Gpedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

  • Before posting a complaint about a user on this page:
  • Include diffs demonstrating the problem and be brief; concise reports get faster responses.
  • Do not report breaches of privacy, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, click here.

Sign your post by adding 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end.

Closed discussions should not usually be 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. (archivessearch)

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
Incidents (archives, search)
1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099
1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449
450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300
301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310
Other links

Wefa and nothere

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

After two attempts at subtle POV pushing on Talk:Libs of TikTok [1][2] they dropped all pretense of editing in good faith or respecting NPOV and posted this:

I have given up on this article. The discussion archived above has amply shown that the cognitive divide has reached such an extent that we seem to live in different universes. Apparently there exists a sizeable minority or even majority here who is complete unable to concede that the term "gender affirming care" (which includes not only primary sex surgery but also things like mastectomies and chemical castration (aka puberty Blockers) is an ugly euphemism for mutilation of children (which by definition is always involuntary since children can not possibly give informed consent to something destructive and far reaching like that). So while folks like me, who are disgusted and revolted by what these hospitals do to children, see LOT as a courageous whistleblower and critic, the above mentioned group sees her as a hatemonger and is motivated to paint her in the worst light possible. There is no middle ground here - "gender affirming care" is the new lobotomy craze, and its practitioners are the Mengeles of our time. You either get that or refuse to.

In such a situation, especially with the "paint in worst light" part, Gpedia's policies just do not work. The admin-supported left wing rules by majority, even though there is no policy allowing such, NPOV on this particular topic is even hard to define, let alone implement, in such spirit, and this part of Gpedia has essentially been captured as the left's propaganda arm. I came here with a good faith suggestion to make this article more NPOV, and that was roundly rejected. Now, given there is no consensus, I would have as much right to be bold and just change things as all the left wing "owners" of this article who do this all the time, but the practice is different. While non-consensus changes by me would, given enough persistence on my part, result in me getting banned, the exactly same actions by the lw majority would and constantly do have no such consequences. The mostly lefty administrators and the various informal councils make sure of that.

And that is that. We as Wikipedians collectively get the Encyclopedia we collectively deserve, and right now, that picture is less than pretty. All I can say on this point is good luck with this article. Wefa (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Which to me says that they're not just done editing that talk page but its time for them to say goodby to the project as a whole, I guess I would accept a topic ban from anything related to sexuality, gender, or politics but they appear to intend to disrupt more than just those topic areas. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have left a DS notice for WP:ARBGSDS. Not looked into the comment much more than to see it was under the scope of that DS. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This person hasn't disrupted anything, and they're arguing for NPOV, so I don't see any reason to ban them from anything. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is not an argument for NPOV. In fact, it's the opposite, a call to slant the article towards the conspiracy theory. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is hardly evidence of anything. In my personal experience, no person who ever tried to go against NPOV in any serious capacity (i.e. not straight up vandalising) did so by openly stating that they have an axe to grind. Ostalgia (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a poor look, IMHO, to hand someone a topic ban (or worse, an indef) for no other cause than that he's expressed sentiments on the talk page that you don't like. The best way to refute Wefa's belief that the Thought Police are running Gpedia -- and seeking to suppress opinions they don't want anyone to hear -- is not to prove him right. Ravenswing 00:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a fair point, and I am not sure I favor a ban, but when you start accusing your interlocutors of being in league with "Mengeles," to my mind it is something more than expressing a sentiment that people don't like. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unless they set off carving a path of distuption across the encyclopedia, there doesn't seem to be any point blocking, and while they have been playing at the edge of stuff that can get users banned, they haven't gone there yet. Based on what they've said, they might have been NOTHERE (on that page anyway), but they apparently aren't there anymore anyway (i.e. they left). Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 06:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was yesterday and they didn't leave, they were removed[3]. Note User talk:Shibbolethink#you hid my talk page text on Libs of Tiktok where Wefa castigates @Shibbolethink: for removing their rant from the talk page. Also note they're now disrupting their own talk page, how is this not carving a path of disruption across the encyclopedia? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Treating them preferentially because they've invoked baseless conspiracy theories is a bad look, its effectively a get out of sanctions free card. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They aren't commenting here but they don't seem all that worried about our enforcement action... From their talk page (emphasis added):

You are basically making my point. That article is constantly changed without consent, against the objections of a the conservative editors present, and no editor nor admin saw need to call out, let alone threaten, the editors doing that. AGF was immediately violated by other editors who called my position transphobic; "transphobic" itself is a left wing fighting term trying to pathologize dissent. There is no such phobia, conservatives simply recognize that there are men and women, and, if we ignore the extremely rare cases of biological nonbinaries, nothing else.

But as soon as I point out the discrepancy, as well as the fundamental problem with editing Gpedia under such circumstances, several people jump at me, you with all your administrators might threaten me on my own talk page. Where was such threats/warnings for those who called all conservatives "transphobic"?

Yep. Thanks for making my point. Wefa (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Fringe editors who can't set aside their fringe beliefs have no business editing the encyclopedia because they are incapable of consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you're referring to this user's apparent belief that people with XY chromosomes are men and people with XX chromosomes are women, I don't think that can be called fringe for any standard definition of "fringe". Korny O'Near (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Generally wikipedia's definition of WP:FRINGE is things which aren't accepted by mainstream medicine, science, and/or academia. Such as the opinions you just elucidated. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wew, you're just going for every checkbox on the "how do I get banned" bingo, aren't you? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Overall, I agree with editors here that Wefa's conduct is disruptive and pretty clearly not here to build consensus. It amounts to the my way or the highway style of argument. But I also agree that the best way to deal with this editor is to stop giving them what they want. This user engages in long drawn out time-wasting culture war arguments. So why don't we all stop engaging? Either they will run out of steam, or they'll edit article space against consensus or in a disruptive manner, thereby justifying their own WP:NOTHERE block. If they, instead, decide to edit more productive and less vitriolic areas of the encyclopedia, it's a win for everybody. To summarize: WP:DFTT. Honestly I would apply this same logic to several other users in the space as well. If they bludgeon, edit against consensus, or otherwise break rules, then that should be dealt with appropriately. If all they’re doing is spouting out loud culture war arguments in support of their conspiracy theory, then collapse, delete, or ignore.— Shibbolethink ( ) 16:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

you would be wrong in your assumption. My note on that talk page was to explain why I would refrain from further editing the article, and was prompted by someone else's comment on the talk page asking for my input. Unfortunately someone had deleted my comment from the talk page near instantly, so the majority of editors there probably did not even see it. Wefa (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would agree that the best course of action is to just let it go. I'm not seeing anything particularly actionable. I just see an editor who is tired of being contested, which is fairly understandable. When you get into the weeds of controversial or political topics on WP it's hard to internalize that we aren't here to preach the truth, we're here to aggregate information from public sources. I think just letting them storm off is best for everyone. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Wefa: It's best to just not make such editorializing comments on talk pages. Just state your opinion about the content dispute and move on. That's all you can do. If you continue to make such comments you will likely be topic banned rather soon. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 01:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • that is basically clear to me, too. I just underestimated how fast the Gpedia landscape on that matter had changed. Only a few years ago there was a consensus that mutilating children was completely out of question and unacceptable for the Trans community, but on the progressive side of things that seems to have changed 180 degrees. I explained here - clearly I think - why in the context of Gpedia, its rules, and the people currently interpreting and enforcing those rules, editing under such circumstances leads nowhere. I originally came there to make a suggestion to improve NPOV, but went down in flames quickly.
BTW - thanks for the ping - I had missed this debate here completely. Wefa (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's unfair to claim that Wefa is NOTHERE. They've done good work on a wide range of articles through the years. That doesn't mean that they aren't about one poorly-worded comment from a long-term DS block, though. Stop comparing other people to Nazis, take a break, edit articles that aren't going to raise your (and everyone else's) blood pressure, and keep being a valued member of the community. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"There is no middle ground here - "gender affirming care" is the new lobotomy craze, and its practitioners are the Mengeles of our time. You either get that or refuse to."
That is one of many such comments, and though you do not say it explicitly, I would caution against seeing this as weighing their other "good work" to this disruption. The net positive fallacy is pervasive, and is unhelpful.
The comment, and others, aren't even an attempt to discuss what's supported by reliable sources, it's pure culture war soapboxing. It should be considered in the context of the harm caused, not in the context of their other work.
It's one thing to disagree on how we include reliable sources, it's another for Wefa to compare people to Nazis when they disagree with him. Accusing other editors of being part of "the left's propaganda arm" when consensus is against them, is also not constructive, nor are the many other implicit and explicit accusations of bad faith.
The trend here, i.e. Wefa's insistence that people either agree with him or are acting in bad faith, is not indicative of intent to contribute constructively to Gpedia. Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 17:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I don't weigh the other good work against the disruption. I just say that the other good work tends to invalidate the NOTHERE accusation. You can be HERE and disruptive at the same time. Wefa has been very thoroughly warned of the community expectations at this point: it's their choice if they're going to listen or if they need to be separated from the community for a time for the good of the encyclopedia. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thats fair but someone can also be NOTHERE and have made productive contributions to the project. This isn't exactly new behavior though, two years ago they were at Gpedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard with a very similar rant about "The current debate climate is not conductive for a solution. For the time being we have to live with Gpedia's erosion of NPOV, and see it slowly become Leftopedia on political matters. And that includes the constant low key disparaging of conservatives in their respective BLPs."[4] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2018 at Talk:Rape in Islamic law "the article goes to great lengths to 'not' spell out what Islamic Law thinks about the rape of slaves, even though we can guess it from peripheral parts. This is unencyclopedic"[5]. From what I'm seeing in their edit history the vast majority of their edits are not constructive at least from 2018 to the present. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support WP:NOTFORUM/WP:NOTSOAPBOX warning. Levivich (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Considering the message posted by Horse Eye's Back, and their decision to continue that kind of narrative here, a topic ban from gender and sexuality seems more appropriate. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 20:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agreed. I’m in support of a topic ban from gensex with a warning for wider soapbox issues. Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 21:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • We have lots of editors in the GENSEX topic area, of all manner of POVs, who are good at separating strong private feelings from their encyclopedia editing. This does not strike me as such an editor, and an indef GENSEX TBAN under DS seems reasonable. I've been minimally involved (viz. I made two "gain consensus first" reverts) in a dispute over whether puberty blockers are chemical castration, so probably shouldn't be the one to impose that sanction, if only to avoid an appearance of impropriety; but if another admin wishes to do so, I think that would be in keeping with recent "jurisprudence" in the GENSEX area [6] [7]. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Whilst I did suggest that a siteban or siteblock wouldn't be helpful, a TBAN most certainly should be on the cards. If they aren't going to voluntarily keep out of a contentious area which they have obvious issues with editing in accordance with policy on (including soapboxing on article talkpages and their own talkpage), they need a TBAN. I'd say that, in WP:ARBGSDS, they show signs of not being there to build an encyclopedia, but in others, they are definitely constructive. By stopping the distracting stuff, hopefully they will be more helpful in the areas where they are HERE. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm really struggling to find helpful edits in any area post 2018, it almost looks like two completely different editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Most of 2021 looks fairly reasonable. What am I missing?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That there are only 19 edits in all of 2021 perhaps? Their very first edit in 2022 was POV pushing at Soy Boy[8]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think a GENSEX TBAN is a bit tough at this point. At least give them another chance. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 00:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I actually don't think it's a bit tough. I just really want to give them a chance to fix things themselves. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I feel like it's 6 of one, half a dozen of the other whether to move this to WP:AE or make it a community sanction, but since we already have multiple opinions expressed above, I'll go with the latter (although I do think it would still be acceptable for any uninvolved admin to issue a DS TBAN). Proposed: For repeated comments in the topic area not oriented toward building an encyclopedia, Wefa is indefinitely topic-banned from gender-related disputes and controversies and associated people.

Already expressing opinions above: Ravenswing (generally against), Vermont (for), Mako001 (not against), Iamreallygoodatcheckers (against), SarekOfVulcan (not against). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support as proposer. I'll reïterate my comment above that we've already had two DS TBANs this year for similar conduct. [9] [10] -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - Wefa has acknowledged the issue and have been adequately warned. I have no reason to believe more restriction is needed to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. Give them a second chance. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 22:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    How is Wefa coming to ANI to say "Only a few years ago there was a consensus that mutilating children was completely out of question and unacceptable for the Trans community, but on the progressive side of things that seems to have changed 180 degrees." at all describable as having "acknowledged the issue"? Or this comment, the other response to this ANI thread. It's the exact behavior that resulted in Wefa being brought here and it's this singular interest in discussion over ideology rather than sources which necessitates a TBAN. Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 00:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The editor made a couple soapbox edits on one talk page. When he was confronted about it here he said that it's "basically clear" to him that he needs to stop. The quote you mentioned is Wefa explaining how they view Gpedia and the topic have changed recently; he hasn't been editing much in the last few years. It's reasonable that he might be a little rusty and ignorant to Gpedia standards today. There's no evidence of sustained disruption in the GENSEX area by this user. Therefore, a topic ban would be more punitive than preventative. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 03:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So, he doesn't understand what is acceptable in a GENSEX discussion, and he has come to AN/I to continue to show that he doesn't understand what is acceptable in a GENSEX discussion, but no disruption would be prevented by banning him from GENSEX discussions? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "he has come to AN/I to continue to show" isn't accurate; he was brought here, he didn't come here to continue to show anything. It'd be different if he had inserted himself into a dispute that didn't involve him. Levivich (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - I've read through the proceeding discussion, and some of Wefa's other contributions. I think a topic ban from GENSEX content is the right call here. To editors who believe we should not topic ban for just talk page contributions, I'd point out that actually in practice we do. To quote/paraphrase from another AE case (comments by admin Joe) where an editor was topic banned because of their talk page contributions; it is abundantly clear from the initial diffs that we have an editor who a) has a strongly held, minority view on gender; b) has proved themselves incapable of putting that aside and contributing to the topic area without causing disruption; and c) made several comments that disparage trans people (conflating gender affirming care as mutilation of children, likening health care professionals with Josef Mengele, asserting that transphobia does not exist, denying that trans and non-binary people are who they say they are) in a way that is contrary to the UCOC and the civility policy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Wefa lacks the sensitivity and tact required to edit in this topic area productively and collaboratively. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose: I'm not seeing where -- and there haven't been any diffs to demonstrate -- (a) Wefa has made ban-worthy objectionable edits to articlespace, or (b) where he's continued to make objectionable and explosive comments to article talk pages in this line. I'll reiterate my statement from above: the best way to refute Wefa's belief that the Thought Police are running Gpedia -- and seeking to suppress opinions they don't want anyone to hear -- is not to prove him right. Ravenswing 10:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Meh, Wefa had made all of 20 edits in 2022 before this. AFAICT, ~1,500 edits over 18 years and there apparently has never been a problem before, until Sep 19, 2022, when Wefa made one offensive forum/soapbox-y article talk page comment and a second, similar user talk page comment; the sentiments were repeated a third time in this ANI thread above. Wefa hasn't edited in the past week. I don't think going straight to a TBAN for two disruptive edits (not counting ANI) is merited, particularly for an editor who barely edits. What are we preventing? I see no reason to think this problem will be repeated, and if it is, the proper mode of action is a full NOTHERE site ban (or block), not a TBAN. But for context, here's a perfectly fine comment from earlier on Sep 19, and another from Sep 11, I do not see any kind of ongoing pattern outside of two edits on Sep 19. They barely edit; most of their edits are fine; the disruption is limited to two comments posted on one day; I continue to support closing with a warning but a TBAN is too much paperwork for this. Levivich (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support are we seriously just going to give this user a slap on the wrist in this topic for comparing transgender care to Josef Mengele? There is no way Wefa can edit this area in a civil or reasonable manner. Dronebogus (talk) 04:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's bizarre to see opposes based on "too much paperwork" and what amounts to WP:DENY. Not only does Wefa compares their fellow editors to a Nazi figure and denies the existence of trans people, they clearly refuse to work within our policies and guidelines and sources go against their point of view, which can be seen on this report and on this earlier discussion on a topic in the same DS area. They are clearly a net negative on this area. Isabelle 🏴‍☠️ 10:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It might be bizarre if any opposes were based on the premise of "too much paperwork." Would you care to point any out? Ravenswing 19:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Warn per Levivich, although further disruption would merit a topic ban. starship.paint (exalt) 10:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per Tamzin. —VersaceSpace 🌃 16:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Wefa has shown they do not have the neutrality necessary to participate in this sensitive area. Should they develop that sensitivity at a later date, they the community can always re-evaluate, but for now- they are not a net positive contribution in this area and I am not convinced they have realized what the problem even is. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ’’’Weak Support’’’ Let me make it clear that I think a topic ban is completely appropriate…if we had an active editor here. The lack of activity on a long term account suggests that this isn’t going to prevent that much disruption. With all that said, I don’t think Wefa would be able to edit collaboratively on that topic should they become more active, so I’m supporting the ban. I also want to make it clear that it’s okay to have opposing views regarding stuff like this, and a TBAN simply for different views would be invalid. However, when you express those views in a soapbox post on an article and user talk it is no longer appropriate, just like it wouldn’t be if someone made the opposite argument in a soapbox comment on a talk page. Talk pages are to discuss improving the Wiki, the comparison to Mengle is nowhere near that. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per above, and the fact this thread is still going with no resolution — haven't we sunk enough time into this? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 22:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I will appreciate your insight here on the article Parga. Despite expressing my opposition to the use of extremist source, Xhufi, an extremist far-right Albanian politician known for his extreme bias against foreign countries and nations and for his nationalist propaganda, editors keep edit warring to have that scholar used regardless of whether other editors have expressed their legitimate concerns about that particular source. Furthermore, they haven't waited for consensus on the talk page, and are quick into reinstating the disputed source to the article even though they were supposed to discuss, not brute-force their new source to the article. - SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 23:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SilentResident. This is obviously a content dispute that is currently being discussed on the article talk page, as you know. ANI does not adjudicate content disputes. If edit warring is going on, file a report at Gpedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. If you believe that a work by Pëllumb Xhufi is not a reliable source, make your case at Gpedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. You also have various forms of Dispute resolution available to you. Cullen328 (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cullen328: as an uninvolved admin, can you please tell SilentResident to stop calling Xhufi a "extremist far-right Albanian politician"? I am not involved in that content dispute and I would not prefer using Xhufi as a source, but calling a living notable person on Gpedia that way is a breach of WP:BLP IMO. That part of the comment should probably be deleted. Xhufi does not belong to the far right and is not an "extremist" at all, whatever that term is supposed to mean here. Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • SilentResident, weren't you going to do a report to determine that Xhufi is not a reliable author? Why do you expect users to be okay with the removal of his works when the report hasn't been made? Super Ψ Dro 12:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Third party academic scholars informed me that they are preparing a detailed analysis on Pëllumb Xhufi's reliability. That's why I am not rushing right away for the RSN because more material on the politician, can prove always helpful for Gpedia to understand whether this person is reliable as a source. Not that the content and evidence found already thus far, isn't sufficing for the RSN to determine.
You stated " Why do you expect users to be okay with the removal of his works when the report hasn't been made?" but you are reminded that a growing number of WP:RS already disputed and challenged Xhufi's credibility but the users chose to ignore this, insisting -without presenting proof to Gpedia- that Xhufi is reliable. How is Xhufi reliable when editors havent provided any WP:RS supporting Xhufi in face of the WP:RS that have discredited Xhufi's objectivity as a scholar? This is not okay I am afraid. Until the RSN concludes on Xhufi, the legitimate concerns over Xhufi's reliability may not be ignored and the legitimate concerns of editors are not less legitimate. There is no such guideline stating such a thing. In our case here the users wanting to use Xhufi's work, are fully aware about the WP:RS disputing Xhufi as a WP:RS and have two options: 1) to either provide WP:RS defending Xhufi as a reliale author, or 2) provide WP:RS debunking the other RSs discrediting Xhufi's reliability as an author. The users have done nothing of that. Instead, they chose editwarring to add Xhufi without wp:consensus to the articles and by ignoring the concerns of verification. The editors are reminded that WP:VERIFY is a core content policy in Gpedia and when there is no consensus for using a particular source, then the editors are asked to provide independent third-party sources verifying that information provided by the extremist politician. This helps addressing any editorial concerns adequately IMO.
If it is wrong to have legitimate concerns over an author (whose credibility is questioned by other scholars) and to ask just for any third party independent RS, then please correct me because I have read again and again the Gpedia's guidelines on WP:VERIFIABILITY and there is no such a thing as a guideline recommending that this Core Content Policy can be superseded by personal editorial POV(!) which can ignore the WP:RS(!) discrediting an extremist politician. This is just the pure definition of "not okay", if you ask me.--- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 12:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment: this is exactly what I am talking about when I say that this whole thing is worrisome: just now, at Parga, another Albanian account came from nowhere, from a different topic area and reinstated the new additions to the article they have never edited previously in their life, all this just to add Pëllumb Xhufi back to the article [11] through brute-forcing and without participating in the talk page nor providing any third-party reliable WP:RS. The fact that too many Albanian accounts are working together persistently to brute-force content while disregarding Gpedia's WP:VERIFIABILITY and not working through WP:CONSENSUS-building at the talk page is exactly part of the broader issue of Albanian WP:TAGTEAM to which User:Coldtrack has pointed out recently [12] at the Gpedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. --- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 15:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Instead of talking about "tagteaming" and "Albanian accounts" here, try one of the dispute resolution ways. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The dispute resolution is supposed to be followed by all editors, not edit war to brute force your unreliable sources instead of waiting for dispute resolution like how you did now. --- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 16:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What? I am not involved in that content dispute and I did not revert you. It seems that you are very confused at this point. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are. Sorry. Lack of direct editing on the specific article doesn't exactly make you any less involved. --- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 17:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You must be kidding. I hope you are not blaming an "Albanian account" for the actions of another "Albanian account". In any case, it is not clear what you are trying to say and what do you seek here at ANI/I, and it is clear nobody will solve your content dispute here. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per the points raised here by SilentResident, I remind all editors who wish to include material originating from Xhufi that per WP:ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". It doesn't say force it on until a consensus disapprove of it. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS. As regards the denialism that Xhufi represents far-right extremist viewpoints, perhaps objectors could enlighten the community by distinguishing the views of far-right Albanians from the views of Xhufi, and where they are on record as opposing his works. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SilentResident, perhaps you are correct and works by Pëllumb Xhufi should not be considered reliable. I do not know. But the place to make that determination is at WP:RSN as you know. Asserting over and over that he is unreliable without going to that noticeboard is not acceptable. So, either go to RSN or drop the subject. It is also not acceptable to belittle other editors for being Albanians. Do not ever imply that another editor should be disregarded simply because of their ethnicity. That is unseemly and disruptive. Cullen328 (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P. Xhufi is quite active in local national rhetoric (in TV shows etc.). Statements such as this [[13]] show clearly that he is personally involved in promoting a national agenda: he does not hesitate to accuse the Greek government (since the creation of the Greek state) of anti-Albanian activity. Definitely this isn't the kind of neutral scholarship.Alexikoua (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have you considered posting a RSN? Cullen literally said "the place to make that determination is at WP:RSN". Alltan (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cullen328 Without prejudice over anybody's national identity, I have read every comment on this thread including the all-important original post. I infer that SilentResident was basically using this noticeboard to say, "the behaviour of numerous editors is unacceptable" and may have hoped that admins take a deeper look into who is doing what. Although conventionally it seems that this project page is normally focused on one accused person. This time he was saying that a team of about three are slithering their way across multiple articles and posting dubious material. To that end it is not an ANEW matter in the strictest sense, and with regards RS debate, it is definitely the case that no less than one person is violating ONUS as I stated above. So in SilentResident's situation, I'm not sure myself where to have gone to raise complaints about one cabal operating widely. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cullen328 and Coldtrack:Thank you both very much. Now if you allow me, just for clarity: as soon as I get my hands on the new Autumn 2022 reports on Xhufi by Western scholars who view that politican as unreliable scholar, you have my word that I will make haste for the RSN. Just like how you said, there is no Gpedia guideline suggesting that consensus is not necessary until the RSN. And to clarify that when I say "Albanian accounts": I am specifically talking about accounts focusing specifically on the two Albanian Topic Areas: Albania and Kosovo; It is important to make a clear distinction on what the term Albanian refers there. All the accounts involved into brute-forcing Xhufi into Gpedia, share a common characteristic in the sense that they are mainly editing the 2 Albanian topic areas. Its important to make this clear because - my mistake- I assumed everybody would understand that, since obviously it makes no sense to refer to them as "Albanian accounts" in an ethnic sense - that makes no sense, since I can't verify the nationality of editors nor it matters for Gpedia, nor I know anyone here caring at all about Ethnicities. But I am referring to these accounts in an Topic-Area context: it is a common characteristic of the WP:Balkans that accounts from one topic area, often share views and cooperate to this end, which, at first glance, is not harmful to Gpedia, yes, but when a great deal of it involves ignoring WP:ONUS and WP:RELIABILITY, then it is worrisome and goes against the Gpedia project's goal which is to steer away from nationalist authors and dubious sources. Next time I will use the term "Topic Area" to avoid any potential misunderstandings again, and will mention this again only if from a technical perspective (i.e. whether it is important for Admins to understand what is going on there). Good day.--- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 19:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Coldtrack: There is large scale tendency to promote sources such as Xhufi, while on the other hand removing multiple academic publications that don't fit with Xhufi's POV. One example is the removal of published works by A. Spiro (linguist of the University of Tirana) with the excuse that he doesn't agree with the national POV as Ktrimi explained [[14]]. Removals&reverts are performed in wp:TAGTEAMING fashion, as shown here: [[15]]. Also several wp:RS have been removed due to the same as part of the same fashion (to name a view scholars: Skendi, Vakalopoulos, Hasiotis, Tsiknakis, Kofos) in favor to POV narratives by Xhufi. Those editors that insist on the removal of those authors never filled an RSN they just resort in TAGTEAMING.Alexikoua (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


@Cullen328 and Coldtrack: I think it is getting out of control and spilling over even more articles: the accounts from the Albania Topic Area are again brute-forcing their new additions to more articles, such as Peloponnese today, and that's only one day after the similar incidents at Parga, where, once again, they disregarded any need for achieving WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page, having ignored what WP:ONUS says. Even if I agreed/disagreed with the new additions and intervening the one way or the other, I have no faith that my voice matters anymore in Gpedia in front of this large WP:TAGTEAM of editors who always get things done their preferred way through edit-warring instead of WP:BRD and following the guidelines by seeking WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION at the relevant talk pages. IMO, the whole editiorial behavior of disregarding Gpedia's rules, is in my opinion really worrisome, since it is extremely disruptive and shows that the one side with numerical superiority has become unstoppable and is acting as if it WP:OWN Gpedia, and can do whatever it wants, disrupting the normal editorial progress. And of course, I can't think of where myself to go complain about that new incident! Technically, they didn't violate 3RR, so the 3RR Noticeboard is not really an option here, so Coldtrack's words: "I'm not sure myself where to have gone to raise complaints about one cabal operating widely." echoe now louder than ever. I am posting here for one last time, because WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION, the policy in Gpedia for such behaviors in disputes, states that: "Issues of conduct may be addressed at the incidents noticeboard, and may be taken to the arbitration committee for more complex disputes.". Any help from the Admins will be really appreciated. --- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 19:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SilentResident, please name the members of this "cabal" or "tag team", provide diffs of the most problematic edits, and inform those editors of this discussion. Cullen328 (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cullen328 Sorry to bother you but may I ask if the diffs have to be from a specific article only? Because the issue spans multiple articles such as Parga before Peloponnese, and even Greek War of Independence before that, and more. I'm mentioning these 3 articles here for now because they are fresh in my memory and happen to be the most recent cases, all of them occuring during the current month, September 2022). If any clarity is provided on the criteria for the diffs you seek as to determine the range of diffs allowed to present here, that will be appreciated and I will try to do my best. --- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SilentResident, no, the diffs do not need to be limited to one article, but they should clearly show the problematic behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those are disputes where many editors from Greece and Albania find an interest to edit. SR will only show some diffs of "Albanian accounts" reverting "Greek accounts". @Cullen328: why do not you ask SR why they see a "cabal" or "tag teaming" only among "Albanian accounts" and not among "Greek accounts" too? I am not saying there is "tag teaming" among "Greek accounts", there is no evidence for any kind of "tag teaming". I just think that these "tag teaming" accusations are personal attacks against perceived opponents. As such, without clear evidence of a "cabal", they should result in a block for personal attacks or at least a warning. These "tag teaming" accusations have become common among some Balkan editors. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ktrimi991, that is why I am asking for evidence. Cullen328 (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ktrimi991, if you are aware of any issues of editorial misconduct, then it will be appreciated if you bring them to the admin's attention.
Now, if you allow me, I can't help but express my concerns about your reply's tone suggesting a culture of collective responsibility by pointing that "other sides did that too". You are reminded that no side has immunity from the project's rules - everybody here is to be scrutinized for their actions, including me (per WP:BOOMERANG) and that's a fact.
In case you missed what my concerns here are: is the fact accounts appearing collectively in certain articles the Greece topic area on articles which most of these accounts never edited before (since their focus is mainly the Albania topic area), yet are quick to edit war instead of discussing and seeking a compromise, at the expense of Gpedia's guidelines, consensus and dispute resolution procedures. Resulting in all these articles in the Greece topic area having currently a revision not reflecting a talk page consensus, and the newly-added content to them isn't the result of compromises between the sides, is rather a revision imposed. --- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Instead of such walls of text, post what you think is evidence of "tag teaming". Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cullen328 I am working on it, and will have something to present very shortly. It is a fair amount of work, so please bear with me. Khirurg (talk) 04:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This report has been open for 2-1/2 days, and so far, we have:
Instead, we have unsupported assertions that an Albanian academic is unreliable (maybe he is and maybe he isn't) and unsubstantiated accusations that unnamed editors who work on Albanian topics are misbehaving. To say that I am unimpressed at this point is an understatement. Maybe I will wake up tomorrow morning to find ample evidence. But so far, nothing. Cullen328 (talk) 06:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have my sincere apologies for making you wait. It is not intentional, just I am back from my work in real life and I do not have access to my PC from work. Since you clarified to me that the report doesn't have to be limited to a select few articles, and since the issue spans more articles than the fingers of our hands, its obvious that I will need some time to prepare the large report. In this context, I was hopeful that the ANI can give me the required time to work on the reports on an issue that has been spanning in time range not a single month but whole years? If the ANI is eager to close the current discussion, thats fine, I can open a new one once I have it ready. I speak only for myself though, I cant speak for editors Khirurg and Ktrimi991, though, whether they got their/any reports to submit and if they can do that even faster than me, then maybe the ANI can give them a chance.--- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 07:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not willing to make "tag teaming" accusations here; after all those are controversial Balkan topics that can easily attract attention from editors. Editing an article is not illegal. In any case, I am waiting for the evidence you and Khirurg will provide. If admins judge it is of value, I can enrich it with more evidence. There are many cases to be discussed in that case, not only among "Albanian accounts". But I really doubt admins will find your evidence of value; as I said, articles are open for editing to every editor. Just editing an article does not make you part of a "tag team". And even if one does see "tag teaming", proving it is extremely difficult. Cullen328, for the record, last November Khirurg was warned and then blocked by User:Bbb23 after making accusations including "tag teaming" accusations. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for the slow reply. I don't know what happened between you and Khirurg last November, but I have my serious concerns and I am not alone here; such concerns are shared on the ANI by least 2 other editors too, which itself is more than enough to require ANI attention this time. If indeed there is no tag-teaming as you claim, then there is nothing the other editors may be afraid of. The report will be submitted and left upon the Admins to evaluate. If the Admins deem these incidents to not be a case of Tag-teaming and conclude that there is no such behavioral pattern, then the filler ought to trust and accept their judgement and offer a honest apology to the other editors for which these concerns are about. In mean time, it is recommended that all editors familiarize and abide by the Gpedia's guidelines, because even if the Admins do not deem these incidents or what happened at Peloponnese to be a case of tag-teaming, still is a serious disruption violating Gpedia's guidelines regarding dispute resolutions and consensus-building, not a mere "Just editing an article" as you might think here. Now if you excuse me, expect no more responses before the report's submission. It is just "walls of text" as you said. --- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 16:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its not the first time you make such accusations and like I said sometime ago, this is just WP:WITCHHUNT! I hope this time ends once and for all because I am sick of it. Taking part in those hot Balkan topics is normal for anyone. All of you do the same even in Albanian related topics from the north to the south and no one has accused any of you of Team Tagging. Some of you has taken part in discussions about the name of some unknown towns in Kosovo, which to me is quite bizarre to say the least, but no one has ever accused you of something. Now you are accusing "Albanian accounts" why the take part in Albanian related topics? Several Admins has intervened in lot of those discussions and for the most part, changes were confirmed and the articles were improved. Have a good day! -- Bes-ARTTalk 16:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


OK, here we go. There is a group of editors who all share a similar background, as can be seen by their contribs, that behaves in a matter best described as WP:TAGTEAM on Balkan articles. The main purpose is to circumvent 3RR so as to prevent insertion of undesired material, and insert disputed material by brute force. It has been going on for a long time (off the top of my head I would say it started in early 2020), but it has been getting steadily worse in that past few months, when Çerçok (talk · contribs) returned from a 3 month break, and has reached an absolute crescendo in recent days (the first six examples are from the past few days alone). Now, while it is very common for editors who share interests to participate in the same disputes, as the evidence below will show, the nature of the behavior in question is of markedly different intensity and quantity. Particularly noticeable are instances of editors who have never shown the slightest interest in an article showing up to revert within minutes or even seconds, suggesting some form of coordination, possibly via live chat. Also of note is the fact that some of these articles are absolutely peripheral to the Albania topic area, yet the intensity of the behavior is the same as if they were core articles. The evidence below is arranged roughly chronologically. I am aware it is very long, but just to give you an idea of the intensity of the disruption, this is what I was able to gather quickly going off my memory, and even then this list is not exhaustive. As this evidence was gathered somewhat hastily, if you see any mistakes please point them out and I'd be happy to correct them. If the below evidence is too much and you just want to focus on the most egregious examples, I'd say those are International Recognition of Kosovo, Greek War of Independence, Himara, List of Albanians in Greece, and Messapic language.

  • 1. International Recognition of Kosovo, 7 reverts in ~48 hours by 5 different users. Article history: Initial, non-revert edit by Uniacademic [16], revert by Ktrimi991 [17], Maleschreiber [18], S.G ReDark [19] (a relatively new user who had never edited the article before), Ktrimi again [20], Ahmet Q. [21], Ahmet Q. again [22], followed within minutes by Durazz0 [23], who prior to that hadn't edited in weeks. Durazz0 in particular is not very active lately [24], but always shows up at just the right time to revert [25] [26], !vote [27], or complain to an admin on behalf of another user [28] [29]. Attempt at dispute resolution in the talkpage was initiated by the other party [30]/

Of note is that Ahmet Q. (talk · contribs) has on several occasions asked users to activate their wikipedia email, ostensibly so as to "share sources" [140], but soon after this was done, the user Ahmet Q. instructed to activate emails starts showing to !vote [141] at RfCs and RMs that Ahmet Q. had just !voted, sometimes within minutes [142], despite these articles being relatively obscure. Ahmet Q. also did the same thing on Wikimedia Commons [143] with user Cercok on August 25. It could be a coincidence, but it is my impression that the intensity of the tag-teaming has been especially strong since then.

Also of note is that as a result of the tag-teaming on the Montenegrin tribes articles (Piperi, Bratonozici, Bjelopavlici etc.), Boki (talk · contribs) eventually became discouraged and gave up [144]. While a bit rash and inexperienced, this user seemed competent and promising, and this is a good example of the kind of result that tag-teaming can result in.

In closing, I'd like to point out that while I fully expect the accused parties to come out guns blazing and counter-accuse, there is a fundamental asymmetry here: Articles such as Greek War of Independence and Peloponnese are central to the Greece topic area, but peripheral to the Albania topic area - in 15 years of editing wikipedia, I have not seen editors from the Albania topic area edit these articles, until now, that is. So while it is to be expected that any perceived POV-push in these articles will result in a response from Greek topic area editors, given that many will have these articles watchlisted, it is highly unusual to see an even more intense response from Albania topic editors. Individually, it could be that some of the instances of apparent tag-teaming I have described could just be coincidences with a perfectly sound explanation, or just garden-variety edit-warring, but when the evidence is viewed in its totality, I strongly believe something is going on here. Whether it is off-wiki messaging (as I think is the case with at least some participants), email, or just contribs-following and a tacit agreement to back each other, I cannot say, but clearly something's up here, this isn't normal. I've been editing for 15 years, and I've never seen anything this intense, this massive, and this coordinated for so long. Khirurg (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As an editor not mentioned, but who very well could be, and someone who 90% of those articles mentioned above have it in his watchlist and followed all the discussions in question (mostly not intervening at all) I can say without a doubt that in absolutely most of the cases the editors were invited in the talk page to discuss the reverts or the changes. And many of them were resolved there with consensus by the editors in question. See for example Struga, Himara, and others' talk pages. What you have forgotten to put here are articles that you have taken part in yourself and resulted in you getting blocked or being warned about it because of your language used against the same editors in TP discussions. All you do whenever you don't like a change or sources like Xhufi is open discussion like this one, remove it at all costs, get the editors blocked, and restore the versions you like. And when no admin supports you, you just start another conspiracy against "Albanian accounts". -- Bes-ARTTalk 22:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Khirurg:, do not forget to notify the editors you are mentioning in your report. They will want to know. Add the following code to their talk pages please: {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ Thank you. --- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 23:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Khirurg: when you post accusations, you should at the very least notify said accused users, (an admin asked both you and SilentResident to do so many times already). Now, all the articles which Khirurg mentioned are under the scope of WikiProject Albania, and some of them are of top importance. I dare to consider myself one of the "veteran" users (been here for about 2 years) and I don't see what exactly the problem is that Khirurg is supposedly so concerned about. Articles which are under the scope of a small WikiProject will, at one point or another, inevitably concern most active users which are interested in such subjects. There are in total maybe 15-20 or so active “Albanian users”, so it's all too normal that they'll end up editing the same articles eventually. This is being made by Khirurg to sound as if the cases where they tend to agree show that they always agree with each or that they all support the same edits, but this is simply a misrepresentation by Khirurg. There are countless cases where some editors who agree on one thing, disagree on another or don't even edit similar articles. Even Khirurg's examples show such a thing because he has just cherry picked cases where some users will agree on a small issue, but there's still no overall agreement across all articles. What he has decided to leave out includes all the other cases where the same users who agree one thing, disagree with each other as is normal for all humans who don't cooperate. For myself I'll note that in Aliko, one of the articles which belong to the same subject as the articles listed by Khirurg, an edit I made [145][146] was reverted by Maleschreiber[147]. Other recent examples of Maleschreiber reverting me which come to mind include [148] and [149], this being one of the articles used as “evidence” by Khirurg. I also recall a case of me being reverted by Botushali, which happened just this July [150]. So when Khirurg then brings up an edit summary which I copied from Botushali's previous edit during an edit conflict, it's a distortion of reality which ignores that I both have disagreed and agreed with him and have been reverted by Botushali. Is this what people who are tag-teaming do, or is it what people who share similar interests but both agree and disagree occasionally do? It’s more likely the latter and not the former. Most of these subjects are very closely related, so when Khirurg claims that an edit of mine is the "first" I've ever done in the article Peloponnese(region of Greece), he somehow leaves out that I have hundreds of edits in articles which involve Albanians in Greece. Since August all 6 new articles I've created are about the history of Albanians in Greece [151]. This is a subject which I'm very passionate and interested about, but Khirurg presents my edits as if I just learned about the subject a minute before I made the edit. Another thing which Khirurg omits is what the disputes are about. In most of the cases, they exist because a couple of users (which in 9/10 cases include Khirurg) want to remove WP:RS from articles. Now, these reliable sources don't come just from Albanian historians, but are in fact most of the times works by ‘’Greek’’ historians whom some users are always trying to remove. My edit in Peloponnese exists solely because the same users who are always doing such things tried to remove Georgios Liakopoulos, a respected Greek historian from the Max Planck institute from the article: [152][153][154]. What exactly is illegitimate about my edit? Is Khirurg saying that some users can remove reliable sources, but users who have spent hundreds of hours writing about these subjects can't even edit related articles? This isn't even the first report by Khirurg where he tries to invoke interests in common subjects by people who have the same cultural background as a reason to ask for someone to get sanctioned. In an SPI against Ktrimi991 [155] Khirurg claimed that he is a sock of a banned user, essentially because both are Albanians and are interested in Albanian history.
So what is Khirurg's evidence? A series of edits which show that sometimes user’s who have similar interests, will agree with each other. In the same articles in which Khirurg finds agreement between some users, he should note all instances where all those who agree with each other either don't get involved in an article or actively disagree. In addition, he should note all instances where we find agreement on the "opposite" side of the aisle between users from WikiProject Greece and in fact in all instances (like the Peloponnese article) two or more users from WP Greece will do the same exact edit/revert (including Khirurg). This isn't "tag teaming" or disruptive when done by Khirurg, yet when other users have partially similar interests do it, it can only be disruptive and can never mean just a genuine interest in a subject.
In conclusion, I see one more content dispute which involves Khirurg and other long time users devolving into accusations by Khirurg that they are tag teaming just because they disagree with Khirurg about subjects which (as far as I remember) many of the mentioned editors always disagreed with him. Khirurg has repeated the same accusation in the past when he was blocked and this is the reply he got by admin Bbb23: "Second, you have accused other editors, some who have been around here for a long time (as have you), of tag teaming just because they disagree with you. That constitutes a personal attack. I strongly urge you to amend your behavior, or you will find yourself blocked." [156]
So yes Khirurg, this is indeed yet another outrageous case of editors who are interested in Albanian-related subjects editing articles related to Albanian subjects. A troubling development indeed.Alltan (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This way tl;dr, but just to note that of the 20 articles I've listed, only half are within WikiProject Albania. And that anyway does not explain the lightning quick reverts to articles you have never edited before, like Peloponnese (within three minutes). Khirurg (talk) 03:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Khirurg has listed twenty articles, out of which I (accused of tag-teaming) have edited only four. 4 out of 20... And I am often in disagreement with the people Khirurg accuses me of being in league with, see:
- with Ktrimi here: [157]
- with Maleschrieber here: [158]
- with AlexBachmann here:[159]
I contribute to Gpedia as I know best, following wiki guidelines and adding RS content. I do not coordinate with anyone. I agree or disagree with each editor based on the merit/reliability of their edits. I am sure I am not an exception. Khirurg seems to have misportrayed the contributions of other editors here just like he has mine. These accusations are simply ridiculous. Çerçok (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The wp:TAGTEAM pattern is way too obvious but what surprised me personally was a strategy of full coordination as in the case of Himara Revolt of 1596: taking turns in the TAGTEAM process. So the revert sequence here is:
  • [[160]] Cercok,
  • [[161]] Alltan,
  • [[162]] Ktrimi (who never participated before and without trace at talkpage), and then again
  • [[163]] Alltan
  • [[164]] Ktrimi
  • [[165]] Alltan

After his 2nd revert Ktrimi991 immediately filled a report against me in order to block me for 3rr, but no wonder this disruptive pattern has been immediately noticed by uninvolved editor @Coldtrack: [[166]] [[167]]

Ktrimi also provides support to the more hesitant (revert)-editors of this team by removing warning messages in their talkpages: Here [[[168]], after Uniacademic performed a rv although he never showed any trace in article and tp before [[ [[169]]]] (as Khirurg noted above). The same support is also provided by Alltan [[170]]) obviously to encourage a more massive and coordinated campaign of this kind.

It is crystal clear that their main purpose is to increase their revert-warring fire power in order to promote a certain national POV and at the same time discouraging multiple editors from productive editing.Alexikoua (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: First of all, if my name is going to be brought up, I’d greatly appreciate being notified. Now, in regard to this report, I am actually offended that I am even being mentioned as a part of such a thing. The diffs of me on pages about Montenegrin tribes of Albanian origin are particularly annoying; if you bothered to check those diffs, you will find I was actually the first account to initiate the change on the article that there was a subsequent edit war over which was resolved in the TP. In fact, if you check my edit history, you will notice a lot of my work focuses on Albanian tribes. I have created multiple pages based on this topic and revamped or worked on several other pages also in this topic. Regarding Struga, I really do not see what is wrong. I participate heavily in Albanian-related topics in North Macedonia, which is why there is overlap between me and Alltan, who also seems to participate heavily in such topics. If you check the edit history there, it becomes extremely clear that I have contributed a lot to the page over time, not just for those diffs.

Arvanites is obviously extremely related to the Albanian topic area considering it literally is an article on the historic Albanians of Greece – my contributions to the Souliotes (another tribal-like Albanian community in Greece) page should clearly indicate that I am already involved in such matters. Himara is also of interest, I have monitored that article for a while and have been looking for sources on a particular matter; nonetheless, it is a site that seems to have played a role for Albanians in the Middle Ages, which is something I have also done much work on.

To conclude, the accusations made against me here are baseless, illogical and outright wrong. Furthermore, this accusation of multiple editors in the Albanian topic area working in collusion I find to be a clear application of double standards; multiple Greek topic area editors seem to collude and combine their efforts on small villages and the like in Greece and southern Albania, not that I am accusing them of tag teaming, but it is the same principle. However, what I find revealing is the collaboration of editors who focus on Greek topic areas when it comes to articles in Kosovo, or better yet, Serbia. When regarding the city of Niš in Serbia, which I have added to, Khirurg somehow randomly began to participate in the discussion – despite not being involved in the slightest in the Serbian topic area – petitioning for the removal of sources that discuss the existence of Proto-Albanians in the region [[171]].

Now, there have been many Kosovo RM’s, most of which I have played a role in, in recent years. Khirurg and other Greek editors have shown up together to vote !oppose and have never shown any interest to improve said articles, let alone participate in the general topic area of Kosovo. What should I do in my case? Complain that Khirurg and these other editors are tag-teaming against RMs? Khirurg's post boils down to the fact that there are many editors who are interested in the same subjects in the Balkans and the large majority do not agree with Khirurg regardless of their background. This isn't a problem of wikipedia and it's certainly not a reason to report anyone, but it is particularly interesting to see these editors in the Kosovo topic area. When I was looking at previous RM’s in preparation for my own requests, I noticed editors from the Greek topic area involving themselves in these RM’s which I found extremely strange:

  • RM of Peja [[172]], users of note who voted !oppose in this discussion were Khirurg, Alexikoua, and SilentResident.
  • RM of Lipjan (initiated by me) [[173]], Khirurg and SilentResident voted !oppose
  • RM of Vushtrri (initiated by me) [[174]], surprise surprise, Khirurg and SilentResident voted !oppose here too.
  • RM of Malisheva (2020, not initiated by me) [[175]], users who voted !oppose were Khirurg and Alexikoua
  • RM of Malisheva (2021, not initiated by me) [[176]], users who voted !oppose were Khirurg and Alexikoua

For such small, unknown towns to receive convenient attention from the Greek topic area editors during RM requests seems awfully intriguing. Nonetheless, just wanted to get this out there so that all admins may observe the double standard here and perhaps something else at play. Botushali (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Botushali: you provided very few and sporadic edits that go back more than two years ago, nevertheless Khirurg provided solid clear evidence and this concerns quite recent activity. It's easy to conclude that your reply is too weak to oppose the huge amount of evidence provided above (not simply on voting but on revert warring). Most important this TAGTEAM pattern is massive and quite active as uninvolved editors have immediately noticed.Alexikoua (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alexikoua, just as you have the right to edit, revert, remove content so do others and I'm one of the people who has written the most content about these topics, so what's the accusation? I'm editing what I always edit or is the accusation that in this article Cercok and I agree, even though we disagree other times? If that's the accusation, then why you don't you mention all the (daily) articles where you are in disagreement with someone active in WikiProject Albania but nobody else joins the dispute? Where was a tag-team to support Ktrimi when you had a dispute with him in Lefter Talo just two days ago? While we're on this topic why don't you add all the diffs where you and Khirurg monthly do the same reverts? Parga: Alexikoua [177] Khirurg [178] Vuno: Alexikoua [179] Khirurg [180] Albanians in Greece: Alexikoua [181] Khirurg [182] Why doesn't tag-team apply to the two of you but applies to everyone else who you disagree with? Don't all others have the right to agree with each other in some topics or are you and Khirurg the only users who have the right to agree with each other?:Alltan (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Alltan, Khirurg filled a detailed report that concerns wp:TAGTEAM, a disruptive pattern that was also noticed by uninvolved editors at the Himara Revolt of 1596. This is obviously not just about edit, revert or remove content, but reverting in wp:NINJA fashion without trace of participation at any discussion as part of wp:TAGTEAM & BRD breaching while even encouraging such a disruptive activity (i.e. removing warning messages from the talkpages) among more hesitant members of the (TAG)TEAM is a serious accusation.Alexikoua (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alexikoua, I already mentioned once that decorating your comments with Gpedia policies and with strong wording such as "crystal clear" do not make your arguments stronger. In your latest comment above this one, you said nothing of importance to attempt and refute Alltan's comment. If you will not engage in real debating, I ask you to desist from writing these comments; what you're doing is called WP:BLUDGEON. This report is already large enough. Super Ψ Dro 20:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alexikoua, saying that something is ”solid, clear evidence” does not make it so. In fact, this whole report is a besmirchment of many solid editors included myself, and I expect Khirurg to apologise for even mentioning me in such a way when I devote so much of my time to Gpedia as a volunteer. Besides the fact that certain editors from the Greek topic area, including yourself, randomly collude at convenient times in completely unrelated RM’s of relatively unknown towns in Kosovo to vote against name changes to the Albanian form (interesting, right?), I also have below a list of recent cross-editing which you would call “tag-teaming” when it doesn’t concern you (again, double standards):
Now, is this evidence of tag-teaming, or is it only tag-teaming when it is not involving Alexikoua and Khirurg? As far as I am concerned, this is exactly what I have been supposedly called out for, but I am not “tag-teaming”. I am editing topics that are relevant to WikiProject Albania, as I have always done, and nothing more. I am awaiting Khirurg’s apology for slandering my name and completely disrespecting the time and effort I put into Gpedia – such accusations should not be taken lightly. I’ve noticed that he has already been in trouble for this behaviour prior to this report. Hopefully an admin can take control of the situation and stop this once and for all. Perhaps a block or even topic ban would be in order so that Khirurg may finally halt these behaviours that completely disrespect and devalue other editors here on Gpedia. Alexikoua, baseless statements like “It's easy to conclude that your reply is too weak to oppose the huge amount of evidence provided above” do not prove anything – above I have provided reverts as well, but is it still too weak simply because it mentions your name? If you are going to accuse me of tag-teaming, I will be disappointed and will expect an apology from you too should an admin clear my name. Using strong wording doesn’t make your opinions or comments superior to anyone else’s, and you cannot simply dismiss things with no valid reasoning. The reverts may not be so bad – but the voting is extremely suspicious and I urge an admin to look into it. Botushali (talk) 02:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmm actually there was no 3rr breach on Souliotes if you mean that. You also ignore to state that the above edits were always accompanied by tp participation: in most cases you point there was no more than 1rv per 24h and strictly following wp:BRD, no drive-by reverts or accounts that came from nowhere and simply wanted to support a supposed common national campaign as in the case of Khirurg's extensive report.Alexikoua (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Support a supposed common national campaign..." do you know how ridiculous that sounds? What exactly are you trying to implicate? Even then, most reverts I make I involve myself in the TP discussions for, unless it's not necessary. If you're innocent according to what you wrote above, then so am I. Very flawed report, very flawed comments and very flawed rebuttal of what I have put above. You RV'ed the same change three times (so correction on my part, almost* violating 3RR), and to prevent you from going to four, Khirurg came in to do the RV. If that's the case, I do not know, but had it been me or any other accused editor here, you would consider it evidence of "tag-teaming" due to the double standards you have quite clearly shown during the course of this report. Furthermore, I see that there was no comment in regards to the voting? You know the votes that uninvolved editors from the Greece topic area - who do not edit, comment or patrol pages in WikiProject Kosovo and have never done so - somehow randomly casted (same vote every time by the way, always !oppose) whenever an RM request was made to move a page to its common, official Albanian name? Very strange phenomenon, isn't it? Botushali (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What I don't see in the above walls of text is an explanation for how come you reverted at Himara within 14 minutes, even though you had never edited that article before, and how come literally seconds later Alltan showed up with an identical summary (but the edit was blank because you had already reverted). Khirurg (talk) 03:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not even sure why you're asking me. I've edited many other articles like Himara and I have it on my watchlist - as I said above I've been monitoring it for a while. Why shouldn't I revert there if I disagree with an edit? Why Alltan copied my edit summary is something which he should reply about but he already has done so as I can see above ("So when Khirurg then brings up an edit summary which I copied from Botushali's previous edit during an edit conflict, it's a distortion of reality which ignores that I both have disagreed and agreed with him and have been reverted by Botushali"). What's the accusation? Unlike you and Alexikoua who always have the exact same reverts, I have been in actual content disputes and disagreements with Alltan and I have reverted him. [203] just a few months ago. Botushali (talk) 04:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've edited many other articles like Himara doesn't explain how you showed up to revert within minutes at that article, despite never having shown any interest before. Your claim that you had been monitoring it for a whileis not verifiable. Your revert of Alltan occurred after first reverting me and insulting me Example text and the matter was referred to ANI [204]. So much more likely that was the reason, than any purported "disagreement". Khirurg (talk) 02:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have the article in my watchlist, bud. I've shown interest many times before in articles in which Albania and Greece overlap. Perhaps me monitoring it cannot be verified, but neither can me not monitoring it. The revert - if you look at the source, it did not even indicate what was said, so that's why I reverted Alltan. ANI didn't even do anything about what I said to you because it really wasn't that bad - especially in comparison to you and your track record of disrespect that you have littered throughout TP's and edit summaries towards your fellow editors. This whole report disregards the hard work of the editors you are accusing, including myself. I also would like to point out that you are yet to explain why you and other editors here have voted !oppose on articles that have nothing to do with the Greek topic area - rather, it is a topic area you have never attempted to improve, work on or add to, but conveniently you decide to vote !oppose when RM's are made attempting to move said articles to their rightful Albanian title. All in all, your unfounded conspiracy theories are getting boring and simply tiring - what's next? Tin foil hats? Botushali (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment: I do not think that the aforementioned articles and diffs constitute "evidence of tagteaming". Someone might do a reasonable assumption that there is tagteaming going on, but the most profound explanation (Occam's razor) is that the users accused are watchlisting the pages. Albanian and Greek history intermingle too much and areas of debate (either mostly Greek or mostly Albanian) attract the attention of both Albanians and Greeks that are interested in history. Cinadon36 10:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment The major problem with the report is that it is invoking WP:TAGTEAM which is neither a policy, nor even a well-defined concept. This is made clear in the first sentence of WP:FACTION: Tag teaming (sometimes also called an editorial camp or gang, factionalism, or a travelling circus) is a controversial[note 1] form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus. note 1: Controversial as there is no consensus regarding the merits of this essay in namespace. Editors have voiced a concern that the "characteristics" of tag teams can easily be applied to editors who share a common practice of editing in accordance with policy, and that the essay can be used as a weapon against editors who are acting in accordance with Gpedia's editing policies to cast aspersions on their good work In this context, there's nothing to discuss in terms of policy because there is no policy to debate about. We can still use the discussion to define it in better ways so that it's not invoked as in the report. I think that for WP:TAGTEAM to exist it has be shown that a group of editors a)have a consensus which they push around by b)circumventing official channels of consensus-building. Point b) cannot be shown in this report because there are many discussions at all talkpages about finding a consensus and one is usually found eventually. The problem which Khirurg seems to have is that there are many more editors who support specific revisions and few who support specific other revisions. This isn't a problem of policy. Consensus tends to reflect the desire of the majority of editors to the extent that they can back it back up with sources and policies. There will never be a case where consensus will reflect what just 2 editors want (e.g. Khirurg and Alexikoua) but not what 20 others want to the extent that it can be backed with sources and policies(WP:NOTDEMOCRACY). There are many editors active in articles under the scope of WikiProject Albania and they don't coordinate and they certainly don't agree with each other on many subjects, but it's natural that to a degree a common cultural background will translate to a similar understanding of some subjects. This partial commonality is what Khirurg's diffs reflect in the same way that diffs which show Alexikoua's and Khirurg's common reverts highlight another partial commonality in reasoning. Point a) is where major flaws can be found because there is no consensus which these editors share. Others highlighted instances where they revert or disagree with each other. It can't be shown that a "WP:TAGTEAM" - even in a colloquial, non-policy manner - exists if the "members" of the team don't share the same consensus. Khirurg has created a narrative which I'm certain that he himself knows that it can't stand upon scrutiny. I'll highlight some instances which mention me in a very inaccurate way:
    • Illyrian emperors - according to a Khirurg I placed a revert in this article even though I had no prior edits. This makes it seem as if my only purpose for reverting was to support other reverts. In fact, for the past 2 years I have been re-writing parts of articles about individual Illyrian emperors[205][206], so me placing a revert at the list article about them is quite ordinary.
    • Kuči (tribe) is one of the main articles related to Albanian tribes and all editors involved in improving relevant articles have engaged with it. I have written close to 40% of that article and Alltan 14.5%.
    • Bar, Montenegro: Some were reverts were listed, but there was a discussion at RfC about these changes and the majority of editors supported them. There was disagreement and consensus-building which produced results(Talk:Bar, Montenegro#RfC). Consensus-building wasn't circumvented or ignored.
    • Epirus revolt of 1611: Khirurg leaves out the fact that I disagreed with Cercok too [207][208] and changed his edits as well. I've written 28% of the article. How is it possible that two users are acting as WP:FACTION if they disagree and change the edits of each other? A key problem when we perceive any situation in us vs them terms is that we often fail to see that the Others are separate individuals. That 2 editors disagree with a third editor doesn't mean that they agree with each other. This discussion absorbed much time from several editors for no reason and it should at least with a warning that if someone has an issue with a specific editor they should report just that editor to AE where the activity of both can be scrutinized instead of dragging in many other irrelevant editors. Long discussions shouldn't be repeated at ANI without a clear context based in policy. There's always a huge backlog at all boards because of such discussions.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    At Illyrian Emperors, you had zero edits to the article prior to reverting, and yet you reverted within minutes. Your explication that you have been re-writing parts of the articles about individual Illyrian emperors does not cut it. At Kuci, it doesn't matter what % of the article you have written: What matters is that we see the same pattern as all the other articles, namely, you and the others reverting round-robin fashion to prevent changes you do not want. It's the same pattern in all the articles. As for your disagreements with Cercok, those are trivial. Anyone can have disagreements like that. But none of that changes the central finding of this report. That you and a group of editors with similar views have engaged in round-robin reverting to either ram through changes by brute force, or to prevent undesirable additions. And in all these cases, neither you nor the other editors initiated attempts as dispute resolution (talkpage discussion, RfC, DRN, etc.). It was always the other party. Khirurg (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have Illyrian Emperors in my watchlist as I've worked on most articles under that list. What is abnormal about me reverting when I was online about a subject I'm heavily involved in? Articles about Albanian tribes like Kuçi are some of the most high traffic articles under WikiProject Albania. I don't know what makes you think that this article could only get attention because of WP:TAGTEAM. It's interesting - from an anthropological perspective - that you consider "trivial", disagreements and reverts between two other editors but when you're reverted, that's when you consider it important. You spent too much time which you could have spent in better ways to write a long post about something which isn't a policy and you couldn't evidentiate even in the colloquial sense. The problem stems from your perception of "us vs. them". You just have to accept that everybody agrees and disagrees with everybody over a long period time. When they disagree with you, it isn't qualitatively more important as to be linked to something more than a disagreement.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Anti-Ottoman revolts of 1565–1572 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Editor Çerçok added on 31 August an unreliable source (Pëllumb Xhufi) to the article (back then, it was titled Greek revolt of 1567–1572) but the edit was reverted as other editors with a long standing, 15+ year-long experience in the Greece topic area, who are fully aware that Xhufi is an extremist(the admins who cannot wait for the RSN report, may simply assess what for example the Austrian Scientific Academy does sat on Xhufi: [[[209]]: In contrast to the differentiated opinions in Greek history, institutionalized Albanian research on the Epirus question has a defensive (Beqir Meta), but often aggressively nationalistic tone (Pëllumb Xhufi). Close connections between science and politics, which are particularly evident in the person of Xhufi, hardly contribute to an objectification of the discussion. In recent years, Xhufi has specialized in anti-Greek or anti-Orthodox rhetoric. Xhufi also published material-rich, but unfortunately nationally one-sided scientific essays such as Manipulimi i historisë: rasti i Epiriti This is published by the Austrian Scientific Academy at 2015]) politician and objected to him being added as a reliable source in Gpedia: [210]. Despite reverting as there being no consensus for using Xhufi,[211] Cercok attempted to reinstate the scholar back to the article without consensus [212]. When Xhufi was removed again, editor Alltan intervened to help Cercok in re-adding Xhufi again back to the article [213] despite the other editors at talk page opposing this. Xhufi was removed -again!- and then reinstated -again- [214]. The cycle goes on and after some days of no fruitful results at the talk page in reaching an agreement about Xhufi, I have attempted to remove the disputed author and have the article reflect only on consensus, [215] but another editor, Ahmet Q. from the Albania topic area stepped in to help Cercok and Alltan: [216]. Result? As of today, and in violation of any Gpedia's rules on WP:ONUS and WP:VER and WP:CONSENSUS, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV, Xhufi is still on the article: [217]. The editors from the Albania topic area disregarded any legitimate concerns the opposite side has expressed in the dispute, ignored what wp:onus states that they should be doing, and brute-forcibly added the dubious scholar to the article where he remains to this day today without wp:consensus.

My own reports also included the following articles: Greek War of Independence, Parga and Peloponnese, all occurring on September month as well, as well as the other articles where similar incidents occured in the past months such as Epirus revolt of 1611 (August) and so on. Since they are now covered by editor Khirurg above who beat me in the race, I am dropping them. However, the purpose of my report remains unchanged nevertheless: which is to highlight my serious concerns that on month September -alone-, Gpedia witnessed such large scale disruption across multiple articles of the Greece topic area with editors from the Albania topic area coming there and disregarding & ignoring our legitimate concerns, not following the normal dispute resolution procedures and wp:ONUS, and brute-forcing their changes to the articles without consensus. This has heightening my fears that this might be something the Admins may have to look after and is the reason I came here for. Sure, the other editors may be right and I am not experienced in identifying accurately whether this kind of disruption is with certainty a case of tag-teaming, but that's why there are these procedures for. For this reason, I will really appreciate the Admin's attention in evaluating, as a third party, whether this is really the case as suspected. Certain editors here counter-argued that this behavior is not Tag-teaming because it is a usual WP:BALKANS behavior; however We are not exactly experiencing everyday such a surge (if I may describe it as such) of activity by editors that aren't naturally editing this topic area, yet are going to great extend to edit-war their way to the preferred version of articles in spite of consensus and Gpedia's other core content policy guidelines. If the admin feels that there is no such kind of disruption and that my concerns are inflated, illegitimate, or I am just seeing things where there aren't supposed to be, then I am willing to apologize to the editors for that, and also to the Gpedia's community for wasting their valuable time. In this case, I will have no other option but refrain from raising similar concerns in the future and/or listen to any suggestions/advice on what to do if I feel there is such a pattern arising again in the future. Also, if the admin deems that my concerns were disruptive to the Gpedia community and/or I have violated the guidelines, then I am willing to face the consequences. --- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 23:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added content from at least four sources, one of which was Dr.Xhufi's book. Most of the content was from Malcolm. Dr.Xhufi has been twice unsuccessfully reported by editors who disagree with the historical facts found in his verbatim representation of primary archival sources. Dr. Xhufi's book is an academic publication that has gone through peer review and has been cited countless times in top journals.
I wish added content could be discussed based on its reliability per wikipedia guidelines, not on personal like/dislike of it. Çerçok (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are two RSNs about Xhufi which didn't conclude that the source is unreliable, as I have explained to SR already in previous discussions. [218][219] Xhufi is a medievalist who is a member of the Academy of Sciences of Albania. Arbërit e Jonit was published by Onufri, a leading academic publishing house which has received many excellence awards and it has been positively reviewed in Studime Historike, Albania's leading historical journal by medievalist Ardian Muhaj. It checks all boxes for RS. We can't just cherry-pick one opinion to disregard someone's work. The quote which SilentResident picked is by an author who has even contributed to the same anthology with Xhufi [220]. The source which constantly and without stop SilentResident has been trying to remove from all articles is a respected living academic and comments such as "racist, "nationalist", "ultranationalist", "extremist", ([221][222] [223][224][225][226]) which have been written about him by SilentResident are a violation of BLP for which SilentResident has been warned to stop by admins and open a RSN (Drmies[227], Cullen328[228]) and they even have redacted her comments [229][230]. Alltan (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SilentResident has provided the necessary scholarship that mentions Xhufi's work as being: "aggressively nationalist". There is no BLP violation on providing this information. However, an RSN needs to filled in order to have a clear image on this but there is too much extremist speech on TV shows etc. and scholarship doesn't hesitate to reject his claims (Arbërit e Jonit has been also considered non-RS even inside Albania).Alexikoua (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A longtime Gpedia user calling a living academic racist, extremist, nationalist, tendentious, ultranationalist etc. (see diffs above) and doing this multiple times over a protracted period of time even after being warned is in fact a severe BLP violation.
Xhufi's work has received excellent reviews in Albania and abroad. It's listed as a main source for a Cambridge University Press source as of 2022[231] SilentResident can't pick a random quote from someone who has even written an article in the same anthology as Xhufi who hasn't been "rejected" anywhere. Falsely claiming that a living academic is promoting "extremist speech on TV shows" is in and of itself a BLP violation. You can't go around and call anything "extremist speech" without evidence or a source which calls such speech extremist. Admins need to know that in the previous RSN there was an attempt to distort a historical comment by Xhufi and make into the opposite of what it said [232]. There is a clear targeting of this author by several users who have to stop using wikipedia as public space to attack living authors Alltan (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Being cited in sporadic occasions doesn't make RS his work, in fact this means nothing about the author and his work in general. I have seen several nationalistic works that have been cited for various reasons in serious scholarship. Please don't mix up those two. SilentResident mentioned the conclusion of high quality scholarship about works on the topic Xhufi is specialized (Albanian history and Greek-Albanian relations) and definitely Xhufi's work should be treated with heavy precaution. [[233]] Himara has always been Albanian, Greek government launched a 200-year old Anti Albanian agenda and several other motos of this fashion can't meet RS.Alexikoua (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've opened an RfC on Xhufi at RSN [234]. This thread should be about the alleged tag-teaming, and nothing more. Khirurg (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SilentResident, please consider this a firm warning that you are at immiment risk of a long term block if you keep engaging in WP:BLP policy violations regarding Pëllumb Xhufi. If you do not stop attacking and besmirching this academic without filing a report at WP:RSN as you have been repeatedly been asked to do, then a block will be the inevitable result. The idiom is "put up or shut up". I truly hope that you understand, and will conduct yourself in accordance with policy going forward. Cullen328 (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cullen328: I am heeling to your warning. And not just that, but also I am trying to understand the line between WP:UNRELIABLE and WP:BLP to make sure that when describing an unreliable source for the nature of their unreliability (i.e. unreliable due to their extremist views), doesn't result into WP:BLP violations. For decades, I had the impression that sources can be subject to scrutiny and criticism in Gpedia, provided that it is based on WP:RS. But apparently this isn't the case and this is what I am trying to understand. Understanding a policy's principle, helps a lot not just to avoid repeating the policy's violations in the future but also the approach to questionable sources. --- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 15:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cullen328, adding to my confusion expressed on my comment just above, regarding the precise line between WP:UNRELIABLE and WP:BLP, another Admin just intervened at the RSN stating that editor Alltan is doing an inaccurate invocation of WP:BLP regarding the criticism against Xhufi. The RfC at RSN also has non-neutral wording, and is advisd to be closed and moved to Dispute Resolution Noticeboard instead,[235] an advise the filler stated that they will follow. --- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 17:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:SilentResident, it is inaccurate invocation of WP:BLP to say the criticism of Xhufi in academic books is a breach of WP:BLP. But calling him an extremist or things like that is indeed a violation of WP:BLP. In other words, you can quote academcs who criticize Xhufi, but you can't call him an extremist, far right politican (he does not belong to the far-right) etc. Xhufi for some edits can be unreliable, for others can be reliable. It is a bit hard I know, but what can else we do? Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see. Thank you! --- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 18:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cullen328: Not only is Khirurg accusing me of "tag teaming" (last time he accused me of "tag teaming" was in November 2021 and he was warned for that and then blocked) but he is using the inflammatory term "gang up". It is very insulting: I am a Gpedia volunteer, not a street gang trying to bully people. Even worse, there have been cases where I have supported Khirurg's position againt editors I am supposely "tag teaming" with. For instance, Khirurg accuses me of "ganging up" with Çerçok, but just 6 days ago I supported Khirurg's position in a content dispute with Çerçok [236]. I can cite other such examples where I disagree with editors cited as part of the "tag team". I urge you to intervene to make sure Khirurg never makes such false accusations against me again. Btw, Khirurg noted that Ahmet Q asked editors to exchange emails; well Khirurg too has asked several editors to exchange emails. Even writing those requests for email exchange in Greek though here editors are supposed to write only in English. I frankly do not see any issue with asking someone to exchange emails, Idk if there is a policy against it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since you deem it inflammatory, I've struck the term (it's unnecessary anyway). Now, can you try and address the topic of the report at hand? Btw, is this you calling a veteran editor an "edit-warrior" in an edit-summary [237]? Not only is this a clear WP:NPA violation, but also a violation of WP:SUMMARYNO, which explicitly states Avoid incivility. Snide comments, personal remarks about editors, and other aggressive edit summaries are explicit edit-summary "don'ts" of the Gpedia Civility policy. Attacking editors in edit-summaries is especially bad because they cannot be edited. As a sign of good faith, would you be willing to ask the edit-summary be redacted by WP:OVERSIGHT? Thanks. Khirurg (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Edit warrior is someone who is edit warring. If I keep edit warring, I am an edit warrior. The editor breached the 3RR three times within a month. I reported him and he got warned by an admin. Then he kept reverting and placed a warning template that is used for disruptive IPs and newbies on my tp just because I reverted him twice. In the edit summary he claimed that I was not participating on the tp, but the history of the tp shows that is not true. Will you ask him to get his edit summary deleted? Anyways, some admins who use the term "edit warrior" in edit summaries for example [238] [239][240]. Even the WP:EW page uses the term "edit warrior". Do not expect any more responses by me here. I waited for the evidence of "tag teaming" but you just posted some random reverts of "Albanian accounts". Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ktrimi991, indeed there is no trace of you in the talkpage [[241]] although you kept reverting. By the way the result of your report was "user(s) warned" since your disruptive editing was noticed by uninvolved editors there. As such you owe a sincere apology for this pattern. Indeed you are reverting without talkpage participation in a wide variety of articles considered that you support editors that agree on your national agenda (another recent example of reverting sourced information [[242]] and no trace in tp [[243]], same situation in Pecë [[244]][[245]] and nothing in tp [[246]] apart from my comments).Alexikoua (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Salviogiuliano, the admin who warned Alexikoua (for breaching 3RR thrice in a month) [247] made it absolutely clear you were the only user edit warring and the only one warned. [248]Yes, I only warned him, but the template automatically closes the report as "warned user(s)". As I said during the discussion, Alex was edit warring and Alex was warned. Ktrimi991 explained this to you already in a discussion [249]. So why are you, being aware that this is not true, still asserting this? Alltan (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The full report is found here [[250]] and no wonder an uninvolved editor noticed immediately Ktrimi's disruptive pattern. After the first comment by Coldtrack Ktrimi desperately responded to wp:ADMINSHOP tactics: [[251]] and [[252]].Alexikoua (talk) 02:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cyber Anakin and IP editor conduct

Cyber Anakin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I was in two minds whether an ANI report, or a AN3 report for this was in order. While there is a 3RR violation to the Cyber Anakin article, as the IP editor has made four reverts in the last four hours ([253], [254], [255], [256]), there are also behavioural issues that go beyond this.

Brief timeline. Yesterday Softlemonades, over the course of three edits, removed content from the Cyber Anakin article. The IP editor restored the content, which I then removed again ([257]) citing WP:BLPRESTORE. The IP editor restored it a second time, for which I issued an edit war ([258]) notice to the IP, and the IP editor simultaneously issued a uw-disruptive1 notice to me ([259]). I then asked the IP editor to self-revert ([260])), which they agreed to at the time, while accusing Softlemonades of tendentious editing. Discussion then moved to the article's talk page. In that discussion, the IP editor again cast aspersions about editor conduct ([261]), to which I politely requested that the editor stop implying that content was removed in bad faith, and reminded them to assume good faith ([262]). Despite this, the IP editor continued with the aspersions saying a spade is a spade and then asserting that I should Drop the stick if any or all of the removals prove overzealous. ([263]).

Shortly after this, the IP editor used the {{please see}} template on the User talk pages of five editors (diffs: Cambial Yellowing, Deku-shrub, GorillaWarfare, Scope creep, and I dream of horses), who as far as I can tell have never edited that page. This was pointed out by I dream of horses on the article talk page ([264]) and discussed briefly on I dream of horses' talk page ([265]). Neither I dream of horses nor I are sure how or why those five editors were chosen.

Discussion continued between myself and the IP editor at the article talk page ([266]), where they accused me Wikilawyering over the various policy points that were raised at the discussion ([267]). My response was to direct the IP editor to this noticeboard if they felt as though either my or Softlemonades' conduct was an issue, making another request to cease making accusations of bad faith ([268]).

During this series of events, the IP editor has issued three warning templates on my talk page. uw-disruptive1 ([269])), uw-disruptive2 and uw-tempabuse1 ([270]). The use of these templates, when combined with the pointed commentary at the article talk page feels as though it is intended to produce a chilling effect, to discourage myself and potentially other editors from editing that article. This is not the first time I have faced such behaviour at that article, this AN3 report, as well as related discussions on that IPv6 editor's talk page ([271], [272], [273]) from June 2022 were also laden with commentary that I should leave the article be for a variety of reasons. I also suspect, though cannot decisively prove, that these two IP editors are one and the same, as they both have used the somewhat unusual phrase "don't whack a mountain out of a molehill" (IPv6 editor, IPv4 editor) instead of the far more common term "make a mountain out of a molehill", though I suppose the "whack" variant could be a cromulent variation. However even if they are not related, the chilling effect emanating from that article remains.

If there is an issue with my own conduct in this, I'll be happy to apologise and adjust how I approach these sorts of edits. Also while I will naturally notify the IPv4 editor of this thread per instructions, I'm not sure if I should also notify the five other editors who received a {{please see}} notice earlier directing them to the article talk page. I'd appreciate any clarification on this. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ANI notice to IP editor. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Instead of going through WP:DRN or WP:DRR first you went all the way up here. That says a lot about you. (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright, here's my statement. I have a bunch of pages regarding Ukraine since the start of the invasion on my feed, and that one is no exception. The reason why I restored the content after Softlemonades' removal is not just because it make those less interesting and more boring for readers, but because it would cause the article to become out-of-date particularly when Softlemonades removed sections describing the further implications of his hack and his later activity, for instance the passages regarding Distributed Denial of Secrets and his activities during the invasion, the latter of which I've since restored) as they are sourced by Taiwan News which is kind of like a USA Today in Taiwan and it was one of the largest newspaper over there. WP:BLPRESTORE provides that Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis, rather than an all-out removal no matter the presence of parts worthy to be retained.

Even though there are small errors such as the use of primary sources and a preprint paper (which has since became an academic OUP entry), however the solution would be to remove those only. As for the rest, they also went into a nickel and dime territory where Sideswipe allege that tidbits like "the hacktivist wanting to be more like Justin Bieber" are unnecessary which is very much disputed given that IMO it's more like a MacGuffin for readers in terms of explaining the hacker's M.O. and the spurious allegation by Sideswipe that "Distributed Denial of Secrets group and Cyber Anakin was not made clear in that source" and "how or why it is in there is not made clear" which sounded more like nitpicking or "making a mountain out of a molehill"; the passage was meant to describe the lasting scope and effects of his data breach.

I saw the contributions of the original remover (Softlemonades) and feel that there's a wrong vibe given that he had engaged in other edge-case disruptive actions on other pages such as WikiLeaks; in fact it reeked of TenPoundHammer which was known to have engaged in far more disruptive and zealous removal actions until the point that he was topic banned.

Seeking to avoid WikiDrama and resolve it professionally, upon Sideswipe's advice I set up an ad hoc "third opinion" discussion on the talkspace and semi-randomly picked an admin based on past editing history of that page for him to preemptively break the deadlock provide feedback and to work on resolving the matter. Otherwise involving the original editors would risk running into loggerheads and become a disruptive drama.

I had let Sideswipe known about it and expected her to take the hint. She refused and put out an invite for Softlemonades, while pulling a lot of nickel and dime without any hint of how to progress and/or compromise on it. If she didn't appear like a ninja and interfere the page issues would have been fixed quickly or even by now without much fuss. Some would be re-phrased or rewritten, while non-salvageable contents would be removed.

In my experience of spectating editorial activities in Gpedia, removals of well-written and sourced statement under spurious or pedantic grounds are at times viewed as disruptive and even vandalism; IMO they should have tagged the offending passages first and raise it at the talkspace, unless it's unambiguous vandalism, libel or doxxing. Instead of going through WP:DRN or WP:DRR first Sideswipe went all the way up, which is why we're here today. (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. As soon as Sideswipe put a "Please see" notice on Softlemonades's talkspace there's the danger that it would come off as an unrepresentative or skewed consensus unless some people with experience in editing that article or BLPs in Internet culture in general are invited to have a say on it, so I invited about five people by random based on the article editing histories and involvement in relevant WikiProjects (Internet Culture and Cybersecurity in this case). That's all I've to say on that. (talk) 00:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IP I don't think I can be bothered looking into this, but it's clearly not vandalism, and you suggesting it might be suggest is not helping your case. Indeed it can be construed as a personal attack which will lead to you being blocked. Also, there are various ways to seek additional feedback on a WP:content dispute but picking a specific editor/s even allegedly at random is not one of them, it's impossible to demonstrate you weren't WP:CANVASSING intentionally or not. If you need help from editors experience with BLP then WP:BLP/N is the way to go. If you feel editors from some Wikiproject can help, then post a neutral notice on their noticeboard asking for help. In the case of Wikiprojects, it's especially important that you put a notice on the article talk page that you did so, so all editors are aware of your request and can consider notifying other Wikiprojects if need be. BTW, especially in the case of BLPs, it is far more important that content is adequately sourced and does not violate any of our other policies and guidelines like WP:UNDUE, than it is up to date or not "boring for readers". Indeed an article being otherwise "boring for readers" is not a good reason to keep or add something, in any article, but it's an especially terrible reason on BLPs. I'd go so far to say that you should not be editing BLPs if you think it's an acceptable reason to add or keep content. Nil Einne (talk) 02:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given my concerns over the IP reasoning and other things, I've brought the article up at BLPN. Nil Einne (talk) 02:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The WikiProject noticeboards at times can be very stale, see here and this. Regardless, thanks for pointing out to the right direction, to the BLP noticeboard. (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's more important whether editors are paying attention then whether something is allegedly stale, and it's impossible to know the later without analysing whether posts on the noticeboard result in editor attention and even that will depend on the specific posts. In any case, if a Wikiproject is inactive then, an editor cannot be "involved" it in any meaningful way so it's especially silly to defend notifying editors based on their involvement in a Wikiproject when the Wikiproject is dead. The Wikiproject becomes irrelevant and you need to find other ways of looking for editors that does not violate WP:CANVASSING. Ultimately it's your responsibility to respect our guidelines and policies if you want to edit here. Nil Einne (talk) 02:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd also note that this dispute seems to be about 2 days old and is clearly something which isn't timely or important to resolve quickly. So it's entirely reasonable to ask for help on some noticeboard, and wait a week or more before deciding this isn't working and moving elsewhere. It's poor form to expect urgency from volunteers for something which is very far from urgent. Nil Einne (talk) 02:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While this specific dispute is around 2 days old, as I stated above there is a longer standing underlying behavioural issue relating to comments made by at least one IP editor (two if the IPv4 and v6 editors are not the same person) that seem to be phrased in a manner to discourage others from editing that article. I've tried (I hope), to make my comments solely about editor conduct and not article content, as ANI is not the correct noticeboard for a content issue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For clarity, I have no comment on whether there are conduct issues beyond those I've mentioned (that the IP's notifications were inappropriate, that they should not be suggesting there was vandalism and that some of their stated reasons for adding or preserving content are wrong). My point on the urgency thing is that the IP seems to be justifying their canvassing based on the assumption they would not have received feedback if they've used appropriate noticeboards. But it's impossible to know this since they never tried, and even if they had tried, they did not leave enough time for their to be a response. Indeed, a big part of the current mess (whatever historic problems there have been) seem to be because the IP is in way too much of a rush to resolve this dispute which is a bad thing on this volunteer collaborative project of Gpedia. Nil Einne (talk) 02:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aaah, yeah that makes more sense. Sorry for the confusion! Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Honestly, there are significant fraction of editing community like me who leans onto WP:YESDEADLINE. (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regardless, if you expect volunteers editors need to drop everything and resolve a dispute within hours just because it's something you care about, your editing career is likely to last much longer. Nil Einne (talk) 08:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wanna point out theyre canvassing random users again and put a clock on their edits while the ANI is still open Softlemonades (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, the editor whose edits were challenged here. Wanted to point out that when the discussion about my edits was started, the IP editor mentioned but didnt tag me. When another put a notice on my talk page to tell me about the discussion, the IP editor removed it. diff 1, diff 2
Also wanna mention that the Taiwan News RfC was never closed, but by my count the survey had 7 votes for "Generally reliable", 9 votes for "Marginally reliable or unclear", and 1 vote for "Generally unreliable and too partisan for factual reporting". I didnt know about the RfC when I challenged the source, just that it wasnt WP:RSP, but the IP editor has been saying the RfC decided Taiwan News is "quite reliable" and I dunno where that came from.
For my edits, I did it in three parts because they needed three different edit summaries and because I wanted to wait and look at the article more before removing the biggest chunk. I havent edited the page since my edits were challenged. Softlemonades (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When another put a notice on my talk page to tell me about the discussion, the IP editor removed it. Whoa. This is amazing (and not in a good way.) Jahaza (talk) 03:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whoa indeed. I'm very glad you brought that first point up, because that is some absurd behavior from someone who is very clearly trying to portray themselves as knowledgeable of how to operate on WP. That is very plain and simply bad faith unacceptable. struck pending a chance at explanation GabberFlasted (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's because I mistook him as a difficult user after taking a quick glance on his contribs, like this edge case on Wikileaks and his talkspace's edit summary. I told Sideswipe at the time about the concern and the wish to skip to "third opinion" format. She seemingly acknowledged it, before backpedaled. Out of WP:DNFTT I reverted her notification just in attempt to avoid this needless drama today. (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unless the editor was topic banned, there was no justification for the removal. It does not matter whether you think another editor is a difficult user or whatever the fuck. It's unacceptable to try to cut out editors from discussion of content they are adding or removing by removing legitimate notifications others have placed. I'm not going to read that essay, but if you feel you need to avoid a "difficult user" but they are editing an article which interests you, your only option is to stop editing that article or alternatively if the alleged "difficult"ity of this user is enough to warrant a site or topic ban, then to gather the evidence and open an ANI (or ARE if applicable) and get that ban. No one, other then uninvolved admins in AC/DS applies, have the right to personally decide another editor is not allowed to participate in some discussion because they are a "difficult user" and then from that conclusion, try to prevent them from participating. Nil Einne (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see. I'd note your advice and be careful in the future. (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I should clarify that nowadays with partial blocking, an admin can partial block an editor from a specific talk page and prevent editing so I guess it isn't accurate to say it's only possible when AC/DS applies but in any case where the WP:Blocking policy does. But that's still very limited, and in a lot of cases unless there is edit warring or something else similarly clear cut, partially blocking someone from a talk page where AC/DS doesn't apply is likely to lead to community concern even if there was some mild disruption from the editor. And as I noted, even in AC/DS cases, it needs to be an uninvolved admin. In other words, even for someone we generally trust and in an area that is problematic, we do not allow people to be cut out of discussion just by people they are in dispute with. Although it is true that in e.g. the case of a severe BLP violation, an admin just removing the content would generally be seen as sufficiently uninvolved to take action. And technically it is possible for community to come solely from people already involved (but not just one or two people). Nil Einne (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In lieu of my own follow up, thank you Nil. This hits the nail on the head. GabberFlasted (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yesterday Softlemonades, over the course of three edits, removed content from the Cyber Anakin article – For the record, that article needs a lot of content removed. EEng 07:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Except that, now the zeal looks no different that TenPoundHammer's as it starts to disrupt the narrative story flow of the article, like this, especially the latter of the cause-and-effect aspects. This is fast degenerating into additionism/retentionism vs removalism which had happened perennially in this site as a whole, which to the best of my understanding has contributed to low editorial retention. From time to time absolutist rationales and stances to justify deletion/noninclusion of contents and even whole pages, which had sometimes contributed to Systemic bias; one of the long string of latest examples being Donna Strickland. It's easy to just sit down at couch and say "I don't know anything of that or that or that, let's delete it!" about local people, politics, economics, religion, events, science, arts, literature, film, theater, food and drinking/restaurants, geography, astronomy, dance, music, sports, education and whatever all around the globe". It's also easy to remove "unimportant or irrelevant" information because of lack of familiarity or disinterest due to cultural differences. While you here might want a simplistic presentation, others like readers might want Gpedia to be detailed and be like a Wiki rabbit hole.
    To the best of my understanding, the German Gpedia underwent similar craze and as a result lost financial donors and contributors due to "purging trolls" activity. Because of that their publications has regularly linked to English Wiki instead of their native version. Note that I'm not advocating for an radically unrestricted of anything into this encyclopedia because some may violate copyright laws or otherwise misinformation, but it's no good either if you take the other side to the extreme.
    With the help of this word counter which I copied and pasted the text from the original version (before Softlemonades' removal), the word count stands at 1,321 words (including the section titles). This is far short of 6,000 to 10,000 words described in WP:SIZESPLIT which takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed.
    In the end additionism/retentionism vs removalism is a zero sum game which not playing would be wise. One possible middle ground is to use only reliable sources with Taiwan News, VICE and Heise as a minimum in terms of reputation and/or reliability, and move on after that. (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Whatever. But pretty goddam sure the reader gains nothing by learning that the subject was a student "doing his math homework" when he first heard about the crash on Interfax (with math linked, for Christ sake), and other such crap. EEng 18:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It turns out that a ruling by the Arbitration Committee from 2006 held that It is disruptive to remove statements that are sourced reliably, written in a neutral narrative, and pertain to the subject at hand. Disruptive removals like that along with actually unsourced or all-out libel additions/modifications have been very commonplace in articles that are related to politics, i.e. Russia/Ukraine, Armenia/Azerbaijan and Kurdish topics. In most cases they are swiftly reverted or otherwise dealt with. Due diligence should have been used in the first place (such as tagging the offending passages with Template:Unreliable_source? or so on to garner wider input on before going bold), while I regret that this hasn't been brought up earlier. (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    God only knows what Arbcom meant by that 16 years ago, but if you think it somehow means that some ponderous process is needed before cruft about math homework and so on can be removed, you're very much mistaken. I'm not talking about unsourced, or not-reliably-sourced, material, but just plain material that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article, whether sourced or not. EEng 19:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I was talking about the original removals by Softlemonades which was excessively wanton and affected even legitimate content (such as those that are cited with Taiwan News). As it's too indistinguishable with vandal actions which involved the usage of vague summaries to evade anti-vandal patrol I judged it as suspect and reverted it. (talk) 23:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That makes removing the discussion notice from my talk page an extra odd choice EDIT: I wrote this reply before the post was edited Softlemonades (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Speaking of vague edit summaries now that their post was edited to talk about, IP editor restored content repeatedly removed and told there was "no consensus for" with the edit summary "fixing the side effect of out of date."
    Thought I should mention that for folks here at ANI Softlemonades (talk) 00:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As a context, WP:BLPRESTORE provides that materials that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis. They were "partial restores" in the sense that only Taiwan News and AsiaNews cited contents are restored while other contents that you removed remain in the dark. (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This was fifteen minutes after you were told there wasnt consensus on it, and the edit summary was vague and very different from the first removal. Can you point to consensus on the Talk page about your fix addressing concerns after you were told that it didnt in the edit summary reverting your first re insert and before your second re insert? I read it all at once so I mightve missed it Softlemonades (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    WP:BLPRESTORE - If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.
    There were "significant changes" by now, starting with the partial restore and subsequent improvements by other editors (i.e. this, this and this who weren't part of this discussion, although I had to revert one of them because it inadvertently affected the flow of story, while yanking a passage with an actually dubious source ( myself. Perfection is desired, however sometimes it can be an enemy of good. (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The last diff you cited was from after all of that took place, so I dunno why youre using it to justify an edit that you made before that diff but back to the actual point and question.
    What significant changes were there in those fifteen minutes? Why was your edit summary so different from your previous one?
    Im not just curious about the re insert but the vague and different edit summary, because you made assumptions about me because my edit summaries were supposedly too vague. Softlemonades (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Before seeing Sideswipe's info about WP:BLPRESTORE, I was under the impression that your edits were probably disruptive because it removed a corpus of well sourced statements whose tones and by extend pertinence by most standards are good enough. That is normally one of the red flags by vandals or otherwise disruptive editors within politics-related articles, one of the M.O. being to denigrate or minimize individuals or entities out of spite (like "User: Eranshahr Eranshahr", two threads below away). So I reverted your edits under normal BRD cycle, with the summary of rv unconstructive and disruptive removal, see WP:NOTCENSORED and more note: his removal had cause the article to be out of date, while Taiwan News is judged to be reliable sourced in Then Sideswipe went in like a sudden ninja so I've reverted her under the rationale that another set of problems were created by making it out of date, especially when one or more of the sources were okay by standards, which is a little bit reminiscent to a silly WP:BIKESHED. Sideswipe then asked me to self-revert which I did, although I made the partial restore to make it up-to date again; you don't fix a problem by making two. In the interim there are small cleanup edits such as spacing.
    It was interesting to see that Sideswipe mentioned a previous dispute with other editor in the same field on the topic about "nested archives" so I dug further. Ironically Sideswipe said that Respectfully, there is being cautious in handling BLP articles with care, and then there's being overcautious. And in this particular instance, I believe and I strongly suspect others would believe that you're being overcautious to the point of disrupting how we normally cite our sources. In hindsight to the best of my understanding their nested archives controversy centered around potential outright doxxing of the BLP she could have make a procedural removal of the DOB (which the nested archive was used) like others did later for the time being. There is no need for her to be melodramatic by escalating straight up to AN3 back then and ANI right now. She could have made the procedural removal of DOB back then, and respect the spirit behind the intention of skipping to ad-hoc 3rd opinion per with an experienced editor/admin pursuant to WP:IGNORE since I initially mistook you to be "difficult users" like so many others in the field because of past edge-case edits on pages like Wikileaks and on your talkspace's edit summary, arguing with "difficult editors" almost always led to fruitless results, and abundance of caution is warranted although this luckily turns into a mistake, instead of fuss. WikiDramas obviously suck away editors' valuable time and perhaps she should get a bit of boomerang over that.
    There is also WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH but let's think with another perspective. The New York Times has stories by Walter Duranty which extolled Soviet values and whitewashed the Holodomor, and still hasn't retracted these and the Pulitzer Award to him. Despite having the that and other list of controversies involving The New York Times, did we go on the bikeshed to pick a bone from the egg and split the hairs like here? (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    567 words to not answer my questions and invoke the BRD cycle after you removed the notification about the discussion from my Talk page. And you still cant point to agreement that your reinsert fixed anything 15 minutes after you were told it didnt and that you needed consensus on talk.
    You justified it by citing WP:BLPRESTORE If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. and saying "There were "significant changes" but
    It looks like the only difference between the two versions is in the intro, not in what you re inserted. So unless you got consensus on the talk page, there wasnt a significant change or any change at all Softlemonades (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Please compare my initial restore, subsequent partial restore and the current version. Yes, there was a significant change, where "case by case basis" apply. (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For the Ukraine invasion section, the difference between the initial restore and the subsequent partial restore is the removal of the sentence fragments on the Kuril Islands dispute, Russian Antartic bases, enlargement of the UN Security council, Russian funding into Covid-19, the knowledge ark, a citation to a defaced website, and a slight tweak to accommodate the sentence ending earlier. The difference between the partial restore and the current version is the addition of a wikilink to the word Panerai. All other text remains the same in that section.
    For the paragraph on Cyber Anakin contacting Covid-19, the only differences between the text in your initial restore, and state of the article prior to the removals by Softlemonades on September 2 is a change in date formats, due to my date unification pass on September 2 being undone.
    These edits do not represent a significant change from the state of the text prior to Softlemonades removals. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Please don't misrepresent it. There's an interactive diff analyzer (accessible by Browse history interactively) which you can access upon going into one of the diffs. Scroll the yellow dot until the one with edit summary more note: his removal had cause the article to be out of date, while Taiwan News is judged to be reliable sourced in and the blue one to cebap, the current version. You'll see that the Heise passages and the Justin Bieber trivia were gone as well. (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The compare I posted is of the two edits were talking about, the ones 15 minutes (18 to be exact) apart, where you were told not to reinsert the text without consensus on the talk page. The second edit is the one with the vague and misleading edit summary. Anyone can check the History page.
    Please stop trying to change the subject or talk about different edits to justify this one. Softlemonades (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ill do a timeline to make it easy
    20:27, 24 September 2022‎ IP editor adds text with summary "Restoring passages that were backed up by Taiwan News, which should be uncontroversial"
    20:29, 24 September 2022 Sideswipe reverts with summary "Undid revision 1112128963 by (talk) No consensus for this has been achieved at the talk page."
    20:30, 24 September 2022‎ IP editor adds citation to head with no summary
    20:45, 24 September 2022 IP editor removes update template and re adds text from 18 minutes before with edit summary "Fixing the side effect of out of date."
    IP editor justifies by citing WP:BLPRESTORE and saying there were "significant changes"
    Compare of the two text adds show the only difference is the citation and a deleted blank line Softlemonades (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A more accurate representation would be by comparing the following: (Initial full restore) (Subsequent partial restore)
    The edit of 20:30, 24 September 2022 was to re-add citation backing up the passage that "Cyber Anakin" also went by "cyberanakinvader", although in a very implicit manner as the word "dubbed" leads to the subject's blog with the latter username.
    The edit of 20:45, 24 September 2022 was more akin to a dummy edit; I was in a rush and neglected to put the edit summary into the original partial restore, no fuss is necessary on correct or clarify it later.
    While Taiwan News is described by the 2021 RfC as largely at best generally reliable and at worst marginally reliable, the news source provides their readers a way to conveniently fact-check their articles for WP:Accuracy by sharing links to the hacker's defacement page. Take for example this and scroll to The targets included the website for Russian heavy metal band Aria (archive), a hockey site (archive), a Panerai watch enthusiasts site (archive), a basketball team (archive), and an educational organization (archive). You'll see that the secondary source put the links to the raw defacement page along with Wayback Machine's archival link over there. It's preposterous to suggest otherwise.
    As to "government websites, agricultural management systems, coal mine safety interfaces, nuclear power plant interfaces, and satellite interfaces.", these are not immediately verifiable (aside from a picture of satellite system) given that no raw or Wayback Machine links exist for these system. However mindful of the 2021 RfC the previous editors had already done a good job by putting "According to Taiwan News" in-text citation, pursuant to WP:BIASEDSOURCES. (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "The edit of 20:45, 24 September 2022 IP editor was more akin to a dummy edit" Wow.
    "neglected to put the edit summary into the original partial restore, no fuss is necessary" The edit summary is part of why you said you assumed bad faith from me, so surprised at that stance.
    "as largely at best generally reliable and at worst marginally reliable" Thats an interesting way to word it since it was the other way around and largely described as "marginally reliable"
    So you were told by another editor not to re add specific text without gettin consensus on Talk, and then you re added exactly that text but it was just a "dummy edit" got it.
    I think were just spinning our wheels at this point so Ill let the admins take it from here but I hope they read this thread because I think the edits and your responses are interesting Softlemonades (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I mistook you for a bad editor because of your edit summary in your talkspace that used pointed capital and rude tones against other editor (Cambial Yellowing).
    In the end I had to agree with you to let the admins or otherwise experienced editors to take it from here; in fact the discussion at the article talkspace was meant to be an quick ad-hoc third opinion with an admin who edited there as well, before Sideswipe made a scene out of it. Failing all that maybe the article can be given to Wiki Education Foundation to be re-written while giving those students a chance in learning how to edit? Have a nice day. (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The reason for my tone was I have a history with Cambial and have considered going to ANI over their behavior towards me for specifics better left out of this discussion esp. without them here. I often avoid Cambial entirely but this time I was matching Cambials common energy towards me.
    Not my greatest decision, but thats why I took a tone Softlemonades (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry to hear that. I heard that there is a procedure in Gpedia to enforce a so-called "interaction ban".
    Regarding Wiki Education Foundation, there is also a caveat I neglected, that would meant arduous re-inventing of wheel given that it's already cumbersome for most of us to change things in Gpedia due to heuristics of editing interface (especially source-editing which is still very common). Cheers. (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @EEng @Nil Einne @GabberFlasted @Jahaza Im sorry for tagging you, Ill only do it once but I thought this would get lost and since you already posted here I thought itd be ok.
    You might want to see my post above and IP editors reply, its near the end of the thread. The whole thread is long but the bottom line is in the last few posts, starting with the 17:51, 26 September 2022 one Im replying to here. Softlemonades (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The essays WP:BIKESHED and Gpedia:Truth, not verifiability comes to mind. (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree with EEng. The article is in a pretty bad state, with a rather large amount of unencyclopaedic and crufty content that should be removed. Unfortunately, with the IP editor's preference for long paragraphs that say very little ([274]), repeated baiting attempts directed at me ([275], [276], [277]), and their recent restoration of content crufty material because it "disrupted the story flow" ([278]), I am not alone in being extremely hesitant to try and make any improvements to the article at present. I fear that without some sort of intervention, frustration will drive otherwise productive and good faith editors away from the article in the form of "Let the Wookiee win" Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's bold for you to imply that consolidating many points and arguments which would take so many fragmented responses into one big paragraph is anything bad, given that Gpedia isn't like Discord or Twitter where communications happen in real time and in tidbits. Some discussions can take a long time, often while editors are so busy in real life so that many things in their minds would've changed by the time they made the next comment or whatever else.
    For the record I apologise to Softlemonades for mistaking him as a difficult user; the reason of the false red flag being of his talkspace's edit summary which ironically was the result of yet another "difficult editor".
    You and I and almost certainly all of others have a different view of the definition of "unencyclpaedic" and "crufty"; therefore squeezing about it is gonna be a very zero sum game. Instead, there's a really quiet part on why there is a strong feeling against putting more content: UX/Readability.
    Presently when in long articles, it can sometimes be very hard to jump between sections because the navigational box is fixed at the top of the page which is gone the moment you scroll down. Even for me it's bit of a problem too. This usability issue was tackled with the release of Vector 2022 which I've tried firsthand and found that the box is readily available at the left which provides far more easier navigation between sections and should render removalist arguments based on this usability issue moot.
    Failing that I think that was an eccentric proposal to split English Gpedia into en-gb and en-us; in the long run that could be the destiny and the best of both worlds as long as the zero sum additionalist-removalist game keeps being played. (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting, this is the second time in a week I've seen this fairly obscure arbcom finding cited in an attempt to suggest that removing anything is inherently disruptive (the other was here). Since this is misleading so many, maybe a clarification needs to be posted? MrOllie (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbcom does everything formally -- I doubt you realize the amount of time and trouble that would require. And that's not counting the gigantic debate that would ensue to decide on what such a clarification would say. Let's just let this strange little virus die out. EEng 23:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sideswipe had by now told me and others to go to a multitude of other wikis catering for intricate/narrative style of presentation. There's a huge problem with the notion; speaking from reader's perspectives, if you want to learn about a subject you don't know or otherwise obscure to you, would you prefer them to be presented at one stop in a trusted encyclopedia rather than going site-by-site? Because here's one thing; by hopping through different sites there's also a security risk because presently browser exploits like remote code execution are all too prevalent and even "legitimate source sites" can one day fall victim to such attack. As an example Over 47,000 Malicious WordPress Plugins Are Active on Nearly 25,000 Websites. Scan it with Malwarebytes, Virustotal or anything you can, but most of the time they don't catch zero-day attacks until it's late. Almost all the policies that we cite here are formed during the 00s or 10s, when these aren't so prevalent. English Gpedia ultimately is among the top sites visited on the Internet and it looks so much like putting too many eggs in one place since the shutdown of Google Knol.

After all, it's going straight into the dead end per the Poe's law if we harangue on what constitutes "improvement" or "unencyclopaedic", so as Sideswipe claimed the problems now involve conduct issues here are a couple of questions for her, although Softlemonades can answer as well:

  • If you can remember, what caused you to come to the article for the first time? It'd be helpful if you describe your feelings back then.
  • Most importantly, you insisted on wanting to work on and improve the article, so what was your end goal? Let's do a thought experiment where suddenly you are the only active editor in Gpedia while on that page. Imagine that Thanos had been resurrected and snaps everyone except you. More realistically, the sham referendums at occupied areas in Ukraine went through and Putin uses it as a justification ("threatening Russia's territorial integrity") to fire a tactical nuke at the Black Sea. Maybe Putin's crazier than we thought and sent the kiloton against Ivano-Frankivsk, Izmail, Lozova, Irshava Berdiansk, Tokmak, you name it. Instead of cowing the world NATO intervenes and destroy Russian positions throughout occupied areas resulting in a formal declaration of war by RU. A malfunctioning early warning radar falsely reported incoming missiles but there's no Stanislav Petrov this time. San Francisco is hit with a Bulava MIRV, as does New York City, Washington DC, London, Belfast, Edinburgh, Manchester, Moscow, St Petersburg, Vladivostok, Paris, Lyon, Marseille, and so many other cities, knocking off the Internet for good. You survived, hiding in a bunker or something. It turns out that you have a complete dump in a hard drive and deciding to edit that a bit to present to leftover future generations. What would that be for this page? To answer the question, put the page source in personal sandbox or rather WP:SANDBOX, edit it as if you're the only one doing that, and put the sandbox diff link of your finished work back here. For reference, this is my answer. (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

lol what?! Quandarie 16:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to let folks know, the IP has just been rangeblocked for being part of a colocation webhost. Looking through the page history, this isn't the first time an IP editor who was active on the Cyber Anakin article and a couple of others relating to Anonymous being rangeblocked due to being a proxy, at least two others are still active. Is it possible that because of this history of edits by IP editors behind proxies that this article meets the criteria for semi-protection? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disruption by Locke Cole

Editor Locke Cole is edit warring against consensus on multiple templates Template:Bit and byte prefixes Template:Quantities of bits Template:Quantities of bytes (including a possible 3RR violation [279] [280] [281]), disrupting talk pages (here’s one example [282]) and carrying out personal attacks [283] [284]. Some editors are trying to hold a discussion at Template_talk:Quantities_of_bits, but the discussion is continually disrupted by Locke Cole's edits. Can someone take a look? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dondervogel 2: You have failed to notify Locke Cole of this ANI filing, as the red notice on top of this page and when editing clearly require. I have done so for you this time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TheDragonFire300 He did notify Locke here, but was reverted here. ~~~~ JCW555 (talk)♠ 00:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to apologise, in that case. I was going to check shortly after I made the comment and notice, but forgot to. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Without commenting on the possible edit warring and general discussions I find it odd that the discussion for Template:Quantities of bytes is being held at Template_talk:Quantities_of_bits#New_proposal:_Legacy as part of a proposal that appears to have gained consensus and been implemented in November 2021. The only reason that I was able to figure out to go there was the fact that there was a November 2021 message on the Quantities of bytes template Talk with a link. The same goes for Template_talk:Quantities_of_bytes (where the previous talk items date to 2015). This discussion appears to have been going on for multiple years in different forms both on individual pages and collectively. I also note that the templates link to Kilobyte and other pages where the nomenclature should align with what is in the templates otherwise it is going to get even messier and the discussion will migrate there or the Template discussion will be used to support viewpoints elsewhere.
With all of this I suggest that a formal proposal be started at the Gpedia:Village pump with messages left on the template talk pages alerting people and whilst the discussion is being undertaken the templates should be left in a stable form. Apart from anything else:
  1. That will gain a wider viewership and input than on a single page.
  2. Changes based on consensus at the Village Pump are easier to support and require an equivalent level of consensus to change to something else.
Gusfriend (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Honestly, this should have been held at WT:MOSNUM, as one of the templates under discussion (Template:Bit and byte prefixes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) is transcluded at WP:COMPUNITS (part of WP:MOSNUM; thus making it a MOS change, not simply a template change). As to the November 2021 "consensus", the TL;dr version is, Dondervogel 2 drags out discussions, waits a month or longer to reply, apparently in an attempt to force their POV. It worked this time because I and other editors who would oppose it did not notice the "new" discussion (you can see I was heavily involved in other discussions in that main section; the proposal they made nearly two months after the last meaningful discussion in that sub-thread was quickly closed in only six days when they got what they wanted (with no attempt to ping or reach out to other editors they knew were heavily invested in the discussion)).
It is my intention to collect evidence of this disruptive behavior by Dondervogel 2 (back to when they edited as Thunderbird2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which goes back literally over a decade, present it here, and suggest a WP:BOOMERANG wherein Dondervogel is restricted from editing pages in any namespace that have any relation with units of measure that involve computers or technology. If you want just one taste of how they treat this topic as a WP:BATTLEGROUND, look at the full edit history of User:Thunderbird2/The case against deprecation of IEC prefixes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which they have religiously updated for fourteen years. —Locke Coletc 01:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Non-administrator comment)If I'm reading correctly, a header at WT:MOSNUM indicates that this is under ArbCom discretionary sanctions, so any editors involved in a dispute about this topic should beware and tread lightly, yes? Elizium23 (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In addition to Locke Cole's editing against consensus, disrupting the discussion chronology and edit warring, I'd like to direct attention to his severe lack of WP:AGF, frequent allegations of lying and generally rude tone at least bordering on harassment. A productive discussion is impossible. I'd seriously appreciate an admin calling him to order officially. --Zac67 (talk) 06:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This ANI thread is about disruptive behaviour by Locke Cole, and as I see it, any comments relating to the merits of the debate and forum (for example by Gusfriend above) will only distract from the purpose here. I confirm Zac67's observation above: there is a long history on this topic, including (section 'Should it be there at all?') accusations of lying, failure to assume good faith on the part of other editors, and generally being unpleasant to interact with. Included are accusations such as the one above against Dondervogel 2. This unpleasantness by Locke Cole and the failure of the community to censure him caused me (about a year ago) to decide to leave WP. I will no doubt leave again, but for now, I'll see whether the WP community can restore a little my faith in managing this disruptive behaviour. What is needed to deal with this? —Quondum 15:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Too much drama. This is a long-running dispute between essentially two warring parties. Claims of “editing against consensus” should be looked upon with critical scrutiny as they are can often be a tactical move that is the Gpedia equivalent of leaving Novichok on a doorknob to remove inconvenient obstacles. On this long-running war (over whether Gpedia should adopt terminology like “gibibits” instead of "gigabits”) “consensuses” tend to actually comprise just one complainant and a fatigued friend extracted from the woodwork who barely cares. Were someone to induce just one or two more people to somehow care and join these discussions, purported consensuses simply swing the other way.

This dispute truly had a consensus many years ago with very many editors weighing in and a consensus discerned and declared with an admin supervising. At that time, Dondervogel 2 (then known as Thunderbird, if I recall correctly) didn’t accept that consensus and doesn't agree today with the current policy that sprang from that consensus. Nothing has since changed other than drama persists. Greg L (talk) 01:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disruptive editing by IP

IP 2601:601:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 has been doing some disruptive editing for some time now, including some pretty nasty stuff. Sometimes they change sourced information without giving another source to back up their modifications (see [285]). Sometimes they add some unsourced, straight-up wrong information (see [286] and [287]). They also claim to be Judd Hamilton for some reason, and have been quite rude towards other Wikipedians, including admins (see [288] and [289]). They also seem to have pro-Somaliland leanings, judging by these edits: [290], [291], [292]. Lastly, they seem to have something against the band Mystic Braves, and have been accusing them of some really bad stuff (all unsourced, of course): [293] and [294].

So it's quite a weird mix, it almost looks like several people are behind this IP range (which is obviously possible). The whole /32 range is already banned from quite a few topics, but it isn't enough apparently.

Addition: there's some low-key racist stuff too! [295] BilletsMauves€500 16:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a bit of a confusing filing. Almost all IPv6 /32s are more than one person, so if you look at them in aggregate, you'll always get an assortment of different kinds of bad edits, usually (although not always) alongside an assortment of different kinds of good and meh edits. Looking at my own /32, we've got a lot of unsourced edits, some block evasion, a touch of spam, a bit of talk-in-article, some sports trolling, some ranting at BLP subjects. To determine if sanctions are needed, we have to look at individual /64s, or sometimes a bit narrower if we can piece together subnets that someone's hopping through—outside those rare cases where either there's so many problematic editors on a range, or one editor so deeply problematic, that we block the whole thing. I don't think this /32 meets either of those criteria, but am open to being convinced otherwise.
As to the proximate concern here, this morning I blocked the maybe-Hamilton IP's /64 from Judd Hamilton; he'd been adding promotional content there since 2018 and not gotten the hint that it was unwanted. This whole thing is either someone trying to hijack the identity of a celebrity they share a name with (and doing so across multiple sites), or someone who picked up a side career in their 60s and it just hasn't gotten any RS attention. I lean toward the latter (plausible geolocation, among other things) but am not sure. If anyone determines it's the former, this should be made a siteblock. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sidenote, a few things about Judd Hamilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) set off alarm bells. The combination of self-pub/user-contributed sources and a suspiciously low backlinks:claims-to-fame ratio is something I often associate with hoaxes. This isn't a hoax, but something about it seems sus, as the kids say. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm discussing this on my talkpage with them. I doubt that the whole /32 is a problem, as Tamzin said, they are virtually always more than one person, and a /32 IPV6 is (as I understand) roughly equivalent to a /16 IPV4. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 05:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The actual range that they are theoretically able to access according to WHOIS is more like the /26, but the range that has been on Judd Hamilton is "just" a /44. (2601:601:D0xx/44) Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 05:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, so should I deal with them as several different /64s, and bring back the matter here if necessary ? BilletsMauves€500 18:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Kyleung05 makes changes en masse, across large groups of articles at a time, without providing an edit summary (seriously, not one edit summary or talk page post in 1,045 edits). They reinstate these changes repeatedly even after other editors have objected on their talk page, and they do not participate in discussion to reach consensus, as their complete lack of talk posts evidences. They were recently blocked for 24 hours by @Canterbury Tail: for this behavior, but they have resumed just as soon as the block expired. Wallnot (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that this user is mainly editing articles based on public transit in Toronto. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 11:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've just blocked them for another week, same pattern of editing and a disruptive tendency to remove things like photos of political figures. In fact they've warred on many political figures, all edits of which are continually reverted by multiple users. I'm tempted to make it an indefinite to try and force them to communicate, but I doubt they will communicate. Canterbury Tail talk 11:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We should keep an eye on pages pertaining to Toronto transit in case the user comes up with other ideas, especially given that pages pertaining to various high-profile politicians have EC protection. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 11:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Toronto transit rings a sock bell somewhere, isn't there a fairly prolific socker in that topic? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. Some of us aren't convinced for reasons, but yes there is one particular one we're keeping an eye on about. Canterbury Tail talk 14:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. I will keep a close eye on such articles in the meantime. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Persistent personal attacks and uncivil comments by Wikaviani

Wikaviani is not taking 'No Personal Attacks' seriously. He makes harassing and uncivil comments during the discussions, specially when it comes to challenging issues, which makes consensus building nearly impossible. Here he makes attacks by saying "Stop wasting our time with your WP:FORUM-like posts to push your pro-Mullahs POV". In response, I politely asked him to avoid casting aspersions against me. At the time he made more attacks, like this.

Now, when he is told by another user to avoid making personal attacks he made here, instead of avoiding personal attack, he responds: "calling a cat a cat is not a "personal attack". --Mhhossein talk 11:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've taken a look at the conversation. I think there's a case for WP:BOOMERANG here.
First and foremost, you're quoting him out of context. He said, "Stop wasting our time with your WP:FORUM-like posts to push your pro-Mullahs POV without providing any reliable source." Emphasis mine. Please don't misrepresent words by selectively quoting them.
It's not a personal attack; it's an observation about behavior. He feels that the content you've proposed is biased towards the Iranian government, that your posts treat the talk page like a WP:FORUM, and that the sources you've provided aren't reliable.
You also linked to a diff that showed a comment Wikiaviani made and called it an attack. It's not. He's saying that you have a battleground mentality; that you're edit warring; and that you're distorting Gpedia's guidelines.
You, yourself, previously accused him of having a battleground mentality and edit warring. You're claiming that such statements now count as a personal attack. When you said those things, did they also count as personal attacks?
Here's some feedback for you: if you suspect someone is some sort of sockpuppet, raise it in WP:SPI. Don't try to discredit other participants in a discussion by airing such a suspicion in the middle of a content dispute. Quandarie 12:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:BOOMERANG. This is not a personal attack, and Wikaviani is in fact not the first person to make this observation; I did it as well back in 2019, in a WP:AN thread where other users made similar concerns [296]. If you assemble all the cases, there is a good amount of evidence to back this. For example, back in April 2020, Mhhossein was partially blocked for "tendentious commentary and original research" [297] which he made in this thread regarding Khomeini (taking a pro IRI stance) [298], the founder of the IRI. A pro IRI stance was also taken here (2019 June) (September 2021). Heck, take a look at even his most recent case regarding the death of a poor woman by IRI Guidance Patrol for showing some hair. Do I need say more? (September 2022). They have also been warned "against a battleground mentality and further incivility" in relation to articles about Iranian politics. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seeing the comments down below, I should have perhaps clarified better. This pro-IRI behaviour all violated at least one of our guidelines in each of these threads. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Quandarie: I really don't think [299] and [300] are appropriate ways of communicating with others in such a calm a discussion. --Mhhossein talk 09:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, while edit warring, misrepresenting what reliable sources say by cherry picking only the parts you like, using unreliable IRI sources repeatedly while you have been told not to do so are appropriate ways to edit this encyclopedia ? By the way, two editors are still waiting for your explanations at Talk:Mahsa Amini protests, it would be an appropriate way to communicate to answer them, don't you think so ?---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 09:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mhhossein, thanks for the diffs. Mhhossein is right; it is an unacceptable personal attack. Quandarie 16:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Quandarie: ; Don't get me wrong,
  • Given Mhhossein's profile as an editor, I disagree, when an editor systematically misrepresents what sources say to push a pro IRI POV during unrest in Iran, it's not surprising to see him do it again now.
  • Again, calling a cat a cat is not a personal attack towards said cat.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 06:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment : I could hardly do a better job of gathering evidences than what has been done above by two other editors (also see here). I think Mhhossein is quite a knowledgeable editor on Islam related topics, as evidenced by the articles he has brought to the good or featured level, but when it comes to topics related to the Islamic Republic of Iran, he is almost systematically biased.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Topic ban proposal: Mhhossein

WP:BOOMERANG : Given what has been said above, i propose a topic-ban of all topics related to the Islamic Republic of Iran, broadly construed.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amended heading to clarify that this is a boomerang proposal, not a proposal against yourself. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks very much for clarifying.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support : Per nom.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment this whole discussion is an excellent illustration of why WP:GS/IRANPOL / WP:ARBIRP [Links fixed. El_C 16:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)] was needed, and of the fact that a larger number of admins are needed to monitor this area. El C and myself did so for a while, before we were exhausted by the endless bickering and omnipresent battleground mentality. I strongly suggest that no action be taken in this case unless and until uninvolved admins or experienced editors have had a chance to give their input (but I will likely not be one to do so). Vanamonde (Talk) 21:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This belong at ArbCom for a full case with all sides presenting their evidence, not an ANI proposal where one group of partisans bands together in a show of "consensus" for sanctions against another partisan. nableezy - 21:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nableezy: Not sure I agree. ARBCOM cases are for complex disputes; this is just endless mudslinging that can be resolved by a group of admins, but is exhausting for any single one. Someone ought to try AE. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Vanamonde, this case is better here than at Arbcom. Also, I don't see how I can form a band of partisans with an editor I've never interacted with before today (Quandarie).---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was an ArbCom case on this last year. I don't think Mhhossein has learned from it. Quandarie 06:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: this is worth a topic ban under the discretionary sanctions regime. Quandarie 06:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose: Yes, Mhhossein has been part of previous disputes, but why is a topic-ban requested here? Having a pro IRI stance and expressing it politely in a talk page? BOOMERANG is not "let's retaliate because we can". MarioGom (talk) 07:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's much, much more to this than his pro-IRI stance. Quandarie 08:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Being part of disputes and expressing it politely is not the problem and as far as i can see, nobody here is saying let's retaliate because we can, i made a topic ban proposal in order to stop the disruption caused by Mhhossein when it comes to IRI related articles, not to "retaliate". There are many many diffs provided above, please take the time to check them. Every time there is unrest in Iran, this guy steps in with unreliable sources or misrepresentation of what reliable sources say, all with edit warring, personal attacks and a battleground mentality, it seems quite obvious that this editor is not neutral when it comes to editing IRI related topics, isn't that enough for a topic ban ? I've seen editors get blocked/topic banned for much less.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 08:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My comment was a reference to, at least, 2 of the provided links [301][302]. Unless someone gets more specific with diff links or specific quotes, the rationale above seems to be that you consider unacceptable to hold certain positions, rather than a behavioral problem. What I've read so far in these two links are reasonable comments (whether they are right or wrong) about the handling of sources, in-text attribution, etc. Actually, what I do see is that other editors immediately personalized the discussion. I might be missing context, but I just don't see the path from these links to a topic ban. MarioGom (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[303] Blatantly misrepresenting a source to make it more in favour of the IRI is reasonable? For a user that has been here for 8 years and has been accused/warned for similar behaviour in the past? Mhhossein hasn't even responded to why he did that yet, even though he was asked directly TWICE in that very talk page. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The path that links Mhhossein to a topic ban is here : edit warring and refusal to achieve consensus FIRST before reinstating his edits while trying to discredit reliable western sources with a POV tag when Neda Agha Soltan was killed by Iranian forces (along with personalized comments like "thanks for your collaboration, let's remove the tag when the issues are resolved" while the onus was on him to convince others about the inclusion) : [304], [305], [306], [307], [308], [309] (he reverted 3 different users to reinstate his edits, two registered and one anon ...). Also, as said above, blatant misrepresentation of a western source by cherry picking only the parts he likes and omitting the rest, quite odd for an editor who speaks English very well and has been editing here for so many years, don't you think ? There are many other examples.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support: I for one, am tired of seeing Mhhossein violating our guidelines in favour of their persistent pro-IRI edits/comments and getting away with it. Being "polite" whilst doing it doesn't make it any better, that's why we have something called WP:CPP. I don't think this was would have happened if there were more admins to monitor this area (though I don't blame them). The fact that Mhhossein only got topic-banned from MEK (People's Mujahedin of Iran) related stuff back in September 2021 is honestly baffling [310]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 07:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1109#AFC/HD Bludgeoning

Concernsavant is the account behind (over?) the IPv6 in the thread above, and from the looks of it he hasn't learnt anything from the block. Aside from getting a sandbox of his deleted as G12, he's been constantly copy-pasting material from the sources he's trying to cite to his talkpage and to AFC/HD in an effort to defend the same sources that have been deemed wanting before, and has also been editing the archived AFC/HD discussion to try and make his case there. At this point I'm of the opinion that there is just no reaching him, and so I have to reluctantly ask for an indefinite block here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 04:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disruptive, promotional. Take your pick. Indeffed either way. Star Mississippi 15:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Might I ask for a talk page revocation? They're unwilling/unable to contest their block and are instead just trotting out the same tired Vaudeville act that's been gonged multiple times. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 04:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absolutely would have, but @Legoktm got to it first. Thank you! Star Mississippi 13:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Repeatedly adding false negative material and BLP vios to a sanctioned article

Guydebordgame has been adding false negative information to Bored Ape, and edit-warring over these additions, since September 17. He has ignored or disparaged several attempts on the talkpage (beginning September 18) to get him to abide by Gpedia policies (WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, WP:V), gain consensus, and make sure his edits are verified in citations [311].

Because the article is under Community Sanctions and restricted to 1RR, and the user is edit-warring and doubling down instead of listening, I am bringing the issue here.

Negative inaccurate edits and BLP vios on Bored Ape:

  • [312] "Crack cocaine addict" (the citation instead says this co-founder had addictions for a couple of years in his early teens and they ended when he was 15)
  • [313] (reverted removal) re-added "Crack cocaine addict"
  • [314] re-added "crack cocaine addict", in a new sentence; still inaccurate, still undue, cherry-picked, and a BLP violation. (The citation instead says that before co-founding Bored Ape, Aronow was [planning to get an MFA but fell ill and became] a cryptocurrency trader.)
  • [315] "The ADL has stated that several of the traits in the collection are problematic and racist towards black people and Japanese people." (Instead, the citation refers to two senior research fellows at ADL [Pitcavage and Hill], both of whom refute Ripps' claims of racism, although they note that, out of context, 2 of the 10,000 ape images are problematic and that "a very small subset" is "clearly offensive" taken out of context.)
  • [316] "banned in many countries for being child pornography" (The citation does not mention Bored Ape, and does not mention child pornography or the film being banned anywhere.)
  • [317] (reverted removal) re-added "itself named after the 1971 film, banned in many countries for being child pornography." (Again, the citation does not mention Bored Ape, and does not mention child pornography or the film being banned anywhere.)
  • [318] "where users commonly 'draw dicks,' according to the founder." (Not at all what the citation says; not even an accurate quote even though it's in quotation marks. The citation mentions a concept of an unnamed shared blank digital canvas that was apparently abandoned because the founders didn't want people drawing problematical stuff.)
  • [319] (reverted removal) re-re-added "itself named after the 1971 film, banned in many countries for being child pornography." (Again, the existing citation does not mention Bored Ape, and does not mention child pornography or the film being banned anywhere. Guydebordgame added to that an unreliable citation which falsely implies that the pseudonym refers to the film rather than the album and which links to an unrelated 2015 Canadian court filing which does not mention Bored Ape or the album the pseudonym is named for, and although the court filing mentions the film and says that a police officer had said that based on description one or two scenes in the film were "bordeline child pornography", the court filing says nothing about the film being "banned in many countries".)

Again, since the article is under sanctions and the user is edit-warring every time his false negative material is reverted, even with clear explanations in the edit summary and on the talkpage, I'm bringing this here. (talk) 06:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've now added another diff as Guydebordgame is contimuing to edit war on this 1RR article over his false information and is refusing to gain consensus. (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joe Roe

I recently saw that User:Moondragon21 created some problematic articles, noted this at User talk:Moondragon21#Issues with your creations, and pinged User:Joe Roe as they had given them the autopatrolled right, which I thought should be revoked. Things went downhill from there, with Joe Roe completely missing the point and making false claims for rather unclear reasons. Today they warned me that "regardless of what you think of the quality of their edits, I think we both know that you systematically combing through another editor's creations does not lead to a good place." (the editor created unattributed, machine translated versions of articles from other wikis: no idea how to find this and see if e.g. a CCI is necessary without going through their edits). Joe Roe also reverted a draftifying I made of an article by Moondragon without bothering to solve the issues that lead to the draftifying in the first place, and then blocked me from that page when I redraftified it, which seems like a clear WP:INVOLVED issue. They also history merged another Moondragon21 article I had draftified (Murder of Natalia Melmann, a problematic unattributed translation), without bothering to indicate that they put an unattributed translation back into the mainspace in this way.

Can someone please tell Joe Roe that such WP:INVOLVED blocks are a big no-no, and that making false claims to protect his granting of autopatrolled isn't very good either? Fram (talk) 08:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I don't think I "missed the point" that Fram was trying to make with regards to Moondragon21's edits (he was not aware that we're supposed to attribute translated articles, now he is). I just disagreed that it justified revoking autopatrolled from his account. Fram is of course welcome to ask another admin to review that decision. Afterwards, Moondragon21 pinged me asking for help resolving a split page history after Fram moved one of his creations to draft while he was editing it. I did so, then noticed that Fram had moved another of his creations (Gonca Türkeli-Dehnert) to draft multiple times, which is contrary to WP:DRAFTOBJECT and WP:MOVEWAR. I undid this, then reminded Fram of that policy, noting that Liz had just done the same thing a few weeks before (User_talk:Fram#Draftifying_articles). Fram immediately reversed that move, so I issued a partial block to prevent further move warring. All of my interactions with Moondragon21 and Fram have been in an administrative capacity, and the only reason I saw any of this was because Fram pinged me to ask me to take an administrative action, so I don't see how I have crossed WP:INVOLVED. I'm happy to hear others comments on whether any part of this sequence was in error. – Joe (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Thanks for showing that you indeed missed the point. The issues I raised about Moondragon were unattributed translations, very poor machine translations, and "fake" referencing (taking the first source from the original article, and putting it at random somewhere in their translation, thereby e.g. using a 2018 source to reference a 2022 fact). "he was not aware that we're supposed to attribute translated articles, now he is" He has since edited a lot, and has not tagged even one of his creations as an unattributed translation, despite requests to do so from me and from Joe Roe. "All of my interactions with Moondragon21 and Fram have been in an administrative capacity": I criticized your repeated failures to actually see the issues, and the false claims (e.g. "The notices about articles nominated for deletion or moved to draft were there before I granted autopatrolled") you made to defend your lack of action. To then go and revert a problematic article back into mainspace and then block your critic is clear WP:INVOLVED admin tools abuse. Fram (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Yes, you are criticising my administrative actions. That's fine, happens all the time, but it does not disqualify me from taking further administrative actions involving you. We'd be rather stuck if that were what WP:INVOLVED means, because someone could just declare that they think all admins are idiots and become unblockable. – Joe (talk) 09:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • No, I am discussing your competence and your false claims in defending your lack of action. About the edits of one editor, with a few articles as examples: and you just happen to then block me from one of these articles, and claim you are not involved. Comparing this with an extreme example of slippery slope is a very weak attempt at defense. Fram (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Oh, and your attempt to stop me from looking through the creations of someone who produces poor, unattributed machine translations. You seem to have your priorities here absolutely wrong. Fram (talk) 09:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Both the Fram block and this ANI thread popped up on my watchlist at the exact same time, so I took a look at Gonca Türkeli-Dehnert. I have no dog in this fight, and have no opinion on whether the block or other actions were WP:INVOLVED. But having checked three of the four citations in the article, I had to remove those three as not verifying in the least. I believe that Gonca Türkeli-Dehnert should be returned to draft, and Moondragon21's autopatrolled should be revoked. And MurielMary should be far far more careful in accepting AFC submissions. Softlavender (talk) 09:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Edited to add: Yngvadottir has now fixed the sourcing issues, so I now believe the article can stay in mainspace unless the subject lacks notability. That said, I believe Moondragon21's autopatrolled should be revoked, and Fram unbanned from the article now that it is sourced and unlikely to be moved-warred over (he may have something to contribute to the article). Softlavender (talk) 09:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I edit conflicted with you after working on Gonca Türkeli-Dehnert, and had previously looked at Murder of Natalia Melmann. To be frank, neither looked like a translation to me, they were both so inadequate in their coverage, while the German articles are distinctly fuller coverage of the subject. I was disturbed by the point to which Fram drew attentions in their edit summaries at Gonca Türkeli-Dehnert—an obviously misused reference—and it's a BLP, so I rolled up my sleeves. I believe it's better now. I don't think Moondragon21 should be doing any editing here requiring understanding German, let alone on BLPs. Türkeli-Dehnert is not a politician, she is a civil servant/administrator, and the article contained several inaccuracies. It didn't bear the hallmarks of machine translation, but this editor's work based on German sources, at least, needs to be draftified until it can be checked. In short, Fram's right and since I have now made the article much closer to the content of the German article, I'm going to put the translation template on its talk page, but I don't think the editor has been translating, really. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • To clarify, I don't think I indicated that this page was a translated one (if I did, I messed up). The ones I indicated as unattributed translations were Julia Hamburg (a near-straight Google translate of the intro to the German article, and Murder of Natalia Melmann, which was a badly mangled straight Google translate of the Spanish version: e.g. the text in the enwiki article, "Later skills link five involved since in the analysis of the young woman's body five different genetic traces were found" is exactly the same as what you get with a Google translate of "Pericias posteriores vinculan a cinco involucrados puesto que en el análisis al cuerpo de la joven fueron hallados cinco rastros genéticos distintos" from here. Fram (talk) 10:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support removal of the removal of Moondragon21 autopatrolled permissions given the issues mentioned here and on their talk page since they have been given the permissions. They had an AfC rejected due to using as a source for Mariama Sarr in August.
    As an aside, whilst I am aware that it is a personal preference and not policy, I do not like signatures that do not display their username. As such I am disappointed that an administrator would have a signature that says "Joe" when their username is actually "Joe Roe". Gusfriend (talk) 10:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps it's a misnomer, but WP:DRAFT is marked as an "explanatory essay". In that context, was this extreme enough to 1) warrant a block 2) require an admin to revert the move back to a "preferred version" in lieu of editors organically resolving this (preferably through discussion).—Bagumba (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That particular part of WP:DRAFT is just an explanation of how WP:EW, a policy, is applied to moves-to-draft. This was a partial block from editing one page after I had attempted to get Fram to stop himself; I didn't see it as particularly "extreme". – Joe (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Trying to stop me from something not disallowed in policy but just in an essay, and without even attempting to get a) why I redrafted it, or b) to correct these issues on that BLP yourself? And then blocking me, again based on that essay, while we were in a dispute over your handling of the autopatrolled right of that very editor? Fram (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      We weren't "in a dispute", Fram. You asked me to do something, I said no. – Joe (talk) 10:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      And misrepresented my comments, and then started lying about what happened, and then as a completely unrelated action (right?) lectured me about draft moving one of the articles from that discussion, lectured me about going through the creations of other editors (because, of course, we want more disastrous machine translations and we don't want anyone to find out), and then pblocked me. Totally normal behaviour. Fram (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I really have no idea what you're talking about with half of that. Let's let others weigh in, shall we? – Joe (talk) 11:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I did so, then noticed that Fram had moved another of his creations (Gonca Türkeli-Dehnert) to draft multiple times, which is contrary to WP:DRAFTOBJECT and WP:MOVEWAR. I undid this, then reminded Fram of that policy...: Those actions that you described are you as an editor, not an admin, and you cited essays. A revert would rarely be an admin action, save for a policy violation (BLP vios, unsourced, etc) or reverting to "preferred version" only after applying full protection in an edit war. This is a content dispute of sorts on what should be in draftspace or mainspace. Discussion would have been the preferred action at that point, not adding to the warring yourself. —Bagumba (talk) 11:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      This is both: reverting a (conduct) policy violation and reverting to the (policy) preferred version. I've enforced WP:DRAFTOBJECT many times before, as an admin action, and will continue to do so unless there's a strong consensus here that it's inappropriate. I have no opinion on whether the article ultimately belongs in mainspace, only that the process is followed. – Joe (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • You are using an essay to support your edit warring and blocking over bringing a BLP into mainspace while the issues that have been pointed out with references not supporting the claims (with e.g. a 2018 source for a 2022 fact) have not been corrected, and claim that you are reverting to the policy prefered version somehow? And that's still ignoring the involved action of it of course, but then again, you "have no idea what I'm talking about" when I describe your own posts, so this shouldn't come as a surprise. Fram (talk) 11:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I'll defer to others on whether DRAFTOBJECT is a de-facto policy or just an essay, as I'm not too active in this area.—Bagumba (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was just looking at the new pages recently made by Moondragon21 and noticed that since 23 September Alexis Izard, Elenore Sturko (politician), Finnish gun politics, Paul Midy, Zorlu Tore and Midy have all been created without a talk page template plus pages created with only a single primary source and needing other tags. As I mentioned above I do not believe that they should have autopatrolled permission. Gusfriend (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They also don't add the redirect templates like {{R from alternative name}} when they create new pages which are redirects. Gusfriend (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not seeing this as an involved problem. If someone moves a page back to article space, don't just keep move warring back to draft. If an admin notices someone move warring and moves it back, that doesn't make them involved. If there are other issues and you aren't making progress on various talk pages, bring them to ANI. Present a sample of articles, describe the problems they have, and suggest revoking autopatrolling or some other sanction (or postpone such a proposal if the person understands the issues). I will say, though, that as usual, coming in hot with a "look at all the ways I found that you're a screw-up. can't you do anything right?" [paraphrase] followed by a bunch more notifications as you go through a bunch of their edits with the effect of angrily dropping a stack of papers on someone's desk, isn't always the most effective approach at getting someone to change their behavior and is going to lead to the wrong kinds of arguments.
    It looks like some of the this thread has become about Moondragon21, though. Perhaps that should be separated from the involved question. Moondragon21, as several people have said now, you do have to attribute translations, and will need to go back and do so for past translations. You are also responsible for the quality of the translation, and for making sure the articles meeting English Gpedia policy requirements. That doesn't mean everything has to be perfect, but it does mean e.g. ensuring that text is verifiable in cited sources and, ideally, that the sources collectively justify a notability claim. As is often the case, Fram is correct on the merits (just not on the approach). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "If an admin notices someone move warring and moves it back, that doesn't make them involved." is a strange way to describe this. People are involved because they have a dispute, not because they move a page. But if you move a page and then block an editor while you are already in a dispute with that editor (about, among other things, this very page and the seriousness of the issues seen here and on other pages), then that makes it an involved action. Fram (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - so this was the status of the page when Joe moved it to mainspace the last time. "In October 2021, she became State Secretary for Integration in the First Wüst cabinet in North Rhine-Westphalia" is sourced to this source which is clearly dated 23.02.2018, but is sourcing a statement regarding 2021. When Fram moved the article back to draft with this edit, Fram's edit summary clearly said "A 2018 source to support a 2021 event? This is the exact same problem that led to drafitfying in the first place." I would have expected someone to read the reason why it was returned to draft. Also, I'm very unimpressed with citing two essays for the block ... and worse, calling them "policies" (see "Clear policy violation, and I'm not remotely involved"). And that doesn't even begin to get into the fact that you were the one reverting Fram in all this ... which *I* would consider involved even if there is some wikilawyering way of saying "no I wasn't" ... the appearance is very important with involved situations - always better to err on the side of not doing something. On the other hand, Fram, it might have been best to do as Softlavender and Yngvadottir did and just FIX the issues rather than move war ... you may have been on the side of protecting the encyclopedia but it does look a bit like you were being a bit of a pain in the behind rather than just fixing the issue. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fair enough. I can get a bit vexed when people move things back to mainspace without bothering to fix the issues (see e.g. Gpedia:Articles for deletion/Pranav Pandya (AWGP) for a similar one, not involving any of the people here though). Fram (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As I have already said, WP:DRAFTOBJECT is an explanatory gloss to WP:EW, a policy, as is WP:MOVEWAR. I could have cited WP:EW directly, but that would have just made things less clear, and I wasn't writing with eventually having to defend my action at ANI in mind (though given that Fram was involved, that was stupid of me). I can't get my head around the idea that reverting someone makes you involved. How else are admins supposed to deal with other types of move warring? Or regular edit warring? Or just vandalism? This is not wikilawyering, it's a core element of WP:INVOLVED: one important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role [...] is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. – Joe (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • WP:MOVEWAR is an essay (and is about page names, not about namespaces, to boot)... anyway, you weren't involved because you reverted me, your reversion and block were problematic because you, the involved editor, made them. Fram (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      For me... the way an uninvolved administrator solves a move warring issue is move protecting the article or blocking someone for move warring. What makes you involved in MY mind is that you got down in the trenches and moved the article/draft around, thus becoming an editor rather than an admin. An admin works to stop the problem without having to make a decision on the content (or in this case, the namespace location of the article/draft). Like I said above, there may be a "wikilawyer" way out of being "letter of the wikilaw" "involved", but for my own actions as an admin, and as a way of staying above the fray and NOT getting into situations where you're "looking bad" - it's better to not make those "content decisions" like reverting a move before making a block. And I'll say - both of you should let other folks weigh in here, rather than doing a big pile of back and forth that doesn't make either one of you look like sensible people who are ready to collaborate and compromise. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Are you saying Joe should've blocked then reverted rather than revert then block? Or that if you block someone for repeatedly inappropriately moving a page, the page must stay at the location in was improperly moved to until someone else comes along? That doesn't seem ideal. It's not like a content dispute where there are two valid interpretations of policy and an admin isn't supposed to choose between them -- pages just aren't supposed to be moved back to draftspace like that. i.e. the next step is AfD, ANI, or some other mechanism to resolve problems with the content/creator. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ealdgyth said that as an admin Joe should have either move-protected the page or blocked for move-warring, and should not have move-warred himself. Softlavender (talk) 09:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Softlavender: What would be the point of blocking or protecting the page if it remained in Fram's preferred location? – Joe (talk) 10:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm summarizing Ealdgyth, so you'll have to ask him. But you might want to check out WP:The Wrong Version (when there is an edit war or move war, an admin should not choose their prefered version [involvement] and then lock or block), and remember that Ealdgyth gave you two options to choose between, and page-protecting was just one of them; blocking Fram for move-warring (or even just move-protecting) would have allowed other editors to decide (for instance via talkpage consensus or whatever) whether the page in that form should be in draft-space or mainspace. Softlavender (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC); edited 01:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I don't see re-draftifying a BLP that is known to have fake sources as edit warring. Moving a BLP draft to mainspace without fixing the issues that have been pointed out is bad. Then blocking the messenger is also bad. Joe, can you unblock Fram from the page and accept a trout so we can close this? —Kusma (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      No, because I don't remotely see a consensus for that. From WP:EW: an editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. – Joe (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Considering that I reverted once on the 23th, and once on the 27th, and you reverted my moves twice on the 27th, it seems as if that line applies more to you (who broke 1RR) than to me then? Fram (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Is there a policy-based reason to continue blocking Fram from that page? As it is unlikely that they will edit the page, the block currently only seems to serve as a scarlet letter punishment. —Kusma (talk) 08:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I would be happy to unblock if Fram says they will not move the page to draft again. They haven't, as far as I know, so I have no reason to conclude that it is "unlikely" that they will edit the page. – Joe (talk) 10:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Are you aware of the reason why Fram moved the page to draft space and also that Yngvadottir has fixed that issue? Why should Fram move or edit the page now? —Kusma (talk) 10:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I don't know why Fram would move it in the first place when we have an age old process for building consensus for deciding whether articles should remain in mainspace. Anyway, Ritchie333 has decided to unblock and pseudo-close this thread. – Joe (talk) 10:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Because draftification is a policy-suggested alternative for deletion, i.e. something which should be considered instead of starting an AFD; because AfD is not cleanup; because draftification gives them 6 months instead of 7 days, ... I don't understand, on the other hand, why you would move articles back to the mainspace without making any effort to address the issues with them first. Fram (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      If you are citing WP:EW, there is no situation when it's an administrative role to add your own revert to an ongoing dispute. There was no WP:3RRNO exemption applicable. You became an editor at that point.

      An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions.

      Then Fram reverted you, and you invoked an INVOLVED block. —Bagumba (talk) 09:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      This is incoherent... how are admins supposed to deal with edit warring or move warring if reverting to the status quo makes them involved in the dispute? – Joe (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If I protect a page after it's seen BLP disruption (for instance), I will usually revert to the status quo after protection has been applied. This is standard procedural practice, and doesn't make a person involved in any way. The involvement is a red herring here. The issue is needing to acknowledge and deal with BLP problems in the content. And draftification isn't a solution to that: the page may be less prominent, but BLP very much applies in draftspace, if there's content violating BLP, it's still an issue. If someone had the time to fix the issue, that's obviously preferred, but blanking, not draftification, is the appropriate second choice. Edit-warring over a draftification is genuinely pointless. As such I don't think anyone is covering themselves in glory here. Joe's block is within policy, but it's not really addressing the meat of the issue. Fram's edit-warring was pointless, and can't even claim a BLP exemption, because he wasn't removing the content. I know I'm likely pissing off everyone here, but can we de-escalate a little, appreciate what Yngvadottir did, and recognize that something similar is what's best done next time? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC) Striking: had not seen the second revert. Inappropriate block, per Amakuru below. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Thanks for the endorsement, Vanamonde, but going over a translation to find and fix problems is lengthy, demanding work; notice that my initial fix edit conflicted with Softlavender, who saw the problems with the sources. I dropped everything; Fram may not have had time (and may not have the German reading skills needed; I'm not sure I rendered the bureaucratic titles well myself). There are a limited set of editors capable of checking and fixing bad translations, and WP:PNT is perpetually snowed under. Joe Roe didn't examine these articles closely enough, nor did the AfC reviewer who passed the one I worked on, and Moondragon apparently can't read the original languages well enough to translate accurately; at least draftification removed the article from passing readers and from Google indexing while the problem with Moondragon's articles based on foreign languages could be addressed. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @Yngvadottir: I do recognize that, hence my appreciation. Lacking the time to do that, though, the next best option is blanking the BLPvio, not move-warring. Moving it to draft may de-index it, but it's still a BLP violation. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, thank you Yngvadottir and others for doing the important thing and fixing the article. But I still think that, as an admin responding to move-warring and bad draftications, it isn't my job to wade in and decide who's "right" about the content dispute or try to deal with complex content problems. That would make me involved. – Joe (talk) 04:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree that Julia Hamburg was an unattributed translation of the first paragraph of de:Julia Hamburg; I've just fixed that, so now it's an attributed translation. It might or might not be a machine translation. I can't see any of the usual smoking guns for a machine translation but there isn't enough text to be sure.—S Marshall T/C 18:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @S Marshall: Yes, that was what I wondered about at Gonca Türkeli-Dehnert; it didn't show the garbled syntax indicating a machine translation, but instead had plausible wording but serious omissions and inaccuracies of content. I've now looked at Julia Hamburg and the German; Fram sees a machine translation of the intro (which is itself a mark of a bad translation), but it's full of omissions of what is an almost quintessentially difficult German summary. I don't have time to work on it for several hours, and it in any case it begs for a rendition of the entire article. Meanwhile I've asked Moondragon21 what exactly they have been doing. Fram has pointed out a passage in another article that was clearly machine translation, but these two German ones make me wonder whether the editor is using some other intermediary text. The combination of plausible English and serious inaccuracies makes me think of those shady news sites that are populated with translations, maybe AI-mediated. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Personally I wouldn't attempt an idiomatic translation of the German article. I'd write a fresh article in English based on the German-language sources, which would take me about half the time. Might have a go at that.—S Marshall T/C 22:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Joe Roe: You stated above: I've enforced WP:DRAFTOBJECT many times before, as an admin action, and will continue to do so unless there's a strong consensus here that it's inappropriate. After various comments, I'm interested in your current perspective on admin actions w.r.t. DRAFTOBJECT. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 03:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not really changed. Edit warring is disruptive, that has been settled policy for years, and per Rhododendrites and Vanamonde the standard admin response is block/protect and revert to the status quo ante. Move warring is doubly disruptive because of how annoying it is to revert, and move warring in draft space even worse because WP:CSD#G13 makes it a functional slow deletion. Nobody has made a strong argument against that, only objected to WP:MOVEWAR and WP:DRAFTOBJECT being technically essays, or said that I should have dealt with the content problems myself. I have more sympathy to the latter point of view, though my general philosophy with admin work is that if their are editors actively working on an article, leave the content issues to them (because WP:NODEADLINE), and just focus on making sure that everyone is getting their voice heard fairly (because WP:BITE is a big risk with draftification). – Joe (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To summarize: I reverted once the 23th, and once the 27th. Joe Roe reverted me twice(!) the 27th. Hardly a blockworthy edit war in itself. "Nobody has made a strong argument against that, only objected to WP:MOVEWAR and WP:DRAFTOBJECT being technically essays" Uh, I do believe that if the justifications for a block are two essays, one of them not even applicable to the case at hand (WP:MOVEWAR, as already said above), then this is not a technicality but an indication that your block is not supported by policy. Joe Roe not only went immediately to an indef block (which again is not what policy suggests at all), but refuses to undo the block even after all these things have been pointed out, they have been asked by others to undo the block, and the issue leading to the reverts has been resolved anyway, making the block pointless in any case. Fram (talk) 07:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I have a lot of respect for Joe Roe, but they've clearly made an error of judgement here. Using an essay as a rationale for blocking someone, and on an issue affecting a BLP too, in which they were already INVOLVED, was not correct. I can AGF on that, we all make mistakes sometimes, but it's worrying that Joe seems to be doubling down on that now, instead of apologising.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(After edit conflict) Joe Roe, that line about draftification being bitey and amounting to slow deletion is usually mine. Just the other day I was schooled here that it's perfectly ok to move a draftified article back after fixing its issues, it doesn't have to go through AfC unless there's a COI or some other specific reason. I'm not sure I 100% believe that, but there's that to explain why some NPPers are so casual about it ... However, in this instance Fram had drawn attention at least twice in their edit summaries to a major problem with the referencing (2018 ref for 2021 occurrence). Doesn't BLP policy add urgency? I'm surprised you ignored that point. Would it really have been kinder to Moondragon21 to blank the article, or reduce it to an unreferenced stub? (That was the only reference the first time Fram draftified it.) In any case, I note that Moondragon21 hasn't edited for more than twelve hours; I was hoping they'd have resumed editing and come here by now; but based on the examples in this thread, I too request you rescind the granting of autopatrol. There are too many problems in their articles for them not to be looked at by NPP. Not just the failure to attribute translations, but inaccuracies and faulty referencing; I understand that you were unaware of these problems before this thread. And yes, it's not my place, but IMO you should reverse the pblock on Fram. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Literally all I asked Fram to do was stop move warring and start an AfD to get consensus. It has never been our policy that if a BLP has problems, major or not, it should be immediately removed from mainspace. – Joe (talk) 10:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Amakuru: I think "doubling down" is a little uncharitable? I am listening to what people are saying, but admin accountability is not automatic genuflection when you're brought to ANI, it's justifying your actions and being open to being convinced you were wrong. I am open to being convinced, but: I was not "already involved", and I cited a policy as the reason for the block (WP:EW), not an essay. So what is it I should apologise for? The first time I was asked to reverse the block was today, and I have just said I am happy to do so if Fram does not intend to move the page again. – Joe (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Joe Roe: I take your point, and I don't think there is bad faith on your part, but unfortunately I don't agree with your interpretation of policy here and I also think it's fairly clear that your (good faith) actions weren't in line with policy. Your initial explanation for the block of Fram was that they had violated WP:DRAFTOBJECT, which is probably true, but that is demonstrably an essay, not a policy. It explicitly says at the top, "This page is not one of Gpedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community". Now you're saying you blocked Fram for edit warring, but if that's the case then it's an edit war you also participated in, with both of you moving the page twice. That's WP:INVOLVED by most definitions, and you should have instead sought an outside opinion if you felt a block was necessary. Many others have said the same thing above so I think it would be good for you to accept the wet fish recommended by Kusma above, and then we can move on.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, what we have here, in my opinion, is a problematic BLP, that was moved to draftspace; Joe moved it back to mainspace, on the basis of his reading of the relevant policies, and then blocked the other party in this dispute. Well, as far as I'm concerned, that's the definition of an involved block. Whenever we have edit wars or move wars, both editors claim to be enforcing policies and, yet, they can be blocked (subject to very few exceptions) and, anyway, if they happen to be administrators, they are considered involved in regard to the controversy at hand. You don't get to revert your opponent, because you think they misunderstand policy and then block them, unless it's very clearly vandalism or another type of blatant disruption, which wasn't the case here. The best way of approaching this would have been to ask another administrator to determine whether Fram should have been blocked in this instance, since you had already reverted his move. Separately, after skimming over Moondragon21's talk page, I also think that it would be a good idea to review whether his autopatrolled permission really is warranted. Finally, I have to also say that Fram is not entirely blameless in this; for my money, his approach continues to be somewhat antagonistic, and that makes it more difficult to solve the issues that he correctly points out. Salvio 09:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have unblocked Fram, as I count four admins (Salvio, Bagumba, Kusma and Amakuru) who have opposed the block, along with several other editors, and none that have explicitly supported it as a good block. I am also doing this to de-escalate the situation, and agree that everyone needs to step back, take a deep breath, and just agree to disagree on this issue. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Fram (talk) 10:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That wasn't remotely de-escalatory, Ritchie333. You reversed my action minutes after I said I would be happy to do it myself with minimal conditions, and pre-empted the consensus here by calling it a "bad block" in the log, when in fact at least two participants (Vanamonde and Rhododentrites) have said that it is within policy. But whatever, let's let Fram continue to bully article writers and remain unblockable because "four admins" are willing to defend them. – Joe (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Five admins. Would I call it a "bad block", though? Perhaps a "suboptimal" one. However, it's a block I wouldn't have made. Meanwhile, I don't think the identity of the blocked editor is actually that relevant here, apart from the fact that it inevitably ended up at ANI and became more visible. And I think it is unhelpful to say they were "bullying" article writers when there's quite a lot of agreement here that the article, as it stood, should not have been in mainspace. Black Kite (talk) 11:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would say that I did not think the block was helpful, and would think my earlier points kinda made that clear. So make it six. (Sorry, I had some ... off-wiki issues come up yesterday and did not get a chance to revisit this until this morning). Ealdgyth (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm hesitant to just leave this thread as "agree to disagree" when Joe's interpretation of WP:INVOLVED vastly differs from mine. From their comment above: This is incoherent... how are admins supposed to deal with edit warring or move warring if reverting to the status quo makes them involved in the dispute? AFAIK, an admin should never revert, have another editor revert back, and then proceeding to block that reverting editor. They seem to be confusing this with some (rare) situtations when it may be OK to revert to a longstanding version after a block.—Bagumba (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd be very happy to see a wider discussion about that, because I am quite confident that my view is aligned with broader community consensus. And per Rhododentrites: what difference does it make if the block is before or after the revert? I did both within minutes of each other here. – Joe (talk) 10:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...what difference does it make if the block is before or after the revert?: Before a block, you are making an editorial decision on which version is "right", who had the onus to start a discussion, etc. Worse, you would only be adding to the warring—repeatedly overriding each other's contributions—not de-escalating the situation. After a block, it's merely an administrative action reflecting community consensus, where an admin presumably does not have an editorial preference. —Bagumba (talk) 11:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, if an admin reverts 12:00 and blocks at 12:01, they made an editorial decision and added to the edit warring. But if they block at 12:00 and revert at 12:01, they have merely made an administrative action reflecting community consensus and do not have an editorial preference? This is your understanding of the consensus view? It seems nonsensical to me; like it couldn't possibly matter which order those two actions were taken, they are, for all intents and purposes, taken simultaneously. Levivich (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can find no fault in Levivich's logic, those are for all intents and purposes functional equivalents. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Except your hypothetical scenario was not what happened. Joe reverted the move at 6:36 27 Sept. Fram reverted again at 7:36. Joe then made the block at 7:48 Joe's revert and block are spread out, and separate decisions, not one minute apart with an arguably interchangeable order.—Bagumba (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, so what you're saying is if an admin reverts at 12:00 and also issues a warning at 12:00, and the editor then re-reverts at 1:00, and the admin blocks at 1:12, then it's not an admin action, it's an editorial decision, and the admin is involved? Levivich (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any editor, not just admins, can make certain reverts to enforce policy (e.g. WP:3RRNO), which would be exempt from being considered part of an edit war. An admin should not revert to enforce non-policies like WP:DRAFTOBJECT or even WP:BRD, though they can do so an editor. Issuing a warning about basic courtesies to avoid an EW is at least an attempt to educate and diffuse the situation.—Bagumba (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's use your example: I see an edit that I think violates WP:UNDUE and revert it; it's obvious that I think I'm enforcing policy, but that's not an administrative action, in this case I am acting in my capacity as an editor; it would be the same if it was you who reverted that edit – you are an editor, but you think you are enforcing policy –; subsequently, the author of the original edit reverts me and I block him, then that's a bad block, because I'm involved. It may be warranted, because I Was right all along, but that does not change the fact that I was involved. In this case it's the same principle: the same person, first acting as an editor and then as an administrator wants to ensure that his interpretation of policy prevails. In this case, we're not even talking about a policy, but that's beside the point. Furthermore, Joe may be right on the merits, but that does not change the fact that the block was in violation of WP:INVOLVED
Yes, there can be exceptions: WP:BLP is an example, in my opinion, WP:COPYVIO is another, but, as I said, these are exceptions, they should not be interpreted broadly. In general, the letter as I interpret it or, at the very least, the spirit of WP:INVOLVED is that an administrator should not use the tools to make sure that he has the upper hand in a good-faith dispute, such as this one. Salvio 20:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bad unblock. Could've at least said "it was involved, but don't do that in the future". Fram clearly sees it as validation that the guidance we have about moving drafts (which is part of Gpedia:Drafts -- the page which describes how/when to use draftspace, regardless of the tag at the top) and standard processes to follow to address content issues are just things which get in the way of Defending The Wiki. This was a page-level block; there was no urgency. Sigh. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment: I would like to see the context of this quotation "regardless of what you think of the quality of their edits, I think we both know that you systematically combing through another editor's creations does not lead to a good place". Can someone provide a diff please? I am not sure whether is somewhere on the policies or the guidelines, but it is common sense that if user X makes a methodological error continually, you have to check his edits. Or if you spot lets say 3-4 same manner errors, it is reasonable to think that this might be something a broader issue, and it should be checked. Checking ofcourse should be always polite and civil, aiming to help the other editor, not to frustrate him, but anyway, this is another discussion. Checking each other's work should be welcomed. Sorry for not commenting on the central theme (WP INVOLVED), but I would like to clarify this issue first. Cinadon36 10:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cinadon36: WP:FRAMBAN and Gpedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram. – Joe (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I am aware, the Fram arbitration case did not provide any useful clarification on the "hounding" issue whatsoever. But what should Fram (or anyone else, really) do if he notices a problematic editor whose edits do not improve after friendly communication? (A) Ignore it (B) Continue to point out mistakes or (C) Go straight to ANI? —Kusma (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When did the "friendly communication" happen in this case? Levivich (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no intention of letting the abusive T&S ban restrict me from doing the necessary legwork to find problematic editing patterns, as is necessary for e.g. the CCI's I started, the SPIs I started, or the Arbcom cases I started since the Framban. Without going through some of Moondragon's earlier creations, the highly problematic "murder of" article discussed on their talk page would still be in the same sorry state it was when it was created (and not seen by most NPPs as they have autopatrolled status...). Fram (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FYI: as it is related to the ongoing discussion, I was looking at some of their edits and noticed the article Murder of Natalia Melmann without realising that it was the page being discussed (it has been a long day). Of the 6 references for the article, there were 2 pairs of references that were the same but on different sites. I fixed it by combining the references down to 4 from the original 6 and left a note on User:Moondragon21s talk page.Gusfriend (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm going to disengage now, per the excellent advise on my talk page. I would just say that, while I'm not going to pull Moondragon21's autopatrolled right, that doesn't mean any other admin can't. At the same time, it seems extremely unfair to have discussion of his creations tangled up with this inside-baseball drama. He is a prolific contributor who deserves a fresh discussion and broad consensus, not one or two editors standing in judgement. – Joe (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Surely before MD21's autopatrolled right is pulled, the first resort would be to deploy the waggy finger and frowny face of mild administorial disapproval on his talk page? I mean, Fram's attempted something of the kind, but, well, not terribly successfully. Let's say that while Fram has many excellent and admirable qualities, gently coaching others about how to change their behaviour in a mild, engaging and de-escalating way is not one of them.—S Marshall T/C 18:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What's weird about this is that autopatrolled isn't really a right. It doesn't let you do anything you can't do anyway. It's really a kind of tag that causes your creations to bypass NPP. It's a way of taking load off NPP when the benefits of that reduced load outweigh the risk of bad stuff escaping review -- not a way of making the editor's life easier or something. If there's any doubt at all about whether an editor's creations need review, even occasionally, then autopatrolled should be pulled. Holders of autopatrolled should have impeccable records. EEng 18:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • To be very clear about what I meant, since I've been mentioned above: I do not think this block violated INVOLVED, because Joe's revert was to the status quo. That doesn't make it a good block, only a block within the letter of policy. INVOLVED isn't very relevant here; we ought to be discussing how we should have dealt with the BLPVIO. I would not have blocked Fram in these circumstances, but then I wouldn't have moved the draft multiple times either. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Striking per comment below. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is not the way the policy works. "Reverting to the status quo" is not a reason to edit war. WP:EW says in the top paragraph that "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense." So by reverting Fram twice, whether it was the right or wrong action, Joe entered into an edit war, in dispute with Fram. They then went on to block Fram from the page on which the warring was taking place, which again is in black and white at WP:INVOLVED - "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved". This was a dispute, Joe was involved, and they took administrative action on it. It was clearly done in good faith, but I don't see that there is a single possible doubt about this. Being "right" does not vindicate you from being involved. As I said above, I expected Joe once the facts were laid bare here to issue an apology for this this morning, or at least accept a WP:TROUT, given the facts of the case. Then we could have closed this thread and all moved on, but instead I see that he's "disengaged". I'm sorry but I do find that very disappointing.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Amakuru: I had not realized Joe moved the page page twice. That is indeed quite poor. I do believe the principle of my point stands, though; reverting once to the status quo is not involvement. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For full page protection, the WP:PREFER policy allows admin discretion to reverting to a stable version, but only after full protection, not before. I assume the community supports a similiar action for blocks, reversing actions for which there is obviously no consensus, but again presumably only after blocking. —Bagumba (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree. It wouldn't have been difficult to say "yes, I made this block, but I can see how it could be seen as incorrect given the situation, and I won't repeat this". But, nope. Oh well. Black Kite (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    He disengaged per the advice of the admin who unblocked Fram so as to better allow uninvolved editors to come to a consensus on what was correct here. I dont think it is really fair to castigate him for following that advice. As to the merits, I think you either play the role of admin or editor, and the reverts are that of an editor. Once you pick editor then you cant then also do admin things. nableezy - 21:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Timeline To be clear, Joe chimed in here multiple times before they chose to disengage. The rough timeline was:
    • 08:04 27 September ANI thread started
    • 11:30 Joe's statement on enforcing DRAFTOBJECT as an admin: I've enforced WP:DRAFTOBJECT many times before, as an admin action, and will continue to do so unless there's a strong consensus here that it's inappropriate.
    • 04:22 28 September Joe stands by his actions: Not really changed. Edit warring is disruptive, that has been settled policy for years, and per Rhododendrites and Vanamonde the standard admin response is block/protect and revert to the status quo ante.
    • 10:36 Joe reiterates that he is not INVOLVED: I think "doubling down" is a little uncharitable? I am listening to what people are saying, but admin accountability is not automatic genuflection when you're brought to ANI, it's justifying your actions and being open to being convinced you were wrong. I am open to being convinced, but: I was not "already involved", and I cited a policy as the reason for the block (WP:EW), not an essay.
    • 14:28 Joe posts here: I'm going to disengage now, per the excellent advise on my talk page.
    Joe is not a newbie who is blindly following the advice of an admin to disengage. They are an admin, responsible for their actions and the advice they choose to follow. They are no more obliged to follow the advice of "the admin who unblocked Fram" than they are to other admins' and editors' advice here. They can—and have—picked and chosen who they wish to listen to. —Bagumba (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: I can understand Joe becoming defensive about his actions because Fram has been sniping at him relentlessly for a few days. Let's face it, Fram, your bedside manner is poor and you have failed to de-personalize the situation in your comments on this thread. (That said, Joe's bedside manner was quite poor when he wrote "I think we both know that you systematically combing through another editor's creations does not lead to a good place" on Fram's talkpage a day and a half ago.) In any case, I hope after the dust settles after a few days Joe can reflect on what has been said by uninvolved admins and experienced editors on this thread. Choosing a side in a dispute and then repeatedly enforcing that side and then blocking someone about it is generally considered an involved admin action, and is only acceptable in cases of major vandalism and drastic BLP violations (even then it's often good to go to AN and state what happened and ask for a block review). Softlavender (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The way I see the complaint, there are two substantial claims of there being issues with Joe Roe's actions:
    1. Claim 1: Joe Roe was WP:INVOLVED and blocked Fram in order to restore their preferred location of a page.
    2. Claim 2: The sanction issued by Joe Roe was not warranted even if Joe Roe were not involved.
With respect to claim 1, it is crystal clear that Joe Roe was involved, which is to say that Joe Roe was actively engaged in a dispute with Fram regarding the proper location of a particular page. Joe Roe moved the article from the draftspace into the mainspace, was reverted by Fram, and then moved the page back into the mainspace and blocked Fram. There was very clearly a dispute between the two editors regarding where the page belonged and Joe Roe clearly blocked an editor who had explicitly opposed him in that dispute and chose not to utilize WP:AN3 or another noticeboard to seek someone who was clearly uninvolved to take a look at the situation. Joe Roe, meanwhile, has stated in this thread I can't get my head around the idea that reverting someone makes you involved.
With respect to Claim 2, the arbitration committee has previously stated that any sanctions imposed on an editor or administrator for misconduct should be proportionate to the nature and severity of the conduct—a move that Joe Roe supported. It is quite surprising, then, that Joe Roe decided to outright indef Fram from that article outright and it's a bit odd; typically first offense edit warring sanctions are 72 hours and, checking through Fram's block log, they don't appear to have been blocked for edit warring before. Why did Joe Roe think that an indef from the article was proportional to the risk disruption, rather than the standard 72 hour block? I don't quite know, and I can't put words into his mouth. What I can say is that Joe Roe stated above that he does not believe the indef sanction to be extreme and that he would be happy to unblock if Fram says they will not move the page to draft again. But to say that Joe Roe would be happy to unblock Fram if he could extract an unblock condition in which Fram would pledge to leave his preferred location of the article preserved is not justifiable in light of Joe Roe's being WP:INVOLVED with respect to the dispute.
Moreover, this whole saga raises the spectre of issues with WP:ADMINCOND and WP:ADMINACCT, especially if Joe Roe persists in claiming this sort of behavior is justified. Joe Roe arrived here by outright denying that any sort of dispute had been going on ([320]) and multiple times repeating the clearly erroneous claim that they were in no way WP:INVOLVED because their actions (which included their repeated page moves) were not anything other than administrative actions ([321] [322] [323] [324]). Moreover, Joe Roe's response to the unblock performed by Ritchie333 bordered on a personal attack in writing whatever, let's let Fram continue to bully article writers; if Joe Roe truly believes that Fram is a bully, Joe Roe should provide strong evidence of a widespread pattern bad behavior in this thread rather than resorting to diffless name-calling. And, if Joe Roe still disagrees with Richtie's unblock, which Joe Roe describes as pseudo-close of this ANI thread, then there is a place to review miscellaneous admin actions where Joe Roe could seek dispute resolution and broader community reflection on whether that action was appropriate. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additionally, the comment on Joe Roe's talk page that labels Fram as just single-minded raises some additional concerns for me in light of the conduct described in my comment above. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Evlekis sock needing a quick block

Supreme 2001 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

The usual infantile harassment, going through my contributions far back in time and reverting everything I've done... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Widr (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... and Grooverider9 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is also Evlekis. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done by another admin. Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Information icon Over the past few weeks, Onel has been redirecting or deleting sections of road articles