Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pingingisnot enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
SJ Morg – no respect to rules regulating reverting and content removal, possibly ownership, incivility
Dear Board, I'm forced to report this incident, as there's really no hope left after talking to the editor.
A brief synopsis: after seeing a quite embarassing revert of my edit (a tiny addition), I asked SJ Morg politely on his talk page about it. It's rather discourteous to make an editor who follows BRD wait, but the editor made me wait for six days, responding only after a reminder and essentially admitting the revert was incorrect in an unnecessarily long reply and providing a rather unconvincing explanation for it.
In my reply, among other things, I recommended the editor to read and respect rules dealing with reverts and content removal and shared my observations of his very high revert rate, once again communicating in a very polite manner in entire message and completely refraining even from any unpleasant yet deserved statements, like recommending to consult a map before reverting others' edits (which I considered including, but decided against doing so).
The editor not only didn't take my recommendation and observations properly, but responded (among other things) with "I reverted a single edit of yours, affecting just one sentence, and yet now you are urging me to read WP policies and guidelines – which I most likely am far more familiar with than you are (and which I support and adhere to)." and a strange derogatory remark regarding my alleged anonymity, whereas the editor is fully anonymous himself.
I gave a stern yet polite reply, asking the editor to refrain from derogatory assumptions and statements about people he obviously doesn't have a slightest idea about and drawing his attention to the fact that this incident was not a one-off event, as even a brief look at his record shows recent incorrect reverts and rollbacks and that my initial observations regarding his revert rate and revert-only days hold true for many recent months. Later I checked history of articles with incorrect reverts and once again found his earlier contributions to them – hence suspicions that it could well be a case of ownership.
In reply the editor accused me of constructing a "false argument" and stated "I don't know even know how to do a rollback, so I am really beginning to question your motives with this discussion" thus essentially accusing me of lying about him.
Afterwards he moved the entire talk page to archive, so I had to revert the move in order to post a reply, in which among other things I offered the editor to apologise for all of the incidents and explain the reasons for editing and communicating with no regard for code of conduct in trade for not submitting report to WP:ANI. The editor did not respond and just cleaned his talk page again not even bothering to add my message to archive, so in order to view the entire discussion, you'd need to view previous version of the talk page (last topic "Your revert in Bethany – why?"):
Apart from the obvious reasons of filing this report, my overriding reason for submitting it and appealing to the Board is that the editor is obviously not apologetic of anything, and I simply don't see him changing his ways of editing and communicating with others without exposure to your eyes and some help with delivery of the messages.
As for measures/sanctions which are applied for such misconduct in established order, I hereby ask the Board with all due respect for two things (either in addition to, or in place of regular measures):
1. Considering that the editor's record shows repeated cases of incorrect reverts (reverted in turn by original contributors and undisputed by SJ Morg), including recently and including rollbacks (which he denied to me in a very uncivil manner), and the editor's very high revert rate with many days when he literally does nothing but revert, please recommend community members, who specialize in examining editors' records, take a closer look at SJ Morg's record, as I fear there can well be many more examples of unjustified reverts, which were uncontested by editors who made good contributions in fact, and restore those contributions.
2. Please oblige SJ Morg to move only the discussion concerning this issue out of archive back to the talk page with my last message left intact and to keep it on the talk page along with the WP:ANI notice for a period of minimum of five years (with both to be archived afterwards) – I do hope this measure will be both sufficient and effective enough to help the editor work out a much more disciplined and responsible approach to reverting, content removal and communicating with others.
I very much count on your support in dealing with this matter, as I wouldn't wish any good editor who follows BRD to encounter an undeserved revert by SJ Morg and/or read his completely undeserved uncivil comments, it was an extremely distressing experience (starting with making an editor wait for six days). 188.66.34.134 (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to say something similar myself after trying to read this. If you want volunteers to respond to your reports you have to learn to say things succinctly and with diffs. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "misconduct" here. Kindly read WP:NODEADLINE. This is a volunteer project. You are not entitled to a response within six or any number of days. The editor may be sick, or on vacation. The editor may have had a family emergency, or a school or work project that is taking up all of the editor's bandwidth. The editor may just be in a mood in which the editor chooses to spend the editor's free time learning to cook paella or do taekwondo. The editor may just be annoyed by you and choosing not to engage with you at the moment. None of these things are "misconduct", and if you find this experience "extremely distressing", this may not be the right environment for you. (And what "Board" are you talking about "appealing to"?) Julietdeltalima(talk)00:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Phil Bridger: to be honest, I don't understand at all why would anyone need diffs in this case, as the revert diff is in the very first message and everything else is on the talk page I linked, and separate diffs would only take something out of context. Nor can I understand the apparent displeasure with me allegedly not telling what this is about, as I specifically mentioned topic name right before the link, so it's easy to find.
As for BRD, that's because anyone who is actually familiar with it knows that a user's talk page is just as fine to discuss the matter, and, besides, this revert obviously concerns the editor rather than the article.
Julietdeltalima: you have completely missed the point (please read the title of report).
Interestingly, SJ Morg seems to really have zero respect to any rules – I asked him why he threw away my message from the archive along with WP:ANI notice without regard for relevant code of conduct, but I think his only reaction will be to delete this msg as well: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1133409179
Note: I'm thinking of writing an essay/article (working title is "When following BRD can be a bad idea") I could propose to The Signpost, and if they are not interested, could post it on one of my web resources. It would cover the incident and its processing here and would hopefully help fellow Wikipedians cope with editors like SJ Morg. Question: does anyone of you mind if I quote your comment(s) with your username or userpage link next to it? I will default to "No", as the work you do is very important for Wikipedia and you must be very proud of how you both help people and help Wikipedia be a civil place, but just in case you do mind my quoting you, please make it clear then. 188.66.32.25 (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:OWNTALK, "Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. Users may also remove some content in archiving." There is no policy or guideline or rule violated by SJ Morg removing your comments or the ANI notice. Your request labelled 2. above is not going to happen. Schazjmd(talk)17:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, original poster. To expand on Schazjmd’s excellent points, it is not “just as fine to discuss the matter” on a user’s talk page. The point of article talk pages is to allow community members interested in a given article to discuss issues on a talk page permanently linked to that article, whether particular contributors to that article fade away over the years or prefer (as is allowed!) to keep clean user talk pages. Article talk needs to go on article talk pages. Full stop.
And you began and ended your report complaining that this other user didn’t get back to you within, heaven forfend, six days, on a deadline-free volunteer-operated project that everyone here works into their free time on an entirely uncompensated basis, so what am I missing? That seems to have been a significant predicate for your report, and it’s invalid. Over and out. Julietdeltalima(talk)08:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Following WP:BRD is a very good idea. Try following it rather than misreading it. You were reverted, as allowed. The next step is to discuss the issue on the article talk page. I note that the original edit that was reverted was both unsourced and extremely trivial, and that the latest edit to Bethany, Oregon was still unsourced and had the summary "consensus achieved". Where was consensus achieved to include unsourced content? I see only one person in this discussion who is disrespecting the "rules", and that's not SJ Morg. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From SJ Morg: (I drafted the following before the last two posts were made, so let me thank Julietdeltalima and Phil Bridger for those comments, and others for earlier comments here, before proceeding with my post.) This anonymous IP editor is harassing me, repeatedly making very long posts to my talk page with false accusations and defamatory claims of policy violations without any evidence – even after being told "there's no misconduct here" in this Noticeboard thread. I replied to the only issue the editor raised about an article (involving a single edit by me with which they disagreed), and essentially everything they have posted subsequently has been personal, not about any specific article. I have tried to ignore the harassment and move on, but they won't stop. (Most of the 'discussion' can be found at the very end of User talk:SJ Morg/Archive 3, but the editor continued with this, which I did not archive, and for the moment the harassment is continuing on the current user talk page.) I would have looked into requesting a block if not for the fact that I don't know whether there is any practical way to block an unregistered editor whose IP address is different for every post that he/she makes. SJ Morg (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see two points worth addressing here, both in Schazmjd post:
1. Correct, however, per WP:TPG, which is general talk doc ("They (guidelines) apply not only to article discussion pages but everywhere editors interact, such as deletion discussions and noticeboards."):
"Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection."
"Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page."
And that's just as far as talking page guidelines are concerned, which I didn't even claim any violation of (see report title).
2. As for my request no. 2, my proposal is based on the premise that measures should better be preventive in the first place and punitive in the second (a clarification whether WP:ANI task force follows this approach or not is highly important for productive discussion), and I do think it will be an effective preventive measure for this editor. What's your disagreement is based on, however, is not clear at all, please clarify what kind of rationale is behind it, I don't see any.
Besides, I don't see any counter-proposal either. Hence the question: what sanctions/measures are currently applied in a regular fashion for, say, incivility (if possible, with relevant links) and what's the tentative plan of resolving this case, considering there are
two episodes of incivility (one of them was essentially accusing me of lying after mentioning incorrect rollback by SJ Morg),
multiple incorrect reverts/rollbacks which involved other editors (reverted in turn by original contributors and uncontested by SJ Morg),
possibly ownership,
the editor is clearly not apologetic of anything, so apparently is not changing his ways of editing and communicating with people (this report wouldn't have been filed if he apologised and explained the reasons, as I proposed at the end of my talking to him)? 188.66.34.66 (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SJ Morg reverted your edit; you asked about it on his talk page; he replied with an explanation, and concluded However, you would not be incorrect if you were to reinstate your edit, but if so I would urge you to say the "Oak Hills CDP", since Portland-area residents commonly consider the area west of Oak Hills (neighborhood), i.e. west of NW Bethany Blvd., to part of Bethany and most would very surprised to find that the Census Bureau considers it to be part of Oak Hills (CDP).
That should have been the end of it. You could have reinstated your edit in the way he recommended, or opened a talk page discussion on the article to get consensus for the change you preferred.
Your persistence[1][2] in escalating issues on SJ Morg's talk page, including reverting his archive of the discussion, as well as your incorrect insistence that WP:TPG don't permit him to archive/remove discussions from his talk page without your permission[3] and this tirade are over the line. You escalated a simple content dispute. Let it go. Schazjmd(talk)19:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What does SJ Morg have to be apologetic about? He was the one following WP:BRD, not you. Your failure to listen to anyone here who has explained how you are wrong is indistinguishable from trolling. You are guilty of everything that you have complained about. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IP-editor needs to drop the stick. I see no ANI-worthy incivility or ownership on the part of SJ Morg. They are perfectly entitled to remove content from their own talk page, per the policy that has been pointed out to IP editor around five times already. Also, did IP-editor really write Please oblige SJ Morg to move only the discussion concerning this issue out of archive back to the talk page with my last message left intact and to keep it on the talk page along with the WP:ANI notice for a period of minimum of five years (with both to be archived afterwards) – I do hope this measure will be both sufficient and effective enough to help the editor work out a much more disciplined and responsible approach to reverting, content removal and communicating with others. and expect to get taken seriously? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A note on BRD for Julietdeltalima and Phil Bridger: I normally don't respond to commenters who show what their actual level of knowledge is (without even realizing it), but seeing how you two insist that SJ Morg is the one following BRD, or that discussion must be held on article page, I think I'll write a bit.
As I already said, anyone familiar with BRD knows that using user's talk page is just as fine. Anyone not familiar with BRD should start by reading WP:BRD, which I will quote personally for you folks:"You can use the article's talk page (preferred) or the editor's user talk page, or invite the editor to the talk page if they insist on using only edit summaries, but one or the other is the proper forum for the discussion component of the BRD cycle." and then proceed to examining edits of editors who use BRD on a regular basis and have a good grasp of when discussion belongs to article page and when it doesn't (to an experienced editor it's obvious this one doesn't). And while we're at it, do you mind me quoting what you said here regarding BRD and other stuff with your userpage links in the article I'm writing, which will cover this incident, its processing here and will hopefully help fellow Wikipedians cope better with offenders like SJ Morg and show what to expect from filing a report to WP:ANI (I'll take "no" by default as I said)? I'm currently thinking of doing two versions, one for Wikipedians (via The Signpost or some other way if they are not interested) and one for general reader I'll post on one of my web resources (working title is "The Dark Side of Wikipedia", subject to change).
Schazjmd: From the talk page it's obvious that the fault for escalation lies entirely with SJ Morg. At times I urge editors to respect rules as that's what every responsible editor can easily do to make Wikipedia better (you can find a couple more cases in the last month or two), and it's quite clear this message by me didn't call for any continuation whatsoever and should have been the end of it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1130937921 After being pointed out in a polite manner that an edit violates rules (and everyone here apparently agrees with me, as there have been no objections), an editor is free to refute it, but do so staying within Code of Conduct. However, unlike any polite and respectable editor, SJ Morg responded instead with his first personal attack at me by appealing to authority instead of guidelines and assuming he is far more familiar with rules than another editor: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1131035880 And once again, I haven't seen any disagreement from anyone here that it was a completely undeserved personal attack. Then I pointed out (again, in a very polite manner which noone here finds any fault with) that his record shows other incorrect reverts and rollbacks. SJ Morg responded this time with more personal attacks, accusing me of creating "false argument" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1132130074 and denying incorrect rollbacks in a highly uncivil manner, essentially accusing me of lying about him: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1132124883 And again, I haven't seen any disagreement here that these personal attacks were completely uncalled for.
Bottomline: apparently, noone here disputes claims of the report or is capable of pointing out a slightest violation on my part – only strawman arguments from some quarters, one after another.
That being said, a word to admins involved with my report as well as to those who oversee the case without commenting: I stand by my original proposals on how to resolve this case as I still haven't seen anything more constructive (the case is obviously not about a single revert: SJ Morg's reverts should better be examined by those who specialize in it with good contributions restored, to begin with), I look forward to seeing answers to the important questions from my previous message (what are the usual sanctions for incivility etc.), and just in case there are plans to state there are no violations here and issue relevant resolution, I will take the case to ArbCom immediately – there should be no doubt in anyone's mind about it. I currently ponder dropping a msg to Jimmy as well to draw his attention to this case depending on what the resolution will be, maybe with a draft of my article.
And a word to SJ Morg: additional insults and unfounded accusations will not help you, by doing that you're just digging a grave for yourself. And should this case end up at ArbCom, I'll supplement it with incivilities from this topic, so my good advice to you would be to stop before it's too late (although I think you went past that point when you turned down my offer to apologise and explain your conduct). 188.66.35.232 (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can an admin take any action about this troll whose IP address keeps changing? Everything she or he accuses others of is actually their own behaviour. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You two should really study the links below and stop making various derogatory assumptions about IP editors by default, when you have no idea about the editor's contributions – whether to use an account or not is a personal choice of every editor and must be respected. Consider this my first and last warning to both of you.
The same from me. I edited unregistered myself for a few years, so have nothing against IP editors (as they are wrongly called here - everyone is actually an IP editor) per se, but I do have something against editors of any sort who refuse to accept consensus, and who waste volunteer's time by escalating such a trivial dispute. I repeat my plea for an admin to do something about this trolling. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder, who gave you, along with SJ Morg, a right to insult people? Do you three have a personal exemption from established civility norms? Show it.
I'll give you a chance to apologise for calling me a troll, but in case you insist on that, I will supplement my filing to ArbCom with this insult as well. The choice is yours. 188.66.32.230 (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SJ Morg has not insulted you. He simply reverted, per WP:BRD, an unsourced and extremely trivial edit that you made, such as happens many times every day. If you want to argue about me to ArbCom then please do, but don't expect an apology from me for stating the obvious. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ToPhil Bridger: Stating the obvious? I don't see anything obvious at all in calling a polite and intelligent person and a proficient editor, which I am, a troll – it's insulting in the extreme. Besides, by referring to me as "this troll whose IP address keeps changing" you not only insult me, you're being negative about many other IP editors – and that's a much bigger deal. Both Association of IP editors I mentioned and ArbCom may have serious questions to you upon seeing such irrational hate speech directed at me and many others (Code of Conduct explicitly bans all sorts of insults and hate speech, in case you didn't know).
As for SJ Morg, he insulted me twice during the discussion, and then continued with more insults here, wrongfully accusing me of the following:
harassments
false accusations
defamatory claims of policy violations without any evidence
And as I said, if I will have to submit this case to ArbCom, I will supplement it with more incivilities from this topic – his, yours, and whoever else's. There's a good reason why incivility is banned, as it can make any environment highly toxic, and the fact that unsanctioned incivility is self-replicating, is well-known. 188.66.34.101 (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. So far I stand by my original proposals for this case to check reverts and help the editor work out a more disciplined and responsible approach to reverting and communicating with others. In my opinion, traditional sanctions like blocking are neither necessary here, nor will they be very effective at preventing future incidents in the long run. 188.66.35.115 (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussions above are long (record-breaking?) and hard to decipher when one can't see deleted versions, but I understand that a) there were enormous problems with copyvio, too close paraphrasing, misrepresentation of sources, and self-promotion with Doug Coldwell (talk·contribs·logs); b) Coldwell is from Michigan with a connection to a library there; and c) Coldwell is blocked and topic-banned from GA/DYK.
I missed the ANI, but had independently discovered a very large problem throughout the Ludington family series of GAs by Coldwell, which promoted the notion of Sybil Ludington as a "female Paul Revere" based on self-published family accounts categorized by Hunt, a scholarly source, as less than reliable. The Ludington family account was authored by Willis Fletcher Johnson, but published privately by the Ludington family. It should be understood that Hunt implies, although does not directly state, that a profitable tourist, book and promotional industry arose around the notion of this "female Paul Revere", so there is a potential motive for continuing the less-than-reliable Ludington family accounts. I rewrote those articles in the second half of 2022 to include Hunt and other sources which question the Ludington family account. And a fine job of promoting those accounts Wikipedia had done.
All of Trahey's prior work on Wikipedia (2019), before recent editing of Willis Fletcher Johnson, was done in sandbox but was published by Coldwell (disregarding WP:CWW, btw).
I don't know what I have stumbled upon, but we have two editors making questionable edits to an article that formed the basis of a series of dubious GAs by Doug Coldwell, and we have similar gibberish content, misrepresentation of sources, and too close paraphrasing, so I hope those familiar with Coldwell's editing, and the past discussions, will have a look. I may have missed a lot in the lengthy discussions linked above, but something seems off in this sudden interest in rewriting Fletcher's article with a slant towards the Ludington family view. (Notifying Coldwell, Gorval and Trahey next.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: Both Gorval and Trahey remove content cited to Hunt that the Ludington account was published by his grandchildren, and replace it with original research about the printer, DeVinne Press.[5][6] We can't use our own research to refute a scholarly source and the title page of the work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that the image of the library on Thomas Trahey's userpage was uploaded by Coldwell which obviously is proof of nothing but just... c'mon.... Xx78900 (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, I am questioning whether a) the DYK/GA topic ban is sufficient, b) whether it should be extended to other editors (whose editing is surely too old to be considered at SPI), and c) whether the CIR issues in current editing at the Johnson article also need scrutiny. There's more than SPI going on here. Re-reading some of the linked discussions above, the extent to which Coldwell's work was defended by GA/DYK regulars is shocking, considering the severity of the problems I happened upon merely by seeing a "doesn't pass the duck test" post on Facebook about "the female Paul Revere", and finding Coldwell had spread this across perhaps a dozen GAs, by misrepresenting the Johnson source as being published by Harvard University. The work I have seen is perfectly summed up by this post from EEng. One wonders if the level of competence issues would have been uncovered sooner had Coldwell submitted to FAC. At any rate, the whole situation is odd, and I posted to here to get more eyes from those familiar with a mess too big for me to digest without access to deleted versions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For example, the Trahey/Gorval edits have Willis Fletcher as a descendent of Samuel Johnson (not what the source says) and have him graduating from New York Unnversity, when the source says he didn't graduate ... along with the original research about the publisher of the Ludington memoir. (I suspect I've only scratched the surface of the issues at that article ... noting that the Ludington series was GA'd by Coldwell several years after the 2015 Hunt paper, and there are other sources discrediting that story, which were omitted). What I uncovered in the Ludington issue does not speak well for the rest of Coldwell's GA/DYK work, or the fact that most of this was apparently missed, and later defended by some at the ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A quick Google-search on their names +Ludington shows that Coldwell and Trahey are two real-life individuals (of different generations) cooperating to promote their hometown, Ludington, MI, and not socking (per the strict definition of it), and even WP:MEAT would be very difficult to prove. - Tom ✓ | Thomas.W talk15:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two basically inactive editors (one of whose work was previously published by Coldwell) turn up to promote the author of a piece that is the basis for a series of Coldwell GAs, and also misrepresent sources, create poor content, and closely paraphrase; what is difficult there ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As is stated further up Coldwell published articles written in Trahey's sandbox, so maybe Trahey wrote them all, or at least many of them, and is continuing to write, but now publishing them under his own name. A way of doing things that there AFAIK is no policy against (other than it perhaps being a case of "copying within Wikipedia", if that also covers sandboxes and not just article space; but that would be Coldwell violating the rules, and he's already blocked...). If Trahey continues with a behaviour that is an exact copy of Coldwell's, he could be blocked in his own right, but the probability of Coldwell and Trahey being two different individuals sharing the same interest is so high that I, if I were a CU (which I, thank God or whoever handles things like that nowadays, am not) would not run a check on them. As for the third account I have no opinion. - Tom ✓ | Thomas.W talk17:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Coldwell was blocked indefinitely for cause and it's unlikely that an unblock request would be successful. If another account is carrying on similar behavior and is either him or knows him then that's not acceptable regardless of who is actually behind the account. Mackensen(talk)19:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was my understanding as well. I posted here out of concern that the expansion at Willis Fletcher Johnson indicates the possibility that the intent was to aim towards DYK, and the edits appear designed to specifically support the bias/inaccuracy introduced by Coldwell throughout a huge number of Revolutionary War GAs and articles. And that there is no need or reason for an SPI here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If Trahey also repeatedly introduces bias/inaccuracies to multiple articles, in spite of being told to stop, and why, he should be blocked, but that block would be because of his own actions (as I wrote above: "If Trahey continues with a behaviour that is an exact copy of Coldwell's, he could be blocked in his own right..."), but SPI, as was suggested further up here, and what I responded to, would not be the right venue for it. - Tom ✓ | Thomas.W talk21:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further investigation, I have now uncovered cut-and-paste copyvio at Willis Fletcher Johnson. [7][8] A further similarity to Coldwell is the use of offline sources that can't be checked. And another similarity to Doug Coldwell is the failure of either Gorval or Trahey to respond to this ANI.
Because of these similarities, and the possibility of further plagiarism or misrepresentation of sources at the Johnson article, I have reverted now the entire mess, as it's too much for me to check and rewrite. It may be too many edits to request a copyvio revdel back to the first copyvio edit by Gorval: will an admin please opine and assist? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This Gorval edit, after a 6 1/2 year absence, is suggestive of content developed in sandbox that contains cut-and-paste copyvio.
This series of Trahey edits contain too close paraphrasing of the source (architect and builder intellectual and philanthropist bit, and more).
@SandyGeorgia: just a quick note, while Doug Coldwell possibly did not respond to various attempts to discuss issues with their edits (I can't remember very well), they definitely did not fail to respond to the two ANIs. Actually regarding the 1108 ANI, I think many editors would argue both that they responses very unsatisfactory but more germane to your comment, that they responded way too much with such unsatisfactory responses. Nil Einne (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nil Einne: Actually for the 1108 discussion, as mentioned in the block log, Doug initially refused to take part in the ANI discussion and had to be hit with a temporary block to coerce him to join in the discussion, and then proceeded to brag about his accomplishments and make accusations when unblocked to participate. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum06:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both; as I didn't follow it all when it happened, I was seeking more information. But my main concern remains what GA and DYK are going to do to prevent all the same from happening again, if Coldwell intends to use sock or meatpuppets to achieve GA or DYK. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iazyges: Ah sorry I forgot about that block. I only re-checked that thread enough to confirm the memory I had of what happened which is that it was the thread where as you said, Coldwell seemed to repeatedly brag about their contributions as well as accuse others of jealousy and also seemed to suggest that the number of readers of their contributions proved they were fine. These repeated brags etc where why I said IMO they (ended up) responded way too. I also noticed Coldwell seemed to reply within about 25 hours of the thread starting which IMO is normally reasonable so assumed replying wasn't an issue there but missed the early discussion leading up to a block. (I can understand why it was a problem when Coldwell continued to edit with the same problems and had never shown any signs of communicating.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I blocked Coldwell as a result of the above-linked ANI, but I don't have time to dig into this right now with limited wiki time. If my block needs adjusting as a result of this revived account, please feel free. StarMississippi23:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a blatant case of either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, with the edits of the two accounts indistinguishable from Coldwells, including the same issues that lead to the block. Should thus be treated the same way, i.e. both blocked indef as well. Fram (talk) 08:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, but not an admin. I am more concerned about Coldwell continuing to aim towards DYK and GA, because his work demonstrates real problems of every kind, and the problems in Trahey's and Gorval's work is indistinguishable from those in Coldwell's work. Blocking those two accounts might stop this instance only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It shows how he worked when he began his "career" on WP, but the "sandbox account" he refers to can't be User:Thomas Trahey, since he talks about an account he used 16 years ago, because the Trahey account was created less than three years ago.
... and it can't be LordGorval (a user account that was created in 2007) either since that account only has three sandboxes, one with general beginner's stuff, one with religious texts and one that has never been edited. - Tom ✓ | Thomas.W talk11:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: With that said, it's better to concentrate on what the Gorval and Trahey accounts (and possibly other accounts) do on those articles than on trying to find evidence proving that Coldwell is operating the accounts, since any account that edits the same articles as Coldwell edited, adding the same bias/inaccuracies as Coldwell added, using the same dubious sources as Coldwell used, etc, can be blocked as if it is Coldwell regardless of if it has been proven at SPI or not (see WP:DUCK: "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck"). - Tom ✓ | Thomas.W talk13:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas.W I heard and understood your take on this situation the first time you stated it; you have now re-stated it five times, and your post at 11:55 contains statements that can't be factually proven. It would be helpful if you would let the discussion stay focused on whether these two accounts should be blocked, as discussed by Mackensen, Fram and Star Mississippi. I'm not an admin and not in the position of deciding whether a block is worthy here; I'm presenting what I know as I discover it, and if you keep repeating the same points, you make it harder for admins to see the forest for the trees. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: If you truly want to help admins decide you'll have to post diffs of identical or at least almost identical edits made by Coldwell and Gorval and/or Trahey side-by-side, so that anyone can see that Gorval and/or Trahey are continuing what Coldwell was doing, and not a link to Coldwell describing how he did when he started editing. Which is what I have hinted at all the time, it's the edits they make that count, and can get them blocked, and it's up to whoever reports something to provide diffs for those edits. - Tom ✓ | Thomas.W talk16:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)(Sorry if I seem less friendly than before, but the same goes for you...)[reply]
I have CU blocked both. I am convinced both by technical data and at least one non-technical item that the LordGorval account is operated by Doug Coldwell, besides the above listed behavior. The technical data, at least one non-technical item, and the behavior above also point to the Thomas Trahey account being operated by Doug Coldwell, but it also could be meatpuppetry indistinguishable from socking with the technical data in hand. I've put the data on CU wiki for anyone who wants to take a second look as well as the specific items that lead to the CU blocks.
Thx, Izno; I was hoping to get broader attention to the bigger picture re GA/DYK, and at the outset, was not that sure this was a sock/meat situation (it felt like an editathon at a library or some such). As I kept looking, it did become clearer ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gwillhickers making sure you saw this thread, as you copyedited immediately after both Gorval and Trahey's edits, and uploaded a photo from the source they used. As I reverted the lot for all the reasons given above, you might be interested in repairing whatever you can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: — Yes, I noticed the mass deletion on the Johnson article and was inclined to restore some items, but figured it best not to make any edits until the smoke cleared around here. Perhaps this is not the appropriate forum to be discussing article improvement, so I'll leave comments and questions on the Fletcher Talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Color me disappointed. I had Coldwell down as working in good faith but lacking some necessary level of awareness of what is appropriate use of sources and what is too much copying. It is hard to see socking block evasion as a good faith action. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When looking at the caption in the image at the top of his user page, it occurs to me that there was also a glaring miss on understanding copyright. Per WP:EL, Wikipedia is not supposed to host copyright violations. How would his local newspapers feel about those scans of the articles from his local newspaper he uploaded to Flicker and posted to Wikipedia? Reading those articles gives an interesting look into the personaggio.
"I happen to be one of the top Wikipedia scholars", He said.. Wikipedia scholars are the roughly two dozen top contributors to Wikipedia, Caldwell said.[9]
In reading through more of the older stuff, it's pretty shocking how many times his copyright violations were detected and never acted upon. The other alarming thing is that this is about the fourth time, IIRC, of similar coming out of the reward culture furthered by DYK. The addiction seems too hard to break.
I think he's blocked, his socks are now blocked, and there's really no reason to chop up his userpage to make a point. The wiki won, all is good. Parabolist (talk) 09:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The question is whether a Wikipedia user page can host a copyvio (in this case, in an image caption, @Moneytrees:); I'm fairly certain it can't, per WP:COPYLINK, although it's not clear if that applies to user space as well as article space.
Parabolist please avoid derailing good faith concerns with aspersions (egWP:POINT)-- this is one of the things that makes ANI so toxic.
I do not personally enforce WP:LINKVIO (and skeletons in the closet/dark secret of Wikipedia moment, I'm pretty sure I've even linked them in the context of out of print video gaming magazines in some ancient time on one or two pages, no doubt removed since by someone or another enforcing the policy of interest even though there's a probably a pretty strong case for their hosting them under fair use on their website), but my read of the policy today is that if we have a reasonable belief that he's linking to copyvios, someone could enforce the policy and remove the links. (Be careful when you use the word "host", since Wikipedia is not hosting copyright violations in this context, only linking to an external service hosting what we believe to be a copyright violation. Hence the specific link to LINKVIO rather than our overall policy.)
I'm not casting aspersions, or being "toxic", which cool, thanks, glass houses and whatnot, I'm asking if this is really worth anyone's time. The captions under an image in a blocked users page link to a flickr photo which might be a violation. Doug clearly was very very focused on his achievements, and now knowing that he is capable of socking, is it really worth antagonizing a blocked user over possibly one of the most minor rule violations in the entire wiki rule structure. So minor, in fact, that you barely know if it is one! Let his account die in peace, and let's try to avoid creating a hostile relationship that turns him into an LTA with a grudge. Parabolist (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In no universe did the wiki "win." Cleaning up the mess that Doug made will take years. In that time we're actively spreading bad information to other people. Mackensen(talk)00:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Request to close
The socks have been blocked. I'd appreciate this thread being left open as I work today on bringing forward some concrete proposals of the issues raised in both of the (above linked) ANIs that were left unresolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The immediate incident has been resolved, and I will likely launch broader proposals relating to all three ANIs elsewhere tomorrow, so closing this thread would be fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to AGF?
If it had been vandalism I would have had no objections, but it isn't, it's a content dispute (or more precisely: does mentions in passing by Paula Hunt override older sources). In small towns (Ludington, MI, has a population of only ~8K) working together on local projects, including promoting their own home town, meeting in a local library, at a local church or in someone's home, is common practice, so having occasionally edited using the same IP, or IPs in the same subnet, does not prove that the same individual has used three different computers side-by-side for purposes violating Wikipedia rules, especially not since there's no editing overlap at all between Coldwell and Trahey (i.e. there's not a single article that has been edited by both of them), only one single article (Willis Fletcher Johnson) that has been edited by both Trahey and LordGorval, and the editing overlap between Coldwell and LordGorval is mainly on articles about biblical names, and the Wikipedia Helpdesk. - Tom ✓ | Thomas.W talk11:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking what weight to give a 2015 scholarly source relative to a 1907 self-published family account?
Neither you nor I have access to the information all of the checkusers can see on CUwiki, which includes both technical and non-technical (behavioral) evidence.
You don't seem to have read the evidence: whether interaction shows on the tools is not a useful bit of info when everything Trahey wrote earlier on Wikipedia was published by Coldwell. That's interaction that won't be picked up by the tool. And that Gorval rarely edited topics of this nature, yet appeared to do so after an almost seven-year absence, and right after Coldwell asked to be unblocked so he could work on "his" articles, is interesting.
I don't know how much you know about computers, but FYI a laptop is a computer, and just a few steps up in this thread you yourself posted"... is CUWiki aware that Coldwell uses three laptops side-by-side..."}, and you also seem to have problems with the meaning of the word "mainly", since you chose to concentrate on Owain Gwynedd (where Gorval and Coldwell have made one edit each three years apart) instead of the multiple list articles about biblical names just below Gwynedd where Gorval and Coldwell have made multiple edits each (which FYI means that the overlap between them is mainly on lists of biblical names and Wikipedia helpdesks). - Tom ✓ | Thomas.W talk12:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for acknowledging that I did not state "for purposes violating Wikipedia rules". Re point 1, are you suggesting I should reinstate text that had cut-and-paste copyvio and too close paraphrasing along with factual inconsistencies? See WP:PDEL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Que? Socking refers to the misuse of multiple Wikipedia accounts, i.e. using multiple accounts in violation of Wikipedia's rules, that's what people get blocked for, not for having/using multiple accounts per se, since there are also legitimate uses for alternative accounts. Which means that having/using multiple accounts is blockable only if the multiple accounts have been found to have been used in violation of Wikipedia's rules. As for point 1: of course not, but do you feel that that by itself is enough of an offense to indeff both Thomas Trahey and LordGorval? - Tom ✓ | Thomas.W talk15:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am neither an admin nor a CU, nor did I file an SPI in this case. I have no cause to dispute that CUs independently (and based on info we are not privy to) found a connection and blocked. I would say that the articles Gorval and Coldwell shared an interest in are obscure enough to raise eyebrows. I trust the CU findings in this case.
You bludgeoned the last thread I was involved in at ANI, and now you're doing the same here. All of your 2023 ANI posts (with the exception of one you self-reverted) are over-responding to threads I am involved in. Your undue attention on me is making me uncomfortable. If you don't understand how CU works or trust CU findings, perhaps you can inquire elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I do know how CU works, what technical information is/could be available, and how far back in time CUs can see, and I am of course not following you around, so I suggest you drop that. - Tom ✓ | Thomas.W talk16:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This guy is tiring me. He spends his entire life reversing my edits just to make my life miserable. He meddles even in what he doesn't know for that sole purpose; annoy me. It does not differentiate a soap opera from a TV series; serials are inspired by real events, soap operas are not. I'm really losing patience and I'm making a superhuman effort to control myself and avoid a major incident. Please stop this guy. JeanCastì (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that NJZombie is acting with the purpose of making JeanCastì's life miserable; I see no reason to doubt that NJZombie is acting in a sincere belief that they are improving the encyclopaedia.
JeanCastì has a history of belligerence and aggression against other editors with whom they disagree.
JeanCastì has some mistaken ideas about use of English words. An example occurs above, where they indicate that they think that to be called a "serial" something must be "inspired by real events". This may be an attempt to apply the usage of a word in JeanCastì's native language to a related word in English. However, whatever the reason may be, JeanCastì has repeatedly reverted edits indicating in edit summaries or talk pages that they are doing so because of convictions about meanings of English words which are not shared by other editors.
JeanCastì's objections to NJZombie's attempts to correct or improve text previously edited by JeanCastì have at times been expressed in terms which are simply untrue. For example, JeanCastì wrote on their talk page "NJZombie makes my life impossible by reversing what I did claiming he has no sources. You must look at NJZombie's edits; he reverses what I did whether or not they are sourced." I have checked every article which both of these editors had ever edited before JeanCastì posted that message, and JeanCastì had never put any kind of reference to any source in any of those articles. There are other examples.
Having said all that, both editors have been edit-warring. JeanCastì was warned about edit-warring, and although I haven't checked NJZomUse's talk page history to see whether a warning has ever been posted their, they have enough experience of editing to be aware that edit-warring is unacceptable.
If any administrator chooses to makes blocks now, I won't quarrel with them. Failing that, however, I suggest the following:
Both editors should stop edit-warring, and should take note that they are likely to be blocked without further notice if they continue.
NJZombie is advised to avoid excessive concentration on trying to correct JeanCastì's mistakes. Although, as I have said above, I believe JeanCastì is mistaken in attributing malicious motives to NJZombie, persistently reverting one editor's contributions is likely to be seen as harassment, whether intended as such or not. This is especially so when all that is disputed is rather minor details of wording.
JeanCastì seems to me to be making a genuine attempt to be less combative in dealing with other editors than they were earlier. However, they need to put more work into doing so. In particular, they must avoid accusing other editors of bad faith without clear evidence. JBW (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are exaggerating and calling me a liar telling my objections are untrue. There is nothing more offensive than a person being called a liar. Nobody, absolutely nobody called that guy to mess with my editions. What's more, no one, no one should reverse what anyone else does on a whim. I decided to stay away from the Bane article in other media because people don't collaborate here but try to pull the rug out from under anyone who wants to edit here. You can't judge me either, because I don't speak English well. I hope that when you use other languages in Wikipedia you will also be judged for not handling a language well. And my hostility I put aside to avoid more trouble. I only hope from now on that others will do their best as I will from this moment on. JeanCastì (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your objections ARE untrue. I asked you to provide any evidence of me reverting sourced information that you had provided. You couldn't and didn't. In fact, your lack of sourcing was the reason for your first block on January 9. Nobody needs to be called in order to address your edits. If any editor sees something they feel needs to be addressed, they can do so, including reverting. Multiple editors, including myself, attempted to explain this to you but your responses were, as they continue to be now, hostile. That was the reason for your second block on January 10. Need I say more? NJZombie (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NJZombie stop lying. My blocking was due to my hostility and therefore because I replied in a bad way to Mike. Your intentions here are bad. Don't hide the fact that you want to make my life miserable by appearing to ask me for sources. If someone needs correction that is no reason to rage against another. Stop lying because I did not receive any block on Jan 10, simply my unblock request was rejected. JeanCastì (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. Yes, you WERE only blocked once. However, it was for “Persistent disruptive and uncooperative editing”, after FIVE warnings for both hostility AND unsourced edits. In fact, the exact reasoning for the block was due to “your persistent unsourced editing, because of the fact that instead of accepting advice and information from more experienced editors and learning from it, you respond with belligerent defiance, incivility and childish attacks, and refuse to comply with Wikipedia policies.” You have some delusional misconception that I’m here to make your life miserable because I dared to revert your edits which I knew to be incorrect and not in line with Wikipedia policy. I even offered you advice about how to approach editing as a new contributor. You thought you were going to bully your edits in and when that failed, you played the victim and filed this bogus report that also hasn’t worked in your favor. I have zero interest in making your life miserable but if I find an edit of yours that I see doesn’t work, it’s going to get corrected and sometimes that means reverting. Nobody has to get your approval to do so. The hostility and false accusations are not going to fly either. Do as you will concerning your edits. I’m not here to stop you. However, if and when our paths do cross again, and I see that your edits are a problem, they will be addressed, just as they would be for any other editor, including myself.NJZombie (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nigel Ish: NJZombie was aware of the original post; in fact it was because NJZombie had told me about it that I knew of it. I intended to inform NJZombie that I had moved it, but I took other steps first, such as informing JeanCastì, and you came in before I got round to "inform NJZombie" on my list of things to do. JBW (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just one more comment. Reading the above, one might get the impression that this is just a dispute between two editors, but it isn't. JeanCastì's edit-warring and belligerence have also been directed against other editors. For example, in the article Bane in other media they have edit-warred against another editor too. There are various other examples. JBW (talk)•
I'll be that other editor who warned JeanCastì about edit warring on the Bane in other media article. I think there's a competency problem here that goes beyond mere "minor details of wording". Here's the text they were trying to insert: [11]. It makes no sense whatsoever and even with the accompanying edit summary I still haven't a clue what they were trying to say. Barry Wom (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JBW and Barry Wom: Can't or won't you understand that I decided not to make an edition war in order to avoid problems? You Barry judge me because I don't handle my English well. I cannot be the villain here. Besides, what I'm getting at with that edit I tried to make was to say that Bane, in the climax of the movie, temporarily becomes Mr. Freeze's assistant, since he's the one planting the bombs as Freeze places his freezer in the telescope, plus Bane fights Robin and Batgirl but defeated in an absurd way by both heroes. Best to leave it at that and I'll deal with other issues here in Wikipedia.--JeanCastì (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Simply put, if you cannot communicate well in English, this isn't the project for you. And as for your earlier retort: I hope that when you use other languages in Wikipedia you will also be judged for not handling a language well.
Exactly. JeanCastì: I'm guessing your native language is Spanish? If so, wouldn't your time and effort be better spent improving the Spanish wiki?
However, if you do insist on continuing to edit this project...
Can't or won't you understand that I decided not to make an edition war in order to avoid problems?
What you need to understand is that you did "make an edition war" (it's "edit war" by the way). You attempted to make the same incomprehensible edit four times [12][13][14][15]. You didn't stop because you wanted to avoid problems, you stopped because you were issued with a 3RR warning. Your response to being informed that your edit was badly worded was to reinsert the edit with an edit summary of "then correct instead of reversing" and your response to the edit war warning was "And what is it difficult for you to correct what I do instead of reverting?"[16].
It's not the job of other editors to correct your poor English. In future, if an edit you make is reverted for this reason don't attempt to reinsert it in the expectation that someone else will clean it up for you. You might want to consider trying to explain on the article talk page what you are attempting to put across. Barry Wom (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that edit, they are trying to extend the phrase who serves as the bodyguard/henchman of Poison Ivy to include the idea that Bane then later also works for or with Mr. Freeze, and the edit summary is about what part of the movie (?) they’re basing that on. (I am not defending this edit - obviously the sentence cannot bear the weight of the additional aside - just explaining the intent.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JeanCastì: In a post above, timed at 17:33, 15 January 2023, you wrote "And my hostility I put aside to avoid more trouble." You may like to read through your posts since then, and consider whether or not any of them may look hostile to other readers. In the same post you claimed that I had called you a liar (although I hadn't) and you went on to say "There is nothing more offensive than a person being called a liar." Subsequently, at 18:26, 18 January 2023, you wrote "NJZombie stop lying". Thus you were saying something to another editor which in your own opinion was as offensive as anything could be. If you don't drop your habit of attacking other editors with whom you disagree now then don't be surprised if you are indefinitely blocked from editing without further notice. JBW (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Request to close
Considering this complaint never fit the requirements of being filed here to begin with (not an urgent, chronic, or intractable incident), and that consensus seems to indicate that the person filing it against me appears to be causing more of a problem and hasn’t been bothered to respond to anybody here in days now, can this be closed? NJZombie (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Chitral view has been trying to create articles about places in the Chitral district, but in many cases he has not provided references to show that the subject exists as a place. In many cases "references" have been provided which don't mention the subject. Various drafts have been declined, and attempts at articles have been draftified. The user's talk page has a long list of warnings and advice, but he fails to respond. Now he is hijacking existing articles to refer to different subjects. He has moved them (with multiple moves which prevent a simple reversion of the moves). He was warned about hijacking, but has done the same thing again. I wouldn't accuse the user of deliberately vandalising the encyclopedia, but there seems to be a severe competence problem, and a failure to engage in discussion or to respond to earlier warnings. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chitral view has a messy contributions list. Support indef; they need to communicate with other editors, propose moves rather than make them unilaterally, and only create articles in draftspace. Editors shouldn't have to do so much clean-up work behind another editor. Schazjmd(talk)18:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just looking at their talk page, they are clearly not here to responsibly contribute and work with other editors, and with the complete lack of response when warned, I agree, support indef. (Non-administrator comment) ~ Eejit43 (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One of the particularly annoying things about this editor is his habit of repeatedly shuffling page titles to & fro and leaving redirects blocking moves, hence it needs admins to sort out the revert moves which otherwise could be done by ordinary editors. David Biddulph (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Following the trail, I've just split Parwak, written by Chitral view, from Kuh, Chitral that he moved and repurposed. And I regret those 15 minutes of my life. There are several such articles that they hijacked and repurposed in a similar manner. And the fact that English transliterations are inconsistent, not many people can read Urdu, and it is hard to match place names on OpenStreetMap, do not make untangling this any simpler. No such user (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WikiEditor0567 is banned from uploading files. While there has been limited participation in this thread I see sufficient consensus to enact the ban. A topic ban has been proposed but looking at the comments from supporters I don't believe this is actually what's intended but rather a simple ban from uploading files is intended. While some supporters refer just to a ban on uploading non-free files this won't necessarily help as the concern they have raised is WikiEditor0567's competence in determining what is non-free so I've interpreted their supports as being from uploading any file. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User talk:WikiEditor0567 contains a long list of files that have been deleted for failing to adhere to the Wikipedia policy on non-free content and our guidelines on the use of non-free content. The user's upload log for the English Wikipedia shows that the user has uploaded just under forty files to the English Wikipedia since June, and over twenty-five of them have been deleted for various reasons. The deleted files are listed in the collapsed table below:
After seeing this, I noticed that the and I [17] the {{end of copyvios}} template on their user talk page. Not more than three hours later, the user uploaded a non-free photograph of a living person under a claim of fair use, which is something that WP:NFC explicitly notes is something we should not do (non-free content should not be used when a freely licensed file that serves the same purpose can reasonably be expected to be uploaded, as is the case for almost all portraits of living people). The user is certainly aware that this sort of upload is going to get deleted, given that this has happened over a good number of times. They're not changing their behavior and they haven't seem to have found their talk page, but the user appears to have a chronic problem with their uploads of non-free content. The user has also appears to have been wholly unresponsive to concerns about potential confilict-of-interest editing that were posted on their talk page by VickKiang after the user appears to haverepeatedly tried to remove deletion notices from an article that they created.
Overall, the user's behavior has continued to have been quite disruptive and talk page messages asking the user to change their behavior have not been acknowledged, so I'm bringing the user's behavior here for community discussion. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)07:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I share RTH's concerns and issued a warning about ignoring copyright a couple of weeks ago [18]. WP:HEARorWP:CIR issues appear pretty apparent. I believe action is required to stop this behavior. Toddst1 (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would a topic ban/partial block from the file namespace work? If their mainspace editing is fine and it's just files that are causing issues, then this would enable them to edit constructively whilst avoiding files where they clearly don't understand Wikipedia's licencing rules. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just files that are causing issues (indeed, there were conflict-of-interest editing claims that the user has not responded to, and the greater issue is that they seem to be totally ignoring their talk page). It feels a bit odd to only give somebody a topic ban from non-free images if the issue is that they aren't reading their talk page (or, in some instances, deliberately deleting AfD notices from articles they have created). I agree with and support the topic ban in principle, but I think we're addressing obvious symptoms of ignoring one's talk page in this approach rather than getting at the underlying issue of how Wikipedia:Communication is required but this editor is not communicating. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)18:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we think the issue is WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU, it might be better (partially) block in the first place, since the only way that they would hear about their topic ban is through the talk page that they would not be able to hear. I suspect this is not an issue with being unaware of the talk page existing—there are no mobile editing tags on their edits—so I'm a bit more inclined to proceed as if they're just ignoring their talk page on purpose. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)18:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban per LaundryPizza03 and Red-tailed hawk (thanks for the ping). The user's previous removal of AfD templates as commented above, lack of communication, previous copyvios in mainspace (e.g., Saibaan was deleted under G12 2 months ago), adding puffery in mainspace articles (e.g., in Draft:Saibaan, Sindhyar Memon), and the fact that 5 out of their 6 articles have been deleted are also potentially questionable. The user appear to have refrained from removing AfD templates or edits being copyvios in mainspace, which is laudable, but if some of these other issues are still current. If they continue, escalating warnings might also be necessary. Thanks, please ping me if I got anythings wrong. VickKiang(talk)02:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it's been over 72 hours since the TBAN was proposed, and it looks like there's a unanimous consensus for it, would closing this thread and implementing the community-imposed topic ban be warranted? I'd rather this not get archived without action. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)19:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And continued to do so several times after being alerted to this ANI filing. While some of the edits are supported by cites in the other-language article or actually are consistent with content cited in the enwiki article, others are not. And regardless, as DuncanHill notes, *wiki is not an acceptable source for bio details. There is both a content problem and a behavior problem. Blocked 3h to get their attention. DMacks (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing to bring to your attention a serious issue regarding the actions of user Dawit S Gondaria on the Wikipedia page for Hadiya People. I have noticed that this user has been making edits that include defamation of notable individuals of the Hadiya People, falsification, and manipulation of information, as well as inserting misleading content that is not supported by any published sources. This behavior seriously undermines the reliability and accuracy of Wikipedia as a source of information.
Furthermore, the user is abusing me and other users who do not take his deliberate effort to falsify history to fit his own ill-intentioned agenda for truth. He even threatened to get me blocked if I take out any of his unsubstantiated information. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia's policies, which require that all information must be verifiable and that sources must be reliable and secondary.
In light of the above, I am seeking an admin intervention to finally put an end to constant wikihounding by Dawit S Gondaria. I kindly request that you take immediate action to investigate the actions of this user and take corrective measures to address the inaccuracies and violations of policy that have occurred. I have provided evidence of the false and manipulated information, as well as credible sources to support the correct information in my previous comments. I also request that you review all actions and conversations of this user and take appropriate action.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Cushite
Please check all his actions and the conversation and all the sources I provided in response to his previous comment below.
Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hadiya people. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 12:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
After militarily occupying Hadiya, many kings of Ethiopia and high-ranking members forcefully married Hadiya women; Queen Eleni of Hadiya is one example. This would result in wars with neighboring Adal Sultanate, who did not take kindly to the atrocities committed by Ethiopia against its fellow Muslim state Hadiya. Your quote is not supported (Hassen) by the source and highly misleading. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 12:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We take all concerns regarding accuracy and neutrality of our articles seriously.
The quote in question is based on published article in per-review academic journal. We have also attached a list of references to our article to support the information provided.
1. ISLAMIC PRINCIPALITIES IN SOUTHEAST ETHIOPIA BETWEEN THE THIRTEENTH AND SIXTEENTH CENTURIES (PART II) https://www.jstor.org/stable/42731322
2. ISLAMIC PRINCIPALITIES IN SOUTHEAST ETHIOPIA BETWEEN THE THIRTEENTH AND SIXTEENTH CENTURIES (PART 1) https://www.jstor.org/stable/42731359
3. A Muslim State in Southern Ethiopia - Geschichte der Hadiya Süd-Äthiopiens. By Ulrich Braukämper. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1980. Pp. xv + 463. DM. 87. (The Journal of African History , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , October 1981 , pp. 558 – 559 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021853700019952) Cushite (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
@Cushite: Here is one edit where you put back content that wasn't supported by the Hassen source, misleading to begin with, and a fabrication of ties with Adal.[[22]] that was further emphasized with lies by this quote Ethiopian and Adal relations continued to sour after the Hadiya incident and reached its peak at the Ethiopian–Adal war This is not a quote backed by the Jstor journal, which i read. So we have a content dispute, i take issue with all these fabrications.
Secondly after removing the fabrications in the article, you removed my properly sourced and verified content [[23]] with a working link of the pages in google book. sidenote: I also have the physical book in possesion. You then spoke in we terms (speaking in group terms is odd, but not the core issue) in the edit summary [[24]] and claimed i added information that was not supported by credible sources. I challenge that strongly, here or any other forum you like.
Third, provide proof for your serious accusations of wikihounding? I just saw manufactured rubbish at Hadiya people article and decided to improve it, noticed you reverting rubbish back, and warned you for it on your talkpage, that's not hounding or is it?
The complaint of vandalism in regard to the deliberate alteration of public figures' names in the society with defamatory terms is of a serious offense. In accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, arguments without credible evidence sourced from peer-reviewed academic journals are not acceptable in these debates. It is imperative to note that the credibility of sources used must be supported by secondary sources published in peer-reviewed academic journals. In this specific case, the information I have included is backed by two journal articles by Ulrich Braukamper in 1977, as well as a secondary journal article published by Roland Oliver in 2009.
The source used by the other user, "The Ethiopian Borderlands" by Richard Pankhurst, is a book that is often written for a general audience and does not have the level of detail or fact-checking as journal articles. It appears that the other user may not be well-versed in the historical context of events in the medieval period in the Horn of Africa. The history of the relationship between the Adal Sultanate and the seven Islamic principalities (Yifat, Dawaro, Arababni, Hadiya, Sharkha, Bale, and Dara) under the Zayla federation is well-documented. The Hadiya Sultanate was known to be the wealthiest and militarily strongest among these principalities. These principalities existed during the medieval period in the Horn of Africa and were significant for their political and economic power in the region. Cushite (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you're not going to provide evidence for your accusations of wikihouding? Yet you're going to throw more accusations? You just said The complaint of vandalism in regard to the deliberate alteration of public figures' names in the society with defamatory terms is of a serious. Please show us the diffs where i did that? Deliberately and defamatory at that?
The problem is not the Jstor journal, the problem is you reverting back to a synthesised version with a totally fabricated genesis which was not supported by the Hassen, Trimingham and Jstor Journal sources [[25]] (Hassen source didn't back this qoute After militarily occupying Hadiya, many kings of Ethiopia and high-ranking members forcefully married Hadiya women; Queen Eleni of Hadiya is one example. This would result in wars with neighboring Adal Sultanate, who did not take kindly to the atrocities committed by Ethiopia against its fellow Muslim state Hadiya very misleading, no mention of Eleni, no mention of many kings and high-ranking members, and the main issue, no mention of this being a factor leading to wars with Adal sultanate, a fabricated alliance/genesis. Which is followed by another unrelated quote from Spencer Trimingham Adal Sultanate attempted to invade Ethiopia in response however the campaign was a disaster and led to the death of Sultan Badlay ibn Sa'ad ad-DinatBattle of Gomit, no mention of this being a response of what supposedly happend to Hadiya, another event falsly associated with Hadiya. Thirdly the Braukamper journal quote Ethiopian and Adal relations continued to sour after the Hadiya incident and reached its peak at the Ethiopian–Adal war, Hadiya would join the Adal armies in its invasion of Ethiopia during the sixteenth century. The first part of this quote is fake and refers to a false genesis with a so-called Hadiya incident and a fabricated tale that it played any role between the animosity between Ethiopian Empire and Adal.
Third Richard Pankhurst (Ethiopianist) is one of the most well known scholars on Ethiopian studies, his books are highly regarded including The Ethiopian Borderlands. You didn't seem to have an issue with Pankhurst over the many months you have been editing the article, since an entire piece is still in the article. Cherry picking which content or version of history you like from Pankhurst? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment)The files in question were WP:BOLDly removed, thus making them "orphaned non-free use" eligible for speedy deletion per WP:F5. The uploader was notified and they re-added the files to de-orphan them. There's really nothing disruptive about such a thing and it's something that's happens quite a lot. Opinions as to whether a non-free file is needed often differ depending upon who you ask, and often further discussion is needed to sort things out. Trying to have a non-free file deleted per F5 for WP:NFCCP reasons other than WP:NFCC#7 is perhaps OK once, but once the file has been re-added by someone another process should be followed. There are things like {{rfu}}, {{di-disputed non-free use rationale}}, WP:PROD and WP:FFD where files can be tagged or nominated for deletion for more specific reasons that F5. Removing the files for a second time risks edit warring and wouldn't be considered an exception to 3RR per item 5 of WP:3RRNO. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will agree that some of the pictures are definitely PD (certainly the all-text and minimally-illustrated newspaper ads excerpted from Newspapers.com-acquired microfilm cannot possibly be copyrighted) and should not have been removed (this editorial in the National Archives has had its copyright released just by its being archived by a U.S. government employee), and I should expect them to be re-reviewed and classed as such (some pictures of course violate F-U, but certainly not all of them). Nate•(chatter)04:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the archiving of a work by a government employee does not erase the copyright of the underlying work. Any additions made by the archivist are, yes, in the public domain. Even the National Archive admits this when they say "The vast majority of the digital images in the National Archives Catalog are in the public domain." The "vast majority" is not all; the reason most of the materials in the Archive are in the public domain is because they were works of the US government. (That's not to say that an editorial from 1962 might not be in the PD for other reasons.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Report by Sammi Brie
In the last three weeks, this new editor has been causing some havoc with TV stations and other pages and has been adding a lot of low-quality non-free images that arguably aren't covered under NFURs and aren't terribly useful in their respective pages (e.g. newspaper clippings of advertisements, such as File:WGRZ call letter announcement.jpg). ANI is, of course, a last resort, but the user so far has not engaged any criticism of their work, mostly reverting removals and "de-orphaning" images. I'm trying to get their attention and get them to engage. I left a user talk message a week ago but never really got a reply. The number of automated talk page notices suggests continued activity at a high volume, as well. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
General Comment if the editor just "forgot" to add sources, it would also track that most of the time the editor would "remember" to add sources. But if it happens a lot (which seems to be the case here), it doesn't really matter -- "forgot" or "did it on purpose" -- the end result is the same. The sources are not in the articles and could easily violate WP:BLP.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the evidence of an ongoing problem or discussion about it? I see one example of a good-faith edit lacking sources, and a rather precipitous warning "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material" from an admin that blocked him in the past, but not much else except long ago at multi-year intervals. He bugged me a bit by reverting my case fixes, but I don't see this or the other as a big deal; particularly, a previously involved admin should not be threatening a block where others haven't even tried to talk to the editor. Dicklyon (talk) 06:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, this editor has warnings from numerous editors going back to 2007, 16 years for the same behaviour. It is not a one-off and it is not me solely highlighting this issue. As for ongoing issue, other than the diff above, other recent unsourced edits include this (height not in the source provided) and this. GiantSnowman16:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about back then it wasn't easy to remember sourcing..., and I'd rather try and find sources other than Twitter feeds, like my one with Connor Shanks that I just had to redo. Common sense is also missing from loads of other people on here, with regards to silly "guidelines". If anything, ItsKesha and Lee Vilenski should be held to account for making silly edits which ruin great darts articles.JRRobinson (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you mean to include me among those ruining darts articles by making edits based on silly guidelines. If you're not going to even give a try to be a better collaborator, which means at least somewhat respecting policies and guidelines, then I retract my defense of you above. Dicklyon (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bizarre to me that you think following policy and following consensus should make people have to be "held to account". My impression is you have an ownership issue with certain items, especially reverting against policies outlined by Dicklyon above and also things like this. You don't get to simply choose which policies effect certain articles. I would have left it as is without a warning until I was pinged here, but those "silly guidelines" are the consensus of many users. Back to the original topic, you need to provide a source when making changes, especially when on a WP:BLP. Suggesting that "you clearly don't read Twitter much, do you...??" when asked for a source is crazy for such an experienced editor. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)12:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Um. "Back then it wasn't easy to remember sourcing?" Sorry, I started on WP before you did, and there hasn't been a time since I arrived when articles did not need to be sourced. I also echo the other editors in reiterating that those same "silly" guidelines are the rules of the road here, ones that all WP editors are bidden to follow. It is a very poor look for an editor with your longevity and edit count not to have wrapped your head around that. Ravenswing 01:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say anyone who is so blasé about adding unsourced content to BLPs should have a topic ban from BLPs. That "silly guideline" is how we prevent making false claims about a living person. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite18:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A lot of users and IP users are asking how to change the skin back to vector-legacy on Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022, could anyone provide a link of solutions on the top of that page or page related to this issue? Then they may not ask again and again. Lemonaka (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first time one logs in with the new appearance it very clearly states there is a "switch to the old look" shortcut on the left panel. This brings you right to the Appearance tab in your Preferences. ValarianB (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Users must create an account in order to switch back to the old interface, and only users who are logged into an account will see the "Switch to old look" link (located underneath the "Donate" link near the top of the left-hand menu). This is due to the fact that the link simply takes you to the "skin" section of your account preferences. You still have to select the "vector legacy (2010)" skin from the list and save your changes for them to apply. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)21:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that they said there was no way to bring back the menu. Burying and hiding of heavily used menu items is one of the biggest problems of the new one. North8000 (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I didn't know better, I'd say all this uproar was an indication that not everyone is using MonoBook, the way God intended WP to be read. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have switched to MonoBook after reading this comment. There are a couple little things to get used to, but it's nice so far. Thank you User:Floquenbeam:)
It just goes to show I'm not objecting to Vector 2022 just because it's something new. MonoBook is new to me and I think I like it. DB1729talk22:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The solution is to have a permanent and easily available opt-on toggle at the top right of every page. It's obvious they don't want to do this, though, and needless obfuscation and difficulty is WAD. You're probably being actively unhelpful to the new project by helping people. — LlywelynII21:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lemonaka it is literally the first section on the page associated with the talk page you are asking about. If you want to add a link in the header, you don't need an admin. — xaosfluxTalk22:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer sysop action, because they are not only asking on that page, also TH and some related page. If there is a centralnotice or something, it will be better. Lemonaka (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lemonaka I think there is a centralnotice about this, and we also have a watchlist notice. There is nothing special about page improvements made "by a sysop" regarding your request to make a link from a talk page to its own project page as a banner - anyone can just do that. — xaosfluxTalk22:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
LlywelynII - This is probably a stupid question, but I didn't get a good answer when I tried looking it up. What does WAD mean in your response above? "Where's all the data?" is the closest I got to what it may mean, but I wanted to ask. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oshwah (talk • contribs) 22:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking for an admin to take a look at a 3 day old account Vizorblaze. The account was opened to carry out a (preexisting?) fight (off Wikipedia?) with Philomathes2357. Actions include following Philo to several articles to target Philo's edits and comments. Edit summaries that suggest Philo is antisemitic/ or has "Nazi" sympathies and generally seems to have a battleground disposition. I also suspect this is not a new to Wikipedia editor given they suggested going to WP:ANI with complaints.
Their second edit was to reply to a RfC opened by Philo here [28]. How would a brand new editor find that discussion? The next two edits also targeted Philo in that same discussion (all three edits shown here [29]).
Followed Philo over to the Cliven Bundy article and talk page. In this exchange[30] this new editor suggest Philo take them to ANI.[31]
This edit summary referenced the wp:NONAZIS essay[32] and suggested it would apply to Philo.
Same day, went to Philo's user page [34] and outed their social media account (see Doug Weller's response here [35]). How did they have this information?
I put a Contentious Topics warning on their user talk page. It was reverted with an accusation that I was a Nazi.[36]
After being told to stay off Philo's talk page Vizorblaze ignored the request and posted this [37] accusing me of antisemitic. They violated the request to stay away again with a follow up edit [38].
Note that Philo was recently blocked due to edit warring and in part to responding to these provocations.
As a final poke at Philo, Vizorblaze seeks out and reverts their edits now that they are blocked [39][40]
I think this is a pretty clear case of a likely sock who is here for battleground purposes rather than to build an encyclopedia. Springee (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I believe it is antisemitic to whitewash antisemitism from wiki articles. Prima Linea is a terrorist group. Yes, they bombed a synagogue. Yes, terrorist was removed from their description. Yes, David Duke is an antisemite. Not sure why anyone would object to calling him a felon, especially since it's well documented. Hey, by the way, did you know Henry Ford was an anti semite? No need for you to diminish that in his article. These are all content disputes, though you have found yourself defending antisemites in all of them. Vizorblaze (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that reverting the CT warning with a claim that another editor is a Nazi, combined with the other stuff here, probably warrants a discussion over at WP:AE as to whether this user is fit to edit within the area of American Politics. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)03:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I stepped on your edit. I don't think it's worth going to AE over that, the hole they're in is deep enough that anything less than a retraction and exemplary behavior is going to get an indefinite block as an ordinary admin action. The 72 hours is mainly to stop the nastiness and offer one chance at redemption. Acroterion(talk)03:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we might be looking at block evasion here. This single-minded focus on provoking another editor is about as non-collaborative as one can get. I agree that this might be indicative of a pre-existing feud. LizRead!Talk!04:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those two accounts probably aren't related. Vizorblaze is on the same IP range as User:Raxythecat. I'm going to bed, though, so I'm not going to look closer at the edits. William Adama is a fictional character. There's your first clue. Go look for people who argue over fictional characters, and you'll have your LTA. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See Starrshapiro (talk·contribs) and a host of IPs from the 2600:1700:5AB1:19B0 range. Both articles need to be edited for promotional concerns, and Almost, Maine is currently under attack with persistent copyright violation and promotional tone. Possible page protection, or subject specific blocks of the registered account and IP range. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Redirects created by recently discovered HughD sockpuppet
A few days ago, Lettler was indefinitely banned for being a sockpuppet of HughD following an WP:SPI investigation opened by me regarding another sockpuppet account. Since the ban, I've been nominating articles and redirects created by the Lettler sockpuppet for speedy deletion under WP:G5. Unfortunately, that account was active since March 2020 and has clearly done a lot between that time and the ban. @Shirt58: noticed my speedy deletion requests and suggested that I raise the issue here as well. I agreed given HughD's prolific activity under the Lettler name, so here we are. Love of Corey (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, a list! That's useful. Now I can go through and re-make every single one. Since there was no reason to delete them in the first place except our dumb vengeance pact against sockpuppets. SilverserenC05:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per wp:EVADE I think you can just revert those changes with no other justification. From EVADE, "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." Springee (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of not being a suicide pact, though, please don't delete any that happen to be useful redirects. Most of these seem rather obscure, but if other editors have linked through the redirect after its creation, it should be tagged and kept. BD2412T05:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On a separate note, what was HughD originally banned for? Were there any article-specific issues such as copyvio problems, hoaxes, other things like that? Or were their articles perfectly fine and they were banned for other reasons? SilverserenC05:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through their talk page, it looks like it was an Arbcom topic ban being violated frequently over editing conservative political topics, yes? So I'll just need to do a read-through for bias. SilverserenC05:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this is beyond extreme. Love of Corey is going through literally all of HughD's edits anywhere and reverting them, no matter the content. How are reversions like thisorthis beneficial in the slightest? You're just actively making Wikipedia worse on purpose. At this point, I feel like we need a bot to revert all of your edits over the past few days to fix things. But I suppose I'll have to go through and do it myself. SilverserenC19:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no. There is absolutely no "point" of that being required. Why do you think it's beneficial to remove actually good additions for this purpose? How does that help anything? SilverserenC19:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone is free to, not that anyone is required to. Why are you purposefully choosing to make harmful reversions to articles when that isn't required? SilverserenC19:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're accusing me of intentionally committing vandalism and I really, really, REALLY don't appreciate that. Now, I'm sorry for not being as well-informed with my decisions as I thought I was. I'm going to focus on nominating some of the sockpuppets' categories for deletion now; that was the plan for today, anyway. Love of Corey (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sideswipe's comment below is correct. If the edits are constructive then it's generally best not to revert. If they are marginal, or if we aren't sure if the content is really DUE etc then you can revert. Do keep in mind that if others are pushing back then it makes sense to slow down. HughD was certainly a very problematic editor but I didn't see anything that looked obviously wrong unlike some of their EVADE edits in the past. Springee (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As another example here, Love of Corey removed a public domain photo of the article subject from the article merely because HughD was the one who added it to the infobox. I can think of no explanation of how that is a beneficial edit. SilverserenC21:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's always going to be a balance. Revert on site, and many of HughD's edits have been reverted on site, is meant to not reward socks. The hope is if their efforts are wasted perhaps they won't continue to sock. I think that works well in cases where the edits or talk page comments are relatively neutral overall. Of course a bad edit will be reverted anyway. However, a truly good edit should be left. Part of why EVADE and similar exist is for cases like the following, HughD_sock makes an edit to the article and to the talk page. Normally I shouldn't be allowed to delete someone else's talk page comment. However, because this is an EVADE case I can. Also, if someone wonders why I reverted what might look like an otherwise valid edit with no justification, EVADE is that justification. But, if people, as we are seeing here, are objecting then a pause or a more careful review of the evading edits is in order. Springee (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant text is WP:BANREVERT, which pretty clearly states that while anyone can revert all edits of a banned editor, they do not have to revert all edits. Edits that are clearly helpful can and arguably should be allowed to remain.
This is one of the much-rarer-than-tends-to-be-the-case instances where WP:IAR applies. Like Silverseren, I've never understood the point behind blanket reverts of sockpuppet edits where those edits are clearly productive and accurate. We do not allow admins to issue purely punitive blocks; what makes purely punitive reverts acceptable? I see that Love of Corey is at the all-caps, bolded level of snarling regarding charges of vandalism, but frankly, reverting otherwise-sound edits of a sock for no other apparent reason than "Take THAT, you bastard! Hahaha!" ... what else would you call that? Ravenswing 21:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we're supposed to revert the bad edits of a banned user and not the good ones... that's the same thing we are supposed to do with a not-banned user. And thus, there is no actual such thing as "banning". This seems a bad idea in the larger picture. It just encourages "banned" users to continue as they were, and puts additional weight on other editors to sort out their good and bad edits. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If someone was banned for something that had nothing to do with making bad edits, but instead for problems with other editors or such things, why would their edits be presumed bad at all? SilverserenC22:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are bad edits even if they are factually accurate -- the banned user is stealing from the Wikipedia community our ability to control things here. The person who breaks into my house to wash my dishes is still breaking into my house. I realize that this might not matter to you, given your announced intention to harass another, non-banned user by pointily undoing their every edit, but we do ban people for reasons and it should mean something. If you wish to see an end to banning n Wikipedia, that is a more involved process that should not be started with you targeting an editor who is making permitted edits. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, "stealing", got it. So this is getting into the whole United States penal system sort of thing where it's about punishing bad people no matter the cost. Even if we burn down the house in the process, so long as the Bad(TM) person is punished, then the goal is accomplished. Because the goal here isn't to make an encyclopedia, it's to make sure people get what they deserve, especially when they defy The Rules(TM).
Also, it was my announced intention to revert the removal of positive content. Because I'm here to actually make an encyclopedia. Unless you see the purpose in things like removing an image from a biography merely because the banned user was the one that added it to the infobox? SilverserenC23:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're comparing apples to oranges here. It's not like a permanent block on Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, is grounds for life imprisonment in an actual prison. We're not taking away or violating any actual rights here. HughD is still free to live their life however they please.
Now, I'm not intimately familiar with the situation that led to HughD's permanent block, but a cursory look at their talk page shows me that they were topic-banned for their edits on modern-day U.S. political topics and warned a few times for edit-warring. HughD did not seem to appreciate why they were topic-banned and continued making edits in violation of the topic bans, which led to several temporary blocks, at least one AE discussion, and eventually, a permanent block for sockpuppetry to circumvent the topic bans. I'm also seeing a few talk page discussions about wikihounding and other harassment of users. (If anyone who is more familiar with the HughD situation is seeing this, please feel free to jump in if I'm missing anything or misinterpreting/misrepresenting any of the facts.)
From my observations and understanding, HughD's actions and history leading up to the permanent block shows that they do not get along well with others, they do not appreciate the rules and the warnings and consequences that are handed down for any rule violations, and they are uninterested in working with others to help build this encyclopedia. Their behavior, which is constantly being revisited as evidenced by the recent SPI investigation, has compromised their ability to be a positive contributor. Sockpuppetry itself aside, HughD's sockpuppets have edited articles that center around topics they were topic-banned from, e.g. mass shootings, which is obviously a central topic in the U.S. gun politics debate, a modern-day U.S. political topic. So it doesn't matter how positive or beneficial these newer edits are. These are edits regarding topics that they have a recorded history of issues and trouble with. By permanently leaving these edits up, we are essentially rewarding HughD for skirting a block over a topic they have a recorded history of issues and trouble with. If that's the case, then what's the point of permanent blocks, then? Or overall blocks, for that matter? Surely WP:BLOCKPOL was instituted for a reason, right?
Now, I apologize for the wildly indiscriminate, widespread reversions, especially regarding articles and topics that I don't normally dabble in and therefore don't have an actual understanding of. I obviously did not understand that there's no urgency in addressing all of those edits, and the difference between "can" and "have to". However, it sounds to me that you don't support any sort of reversion happening here in the near-future or in the long term (especially judging by the reversions you're doing for categories that I intend to have deleted), which is why I'm making this argument. Love of Corey (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ANY editor who watches a page is sorting out good edits vs bad edits, and that's the point of those who make new page or anti-vandalism patrolling their WP work, so gussying that up as some uniquely onerous imposition is garbage. The second heap of the garbage is your line of "if we're supposed to revert the bad edits of a banned user ..." No, we are not. The actual wording of WP:BANREVERT -- had you cared to read it -- starts with "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand) ..." You will find nothing in there requiring such reversions.
Beyond that, are you seriously suggesting that failure to revert every edit posted in violation of a socking ban constitutes an incentive to sock? Seriously? That's ... a fairly breathtaking leap of illogic. And irrelevant in any event. Sanctions on Wikipedia are not intended to be punitive. They are intended to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia. Good edits are not disruptive to the encyclopedia, and eliminating otherwise sound edits out of nothing more than a sense of revenge is senseless. Ravenswing 00:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Sanctions on Wikipedia are not intended to be punitive. They are intended to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia. Good edits are not disruptive to the encyclopedia..." But wouldn't edits made by a sockpuppet account be inherently disruptive on their own, since the sockpuppet account was created for the purpose of getting around a ban? If we want to get more specific, would a sockpuppet's edits still be good even if they concern the same kind of topics that got the sockmaster blocked in the first place, as I articulated above? No matter how good they actually are? What is the line that we want to draw here based on these arguments? And would that make any sort of policy, useful or otherwise, obsolete? Love of Corey (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Inherently disruptive" on their own? Would you explain that? Disruptive how? We're not going to anthropomorphize them, surely, and claim that the bytes are sneaking around Wikipedia, spreading sockpuppetry oogieness over pure and decent edits, are we? Without looking at an edit history, you have no idea in the world who made what edits. With the vast majority of editors operating off of pseudonyms, you have no idea in the world of the character or qualifications of the editors making edits. All we have to go on is whether the edits themselves are accurate, and are well-sourced.
Beyond that, think for a moment on why we ban people. We don't do it because this is some geeky MMORPG, or to have safe targets upon whom to take out our aggressions. We do so to protect the encyclopedia. "Protect" it why? Because the conduct of banned editors falls under two broad categories: making an environment that's unpleasant for other editors, and introducing problematic edits.
A banned editor is no longer doing the former. Sound edits pose no issue for the latter. There is no active disruption taking place, nor a problem requiring solution. Ravenswing 01:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Without looking at an edit history, you have no idea in the world who made what edits. With the vast majority of editors operating off of pseudonyms, you have no idea in the world of the character or qualifications of the editors making edits." So, what, are you saying that, despite their permanent block, the edits by HughD's sockpuppets should stay up because we have no idea what HughD's character or qualifications are? Even though, judging by what I saw on HughD's talk page, there was clearly some concern about their character, e.g. the discussions about harassment?
"We do so to protect the encyclopedia. 'Protect' it why? Because the conduct of banned editors falls under two broad categories: making an environment that's unpleasant for other editors, and introducing problematic edits.
A banned editor is no longer doing the former. Sound edits pose no issue for the latter. There is no active disruption taking place, nor a problem requiring solution." That seriously, literally does not make any sense. What's the point in blocking sockpuppet accounts, then, if they aren't being unpleasant to other editors and making sound edits? What was the point in blocking HughD's latest sockpuppet accounts? They weren't being unpleasant to me or anyone else, and their edits were otherwise sound. If I hadn't become suspicious of how similar their edits were to an IP sockpuppet that I was already aware of, they would've continued editing virtually undetected, at least until someone else got suspicious later on. What would the justification be in blocking them, if they didn't fall under those "two broad categories". Love of Corey (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But wouldn't edits made by a sockpuppet account be inherently disruptive on their own, since the sockpuppet account was created for the purpose of getting around a ban? In the same way that a bad person can do a good thing, a disruptive editor can (on occasion) make good edits. Where a disruptive editor has been banned for socking, their edits should not be reverted wholesale simply because of their ban. They should only be reverted if they are judged by those familiar with the topic to be disruptive.
The point of the BANREVERT policy is not to punish the disruptive editor. It is there to make it easier to clean up bad edits, hence why it has an opt-out of 3RR as there may be many non-sequential edits that need to be analysed and reverted. But it also warns those cleaning up to exercise care when reverting a banned editor, as the material you may be restoring could breach one or more of the core content policies. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then what would the purpose of a topic ban be? Surely a topic ban here means an editor cannot be allowed to edit articles of a certain topic, right? Love of Corey (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If an editor is being disruptive either in the article or talk spaces it generally eats up editorial time. The exact nature of the disruption isn't really relevant, because in the end all forms of it will waste editorial time in some manner or another. Topic bans are there to prevent that disruption in the first instance, by encouraging that editor to edit non-disruptively elsewhere. While yes a topic ban means an editor will not be allowed to edit articles of that topic, that is only the case to prevent harm to other editors and article integrity. And while that may seem like punishment to the person who receives a TBAN, usually followed by complaints of "Why was I topic banned? I was only speaking the truth", that is secondary to the primary purpose; to prevent disruption. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're not supposed to revert the bad edits of a banned user? We're supposed to revert bad edits in general; it's not commanded of us, but reverting bad edits we see is a fairly standard part of Wikipedia editing. Reverting bad edits is a key tool in improve Wikipedia. Or are you suggesting that banned users have some sort of extra privilege to have their bad edits ignored??? A banned editor editing Wikipedia is inherently disruptive. It is disrupting our banning. What, if anything, does "banning" mean to you if it doesn't mean they're not allowed to edit here? Your demand that we overlook the ban is fighting against a lot of effort that has gone into considering and placing those bans. If all you see in the bans is "revenge", then I suggest you need to look further. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that it's fine to purposefully make an article worse, such as by removing the primary image for the article subject, so long as doing so is sticking it to a banned user? Apparently the rules behind the banning is more important to you than actually working on improving this encyclopedia? SilverserenC00:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being able to actually ban users and keep them from taking part here is of use in the larger picture of building this encyclopedia, as I see it. If you don't feel that's the case, you are welcome to start an appropriate attempt to change the policies. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nat what you're arguing for would be a change in policy. BANREVERT already states clearly that edits by users in violation of a ban should not be reverted solely because they were made by a banned editor. The current policy is already to exercise editorial judgement on whether or not the edit by the banned user improves the article. If it improved it, leave it be. If it made it worse, revert it. If you wish to see all edits by banned users reverted solely because they were made by a banned user, then I'm afraid you would need to seek a change to policy in this case, and judging from the comments here I'm not sure that there would be a consensus for that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You really are terribly insistent on responding to some conversation going on in your own head, instead of what other people are saying. Let me see if I can simplify this: no one is saying that we are not supposed to revert bad edits. Let me say this as well: no one is saying that banned editors ought to be allowed to edit Wikipedia. Are any of those statements inherently unclear? Socks of banned editors, when found, are banned, and at that point they can make no more edits. So much so is good. What we are saying -- and what is confirmed by the explicit text of WP:BANREVERT -- is that there is neither a need to revert sound edits, nor a requirement to do so. I really have no idea why this simple concept seems to hard to grasp, or why you're kicking and screaming so strenuously against it. If you disagree with the provisions of BANREVERT, and you want a bright line requirement that all edits of banned users need to be stricken at once, then go to the talk page and try to build consensus for your POV. Ravenswing 01:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. So say, hypothetically, I get blocked because I violated a topic ban on mass shooting-related articles. I then create a sockpuppet account and leave a well-sourced, non-vandalistic edit on a mass shooting-related article. My sockpuppet account is discovered and gets blocked, but my edit stays up because it is, by your definition, "sound", despite the topic ban that I originally got blocked for. This is basically what HughD did for at least their recent sockpuppets. Do you see the loophole that this opens?
And yes, I get what you're saying here now, some edits by socks are genuinely good and there is neither a need nor a requirement to revert them. But when genuinely good edits are done at the expense of the genuinely good reasons why the sockmaster was blocked in the first place, I really do think this is where we are sort of obligated to address those genuinely good reasons for the original block and act accordingly. Love of Corey (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The loophole is already there: it is in the plain text of BANREVERT. Does this method require examination and judgment on the part of an editor reviewing the material in your hypothetical, instead of just doing a knee-jerk revert? Yep, it sure does. But that's scarcely different from how that works with any editor. I have a few hundred articles on my watchlist, and I cast an eye over every edit to them, minor or no, unless they're executed by editors whose work I have reason to trust. Ravenswing 01:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then that is absolutely unfair and completely defeats the purpose of sanctioning people for topic ban violations and getting around previous blocks. Under my hypothetical and your reasoning, as long as I behave well and make good edits, it won't matter how many times my sockpuppet accounts are found. I just have an incentive to just keep making more sockpuppet accounts and continue making edits that circumvent that topic ban, since I have no concerns that my material will keep standing after I am blocked yet again. What would the point be in blocking a sockpuppet account of mine for the millionth time, if I'm not being disruptive? You might as well just unblock the sockmaster account and say, "No harm, no foul, you weren't being disruptive with your sock accounts so I'd say you've learned your lesson." Love of Corey (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A sockpuppet account "behaving well and making good edits" probably won't be discovered. Most banned users continue the behavior that got them banned. But that doesn't mean that typos should be reintroduced or legitimate categories deleted. I find a lot of sock edits, and if their legitimacy is even the slightest bit questionable, I revert them. But if reverting the edit is ultimately disruptive (i.e. if the edit were not a revert and instead made by another editor, it'd be considered vandalism) then reverting the edit is absolutely the wrong action. For a great while, there was an LTA that did nothing but delete whitespace and fix punctuation errors in an effort to get accounts extended confirmed. Reverting those edits would be a fool's errand. To act to the detriment of an article is to validate the disruption of banned users, not the other way around. --Sable232 (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Most banned users continue the behavior that got them banned." Which is what HughD did. Edit on articles they had been topic-banned from in the first place, a.k.a. they were not allowed to edit them in the first place, regardless of how genuinely good an edit would otherwise be. Love of Corey (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HughD was initially topic banned because they were disruptive in the area of American Politics and climate science. They had already been pushing the patience of admins prior to the ban because as an editor they would do what they wanted regardless of consensus. They also frequently made pointy edits. So lots of not bright line things that resulted in a topic ban. They then violated the topic ban and eventually earned a 6 month block. After that they decided to open a large number of sock accounts and continue the disruptive but often not bright line violation edits. When you look back at their long history of socks you see a lot of edits that are either attempts to put pet sources into articles (ie not improvements but typically not vandalism or out right bad edits) or you see edits where they are trying to target other editors. For example, arguing against a proposal only based on who is making the proposal, not the quality of the proposal. Thus the issue wasn't making good edits where they were otherwise tbanned. It was making edits that generally were negative even if not bright line violations. It was trying to target other editors etc. Still, we should think about what is best for Wikipedia. If they are fixing a clear spelling/grammar error of course we wouldn't revert. For most category stuff, so long as it's neutral, I wouldn't worry about it. Springee (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A sockpuppet account "behaving well and making good edits" probably won't be discovered. Exactly this. Lets not forget the case of Eostrix, a sock of who was so successful in "behaving well and making good edits" that they almost had a successful RfA. Even with WP:BEANS in mind, I'm still not sure how they were eventually caught. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it looks like the same person who is claiming that no one is saying that we are not supposed to revert bad edits is the same person who wrote The second heap of the garbage is your line of "if we're supposed to revert the bad edits of a banned user ..." No, we are not. So unless we're playing one of these logic games where your real name is "no one", it looks like there's some falsehood mixed in with your efforts to be insulting. As fpr no is saying that banned editors ought to be allowed to edit Wikipedia, you've been in effect saying that we have to treat them like they're the equivalent of non-banned editors so long as they get a new sock puppet every once in a while. The idea that edits by banned editors are inherently against policy would seem to be built into the idea of banning. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Iget the inclination to revert banned users (I've reverted certain edits by WP:BKFIP in the past), but you have to do it with care. Some edits by banned users are legitimately good, no matter how said user ended up being banned from the site. ♠JCW555(talk)♠ 01:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I'm beginning to regret opening up that SPI investigation. Wikipedia lost two perfectly fine, non-disruptive, positive contributors because of it, sockpuppetry aside. I'll now have to keep this in mind next time I see an account that looks like a sockpuppet for another user. If their edits are good, then I'll just turn a blind eye. Sorry about that, everyone; I've learned my mistake. Love of Corey (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's entirely the wrong takeaway from this discussion. You did a good thing when filing the SPI case, and it looks like you spotted a connection that many editors would have missed. That is very commendable!
The problem is not that you filed an SPI and two users were blocked as a result. The problem is that because of the block, you reverted good edits that anyone familiar with the topic could have made, but in this instance were made by someone evading their topic ban. Looking at the SPI archive for HughD, it seems as though they have been both socking and loutsocking for years now. In some cases they were being actively disruptive, and in some cases not so actively disruptive. Cleaning up after this sort of editor requires both care and familiarity with the underlying topic at hand. While anyone could clean up active and obvious disruption, only those familiar with the topic could clean up any more subtle examples of disruption.
The takeaway should be to exercise more care when cleaning up after a banned user. Don't revert their contributions just because they are banned. Revert them because they are both banned, and that the contribution was in some way harmful. If you aren't familiar with the topic, leave a message on the article talk page or WikiProject saying Hey, a contributor to this article/set of articles was just blocked for being a sockpuppet. Could someone familiar with the topic please check their contributions for any problems? Thanks. and let someone else handle the rest. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief. I can think of several longtime editors whom after longrunning antics (and after multiple ANI threads over several years) I had a part in seeing tbanned and community banned. They were broadly disruptive, they were outright defiant of consensus with which they disagreed, they were wikilawyers to the core, they were often hostile, their word was often not good, they did a lot of damage to the encyclopedia, and the messes they left are not remotely done with being cleaned up. And they were not always wrong. They made many good edits. They created a number of sound articles. They sometimes tendered good advice. None of them came here intending to destroy Wikipedia. I don't regret for an instant that they've been sent packing, but it was scarcely some Manichean struggle between Good and Evil, and I feel no need to undo all their work.
Because the goal here is to build an encyclopedia, not to count coup. One of my catchphrases here is that the nature of a consensus-based environment is that sometimes you're on the wrong side of consensus, in which case the only option is to lose gracefully and move on. If you took this issue to ANI to find out what the community thought, that was for the right reason. If, by contrast, you were seeking an uncritical rubberstamp for your actions, that was for the wrong reason. Ravenswing 10:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to butt in on this report, I encountered this a while back too. An admin blanket reverted several edits made by a banned/blocked (unsure which because I've forgotten many details of this incident now) User, however, simultaneously reintroduced erroneous information on the pretext of BANREVERT. At what point do we give consideration to WP:ROPE and just give the guy a second chance? They are, from what I can tell, rather reformed. At the same time, they are becoming super frustrated that their constructive contributions to Wikipedia are being undone, much to their chagrin. This frustration is seemingly bringing out incivility issues that may have resulted in their first ousting. Is it appropriate for a user, much less an admin, to blanket revert contributions of an IP sock or registered sock just on the pretext the last account was a bad apple? X750. Spin a yarn?Articles I've screwed over?08:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting that HughD has moved exclusively to editing shootings/murders/ect topics with their socks. As far as I'm aware, that isn't relevant to their political conservatism topic ban. SilverserenC18:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Missing warning
This is ridiculous. User:JBW speedy deleted my draft, Draft:NER Class 4CC, with WP:CSD G12, however he didn’t warn me. Also, the copyright issues have certainly be fixed, how can he still tag it for copyvio. Worst issue (mentioned above) is that he never gave me a warning——and yes, NEVER——which I feel like is unacceptable. Please warn him. Ilovejames5🚂:)13:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless if it doesn't contain a copyvio in its current version, the page history still will. This is a legal issue for the foundation and no warning need be given, once it's in there there's nothing you as an editor can really do to fix it at this point. If there's an earlier version of the article that's free of copyright issues you could ask to have everything after that to be revision deleted but if there's been substantial editor activity mixed in its very possible this would be more trouble then its worth. And if the page started as a copyvio, everything built on top of it is a derivative work of that copyvio. --(loopback)ping/whereis13:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For Ilovejames5 to complain that the deletion came without warning is absurd. Here is their talk page as it was the day before the deletion. Just look at how many warnings there were about copyright, and just look at Ilovejames5's responses to those messages, including their very last post there, in answer to a message about copyright: "I KNOW!" Ilovejames5 was fully aware that copyright infringing text is not permitted anywhere and is liable to summary deletion, and didn’t need to be told again. JBW (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ilovejames5: this is fairly clearly a spurious complaint. You've been warned many times about copyright problems but it keeps happening. Can you let us know that you now understand Wikipedia's copyright requirements and will follow them going forward? If not, there's a fair chance you'll be blocked from editing. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You’ve made me lose some motive to have new pages (i don’t have time anyway, maybe I’ll edit articles the most during summer), but wikipedia is still something i have to get back to a lot. I understand that wikipedia is copyrighted now. Please don’t send me anymore copyright messages, I’m tired of them, and i swear to god i won’t do this again. Ilovejames5🚂:)15:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vidpro23's edit war incident
I really wanted to do this ANI really quick as possible because this user was also involved in some edit wars with other IPs and users. This user has been blocked before back in 2011 for copyvios but this is not the focus here. Before you make a conclusion, please look at their history (Special:Contributions/Vidpro23), you’ll see that this user might be involved in some edit wars (the most recent one was at Paramount Global Content Distribution) that should have been solved through a dispute resolution. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask what a 12-year old block for an apparently unrelated behavior has to do with anything? - "Ghost of Dan Gurney"(work / talk)15:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I do believe you were told SpinnerLaserzthe2nd, please talk to the user and report at WP:ANI (or, if applicable, WP:ANEW) if problematic behavior continues after a warning for that specific behavior.inthis edit. Coming here immediately instead of taking that advice looks like WP:FORUMSHOPPING- "Ghost of Dan Gurney"(work / talk)15:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had to do it immediately for a pretty good reason. Y'see, this user have fought with an IP address from last December to January of this year with various edits wars (which is something that a user should not do of you’re dealing with edit wars). I wanted to report these two editors for their involvement in edit wars in order to testify themselves but I am not sure if this is the right time. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And that "pretty good reason" I am left to assume, is a minor bright-line cross from two weeks ago? With his version of the article being supported by another user after such crossing? Was a report to WP:AN3 made then? - "Ghost of Dan Gurney"(work / talk)15:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, no one had report this user to AN3 during the incident with the IP. The IP that the user had fought with has been blocked. But I do think that this user should make a testimony about the incident. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see you added to your post before my reply went live. Can you provide specific diffs of problem edits? I think the admins would appreciate not having to do so much digging. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney"(work / talk)16:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vidpro23 did tried to explain the reasoning behind the removal by posting an edit summary but the edit war with the IP had intensified. This caused the IP to be even more disruptive. Both the user and the IP should have discussed the changes on the article's talk page. I thought about reporting this incident a very long ago when the incident started so that they can testify the situation and how they can solve the edit war. I have a concern about this incident involving this user and the IP. The main problem here is that they did not use the talk page to discuss the edits despite all efforts to settle the edit war down. I am going to let Vid make their own testimony on the incident. But if there is no response from Vid, we might have to close this. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nalinsharma80 repeatedly creating unsourced or poorly referenced articles
Nalinsharma80 (talk·contribs) has been creating many articles about political parties with nothing more than a single sentence of content and no references, often only a couple minutes apart. They have been warned quite a few times before for this behaviour -- a quick scan of their talk page shows 5 final warning templates for adding unsourced content, along with dozens of CSD, PROD, and draftification templates. I considered leaving a message to ask them to stop, but given the multitude of warnings they have received in the past I don't think that would be effective. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 15:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved all of their recent unsourced creations to Draft space and left them a final warning. I am not hopeful as they do not communicate, though; in 2,600 edits they have never used their talk page (or anyone else's) and have only posted on an article talkpage four times. Black Kite (talk)00:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. Zinkevičius is a chauvinistic pig and I won't pretend he isn't - 11 August 2022 [41]
2. Of course I have, because he was chauvinistic pig, and that's what this part is proving, with sources - 15 January 2023 [42]. This was Marcelus' response to me commenting about the Anti-Polonism section (created by Marcelus): This section was obviously written without caring about WP:NPOV. Marcelus wants to smear the leading Lithuanian linguist of recent times due to Marcelus disliking parts of his work. Marcelus has a grudge against this dead man already for quite some time, considering that Marcelus said (...). ([43])
Turaids noticed this due to the report and then became involved in the talk page. Regardless, Marcelus continued WP:POVPUSHing with WP:SYNTH and WP:OR that Zinkevičius is nationalist and anti-Polish, despite no sources naming the foremost Lithuanian linguist of recent times as such. When Turaids said to Marcelus You are the one openly admitting of adding things to the article with the intention of "proving" that "he was chauvinistic pig", Marcelus' response confirmed this with ...my intentions is to describe him as such....
Marcelus is clearly editing in a disruptive manner. I am writing this report because Turaids proposed it on my talk page with the reason being He made his intentions very clear from the beginning and his activities clearly go beyond just original research. We tried resolving it constructively.
Marcelus should be WP:TOPICBANned from the topic "Lithuania" (broadly construed) and all topics covered in Zinkevičius' many works, because WP:ABAN on only Zigmas Zinkevičius would result in nothing considering that he wrote a hundred books and many hundreds of articles, mostly regarding Lithuania, but not only, so banning Marcelus only from that article alone would not stop Marcelus' hate-filled disruptive editing overall.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly should be a reason for my ban? A negative opinion on the subject of the article is not sufficient reason for a ban, does not break any rules and does not exclude you from writing an article on the subject. Let me qoute WP:YESPOV: Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. In my opinion, the fact that Zinkevičius was an active politician, and as such pursued what is nationalist politics, belonged to the nationalist anti-Polish organization Vilnija (organization), and his scientific work is tainted by a lack of objectivity and mixing ideology with scientific facts, was an element missing from the article as an important part of the biography. Therefore, I decided to add it. I was accused of WP:SYNTH, but I don't see where in the article there is a problem with it. It was suggested earlier that the first sentence was problematic, so I removed it. The "Anti-polonism" section is based on several works by recognized researchers, Polish, Lithuanian and American. I purposely limited myself to academic sources, and didn't use any journalistic sources.
If I were to be completely honest I would like to see Zinkevičius excluded as a source for articles on Poles in Lithuania, their origins, rights, etc. Because already, if only by virtue of his direct political involvement, he is not reliable. At the same time, I do not undermine his merits for Lithuanian linguistics, or for Lithuania in general, or science in general. But I believe that there are better, newer, more moderate works that achieve a neutral point of view in this field. And they reiterate those of Zinkevičius' findings, which are free of bias and ideology.
At one time, by the way, I already made such a submission to WP:RSN, in which I listed examples of passages from his works that are either misleading or outright false. Here is a link. In fact, it has already been previously established on Wikipedia as the source of the false information that it was illegal to speak Lithuanian on the phone in Poland before 1990. Here is the link. As hard as it is to believe, such information can be found in his works published as scientific. Marcelus (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence What exactly should be a reason for my ban? and the rest of the response only further prove you WP:DONTGETIT. Turaids and I have repeatedly (!) told you the problems with your editing: [44], [45], [46], [47]. Instead of appropriately addressing them, you disruptively edit. As for your submission to WP:RSN, considering that you made it on 6 April 2022 and no one paid attention to it, this only proves that you have an unjustified WP:GRUDGE against this man and your disruptive editing has been going on unadressed for far too long. Cukrakalnis (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed all of them, but ok, I can do it again. 1st link: he was the member of Vilnija and other also were, as I said I don't inisist on keeping this, but I don't agree that it breaks any rules, or that it is an "association fallacy". It would be the case if they weren't active in the same organisation, but they were. 2nd link: no concrete issue here, but another mention of me being problematic. 3rd link: another mention of me having a "grudge" against Zinkevičius, I adressed it in my first comment here, to sum it up "it's irrelevant". 4th link: I adressed your issues about Jundo-Kaliszewska here, no reposne from you, so my guess is that you were satisfied with the answer.
Paulthelawyer adding personal info and edit warring
Paulthelawyer is adding personal information, specifically images of private residences, to various Wikipedia articles. When these images were removed, they resort to edit warring to add the images to the articles again.
The discussion at Talk:Olivia Dunne#‘Childhood home’ image, which led to Michael60634's opening this ANI report, shows that four editors agreed that the image of a house owned by Dunne's parents doesn't belong in the article, and only Paulthelawyer disagreed. Added to the edit warring against consensus, and the BLP violation issues, it also looks like original research – this post by Paulthelawyer seems to say that they found the parents' current address in a directory and drew the conclusion that it's where Dunne grew up. -bonadeacontributionstalk11:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting comment on Onetwothreeip's reversion of an edit
Respectfully requesting administrators' comments on User:Onetwothreeip's reversion of an edit I had made. In the edit I had made, I restored and moderately summarized the content that Onetwothreeip previously deleted a few months ago over issues of excessive detail. Unfortunately, Onetwothreeip reverted my edit even though the content included information crucial to the Duterte administration's response to the COVID-19, such as the adoption of "draconian measures", "a local-government unit-led approach" to the COVID-19 pandemic, expansion of COVID-19 testing capacity, and appointing of czars to respond to the pandemic. Any thoughts on how to deal with this? As a side note, Onetwothreeip appears to be focused on trimming articles appearing in Special:LongPages, and have been involved in conflicts with other editors regarding article size. –Sanglahi86 (talk) 07:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sanglahi86: Not only that, but you haven't even edited Onetwothreeip's talk page at all since July 2022, not even to notify them of this thread, even though the red box both on top of this page and when editing clearly require you to do. I have notified them on your behalf this time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 12:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rafaelosornio reverting permanently my secular editing of the article on Padre Pio
I report the user Rafaelosornio. He reverts my contributions in the article Padre Pio. Although these have a clear source, he deletes content. He is acting from a Catholic fundamentalist understanding of the article on Padre Pio. The user has already been warned several times for his disruptive editing behavior. In particular, he alters religious and psychological topics according to his extreme Catholic POV.Mr. bobby (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, this is both content and conduct dispute. I post facts here, give cleanly the source and the reported reverts that. The intention of this is clearly recognizable and consists in taking away the criticism of a canonized, extremely controversial person. On the talk page of the reported one can document his behavior and corresponding complaints exactly. His comments on his changes are not understandable. Simply any out of the air statements and assertions. Please take a closer look. The reported one uses permanently hagiographic sources, sources directly from the fundamentalist Catholic environment, worship websites etc...Mr. bobby (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has just listed 100 Wikipedia accounts for sale on a website
Here someone has listed 100 accounts (and I presume more) for sale on the digital marketplace Z2U. What makes this unique is that they're selling them for 10 cents each, compared to other listings which price them at $50. It even specifically mentions that you can use the accounts for sock puppetry and long-term abuse. This is very bad and it will allow bad actors everywhere!
Is there anything Wikipedia can do to take the listing down or ban the accounts from the seller? I'm pretty sure buying Wikipedia accounts is not allowed on Wikipedia. Bl00pB0k (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to ask, Why would anyone spend even a dime to buy a non-autoconfirmed new account when he or she could just create one in about 20 seconds by clicking "Create account" on any Wikipedia page? I don't think there's anything to worry about here, Bl00pB0k. Deor (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also spamming "Uyghurs are basically anatolians, and efforts should be made to allow them all to their homeland", putting false and ridiculous claims like Uyghurs are Anatolian, which they are not, and endorsing their deportations (I suppose). Beshogur (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bumping thread for 1 days. Per the statement by Red-tailed hawk above. Feel free to remove this bump if desired. Linguist111 (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
