional links in the gloss for the entry. I refer to your edits to Brotherly love, which I have cleaned up for you. You're welcome. Skyerise (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Brotherly love is an article I was editing that Skyerise had never before edited. It was unrelated to any topic which the two of us had previously edited. In other words, Skyerise is doing to me precisely what they accused me of doing. Mosi Nuru (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Looking through Skyerise's recent contributions, this is not the only article on which they have done this. Since this dispute, Skyerise has followed me to:
@Mosi Nuru: I'm a regular editor of the Agape article, and that means I have had Brotherly love also on my watch list. As for Barbara Bouchet, there is no prohibition on following another editor's contribs unless it is to harass. I made improvements of the sort that I've done on a regular basis on the articles of multiple actors and actresses, with no intent to alarm MN or mutilate their work. I suggest than now it is MN who is not assuming good faith. Skyerise (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
There is one further discrepancy I would like to point out: Mosi Nuru claims to be a "new editor", giving this as the reason for discussing me with Redrose64 without pinging me. This seems to be supported by their current edit count of 211 edits. However, their very first edit was to open an RfC at Talk:Eyferth study. I'd like to see disclosure of previous accounts happen here... Skyerise (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Continuing to look at this, it seems they've been playing the "new editor" card - while citing various policy and guideline pages – since the very begining of editing here: "I am a new editor noting what I believe is rude and uncivil behavior by a more senior editor, in a reply to the specific comment that I believe was rude and uncivil." [80]. The RfC itself was full of suspected sock and meatpuppetry, and MN eventually weighed in on the WP:FRINGE side [81]. Since this issue regards race and intelligence, perhaps all is not what it seems with this editor? I don't edit in that area, but I am sure there must be some admins and regular editors who are familiar with the SPA and LTA players in that field around Feb 2023. Skyerise (talk) 12:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
As an uninvolved editor here, I do have to say that some of your comments, @Skyerise, are a bit beyond the pale --
"I get that you apparently don't like the topic, but you are only here to hound me due to a disagreement elsewhere" is not the kindest of assumptions
Try me. You are in the wrong here. isn't collaborative
Telling Mosi Nuru Oh, and you're misgendering me. could be understood if you made known your gender identity to him/her. I'm looking on your userpage and couldn't have deduced it beyond seeing your pronouns in the article/userpage pop-up script I have installed. Otherwise, pronouns aren't obvious, especially if this is a new user.
I don't mean to judge or sound dismissive in any way, but if I were a new user and I had someone come to my talk page and report me here on top of that, accompanied by some of the comments above, I would not be encouraged to edit on Wikipedia ever again. Let's all be nice to one another. — ThatCopticGuyping me! (talk) (contribs) 23:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I acknowledge that I could have been nicer. But I think the above shows that they were not a new user in February 2023; even if they were, that was 18 months ago. Is that really a "new user"? Skyerise (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Anytime there’s a discussion involving an article that falls under GENSEX topics, User:dtobias comes in and more or less just rants about the evil transgenders in a way that contributes nothing to the article’s talk page and only serves to espouse his views on trans rights. Examples include randomly going on rants about his general hatred and contempt for ‘trans activists’ in a way that has nothing to do with the page,[82][83], how properly gendering trans people is newspeak,[84], how trans people are comparable to people who think they’re literally Napoleon,[85], and how the rise in gender critical beliefs is because “transgenderism” is no longer fringe[86] - along with the occasional unnecessary comment in an otherwise relevant rant, such as The feminist movement includes all women, regardless of their identifications (as “transgender men” or any other label).[87]
He also frequently either directly accuses or through a paper thin pretense accuses other editors of being trans activists without the wiki’s best interests at heart. This includes saying that properly gendering trans people in line with MOS:GENDERID is comparable to a Muslim user forcing his religious beliefs on Wikipedia,[88] and accusing users of trying to discount any source that’s not PinkNews even when the sources in question are very demonstrably unreliable and/or employ the use of anti-trans slurs.[89][90] On at least one occasion, he has also made edits to GENSEX articles themselves, referring to trans women using he/him pronouns.[91]
A search of ANI and AE archives shows that he’s been to both before for much similar behavior on GENSEX topics, and has only been let off after promising to do better.[92][93] I think it’s fair to say that he has not, and that this is behavior that a glance at his userpage seems to indicate some measure of pride in. Snokalok (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
The complainant here is one of several editors who do a heavy degree of POV-promotion in gender-related articles, then get all sanctimonious when somebody takes the other side. The cited diffs, while I probably did get a bit too heated, were in response to various assertions that trans activist positions needed to be treated as fact and mainstream media outlets dismissed as "transphobic" because they disagreed with them. Is sauce for the goose not sauce for the gander? As for specific cites above, the "occasional unnecessary comment in an otherwise relevant rant" was part of a direct quote from a paper being discussed, not my own comment; the "referring to trans women using he/him pronouns" was an error on my part that I corrected one minute later; I fully intend to comply with all Wikipedia policies and style guidelines whether I agree with them or not. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
(I don't think my user page makes any reference to sex/gender issues, but it does have some mention of squabbles on other subjects I've been in over my nearly 20 years on Wikipedia, including being given various unsavory labels. I've got some scars from the WikiWars of the last couple of decades, but somehow emerged with an entirely clear block/ban record so far.) *Dan T.* (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
@Snokalok: I haven't looked at the merits of your complaint yet but I would recommend closing this ANI section and filing a report at WP:AE instead. Given its subject matter, threaded discussion is unlikely to useful. Abecedare (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See username, edits and their thanks log (rhanked me for all edits I've made in an RfC-discussion, an RfC that was vandalised by Evlekis IPs for the sole reason that I had posted in that discussion, which is typical Evlekis MO since it pops up in my notifications but doesn't trigger edit filters...). Not notified, for obvious reasons. - Tom ✓ | Thomas.W talk21:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Cyanmax edit summary WP:ATTACK personal attack against me
Misquote Edit On 16 October 2016, Picoux, 53, who taught French at the National Taiwan University, died after falling from the tenth floor of his Taipei apartment block. - mentioning my age 53 instead of source 67
Actual quote from cited The GuardiansourcePicoux, 67, who taught French at the National Taiwan University, died after falling from the tenth floor of his Taipei apartment block.
Despite me just a simple contributor to LGBT rights in Taiwan about early Mainland China ROC period and currently now remainder of ROC after chinese civil war Taiwan, even after Cyanmax enters this article, during my correction edits after Special:Contributions/Cyanmax claim my use of WP:NOENG chinese source (both are even cited and remains still in chinese wiki, which explained normally in my summary edit and which Cyanmax refused to discuss and make massive reverts.
Thereafter even during my corrections on my usual involvement in LGBT Taiwan and South Korea, I had explained normally it in my edit summary.
At all times, Cyanmax seemed combative. Even after personal attack against me Special:Diff/1235343355, he re-revert back with ordinary but misleading summary edit Special:Diff/1235346624, which seemed unnecessary and shows he didn't admit his edit mistakes.
the cited source The GuardianPicoux, 67, who taught French at the National Taiwan University, died after falling from the tenth floor of his Taipei apartment block. Friends believe he had taken his own life.. If that edit On 16 October 2016, Picoux, 53, who taught French at the National Taiwan University, If that edit is not misquoting that source (and refering to my age 53 not Prof Picoux 67)... then I don't know what count as misquoting.... --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Yeahhhh, this appears to be a misunderstanding at most. Edit summary seems to fairly obviously refer to the deceased professor. TheKip(contribs)01:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
the thing is that personal attack edit Special:Diff/1235343355, Cyanmax added misquote/misleading statement mentioning my age 53 On 16 October 2016, Picoux, 53, who taught French at the National Taiwan University, died after falling from the tenth floor of his Taipei apartment block instead of actual The Guardian source citatiom Picoux age 67, Picoux, 67, who taught French at the National Taiwan University, died after falling from the tenth floor of his Taipei apartment block. That WP:ATTACK edit happened right after I restored last good revision. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 01:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
The user, from just past month encounter, and also from his past edit history, seemed to be making quarrels with most editors and combative and seemed to be treating wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. There also been numberous notices on his user talk page despite his WP:BLANKING of user talk page as of now, which while blanking, replied with various forms, especially most importantly, veering to the edges, GTH (glad to help), not just me (health issues) but also to some other editor's notices too. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 02:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Friend, I think you are reading a lot into their behavior based on very little substance. They are allowed to remove content from their own talk page. Remsense诉02:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes user are allowed to blank their own talk page (i had known about WP:BLANKING and also did blank my own talk page), I just mentioned there were actually numberous notices before his blanking. I also mentioned sometime while blanking Cyanmax also put a note in edit summary GTH (glad to help, to me and another editor, especially Cyanmax is trying to say I myself should go to...h...I don't want to say the h-word me myself having health issues. (could be heaven however fall short of myself as a former church-goer & as gay boy albeit 53) --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
You choose to disclose a lot of information about yourself but I don't see your age mentioned on your User page. If you want to keep this information private, then I would stop bringing it up everywhere, in userboxes and in ANI discussion threads where many, many editors end up seeing such discussions. But I agree, I think you are taking this too personally and I see no inclination thus far to impose sanctions on the other editor. LizRead!Talk!03:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I just noticed you have two active discussions going on at ANI in the past two days. I hope this noticeboard isn't the default way for you to settle disagreements. You really don't want to be seen as an "ANI regular" (take if from me in my early years). LizRead!Talk!04:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes I heard it is dramaboard, the 1st 2 are (persistent unsourced & sometime vandalism edits) and other is (spamming duplicated audio links). Actually been through (dispute resolution) and (blp noticeboard) before. Thank you for letting me know. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 04:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Actually I had age in my user talk way bottom of my talk page Special:Diff/1191218943, way below and not prominently for number of reasons, including not really in my character. Yes I had disclosed it so is no longer private...and I have other personal info & health issue I would keep it to myself private.
Actually I'm was, too soft / (granted) too personal when Cyanmax wrongfully accuse me of disrupting [94], did told to Cyanmax about it at his talk page Special:Diff/1232267539, saw his WP:BLANKING edit summary Special:Diff/1232334941GTH (glad to help) (I felt it's doesn't mean "go to heaven", I'm fallen former churchgoer and also as a gay boy albeit 53) and wrongly accused of disrupting edit [95]. Actually a reprimand to Cyanmax rather than usual sanction and reporting here for posterity. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
User:Cat12zu3, you need to stop this. More than a day after at least three people here explained to you that you were misinterpreting Cyanmax's edits and comments, that you're reading a lot into Cyanmax's behavior that isn't there, Cyanmax made a similar edit to LGBT rights in Taiwan with the same "RIP, old man" edit summary, and you flew off into another fit. You reverted Cyanmax's edit with an uncivil edit summary of your own, calling them a "disruptive troll", and then added a trivial edit so you could summarize it with the repetitive rant WP:UNCIVIL WP:TROLL unconstructive WP:POINT WP:BATTLEGROUND WP:PERSONAL ATTACK - return last good 1234674722 - consecutively one unconstructive WP:POINT edit WP:BATTLEGROUND and another sloppy edit while with WP:UNCIVIL WP:TROLL almost WP:PERSONAL ATTACK summary edit WP:NPA by Cyanmax - re revisions by Cyanmax (talk). Your age (which is far from ancient, you invoke it as though you were 103 instead of 53), your health, and your sexual orientation have nothing to do with your behavior. (I'm more than a decade older than you and I'm also gay so don't even try responding that I couldn't possibly understand a 53-year-old gay person's experience of Cyanmax's edits or of dealing with disagreement on Wikipedia.) Largoplazo (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm just return to last good revision from 2 consecutive irrelevant without citation and another with questionable summary edit and content with sloppy improper format and and ain't going pursue for further action against Cyanmax. That's all I have to say. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
No, that isn't just what you were doing, and the contribution that you reverted included a citation so your description of it as "without citation" is a lie. Largoplazo (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Cat12zu3, I've reinstated Cyanmax's edit at LGBT rights in Taiwan, with Jacques Picoux's full name, a clear explanation of relevance based on the source, and fixing the citation template. Yes, it was a bit sloppy, especially the citation template. But the edit summary is very clearly about Picoux and is not rude in any way; your edit summary quoted above by Largoplazo is extremely rude, and except for "sloppy", not remotely true. You should have fixed the edit, not reverted it. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Undisclosed paid editor spamming promotional material
Latest comment: 4 months ago105 comments19 people in discussion
The core issue has been resolved with the editor blocked and their edits (mostly?) removed. Closing before the sidebar, already noted by several admins as off topic, fully derails. If further discussion on any parties is needed, please use a new thread. StarMississippi13:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can you supply some diffs? Had a quick look at some recent contributions and while, they could have been better, I couldn't see anything promotional. Orange sticker (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
The most recent edit [96] is simply stating that Lewis Hamilton has been made a brand ambassador for Dior, with citations. From the random edits I looked at, there doesn't seem to be any link. Orange sticker (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
This does not appear to be promotional editing, it's just additions about brands. You haven't even given them time to respond to your paid editing and COI messages, both of which were sent immediately before you took them to ANI. Could you provide some specific examples that are indicative of paid editing? Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
What is the point of giving them time to respond? Nothing they can say can change the fact that undisclosed paid promotional activity is not allowed here. And its not just additions about brands. It is a pattern of systematically adding positive fluff to articles about big brands in exchange for money, without following the proper disclosure procedure. Polygnotus (talk) 14:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm relatively new here, do Prada and Dior generally pay third parties to add quite boring details to their Wikipedia pages? How awful. hey Prada slide in my DMs /s Orange sticker (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, marketing companies get hired to add positive fluff to the wikipedia articles of big brands. A great way to hide the labor violations and lawsuits. They follow a very familiar pattern: "positive fluff (brand did something sustainable) - brand opened store/factory- celeb became brand ambassador - adding a fake/incorrectly used/very weak ref". Polygnotus (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Public Relations is an industry, yes. Looks like lots of greenwashing to me. Prose about how Prada is working for a sustainable future? WP:UNDUE and questionable why this PR trivia was added. 107.116.165.108 (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand, but what are these comments based on? Perhaps I've badly worded some things that may give the impression that it's too positive? If you're referring to a request concerning DICK's Sporting Goods, you can see that I haven't done anything on this page. Or does it concern something else? Also, you ask me a question without waiting for my answer and 10 minutes later you're going to declare that I'm a paid profile and that I should be kicked off Wikipedia without specifying why? Please quote the pages. Hajer-12 (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Ok so we got 2 options, you are either someone who is super dedicated to spreading positivity about big brands by including positive fluff on their Wikipedia articles, or you are a paid editor spamming Wikipedia. I follow WP:DUCK. Polygnotus (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply! But it's neither of these options. If there's anything negative in the press about the pages you suspect, I'll be happy to include it. If you think I've put information on Wikipedia that doesn't belong there, give me your opinion and I'll be also happy to improve. Besides, it is important to bear in mind that there are a lot of brands out there that have nice news or a nice story, or at least not too disastrous... Hajer-12 (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, as you know, I believe that every single edit you've made should be reverted because you keep adding promotional content. So my advice would be to find another job and stop adding promotional content on Wikipedia. Polygnotus (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
My advice to you would be to stop accusing people of UPE without evidence, and to stop making personal attacks. Telling someone to "find another job" is not productive. If you have clear evidence that this user is engaging in misconduct, please present it here. Otherwise, there's nothing for us to do here. —Ingenuity (t • c) 15:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Facepalm Falsely accusing people of making personal attacks is frowned upon. I have provided 990 diffs of evidence. And AGF is, as they say, not a suicide pact and does not overrule WP:DUCK. Their contributions page is a list that follows the pattern I noted above: "positive fluff (brand did something sustainable) - brand opened store/factory- celeb became brand ambassador - adding a fake/incorrectly used/very weak ref". The fact that someone denies being a paid editor does not mean much. Polygnotus (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
"AGF [...] does not overrule WP:DUCK"... yes it does, actually. DUCK is an essay, the opinion of the people who wrote it, while AGF is a behavioural guideline, representing the community's consensus. Also, see what is a personal attack, which includes "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." —Ingenuity (t • c) 15:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
WP:CONLEVEL is not based on how valid an idea is, but the level of consensus (often someone was a bit bold and no one reverted them). And of course there are major problems in that area, stuff that should be policy is "only" an essay and vice versa. I posted clear evidence, and if you look at the contribution page you'll find a lot more of exactly the pattern I described. Polygnotus (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much! You haven't answered my questions, even though I've expressed my good faith. I've asked you for the pages concerned, you haven't answered me, I've asked you what changes you'd like me to make, you haven't answered me. Now I'm reporting you for harassment to the administrators. Hajer-12 (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
The diffs you posted are far from clear evidence of UPE. If you've found something more concrete, please do share. —Ingenuity (t • c) 15:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Is it possible they're a paid editor? Sure. Are you going to find an administrator who will block based on your evidence? Unlikely. —Ingenuity (t • c) 15:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
So if you think that I am possibly correct, then you should treat me very differently than you have so far, right? This section already got derailed, look where we are now. You could've asked for more diffs if you didn't want to click open 100 diffs yourself and I would've done the work for you. Do you not see the pattern I've described? I know you are a goodfaithed wikipedian but you've clearly made a mistake here based on incomplete information. So its probably wise rethink your approach. Polygnotus (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
The problem is that you are accusing someone of UPE without sufficient evidence. You need to find diffs that show clear evidence of UPE, sockpuppetry, or repeated disruptive editing, not just diffs that show they added something that could be considered promotional to articles. Maybe they just enjoy reading news about these companies and updating articles. —Ingenuity (t • c) 15:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
No, the problem here is that someone reported promotional editing and instead of looking into that people reacted sceptically and then started to dogpile and a false accusation was made. And those are goodfaithed people; imagine how things would go if they weren't! A pattern is more difficult to show because its not one or two or three edits, it is hundreds of them. All following the same pattern I've described. And if you would've checked you would've seen that and then you could perhaps ask for more diffs but you can't attack a goodfaithed person who is just trying to help. And no, there is no plausible explanation that does not involve ducks. If someone reads the news, like I do, they don't see an endless stream of positive fluff about big brands (and the rest of the pattern described above). Polygnotus (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I have, actually, been looking into their edits. And I have quite a bit of experience investigating both UPE and sockpuppetry. I have not yet found clear evidence of anything. In the absence of clear evidence, you need to stop the accusations of bad faith editing. —Ingenuity (t • c) 16:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I would like to report @Polygnotus for harassment as well as unjustified allegations and aggressive behavior towards me ("I believe" or "So my advice would be to find another job"). I asked him, politely and in good faith, to tell me what was bothering him and provide me with constructive feedback but he's lashing out at me without giving me the slightest justification or explanation. It's making me really uncomfortable and unnecessarily exhausted. Hajer-12 (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
@Polygnotus you are linking to diffs with no explanation, and I also see you have flagged a page that Hajer-12 created with the WP:COI template, but there's nothing in your edit summary or the talk page to indicate why you've done this? Instead of just presenting their edit history, you need to demonstrate why you believe this editor is a paid PR person with an incredibly impressive client list. Orange sticker (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
As I told you on my talk page, discussion of this subject is best done here. So far you have not presented any evidence that Hajer-12 is a paid professional and that their edits are promotional. Is there a link between all the article subjects? Are they all represented by the same PR company? Is there a precedence for major global names who can have articles written about them in Vogue and Harper's Bazaar to also pay someone to ensure the most banal details also end up on Wikipedia? Without that evidence this is just series of content disputes. Orange sticker (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to be blunt. Drop this. I've reviewed the edits and I am not seeing anything in the way of promotional editing. I also have experience in investigating sockpuppetry and UPE, and I'm seeing no sign of this at all. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I understand and substantially agree with the consensus about Polygnotus' approach here, but I am going to say this as well: if we were able to prove the truth or falsity of their suspicions about Hajer-12 with the flip of a switch, I wouldn't bet good money against their suspicions before said switch was flipped. Some of the wording in the few diffs that Polygnotus did supply certainly read more than a little like typical commercial PR dialect. And it's kind of hard for me to imagine that the typical editor would take an interest in the image-furnishing of companies in such disparate industries. If nothing else, in reviewing a few dozens of Hajer's edits at random, I am seeing a lot of them that are of dubious WP:WEIGHT value as additions to an understanding of these companies, and a non-trivial number of edits that cite sources which seem like they could be the type of industry news aggregators that present themselves as independent media, but which are in fact backed by associations funded by the same companies covered on those sites. Again, I don't disagree with the point that the community clearly wants Polygnotus tot ake on board here. In fact, I'd go even a little farther and say it's not just that they are pushing too hard for an immediate sanction and reversions on insufficient hard evidence. There's an even deeper problem than that when someone, in a posting here at ANI, outright demands a severe course of action from the community against another party (without first attempting to discuss the matter with the reported editor, no less), and then gets as hostile as Polygnotus did here when they get pushback against their proposed course of action. The attitude underpinning their response to disagreement seems like a big issue in the making, imo. But...do I think they have he wrong read here? Honestly, I'd kind of be surprised if it turned out conclusively that they did. And at a minimum, any necessary discussion warning Polygnotus to be wary of WP:ASPERSIONS in pushing so hard on such limited evidence should not also preclude us from giving a further critical eye to Hajer's edits. Even if they don't have a COI, they are still introducing a lot of content that might reasonably be considered puffery. SnowRise let's rap22:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Extended content
Michele rose to global recognition for executing a turn-around at Gucci during the 2010s centering on a quirky androgynous aesthetic. Spring/Summer 2025 will be his debut collection for Valentino
In April 2024, Purina and Cargill formed a partnership to advance regenerative farming practices.
In May 2024, Purina invested $220 million to stimulate production in Mexico.
In February, Prada joined the Sustainable Markets Initiative’s Fashion Task Force which seeks to ensure the industry's transition to a more sustainable future.
In July 2024, Decathlon reported its investment Recyc'Elit, a start-up specialized in the chemical recycling of polyester textiles and complex PET plastics.
In July 2024, Sephora introduced a summer-themed pop-up in partnership with body care brand Sol de Janeiro.
In June, Lacoste announced the launch of its new fragrance, Lacoste Original.
In May 2024, to celebrate its 140th anniversary, the Bvlgari brand introduced two ultra-high-end fragrances, Aeterna Serpenti Fiamma and Aeterna Serpenti Anima, which combine olfactory ingredients with jewelry materials.
In May 2024, Fendi announced its return to the perfume market with a first collection of seven scents directly inspired by its origins.
In April 2021, Hedi Slimane presented his Fall-Winter 2021 women's collection in a video shot at the Château de Vaux-le-Vicomte.
In April 2024, Hedi Slimane launched Zouzou, the latest addition to his Haute Parfumerie collection for Celine. It is the twelfth exclusive Celine fragrance.
By 2024, Celine’s Haute Parfumerie collection, created by Slimane in 2019, included 12 fragrances. While 9 of these perfumes are for the day (Parade, Saint-Germain-Des-Prés, Cologne Française, La Peau Nue, Zouzou, Rimbaud, Bois Dormant and Eau de Californie), the others are designed for the night (Reptile, Black Tie and Nightclubbing).
Celine announces the launch of its beauty line in 2024 under the direction of Hedi Slimane. Celine's Beauty includes the "Rouge Triomphe" lipstick, and the 'Le Rouge Celine' collection is announced for January 2025.
In June 2024, RATP partnered with Wabtec to equip all its RER A trains with a new brake lining that eliminates 70-90% of the health-damaging fine particles found on platforms. Similar tests are being carried out on some metro lines.
In May 2024, Calvin Klein appointed Veronica Leoni creative director of its collections.
In May 2024, A.P.C. expanded its range with its first unisex sunglasses collection, a tribute to New York rock band The Velvet Underground.
Kia EV9 wins 'Best of the Best' in the Cars and Motorcycles category.
The Renault Scenic E-Tech won the award for Car of the Year 2024.
In 2024, The Swiss group has announced a partnership with e-retailer TMall to support growing local demand for fragrance products.
In May 2024, Gap introduced its limited collection in partnership with the Californian clothing brand, Dôen, celebrating sisterhood.
In April 2024, Swarovski unveiled a collection in collaboration with Marvel. Accordingly, Swarovski expanded its collection of decorative figurines with creations paying homage to the superheroes of the Marvel franchises.
In May 2024, Kering partenered with the National University of Singapore to create, via the entity's Center for Governance and Sustainability, a tool for measuring the environmental impact of companies in the Asia-Pacific region. This collaboration seeks to establish a benchmark for measuring the impact of the green strategies of major Asia-Pacific companies.
She has various published works in recognized journals in her field. (then follows the biggest refbomb ive ever seen: 12!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rafika_Ben_Chaouacha-Chekir&diff=1223800382&oldid=1223009231
In December 2023, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) awarded the prize for best vegan bag to Gucci for its Demetra Horsebit 1955.
In April 2024, Ganni collaborates with Paloma Elsesser on a size-inclusive line. The Paloma Elsesser x GANNI capsule collection was announced to be available, starting from 17 April 2024, in EU sizes 32-52.
In 2023, Kering won the Biodiversity and Water Award at the CNMI Sustainable Fashion Awards for its regenerative practices.
In 2023, Valentino earned the Education of Excellence Award at the CNMI Sustainable Fashion Awards for fostering education in Italy.
In 2023, Dolce&Gabbana won the Craft and Artisanship Award at the CNMI Sustainable Fashion Awards.
2024: Jacob & Co. launched of the Astronomia Régulateur watch, a timepiece of exceptional mechanical prowess.
In April 2024, Maison Margiela extends its Replica fragrance collection with vegetable garden notes.
For Autumn-Winter 2023, Sandro blended its ready-to-wear collection with the heritage and Western aesthetic of Wrangler, an American label with a passion for denim.
In 2024, Promod opens a boutique-laboratory combining second-hand goods, unsold items, sewing kits as well as workshops to introduce people to sewing and upcycling.
Indeed, its plans is to open over 100 new stores in the country over the next three years,
In 2024, Sephora reported its plan to launch of its two new labels focused on sustainability, “Clean at Sephora” and “Planet Aware at Sephora”.
In March 2022, Ben Ghoram (Byredo) and Isamaya Ffrench partner to launch their first make-up collection together.
In April 2024, Charlotte Tilbury re-enters the fragrance world, eight years after the release of its last perfume.
In April 2024, Maje, SMCP's subsidiary, formed a partnership with the after-sales start-up, Save Your Wardrobe, to develop its clothing repair service.
In March 2024, the Bvlgari jewellery house officialized and announced the creation of the Fondazione Bvlgari, an institution that is an extension of the brand's founding values, particularly its commitment to safeguarding historical heritage.
In January 2024, Prada announced its new partnership with the international non-profit organization Bibliothèques Sans Frontières involves the creation of a resource space dedicated to the seabed.
2024 World Performance Car Award.
Also in April, Mango invests in shared mobility start-up Hoop Carpool.
To mark its 40th anniversary in 2024, Mango recently announced its collaboration with the brand Victoria Beckham in April. It was reported that the Victoria Beckham x Mango collection would be available from April 23, 2024.
In 2023, Bottega Veneta opens a school in Italy to train future craftsmen. The project includes training activities, workshops and courses, divided between the Kering workshop in Montebello Vicentino, and a new dedicated space in Povolaro Dueville. This initiative plans to train 50 students a year in a program run by 5 Bottega Veneta master craftsmen.
The co-founder and chairman of the Mango chain, Isak Andic, was awarded the Kingdom of Spain Award for Business Excellence for his contribution to Spain's economic and social development.
In October 2023, Burberry collaborated with Vestiaire Collective on a new circular style project. This partnership would allow customers to exchange their second-hand Burberry clothing and handbags for a Burberry gift card, which they could reinvest in the brand, with the aim of promoting resale and reducing clothing waste.
In 2022, Chanel and Brunello Cucinelli join forces with cashmere supplier Cariaggi Lanificio.
In 2024, Brunello Cucinelli strengthens its production line in Italy with the acquisition of the Sartoria Eugubina sewing workshop and the construction of a new factory to meet the increasing consumer demand.
In December 2023, Fendi joined the restoration of heritage at Villa d'Este. In partnership with the Villas Adriana and d'Este, Fendi announced its new sponsorship project which consisted in the restoration of the grotto of Diana in the gardens of the Villa d'Este in Tivoli, near Rome.
2024: Clarins partners with Dassault Systèmes to boost the efficiency of its factories
In 2024, introduced a new cosmetics science course with the online learning platform Coursera
In 2013, he was awarded at the British Fashion Awards for 'Red Carpet Designer of the Year'.
Later, in 2014, Moralıoğlu was named the British Fashion Council’s Women’s Wear Designer of the Year.
2013: British Fashion Awards - Accessory Designer of the Year.
At the British Fashion Awards in 2013, Rocha won the 'Emerging Womenswear Designer' award.
In 2006, the designer launched a capsule collection for British high-street clothing store Topshop
Kane has also been credited for single-handedly turning the fortunes of cashmere producer Johnstons of Elginby partnering with the company to produce his line of cashmere garments.
In April 2006, Kane was awarded the Young Designer of the Year at the Scottish Fashion Awards.
On 27 November 2007, he was awarded New Designer of The Year at the British Fashion Awards.
In 2012, he won the 'New Establishment' award at the [[The Fashion Awards|Fashion Awards]
The same year, McCartney won the 'Designer of the Year' and the 'Designer Brand' awards at the Fashion Awards.
In 2023, L'Oréal witnessed the highest sales growth in 20 years.
2023: British Menswear Designer of the Year at the Fashion Awards.
2024: Game Changer Honor at the Green Carpet Fashion Awards (GCFA).
2021: Clarins forms a partnership with Neoline for more sustainable shipping.
In 2018, Mert & Marcus won the Isabella Blow Award for Fashion Creator.
In 2024, the company announced its partnership with Messika.
2024: Chevalier des Arts et des Lettres
Hedi Slimane designed the bottle and changed the typography of the Dior logo by using uppercase letters.
In 2005, after the launch of the Collection Privée Christian Dior, Hedi Slimane, in collaboration with Olivier Polge, created a new fragrance Dior Homme which revolved around Masculinized Iris.
Similar to the colognes, he designed the bottle, the concept and the advertising campaign.
In 2006, he also created a line of six skincare products called Dior Homme Dermo System, developed in collaboration with the Harvard Medical Center.
In 2019, while serving as the Artistic Director of Celine, he launched a collection named Celine Haute Parfumerie. This collection included 11 fragrances, 2 of which were announced for later dates: "Rimbaud" and "Bois Dormant".
In 2021, Slimane launched a line of scented candles.
The watch is characterized by an asymmetrical silhouette and the presence of elements in red, including a cherished date for the brand.
The CNMI Sustainable Fashion Awards: The Visionary Award (2023)
2023: Humanitarian Award for Equity and Inclusivity at the the Camera Nazionale della Moda Italia Sustainable Fashion Awards.
In the same period, it was announced that Bottega Veneta was planning to relaunch its perfumery production.
In Februar 2024, L’Oréal announced its signing of a long-term global licensing agreement for the creation, development and distribution of luxury beauty products by the Italian brand Miu Miu.
At the Fashion Awards 2023, Elsesser won the 'Model of the Year' Award.
In 2024, Burton was given the 'Special Recognition Award' at the Fashion Awards
Also in June, Leroy Merlin continued its plan to help with home energy renovation. Accordingly, the company offered a service, both in stores and online, to assist its customers with their tailor-made energy renovation projects.
In 2022, pursuing its solar strategy, Leroy Merlin dentified 36 French stores with roofs suitable for photovoltaic panels, and sought to secure its supplies of electricity from solar farms.
In June 2023, it was announced that Leroy Merlin opted for Eficia, the FrenchTech expert in energy management for commercial buildings, to support its initiative to reduce consumption across its entire real estate portfolio.
The same period, it was announced that Leroy Merlin emphasizes energy renovation.
In February 2024, the Leroy Merlin store in Châteauroux organized an information day about energy renovation. Indeed, devoted to ecological transition, Leroy Merlin made energy-efficient home renovation a pillar of its plan and policy.
Later in February, B&Q announced its increase of its hourly rate of pay for its UK employees to £12.21 and up to £13.55 in London.
New Balance committed to the Science Based Targets Initiative, the United Nations’ emissions reduction plan that seeks to keep global warming under 1.5 degrees Celsius. The brand also aims to reach 100% renewable electricity for its operations by 2025.
According to this plan, pre-worn shoes are sold on New Balance’s online store in a new section of the website named 'Reconsidered'. Indeed, this program seeks to meet the brand's sustainability aims and to keep up with consumer shopping trends.
Also in December 2023, Prana unveiled its engagement to the UN’s Global Compact (UNGC) initiative which reflected its commitment to work according guiding principles relating to human rights, the environment, labour and anti-corruption.
In 2024, Clinique formed a partnership with New York’s Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai to establish a research dermatology centre.
In 2023, Royal Canin expands its line of hypoallergenic food and launches Dental Care products, kibbles with a specific texture that help clean teeth
In 2011, Royal Canin partnered with Groupe Gascogne, its provider, to replant trees.
In December 2023, Royal Canin inaugurated the first edition of its international photography competition, Royal Canin Photography Award (RCPA).
The competition is an attempt to celebrate the uniqueness of cats and dogs and their diversity through arts.
In August 2023, Purina announced its donation of $25,000 to Greater Good Charities to assist the global nonprofit's crisis response efforts and help people and animals in Hawaii recover.
In 2023, MR.DIY won the World Branding Award (WBA) for the sixth year in a row.
At the 2024 Consumer Electronics Show (CES), L'Oréal introduced an AirLight Pro hairdryer for both professional stylists and at-home users which uses up to 31 percent less energy than a conventional dryer.
In 2023, the brand increased its sales by 24% compared to 2022, to 1.14 billion euros. The last quarter of the year recorded the highest results, with sales up +15.6% to 321 million euros.
In 2024, Roseberry received the Neiman Marcus Award for Creative Impact in the Field of Fashion
As of January 2024, Zoetis was honored at the 2024 Catalyst Award Conference for its efforts to catalyze diversity, equality, and inclusion.
In January 2024, Sephora was honored at the 2024 Catalyst Award Conference for its efforts to catalyze diversity, equality, and inclusion
Miu Miu’s Spring 2024 show was chosen as the 'best of the year' at the Impression Awards 2024.
In February 2023, Gucci is announced its willingness to launch a hub in Tuscany to promote more durable and less wasteful fashion. This hub consists of a research-and-development center to study how to catalyze circularity and reduce pollution. It aims to boost change in the Italian fashion industry’s production models.
Later in October 2023, Gucci introduced its campaign which included its Horsebit 1955 bag made with Demetra, an animal-free material.
Kia EV9 also won the title "Best Electric 7-Seater" at the at 2024 What Car? Awards.
Women's World Car of the Year 2018
What Car? Car of the Year 2018
In January 2024, Valentino became one of the first luxury companies to obtain Gender Equality Certification for its efforts in the field of equal pay. The luxury house succeeded in reducing the pay gap to less than 10% and a further reduction is planned over the next three years.
In November 2023, Swarovski collaborated with the shapewear brand Skims on a new collection of body jewelry.
2024: Chiuri receives the Neiman Marcus Award for Distinguished Service in the Field of Fashion.
In January 2024, Chanel launched an initiative with the consortium of 15 cosmetics-manufacturers, called the Traceability Alliance for Sustainable Cosmetics to catalyze traceability in the cosmetics sector.
In December 2023, Hugo Boss announced its investment in Collateral Good to catalyze and accelerate sustainability in the fashion industry.
Irish Car of the Year 2006.
European Car of the Year 2018
Levi's Autumn/Winter 2023 WellThread capsule aimed to show the brand's engagement to sustainability as it included items made from 100% transitional cotton as well as plant-based natural dyes
In January 2024, Safilo renewed its partnership with Levi's until 2029.
In January 2024, Highsnobiety announced its long-term partnership with Lacoste and their plan to launch an "ultra-limited" edition L003 2K24 sneaker and a clothing line.
The Lexus LBX won the “Car of the Year” and the "Small SUV" titles at an awards ceremony, 'What Car? Car of the Year Awards 2024', in London.
In 2019, Theory formed an alliance with Girl-Up, a leadership initiative launched by the United Nations Foundation which aims to support leadership development plans that help every girl reach her potential. Accordingly, they introduced a unisex t-shirt to donate a percentage of sales to the initiative.
In 2023, Gucci reinforced its alliance with UNICEF with a new financial donation of 300,000 euros to the organization's Education Thematic Fund which seeks to ensure children's right to a 'high-quality' education globally.
The Kia Niro was selected as the 'Best Urban Car' at the 2023 Women’s Car of the Year.
In December 2023, Purina PetCare announced $120,000 in grants to fund four scientific research projects in the USA, Canada and Austria. The subsidized projects include human-animal bond research and look into the impact of dogs and cats on the lives of their owners and families.
Puma managed to limit the carbon emissions that emanate from its supply chain through employing more eco-friendly and less carbon intensive materials.
Puma managed to reduce its own carbon emissions worldwide by 88% between 2017 and 2021.
In January 2024, the fashion Energy Report of Utility Bidder, a utility switching service, categorized Puma as the 'most sustainable brand' with a high sustainability rating, a high level of transparency, and a low amount of CO2 produced when someone visits their website.
In 2023, the Sportage was chosen as Car of the Year in Morocco.
In 2024, it won the North American Utility Vehicle of the Year at the 2024 North American Car, Truck and Utility Vehicle of the Year (NACTOY) Awards.
In September 2019, Decathlon reached an agreement with Alltricks, a leading online retailer of high-end accessories for cyclists and runners. This acquisition allows Decathlon to strengthen its presence in the cycling market.
In December 2023, Decathlon launches a new ultra-light electric road bike with the E-EDR AF APEX AXS 12S from Van Ryse.
2022: Clarins relaunches its personalized skincare brand, MyBlend. It was first introduced in 2007 and relaunched in 2022 with an environmentally-friendly reformulation.
2020: Clarins hands over Mugler & Azzaro to L'Oréal to refocus on beauty, its core business, with Clarins and My Blend.
Indeed, dry dog food, dry cat food and wet cat food make up 80% of Purina's sales.
Also in October 2023, Purina introduced its first and newest carbon-reduced cat food offerings, Purina ONE DualNature.This line pertains to Nestlé's aim to reaching a 50% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2030.
In 2023, at an event dedicated to feilne medicine in Brazil Royal Canin sponsors the Cat Friendly Programme, a project run by the American Association of Feline Practitioners (AAFP).
2024 Green Car Award at the Indian Car of the Year (ICOTY).
In December 2023, Hyundai Exter was selected as the Indian Car of the Year (ICOTY) 2024.
In November 2023, Purina initiated a campaign to encourage its customers to recycle their aluminium and steel cans after use.
In August 2023, Royal Canin made a cooperation protocol with AKUT Search and Rescue Association to meet the needs of AKUT's search dogs, including nutrition.
Also in 2023, Puma announced its new sustainable initiative, Voices of a Re:Generation, which aims to develop the brand's 'sustainable journey' through involving the 'recommendations' and 'perspectives' of the next generation.
In June 2023, Prada announced its plan to increase its financial support for the Sea Beyond project.
Accordingly, for the next two years, the Italian luxury brand will donate 1% of sales revenues from its Re-Nylon collections. This will allow the project to to broaden its scope beyond ocean education with two ocean-related fields of action; support for scientific research and community projects.
In December 2023, L'Oréal announced its acquisition of the Danish research company Lactobio
In March 2014, the Peugeot 308 was awarded European Car of the Year, in competition with the BMW i3 and Tesla Model S.
In 2022, the new Peugeot 308 SW was selected as the 'Company Vehicle of the Year' at the Automobile Awards.
In 2014, Peugeot 308 won the European Car of the Year Award.
Régis Schultz joined the Group JD Sports as its new CEO in 2022. His plan includes opening up to 350 new stores a year as well as double-digit sales growth, double-digit market share in key regions and double-digit operating margin.
It also won the 'German Luxury Car' of the Year 2024.
In 2022, the Sportage won 'Family SUV' and 'Full Hybrid' categories in the Scottish Car of the Year Awards.
In 2022, Honda Civic was chosen as the Scottish Car of the Year.
Scottish Car of the Year 2023<
In November 2023, Kia EV9 was selected as the 'Family Car of the Year' by Top Gear.
In October 2023, Columbia Sportswear reported 3% of revenue growth as sales reached $985.7 million.
In early-2017, Decathlon stores were opened in both Ghana and South Africa.
In July 2023, Wallyscar presented its latest SUV production called 'Wolf'.
In terms of design, this model moves beyond the traditional Wallyscar's style. Accordingly, the rear of the SUV features four tailpipies and an aerodynamic diffuser. Its plunging hood overlooks a low grille.
Also, the SUV's interior is made from recycled polyester,polyamide and semi-aniline leather.
In November 2023, Prious was named the 2024 MotorTrend Car of the Year.
Irish Car of the Year
In 2023, Hyundai Kona won the 'Car of the Year' prize at the Auto Express New Car Awards.
In 2023, at the fourth annual UK Theme Park Awards., hessington World of Adventures won a number of gold, silver and bronze awards.
In November 2023, Schneider Electric finalized its acquisition of EcoAct, a company devoted to climate consulting and net-zero solutions.
Purina PetCare's performance during the first half of 2023, contributed the most to Nestlé as its sales in from January to June reached US$10,799 Thus, Purina PetCare became the largest contributor in both Europe and North America. Later in October, Purina experienced 2.6% of real internal growth and reached 13.1% of organic growth.
2023: Clarins introduces Precious, a luxurious anti-aging skincare line
Also in October 2023, UMG formed a new partnership with BGM to develop collaborative initiatives to enlarge opportunities for BGM-signed artists all over the world.
In October 2023, UMG and BandLab Technologies formed a partnership to protect the rights of artists as well as songwriters and guarantee the 'ethical use' of Artificial Intelligence (AI).
Believe's inclination towards publishing is seen in its recent investments in Europe, India and Asia to globally expand and develop. For example, Believe partnered with the French pop label Structure and the Germany-based brand Madizin Music. Believe also formed a partnership with the Indian label Panorama Music.
As the President of ACEA, Luca de Meo emphasized the 'deindustrialization' and 'relocation' of the automotive industry. In January 2023, in an open letter, he expressed the automotive industry's urgent need for an 'ambitious' and 'structured' automotive industrial policy by the EU to compete with other regions in the world. De Meo also highlights the importance of developing European electric vehicles. Accordingly, he called for the necessity of regional European support in terms of measures to maintain the competitive nature of the European automotive industry.
Luca de Meo spent four years developing Volkswagen's brand, to make it reach a high operating profit in 2017. That year, SEAT increased its operating profit by 24.8% and delivered 468,400 cars. In 2018, that growth was sustained and further increased by 23.1%.In 2019, SEAT registered its 'historical' sales record, with over 574,000 sold cars. In 2023, de Meo's strategy was bringing about results as Renault's operating margin increased to 5.6% for the past year, compared to only 2.8% in 2021. Two and a half years after, Luca de Meo managed to make the Group witness a financial recovery.
In 2023, the Tesla Model Y gained the 'Autovista Group Residual Value Award' in category of 'Compact and Large Battery-Electric Vehicle (BEV) SUV'.
The Kodiaq won the title of 'Best Large Family Car' at the the 2024 Carbuyer Best Car Awards.
BYD Dolphin won the title of 'Best Small Electric Car' at the Carbuyer Best Car Awards 2024.
In 2023, Gucci obtained the Ellen MacArthur Foundation Award for Circular Economy at the Camera Nazionale della Moda Italiana (CNMI).
In 2022, Nissan Leaf was chosen as the 'Best Family Electric Car' at the Carbuyer’s Best Used Car Awards
In 2023, the Citroën ë-C4 won the category of the 'Best Used Small Electric Car' at the Carbuyer Best Used Car Awards.
In July 2023, Disneyland Paris introduced its new show 'Together' which includes Dory, Coco, Buzz Lightyear and all the characters from Pixar films. It is a cine-concert that features a live orchestra with actors on stage, music extracted from the movies and original compositions.
In September 2023, Disneyland Paris renewed its involvement in World-Clean-Up Day, the world's largest environmental clean-up campaign. Accordingly, Disneyland Paris encouraged its team and Disney VoluntEARS to take part of the initiative.
Extended content
In 2024, Lewis Hamilton became Dior's menswear ambassador and guest designer.
In May 2024, Ferrera became IOM Global Goodwill Ambassador.
In 2024, Bang & Olufsen announced Charles Leclerc as its global brand ambassador.
Later in June, Rosé becomes Puma's brand ambassador.
In 2024, Alex Scott became the sportswear ambassador at M&S.
In 2024, Léna Situations became the new Tommy Hilfiger ambassador.
Also in February, Hoyeon Jung was named as the Global Brand Ambassador of Lancôme.
Anya Taylor-Joy: Dior's global Fashion and Beauty Ambassador (2021).
Pauline Déroulède: Dior Ambassador for the 2024 Paralympic Games (2024).
In January 2020, Emilia Clarke became the brand ambassador of Clinique.
In 2024, Boss signs a partnership with David Beckham.Charlize Theron: J'Adore Dior perfume (2004–present), Skin care Ambassador (2024)
In May 2024, Cristiano Ronaldo becomes the global ambassador of WHOOP.
In May 2024, Tom Hardy becomes the brand ambassador of Jo Malone London.
Rosalía: Dior's Global Ambassador (2024-present)
In 2024, Leighton Meester was appointed as the new global spokesperson for the skin care brand Biotherm.
In April 2024, Mary Katrantzou became Bulgari's first creative director for leather goods and accessories.
In 2019, Big Sean became Puma's brand ambassador
In September 2023, Pepe Jeans celebrated its fifty years of existence in London, with a photo exhibition of its many campaigns and a dinner in honor of its new ambassador, Lila Moss
The same year, Sekou became the brand's ambassador.
Also in April, Hoyeon Jung was named as the Global Brand Ambassador of Lancôme.
The same year, Wang Yibo became the Global Ambassador of Lacoste.
In 2024, Puma appointed Milind Soman as its running ambassador.<
In 2024, she becomes the new face of the Pucci woman.
The same year, in December, Arthur Fils became the brand ambassador of Lacoste.
In 2022, Tom Daley became the first male ambassador of the brand.
Later in April, the tennis player, Iga Swiatek, became the Lancôme's brand ambassador in Poland.
2024: Chloé Perfume names Guan Xiaotong as its first Chinese brand ambassador.
In February 2024, Lily Collins became Lancome's brand ambassador.
In 2024, Michael Hill appoints Miranda Kerr as its brand ambassador.
Elizabeth Debicki: the face of Christian Dior Joaillerie for the Fall 2023 season (2023).
Also in 2019, Dua Lipa becomes the brand's global ambassador.
Deva Cassel: Dior's Beauty Ambassador (2024-present)
Also in 2024, Lancôme unveils new episodes of its digital campaign with the YouTuber Emma Chamberlain.
Willow Smith: the brand ambassador of Dior Beauty (2024-present)
Also in December 2023, Prada unveiled its engagement to the UN’s Global Compact (UNGC) initiative which reflected its commitment to work according guiding principles relating to human rights, the environment, labour and anti-corruption.
At the CFDA Fashion Awards 2023, Goop won the 'Innovation Award'.
2023: Chloé wins the Human Capital & Social Impact Award at CNMI’s Sustainable Fashion Awards 2023.
In 2023, Davis won the 'British Womenswear Designer Award' at the Fashion Awards
Also in 2024, the Belgian-French actress, Virginie Efira, was appointed as the brand's first ambassador for France.
Lang Lang: Dior's Global Ambassador (2023-present)
In 2024, Pierre Niney was appointed as Lacoste's new brand ambassador.
In February 2024, the Emirati artist and singer, Balqees Fathi became the Regional Ambassador for the brand in the Middle East.
In January 2024, Watson became the face of Prada's Re-Nylon collection, the sustainable product line of the brand.
In November 2023, Zendaya became the brand ambassador for Lancôme’s Idôle fragrance.
In January 2024, Joy Sunday becomes Lancôme's global ambassador.
Kauli Vaast: Dior Ambassador (2024-present)
In January 2024, Kim Kardashian became the brand ambassador of Balenciaga.
2023: Chloé collaborates with Angelina Jolie's newly launched fashion brand, Atelier Jolie.
In 2024, Jamie Dornan became the global brand ambassador of Loewe.<
In January 2024, Madelyn Cline became Revlon's Global Brand Ambassador.
Rachel Zegler: Dior Ambassador (2023-present).
Dilraba Dilmurat: Dior Ambassador (2023-present).
Alycia Debnam- Carey: Dior's first Australian Fashion Ambassador (2023-present).
Jay Chou: Dior's global ambassador.
In December 2023, Balenciaga introduced its new brand ambassador, Nicole Kidman.<
In 2023, Joe Jonas became the brand's first-ever ambassador. He was appointed to lead in designing a new collection capsule to be launched in Fall 2024
In 2023, Idris became the new brand ambassador for Tommy Hilfiger's menswear.<
In November 2023, Balanciaga appointed Michelle Yeoh as its brand ambassador.
Later, in October 2023, Davika wa appointed as Gucci's latest and first Thai brand ambassador.<
2019: The Chinese actress and singer Dilireba becomes the new brand ambassador of Clarins.
Extended content
It also opened a new facility in Eden.
Purina PetCare invested €472 million to open a pet food factory in Mantua, Italy
Later in June, Balenciaga opened its first store in Cancún, Mexico.
Later in June, Bottega opened a new store at the Rosewood Miramar Beach
In December 2022, RATP Dev launches hydrogen training center in La Roche-sur-Yon.
In January 2024, MAC opened in Rabat, Morocco.
Mango is also opening a new store in Marseille after the summer of 2024.
The same year, Mango strengthens its presence in the Netherlands with the opening of seven new stores.
Later, in May, Mango opened its store at Angel Central in London.
In May 2024, Balenciaga reinforces its presence in Japan with the opening of a new flagship store in Tokyo.
In May 2024, Balenciaga reinforces its presence in Japan with the opening of a new flagship store in Tokyo.
In April 2024, Tiffany & Co. opened their newest store at QueensPlaza in Brisbane
The same period, Mango announced its expansion in the U.S. with the opening of new stores in Washington, D.C. and Massachusetts.
2024: Clarins acquires a new estate in the Gard region of France, with the aim of turning it into a resource site for sourcing exceptional raw materials.
Later, in December, Pepe Jeans announced its aim to develop in the Indian market, where it is already present with around 200 stores.
In October 2023, Kurt Geiger opened two stores in Mexico City, one in the business district of Santa Fe and another in the shopping mall Perisur.
By March 2024, Mango had 2,700 stores operating in over 110 countries.
The same year, Mango opened an online store on Roblox.
In 2024, Sephora confirmed the opening of its fourth UK store at Newcastle's Eldon Square shopping centre.
In April 2022, the perfume house opened an store at the Mall of Oman, followed by another at the Dubai Mall in September 2023. In February 2024, it expanded to America.
On June 2023, Mr. Bricolage acquired 1,000 stores worldwide.
In January 2024, Decathlon opened its third store in Dublin, Ireland
In February 2024, Decathlon unveiled its planned four further openings in Swiss city centers: two in Geneva, one in Vevey and one in Winterthur.
The same year, Mango opened an online store on Roblox.
In 2024, Mango announced the opening of its new store in Reims.
Also in 2024, B&Q reported the opening of its new store in Staines.
In 2021, B&Q announced the launch of its new website in the Republic of Ireland.
In December 2023, a new Decathlon store was opened in Tahiti.
In 2023, Decathlon opened a training center in Lille.
Later in November, Leroy Merlin opened a new store in the province of Alicante in Spain.
In November 2023, Leroy Merlin opened a new store in the province of Alicante in Spain.
In May 2023,B&Q opened new distribution centre in Bassetlaw
In November 2023, Decathlon opened in Beau-Plan, Maurice.
Also in 2023, Decathlon unveiled its plan to set up a new shop in the Cristal shopping center in Martigny, Switzerland.
In may 2023, Decathlon opened its eighteenth store in Morocco
The same year, the opening of a fourth Decathlon store in Strasbourg was reported.
Later in September, it was announced that a new Decathlon store would open Trois-Rivières, Canada.
Also in early-2024, it was reported that another store in Perpignan would be opening in March and it would be one of Europe's largest Decathlon stores.
In February 2024, it was announced that a new Decathlon store would open in Agy Centre, Switzerland.
In October 2023, MR. DIY expanded its operations in Vietnam through opening five stores in three key locations within a month.
In January 2024, MR. DIY unveiled its plan to operate in Romania and Bulgaria.
In December 2022, MR. DIY had 31 stores in Turkey
In 2024, The One launched a new concept store in Dubai Hills Mall which allows shoppers to explore a home experience of The One’s home furniture collections.
In August 2023, B&Q opened in Sutton, the UK.
In January 2024, B&Q unveiled its plan to open its tenth local store on Staines high street.
In January 2024, Harbor Freight Tools announced its plan to open a new store in Batavia.
In December 2023, Floor & Decor opened its new store in the New York City Metropolitan Area.
In 2023, SMCP which is already present in 47 countries, announced its entry to the Indian market, where it will open its first stores in 2024, through a partnership with the Reliance Brands Limited (RBL) group.
In 2023, Mango extended its online sales services to 17 African countries, some of which represent new markets.
Also in 2021, Mango opened four stores in the U.S., precisely, in New Jersey, New York and Miami.
In 2023, the Sandro is distributed in over 50 outlets in the United States.
In 2021, Sandro launched its second-hand offer in France and later in other European countries like Germany, the Netherlands and Spain.
In December 2023, Sandro expanded its presence in the American market with the opening of a new store at the Westfield Topanga Shopping Center in Los Angeles.<
Also in June, the company owned a majority stake in the Spanish online sports equipment retailer Deporvillage.
In June 2021, the sportswear company acquired a majority stake in the online fashion retailer Missy Empire.
In November 2018, Decathlon opened its first store in Greece, Corinthe
In October 2023, Purina announced the opening of two new production units at its factory in Hungary.
In 2023, the company employs over 900 people as it has grown.
In September 2023, WMG opened a new creative hub in Berlin.
2021: Clarins inaugurates its new store in the Marais area.<
2020: Clarins opens its R&D center in Shanghai, China.
I was asked for evidence and I got mountains of it. In return I ask how I should describe this pattern of editing? I stopped at 2023-10-04T16:01:23Z so I didn't even get to the worst part. Seems like my confusion got interpreted as hostility, but I tried to express my bewilderment. The point was to discuss the edits by the account, not to accuse anyone, so I retract any and all perceived accusations (although I did not do anything wrong). I am permanently confused how well-meaning people can see a reality so different to mine. When has friendly fire ever worked as a strategy? The list of contribs is larger than I can post onwiki but if you want to I can split it up. The tool I developed to make it can probably be useful in other situations as well. https://i.imgur.com/vTjTi2S.pngPolygnotus (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the general critique that Polygnotus came in hot and refused to cool down, which naturally generated resistance to their accusation — but I respect the colossal mountain of evidence they've posted above. This really does look like a duck, and I would like to see Hajer-12 provide a more coherent explanation of this entirely puff-based editing pattern. Toughpigs (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, I am stubborn and often confused/disappointed by others and the planet as whole, but I am no asshole and I have no reason to lie. I am too lazy to start a fight and invoke WP:ADMINACCT, I accept that people make mistakes, but it would be nice to hear from those who threatened and falsely accused me for pointing out something that I thought was superobvious. Maybe the tool I wrote would be useful to them because it gives a quick overview of what someone is actually doing here (and why!). Polygnotus (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I would’ve appreciated having a chance to actually read through the new evidence, maybe with a polite ping, before you resorted to a “haha, gotcha” trouting. My sincerest apologies for daring to doubting a case that was, at the time, heavy on accusations and light on evidence, and I’m sure this gotcha behavior will be greatly appreciated by other editors. TheKip(contribs)01:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Not light on evidence for those willing to actually look at some diffs (the stuff above is maybe 30-40%). Apology accepted. Note that the template says: Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.Polygnotus (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
It would be awesome if folks who feel they're involved in the "gotcha" cycle could put that aside long enough to decide what should be done about Hajer-12's actual editing behavior. Toughpigs (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Ok, look Polygnotus: two things can be true at the same time, and here are the two things that are absolutely true here:
1) You absolutely and completely botched the report here, raising legitimate concerns about your conduct, and then compounded both of these issues by refusing to hear said concerns, instead doubling down with expressions of exasperation. When you report another user in this space, the onus is very much on you to meet a certain threshold of evidence to support your accusations. Particularly when you are trying to assert a WP:DUCK rationale. Whenever you are suggesting a sanction on grounds of WP:COI or WP:MEAT or anyhting else which cannot be easily and immediately substantiated through technical means and a mere review of the facial meaning of diffs (that is to say, whenever you are asking the community to reach a conclusion primarily on supposition from the available evidence) you have a particularly high burden to provide a lot of evidence--preferably well organized and annotated. Your initial post and immediate follow-ups were woefully insufficient in those respects, and when numerous admins and experienced community members pointed this out and made it clear that they did not find what you were presenting as nearly sufficient enough to take action, your response was one of clear ire, with an accompanying argument that amounted entirely to "But it's soooo obvious." At that time, you made almost no efforts to augment your case, but just kept falling back on a kind of latent implication that everyone else was being clueless. And mind you, I am saying this as the only person who initially looked past this attitude to look into matters a little deeper and somewhat support your concerns. But I very much didn't do that because of your approach, but rather in spite of it. Even now, you are half-condescending to everyone else here, as if the fact that you eventually did the thing you should have done from the outset entitles you to rebuff everyone now, and as if you have now achieved an open and shut case (and you haven't, FYI; there's still a lot of analsysis and consideration to be done now). You are responding to nine other members of the community here, with about 50x your experience on the project between them, and acting as if every one should fall in line with your perception that the initial error was with everyone else's response, and not with how you front-ended this discussion. The fact that you actually cited WP:ADMINACCT as something you could realistically "invoke" in these circumstances shows that you are really out of your depth at the moment, and that the balance between trying to dictate how things should go and listening about how they work in this community's processes is way out of whack, especially if you want to continue to contribute in adminsitrative spaces in general.
But then also 2): All that said, your suspicions, poorly presented though they initially were, do not look unfounded to me. We have an editor here who is providing almost exclusively coverage of brand products, much of it extremely friendly to the profile and image of those brands, and almost all of it reeking of the kind of linguistic flourishes found more or less exclusively in press releases and other industry PR. Many of the sources employed look like the kind of extremely friendly and dubiously WP:INDEPENDENT commercial "news" aggregegator sites that such industires routinely use to astroturf self-serving media announcements of questionable notability. I spent a non-trivial amount of time yesterday attempting to get a clear understanding of who ultimately runs some of these sites, and determine what kind of editorial controls they have. I found them incredibly opaque and have yet to determine whether a single one does (or does not) definitely qualify as an RS, but you can call me skeptical for sure. Further, even if we qualified every single source used by this user as RS, much of the content they are being used to support is pure fluffery, adding little of substance to help the reader better understanding the subjects as encyclopedic topics. Instead, almost all of this user's edits feel to me as if they could be reasonably described as greenwashing, bluewashing, purplewashing, and the like--or just plain meant to establish a positive image generally. My suspicions are even further stoked by the fact that this user seems to take such a keen interest in products in such disparate areas and has yet to add anything that I would consider to be even remotely critical of the brands and companies whose articles they are augmenting (that I have seen anyway). Many of the edits are purely factual and few are outright fawning, but they all either celebrate some "achievement" of the brand, announce an industry award, or push awareness of the product or some relationship the brand has established with a media figure. There's something very cut and paste about a lot of it. All of which is to say...yeah, I'm leaning towards assuming this user is employed by a PR firm, and I think we might want to look at previous past serial offenders in this area and consider some checkuser requests. I suspect a relationship may be found. And even if we have to judge this one on purely behavioural evidence, I'd strongly consider a TBAN from all commercial brand products, broadly construed, if Hajer can't give one hell of a good explanation for such a suspect looking editing history.
I am just one person, if I am dealing with people derailing the discussion and falsely accusing me, how can I compile diffs at the same time? To show a pattern you gotta have a mountain of diffs, not one or two.
Criticising me for not compiling the mountain of evidence first and then posting a report makes sense only if I could have predicted that even experienced users here cannot see the same problem I saw when looking at the list of contributions. If they can't see what I see then Wikipedia is kinda screwed, because there are many people trying to profit off of Wikipedia.
raising legitimate concerns about your conduct The idea that pointing out bad behaviour of other editors is somehow a PA/aspersion/whatever is wrong, and the PAGs do not support that idea. There is a big difference between: "User:Example is an asshole", that would fall under WP:PA (even if it is true) and "User:Example is a nazi", which could hypothetically fall under WP:ASPERSIONS even if it is true but there are no reliable sources/selfidentifications that support it and "User:Example is promoting brands on Wikipedia".
refusing to hear said concerns if you look back, isn't it clear that I wasn't the one "refusing to hear concerns"?
with an accompanying argument that amounted entirely to "But it's soooo obvious. Because, to me, it was. And if people start telling me they are very experienced dealing with these things and they cannot see what I see then something is going very wrong.
you are half-condescending to everyone else here imagine being treated like I was, while knowing the mountain of evidence available. Even a buddhist spiritual teacher would not be indifferent to that.
achieved an open and shut case (and you haven't, FYI; there's still a lot of analsysis and consideration to be done now) Disagree. I wrote a tool for that, it is pretty useful in cases such as this and allowed me to compile this mountain of evidence above. The stuff above is chronological (inside each collapse template); see how they suddenly switch from perfume, very expensive clothes and jewelry to cheap family cars?
acting as if every one should fall in line with your perception that the initial error was with everyone else's response Again, to me that is obvious.
not with how you front-ended this discussion I was working on compiling diffs when a bunch of people showed up who were acting, in my view, suboptimally. If they would've politely asked for diffs then they would've gotten the same mountain, it just takes a while to write software and copypaste all that stuff. I am a volunteer and this is my spare time.
if you want to continue to contribute in adminsitrative spaces in general. Ha! I was kinda hoping to offload the work I just did by pointing out the problem. I didn't envision having to get RSI and wrangling the API just to point out what I thought was superobvious.
I worked in marketing for over a decade. I know how PR/marketing works. I know how brand ambassador networks work. I know how reputation management companies work.
both are meant in the spirit of asssitance I was very glad to see you show up and doing your own analysis of the edits instead of simply joining the crowd with pitchforks.
If we require that everyone on ANI does the work I've done before submitting a report, it would get pretty quiet here. Polygnotus (talk) 10:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I am just one person, if I am dealing with people derailing the discussion and falsely accusing me, how can I compile diffs at the same time?
By stepping back from vehemently deriding everyone else for not seeing what you think is "obvious", and gathering the diffs before coming back. It's not rocket science. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite16:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
@HandThatFeeds: If you report a crime, its not a great experience when the police in turn falsely accuses you and even threatens you without bothering to do even a cursory investigation. Demanding that all people who happen to notice a crime compile detailed reports and investigate the crime scene themselves in minute detail ensures that no crime will ever be reported. As you can see above, I wasn't vehemently deriding them; they were falsely accusing me and even threatening me without bothering to look at the diffs. So I knew that nothing short of the overwhelming amount of evidence I've presented would've been enough. I am suprised you are not praising me for how calm and polite I was, considering the circumstances. I was able to defend my point of view, how many others would have been scared off despite being 100% correct? Polygnotus (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Demanding that all people who happen to notice a crime compile detailed reports and investigate the crime scene themselves in minute detail ensures that no crime will ever be reported.
This is not a police report. It's ANI. You are expected to provide the evidence, period.
Yes, you were vehemently deriding people. The lack of self-reflection here is baffling, right up to the point where you are suprised you are not praising me for how calm and polite I was. I'm not going to bother beating my head against your particular wall, but you seriously need to read the room instead of just patting yourself on the back. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite19:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
@Snow Rise, that is yet another wall of text. You've got over 20K edits, you really need to work on the skill of writing short. I and others have asked you before to please write shorter, and every time you've argued that you need all those words to communicate your point. You are the #1 contributor of text to ANI, with a whopping 21% of text contributed. You are literally singlehandedly making ANI discussions more daunting for admins to manage. Please either stop contributing at ANI or learn to write short. Valereee (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
So, I'm going to disagree that this doesn't look like COI editing.
@Hajer-12, this diff does seem to be adding information in front of a ref that doesn't include that information, and the content is exactly the kind of thing companies do like to make sure is included: we do good things for the world. This diff seems to be generated from a press release, and ditto on the kind of info companies want included. I can't get to this one as it's behind a paywall, but from what I can see of it and from the way you've reported it, again ditto. And obviously your work is almost completely on wealthy brands. I can understand why that might look like UPE to another editor. If I were you, I would stop adding we're-helping-save-the-world fluff to the articles about wealthy brands.
@Polygnotus, what I'd recommend in future is that you bring this up at the person's talk and wait until they edit again but don't respond before bringing it to a noticeboard. And instead of coming in hot with no diffs but just an accusation and a request for a block, bring in several compelling diffs. Like four or five, with an offer to bring more. And a statement rather than a demand: Hey, I'm concerned about this pattern of editing (diff, diff, diff) because to me it looks like COI. And maybe take it to COIN first, that's where the experts are in COI editing. Valereee (talk) 11:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, perhaps COIN would've been better. I would stop adding we're-helping-save-the-world fluff to the articles about wealthy brands. That is exactly the same advice I gave. If you want me to I can post the full report on a userpage. I have to split it up tho because its 7mb. Polygnotus (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
7mb is more than most people want to read, and it's more than most people need. What people need to see is a TL;DR version, a few compelling examples, the strongest ones you've found, with the rest of your work as a sort of 'further reading for those who are not yet completely convinced but are willing to do some more reading'. Particularly in the case of suspected undisclosed COI, for me at least the goal is just to get the articles onto people's radar so that we know which articles to keep an eye on. But you could certainly post it that way onto a Polygnotus/ page, without making accusations, just noting concerns about an apparent pattern at particular articles. If it truly is UPE rather than simply someone whose completely well-intentioned passion is to add bits and bobs of positive fluff to wealthy brands, the task usually just gets rolled over to another account. That's why for me it's the articles in question -- the brands who have demonstrated an interest in polishing the articles about them -- rather than the user account that's important. Valereee (talk) 11:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
It may be wise to also take a look at the URLs involved because these domains are often subpar for use on Wikipedia (or anywhere else). I really enjoyed the edit where they claimed Harbor Freight Tools announced plans to open a new store in the Batavian Republic (1795-1806) because I love time travel. I will split the list up and post it on subpages of my userpage. Polygnotus (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I was kinda hoping to pawn this off to someone else. I have done way more than can be reasonably asked of anyone to definitively prove my point; now that I have someone else should launch a full investigation and revert all the damage they've done. This is just one account I happened to notice because an IP was messing about on the Dior page. The fact that paid editors will create a new account when blocked is no reason to not block them. Wikipedia:List of paid editing companies is a long list. Polygnotus (talk) 12:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Apparently Wikipedia only loads the CSS to make the diffs look good when you are editing a page so you need to use a workaround: click Edit and then click the "Show preview" button so you can see it in all its glory.
The pattern is super easy to spot: positive fluff (brand did something sustainable) - brand opened store/factory- celeb became brand ambassador - adding a fake/incorrectly used/very weak ref
Here are some of my favourites:
Part 0 "Jacob & Co. launched of the Astronomia Régulateur watch, a timepiece of exceptional mechanical prowess." / "For Autumn-Winter 2023, Sandro blended its ready-to-wear collection with the heritage and Western aesthetic of Wrangler, an American label with a passion for denim."
Part 1 - "2024: Clarins acquires a new estate in the Gard region of France, with the aim of turning it into a resource site for sourcing exceptional raw materials."
Part 2 - "In January 2023, Luca de Meo completed the first phase of his "Renaulution" program in less than two years. In 2023, de Meo's strategy was bringing about results as Renault's operating margin increased to 5.6% for the past year, compared to only 2.8% in 2021. When he first joined Renault Group, the company was losing €8 billion. Two and a half years after, Luca de Meo managed to make the Group witness a financial recovery."
Part 3 - "In September 2022, Gucci received the Climate Action Award due to its devotion to environmental sustainability." / "The same year, Jackson won the Sue Brownson Award for 'Outstanding Leadership in Automotive'."
Part 4 - "Another innovation by L'Oréal was announced at CES 2023 which is L'Oreal Brow Magic. This innovation is considered to be the 'first at-home' electronic applicator to facilitate eyebrow-makeup. In fact, it offers its users with immediate special and 'bespoke' brows."
I agree that this should be taken to WP:COIN as this is not an "urgent, chronic or intractable behaviour problem", it has only just been brought to light. If it turns out to be UPE and Hajar-12 does not take appropriate action then this would be a case for ANI. There is no consensus here, there has been no new evidence presented it has simply been presented in a different (less user friendly) format, and I for one am still very sceptical. Even if it turns out to be UPE, not many of the edits would need to be reverted. Orange sticker (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Commenting on ANI on topics in which you are not involved is usually a bad idea unless you have spent a lot of time researching and have an unique insight that others might miss. There has been new evidence presented, in a more userfriendly format, and it would be impossible to form a real consensus in the time between me posting the evidence and now. It is clearly chronic, and urgent if we think preserving neutrality is urgent. Polygnotus (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree with SnowRise. Most of the editing here is based on slightly reworked press releases appearing in likely non-RS sources. It isn’t credible that a non-COI editor would consistently edit in that way. The suggested TBAN for commercial brands sounds like a good idea. Axad12 (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
In this instance motivation doesn’t matter. UPE or not, the editor is disruptive and a drain on Wikipedia resources. A tban is appropriate. — rsjaffe🗣️14:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Blocking has an advantage: it creates a precedent and makes blocking the next account easier. If you don't follow the Terms of Service you are not allowed to use the website. Those who don't follow WP:COI and WP:PAID and WP:NPOV are WP:NOTHERE and will never turn into productive editors. Polygnotus (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm really not making an argument to save the editor's account here - I don't think it's any great loss to the project (sorry) but the motiviation is important as very high profile, wealthy and likely litigious companies are being accused of using dishonest marketing methods. While I know it's not the worst offence ever committed in the corporate world, I don't think they'll be pleased with the insinuation. Orange sticker (talk) 07:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Orange sticker, you may not feel this is "urgent", but it's certainly "chronic". Polygnotus has above provided five examples which should nauseate any experienced editor. The "L'Oréal Brow Magic" edit is particularly overt product-shilling that has no place on a Wikipedia page. This is serious misconduct on Hajer-12's part. Toughpigs (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree that's a bad edit. I'm just not convinced that L'Oreal decided the best way to sell their cosmetics is by paying someone to write about it on Wikipedia. Orange sticker (talk) 06:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
By searching a few of these brands and PR agency, you will notice a particular agency that does "digital transformations", and lists many of these brands as their active clients. From there, it's a click away from doxxing so I won't link it myself.
Even if we assume this editor isn't employed at that agency, it is clear that it isn't unreasonable to suspect these brands of trying. 107.116.165.19 (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Great find, excellent sleuthing! Would you be so kind to email paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org? WP:PAID says" please email paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org with why you believe an editor is engaged in paid editing and there is private information.Polygnotus (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
If you do not want to email them, please email me and I will. And if you have emailed them, please let me know. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I've not been able to find that, are they on this list? While I'm well aware of Wikipedia's importance in terms of SEO and AI training models (which isn't necessarily what is meant by 'digital transformation' btw), all the instances of COI and UPE I've read about have not been by famous name brands (quite the opposite) who simply do not need to employ these type of methods and run the risk of reputation damage by doing so - as I told Polygnotus on my talk page if there is evidence that these companies are manipulating Wikipedia it would be a newsworthy story. What PR companies do do is put out press releases that make information look important and it's possible to assume that an editor could in good faith think that these things are suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia and indeed I think a lot of Hajar-12's edits would have found their way on here one way or another anyway. I do appreciate that their edit history makes them look like a type of single purpose account, but I also don't think it's weird to be interested in famous businesses and without wanting to be disrespectful, I think these companies could afford to pay someone who is more skilled at covering their tracks. Orange sticker (talk) 06:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
"have not been by famous name brands" -- Big brands rarely do all of their marketing inhouse. Big brands outsource part of it to marketing companies. Subcontractors of brands you know do a lot of shady stuff to market products. The subcontractors hired by big brands often do not have the same ability to manipulate the media.
"run the risk of reputation damage by doing so" -- Why do you think there is a massive risk to their reputation? We all know brands do terrible things. They can easily blame subcontractors. Nike, Inc. (look at that controversies section!) for example has done a lot of bad stuff but despite or because of it it is still worth a lot of money.
"it's possible to assume that an editor could in good faith..." -- there is no plausible explanation that does not involve ducks.
Orange Sticker: regarding your comment above that "if there is evidence that these companies are manipulating Wikipedia it would be a newsworthy story"...
Given the virtual impossibility of proving that Wikipedia account X is the same as real life individual Y, I don't really see how a major news outlet could ever feel that evidence of UPE on Wikipedia reached the bar required to go public.
Also, the general public probably consider the addition of promotional material here to be routine, so I'm inclined to doubt it would be considered newsworthy.
Different question perhaps if a company was persistently trying to remove critical material, especially if it related to stories that had been widely covered in the media. Axad12 (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
However, in the two instances that you give that relate to companies...
One instance only seems to have reached the media because the PR agency boasted about what they had done (it is described as a 'stunt' and the PR agency seems to have taken most of the flak).
And in the other instance the article relates almost solely to the PR agency itself (only one of their clients is fleetingly mentioned).
So the extent to which any reputational damage resulted to their clients in either case seems rather unclear.
If the media considered this sort of thing to be routinely newsworthy they would only need to look through the COIN archives to find 1000s of rather more mundane cases. Axad12 (talk) 10:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
well that's the thing, if you look through COIN you will see how this is generally a boring subject because it's nearly always carried out on behalf of unheard-of small businesses, aspiring actors or academics who want to increase their general notability and bump their search results. While this could be a case of SEO, it just doesn't seem likely that Dior, L'Oreal, Balenciaga and Calvin Klein would pay the same person to do that. Some people just stan brands the same way others do sports and celebrities. Orange sticker (talk) 10:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi! Uninvolved editor dropping in here. This is as clear a case of WP:UPE as I have ever seen. Its clear that they deserve a ban as such. There's a question as to whether Polygnotus was right in coming in guns blazing (even with such obvious misconduct, it is generally better to try and stay WP:CIVIL, but that's a separate discussion not really for this section. Allan Nonymous (talk) 01:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I have indefinitely blocked Hajer-12 for persistent promotion. I want to make it clear that I have not found clear evidence of UPE or sockpuppetry, even after a very in-depth investigation of their edits; this is a regular block for advertising. I would oppose a community ban at this time. —Ingenuity (t • c) 03:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Someone will need to go through the edits individually, determine which are promotional, and revert them manually. —Ingenuity (t • c) 03:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
@Polygnotus, the easiest thing may be to make a list of the articles and post them to COIN. That way interested people can give them a look, maybe strike out those they check. The list here would probably work to identify the articles most likely to have such content. We probably don't actually need to revert everything. IMO it's often better to just read the article and remove anything that seems promotional, whether the editor in question added it or not. It looks like this editor may have been focusing on philanthropic activities and collaborations, which usually means there are specific sections we can look at. I took a look at the #1 on the list, Purina, and just basically stripped out all the promotional content. We'll see if anyone objects to that wholesale edit, but there were too many edits, some many months ago, and too many intervening ones to try to just revert. Valereee (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
COI has not been proven and Hajer-12 has been blocked for promotion, which I think is harsh but fair. I think Polygnotus and others in this thread need to pause for a moment and think about what is WP:UPE and what is WP:PROMO, and what is WP:COI and what is WP:BIASED. In both comparisons, there is a lot more proof needed to claim the former of the two and so far absolutely none has been provided for this case. Polygnotus is too quick to assume UPE and COI: see this diff (yet another undisclosed coi editor trying to be sneaky sigh) where has quite rightly reverted some edits by a user who has removed embarrassing information from a politician's profile, but accuses them of COI. Bias? Sure. COI - there is absolutely no indication anywhere that the editor has any links or affiliations to the politician in question. Orange sticker (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Orange, what are you arguing for here? An unblock for Hajer? Some sanction against Polygnotus for bringing this editor to our attention? Nobody is going to doxx Hajer here so that you feel comfortable that they are indeed guilty of something. It's time to let this thread get auto-archived unless any further decisions need made by the community. 107.116.165.19 (talk) 04:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I just want to make sure the correct outcome is reached, and that people realise the gravity of their accusations as when this sort of thing has been exposed it has attracted media attention. [105][106][107][108]Orange sticker (talk) 07:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
@Orange sticker, what in your opinion is the correct outcome? All those media stories are about UPE. And the brand new editor at Simon Jupp made eleven small noncontroversial edits around the BBC, then removed 11K of negative info about Jupp with the disingenuous edit summary "Updating the profile to reflect the election result." That's not a typical pattern for a new editor. It is an extremely typical pattern for an experienced UPE. FTR, I agree with you about the edit summary you've quoted above -- putting accusations into edit summaries is a terrible idea, and Poly should stop doing that. But strongly suspecting from that edit pattern that the editor has at minimum a COI and is quite likely paid? That is IMO completely reasonable. Valereee (talk) 10:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I think to prove my point I'd have to ask you why you think the editor on the Simon Jupp page had COI and was not just biased? You could make favourable edits to any number of topics you are supportive of - filling celebrity bios with every good deed they've ever done, making your favourite city seem more important than its rival neighbours or like in this case, removing embarrassing details from a politician's article. That would be wrong. But it's not COI unless you can show to some level of certainty that the editor is the subject of the article themselves or has a relationship to them. If not, it's likely just biased editing, which is a common problem. And when you claim COI (or UPE, which is just professional COI) you're not just accusing (rightfully or wrongly) the editor but the subject of the article, implying they or their associates are manipulating Wikipedia against its policies and for their own benefit.
The outcome that the admins have chosen for Hajer-12 is, like I've said, imo harsh but that's not a hill I'm going to die on. I'm more concerned about people rushing to claim UPE or COI when there's no evidence as it could bring the whole project into disrepute when dealing with such famous, high profile companies. Look through WP:COIN or search WP:AFD for cases of COI and UPE - you'll struggle to find a single topic you've ever heard of before so if this is "as clear a case of WP:UPE as I have ever seen" as Allan_Nonymous said, and others have agreed calling it WP:DUCK, I would urge them to spend a bit more time making themselves familiar with the topic first and remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Orange sticker (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
The block here was for WP:PROMO and was based on the effect of the edits rather than the intent. What anyone thinks about whether it was UPE or not is irrelevant. Sorry, it's time to move on... Axad12 (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Orange, it is time to move on. The editor on the Jupp article is not a UPE, and no one claimed they were (afaik), but they do have a COI. No one accused big brands of anything nefarious afaik, and your fears of negative media attention because promotional activity is not allowed on Wikipedia are unfounded. Writing "I would urge them to spend a bit more time making themselves familiar with the topic first" is silly. Polygnotus (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Action can be taken based on the effect of edits, without the need to prove intent beyond reasonable doubt. You are mistaken about the evidential bar that needs to be reached for effective action to be taken against disruptive editors. That is one of several reasons why this thread should have ended some time ago. Axad12 (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm not arguing against the action that was taken, but to make any accusation you need some evidence and I've seen that requested and offered in AfDs and on COIN so I disagree that I'm mistaken. Orange sticker (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
so I disagree that I'm mistaken you don't have to admit (or even believe) that you were wrong, you just have to move on before someone decides that your refusal to get the point and drop the stick is disruptive enough to do something about it. We agree and disagree about loads of things and thats to be expected in a diverse community. Polygnotus (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
you don't have to admit (or even believe) that you were wrong, you just have to move on after you! ;) I'm sorry you don't appreciate my contributions but I have as much right to make them as anyone else. Orange sticker (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Like I said, you were on the right track with the Reach PLC thing. Do you need help with that? Valereee possibly also has an opinion about that. Polygnotus (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Please drop your stick. People have a COI when editing articles about themselves. You were on the right track with the Reach PLC thing imo. If I can help you with that, please let me know. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user has a poor grasp of English, yet insists on changing grammar on a wide array of articles. They are also on an apparent mission to go against WP:Red link. They will do things like improperly replace "this" with "the" and "these" with "they", and a favorite error is to needlessly use a person's full name in the body of a biographical article as well as change the proper use of their last name with informal and unencyclopedic use of their first name ([109], [110], among others). The rest of their edits are littered with grammatical errors, and this bizarre interaction on my talk page speaks for itself. Talk page warnings are blanked and ignored, and their edit summaries are almost always a single-word non-sequitur. They clearly don't have a sufficient grasp of English to make the edits they make, and seem unwilling to acknowledge that. --Sable232 (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
This user have personally attacked me after I warned them about their violation of the WP:NPOV at the WP:ITN/Chere. This was not their first warning. They have been warned before. Instead of complying by those warning, they decided to call me a janitor, twice even after I warned them about no such personal attacks. PrinceofPunjabTALK14:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Worth noting they also claim that you destroy [Wikipedia] with your politics, regarded views and annoying personalities. - while not the most reliable source obviously, in certain corners of the internet, "regarded" has become a workaround substitute for "retarded." TheKip(contribs)15:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Blocked for a week. Long for a first time, but they show no indication of heeding the warnings, and 31 hours seemed too lenient. StarMississippi15:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Not sure where to go with this, but it's it contentious topic and under arbitration enforcement, so here's as good as anywhere. This new editor dislikes the term "Armalite Rifle", and is editing the article to remove it and add their assertion that the term is a misconception. Neither part is being sourced, and sources on the page do indeed use "Armalite Rifle" as a term.
Since it's under enforcement, I'm obviously sticking at 1RR as the edit notice says. The other editor who reverted them has also stuck there. They, of course, have not.
Sorry, I typed this during the same period it turns out you were warning them. Seeing the 1RR restriction on the article, I had no idea anybody was allowed to revert them twice, and as an IP editor I really didn't want to go in with both feet with the new editor about a CT/AE article. That way lies madness all round. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:FDBB:D885:56F4:B3F5 (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As the one who caught and removed the OR in question, I would respectfully disagree, at least with the diagnosis. Since my initial worries about tendentious editing, Silence of Lambs now strikes me instead as someone who clearly wants to build an encyclopedia, but hasn't got a good grasp of content policies—for what are ultimately borderline disruptive results, unfortunately. Remsense诉03:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Your OR warning on the editor's talk page also came shortly after being warned about this [reverted] edit to Succession of states involving even more blatant OR and section blanking without any edit summary attached. Is this a WP:CIR issue? - Amigao (talk) 03:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
That sequence seemed to me like one cut-and-paste job from Succession of states to Two Chinas, only after which I posted on their page. I obviously share concerns about competence in any case, though I still feel I should personally be patient with them. Unno. Remsense诉03:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Not sure about the NOTHERE, but I keep running across this editor. They've been here 5 years now and I'm concerned about competence at this point. They just made this edit where in a list of countries they link South Africa not to its country article, but to the Apartheid article. This is commonplace for their edits and I do get strong WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS from this editor. Those kind of minor under the radar edits are pretty common from them, especially linking countries to other things to make a point. I'm not convinced of their sincerity or competence. Canterbury Tailtalk12:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
They are simply a net negative for our readers. Here they simply blank the sources so our readers can't do any research or confirm the content. Moxy🍁 14:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. Since this ANI has commenced, we are still seeing the same old pattern of disruptive behavior (e.g., adding unsourced OR text with no WP:ES whatsoever). After months of warnings on the user's talk page and a temporary block, it is stretching credulity whether the user is truly WP:HERE. - Amigao (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
The same user made edits on 15 July (here and here) in which citations were used that clearly did not back up the added text. This is worse than simply adding unsourced text since it could be an attempt to obfuscate WP:RS. - Amigao (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I also support an indef for lack of competence, faking references, POV editing, soapboxing, refusal to listen or communicate, trying to right great wrongs and present the world as it isn't. Take your pick. Canterbury Tailtalk14:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm leaning in this direction myself, though I'd like to give the user a little longer to respond here before actually deploying the nuclear option. Edits like the South African one which CT has raised above cannot be accurately described as anything but express vandalism, even if done for for "principled" (that is to say, ideological/RGW) reasons, as opposed to pure trolling. Five years is a long time here to still not show such a basic comportment with WP:HERE purposes, especially considering they don't seem to be an infrequent contributor. Ideally they comment here in the next few days, have a dialogue with the community about what is and is not acceptable conduct here and commit to making necessary changes or, failing that, I say move forward with the indef plan until they do undertake such communication and assurances. SnowRise let's rap02:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I'd like to give the user a little longer to respond here I checked before registering an opinion; SoL has made a lot of edits since being notified of this discussion, so the lack of response appears to be a choice. Schazjmd(talk)13:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
They know where their talk page is, and they read talk page messages. I think they're trying to ignore the problem until it goes away. They've had their chance to respond here, and if we wait until they respond or edit again then this could be archived away and forgotten until next time. We don't need their input to reach a conclusion, their lack of input at this point is conscious so lets not wait for something that isn't forthcoming. Canterbury Tailtalk15:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough. For what it's worth, I was thinking waiting a day or two, not long enough for the discussion to be archived without action. But I'm not going to lose any sleep over the matter if the consensus is that waiting would be a waste of community patience; even just looking at the matters that have been reported here, the issues with this user's approach are non-trivial, and if they have been ignoring this discussion, well that's on them. SnowRise let's rap23:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I think it's time to call time on this thread. The subject doesn't wish to participate, or is avoiding scrutiny, so it's now up to us to make a decision. Indef block or not for CIR, NOTHERE etc.? Canterbury Tailtalk19:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
They've edited again since and refused to communicate and participate. They're avoiding scrutiny. I've gone ahead and indeffed them. Their other recent edits need to be reviewed and possibly reverted as well. Canterbury Tailtalk17:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At Radio - Made the unsupported claim Ferdinand Braun "invented the phased array antenna, which led to the development of radar, smart antennas, and MIMO" [112], was reverted [113], reverted it back in with a different non-supporting "Radio Astronomy" source [114], was reverted [115], added a blog source [116], was reverted noting blogs and WP:RS [117], reverted it back in citing the same blog [118], was reverted [119], reverted it back in using the "Radio Astronomy" source again [120]
History of radio - copy/pasted same "facts" (and erroneously copying hidden code) from Radio to History of radio without a reliable source but with the rational " Inserting Braun as the as the man who shared the nobel prize with Marconi" [121], Reverted it with "Not part of the introduction summary of wireless telegraphy", and expanded on the problems on their talk page [122], they reverted back saying the full story had to be told [123], reverted it out noting the multiple problems with the edit [124] and further explained in talk [125], they reverted and copied in more material from Karl Ferdinand Braun[126], was reverted noting the repeated blog problem [127], reverted it back - back to the rational "Marconi SHARED the nobel prize with him" [128].
Invention of radio - copy/pasted same "facts" (and erroneously copying hidden code) from Radio, was reverted then partially reverts back in "phased array antenna" claim [129].
Also at Germans - large scale edit about the German diaspora groups [131], was reverted, reverted it back in [132], was reverted, copy/pasted every German who won a Nobel prize [133], was reverted [134], reverted part of it back as a gallery [135], was reverted [136].
That user has multiple warnings for copying within Wikipedia, and they do not seem to understand or care. If they fail to respond to this ANI, we may have to resort to a WP:COI block until they acknowledge the problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite16:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
24.125.98.89 was previously blocked multiple times for disruptive NOTHERE comments, most recently a three-month block in April that expired just recently. At their last ANI report, myself and others also expressed concern that, based on behavior, the IP could possibly be a sock of CBANned user LaserLegs, who himself was blocked for racist comments a while back.
As said previously, the three-month block expired on July 7. They shortly returned with some comments at Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump, which, while semi-questionable in nature, aren't really block-worthy - that said, they followed that up today with this edit at ITNC, a former domain of LaserLegs, with this comment:
Students in Bangladesh fight for merit based employment while in the West radicalized anti-White marxists struggle to preserve hateful woke DEI exclusionary policies.
While in a vacuum I don't think one edit like this would be quite enough for another sanction, it's pretty clear they've learned absolutely nothing from prior blocks for this exact sort of thing - they've used up their entire WP:ROPE by this point. TheKip(contribs)15:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Gotcha. Normally wouldn’t post it, but the diff is of an attempted full addition to ITN/C, so figured it may get lost in the pile, so to speak. TheKip(contribs)15:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Note that the IP created a parallel ITN/C discussion to an already existing discussion from few days back, just adding the trollish rationale and with a non-specific link to protests. Seemingly not done in good faith, but rather an issue of WP:POINT indirectly commenting on that the Bangladesh protests not being placed on main page yet. --Soman (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This IP has a very lengthy history of adding unsourced content (1, 2, 3) and ignoring MOS guidelines – ENGVAR in particular (1, 2). They are still non-communicative and still failing to use edit summaries. I've reported them previously for their editing (see here). They were blocked for a week back in December, and I'm not sure what to suggest here moving forward. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 03:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Sigh... other user is talking about this edit; they added Wakamatsu Tea and Silk Farm Colony to a list of territories legally defined by the Empire of Japan as gaichi (constituent external colonies and territories). According to this Kotobank entry, the term specifically referred to territories that were under Japan's legal control prior to its defeat in 1945. The meaning of this term is very narrow. This study on Japanese colonialism by Kan Kimura discusses the 1920 and 1943 laws that legally defined what the naichi ("Japan proper") and gaichi were: this farm is never mentioned. Neither any of the cited sources in the Wakamatsu Tea and Silk Farm Colony article nor elsewhere I checked in a quick web search turned up anything that confirmed the other user's assertion, which seems to be based on their misunderstanding of the term "colony". According to Webster's Dictionary, a "colony" is defined as "an area over which a foreign nation or state extends or maintains control", as well as a "a group of people who settle together in a new place". All evidence makes clear that the latter usage was certainly intended in the naming of this colony.
To be clear, I'd have no problem with this user's edit if they simply provided evidence to prove their assertion that this farm in central California was a legal constituent territory of the Empire of Japan. I'd gladly retract my objections if they did. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Just realized that the source the other user says I dismissed is this one from the website of Walk the Farm, a Nisei farming organization established in 2011 to assist farmers affected by natural disasters. They do not run the Wakamatsu Tea and Silk Farm Colony (that would be California State Parks). Even if they did, the cited link states that the Japanese immigrants that founded Wakamatsu did so in order to pursue "[their] unique version of the American dream". Nowhere does it say that these settlers sought to establish a gaichi colony for the Empire of Japan, which according to other cited sources in the article they were fleeing because they ended up on the losing side of the Boshin War. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
The reason the settlement is never mentioned in Kan Kimura's study is likely due to a lack of knowledge of the settlement. Also, both definitions of "colony" by Merriam-Webster fit the bill for the settlement. The farm was controlled by still-active samurai, which means that it was under Japanese control. A military is, by definition, an extension of a government. So the fact that the samurai were fleeing from the Japanese government does not change anything, as they did not renounce their service as samurai. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Just noting that when I closed they other thread, I did not, as DRPZ claims on CT’s talk page, recommend he bring this here. I recommended they discuss at the article talk pages, and then follow WP:DR if that didn’t work. I still don’t understand why so few new editors that run into conflict listen to advice, and think they know better. -Floquenbeam (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Again, the sources I cited above confirm that the other editor's assertion that the Wakamatsu farm in California was a legal constituent territory of the Empire of Japan is incorrect. Moreover, as I said before, the terms naichi ("inner lands", "mainland", or what in the immediate postwar would be referred to as the "home islands") and gaichi (colonies and concessions under the legal control of the empire) were strictly defined and encoded in laws passed in 1920 and 1943. Contrary to the other editor's belief, the farm in California was never mentioned in any of those laws and, therefore, does not qualify as a colony of the Empire of Japan as recognized by the country itself. Whether there were former military among these immigrants is irrelevant. (Their presence is questioned in one of the sources below.)
Wakamatsu was an important milestone not in the history of Japanese colonialism, to which it is irrelevant, but to the Japanese immigrant experience in the United States. Various sources confirm this; none mention anything about these immigrants acting as agents of Japanese colonialism. For example:
California State Parks webpage on the Wakamatsu farm: "This pioneering settlement is the first Japanese community to establish themselves in California." Also, according to the photo of the plaque from the site itself: "First settlement of pioneer Japanese immigrants".
Pacific Pioneers: Japanese Journeys to America and Hawaii, 1850–1880 by John E. van Sant, p. 118: "The Wakamatsu colonists are, however, historically important for three reasons. First, they established the largest Japanese enclave in the United States before the beginning of systematic Japanese immigration in the mid-1880s. Second, they were the first group of Japanese intending to permanently settle in the country. Finally, although they did not directly influence the process of emigration from Japan, they were the vanguard of Issei (first-generation Japanese immigrants) to the United States."
Farm history from the American River Conservancy, which owns the property: "On June 8, 1869, the first Japanese settlers in North America arrived in a region named 'Gold Hill' near Coloma where the California gold rush began ... Recognized by many as the 'Japanese American Plymouth Rock', Wakamatsu Farm holds three distinctive first honors: site of the first Japanese colony in America, birthplace of the first birthright Japanese American citizen, [and] Resting place of Okei, the first Japanese immigrant and woman buried on American soil. When she died at the age of 19 in 1871, Okei became a symbol of dignity and sacrifice for future Japanese immigrants pursuing the American dream..."
Wakamatsu Farm and the Birth of Japanese America by Daniel A. Métraux re. samurai immigrants at Wakamatsu: "There is a legend that many of the Japanese workers were from the samurai class. This is impossible to verify because there are insufficient details concerning the identity of the workers, but the U.S. Census of 1870 does provide some clues. It lists 22 Japanese with Schnell in the Gold Hill District of Coloma, including 14 men, six women and two children. Their occupations are listed as carpenters and farm workers, which in most cases is probably accurate. It is entirely possible, however, that one or more of the Japanese were indeed of samurai rank, but we cannot be absolutely sure".
Also according to Métraux, Wakamatsu was founded on the initiative of a German businessman resident in early Meiji Japan, not Japanese: "Although Wakamatsu Farm was the first Japanese colony in North America, it seems that the scheme was directed by John Henry. It is likely that he conceived the idea, recruited the Japanese workers, bought agricultural supplies to bring to California, financed the transport of Japanese, bought the land at Gold Hill, and directed all the operations from June 1869 to June 1871". Its founding was likely based on the hope of establishing a lucrative silk industry in California (p. 134). It had nothing to do with furthering Japan's colonialist aims, which were non-existent at this very early stage in its modernization.
A contemporary news source quoted in Métraux (p. 134) state that the immigrants arrived to help boost local industry: "With their industry and highly developed skills, they have come with their families to help develop our resources". —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Just because the settlement was not recognized as legally belonging does not mean that it was not owned by Japan. And again, the samurai who administered the colony were still serving as military personnel and therefore, the settlement was a legal constituency. You also ignored the other examples I provided, such as Fort Ross, California being an unrecognized constituency of the Russian Empire. Wakamatsu was both important as a mere settler community and as a territory governed by military personnel, whether they were loyal to their government or not. The fact that the farm was not categorized as a colony does not prove your point, as, again, it was governed by soldiers, even if it was not recognized by the Japanese government. The farm did not have to be colonial in order to be considered a possession of Japan. Even if the idea of a Japanese colony was financed by John Henry, that does not change the fact that the settlement was administered by Japanese samurai.
According to Métraux, samurai cannot even be confirmed among the Wakamatsu immigrants, let alone in control of the farm. You haven't provided anything to support your opinion, other than WP:OTHERCONTENT. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
User:81.168.2.69 has been constantly reverting good edits. They have called them BS (although they didn't use the acronym) and said that they were reverting LTA (even though they were reverting an unbanned user with a long history of good edits). They are also very persistent to say the least. Gaismagorm (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
They have a lot of unreverted edits. Can you identify, say, three recent edits that are a problem, with a brief explanation? If you could point to where an attempt was made to engage the IP, a block for continuing would be reasonable. Johnuniq (talk) 06:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Johnuniq, I went to their talk page to warn them about metro.co.uk being an unreliable source per WP:METRO, in this edit they made today (July 21), and saw three warnings already from 2024 about them adding unsourced or poorly sourced content, so what's the point of adding another warning when they have ignored the previous warnings. Additionally, they reverted an edit (same diff above) I made per MOS:COLLAPSE - content in an article should never be collapsed by default - without leaving an edit summary as to why they reverted my edit. They also removed a redirect today without leaving an edit summary in this edit, leaving the article unsourced. They also added an unsourced date of birth today in this edit and changed the date format being used in the article, again without an edit summary. And going back to October 2021, they have never responded to any of the warnings on their talk page, and in their last 500 edits, they have never left an edit summary explaining their edits. So I'd say that communication is required from them as to why they are repeatedly adding unsourced/poorly sourced content, and why they are changing date formats, and edit summaries sure are appreciated.Isaidnoway(talk)23:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
The point of trying to engage IPs is that it is not scalable to rely on admins to explain problems. However, you are right that the IP needs to communicate and deal with the issues raised on their talk. They have an interesting block log and I blocked for six months. Johnuniq (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
and if it dies down and my semis are no long needed, feel free to unprotect. Was in the moment to stop the worst of the nonsense. There's an SPI awaiting a clerk, but after round 2 I didn't log them there. Just blocking and reverting. StarMississippi00:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I'll be around the next few hours or so. There is a great recent changes filter I use on my personal laptop, but don't have at work. Will see if I can find it in the archives and share if I do. Daniel (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Something like this. It has the new AIV bot in it unfortunately, but is still effective at picking the AfD silliness. Daniel (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Walco1 changing name line in infoboxes against guidelines
Thank you Canterbury Tail (talk·contribs). Allow me to clarify my position. A knighthood in the British honours system allows one to prefix one's name with the title "Sir or "Dame". This is not an alternative name but a title. This was discussed here and editors other than myself have begun to make the change to some of the most well known recipients of this honour in history, such as Sir Winston Churchill, Sir John A. Macdonald, and Sir Isaac Brock, just name a few. I had been frustrated by seeing Sir in the honorific prefix field in the past, as it is incorrect to place it beside styles such as "The Right Honourable" which are only referred to in the third person, but I had not made these changes as I knew, as incorrect as it was, it was not Wikipedia policy. I was glad to see changes made to the above mentioned knights. I was making these changes to make the pages of other knights consistent with the more high profile knights, such as Sir Keir Starmer, on whose pages edits are heavily scrutinized. This was done in good faith. Walco1 (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Actually yes I agree with the others above in reading MOS:SIR again. MOS:SIR is quite clear that it's a title not a name, being knighted doesn't actually change your name. It's a prefix title, not a name. You'll need to get consensus to change MOS:SIR. Also note MOS:CONSISTENT doesn't say what you think it says, it says we need to be consistent within an article, not between articles. I don't question the good faith, but it's been brought to your attention now so unless there is an MOS consensus otherwise you need to stop in my opinion. I think the main problem here is different infoboxes approach what appears at the top in different ways and not all have the titles. Canterbury Tailtalk23:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
A lot of the edits User:Walco1 made were simply to reverse disruptive edits by another editor, who moved thousands of "Sir" from "name" to "prefix". Take, at random, Sir Gilbert Parker, 1st Baronet. "Sir" was in the name field from 2015 to 2023 without objection, when an editor moved it as part of an edit spree involving thousands of articles. User:Walco1 was merely restoring the status quo ante. Atchom (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
MOS:SIR says that "Sir" is to be placed in bold with the full name of the subject at the beginning of the article, so under the MOS "Sir" is clearly not treated in the same way as "His Excellency" and other similar predicates. Atchom (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I think the governing rule in this case is the parameter documentation for Template:Infobox person, which states for "honorific_prefix": "This is for honorifics of serious significance that are attached to the name in formal address, such as knighthoods, 'The Honourable', and 'His/Her Excellency'". The honorifics covered by MOS:SIR are a bit weird in that they can be used with the first name only, which most honorifics can't (e.g., referring to someone as "Sir John" is normal, as "Hon. John" is not), which is why that piece of MOS exists, I suppose. So perhaps you could make a case for changing the infobox documentation to put them in the "name" parameter, but as it stands, if we're going to be consistent, we should also be consistent with the documentation as written and put them in "honorific_prefix". Choess (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
But infobox documentation is explicitly not evidence of consensus under Wikipedia guidelines, so this seems like a case of the tail wagging the dog. Atchom (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
User: Walco1, As you admitted above you knew this "was not Wikipedia policy" but you went ahead changing templates with out getting consensus on the guideline and/or a consensus change on the template because? Its a bold move but that puts us under WP:BRD, it gets reverted and then you can try for a consensus change. That's the way Wikipedia works. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Fountains of Bryn Mawr, I saw discussions of it on the talk pages of other articles, saw it in practices on other articles, so made the bold choice to apply it to other articles, in good faith, thinking it had changed. If you have objections to its placement there I again invite you to participate in the discussion. If your objection is merely with my actions, I have not many any such edits since the discussion on this board began and am seeking consensus. Walco1 (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Walco, by starting that discussion to change SIR, you have acknowledged that SIR does not support your changes, and it follows therefore that your edits were not supported by any policy or guidelines, and that you edited dozens and dozens of articles despite having that knowledge. Ergo, your edits were disruptive. GiantSnowman10:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Walco1 most certainly has not indulged in vandalism. The threat of blocking needs to be retracted and an apology issued. This is a clear case of an admin overstepping the mark. This is a highly controversial issue, as those involved are (or should be) aware, and the relevant guidelines contradict one another. MOS:SIR most certainly mandates it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, Necrothesp, I appreciate your words. In hindsight I should not have attempted to make the change in one fell swoop but maintain it was done in good faith and given the uncertainty between Infobox guidelines, MOS, etc. not an expressly forbidden act. Walco1 (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm facing persistent issues with edit warring on the article Voice of Reason. SPAHighDunker has repeatedly attacked me, and despite my attempts to seek mediation and address the removal of cited content, the situation has worsened. The latest personal attack involves false accusations, including terms like 'paid propagandist,' [141] which I have never used. I have asked the individual several times to remove or retract these claims [142][143], but they have ignored my requests, doubling down [144]. Their disruptive editing behaviour is ongoing; they refuse to engage in meaningful discussion,[145] provide diffs, or explain their rationale. Previously, they falsely claimed to have built consensus, a claim which has been challenged by multiple other users. I am seeking assistance with this issue. Michalis1994 (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Your last link does not show anyone accusing HighDunker of vandalism. I was telling them not to call your edits in this dispute vandalism. --Onorem (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
You were right in correcting me about this, I have stopped calling his edits vandalism. That he admitted to waiting out a day to abuse the 3 revert rule though, is clearly visible in that talk page. HighDunker (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
According to @Michalis1994 's own words about me: "You keep spewing lies to support your obvious bias and likely connection to the party.". This is not a personal attack, it is a mere acknowledgement of a personal attack *you* made against me. As for your edits, you have been told *numerous times* to stop reverting a very contentious part of a specific article until it can be properly discussed. You ignored those warnings and make your edits anyway. As for the consensus you mention lastly: It was there, me and another editor did agree on a specific edit, which you then reverted. It wasn't a large amount of editors, but it was a plurality of editors nevertheless. This very topic you created is a false accusation against me, which I implore any admin who sees this to take some action against. This specific user has overstepped the boundaries of civil discussion with me *multiple times*. HighDunker (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Your failure to provide any differences indicates that you cannot substantiate your claims, which will likely lead to ongoing issues. Michalis1994 (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Stop with the single purpose account accusations, my account is months old and I simply found my login and used it now. I have also edited the greek Wikipedia for other articles. These accusations are simply unfounded. HighDunker (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I, Onorem and VQuakr, have tried to talk sense into these two editors, in terms of edit-warring, personal attacks and dispute resolution, but to no avail. I'd block both of them and may do that; they've wasted several editors' time, and now they want to waste the broader community's time.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Wow. I've asked for support regarding accusations where I specifically CC'ed you to request that the other editor remove quotations suggesting I labelled them a paid propagandist. Could you clarify why I am being blocked and on what grounds this decision is being proposed? Michalis1994 (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I showed exactly what part I was referring to, this was not a false accusation and the one who should be reprimanded is you! HighDunker (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Woah I just said I'm not going to continue the edit war and apologized for calling the other editor's edits vandalism. There is no need for any of that. HighDunker (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
@Michalis1994: Political articles in general, including Greek political articles, are a difficult subject area to edit because of the frequency and intractability of disputes. I suggested a path forward, WP:DRN, which is advice you appear to have ignored. To be frank, I feel that you lack the requisite experience to edit successfully in a contentious topic area at this time. My suggestion would be to edit in other subject areas for a few months, get into a few minor disagreements and get accustomed with our community norms on how content disputes are resolved without edit warring or getting personal or nasty. That will put you in a much better position to edit successfully in any area. I noted earlier to you, it's difficult to overstate how tenuous your situation is here. Your situation has not improved with this report, and you are right on the ragged edge of Bbb23's substantial patience. VQuakr (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
That is incorrect. I have taken your advice into consideration and have already requested mediation. In this section, I have reported false accusations regarding quotations I have never used on WP. Also, why am I being targeted here? I specifically asked for help concerning words I have never used. How is this related to political articles on WP? Did I accuse anyone of being a 'paid propagandist'? Michalis1994 (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
User:Michalis1994 - You requested mediation at DRN, and a few hours after making that request, you made this report at WP:ANI. At DRN, we do not deal with a dispute that is also pending in another content forum or conduct forum. So your request at DRN has been closed as also in another forum (this one, WP:ANI). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
After pulling a 3-month block on fr.wiki for repeatedly performing WP:SELFCITE edits, they have moved here to continue the same behavior. They are a WP:SPA and have been previously warned here not to continue the behavior. This has been ongoing for months and they have not so much as acknowledged the warnings, let alone shown any indication they will stop voluntarily. I think an indef is appropriate per WP:NOTHERE. Notified: [146]. VQuakr (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Done Indeffed with TPA removed. Black Kite (talk) 08:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Administrator note: I've blocked the user indefinitely per WP:HID. Not only they are open about their transphobia, their bias has clearly affected their edits, as can be seen here. Any admin dealing with an unblock request should strongly consider a TBAN on gender and sexuality. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 13:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely: User talk:Aimal12345#Indefinite block. El_C 12:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Facepalm Falsely accusing people of making personal attacks is frowned upon. I have provided 990 diffs of evidence. And AGF is, as they say, not a suicide pact and does not overrule WP:DUCK. Their contributions page is a list that follows the pattern I noted above: "positive fluff (brand did something sustainable) - brand opened store/factory- celeb became brand ambassador - adding a fake/incorrectly used/very weak ref". The fact that someone denies being a paid editor does not mean much. Polygnotus (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
