Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:36, 16 December 2022

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

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

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Open tasks

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

• 12 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 7 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 11 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 6 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 67 sockpuppet investigations
• 3 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 2 Fully protected edit requests
• 1 Candidates for history merging
• 3 requests for RD1 redaction
• 98 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 22 requested closures
• 30 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 22 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Massive off-wiki campaign aimed at disrupting Misplaced Pages

I noticed this Turkish-language Reddit link.. It seems a massive off-wiki campaign has been initiated by Turkish-language speakers to create more disruption in the cesspool known as WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS. As the posts/comments were in Turkish, they were translated using Google tranlate:

• "The first spark was ignited in order to correct and organize the unfounded claims we have seen on Misplaced Pages recently. r/turkviki was established. Let's get organized from there."
• "Friends, this subreddit was founded on the termination of unfounded claims made on Misplaced Pages. Our aim is to put an end to the unfounded allegations made on Misplaced Pages, the propaganda activities targeting our country and nation, to express the truth and correct the mistakes."
• "we need a larger audience, salaried employees of wikipedia, and I don't know how effective we can be against the current Turkish hatred"
• "Turkish Misplaced Pages Community Discord server. Friends, I left the link below if you would like to join the works that started before us."
• "Friends, let's start with the liberation war first and let there be a spark of salvation for us from the lies in Misplaced Pages."
• "First of all, we must explain why this claim is not true. For example, instead of the 1.5 million people they said, there were actually 1.1 million Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire. There is no article about genocide against Armenians in the Treaty of Mudros Sevres or Lausanne. Until 1948, the United Nations and the League of Nations before it never defined a crime called genocide, and if you eat pizza and eat pizza in the future is a war crime, they cannot hold you guilty for what you did in the past. You can write that the deportation was carried out by the Union and Terraki and that the remaining Unionists completely severed their ties with the party at the Sivas congress, and the Parliament was against what the Committee of Union and Terraki did. In addition, we must reveal the evils committed by Armenians in the public opinion, instead of the crimes they have committed, the terrorist attacks of ASALA in Europe will be the best examples."
• "Ottoman archives of the period are available on this site: Devletarsivleri.gov.tr (<cant post the entire link due to blockquote error>) It is enough for someone to translate it into Turkish for us to understand. then we edit the page on the wiki."
• "The first thing that needs to be changed is the name. Then we will add the villages and towns burned by the Armenians. The number of people killed by Armenians is not specified. We should add them too. Let's diversify the missing parts as comments. Good luck with."
• "A patrol is here! hello, i am zemxer from turkish wikipedia. As I'm on patrol on Turkish Misplaced Pages, I try to help new users as much as possible. You know, there is an approval system for the contributions made in Turkish Misplaced Pages, and I am one of the patrol friends who approve these contributions. I can help users and groups who want to contribute to Misplaced Pages and who want to make these contributions in an impartial framework. good wikis"

So this group of people 1) clearly state their intention to spread Turkish government propaganda at Eng.Misplaced Pages disproven by the rest of the world 2) They receive support from users at the Turkish Misplaced Pages. Posting it here at AN as suggested by several administrators. You might be interested in this: @Rosguill: @Buidhe: @Bbb23: @Seraphimblade: @Black Kite: @Deepfriedokra: @Johnuniq: @HistoryofIran: @Dennis Brown: @Drmies: @El C: @Khirurg: @Kansas Bear: @Cplakidas: ‎- LouisAragon (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Noting this is still ongoing, see Vahakn Dadrian and its abuse log. DatGuy_Contribs 15:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The discord server

When looking at the members of their discord, I noticed a person named "Berk". He has a portrait of Ulugh Beg as his discord profile picture, the very same added by one of our own Wikipedians, BerkBerk68, here . In other words, they must be the same person. BerkBerk seems to have a prominent role there, as he has published the rules of the discord. This is not the first time user:BerkBerk has participated in off-wiki canvassing through Discord, see for example these two posts back in July 2021, where user:BerkBerk tried to recruit an admin to his "14 people" discord, which was apparently focused on editing the Syrian Civil War and 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War. -- LouisAragon (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Note the date 27-06-2022 at Discord: Seems there's a triad involving editors at the Turkish wiki, off-wiki people, and editors at Eng.Wiki. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@LouisAragon, this report may have all kinds of merit, but doesn't the "The discord server" bit inch into WP:OUTING? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Berk#2835 is me, and that community has permission from authorities of Turkish Misplaced Pages, and it is not interested in English Misplaced Pages editing. Many experienced/authorized Turkish-language editors are in that group, furthermore I am not the owner of that server. I undertake all the mistakes done by me at "discord" one year ago. BerkBerk 13:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised to see you engaging in this kind of stuff again. Not interested in English Misplaced Pages editing? What is this you have written under Planlama ("Planning") then? Google Translate "Users will be divided into 2 main sectors as English and Turkish Writers. It is obligatory to make a total of 100 edits, 60 from one sector and 40 from another sector, on behalf of users who want to participate in both. When the new week is started, the number of edits between sectors (60-40) may change." I did write a similar report about BerkBerk to ArbCom sometime ago, though I am still awaiting an update. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I invite administrators to the discord server to prove that there is not any single edit provoked by me in english wikipedia, everything asked will be translated by me, and for any kind of distrust, access to server logs (+ProBot for deleted messages) will be given. BerkBerk 13:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The discord link here just got deleted (including the user who posted it) and the discord is now gone. Something you and co. trying to hide? Fortunately I took pictures of BerkBerk's "Planning" list before hand. Would it violate WP:OUTING to post it here? --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

that text is not written by me, the person who writed it wanted me to post it (I understand the reason now), the planning list is already posted and I have opposed the things going on reddit on that server aswell. BerkBerk 13:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Kutlug Şad — 13.10.2022 O zaman r/Turkviki başlı başına canlı kuklacılık ("Then r/Turkviki is completely meatpuppet") Berk (me) — 13.10.2022 Öyle zaten ("it is, already") Kutlug Şad also posts a screenshot showing him posting a nationalistic comment, calling reddit users to the discord and asks me about it, I told him "don't". BerkBerk 13:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

again, all logs and messages will be opened for Administrators. I have never motivated anyone to make any edits on English Misplaced Pages on that server. BerkBerk 13:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

So.. you wrote for the sake of someone else? Honestly, your excuses bore me. Prepare to make more, as this is not even scrapping the barrel. As I said, I also have that huge ArbCom report of you. Not to mention you have been called out for nationalistic editing or similiar by other users than me. Let's not forget my previous ANI report of you either. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I have found messages of the owner sending me the text in order to publish it on server at 27.06.2022. since "discord screenshots" can't be used here, I will post it when its necessary. BerkBerk 16:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I strongly urge you (both) to only send any personal data like that to ArbCom — posting screenshots/text or anything that someone could argue is personal data will, at the very least, cause drama. The back and forth here is unlikely to resolve the issue, given that it appears to depend on this private evidence. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 17:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

its not just me, but also another experienced editor pings 2 other editors including me, asking if that would be "meatpuppet". and I respond: "it would absolutely be called that because it is". messages at 13.10.2022 proves that I am blaming that subreddit. BerkBerk 13:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran Per Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 169#Discord logs Posting discord logs on wiki is oversightable. Email them to arbcom. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I see. The issue is that it (respectfully) takes too long if I message ArbCom. They still haven't updated me regarding the ArbCom report of Berkberk, which I sent two months ago. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: If you believe there's action that ArbCom can take, I'd suggest starting a case request — just ensure you keep the right side of WP:OUTING etc, and (re-)email the committee the private evidence — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 18:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• Based on the evidence already provided in this thread regarding how this Discord group has been advertised and coordinated on Reddit, specifically taking issue with content on en.wiki, I don't buy the claim that this is unrelated to en.wiki editing. Frankly, the rhetoric surrounding this group online is WP:RGW and vitriolic enough that I would have serious concerns about them even operating as a group on tr.wiki; there may be a case for starting a discussion on Metawiki. _signed, Rosguill 16:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  You are openly invited to the aforementioned group to see the proofs of my opposition on the subreddit. messages there are clearly showing that individuals wanted to support the subreddit and to invite reddit users while experienced editors including me opposed that. it would also prove the fact that I have never encouraged/supported anyone to edit on english wikipedia. BerkBerk 18:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  Could you more clearly explain what the purpose of this Discord group is? Setting aside your specific participation, what is the purpose of the group, and why has it been promoted on reddit forums in the highly combative manner detailed by LouisAragon in the first part of this discussion? _signed, Rosguill 22:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  The fact that both the Discord and Reddit sub-forum are now private makes BerkBerk's claim even less believable. I also still have that screenshot of his "Planning" message if an admin is interested. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, according to this post from 9 days ago, the privating the subreddit was something planned in advance, so. That's on me. ~Styyx 23:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, glad to see. Some users think that I am managing a whole reddit group despite I have opposed that group days ago. BerkBerk 15:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  promotions were made by different users and multiple experienced users including me thought that it would be meatpuppetry and opposed that (as it could be seen on the server messages including the meatpuppet expression). The general thought of the community is that Turkish community on Misplaced Pages have been regressed a lot due to the disgusting decision of Turkish government on blocking Misplaced Pages, and therefore source interpretation has changed a lot, which I totally agree with that. BerkBerk 15:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  Turkish community on Misplaced Pages have been regressed a lot due to the disgusting decision of Turkish government on blocking Misplaced Pages, and therefore source interpretation has changed a lot, which I totally agree with that, this does not allay concerns that the discord is operating as a POV-pushing platform. Additionally, your position in this thread is that there is a subset of people involved with the discord that have been publicizing it improperly, against your advice and against the intent of the server in the first place, would be a lot more convincing if you identified the black-hat editors misusing the discord so that we could investigate and address their malfeasance. _signed, Rosguill 15:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  ofcourse, the user that I have warned about this situation is Kutlug Şad as I explained above. BerkBerk 16:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

There's some POV editing happening right now at Karapapakhs, who were renamed to "Karapapakhs Turks" by some IPs and a new account. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Have seen a large increase in dubious editing on Turkic history-related articles recently. I asked for a sockpuppet investigation into one because I thought edits were too similar. However, accounts coordinating off-wiki could very possibly be another solution. ~~ AirshipJ29 (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Two brand new users are currently engaging in POV editing at Seljuk Empire, attempting to remove 7k sourced information through edit warring. This is not good. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

• Aaand r/Turkviki has been made private by its moderators. ~Styyx 17:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
• My screenshot of BerkBerk's "Planning" comment also shows a certain user (who has the role of "Yönetici", meaning "Executive"), that is User:Beyoglou. A notorious xenophobic pan-nationalist and sock (Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Beyoglou/Archive), whom BerkBerk has claimed that he has "no relation to" and has tried to defend . Yet they are in the same discord, curious. Not to mention some of Beyoglou's socks have come to the aid of BerkBerk several times. Again, I have all kinds of proof to back this up, but WP:OUTING is not making this easy. I would prefer to send this to an admin who would be willing to make a quick judgement of this, rather than ArbCom. Though if I have no choice, I will send it to the latter. This connects rather too well with my current ArbCom report of BerkBerk. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  Individual administrators aren't allowed to act on non-public evidence. It has to be ArbCom for something like this. – Joe (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, I have sent it all to ArbCom and asked them about an update regarding my other report. However, I do think some sort of action or actions needs to be taken here, as this is very concerning. We can't just sit idle. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and blocked BerkBerk68. If y'all have a clue as to other editors I should block based on this matter, ping me. CaptainEek ⚓ 19:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

  Was that an action based on private evidence (as you mention on the user's talk page) provided to ArbCom? If so, we can assume this was a block made in your capacity as an arbitrator (given that you wouldn't have access to that private evidence were you not one), and not a "standard functionary" — correct? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 20:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

  @TheresNoTime Ya know, that is a good question. I'm not 100% sure of that answer? I don't think it can be a block in my capacity as an Arb, because individual Arbs can't place blocks. An ArbCom block is by its nature a block by the committee and we only place them after a vote. So I think it must be a block in my capacity as an individual func. I asked that question of another Arb before I blocked, since I too wondered that, and they were also of the opinion that I could use the info ArbCom had been emailed to make an individual block. We do that from time to time with other matters: we get emailed something that really doesn't need the whole committee to waste its time on it, so one of us will just do it as an individual admin action. CaptainEek ⚓ 08:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  An individual admin action based on private evidence that no other admin/functionary (other than those on the committee) can verify/review? Doesn't that sound incredibly close to a recent discussion.. perhaps the community needs to be consulted on if they're happy for these actions to take place. I'm certainly not, and would expect our arbs to use a bit of common sense. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  I read that RfC as saying that individual admins couldn't make those blocks, but individual CU/OS could, or of course ArbCom. So unless I've misinterpreted that RfC, I don't see how taking the action as an individual CU is an issue? CaptainEek ⚓ 08:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  I thought the whole point with allowing that was private evidence was available for review by those with relevant access (i.e., all functionaries can review the private evidence which led to an action being taken)? Seeing as all functionaries are unable to review this evidence, and this wasn't an action by an arbitrator, all I can see is that you've decided to make a block based off of this thread. Perhaps that's warranted, I don't particularly care, but I definitely do care about ArbCom making somewhat secret decisions but enacting them in their private capacity. Whom do we hold accountable, the committee or the arb? How can we review an unblock request in this case? Do we contact the committee, or you? Why didn't ArbCom forward this evidence to the checkuser list when it decided it as an entity didn't want to do anything with it? These are worrying questions, and the community deserves transparency in how often this happens. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

While I see your concern, I'm not sure it's a major issue. Let's say that someone emails ArbCom an UpWork profile and says "so and so is a paid editor." Technically it's private evidence. But it would not be worth the time of the committee for all 15 members to deliberate and vote on blocking an obvious paid editor. So an individual Arb can just block said obvious paid editor without needing to make it an ArbCom block. It would be no different if say someone had emailed just me, and not ArbCom. In either case, the block I make is as an individual CU. The appeal is not difficult: the CU looking into unblocking just emails the blocking CU (pretty standard procedure) and asks what the basis for the block was. The blocking CU sends over the UpWork profile, and all is well. This case here is but a variation on that theme. CaptainEek ⚓ 08:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, so have opened a dedicated thread below. Thanks. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks, CaptainEek. I will soon make a (probably unpopular) proposal here on how we can deal with this massive off-Wiki campaign, I would appreciate to hear what you all think of it. We shouldn't take this matter lightly one bit imo. Before the Reddit got private, there were like 400 members. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
• :"I believe this all goes back to the current massive off-wiki campaign aimed at disrupting Misplaced Pages, which Beyoglou plays a leading part in."

  There is a massive witchhunt going against a lot of person has nothing to do with our so called "massive discord group". I don't even know any of the banned user excluding my sockpuppet "Crasyy". But as I said they try to accuse all vandals and newcomers on Turkish-topics of being meat puppet and related to our "pan-nationalist" group and block them. It's a concerning situation when it comes to newcomer users who try to edit Turkey related topics. when some of the users that making witch hunt against us notice these newcomers, will try to ban them with accusation of relating to us. Is creating Misplaced Pages-related community and editing Misplaced Pages illegal according to policies? Absouletly not. But when it comes to some idiotic teenagers in reddit that has nothing related to us, they made our discord group "Pan-Nationalistic", "Xenophobic". 95.70.214.41 (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  For example under this comment a user named "Nyhtar" says "They are even disrupting article not related to WP:KURDS". A random vandal changes "Russian" with Kurdish and accused to be in one of these groups.

  @TheresNoTime:

  @CaptainEek: and other users who involved. 95.70.214.41 (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Beyoglou

(Writing so thread doesn't get archived tomorrow). --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposal

• Proposal: WP:ARBECR (which includes a 500edits/30days restriction) over WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS articles.

As LouisAragon rightly put it, the WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS is a cesspool, and it's not going to get better anytime soon, especially with these massive off-wiki campaigns. In my 10 years on this site, the vast majority of IPs and brand new users in this area have been WP:NOTHERE, often ending up getting indeffed for pov editing and/or egregious attacks. It's also too easy for these troublemakers to sock nowadays, it's almost laughable. For example, see this long SPI archive of the notorious sock Aydın memmedov2000, which doesn't even show all of their socks, there are even more of this person here . Sadly that's just one of many cases. It would alleviate so much time and stress on Misplaced Pages if we implemented at least some sort of restriction in this area. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I concur with HistoryofIran that there are too many LTAs in WP:AA2 (I can't speak for WP:KURDS) and that something needs to be done to address this. Aside from the LTA HistoryofIran mentioned above, there are 2 additional LTAs (1 & 2) whose socks I must report at least once or twice each month. It's extremely rare for a new account or IP in AA2 to make a helpful edit; instead, 99% of the time, they only do so to vandalise or promote a POV. I think the requirement of 500 edits and 30 days (which could possibly be lowered to 200-300 edits and 15 days) is a good idea to address this problem, so I support it. — Golden 10:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support Yes, for both. There's so much disruption in these areas, I'm surprised we don't already have a good enough restriction on them. Nythar (💬-🎃) 22:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  Take a look at this edit I reverted just now. They're even disrupting article not related to WP:KURDS. Let's at least ECP articles directly related to that topic area. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 22:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support applying WP:ARBECR to AA2 and KURDS. Levivich (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support something needs to be done concerning the flood of IPs and sockpuppets. The AA2 area is continuously being disrupted by the socks of Aydın memmedov2000, Beyoglou, Steverci. And a listing of disruption for the last 3 yrs: 2022 disruption 2021 disruption, 2020 disruption. I think this says it all. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  If anyone needs further evidence, check out the 8 9 10 reverts by an IP at the Orontid dynasty. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support Clearly something needs to be done here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support Surely something must need to be done about this disruption. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 22:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support Very sensible proposal to reduce the disruption. Khirurg (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support Long, long overdue. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support the disruption is only ever going to grow, and it's already at unsustainable levels. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support Even though this won't stop them, it will certainly hinder their disruptive activity. Demetrios1993 (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support Clearly there is almost no good activity by IPs and plenty of autoconfirmed socks. This is probably the most effective remedy. ‡ The Night Watch ω (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
• @HistoryofIran: I have no opinion on the proposal but would suggest replacing "500edits/30days restriction" with "extended-confirmed restriction" – WP:ECR was carefully drafted specifically to address the nuances of applying a topic-wide 500/30 restriction. Best KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

  I see, so it's more or less the same as my proposal, but also takes cares of other details related to it. Thanks, I have slightly reworded my proposal. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support, this is a good idea considering what I've seen when patrolling vandalism. LilianaUwU 23:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support, Disruptive IPs and socks are becoming a big nuisance for the AA2 area, with experienced editors spending significant time protecting the articles from the never-ending flow of IPs, socks, and new accounts, when they could be spending it more efficiently. Yes, it will affect new editors who have good intentions, however, I believe it is better for them if they do not begin their editing in intense editing areas such as AA2. So, I fully support proposed initiative. A b r v a g l 06:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support, but only for ethnic or political topics in this area. Under the current scope of AA2, an article about an Armenian railroad would be covered by the sanctions, but ECP would be counterproductive unless the railroad has a significant role in an ethnic conflict, or a non-ECP user has repeatedly added ethnic fanaticism to the article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support per constant disruption/vandalism by IPs on AA2 topic area. – Olympian 06:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
• Query I'm not against applying WP:ARBECR, but it seems to me this is an ArbCom-level restriction that needs to be applied, not one that we can do via WP:AN based on its phrasing. I support its implementation, but there appear to be some bureaucratic hurdles we should clarify. Buffs (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  Misplaced Pages:General sanctions#Community sanctions says the community can impose any general sanctions it wants, and can (and has) made its general sanctions identical in substance to sanctions imposed under ArbCom's procedures. That's if it wishes to, of course; the community is "not bound by Arbitration Committee procedures and guidelines" when imposing these general sanctions. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• This overwhelming support surely is more than enough for the WP:ARBECR to be implemented? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

  Only if you're brave enough for the WP:ARCA template, which no one is. Otherwise, it'll probably have to be set up (i.e. split) into something like WP:ARBEE → WP:GS/RUSUKR. HTH. El_C 23:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

  @El C: I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand. Are there even more steps required to go through with this? Weren't we only supposed to vote for it? --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

  @El C: I understood this proposal to be for establishing ECR as a community-imposed general sanction. That would not require ArbCom action, if I'm understanding correctly. @HistoryofIran: I recommend posting at Misplaced Pages:Closure requests. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure why you'd think that, Kevin, when the proposal plainly says: WP:ARBECR over WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS. Now, asking the Committee at ARCA to consider doing that, as is the intent here, ought to be relatively straight forward when such overwhelming consensus has been gathered. Had I not been so lazy (I mean, the ARCA template isn't that hard) and likewise anyone else bothering, RUSUKR probably would have passed by motion as +ARBEE. The overall trend has been to streamline (subsume), like with WP:GS/COVID19 → WP:ARBCOVID; WP:GS/IPAK → WP:ARBPAK; WP:GS/IRANPOL → WP:ARBIRP; and so on.

  To me, personally, it's more or less all the same (even when inelegant), but beyond that, I think it would make sense to have something along the line of clerks assisting users, who, like in this instance, were able to accomplish community consensus for their proposal to add/adjust an existing ArbCom sanctions regimes. To help them file the paperwork, as it were. Because the less of an access ceiling, the better, I'm sure you'd agree. And all of this as we are in flux. El_C 01:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  The confusion about this proposal may be my fault. Before my comment here, the proposal was for "500edits/30days restriction over" the articles. I suggested changing it to WP:ECR, which describes more nuances and implementing rules. My thought was that the community would implement the restriction itself, not that it would ask ArbCom to do so. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, I'm not following. What I quoted (the proposal: WP:ARBECR over WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS) was from Nov 1; your comment to whch you link is from Nov 11. The two Arbcom sanctions regimes mentioned in the proposal, WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS, are ones that many of the users supporting the proposal are already accustomed to (to whichever extent). What would be the benefit of adding a third sanctions regime, except this time making it WP:GS instead of WP:ACDS? Would it not make more sense to just amend AA2/KURDS, instead of overcomplicating everything with a new log, new alerts and page notices, new thing to remember? Thwink about it! El_C 16:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry guys, but I am even more lost now. Is there a tutorial somewhere for dummies that I can follow? I wanna proceed as soon as possible, especially since the numbers of socks are slowly ramping up. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  That's exactly what I've been trying to work towards in my comments above (and elsewhere), HistoryofIran. I wish Kevin would have addressed my point about this access ceiling. Oh well, maybe next time. El_C 23:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  El C, the original proposal was for a 500 edits/30 days restriction, as seen in this diff provided by Kevin. This was overwritten later, following Kevin's comment. Can we please get the administrative and bureaucratic eccentricities out of the way, and have some sort of action on the problem? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not preventing you from doing anything, least of all read what I had written. El_C 13:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support because of constant sockpuppeting. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose even though I know that this isn't going to have an effect. When I created what would become ECP in 2015, it was meant to be a last-ditch creative effort to stop the highest-level of disruption on the project. I feel that this proposal rolls it out to a far too broad array of articles while lesser remedies have yet to be tried. --Guerillero 20:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Guerillero and my comments at WP:ARCA. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Nominator has given definitive proof that too many IPs and accounts have disrupted Kurdish-related articles for many years. Some personal experience at Southern Kurdish. ~~lol1VNIO⁠🎌 (I made a mistake? talk to me) 07:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
• Potential oppose, potential support - I am reticent to support an automatic major restriction on such a scale as the entire (amended as of 2013) AA2 scope. I'm aware, of course, of the gaming risk, but I don't think we'd ever endorse such an action were there (say) a dispute nexus between the US and UK. I would support this restriction on the conflict between the two countries (broadly construed, by all means), but opppose a restriction on the individual countries and their topics. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose applying restrictions on the entire AA2 scope, per statistics below. Undecided on narrower restrictions, and restrictions on WP:KURDS. BilledMammal (talk) 02:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose general ECP. When we're ECPing an area, we should be doing so only if it is a narrowly-tailored way to prevent future disruption. The arguments above note that the locus of the disruption is threefold: the first is that there are a number of disruptive IPs, the second is that there is general problems newer editors and the third is that there is socking going on. For the first issue, semi-protection would solve this quite easily; we don't need ECP to protect a topic area from disruptive IP editors. For the second, if the concern is new (canvassed) editors, then ECP isn't required to weed them out; semi-protection would likely serve as enough of a barrier to disruption that people would not be able to enter the topic spontaneously and begin to disrupt articles. For the third case, I do not see substantial evidence that long-term persistent sockmasters are deterred by ECP requirements; IceWhiz, NoCal100, and יניב הורון all still sock in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict area, and frankly I don't see why this is going to be different. That being said, semi-protection would well-address most forms of disruption in this area, and I might be able to get behind a 1-year semi-protection in the area. To paraphrase El_C's close of this 2021 discussion, I'm not seeing the reasons for why ECP should supersede a testing-the-waters semi-protection in this topic area, especially when the majority of the complaints are about IP editors doing the disruption. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose I can see the merits of both arguments. I think semi-protection is likely the better option; if the socks are that determined, they'll simply stick around for the 30 days/500 edit requirements before starting again. Semi-protection works best in my mind and tends to prevent these "hit and run" vandalism efforts where they only change a few words here and there rather than substantially blanking/re-writing sections in an article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support – I trust the rationale and evidence provided by numerous experienced editors in these topic areas. Aza24 (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

At ARCA

Might as well do myself, or it probably just won't happen. I requested ArbCom to amend WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS by motion per the #Proposal. See: WP:ARCA#Long title. El_C 22:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I've listed this at WP:CENT in case that helps move things forward. Levivich (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Statistics

IP editors were reverted:

• 65% of the time on articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan
• 44% of the time on articles related to Armenia or Azerbaijan
• 57% of the time on articles related to Kurds
• 40% of the time on articles related to American politics
• 28% of the time on all articles

Non-AC editors were reverted

• 64% of the time on articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan
• 49% of the time on articles related to Armenia or Azerbaijan
• 63% of the time on articles related to Kurds
• 53% of the time on articles related to American politics
• 37% of the time on all articles

Non-EC editors were reverted

• 47% of the time on articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan
• 33% of the time on articles related to Armenia or Azerbaijan
• 42% of the time on articles related to Kurds
• 27% of the time on articles related to American politics
• 17% of the time on all articles

Non-EC but AC editors were reverted

• 44% of the time on articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan
• 30% of the time on articles related to Armenia or Azerbaijan
• 38% of the time on articles related to Kurds
• 23% of the time on articles related to American politics
• 13% of the time on all articles

All editors were reverted

• 23% of the time on articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan
• 15% of the time on articles related to Armenia or Azerbaijan
• 26% of the time on articles related to Kurds
• 14% of the time on articles related to American politics
• 10% of the time on all articles

Articles were determined by looking at articles within the scope of the relevant wikiprojects; WP:WikiProject Armenia, WP:WikiProject Azerbaijan, and WP:WikiProject Kurdistan. BilledMammal (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

This is useful. Can you clarify if "non-EC" editors includes IP/non-confirmed editors? If so, can you give statistics for non-EC editors who are autoconfirmed?

For comparion, could we get the revert rate in non-ECR hot-bed topics like American Politics?

Did you do this programmatically or did you select a sample of articles? (Enterprisey out of interest, could your revert script from WP:RESPONDER-RFC be used for this kind of analysis?) ProcSock (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

"non-EC" editors include non-confirmed editors, but not IP editors. I've added the requested statistics, as well as few others. I've also attempted to include the revert rate in AP2, but I'm not certain I have properly identified the area; I used Category:American_politics_task_force_articles and it includes articles on American politics not covered by AP2 (the AP2 template is only used on a ~200 articles, so isn't useful here).

I did this with Quarry; see Edit count Armenia or Azerbaijan articles, Edit count American politics articles, Edit count Kurdistan articles, Edit count Armenia and Azerbaijan articles, and Reversions by editor. Reversion by editor only looks at November 2022; the rest look at all of 2022. They also don't account for the increase in edit count since making the relevant edits; if an editor has EC now, it assumes they had it when they made the edit. BilledMammal (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Possible fake "Wikimedian In Residence" user accounts

I have noticed the recent proliferation of a number of user accounts where the user self-describes as the "Wikimedian In Residence" at some institution, then lists a set of "interests"; what caught my eye is the repetition in form from these supposedly unrelated accounts, such as:

User:VidEwan: Hi, my name is Ewan and I work at the University of Edinburgh as the Wikimedian in Residence. I'm interested in writing articles about film, Scotland and the suffragettes. Resolved as ok. BD2412 T 14:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Vaishnodevimandir: Hi, my name is Elly and I work at the University of Texas at Austin as the Wikimedian in Residence. I'm interested in writing articles about film, Scotland, Activists and the suffragettes.

User:Skmagar1500: Hi my name is ewan and i study at the University of Edinburgh as the wikimedian in residence. I am intrested in writing articles about film,Scotland and the suffragettes.

User:Fightersword: Hi, my name is Tom Peter and I work at the University of Edinburgh as the Wikimedian in Residence. I'm interested in writing articles about film, Scotland, Activists and the suffragettes.

User:DonJovanie: Hi, my name is Don and I work at the University of San Diego as the Wikimedian in Residence. I'm interesting in writing articles about musician, film, and the suffragettes.

User:Hiteshsagarjatav: Hi, my name is Hitesh Sagar Jatav. I am working at Bloomberg as the Wikimedian in Residence. I am interested to writing articles in technology, religion, music and India.

User:Sayeedsam1234: Hi My Name Is Sahim Haneef And I Work At Digital Company As The Wikimedian In Residence I'm Interested In Writing Articles About Film, Graphic, Animation & Photoshop Tricks.

Unless there is some training program for Wikimedians In Residence that instructs editors to introduce themselves in this way, I think we're looking at some kind of account farm. Also, that's an unusual amount of interest in "the suffragettes". BD2412 T 15:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Stinglehammer: As you appear to be (or have been) a legitimate Wikimedian in Residence at the University of Edinburgh, can you speak to the three accounts claiming that role above? Cheers! BD2412 T 15:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I ran a quick check (I have to run, so I can't do as much digging as I'd like to right now). Vaishnodevimandir and Fightersword are  Confirmed to each other, and Vaishnodevimandir's creations look a lot like UPE. Blocked those two. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

• The others haven't edited in 2-4 years, so there's no rush in dealing with them. At this point, I'd guess they're 99% likely to be the same person (or using the same tactic). Good catch, BD2412. But what did you mean about a "recent proliferation"? All but the two blocked accounts are years old. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  First impression - the two new ones were the first two that I came across. BD2412 T 16:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  Someone experienced in UPE might want to look at active editor User:Scoffworld, who has a few similarities of user page, and has recreated at least one article that shows up in the deleted contribs of one or two of the accounts above. Image in the article is claimed to have been taken by Scoffworld. I'll notify them after I save this edit. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for flagging this. My main account is User:Stinglehammer but I have other training accounts User:EMcAndrew and User:VidEwan for when I am creating video tutorials. So VidEwan is one of my accounts. I'll add some text to make that clearer. The other ones are interesting/problematic. During training, I do advise to add an introductory sentence of text to a) make sure we have content to turn the user page into a blue clickable link b) to provide transparency about someone's affiliations/motives for editing and any potential COI and c) I also demo how to create a short bullet pointed list of approx 2-3 things they are interested in editing about again for transparency. What's striking is that we have obviously written about Scotland and the Scottish suffragettes at the University of Edinburgh during my tenure to date and I do use my own userpage as a base exemplar. But they are instructed not to replicate but make their own. Clearly one or two here have just copied my base userpage too literally. which is obviously problematic. Can we ask them to remove clearly misleading/factually incorrect info or am I legitimated to edit these userpages in this case? not sure how active they are for instance and I don't want too many of these existing and causing confusion. Stinglehammer (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

NB: looks like they are replicating what I demo in a 2018 video tutorial. I can mothball/archive that video tutorial if it is causing issues as we have newer video resources now which might be better in any case. Stinglehammer (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Stinglehammer: Thanks for the clarification on that point. When I see a number of accounts created following a pattern such as this, my mind jumps to bots, an unfortunate effect of the times we live in. BD2412 T 14:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• Having been a proper WiR in the past (Royal Society and Cancer Research UK), one problem is that there is no real control over the title. At WMUK some 10 years ago there were discussions about trying to at least assert an "official" status for the ones WMUK supported and usually paid (or the host institution or a charity did). But it was decided not to do this, so in effect anyone can claim the title - I don't think there is any legal restriction on doing so, just in terms of using the name. You can see from User:Pigsonthewing's (Andy Mabbett) user page that he has done a number of these, some paid some not, without asking anyone's permission first (and without causing significant problems afaik). Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

While I'm still struggling to understand the difference between my Wikimedian residences and being "a proper WiR", I can state categorically that I have never claimed to be a Wikimedian in Residence at any institution without first gaining the appropriate permission to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

My recollection from when I was on the WMUK board is that we only heard of some of yours when you announced them. Who did you get "the appropriate permission" from? Johnbod (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• The meta:Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network is the peer to peer regulatory organization, to the extent that any standards exist. There are no formal processes there but sometimes organizations write in asking for guidance about whether a user is in good standing to be hired as a Wikimedian in Residence, or for information about recruiting one. The majority of active Wikimedians in Residence have participated in the activities of that organization, and it is the only organization with any standing to speak for the community. I posted notice of this on the talk page there. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
  • WREN is not a regulatory organization, has no authority to act as a regulatory organization, and nor does its page on meta make any claims to that effect. On that page, the section "Mission and Goals" says in full:
    "The Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network advocates for Wikimedia community members in professional or volunteer roles at institutions.
    "Goals of the organization include defining and protecting the common elements of the Wikimedian in Residence role, creating a peer support network which invites new and experienced Wikimedians in Residence to find each other for collaboration, and to encourage a global professional environment which inspires institutions to offer appointments to persons to engage with Wikimedia projects.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Blanking inactive LTA pages

Hello, I have been reviewing the subpages of Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse, blanking and marking as historical LTA pages like this that have been inactive for years. The material is still available in history if there is a need for it. From what I have seen, it is an acceptable practice to blank inactive LTA pages so they won't continue to exist as a shrine giving recognition to long gone vandals from years ago. This search shows 30 pages blanked this way from 2018 onwards excluding the 5 or so I blanked today.

User:331dot asked me to post a notice about this since previously it was usually done by admins. I became interested in this task as it is somewhat related to MalnadachBot task 13 (approved following this) which is to blank warnings and other stale message from inactive IP talkpages. If there is no objections, I will continue with blanking and marking historical. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 10:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks for performing this type of maintenance tasks in general. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

LGTM as well. I have no concerns. --TheSandDoctor 18:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Rescued from archive

The above may be OK, but is not ideal. The blanking of LTA pages should be done with visibility at WP:SPI. Ideally, clerking of LTA subpages should be done by accredited SPI clerks. If you are interested in clerking LTA subpages, why not get experienced and accredited at SPI? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

As an SPI clerk, I have no interest in maintaining LTA subpages and don't particularly care about what happens to them. I suspect most other clerks and CUs feel the same way, which is why there is no policy or guideline about this. I wasn't aware we were accredited, by the way. How much do I have to pay to renew my SPI clerk license? Spicy (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Your accreditation, trainee and promotion, are recorded in the history of

LTA subpages have been occasionally helpful to identify some behavior, but I have no strong opinion on them. I think they should generally not be created in the first place, except in cases where it is useful to admins dealing with them. I have checked the list of LTA subpages marked as historical... none of them ring a bell, so I guess there are not relevant to current activity we see at SPI. MarioGom (talk) 09:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

For transparency, here is a list of LTA pages I have blanked. I am not interested in becoming an SPI clerk for a one time sweep. LTA pages, unlike SPI archives, can be created by anyone, so I don't think editing it should be restricted only to them. Any editor in good standing should be able to edit LTA pages and blank inactive ones. It is questionable whether some of them should even exist. Take for example Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/貴花 which was recently created by someone in their very first edit. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 10:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The lack of interest in clerking LTA, beyond sporadic driveby blanking of its inappropriate content, is a reason to shut LTA down. The creation of a new LTA page by the drive-by SPA is another reason. It is quite concerning, was it created in a WP:game to harass? How would anyone know. If a user’s LTAbuse doesn’t involve any sock puppetry, then why not use their user_talk page? Shut down LTA. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The disinterest of SPI clerks in LTA pages says nothing about the usefulness of these pages to the rest of us poor benighted souls who don't have advanced permissions and wish to find out about these people when we come across misbehavior. The pages are there for the community, not for the very small number of SPI clerks who, if they're not availing themselves of this information, are only hobbling themselves (and perhaps hurting valid SPI cases).As for the deletion of these pages, I don't understand the purpose - are we running out of storage space? I suggest that the pages already deleted be restored, and if a culling needs to take place, which I doubt, it be done by an admin with more experience. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Yup, SPI clerks know a lot and stuff, and are good at finding out who to ask, but it's the other people in the trenches who usually know about this stuff. I've been seeing the blanking, and haven't seen anything to complain about. LTAs have a coloured history at MfD, so it may be worth consulting before MfDing any more of them. One of us competent rouge admins might just speedy it. I do think these pages should probably remain categorised under LTA, so we can properly clean them up at some point. Blank uncategorised pages are not a lot of good. -- zzuuzz 18:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

When I first saw this come up in the original thread I thought exactly what BMK has written: what on earth is the benefit in blanking these pages? I assumed there's some issue that I was unaware of that everyone knew about, that meant that blanking these pages was a good thing. It seems blanking is (a) pointless (b) takes away potentially useful information from the community. I second BMK's suggestion pages already blanked be restored. DeCausa (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

There is I think a persuasive argument that too many pages only serve to glorify or inspire copycats (see WP:DENY). I've seen several LTAs who literally run through the lists joe-jobbing as many old MOs as they can. These pages should be considered a working tool, and if they're no longer useful we may as well get rid. Sometimes vandals do actually go away. -- zzuuzz 19:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

And sometimes they come back. Do joe-jobbers prefer MO's that appear dormant rather than active? That seems doubtful. Those all seem arguments for not having LTA pages at all rather than blanking older ones. There may be some validity for that but I'm very doubtful that they negate the usefulness of those pages on a day-to-day basis. DeCausa (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

We should only keep pages which are useful, and some of them are useful. I'd encourage a look through the list which was blanked, and ask if they're still around. It's notable (to me at least) in all the ones which were skipped. It seems to have been a well-performed exercise. And yes, on a broad scale, we still get WoW and Grawp copycats to this day, along with some others. -- zzuuzz 19:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

LTAs that fall in the category of often-copied should have a warning on them to look out for copycats and joe jobs - but it's not possible to disseminate such warnings if there's no page to put it on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Yep. Just as a curious aside I can't quite get my head around Spicy's earlier comments that they (and none of the SPI clerks) have any interest in the LTA pages and, more surprisingly, the sarcasm around being "accredited" given what it says in Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks. Could they clarify? DeCausa (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

"Accredited" seems like a slightly pompous term for an informal volunteer position on a website. In case it's not clear, the point of my comment was that I don't agree with SmokeyJoe's idea that clerks/CUs should have authority over the community at large in regard to LTA pages. LTA pages were not a part of my clerk training and I'm not aware of any other clerk who uses them on more than a very occasional basis (in my experience, the SPI case archives are usually much more useful). That's all the more reason for these pages to be managed by the community. Spicy (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I have now reviewed all subpages, haven't blanked any that remotely look useful or active. no page to put it on is misleading, they are not deleted and removed completely, only blanked and can be restored if necessary. Of the two joe job targets mentioned above, Grawp is not blanked and Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels was deleted 12 years ago and salted. The only MFD I have started is for a completely useless page Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Kiyanu Kim. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 04:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• LTA is mostly a moribund process; the information there has mostly been subsumed by SPI reports. It feels like LTA was once a more active area of Misplaced Pages, but it has basically fallen into disuse as any purpose it served has been taken up by other processes. There's a few of the pages I use from time to time mostly for tagging block summaries so any reviewing admin will know the background (such as WP:LTA/VXFC), but otherwise I'd be mostly OK with merging and/or redirecting LTA pages to SPI pages, since that's where most of the active work in the area tends to happen. --Jayron32 14:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• I've never known it to be a "process", since there was no desired immediate outcome to the creation of an LTA page. I've always seen it as informational and educational, for those editors interested in that corner of the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• The problem is that, in order to be such, it needs to be actively updated. Otherwise, it's just a memorial to trolls, something we don't do. If we're using the LTA pages and creating new ones and updating them on the regular as a community, then they serve a use beyond simply being a memorial to trolls. However, if we aren't, then it isn't a useful corner of Misplaced Pages, and whatever small purpose it is currently serving in terms of being "informational" and "educational" could also be served in a part of Misplaced Pages which is being updated regularly, such as SPI pages. Just as an example as to how moribund most LTA pages are; WP:LTA/VXFC, which is a banned user which has been active as recently as the past week and which has never not been active, has an LTA page which was last updated once in 2021, and 3 times in 2022. Being that it's only seen 4 substantive edits in basically 3 years, it's not really serving its purpose of tracking ongoing long-term abuse. It's just a memorial to VXFC. --Jayron32 13:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  I agree, moribund, not functional, despite some wishful thinking. I think that virtually all long term abuse worth central tracking involves sockpuppettry or editing abusively while logged out while blocked, and so it has negligible scope outside SPI.

  WP:SPI in impressively professional-like and well functioning, and no one at SPI seems able to say that LTA has any known value. LTA is moribund, and we see it being a place of trolling. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  "we see it being a place of trolling" Who is "we"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Incidentally, "X is moribund, therefore delete it" is an interesting philosophy. Generally, if there are things on Misplaced Pages which need to be updated, we -- you know -- update them, we don't "tsk-tsk" and delete them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe I said we should remove all information entirely. I've said we should move the pages to relevant SPI pages, and house it there instead. It's redundant with SPI, and no one is using it. Imagining that some day, some time in the future, someone may use it is not a useful way to run things. We have a way to track long-term trolls that is currently being used many times per day. It's called SPI. Let's just merge the content of the LTA pages with the SPI pages, and get rid of the LTA process as historical. There are many things we used to do at Misplaced Pages that we have shut down and don't do anymore. That you claim such a thing is so novel as to be confusing to you is beyond-the-pale, given that you've been here as long as as have, if not longer. We shut things down at Misplaced Pages often enough. For example, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct, Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee, Misplaced Pages:Association of Members' Advocates. All of these were shut down and marked "historical" or "closed" and we now direct users to other processes instead of trying to use them. My suggestion is we do the same with Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse. We mark it historical, merge any relevant cases to SPI, etc. --Jayron32 17:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Marking something as ""historical" is not what was being discussed - at least, that's not how I understood it. It's deletion I'm opposed to. (About the same, incidentally, first edit with an account: 26 June 2005). Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you don't have a problem with what I proposed, why did you spend so much energy telling me I was wrong. If you have a problem with deletion, then find the person that proposed deletion and tell that person they are wrong. I proposed merging with SPI and marking LTA as historical. If that's not what you disagree with, then don't argue with me!!! --Jayron32 13:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Woah, hold on a bit. I'm allowed to disagree with you, I'm even allowed to disagree with what I thought you were saying, and I'm allowed to change directions once I understand what your argument actually is in fact, but chastising me for disagreeing with what the general thrust of the conversation was (exclusive of your contributions) doesn't seem very productive. I did misunderstand you, and I apologize for that. I'm certain if there was ever a real effort to deal with LTAs in connection with SPI you and I could probably agree on some procedure that preserved information in one form or another, but since it seems unlikely that that is going to happen, I don't see much point in expending energy over it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• The problem is both WP:DENY and WP:BEANS. If we really updated LTA pages with as much information as possible, it would become a troll memorial (a WP:DENY problem), and also a guide of trolling ideas and block evasion techniques (a WP:BEANS problem). That being said, some LTA pages of prolific sockmaster who have been active in recent years are sometimes useful. Not every day, but occasionally they are. MarioGom (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Prolific sockmaster? Why is not covered by SPI? SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  DENY is not working well if it leads to regular editors losing useful info. The practice of not tagging sock accounts already leads to issues in gaining a good understanding of any particular case, deleting LTA pages would make that task even more inaccessible. CMD (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Topic Ban (User:Arif80s)

Am I still topic banned. Arif80s (talk) 05:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, unless you appealed it successfully (you would certainly know of the appeal, and should be able to find it, if this is the case). The discussion you linked to doesn't state the ban is temporary, which makes it indefinite (appealable, but forever unless successfully appealed). Your ban is also listed at Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions Animal lover |666| 05:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Respected, I am not happy with this decision. In my view, this decision is contrary to Misplaced Pages's policies. This decision of the English Misplaced Pages will hurt the trust of users. Since we are from a country where most of its users do not have much understanding of the English Misplaced Pages's rules and policies, I am of the opinion that the English Misplaced Pages should not make such tough decisions and lift my ban soon as possible. thanks Arif80s (talk) 06:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

What decision? Your indefinite topic ban is over 4.5 years old so it's well past time to get over any unhappiness with it. The fact that an indefinite topic ban lasts until it is successfully appealed is something that in some ways predates Misplaced Pages and isn't even really a 'decision' more a matter of definitions. I'd note that the 3 months minimum before any appeals is over 4 years past so you can appeal at anytime. However you will need to convince the community that 4.5 years later you now understand our policies and guidelines and whatever problems that got you topic banned are unlikely to reoccur. A good way to demostrate this to the community is simply via your editing. Again, it's been over 4.5 years. And the scope of your topic was very narrow, there was nothing stopping you creating well sourced and overall excellent articles that are basically FA quality, related to Pakistan or whatever, even with the topic ban in place. If you have done so, it would like make your appeal very simple. If you haven't, I'm not sure why the community is at fault for that, since your topic ban shouldn't have stopped you. Nil Einne (talk) 12:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

P.S. For clarity I'm not saying you must write FAs for an appeal to succeed. I'm saying that it would definitely help, and more importantly although you seem to be presenting our restrictions on you as some make unfairness and loss to Misplaced Pages they are actually very limited. And they should not be stopping you making some of the best contributions any editor can make to Misplaced Pages even when it comes to your country. Indeed the loss to us from restricting you in that way even if it's no longer needed is surely very limited (which doesn't mean we should continue them if it's not) and the loss to you should really be seen that way too. Nil Einne (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

It has certainly been long enough to allow an appeal. I'd recommend that you look over your behavior leading up to the ban, and write a convincing statement why the ban is no longer necessary. If it succeeds, then an admin will officially unban you. If it's unsuccessful, read the opposing comments and figure out how to fix your own behavior over the next few months to increase your chances of success next time. Animal lover |666| 14:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Did you take my opinion before making a decision? Don't you see the bias of the few users? Was it a big enough deal to ban on me and 3 other users?--Arif80s (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't make the decision. It was made in the discussion you linked to. I'm simply following it. And 4 years after it was closed you can't claim the closure was incorrect. Animal lover |666| 06:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Animal lover. I am addressing to administrators of Eng Wiki not you. Arif80s (talk) 07:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

This was not a decision of an individual admin (by the way, the closing admin left Misplaced Pages 4 months after that discussion). It was concensus of all the users who participated in that discussion. You will need to convince enough users to establish a consensus that it's no longer needed. Animal lover |666| 08:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Neither will I appeal nor will I work on the English wiki. You are reducing your users. Congratulations. Arif80s (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Given that you've made only a sporadic handful of edits in the years since that topic ban (including a couple after you said you would no longer work on the English Misplaced Pages), and just a few hundred before then, I expect we'll manage. What would genuinely "hurt the trust of users" would be to have policies we did not enforce. Editors are just as bound by Misplaced Pages's policies and rules as visitors to your own country are bound by those laws, however strange they may be to foreigners. (I don't expect, for example, that your country would waive its blasphemy laws for my benefit, however much the criminalization of blasphemy is a strange and deplorable concept to Americans.) Ravenswing 17:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Reporting two users for WP:Stalking, WP:Harassing, WP:Canvassing and WP:No personal attacks

However, there is one complaint that I agree with, and that is the accusations of socking based on the "they must be a sock" syndrome because they know too much for a new editor. It's okay to question the editor, but if the editor denies socking, there's not much that can be done, and to keep bringing it up is not only a waste of time but crosses the line into personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Good morning,

About one month ago Ermenrich reported me on the page of another user with whom they apparently collaborate frequently. They purposefully avoided to ping me in their report, where they apparently tried to start some kind of argument regarding my edits, though they themselves claimed they couldn't see anything overtly wrong with them (1).

Ever since we had more than one heated discussion, where they always tried to imply that I am some kind of nationalist, or, at any rate, that there was something wrong with my edits, which I assume they don't like for some reason (or maybe they don't like my username, I am not sure).

Meanwhile, I had a conversation with Borsoka at another page. They reported me at ANI, but the case ended in my favor, and I won the argument on the relative page. During our argument, Borsoka took the liberty of stalking my edits and join the other user on the other page against me (2). I would have expected Ermenrich, an experienced user, to say something in this regard. Instead, they joined Borsoka and literally declared themselves my personal stalker(s) (3).

Sure enough, they stalked me to another page, apparently reverting my edits just to revert something I did, just to "be against" (4). Again, I won the argument against them at that talk page (5). In this argument, I also reminded them of their stalking an harassing tendencies again (6).

This, however, did not stop them from stalking me yet again at Mundus (magister militum) (a page I was editing and watching), right after I had discussed this page with another user on another page, in a conversation where they had not been invited (7). At Mundus, they started removing well-sourced content, just because it claimed Turkic etymology for certain words, and also made their first direct accusations of nationalism and "pan-Turkism" (8).

Today, I opened Misplaced Pages and found that Ermenrich had again called up his friends at the Mundus talk page, perhaps in an attempt to finally win an argument against me (9). This alone qualifies for Misplaced Pages:Canvassing. But Ermenrich should learn that unless they assume good faith and use reason before criticizing, they will always lose their arguments.

But this latter action of them is not what caused me to open this case at ANI. Indeed, both Borsoka and Ermenrich finally openly accused me. They accused me of sock-pupettry this time (10), (11), 12).

Needless to say, I am not a sock puppeteer, and I am not a nationalist. My edits are in good faith, which these two users lack. They are earnestly harassing me now and I am tired. This is almost racism, because I can't find a reason for all this fury against me unless it's my username (n.b. Giray Altay is a Turkic name. By the way, geniuses, would a bad-faith Turkish nationalist choose a Turkish name?!?!). Ermenrich and Borsoka have already been proven wrong, but this has not stopped them from keep on stalking, harassing, and canvassing against me. EDIT forgot to mention Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Giray Altay (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a big nothing burger of a report: there is no rule I have to ping someone to discuss them on another users talk page if I’m concerned they may be a sock puppet (there isn’t even such a rule if I bring someone to WP:SPI). The OP has continually made accusations of various sorts against me since I first discussed my concerns at Erminwin’s talk page, posting long WP:WALLSOFTEXT.

After that, I stopped the user from edit warring on a page I’ve been watching for years; I made an edit to a page removing something that was not added by the OP; I pinged two people who have previously edited a little remarked upon page for an opinion (one of whom the OP has previously asked about the page ), which I do not believe counts as canvassing.

I will provide diffs later, but the OP seems to think that they can complain to remove scrutiny of their edits, which show suspicious knowledge of WP policy for a new user.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

You focus on minor things, distorting them, and fail to address the chief causes of alarm!

I have never said you had to ping me, but it would've been nice. That, however, gives the reader of this report a first glimpse into your prejudice, which is what is causing all this trouble. Instead on focusing on that, address Misplaced Pages:Stalking, Misplaced Pages:Harassment, Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. How long will you keep on stalking and accusing me, reverting my edits on other pages just to be proven wrong? Can you see that yours is disruptive behavior?

Second, you didn't think I was a sock puppet at first. In fact, you talked about nationalism (1). Whatever. It is clear you didn't assume good faith at all, and wanted to find something wrong against Giray Altay (cf. I thought I’d cleaned up this sort of misuse of etymology in articles for pan-Turkic purposes a long time ago).

You jumped in at Odoacer against me, misunderstanding my edits, and reverting them without even clearly justifying your actions (I agree that you're edits were not improvements as they are overemphasizing the very disputed idea that Odoacer was a Hun. That's all I have to say 2). Eventually the matter was understood by the other editor involved (the one you jumped in to support just to try an recruit some Tag teammate maybe?), and settled, and your not-very-clear objections dropped. You did not help at all at Odoacer. The other editor did, as he /she, similarly to Erminwin, is interested in practical matters, in improving Misplaced Pages. You seem only interested in harassing me.

You did not ping "two people", you pinged editors with whom you are well-acquainted and who supported you in the past (3, 4). This qualifies or WP:Canvassing.

"which show suspicious knowledge of WP policy for a new user." Now you copy Borsoka (5) and make your second open, personal attack against me (6). Can you see how prejudiced you are against me? It's been more than a month that you put in your head that I am a nationalist, sock puppeteer or whatever (7). You and Borsoka wasted a lot of my time (which I could've spent writing/editing articles) and also the administrators'. Further, you caused me distress. And this is why I decided to come to ANI. Giray Altay (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

You’ve presented no proof I’m stalking you and I’m not going to read this enormous WP:WALLOFTEXT to respond in detail to each of these wild accusations. You are the one who brought this to the admins, not me, so I obviously have not been “wasting their time.”

It’s strange that you use my edit summary for removing something that was not added by you as proof I am prejudiced against you.—-Ermenrich (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

For the evidence of stalking read here (1). I will not waste yet more time to repeat things to you.

You forgot again to address harassing and personal attacks. Smart; considering what you did.

You and Borsoka wasted my time by starting unnecessary, infinite discussions at Erminwin and Samuel Aba, where you argued without common sense, and sure enough lost your arguments. Borsoka took it further, by opening an uncalled for case at the admins (2) which was dismissed (3). You, OTOH, started disruptively editing articles and jump in arguments against me just to undo my edits or Turkic-related stuff on articles I'm working on (3), (4). Even though your objections were dropped at Odoacer, you continued with your tendentious editing ad Mundus, where you also canvassed (5).

And beside this harassing, you made four personal attacks against me in just 24 h (6, 7, 8, 9), adding to the others done in the past month and a half.

It’s strange that you use my edit summary for removing something that was not added by you as proof I am prejudiced against you. You edited Mundus, a page I had already edited and was watching (10) after declaring yourself my stalker (11), after expressing your concern regarding Turkic nationalism (12) and right after I had discussed Mundus at Erminwin, in a discussion to which you were not invited and did not participate (13). And sure enough in your edits you made some critic against Turks and expressed your concern regarding Pan-Turkism (14). Your edits at Mundus, in which you got rid of content supported by sources just because it claimed Turkic etymology for a name, look to have derived from your stalking practices and prejudice against Turks and Turkic-named users. Giray Altay (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

It's clear from the above that Giray Altay doesnot understand what a personal attack is. Asking whether anyone finds Giray Altay reminiscent of a sock master on an editor's talk page is not a personal attack (diffs 6, 7) posting that something was likely originally added by sock-master user:WorldCreaterFighter that Giray Altay did not even add to the article is not a personal attack (8), and there is no personal attack in my reply to his accusations made here (9). I am confident that anyone who looks into the other diffs he has posted will find the same disconnect between what is alleged and what the evidence shows.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Personal attack is defined as: Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc.. Wiki's relative article also regards as personal attack: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links. You implied I were a sockpupet and nationalist almost 2 months ago (1, 2), and now accused me of being a sock puppet master without any evidence whatsoever (3).

And to reply to your previous question (just to lose some more time) the evidence of you stalking is here, you declared it yourself: Well, it seems obvious something's going on here. Any sock-like tendencies recognizable? Otherwise, I guess we should just keep an eye on them. And imperative edit summary of: key an eye on them (4).

The evidence is in you popping up at Odoacer (5) right after I edited it (6), being the only editor out of 20,000 monthly viewers and 227 page watchers to jump in an argument against me at the talk page (7); the evidence is in you popping up at Mundus (8), which I had just previously edited (9), right after I raised the subject at Erminwin's, in a discussion to which you didn't take part and didn't concern you (10).

And evidence for stalking against Borsoka is here, when they joined a discussion against me at Erminwin's. They did so during our heated discussion at another page (an argument which they lost, and out of which they started an ANI case that did not end in their favor). They had heretofore never edited on Erminwin's page, and the only possible way to get there was stalking (11). Giray Altay (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I am still convinced that Giray Altay is not a new editor. New editors are rarely able to quote texts from WP policies. Giray Altay's battle ground mentality is obvious: for them editors are winners or loosers, often with hidden agenda. I did not approach Erminwin on their talk page by chance. After entering into a conversation with Giray Altay, I was sure that other editors must have also concluded that Giray Altay was not here to build an encyclopedia. Borsoka (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the reason for stalking was. You stalked.

I also have an opinion about you, but I don't stalk, and I keep it to myself, and if I really wanted to vent it, I would use diffs and do it properly. You two are making accusations out of the blue just because my username is Tukic (and maybe also because you lost one argument each against me, so maybe you are sore now). Because, what other reason could it be? All we know is that my username is Turkic, that Ermenrich does not find anything wrong with my edits (1), and that they dislike/are distrustful of Turks and/or have some Pan-Turkism fear complex (2).

You should think before accusing editors, even if you do it implicitly. Just because I know Misplaced Pages's policies I am not a new editor? And, is not being a new editor intrinsically wrong? Do you realize that Misplaced Pages's policies articles are freely available online? Do you realize that people may edit as IP's for years and then create an account? Do you realize that sock puppetry is something done maliciously, but there are users who simply forget the password of their previous account and create another? Do you realize there are people who may change account for a number of reasons which do not have to be malicious?

But regarding me, I don't even know about the policies, I am reading about them now, if you really want to know.

Reading and knowing about Wiki's policies is not against any wiki rule. But harassing, tag teaming, stalking, canvassing, and personal attacks are.

EDIT: I may understand the concern about real socks and nationalistic or otherwise malicious editing, but when an editor tells you multiple times they are editing in good faith, and when you see and yourself admit there is nothing wrong with their edits, you have to stop stalking them, harassing them and making personal attacks against them. Giray Altay (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• Obviously it would have been easier to form an opinion on this conflict if Giray Altay had provided a link to the ANI report by Borsoka that they (GA) say ended in their favour, instead of expecting admins to scrabble for it in the multitudinous archives using the lousy AN/ANI search function. I did try, but it was a waste of time. Hint to GA: it's not too late to provide that link now. If you want admins to pay attention to your report, you shouldn't make it so hard for them. But I will nevertheless give my impression of GA's case: no, discussing your possible sockhood on their own pages is not harassment, and if it was, it wouldn't be "almost racism", and you should be very careful with accusations of racism, whether "almost" or not. Also, Ermenrich saying, on another user's page, that "I guess we should just keep an eye on them" cannot be interpreted as "they literally declared themselves my personal stalker(s)", as you say in bold text above. Keeping an eye on a user one believes to be disruptive is allowed here, and is not defined as "stalking". Admins do it all the time. And I agree with Borsoka and Ermenrich that you show remarkable knowledge of some fairly subtle policy wrinkles for a user of less than two months' tenure. You must be a quick study. As for your repeated complaints that Ermenrich fails to assume good faith, that's pretty rich coming from someone who writes "you jumped in to support just to try and recruit some Tag teammate maybe?", with a link to the somewhat notorious Tag team essay. Your general attitude does seem to be battleground, and my general impression is not good. But I'm prepared to change my mind if you do supply the link I've asked for, and if it throws a better light on you than this report does. Bishonen | tålk 17:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC).

@Bishonen:, I believe the OP is referring to this report at WP:AN3. It did not "end in their favor", the admin, Daniel Case posted: I can see why tempers are frayed but this does not quite reach (IMO) the level of actionability here. Yet. I really suggest going to AN/I or, better yet, taking some other step like an RFC or noticeboard posting to bring knowledgeable editors in to resolve the underlying dispute about the validity of the sourcing. Without doing that, no actions of any kind against any editors are really going to resolve this..--Ermenrich (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I did provide a link to the ANI report (1). but you must've missed it I guess.

Though I (likely) mistakenly used the words "the case ended in my favor" at first, I later (before this reply of yours) corrected myself and stated that the case was dismissed (2),

I didn't say it was racism. I said almost racism. Because, user says my edit are ok, then says they are afraid of Pan-Turkism and distrust Turkic users, and my username is Turkic; so well, you know...

That they literally declared themselves my personal stalkers was humorous. Nonetheless, I did provide diffs attesting that stalking has actually happened (2; 3 and cf. 4 & 5). And that statement may or may not add to it.

Keeping an eye on a user one believes to be disruptive is allowed here, you've gotta have some reason for this belief. They do not, by their own ammission. (6); and here we go back to wonder the whys and my username comes to mind again.

I agree with Borsoka and Ermenrich that you show remarkable knowledge of some fairly subtle policy wrinkles for a user of less than two months' tenure. You must be a quick study What is the remarkable fairly subtle knowledge of fairly subtle policy wrinkles? Also: so? Is it a crime to be able to read? Can we go back to no personal attacks and no harassing?

As for your repeated complaints that Ermenrich fails to assume good faith, that's pretty rich coming from someone who writes "you jumped in to support just to try and recruit some Tag teammate maybe?" Yes, I did say that that may be possible after two months this thing has been going on, this thing which they started, and after they pinged their own friends against me at another page (7).

But I'm prepared to change my mind if you do supply the link I've asked for, and if it throws a better light on you than this report does if you think this report is bad for me and not for them you might also not argue at all in my favor. Actually, I ask you not to argue for me. Stay in this conversation on their side if you want. But not on mine. Thanks! Giray Altay (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to agree with Borsoka and Bishonen. In the first few days of editing Giray Altay was using complex referencing(2nd day of editing)(3rd day of editing), made their own sandbox(6th day of editing), added infobox to an article(2nd day of editing) and introduced galleries of photos over multiple articles (6th day of editing).

• "I agree with Borsoka and Ermenrich that you show remarkable knowledge of some fairly subtle policy wrinkles for a user of less than two months' tenure. You must be a quick study What is the 'remarkable fairly subtle knowledge of fairly subtle policy wrinkles?" "Also: so? Is it a crime to be able to read? Can we go back to no personal attacks and no harassing?"

Yeah, no. This is clearly, not a new user. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Kansas Bear As I told Borsoka (1) there are just so many reason why I am able to use Misplaced Pages, and there are people who are quicker to learn. But this does not justify stalking, harassing, canvassing and personal attacks, and it does not justify you from disregarding the subject of this section and follow them in attempt of argument ad hominem. It doesn't have to be malicious, as those users (those same users who couldn't get it their own way in certain arguments) imply it to be. Also, that wasn't even their problem in the first place. They (actually you) are citing this now, after I complained about something (the subject of this section) which you haven't even attempted to address.

The fundamental problem, even more fundamental than Ermenrich's apparent prejudice and my ability to cite (well, I guess? Considering your comments) in Misplaced Pages, is that I am new user and they are older users. But neither this justifies such treatment.

Yes, I missed the AN3 because you called it an ANI report, GA (causing me to waste my time with the ANI archives) and curiously you still do. Anyway, no, that discussion doesn't improve my impression. A detail: if you want to do yourself a favour, stop talking about users "tag teaming" against you, as I see you do repeatedly at the AN3 noticeboard also. It makes a very bad impression, and is the ultimate assumption of bad faith. As for "disregarding the subject of this section" and taking a critical look at your editing, GA, yes, that happens not infrequently at AN and ANI, and is quite appropriate. See WP:BOOMERANG. And criticizing your editing (not your person!) has absolutely zero to do with "ad hominem", what nonsense. Kansas Bear, thank you for your early diffs by GA, they're certainly striking. Bishonen | tålk 20:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC).

Yes, I missed the AN3 because you called it an ANI report, GA (causing me to waste my time with the ANI archives), mistaking AN3 for ANI, something someone with remarkable knowledge of some fairly subtle policy wrinkles would do, right? By the way, you could've just asked instead of wasting time! You didn't find it: you asked me, I told you. Simple.

I used "tag teaming" far less often than "harassing", "stalking" and "personal attacks", yet most people here seem reluctant to address those points.

This is bad faith 1, 2, 3, and this is trying to be practical and work for Misplaced Pages: 4, 5; but though the users were involved in such kind of constructive conversation, they did not want to participate in them.

An argument ad hominem is directed against a person (or the editor in this case). Kansas Bear, instead of addressing the issue at hand, joined the other user in an attack against my editing capacities, learning abilities, etc. They could've disagreed with my accusations of stalking, harassing, etc., but should've at least addressed the matter.

The article WP:BOOMERANG is interesting, but it doesn't change the actions of the other users, and it does not worry me since I know I did nothing wrong. Giray Altay (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

You do realize that you're violating the Law of holes, right? The impression you're giving gets worse and worse with every post you make. If you're lucky, someone will step in and close this discussion before it reaches WP:BOOMERANG proportions. If you're not lucky, it'll stay open, you'll keep on digging, and the end result with be a sanction for you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, I was hoping they would get a sanction or reprimand tbh. Not because I have anything against them. But because all I ever wanted was editing in peace, and I still want this; I met some editors willing to help or at least have a discussion on practical matters, but I also ran across these two editors, who did stalk me and made personal attacks, and I have provided enough diffs to prove that.

While I can understand Ermenrich may have had some concern a priori in the beginning (because they explained the topic where I edited is subject to nationalist-minded editing and sock-puppetry), Borsoka really just jumped in after things didn't turn out how they wanted. Giray Altay (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

You are obviously unable to understand other editors' motivations. WP is not a battle ground for all of us. Perhaps you should try to accept that other editors are not here to win, but to improve articles. That you wanted to refer to hundreds of pages in German and Hungarian anthologies of various studies and to books published more than a hundred years ago to verify a statement is still a fact. Borsoka (talk) 06:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

No, the matter wasn't that I wanted to refer to hundreds of pages in German and Hungarian anthologies of various studies and to books published more than a hundred years ago. The problem was that you wanted to keep certain information out of the article (an important, subject-related passage from the famous Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum by Simon of Kéza). And, judging from the talk page, you attempted do it in the past as well.

I initially published 4 valid sources to support my addition, but you rejected them with various excuses, including calling the commentary of a 21-st century scholar a primary source. Thus, I retrieved 9 sources to support the claim, and among them there was indeed a source "100 years old", and as soon as you saw it, you started using that as an excuse to keep the aforementioned information out of the article.

I wasn't on battleground mentality, I wanted to reason with you but you kept rejecting that insertion for no apparent reason, criticizing the sources. Eventually, after the admins took notice of it, the content was finally included in the article.

The very first words of the WP:Battleground article are: Misplaced Pages is not a place to hold grudges. However, this is what you did shortly after I begged to differ at Samuel Aba: 1 (n.b. following me to the page of another user, which Borsoka had never edited, to join two other users' conversation against me). So, imo, you should not mention WP.Battleground at all.Giray Altay (talk) 10:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Need I mention that “following me to the page of another user” to discuss someone’s edits is not stalking? You yourself appear to have followed me to Erminwin’s page originally to complain that I hadn’t pinging you to my discussion with another editor about your edits (why would I?). When I a month later prevented you from reinstating your preferred version without first gaining consensus at Odoacer (, ), you immediately accused me of stalking and harassing you and acting in bad faith (plus some made up claim that I was reported to an administrator) when I had been following the page for years and hadn’t even been the original one to revert your additions. It’s clear you do have a WP:battleground mentality when you make such (frankly) crazy accusations against someone.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

From Wp:Hounding:

Hounding on Misplaced Pages (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Misplaced Pages.

And check this 1. Borsoka never edited Erminwin's page before, but had just confronted me on another page.

I already explained you that I saw your comment about me at Erminwin's because you didn't ping me at our discussion at the Huns, though I had asked you to do so 2. You didn't have to ping me of course (and in fact you never did even after I asked you). It was stupid to ask, and at the time I didn't have the Huns in my watchlist. I loaded your page from the google bar to check if you had replied, instead of the Huns' one, and there I saw your creation of Prolific new editor on Hunnic topics (2).

I accused you of stalking at Odoacer, because you were the only editor out of over 200 page watchers to join the conversation with me and another user, and you did it against me, maybe, a priori, because in the end me and the other user resolved the misunderstanding, made up and worked together for the article (3). But you never contributed practically to this or any other conversation involving me. Only jumped in to undo my edits; claim I am some other user; etc.

I had some reason to believe you didn't assume good faith with me, but I openly accused you only after this: 3, 4.

I didn't accuse you of stalking me just at Odoacer, but also (and chiefly) at Mundus. (cf. 5 and right after 6, 7). But you still haven't addressed the latter. Giray Altay (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• Other than a couple of side comments by Bish and Kansas Bear, there's nothing happening hear other than arguments started elsewhere spilling over into this discussion. I'm going to give this a few more hours to see if someone uninvolved in the initial dispute can propose some solutions we can enforce moving forward. If that doesn't happen, I'm going to close this discussion down, as it is not really generating any useful progress in fixing the dispute. I also don't think we need to hear any more from any of the disputants; if they comment I'll likely close it down even sooner. Let people who are uninvolved disentangle this mess. Otherwise, there's nothing useful going to come from this. --Jayron32 13:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  Frankly I tried to wade through but the walls of text prevented me.

  @Giray Altay, you're very new. When you come to a noticeboard, you need to:

  1. Have a specific concern that you can back up with diffs provided in your first post
  2. Write as short as possible. No one wants to read long repetitive explanations. No one is even expected to. Writing shorter takes longer, but it's a skill worth developing if you want to get along here on Misplaced Pages.

  You also really need to understand policy a lot better than you currently appear to. From the skim I did, I think you're lucky someone hasn't blocked you for repeatedly making after being asked not to what seems like an awful lot of unsupported allegations and assumptions of bad faith. Valereee (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  Conciseness is the greatest talent a person may have, and writing shorter does take longer. I absolutely need to develop this skill.

  I thought I had provided enough diffs; I guess I was wrong. Giray Altay (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  It's not the number. We don't want more diffs, we want ones that really show the problem, accompanied by a ten-word description of the issue. Five great diffs are better than 10 iffy ones, and five good diffs should be sufficient for most concerns. Even one diff that doesn't actually show the problem can make someone who opens that diff first think, "This is nothing. I'm not going to bother with the rest."

  If I were you, I would request this be closed. It's not likely to go anywhere in this shape, it's just way too long, too many diffs added too late, and apparently diffs that don't actually show what they're supposed to show. Go edit somewhere noncontentious for a while, it's really hard to start out at contentious articles. Valereee (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• The patience of administrators never ceases to amaze me.

With regards to this filing, I do not see anything actionable at this point. I do believe there has been quite enough incivility here to go around but it is something that can be corrected by simply reminding the disputants that this is a community with people from all over the world making edits to this encyclopedia. We are expected to respect each other and assume good faith, even when we believe there is a violation of policy. Our administrators, as an extension of the community, show us this every day. They interact and sanction many tens of hundreds of user and IP accounts every day, protecting the encyclopedia from harm, yet they do not go to user talk pages to make accusations about editors with out providing clear and concise evidence. And they do not allow their personal feelings to rule their actions or read into every comment in an attempt to infer some slight that simply is not there.

I understand @Giray Altay's feelings when being accused of being a sockpuppet on this project. It is one of if not the worst accusation that can be made about an editor here and can be considered a personal attack of the highest order. I understand their feeling about going to another talk page and seeing two or three editors, that have been reverting their edits, discussing them, regardless of merit. While not necessarily the case, I can see how the OP could misconstrue that as "tag-teaming". I also understand the perspective of @Ermenrich and @Borsoka's positions in the discussions. It can be frustrating to deal with some editors, especially those that dominate discussions and write walls of endless text. I believe this is a case of everyone involved, including the OP, contributing to this spiraling event by minor actions they took and things they said.

A warning about civility and maintaining the assumption of good faith to all involved is all I see warranted at most. If @Ermenrich truly believes that @Giray Altay is a sockpuppet or master then they should open a SPI case and stop talking about it on other user talk pages. Likewise, @Giray Altay needs to stop accusing other editors of being racist, or some form of it, or tag-teaming against them. --ARoseWolf 15:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

This topic appears to be dying out finally, but I'd like to say this in response to ARoseWolf's comments. While I certainly appreciate that someone might not like being discussed as being a sock puppet, as long as it is unclear who the master is, there's no way to file a report. I believe Kansas Bear has supplied some very convincing evidence that this is not a new user, but since no one can figure out who it is, the only way to advance is to discuss until someone figures something out. It's not like this is being discussed outside talk:Erminwin.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

This is exactly the type of mentality that caused all this. You are in bad faith. You have put in your head that I am a Turkish nationalist, sock master or whatever, and now you are willing to waste yours and others time as well. But please do. I don't mind you do it at this point, just don't accuse me again at pages; go and open a report. All this happened even though I told you I am in good faith, told you I am not a sock puppet master, not a nationalist, not doing anything malicious. Even though none of my edits show signs of it (I know it must be so, since I am none of what you accuse me of, nor anything malicious).

And even if I was a nationalist, a sock puppet master or whatever: it's like I told you: even if I was a Hungarian or Turkish or whatever nationalist, what do you care as long as the contributions are constructive? (1). Let any admin or viewer here look into my edits and see if they find something disruptive; something nationalist-minded, sock-puppet minded, etc.

You never tried to discuss constructively; you never criticized or assessed my edits; you would ping me or reply to me (when you didn't try to hide it 2) only to make some insinuations against me as a Misplaced Pages user.

You didn't just discuss me at other users' pages, you also made open insinuations at public articles (3)

I believe Kansas Bear has supplied some very convincing evidence that this is not a new user, no they haven't. They provided evidence that I learned to use Misplaced Pages. They may be able to prove I learn quickly, but they would have to provide some statistics and diffs from other users to do that.

And besides, it doesn't have to be malicious, you know. I believe that IP address-editors turned into users and people who create new accounts for no malicious reason are pretty common occurrences. Yet you have to use this to fuel your wrong belief that I am doing something wrong. No matter what it is. You don't even know yourself. Giray Altay (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:PERM

There are backlogs at WP:PERM in at least three sections/categories (AutoWikiBrowser, Page Mover, and Pending Changes Reviewer). Some additional eyes would be appreciated. For full disclosure, I do have a request there myself, but I excluded my own request in evaluating the backlogs. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Two of those three always have a backlog. They do not any more. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Retired editor SchroCat

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

Sorry to bring this to light, but the editor in question just refuses to stop WP:ASPERSIONS against multiple users. This is a little confusing because SchroCat is a retired editor who is using multiple IPs to edit.

• SchroCat accused of Shibbolethink of stalking and being unethical. Even after Shibbolethink attempted to clarify the dispute in a GF manner SchroCat against made an accusation and went further by calling it gaslighting and disgusting.

• At this stage I contacted Shibbolethink via TALK to warn them that SchroCat was a hostile editor. SchroCat was less than friendly towards me in the past, but I just let it go and moved on.
• This seemed to move things along, but a few days later SchroCat accused Shibbolethink of edit warring. Then SchroCat went to InvadingInvader’s TALK and made accusations against myself, InvadingInvader, and EnPassant. Again, I attempted to steer the editor away, but everything becomes a WP:BATTLEGROUND it seems.

Generally I would just this behavior go and move on, but this editor's actions on several articles are watching at the present is becoming an unnecessary distraction. Based on the editor's history this isn't the first time this type of behavior has been a problem. In light of the editor not listening to advice in GF I bring it here hoping that brings it to an end. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Either an editor has retired or hasn't, it can't be both. If SchroCat is behind the IPs? I wish he'd would stop continuing 'signed out' & officially un-retire. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

No, User:GoodDay, you are mistaken. The editor cannot be determined to be in a retired or non-retired state, like the cat whose living or non-living state is indeterminate. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I probably should have linked to where the user said they were SchroCat, but the identity wasn't in dispute. For example, the IP removed the notice from SchroCat's TALK. Nemov (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the editor signs their comments as "The editor formally known as Schrocat and now editing under IPs" or something similar. — Shibbolethink 01:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments:

1. I'm not an expert in policy, but I'm getting a feeling that this could constitute as some form of sockpuppetry. I won't further entertain the feeling unless there is solid proof.

2. I would fully support the initial comment as a neutral testament of what happened.

3. To respond to GoodDay's initial comment, during an ongoing discussion on whether to include an infobox on Mackenzie Ziegler's article, the IP 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:EC7C:7CCE:D2B2:CF59 opposed the idea and listed them as formerly being known as SchroCat. That's when Nemov first alerted me to SchroCat's history and the Infobox debate, and upon our discussion about the past, the IP 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:F9F0:EEDB:4180:806C started accusing us of personal attacks left, right, and center. Based on their responses, though no verbatim admission has come from the latter IP, I have reason to believe that both IPs are SchroCat. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Could you provide the diffs of where I have “accused you of personal attacks left, right, and center”? 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:65FE:FE8:B65C:3BC4 (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I've contacted SchroCat & asked him to either un-retire or stop continuing forward signed-out, if he's behind the IPs. We should also take caution, that it's not someone else claiming to be SchroCat, just to get him banned. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I neither need to un-retire, nor wish to. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:65FE:FE8:B65C:3BC4 (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

If that's your attitude? then you're on your own. If you end up site-banned? so be it. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

My attitude? As far as I am aware, that’s long-standing practice, given there are no policies or guidelines that say the opposite. I pop back in from time to time, which is acceptable, rather than “an attitude”. Cheers 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:302F:5717:579F:6EE8 (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, I said Shibbolethink was disgraceful. I stand by that. You don’t infer editors are delusional. For someone who purports to be a medical professional, that is a disgraceful statement to make.

He called me delusional because I said he had stalked me between articles and harassed me by removing or moving my comments. He has:

• removed a comment I made;
• said I have opened the RFC in bad faith;

The stalking began after he claimed sources saying Rylance should be described as British American. (He shouldn't be – the sources even come close to backing that up). He stonewalled on the talk page, so an RfC is in progress. Since then, he has appeared after me at the following articles (some are obviously natural links, others are definitely not).

• List of awards and nominations received by Mark Rylance
• James Joyce
• Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky
• Claude Debussy
• Moorgate Tube Crash
• Laurence Olivier
• The Shoes of the Fisherman (film) (I hadn't edited the article, but I had altered the link in the Olivier article)

• I have also received a series of posts on my talk page from him including veiled accusations. This was the one message he has dropped into the middle of the RFC, which is more than a little inappropriate. I am unable to leave a message on his talk page about this as it is semi-protected. He has also moved part of one of my comments (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Laurence_Olivier&diff=1125987334&oldid=1125922063)? I reverted (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Laurence_Olivier&diff=1126045730&oldid=1125987334) pointing out it was an answer to his previous comment, but he again moved it (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Laurence_Olivier&diff=1126112389&oldid=1126078039). As to the comments on InvadingInvader‘s talk page. I have pointed out that they are hardly in good faith, and one of the accusations (from EnPassant, was untrue. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:65FE:FE8:B65C:3BC4 (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  Every one of those talk pages has either an entirely benign reason, or my participation is completely unrelated to "stalking/HOUNDING", or otherwise unconnected to this user:

So how exactly would any of the above constitute WP:HOUNDING? Should I never edit articles the editor has ever touched? That would be a de facto SchroCat TBAN, something I would not be in favor of. I have no interest in interacting with or avoiding this user. I have no interest in checking each and every article for whether this /64 range has ever edited (especially since they occasionally edit with other ranges, how would I even know?) I have no interest in interacting with this user whenever possible, they have made doing so an extremely unpleasant experience. I care very little about the content of these disputes. I am happy to go with consensus in each and every case, and have said as much repeatedly.In response to any attempt to create consensus via compromise, or follow BRD, I have been met with numerous WP:ASPERSIONS and bad faith accusations:

I neglected to say above, as SchroCat and as other IPs, they have been blocked a total of FIVE (maybe six?) times for creating a battleground, for edit warring (on ArbCom of all places, with arbs!), and for sock-puppetry: . For many of the same behaviors I describe above.

Add to this: the explicit WP:OWN behavior (this user is a filter placed upon every article they have ever edited, in which they will create controversy and edit war over minute changes such as adding spouses to an infobox), the WP:BATTLEGROUNDs they create (everyone is with them or against them, a friendly editor whose actions they like, or someone who harasses them). And so on.

I am happy to provide diffs showing any of the above.

As far as I can tell, this user edits on anonymous IPs partially because of their previous block log and history. Not to mention the ArbCom restriction that they must declare themselves when asked by Arbs. If anything, their behavior has become more brazenly standoffish since going full anon IP. And it's taken longer for admins to catch up with their many addresses given that behavior is stretched across different IPs (block evasion): . Why is this something the project is tolerating, given the past disruption? What does this user, in their current state and behavior, contribute to the project? — Shibbolethink 01:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

This user has contributed a large body of very well written articles on interesting topics. These articles continue to have new readers which constitutes an ongoing contribution to the project. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Yep, and I commend them for those efforts and contributions. But that does not outweigh the sheer number of personal attacks and edit wars, the overall WP:OWN behavior, and general pattern of BATTLEGROUNDing, OWNership, and lack of collaboration from this editor. I encourage you to find an instance when this editor was able to collaborate with someone they disagreed with about a fundamental "preference" disagreement. I could not find a single one. — Shibbolethink 16:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not sure there is anything further that admins can do about this. I can think of no sanction more severe than being condemned to spend your free time arguing against infoboxes as an IP editor. Levivich (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  I don’t just to that. I occasionally make sure standards are kept on sourcing and that sources are no misrepresented while someone tries to crowbar petty nationalism onto an article. Then I get bored and go away do something useful with my life for a couple of months. - 86.162.16.154 (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Levivich. From this time onward, whoever the IPs (mobile or computer) are, they'll likely not be trusted again, going forward. GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Assuming arguendo that the IPs are actually SchroCat, this is a fairly textbook example of evading scrutiny, given SchroCat's history in this area. If you're retired, retire, or scratch the Misplaced Pages itch in such a way that you're not noticed. If you're not retired, please log into your account so editors understand who they're working with. You can't have it both ways.

If it's not SchroCat, arguing about infoboxes is a privilege (punishment?) that really ought to be reserved to logged-in editors. Mackensen (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Evading scrutiny? I signed my !votes using my name, so there is no evasion. I cannot log back in: my password was scrambled a couple of years ago and I have no wish to return to full time editing, just drop in. And no, discussions over things like IBs is for all users, registered and unregistered. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6562:A1FC:F7F2:51BF (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

There's still an email address associated with your account, which generally means the account is recoverable. You could also register a new account under a new name. Editing as a logged-out IP when your IP changes frequently (not your fault, but it's a fact) makes more work for the editors trying to work with you. You need to make a choice here. Mackensen (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I've made my choice, thanks. I will continue to return as an IP editor when I feel like editing. If there is a policy or guideline against that, please show it me and I'll adhere to it. If there isn't, then I will continue to edit as an IP, signing my old user name when appropriate. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6562:A1FC:F7F2:51BF (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:LOUTSOCK? As everyone else has said: you can't retire and then continue to edit actively, especially not logged out in a way that people could be deceived into thinking you don't have an account. (Non-administrator comment) casualdejekyll 23:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Just as WP:NOTHERE admits more than one reading, so too does WP:LOUTSOCK. Just sayin'. EEng 05:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Loutsock? I don't edit under my old name, so Loutsock can't apply (my last edit as SchroCat was September 2020). As I have already said, when I occasionally return, and where appropriate (!votes in contentious areas, etc), I sign saying what my former account was so as not to be accused of evasion. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6562:A1FC:F7F2:51BF (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

One thing I'd like to note about WP:LOUTSOCK and whether or not this user will be an issue for the project moving forward: If this IS SchroCat, they have tried to have a (albeit hidden) WP:CLEANSTART at least twice and got a CU-block both times, as a result of their behavior. They have also tried to be vanished at least once, and had it reversed due to their behavior. I would say it is absurd for the community to not see this logged out editing as yet another way to have their behavior less scrutinized. SchroCat seems to want their cake and to eat it too, to be anonymous, but also able to cite their "long history of FAs and GAs" as experience AND ALSO avoid the baggage of their many prior blocks and their current editing restriction. — Shibbolethink 14:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

lmao Xx78900 (talk) 13:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate for a checkuser to comment on whether the IP editor may be SchroCat? (possibly not, as checkusers are usually loath to link an IP to an account for a range of good reasons concerning privacy). Nick-D (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

There wouldn't even be any way to tell. The logs are purged every few months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

We can infer certain traits from the CU log from past checks of the named account. We do normally avoid linking a named account to an IP, but SchroCat has self-disclosed right here, so he's waived the privacy to which he would otherwise be entitled. Because of this self-disclosure, I don't think it's necessary right now to run a check. I also don't think his motives are malicious, but if the community believes this to be disruptive, we can handle it through normal admin actions. Katie 02:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

How do we know these IPs are the same person and that person is SchroCat? Also he was party to an AE or ARCA or something about infoboxes when he retired, so, there's that. Ritchie333, didn't you deal with this already once before? Levivich (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

According to this, the only logged editing restriction I could find, "SchroCat is required to disclose any future alternative accounts either publicly or privately to the Arbitration Committee." Question is, are the IPs the person who now claims to be SchroCat is using "accounts" under this restriction, and have they been reporting them to ArbCom as required? The other possible concern is when SchroCat (if this is SchroCat) doesn't identify themselves as an IP, is that "avoiding scrutiny" of their editing per WP:SOCKPUPPETRY? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know about that. This ARCA is what I remembered. Levivich (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• While the random IPs in multiple discussions are confusing, the real issue is the consistent behavior towards other editors. This has been a problem in the past and now is continuing post-retirement. I don't have objections to the editor leaving comments on articles as an IP editor, it's the comments towards other editors which need to stop. Nemov (talk) 02:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Gerda Arendt asked the candidates for ArbCom whether we still have infobox wars. Maybe the answer is that, due to quantum entanglement, we may or may not have infobox wars with an editor who may or may not be active. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

As my name was mentioned: today is the last day to vote. There have been few discussions about infoboxes over 2021 and 2022. When I saw Laurence Olivier, however, I sadly noticed that the topic is still not at peace. After I asked in my survey, we had even more such discussions. - I don't understand the problem, because I strongly believe that a lead and an infobox can coexist in an article, serving different types of readers, - why was that ever a reason to fight? - I asked the arb candidates about ideas for peace, and they offered none. My simple approach: 1) every editor please stick to two comments per discussion. (Can anybody count how many comments the various IPs named SchroCat made in Laurence Olivier alone? On top of edit-warring over the new infobox.) 2) treat infoboxes just like other editing, in civility and respecting WP:BRD. Better ideas, anybody? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda:, don't worry too much about Infoboxes; that's only tangential to this topic. This thread is not about that, but about a possible community ban of an editor. You're welcome to opine in the #Survey section above, if you wish to. Mathglot (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Fix ping: @Gerda Arendt:. Mathglot (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I thought I opined clearly enough, but if not:

• I don't worry about infoboxes (at all). They come, and they come without me, I don't have to worry.
• It is SchroCat who worries too much about infoboxes, getting into trouble again and again over only this topic, instead of just accepting community consensus.
• I do not support banning a valuable content editor, when a topic ban or a two-comments-per-discussion restriction (best for all participants) would be enough to stop disruption.
• As expressed before, multiple times, I'd prefer if SchroCat would edit under the user name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Gerda, your two posts preceding this one are disingenuous and a very selective reading of the origin of WP:BLUDGEONING in infobox discussions. Perhaps the reason this thread has not boomeranged on those editors is that other editors don't want to engage their behaviors, as they should land those editors in arb enforcement. And I'm not referring to SchroCat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• The people who oppose infoboxes are good content creators, not drive-by disruptors. Let them have their say without bitter argument. If the IP bothers you, ignore them. You don't have to counter everything the IP says. If you respond to them, they are entitled to reply. Post on this noticeboard if the IP is a problem after people stop arguing with them and stop fiddling with their comments. An editor can stop using their account and later post as an IP if they want—nothing nefarious is going on. Johnuniq (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  This has zero to do with infoboxes. I can't be clearer about that. This is about a single editor who continues to accuse others repeatedly after being asked to stop. That is a problem. Accusing others of stalking, harassment, and lying isn't a simple content dispute. When an editor has been blocked for this behavior in the past and refuses to stop what other recourse is there? Nemov (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  Pay no mind to the old he-wouldn't-be-such-a-jerk-if-people-didn't-bother-him-so-much defense. Frankly I'm surprised it took 12 hours to appear in this thread. Levivich (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  It's a little troublesome that some editors seem unconcerned about this issue. This is a clear case of an edtior accusing others of lying, harassment, stalking, and gaslighting. WP:ASPERSIONS is very clear on this subject. It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause. This is the routine for SchroCat. Nemov (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• Don't think there's anything to do here. Yep, this is obnoxious; nope, doesn't seem to be against any of our policies (although we do need to verify when an IP claims to be a registered user; just saying "hey it's me" isn't sufficient). Requiring SchroCat return to their account won't actually solve anything. If his behavior becomes abusive, the next step is proposing an indef here, but there would need to be a lot more (and more egregious) evidence for that. History also tells us that proposals to sanction someone are least productive when filed by someone at the other end of an infobox battle, for better or worse. FWIW. — Rhododendrites \\ 14:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  The current situation isn't great. SchroCat's user page says he's retired. His talk page was protected yesterday. An IP who is probably SchroCat, given his conduct, is signing himself as such but his IP keeps changing. This mode of editing has and will continue to cause confusion and create friction, even leaving aside that SchroCat's conduct toward other editors hasn't improved over the years. I don't see why the project has to sign up for more of this; we do get a choice after all. Mackensen (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this WP:SPI? WP:OWN?

Today multiple IPs have edited the Moorgate tube crash page, reverting grammar improvements, and then going on to my talk page (where at least one of them admitted to being SC) and the article's talk page. This includes:

1. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6562:A1FC:F7F2:51BF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (diffs: 1, 2)
2. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:1930:3AE6:7605:784 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (diffs: 3, 4, 5)
3. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:DD88:3C8D:2FF1:1800 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (diffs: 5, 6)
4. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:B4FF:A37A:49BB:D5B4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (diffs: 6, 7

Is it worth launching an SPI regarding this? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: and @Shibbolethink: have also had interactions with one or more of these, whether it be on the main page or the talk page. On my talk page there were signs of WP:OWN as well. Troublesome and tiring. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

These IPs are all from a single dynamic /64 IPv6 range (the first four groups of numbers are the same), meaning it's all one device, presumably one person, who claims to be SchroCat. No need for SPI here. There are other concerns but this is normal for a dynamic IPv6. Levivich (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Basically this is just more and more evidence this IP range tries to WP:OWN articles edited by User:SchroCat. Even very small changes by multiple users are reverted with various antagonistic edit summaries rv stalker, Care to give a reason? I did when I made the edit: it’s consistent with the rest of the article and not needed. It’s also the version that was present since it was made an FAC until an IP added the needless commas a month ago.. They appear to have improved their language a bit since the opening of this AN discussion, but the actual OWN behavior of any and all edits reverted through this person as a "filter" is still the same. — Shibbolethink 16:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

After Shibbolethink reported these edits to ANEW, I have blocked 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 48 hours for violating 3RR over things like whether to join two sentences with a semicolon and whether "London Underground" takes an article or not. Just thought you'd like to know. Daniel Case (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

That’s just not true. I reverted the parts of your edit that were not an improvement to an FA, that is all. That’s not ownership, that’s having standards. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:1930:3AE6:7605:784 (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Its a dynamic IP that my system changes. That’s not something I control.

It’s a misnomer to describe the edits as “grammar improvements”. They weren’t, which is why they were partially reverted. I have given my explanation of why on the talk page.

It is untrue to say there are signs on OWN, as I explained quite clearly. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:1930:3AE6:7605:784 (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Your IP address really changes 4 times in one day, between ones you have already used a few hours or minutes earlier? Really? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

This is pretty common for IP6. But also, SchroCat, what you're doing is exactly what WP:OWN is about. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Nope. Removing problematic or sub-standard edits isn’t ownership. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:1930:3AE6:7605:784 (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Have a read of WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR and get back to us, see what you think. You did say on my talk it was a page you had taken through FA... Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the IP range exhibits every single one of those behaviors. The thing is, they just cite WP:FAOWN to justify it. And, to be fair, to WP:STEELMAN, FAOWN does say: Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first. Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not necessarily constitute ownership. But extremely importantly, the language in this policy is:

1. a suggestion for courtesy, not a mandate
2. Described as for significant changes
3. Asking those FA editors to civilly why sources and policies support a particular version to avoid "ownership" behavior

This IP range reverts and "filters" even extremely small changes that are all about user "preference", not about policy, sources, MOS, or actual FA criteria. They have cited none of these four things to justify reversions here (or honestly, elsewhere). They have only cited that they are restoring the "version that went through FA review" or similar. AKA their preferred version that they claim to have created. That's not FAOWN, that's OWN. — Shibbolethink 17:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

"Significant" may not be apparent to editors unfamiliar with all the sources, and can often involve only one word that introduces subtle inaccuracy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this particular defense applies to comma splices, semicolons, and whether "London Underground" needs a definite article. Although I agree it is often true. — Shibbolethink 16:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Here are all the contribs from the 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801::0/64 IPv6 range (I think). You can see the claim of "occasionally" editting is a lark: in fact, SchroCat (or an IP claiming to be him) has been editing almost every day on this range. The last 500 edits go back to September; 1000 to May, when this range made its first edits. Before that, it was likely a different range. There is also at least one IPv4 range here claiming to be SchroCat, 86.162.16.0/24, which has made edits like this one a week ago and this one a year and a half ago. There are probably more ranges. Anyway, if someone wants to make a proposal to block these ranges, I'd support it, for any number of reasons: impersonation (we have no idea if this is really SchroCat), edit warring, evasion, incivility, ownership, or my favorite reason: to stop this poor soul from spending any more of his life arguing against infoboxes. Levivich (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• Brilliant, except a large number of these aren’t me. I’m spinning through the list and while many of them are mine, a significant proportion are not. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:1930:3AE6:7605:784 (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  Housekeeping comment: IP 2A00: please follow WP:THREAD for your replies; your 18:01 response belongs at the same level as my 17:38 comment below, and just below it, if you are replying, as did I, to Levivich's 17:29 comment above. Going forward, please observe standard reply protocols. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Impressive research, thanks! I'm worried that launching some sort of proposal might take months' worth of diffs and IP addresses, not to mention the vast swathes of editors involved at any level!! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Eh, I'll do it. I'm clearly involved, but I will try and word it as neutrally as possible (and am happy to incorporate any and all constructive criticism). I think it can be done here as easily as at ANI, anyone correct me if I'm wrong. And if this needs to be moved to ANI, I would be fine with that as well. — Shibbolethink 17:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

You can just add a section below for the proposal so it's attached to this discussion. I'd support that. Nemov (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

In the process :) — Shibbolethink 17:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) (edit conflict) I'd support it, too. Mathglot (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: CBAN the person behind these IP ranges (and User:SchroCat) from editing the English Misplaced Pages

(AKA CBAN the person formerly known as, or claiming to be, User:SchroCat)

• 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801::0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 86.162.16.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• SchroCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This person should be indefCBAN'd for the following reasons:

I would overall summarize the above as:

A user who has had many chances to reform their behavior, and has been blocked many times for this exact behavioral pattern, is now doing it from a set of IP ranges.

Many editors have, in good faith, encouraged them to return to their account and stand behind their contributions, but they have refused. Others still have felt confused about who this editor is, and if this counts as sock-puppetry. In essence, in policy, it may not. But more important is the intent, and conduct, of the person behind these IP addresses. Examining even the content they stand behind, it does not paint a good picture.

I would say we should take this user at their word, and entertain the idea that they are SchroCat, and judge them based on this. If the real SchroCat disagrees, they should speak up. They can return to their passworded account at any time with a simple password reset.

If the real SchroCat would please stand up, please stand up...

Let's collapse the waveform and open the box...

And stop wasting everyone's time from this user's continuous disruption. Happy to provide any and all diffs as requested. Thanks.— Shibbolethink 18:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC) (converted to a CBAN proposal 18:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC), trimmed slightly for length 00:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC), added diffs 16:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC))

Survey

• Don't know if it's appropriate here, but just wanted to add here my support for the WP:CBAN proposal. Other editors - @Nemov:, @GoodDay:, @Robert McClenon:, @InvadingInvader:, @Levivich:, @Mackensen:, @Casualdejekyll:, @Nick-D:, @KrakatoaKatie:, @Beyond My Ken:, @Johnuniq:, @Rhododendrites:, @DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: - may wish to comment specifically on this here as well. If this is SchroCat, congratulations to him for wasting the time of 15+ editors. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support a CBAN of SchroCat per the above megathread. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support as proposer.— Shibbolethink 19:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support CBan - Given that SchroCat is essentially giving the community the middle finger (and if they weren't aware of it before, they must be after the comments in this thread), and their past incivility and socking, I think this is the best solution for the community, with the previous proposals (IP blocks and/or SC editing restriction) as second choices. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
• Ban for "disrupt progress toward improving an article building the encyclopedia...extend over a long time on many articles", and per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS 1 and 5, and for WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Mathglot (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support a CBAN. This editor does not appear to be temperamentally suited for a collaborative project. This has been an issue in the past and the behavior has continued now as an IP editor. I'm disappointed by a few of my fellow editors who have decided that unfounded accusations of harassment and stalking are just a perfectly normal part of Misplaced Pages as long as you've produced quality content. In this case, the editor in question has been banned for unproductive behavior in the past and has received several second chances. To allow this to continue is a disgrace that should not stand. This kind of interpretation of Misplaced Pages guidelines is a cancer that should be carved out quickly and without prejudice. Defending and ignoring this behavior turns its nose at editors who argue in good faith and it makes a mockery of the entire project. Hopefully the closing editor will do the right thing recongize the double standard defense for what it is... weak. Nemov (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support a CBAN for all the reasons mentioned. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
• Totally support a community ban, for all the reasons which have been raised. As for comments to the effect of "if it is SchroCat..." I have looked at enough of the editing history to leave no doubt about it. JBW (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support with the echoing of "SchroCat is wasting everyone's time here". casualdejekyll 19:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support - This isn't easy for me, as myself, SchroCat & Cassianto often agreed on opposing the over-usage of infoboxes in bios. However, I came around to accept that they're going to eventually be added to all bios. I wish SchroCat hadn't chosen this topic, as the hill to die on. But, he can't continue on in the manner that's been shown (signed in 'or' signed out) in these infobox discussions. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
• This is tough. There's a very small number of people (now mostly retired/banned or otherwise inactive) that feel their high quality articles entitle them to be however patronizing or abusive as they wish, and find in requests for basic respect a form of persecution. I absolutely do think we should afford long-time productive contributors a lot of leeway, and do think we need more people focused on writing high-quality articles than we do people focused on, well, most other activities. But this is ultimately a collaborative project, and I've seen SchroCat hurl enough abuse at people that there was a time I would've supported a ban. Then he sorta-kinda "retired" a couple years ago and things have been quieter. On one hand, if someone avoided accountability because of their FAs, and they stop producing FAs, there's less motivation to leap (Struck after Tim pointed out he's continued to contribute along these lines) While this logged out petulance is tiresome, I'm not convinced there's justification for a CBAN in there. This proposal for a CBAN starts out with a long list of accusations, but that list has very few diffs. I want to see bannable diffs from the time since his retirement. I feel myself wanting to support, but I know that it's based more on a years-old perception than on anything recent, and I'm not comfortable taking such a drastic step without a recent smoking gun. So weak oppose until more (and more egregious) recent diffs are provided. — Rhododendrites \\ 20:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - I've clicked through most of the diffs that have been added to this thread now (thanks for adding them). So let me be clearer: the arguments that SchroCat has, since "retiring", violated sufficient behavioral policies/guidelines to merit a cban are unconvincing. It seems like half of the people don't like the way he argues, but haven't provided sufficient evidence that we typically expect to cban a long-time editor, and half of people just want him to unretire. In the latter case, what are we really even doing here? Nobody has provided evidence that his IP activity even violates any policies, and the fact that several people would ignore the rest if only he unretired his main account shows how flimsy the evidence of behavioral problems are.
  Look, I feel weird being in this column. Like I said, there have been times that I've been appalled by things SchroCat has said, but that was years ago now. I'm just not comfortable issuing the most extreme sanction we have at our disposal based on the evidence that has been presented. Upgrading "weak oppose" to "oppose" for that reason.
  Side point: Can we please just say "all articles get infoboxes" already? I mean, I don't actually care much, and know it won't happen because Wikipedians don't like firm rules, but that's clearly the direction we're headed by strength of numbers if nothing else. Our PAGs don't give any real guidance about when to use them, ultimately coming down to personal preference, so RfCs are basically votes, and the votes are tending to favor inclusion these days. I'm still in favor of primary contributors to articles deciding whether or not there's an infobox, and I've never understood why so many people care so much about them that they're willing to disregard the opinions people who dedicated so much of their time to the subject, or why it's so triggering to so many of those major contributors, but oh well. It'd be nice if we could find some clearer rules is all. — Rhododendrites \\ 21:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites: would you support an editing restriction for SchroCat to remain logged-in and edit under one account? — Shibbolethink 16:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support per above. I think the behavior is egregious enough to support a cban, but if this turns out not to be SchroCat, then my apologies to SchroCat. The IP ranges should be blocked for some appropriate period of time regardless of how the CBAN vote turns out. Levivich (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Tim Riley has confirmed below that these IPs are in fact SchroCat, so that ends any doubt in my mind. Unequivocal support for using IPs to continue the infobox disputes, edit warring, incivility, and general battleground editing. Levivich (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Still support. Elsewhere in this thread, SchroCat is arguing that the use of {{ipvandal}} with his IP constitutes an WP:ASPERSION. That's exactly the kind of combative nonsense we would be better off without. Levivich (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
      • I'm being accused of casting aspersions, and the individual accusing me is tagging me as a vandal, which is casting aspersions. I raised the point that it was misleading and the said (in summary) "I'm a little bemused by this, but I'll let it go". Hardly "combative nonsense", and I've thanked the editor for changing them to a replacement. Again, not "combative". People's mileage differs, I guess, but I think it's a bit of a stretch. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6562:A1FC:F7F2:51BF (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

        I think what isn’t getting across here is that your tone is a big part of the problem. No one likes working with you when your replies are combative. If you enter every slight disagreement as though the other person is (for example) trying to label you a “vandal” by using an extremely common template, then it escalates tensions. You are, in essence, assuming bad faith. Instead of the much more reasonable alternative, that I just went with the first template that came to mind. Your tone told me “I am painful to work with”. From the very beginning. — Shibbolethink 00:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

        • My first comment about the templates was "{{IPuser}} would be a better template to use: labelling my activity as "IP Vandal" is misleading." If you wish to see it that as "combative" or a problem of tone, that is entirely your prerogative: it was not how it was written, and perhaps it may be that if you assume an editor is writing in bad faith, that is how you will perceive it. Just a thought. I don't think continuing a thread on template selection is beneficial, so I will step away, but again, thank you for changing the template to an appropriate one. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6562:A1FC:F7F2:51BF (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support a community ban, primarily on account of personal attacks, and of avoiding scrutiny for the personal attacks by being logged out. The editor has become a net negative to the project after rage-quitting and then coming back anonymously. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• support, there’s no legitimate reason an established editor with a reputation like SchoCat has would be editing anonymously; they should be cbanned for repeated bad behavior and attempting to avoid scrutiny for such behavior. Dronebogus (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support CBAN. It is a very sad fact of life that some people who are highly intelligent and very talented are either unable or unwilling to collaborate effectively and behave properly. The person who goes by SchroCat is another one of them who needs to be removed from this project. Cullen328 (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support a CBAN of the IPs and SchroCat unless SchroCat can log into his/her/their account and confirm with a CheckUser that they aren't behind the range of IPs, or some other method of proving that the IPs claiming to be SchroCat wasn't that person. If the IPs can be proven to not be tied to SchroCat, then undo the ban. However, the ban should not be punitive but preventative, just like blocks. A community ban with blocks to enforce it would do what it could to prevent this in the future. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  With respect to unless SchroCat can log into his/her/their account and confirm with a CheckUser that they aren't behind the range of IPs, WP:CHECKME is explicit that while n some Wikimedia projects, an editor's IP addresses may be checked upon their request, typically to prove innocence against a sockpuppet allegation. Such checks are not allowed on the English Misplaced Pages and such requests will not be granted (emphasis mine). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I try not to get involved in these matters but this just seems to me like a massive pile-on caused by two registered editors who thought their edits to the Moorgate article shouldn't be reverted. (Mostly, they should have been, because it was better before.) In other words, a content dispute. It's then been blown up into a huge thing about editing from an IP (which as we all know is illegal) that changes (which as we all know is technically impossible) and then just flinging as much as possible at him in the hope that some of it sticks. I can see the inevitable outcome here and I don't intend to participate further (don't ping me: I won't be interested) but I just wanted to register my view that something ludicrous and vengeful is taking place here and people are enjoying a proper oldschool Misplaced Pages lynching. Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 10:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. We wouldn't be having this conversation if it was about one account. What it boils down to is that established editors are biased against IPs and that it's mildly annoying that they have a dynamic IP. Their conduct is nowhere near the level that would rise to a community ban or even an indef block for a long-term registered editor. I won't defend the edit warring and incivility but I offer in mitigation that this bias leads editors to behave much more aggressively than they would with an account. Almost every editor with multiple FAs has been involved in an edit war or heated discussion to preserve the quality of an FA. That's because it takes weeks or months of researching and writing to get an article to that standard but seconds for somebody to make an edit without checking the source material. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• Forget it as it cannot be implemented. Just give short blocks to IP that cause trouble. People that care can add the FAs to their own watch list to see if there are edit wars relating to them. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Graeme Bartlett Though exceedingly rare, there is actually a precedent for community banning an IP user with a long pattern of incivillity and edit warring , enshrined into WP:CBAN. Of note, that was for an IP range blocked 15+ times before anyone bothered to talk about it. SchroCat has been blocked at least 7 times, with 3 more previously unreported edit wars that went unblocked as I describe below . There’s probably more if we combine the edit histories from the various IP ranges . There are also numerous personal attacks going unreported. They've also openly flouted these blocks in the past, e.g. instead of appealing a block, "Never mind ... time to reset the router" I would ask: how many blocks does it take for us to realize someone needs a CBAN? How many edit wars with the user failing to learn any lesson? No one should be above scrutiny. — Shibbolethink 16:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)(strike range that very probably wasn't SchroCat)

  It's not true that it cannot be implemented. A ban attaches to an individual person, not to an account, and a CBAN certainly can be implemented. What I think you meant to say, is that it wouldn't be 100% effective because of dynamic IPs. That may be true, but it is certainly not a reason for the community to throw up their hands and not issue a ban, if they believe that a ban is warranted. For one thing, without a ban, the SchroCat account could be used again, whereas with a ban, it could not. Mathglot (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support, per nomination, with particular reference to the evasion of scrutiny. XAM2175  12:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, the "all the reasons" box contains insufficient proof to ban (just allegations). The diffs I have seen further up on the page mostly look like garden variety content/style disputes to me, and most of the IP edits referred to here are actually good. I am surprised to see this level of support for a CBAN for such a long time productive editor. I would very much prefer to see SchroCat editing from an account, but using IPs to edit isn't prohibited, and their behaviour doesn't look like socking. If a ban is desired, I would suggest to go through an ArbCom case and also consider alternative remedies; ANI isn't great at deliberatively finding solutions to problems. —Kusma (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  It's nice to know an admin for Misplaced Pages thinks accusing other editors of stalking, harassment, and gaslighting is just a part "garden variety content disputes." Do we just throw out WP:ASPERSIONS if the editor is perceived as productive in other areas? Someone else raised this question, but if this behavior isn't considered violating ASPERSIONS then I'd love to know what would. Is there a sliding scale? If you have 4 FA articles can you violate other Misplaced Pages guidelines? Is there a double standard guideline for productive users? Nemov (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Productive users have the right to a fair trial. I find the evidence presented above confusing and generally unconvincing. —Kusma (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Are there specific points in my collapse box above that you find have insufficient evidence? (or perhaps the 1-2 you find most unsupported?) I would be happy to provide more diffs of their behavior, but there were honestly so many and so deep into the edit histories that it would take a long time for each and every point. I went ahead and added more diffs to that collapse box, let me know what you think. I am happy to do it for any particular point as requested, as I described in that comment. I completely respect your right to disagree in good faith in our interpretations of their behavior, but I want to at least know which ones you find unsupported. — Shibbolethink 16:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  The "editing an archive" complaint is unfounded (SchroCat was editing the live talk page, later archived by moving). There is no evidence for "aspersions". The edit war at the London Underground thing doesn't have diffs. "Bludgeon" has no diffs either. Not convincing. —Kusma (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  diffs on aspersions are up there, I think we are just disagreeing on interpretation, and that's fine. The edit war for London Underground is linked to the EWN report, here are the diffs: and I think there's one more revert as described by Daniel Case above, but can't pinpoint it. Anyway clearly over 3RR.Re: archive editing, I didn't recognize the two as an edit history move, thanks for pointing that out, I see you are absolutely right. But this appears to be a pretty clear cut example: Are you really saying that diff is from someone editing a talk page that was later archived?Here's the discussions the user BLUDGEONed/derailed imo: . You'll notice I also commented a fair amount in those discussions, but mostly in response to attempts to besmirch my reputation and generally discount my opinion based on unfounded accusations. Hence, ASPERSIONS. I also attempted several times to get the user to move the offtopic discussions to their user talk to UNBLUDGEON the discussion, unsuccessfully, so I stopped trying. — Shibbolethink 18:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  The Moorgate crash is a rather silly edit war over minor stylistic points (that might have looked different had the edits not come from an IP). You are right about the second archive, and I have no excuse for that (many recent archive edits are the result of "reply" being active on archives, something the developers need to fix by introducing a new magic word, but that doesn't seem to be the cause in your example). The infobox discussion is far longer than necessary, but the IP is essentially correct that being inside an infobox is not an excuse to have uncited information in a FA (and it now seems resolved by sourced information). As infoboxes are notoriously bad at nuance, any precise-looking information in there should be excellently sourced. Problematic edits? Yes, sure. Worth a ban? Not seeing it, sorry. —Kusma (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Kusma: would you support an editing restriction for SchroCat to remain logged-in and edit under one account? — Shibbolethink 16:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  If the changing IP addresses are the main issue here, then that could be a not unreasonable extension of the current restriction (and I haven't looked into the prehistory of that), but it would need to be carefully worded. Accidental logged out edits, especially if the user notices and owns up to them reasonably quickly, should not result in sanctions to avoid this becoming a "gotcha" remedy. —Kusma (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  Kusma, please see this post, below. Thanks - 86.155.193.84 (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  I would certainly welcome it if you come back with an account, whatever its name (if you can't get your old one back). I'm not sure formal restrictions are needed other than a reminder to abide by WP:LOUTSOCK should you ever edit without logging in. —Kusma (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support. It's unacceptable for a user, however prominent, to be evading scrutiny as an IP editor when (a) they are subject to editing restrictions, (b) having a history of socking, and (c) have a lengthy block log. I understand the mentality that leads to people bending over backwards for long-time productive editors but I can't agree with it. If SchroCat reassumes control over his account, as I believe he's capable of doing, I would reconsider. Mackensen (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Mackensen You are, of course, entitled to keep your !vote how you wish, but just to clarify that a. the only restriction I have ever had is over my account name; b. that's not accurate; and c; Errr.. yes, OK, you have a good point there: my log is not my proudest achievement at all. As I have posted below, I cannot re-open my account for technical reasons, but I am hoping that the WMF boffins will be able to rectify the issue. Once they do, I will edit only under that name in future. Thanks - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:1E8:2D44:8B40:EBA5 (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for your response. Given your undertaking to resume editing from a single account (hopefully your existing one), I withdraw my support for a ban. As I've said above, I think the nature of your editing as an IP unnecessarily exacerbated editing conflicts. I want to be clear on one other point: these conflicts would have existed regardless and they need to stop going forward. Several dozen editors are ready to ban you outright and probably still are, even though they think highly of your contributions. Most don't do this out of malice; they just don't think you're capable of editing productively in a collaborative environment, and we don't get to pick all of our collaborators here. Please consider this. Mackensen (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose as SchroCat is responsible for a lot of high quality article content that readers continue to benefit from, and I don't believe they should be thanked for that with a community ban. Many of the IP edits were improvements, and I see no need to prevent that from continuing. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  So editors who produce quality content are above the law? Dronebogus (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  Don't actually have an opinion here, but the principal is that we don't punish for wrong-doings, we restrict to prevent future damage. The question is: is the user-with his good and his bad-a net positive or negative? If he does more good than bad, a site CBAN is more harmful than helpful, although some more limited restriction may be appropriate. Animal lover |666| 17:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't know if I support a CBAN at this time since I haven't fully reviewed the evidence, but I completely think that the community is well within its rights to require the editor formerly known as SchroCat to make a new account and be limited to just using that for the future. A community-imposed one account restriction should seriously be considered alongside this one (separately). IP editing is a privilege, yes; but if SchroCat is going to be getting in these sorts of disputes then they might as well make an account so people can immediately know they are talking to the right person. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 16:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  What I would tell you is that the editor has attempted WP:CLEANSTART twice before, and got banned both times , and attempted to WP:VANISH once ., and had it reversed, all 3 due to this exact sort of misbehavior. They've been blocked at least seven times I can count across IP ranges and usernames (I think actually more but it's such a complex history I have difficulty counting it all) All due to misbehavior similar to what is described in this report. They've also actually openly evaded those blocks in the past: I don't think any more WP:ROPE is beneficial to the project in this case. (edited to remove ip range that very probably wasn't SchroCat 07:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)) — Shibbolethink 17:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Shibbolethink: My suggestion is not meant strictly to be an alternative to the proposed sanction. It could very well be passed in addition to a CBAN, so that's why I suggested it be considered separately. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 03:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support The evidence is sufficient, clear and problematic, indeed it is part of a long-term pattern of regular problems. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support - per Mackensen. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
  • User currently blocked, for sockpuppetry, ironically. 77.249.149.237 (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support, due to the continued drama. This ban makes it clear that IPs with SchroCat's MO aren't welcome and can indeed be blocked at first sight, as implored above. When you leave, you leave, you don't get to be Schrodinger's actual cat. IznoPublic (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• At a minimum, I'd support MJL's idea of making the editor actually register a new account (or return to their old account) so that something can be done about tracking their incivility. While, yes, stewardship of an FA does mean that editors will occasionally get into disagreements with other editors and that sometimes those can get heated or become protracted, it's also quite possible to not turn those disagreements into some of the instances of incivility that have been highlighted here. The only reason I'm not totally on the CBAN wagon is that I'm not sure we CAN effectively CBAN someone who edits from a rotating IP address - but that shouldn't excuse the bad behavior on display here. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose this is a massive—and frankly, somewhat cruel—overreaction. I can't imagine a thread like this even close to developing if the user in question was a registered account; i.e., this is a continued bias against IPs. If SC continues to provide objectionable actions after this thread, I would consider something like this. Aza24 (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Not willing to support or oppose this. Aza24 (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. SchroCat is a productive editor. The people who started this AN campaign often disagree with SchroCat at infobox discussions (including at least two current ones), and so they want to get him banned. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  That's why we seek community feedback, because it isn't up to the people who started this to ban him or not. And there is no policy anywhere on Misplaced Pages that gives an editor with a bannable pattern of behavior a get-out-of-jail-free card, just because they have umpty-zillion edits, and seventy-eleven FA's. If their behavior is bannable, then ban them; if it isn't, don't. Mathglot (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support. As someone who was a long term IP editor before making an account there is definitely a bias against IP editors, but please stop trying not make this case about that. There are many thousand of IP editors doing good constructive work without causing any controvesy. This is seemingly the second recent editor who has joined there ranks because it gives them anonymity to continue some personal grudge. That is not anti-IP bias, and their actions only make it harder for those IPs trying to edit in good faith. It is always bad to lose good writers, it's not something I am good at so I try to work to support those that are. But this is a cooperative project, and that sometimes means losing and dropping the hatchet. If you can't do that you will become more of a burden on the project than a bonus. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Switch to oppose if an official restriction to one account (no logged out) editing with an official warning over behaviour is put in place. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  ActivelyDisinterested Well, I’m back on my account and out of retirement, if that helps. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:22, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. overreaction per Aza24. Ceoil (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support. After reading all the diffs and discussion, I agree with the characterizations of ASPERSIONS, OWN, edit warring, etc. and that, on aggregate, they well outweigh any positive contributions by this user. JoelleJay (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose As a CBAN is effectively unenforceable in this capacity. Semi-protect/Extended Confirmation for the given pages and move on. Respectfully, this never should have taken this long. As for being "retired", might I suggest using {{Semi-retired}} instead? Even if he doesn't, nothing prevents him from coming back and there is no available sanction guideline/policy that enforces the notion that "retired persons may not edit"...that path is a red herring and unnecessary to even address. Buffs (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  If this ban is approved, SchroCat would be banned. Future edits as an IP would be a violation of sock guidelines. That seems pretty enforceable to me. Nemov (talk) 04:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support. SchroCat has been net negative for quite a long time, and all his FAs and GAs are negated by ownership, incivility, and overall disruption. His "retirement" was not in good faith but under a cloud of sanctions and restrictions. I'm not particularly concerned about enforcement – as with other long-time abusers, his future edits will be subject to RBI. No such user (talk) 09:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Using a cban to handle a noisy IP is ridiculous overreach. Writing 60 FAs does not earn you the right to be a jerk but if such a person has gone rogue something has gone wrong and a decent community would workaround the problem (with semi-protection or blocks) rather than crush one of a few giant contributors (SchroCat is #16 at Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations). Johnuniq (talk) 09:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  You seem to have immediately contradicted yourself (“FAs aren’t a jerk license but we should be lenient because he wrote a ton of FAs”) Dronebogus (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  What’s gone “wrong” is that SchoCat is probably starting to think he’s WP:UNBLOCKABLE precisely because of this kind of special treatment Dronebogus (talk) 12:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  "Starting to think"? Hahaha. Levivich (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  Writing 60 FAs does not earn you the right to be a jerk but...

  "but" doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Nemov (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  It's disappointing to see that several of those commenting here are unable to understand a short statement. Regarding unblockable, that's a great meme but it's bullshit. Like many admins, I would block the IPs or SchroCat myself for a suitable period if needed. If SC repeatedly posted copyvios or BLP violations or outrageous attacks, an indef would be called for. However, SC has done none of those things! Johnuniq (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Johnuniq: would you support an editing restriction for SchroCat to remain logged-in and edit under one account? — Shibbolethink 16:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  Of course. The only reason SchroCat is posting from IPs is that they were collateral damage in the infobox wars. One day Misplaced Pages might be written by chatbot (see here) but until then we need to understand that not every great contributor can remain emotionless. Johnuniq (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support IP hopping is difficult to police, but a CBAN will make it easier to deal with the disruptive behavior. There have been plenty of chances for SC to productively work with the community, but they are very much not interested. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support AGF isn't a suicide pact. Schro was a very good editor, but these post "retirement" edits have exhausted the community's patience. Like a block, a retirement should apply to a person and not just an account. If he won't edit collaboratively, the community should retire him. Star Mississippi 17:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support No one is bigger than the project. I do not care how many GA/FAs he wrote, the behavior warrants a ban at this point. SC has been given countless number of chances to work collectively and refuses to do so. To say "Oh but they wrote x number of GAs, we can't block/ban!" is exactly why we have WP:UNBLOCKABLES. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per most of the opposes above, although both DBak and HJ Mitchell seem to strike to the heart of the matter and Kusma's logic seems irrefutable. (Not of course that such a thing ever stopped anyone from trying.) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see any evidence of a persistent behavioral problem. It is relatively easy to cherry-pick isolated examples of conduct from an editor's contribution history that violate one policy or another. Looking at Moorgate tube crash I don't see any evidence of WP:OWN, just a content dispute over grammar and punctuation. Maybe the judgment of somebody who has guided ~60 articles through GA and FA reviews shouldn't be immediately discounted as WP:OWN? I also question how User:shibbolethink came to be at that article anyway? It seems like a bit of coincidence that a Pittsburgh med student would suddenly develop an interest in London Underground. I think sometimes SchroCat can come across as overly hostile and that perhaps alienates people from viewing his contributions objectively, but on the other hand he is the closest to an artist that Misplaced Pages has, and I guess he has the temperament of an artist too. If he is only semi-retired now then perhaps his user page should reflect that, but while Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia anybody can edit (anonymously) then I don't see why this is a right that should be denied to SchroCat, simply on the grounds that he used to edit under an account. Betty Logan (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  but on the other hand he is the closest to an artist that Misplaced Pages has, and I guess he has the temperament of an artist too.

  Ah, the "temperament of an artist defense" for an editor with multiple blocks for bad behavior and continued hostility to others. Some of these arguments read like WP:FANCLUB. No wonder SchroCat has gotten away with this behavior for so long. Nemov (talk) 02:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  As a rule of thumb, I think indefs and bans should be reserved for editors whose persistent poor behavior has proven detrimental to improving the encyclopedia, not for editors who have a substantial track record in improving the encyclopedia. I am not seeing much evidence of the former. Looking at the trajectory of this whole dispute, it seems to have sprung out of a RFC on one specific article which then proliferated to a bunch of others, and that wasn't really SchroCat's doing. Why is the other prominent party in this dispute being permitted to effectively "run the prosecution" and propose sanctions on SchroCat? Why hasn't User:shibbolethink been invited to explain how he suddenly ended up editing unrelated articles that SchroCat had recently edited? Betty Logan (talk) 04:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  Why hasn't User:shibbolethink been invited to explain how he suddenly ended up editing unrelated articles that SchroCat had recently edited?
  I actually explained this in detail above. — Shibbolethink 04:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  The point you're missing is that SchroCat could reasonably imagine that hounding was occurring. Sure, you have reasons that you developed an interest in the articles where SC happened to be involved in infobox disagreements and more, and SC should have assumed good faith and been less confrontational. However, a decent person would see that there was room for SC to feel under siege even if that belief was ill founded. When dealing with anti-science POV pushers, it is best to bulldoze them out of the way. That approach is not helpful when dealing with someone who is a top content producer and who is currently in trouble because certain articles are being picked off one-by-one due to the infobox wars. It looks like that battle is lost and that should be enough satisfaction for those who feel SchroCat was out of line. Johnuniq (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  While I can't speak for anyone else, I don't want to punish SchoCat in any way or give them their just desserts or care about getting "satisfaction" in any way. I would strongly oppose and support an instant siteban for anyone who is trying to add infoboxes or change articles to punish SchoCat for any past or current misbehaviour let alone disagreement. While I acknowledge people can easily fool themselves and also that people can do stuff without realising they are doing it, I think there's good reason to feel the vast majority of edits which are changing article SchoCat have nothing to do with any attempt to target SchoCat's contributions. There are many editors who do like infoboxes some of these may have some knowledge of the infobox wars, but even among those many of those may have very limited knowledge of the participants, their histories etc. They just think infoboxes are useful and when they find articles which lack them, they want to add them. (Likewise for any other particular preference of SchoCat that another editor may try to change.)

  SchoCat continues to strongly dislike infoboxes which in itself is fine. This strong dislike causes somewhat understandable annoyance or perhaps even anger when people try to or do add infoboxes to articles they've significantly contributed to, again fairly understandable. However while we can have sympathy with how they feel, we should not have sympathy with inappropriate behaviour here on Misplaced Pages that results from this annoyance or anger, that's unacceptable. They need to learn to somehow deal with their annoyance or anger in a way that doesn't cause significant problems here such as walking way from the discussion, at least for a few days.

  On a personal level, I generally find infoboxes useful, but care so little that I think the number of times I've expressed an opinion on whether an article should or should not have one is probably in the low single digits. So while I may technically disagree with SchoCat on infoboxes, I don't really care and there is no reason why I'd want to do anything whatsoever to get "satisfaction" over my disagreement with them on infoboxes. I'd further note there are many aspects of Misplaced Pages that I dislike as I think with nearly all editors here. Sometimes I do let my annoyance or anger out too far, but I do generally manage to force myself to walk away.

  So the important question is, does an editor let their dislike of those aspects affect their editing here in ways that cause harm? If they do, and that harm reaches a level where it's too much, then we have to take action to protect Misplaced Pages, which may include banning the editor involved. We can try to encourage the editor to improve, but ultimately their reaches a point where we have to say, sorry we've given you enough chances.

  Coming back to your comment, what would truly give me satisfaction is if SchoCat continues to edit productively here, continue to oppose infoboxes or other changes they disagree with in a reasonable fashion, and accepts the result of any community consensus for or against them. However a lot of that isn't on us as a community. And so if that isn't possible, then what gives me the least dissatifaction is dealing with situations that arise in the way that causes the less amount of harm.

  Which in this case seems to be IMO restricting SchoCat to one account and blocking/banning them if they refuse to abide. I'm definitely not going to be happy if this closes with the ban enacted but I will be less unhappy than I would be if closes with the ban enacted. Although the problem isn't that extreme so the gulf between the two isn't as wide as it is in some other cases but it's still enough for me to support.

  Nil Einne (talk) 06:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  “Temperament of an artist” what a preposterous defense. It’s the post-#metoo era, artists (let alone Misplaced Pages editors) don’t even get that excuse to be jackasses. Dronebogus (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support it's clear that SchoCat's usage of IPs has crossed over into the realm of evading scrutiny and so is in violation of our sockpuppetry policy. I'd note this isn't my main preference. I think it would be better to start off a one account restriction for SchoCat. They could return to their original account, or make a new one clearly associated with their old account if they wanted to. They could not edit from IPs. However this is the proposal we have and I acknowledge there's a fair chance it's pointless to try a one account restriction. It seems most likely either SchoCat would voluntarily give up on editing completely or they'd ignore the restriction and we'd just have basically the same result with a defacto ban since they continually violate their community imposed one account restriction. If SchoCat gives any indication they'd be willing to accept such a restriction, I'd no longer support this proposal. I'm unconvinced by a number of the opposes which give too much leeway to an editor just because of past contributions which even if those contributions have been highly positive is not something I support. At least one of the opposes comes from an editor who attacked the proposer track record without proper analysis, and frankly was what convinced me to take the time to look in to this. Nil Einne (talk) 05:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  Nil Einne Well, I’m back on my account, if that helps. And yes, the ‘restriction’ you refer to is how I behaved while I had an account (ie, I never logged out to edit as an IP and then logged back in again): that will, of course, be how I edit in the future. SchroCat (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

  Switch to oppose, provided SchroCat only edits from this account. SchroCat's behaviour has been problematic and unfortunately their comments make it unclear it's likely to improve. However it's borderline enough that I'm willing to give them one last chance when combined with the fact they can no longer escape the scrunity every regular editor is under by editing from frequently changing IPs. Perhaps we'll be back here in a few months, I hope not. To be clear, even without a formal community imposed one account restriction, I will continue any significant editing from IPs as enough to support a site ban since I consider it already well justified without the need to demonstrate any clear misbehaviour from these IPs. Nil Einne (talk) 10:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose (as subject) I have had a couple of years trying to stay away, but have legitimately come back and edited as an IP from time to time. While editing occasionally as an IP was OK, my activity has been rising recently and it is clear from this thread that I cannot continue as an IP editor, regardless of any other decision is reached here. There are technical problems in re-accessing my account that I will have to get the WMF boffins to rectify, but the SchroCat account will (hopefully) return shortly. SchroCat, editing from - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:1E8:2D44:8B40:EBA5 (talk) 09:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Re-signing with re-accessed account. - SchroCat (talk) 06:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanction, per SchroCat's comment immediately above this one (and per other things which are hopefully now moot). SchroCat, it'll be good to see you back. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  PS: Is it only me who finds it amusingly appropriate that, due to technical issues, we can't tell whether the SchroCat account is alive or dead? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  Schrocat has been behaving badly, please stop being so buddy-buddy. People aren’t citing WP:FANCLUB baselessly, and making your personal biases obvious weakens your argument. We have talk pages for this. Dronebogus (talk) 03:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  You really should have a read of WP:NPA and WP:BADGER, you know. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  That isn’t a personal attack. Dronebogus (talk) 11:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  <Moved to user talk page> Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - I agree with Boing! said Zebedee. Welcome back, SchroCat.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry to break up the celebration but issue raised here is the editor and not the IP. Returning to SchroCat does nothing to address the years of problematic behavior and bans that have occurred. It just obfuscates the issue. Nemov (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  The issue raised here has been SchroCat's IP edits, and "evading scrutiny" has been one of the major points. If SchroCat edits from an account again instead, this does the exact opposite of obfuscating issues. —Kusma (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for wikisplaining to me my own notice. I didn't bring this here because SchroCat was editing from an IP. Nemov (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  You might not have done, but a lot of commentators in favour of sanctions have indeed focused on the IP aspect. So stopping editing from IPs is definitely relevant to the entirety of the dispute (even if not to your personal complaint). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose -- I'd certainly prefer to see Schrocat editing under a named account again but cannot support a ban in the current circumstance either. Aside from the record of creating and maintaining high-quality content, I've had nothing but positive interactions with the editor, in any guise. I've also seen how the editor can put aside serious disagreements from the past and re-establish a cordial working relationship -- naturally it takes two to tango there... Wasting everybody's time? The subject didn't open this thread. The idea that Schrocat's defenders are nothing more than a fan club? Maybe the earlier suggestion of a lynch mob struck a nerve. Obviously a lot of people here are going to disagree with each other but I hope we can put enough trust in the closer to determine the key arguments themselves. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Ian Rose: Would you support an editing restriction to stay logged-in and under one account? — Shibbolethink 16:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  Rather pointless. I have never logged out of an account specifically to edit as an IP except; I gave up my account to leave before deciding to do some light occasional editing as an IP (which is a legitimate course to take). As to "one name" editing, you'll find ArbCom got there before you 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:1E8:2D44:8B40:EBA5 (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  So, wait, are you saying you would or wouldn't comply with such a restriction? Above, you said: I cannot re-open my account for technical reasons, but I am hoping that the WMF boffins will be able to rectify the issue. Once they do, I will edit only under that name in future. It sounds like you'd be okay with such a restriction. And, of course, you could always do so under a new account name even if you were unable to regain access to SchroCat. I think, as many others have pointed out here, there are other problems with your conduct which necessitate a CBAN. But this would help allay some concerns. — Shibbolethink 16:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  I'm glad to see that SchroCat commits to editing from their account if they can get access to it. But, of course, there's nothing preventing that from editing at any time from, for instance, "SchroCat2", "SchroCat too", "SchroCat again", "SchroCat returned", "SchroCat redux" or another other new account. Further, returning to editing from an account, while preferable, does not sove the problem of their behavior towrds other editors while editing as an IP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  User:Beyond SchroCat is available. Levivich (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  Somehow I doubt they'd be interested in that one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  dibs Dumuzid (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  User:Schrödinger's Cat exists, but only has two insubstantial edits 16 years ago, so could probably be usurped. Bishonen | tålk 22:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC).

  "Light occasional editing", but you also claimed that you wrote an FA as an IP? Those aren't even in the same league. casualdejekyll 19:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  In fairness, he only wrote it once, and digital files weigh nothing at all. (Pay no attention to the other hundreds of edits from the last six months.) Levivich (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose if and only if SchroCat returns to editing under a single account (as he has stated he will). I don't think there is enough here to warrant a CBAN, but certainly he should stop editing from IPs that have the effect of avoiding scrutiny, even if that isn't his intention.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose What a waste of time this is. I wish SchroCat would restore his account and return to editing here but it's up to him what he does.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions. I agree with Boing here, especially per ScroCat's unequivocal undertaking a little higher up in the thread to edit only from their own account once they're able to access it. Bishonen | tålk 18:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC).

  Just to point out the obvious, SchroCat returning to editing from their account does not solve the problem of their behavior towards other editors while they have been editing using IPs, which is really the core of this CBan proposal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Boing, Dr. Blofield, Bishonen, et al. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban. I do see some of the behavior highlighted here as unfairly aggressive and unnecesssarily confrontational, but not to an extent that justifies banning "the person behind these IP ranges (and User:SchroCat) from editing the English Misplaced Pages". Nowhere near, not even close, in my view (I'll admit that it takes a lot for me to wish seeing a fellow editor site-banned. I believe this is the only site ban I've ever supported actively). ---Sluzzelin talk 21:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
• Suppose Support - Reading over the years of behavior issues it is clear they are a net negative. Them being logged out at the time really has no bearing on this situation, nor does them saying that they will only edit under their main account. That misses the large body of evidence against them, and frankly their statements here do nothing to alleviate the concerns brought up here. In fact if their only take away from this is they should not edit as an IP then they are completely missing the point. They have wasted the communities time enough. PackMecEng (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

"Suppose"? is that mixture of "Support" & "Oppose"? GoodDay (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Ha, not so much. Thanks for the catch. PackMecEng (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:PURPOSE, and the peer reviews, rfa noms, and articles i sampled. fiveby(zero) 01:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

• @Fiveby: I'm glad you did some research, but, may I ask, what do those things have to do with SchroCat's behavior which has been reported here and which is the reason for the existence of this CBan survey? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think that which has been reported here really warrants the existince of this CBan survey. I see in what i read a great deal of effort towards sticking up for article quality and doing so in a collaborative manner, and in the recent interactions there was still some effort at collaboration on content. Sometimes it is difficult to be a fan of Misplaced Pages, but for that work i read and wasn't aware of then sure sign me up for the "club". Really i just wanted to see if someone would write the Linnemann spade article and then you told me to vote. fiveby(zero) 07:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I'm probably totally dense, but your "explanation" is totally imcomprehensible to me, and I suggest that if this proposal is ever closed, the closer should ignore your !vote as it has nothing whatsoever to do with policy, as far as I can see. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment A lot of opposes above seem to suggest there is no issue editing as an IP. In many cases that is true, but to have an IP claim to be an account is problematic, and especially problematic when it is from an account which has declared themselves retired and thus is unlikely to log in to confirm. Imitation and joe job opportunities abound, so declaring yourself retired and then editing from IPs should be considered deeply disruptive and not a legitimate use of IP editing. CMD (talk) 11:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion re: proposal

Pinging @Ritchie333, @Bradv, @GoldenRing, @Euryalus, @Bbb23, @Mike V, @Doc James, @MSGJ, @HJ Mitchell, @Lord Roem, @King of Hearts, @JBW as current/former admins who were previously involved in some of these blocks/unblocks. — Shibbolethink 18:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC) Pinging other users/admins involved in prior disputes/blocks/unblocks/appeals from the various ranges listed above: @Black Kite, @Serial Number 54129, @Sro23, @Blablubbs, @El C, @RoySmith, @A. C. Santacruz @Firefangledfeathers @Ceoil @George Ho @Spicy @DatGuy because I'm honestly not actually 100% those past ranges (not included in this report but mentioned: ) are this user (although I suspect they are) and would like input from the original folks involved in those disputes/admin actions/SPIs.— Shibbolethink 17:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC) (edited to remove range that probably wasn't SchroCat)

Whilst making no comment on the rights and wrongs of the arguments in relation to this block proposal, assuming it is SchroCat surely a CBAN would be preferred if action is felt to be required here rather than a block, which would be ineffective as the user could make a fair argument that they're eligible to clean start as they're not subject to any active community sanctions/active blocks on their primary account? Whilst I won't actively support as I've not got enough familiarity with the wider situation here, I just think that considering they've attempted clean starts before a block without accompanying ban would be sending the wrong message, if the community does support this proposal. Mike1901 (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, I've converted to a CBAN proposal — Shibbolethink 18:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I need undisputed proof, that the IPs are SchroCat & not somebody impersonating him, to get his registered account banned. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

See my talk page. Says it all really. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

If someone has gone to all this trouble to impersonate SchroCat to get him banned it will be one of the most amazing things I've seen on Misplaced Pages. Nemov (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Regrettable, that he's letting himself be destroyed :( GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

If it weren't SchroCat, all they'd really need to do to get that USERNAME unbanned would be to start a community unban request with a CU privately verifying that they do not have a long history of editing in that IP range while logged in to the account. As far as I know, there's only a prohibition on publicly connecting users and IPs, not differentiating them. CU's please correct me if I'm wrong on this. I don't think there's any precedent on that, or I don't know of any, but I don't think that automatically extends to saying, in effect, "this user is not those IPs". Importantly, as @KrakatoaKatie describes above, the IP range has waived the right to being identified as "not SchroCat" by claiming all the time that they are SchroCat. — Shibbolethink 20:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I think there's a way to get Misplaced Pages administrators to wipe clean your password, so you can create a new one & sign in. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not believe that is the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I think, as User:Mackensen said, SchroCat can actually reset the password since they very likely have access to the email address connected to the account (and probably get emails every time we mention them, come to think of it). All of this is somewhat moot since the IP ranges have said they edit anonymously intentionally, and see nothing wrong with it. — Shibbolethink 23:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Though it had no effect on my decision to support a CB. Any editor (signed in or not) isn't going to impress me anymore, with their FA/GA, this A or that A record boasting. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Then he sorta-kinda "retired" a couple years ago and things have been quieter
I understand your hesitance here. I hate CBANs. I have personally maybe proposed one I can think of, and participated in one or two others. It's drastic. It should be done only with great care and attention paid to not misfiring or causing collateral damage.

I think what really swayed me towards writing this as a proposal (and supporting it) was Levivich's stats showing this IP range has been basically editing every single day since May 2022. In a way other folks who have dealt with SC before have said is exactly SchroCat's modus operandi. And on other ranges prior to that even, if we went deep into the histories of these articles. My thinking here is: It's probably been quiet because no one's been paying attention to what IPs are doing, because that's basically how it always works on Misplaced Pages. No one has been connecting the dots, or starting RFCs that SchroCat hated enough to start concerted efforts to harass other users. In effect, it's quiet because they were skating by as anonymous IPs. But, as in most things around here, it is your opinion and I respect it (and your right to disagree) greatly. — Shibbolethink 20:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced that editing from an IP (through which he identifies his registered account) is grounds for a cban. I'm not even convinced it's against any of our policies. What would the difference be if he lost his password instead of retired, then started editing from an IP? Like I said, it comes off as petulant, but CBANs are too much for petulance. I'd want to see more and/or more egregious evidence of problems from those IPs -- evidence that deeply problematic abusive behavior didn't actually stop when he "retired". That there might've been problems but people weren't paying attention isn't IMO sufficient (speculation, after all). — Rhododendrites \\ 20:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Rhododendrites, you should note that while a list of edits from an IP range has been produced, these are certainly not all me. They are from users of BT in London. Yes, a number are mine (especially over the last couple of weeks), but a significant portion are not me.It used to be that if an editor inferred another editor was delusional, that would lead to sanctions on the person making that personal attack. Nowadays, it seems that is no longer the case. Some changes are rather sad. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:799C:B97D:4044:790A (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
    • It's entirely up to you to edit from an IP. The identity of the person/people making edits is not our problem, in all honesty. The attitude of the problem editor is. That's the point of this proposal. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
      • You missed the point, but never mind. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:799C:B97D:4044:790A (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Which of the example diffs of disruptive editing in this proposal are not your edits? Levivich (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
      • Your blanket search of edits undertaken under an IP range. There’s a hefty proportion that are not mine. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:799C:B97D:4044:790A (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
        • Doesn't really answer the question. Any in particular? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I guess what I'd ask is: how many edit wars and bitter disputes with various people would it take? Just looking back in the IP history, the user self-identifies either before or after engaging in several edit wars on articles near and dear to SchroCat's heart. (see below "9800" for example) This is a long-standing thing that has run under the radar given the fact that it's all IPs and nobody noticed. — Shibbolethink 21:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

    I'd ask two questions in return, Shibbolethink. Why do you feel that expending so much time and energy (over 200 edits so far) to get an editor banned is beneficial to the encyclopaedia, and why do you bother editing here when your interest is clearly not in adding sourced content to the encyclopaedia? What would we stand to lose from you if you were banned? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

    Harry, that's saying the quiet part out loud, and I generally don't advise doing that. Mackensen (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

    I'd say it's worse than that. Call it shooting the messenger. Call it a deliberate attempt to create a chilling affect. Whatever anyone wants to call it, it's unacceptable coming from anyone, let alone an admin. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

    I call it bullying or attempted character assassination. It's ugly and inappropriate for anyone anywhere, but especially for an admin on an admin noticeboard. Levivich (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

    @HJ Mitchell: happy to answer your Qs:
    Why do you feel that expending so much time and energy (over 200 edits so far) to get an editor banned is beneficial to the encyclopaedia
    Hi, I answer this in extreme detail below: . Part of it, btw, is that I make lots and lots of tiny edits, instead of few large edits. So edit number is probably not the best way to examine my contributions in general. But that's beside the point. I did put a lot of work into this. You're right, and I don't apologize for that. More than anything, this user has spent the last year as an anon getting into bitter heated disputes, preventing others from changing any of their favorite articles in various minor ways, and contributing some to the project. They have made a lot fewer actual FAs/GAs etc than in the past, they admit this below. But I don't think their conduct was be totally fine even if they had created 1000s of FAs. It doesn't excuse their behavior.why do you bother editing here when your interest is clearly not in adding sourced content to the encyclopaedia? If you believe I'm WP:NOTHERE, feel free to bring me to ANI/AE/AN, I'll happily respond in that instance. Until then, please don't cast unnecessary WP:ASPERSIONS or personally attack me, thanks.What would we stand to lose from you if you were banned?My behavior isn't at issue, here. It also isn't one or the other. It's not as though banning me would somehow make SchroCat start collaborating and being a great person to interact with. As I say below, I only wrote this proposal because many other editors have taken issue with SchroCat's behavior. That's why they've gotten blocked like 7 times I can count (probably more, if we count the ranges who are also probably that user that I detail below, getting up to 10 or 11 times). I'd like to point out, I have never gotten blocked, not once, in 8 years. It's truly not hard to not get blocked. SchroCat has not just made zero effort to avoid getting blocked, they have actually gotten worse over time. You should examine the net total of the ways SchroCat affects the project and its collaborative culture, the ways they prevent others from editing articles in any way, etc. It's not as though I'm the only one concerned here. Thanks. — Shibbolethink 22:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

    You, a non-admin (who spends very little time in the mainspace) have made more edits to the admin's noticeboard in the last 48 hours than I (an admin) have in the last five years which is an unusual dedication to getting one person banned. And if you think anything I wrote was a personal attack or an aspersion then you are everything that is wrong with this thread and you have no business editing the project space. Go and research and write an FA. Spend two months having your thousands of words picked apart only to have somebody who learnt everything they know about the subject from your article tell you you did it wrong. Then tell me that doesn't frustrate you just a little bit and you didn't have to take a deep breath before responding. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

    Spend two months having your thousands of words picked apart only to have somebody who learnt everything they know about the subject from your article tell you you did it wrong.
    I spend most of my time on wiki editing medical articles, especially infectious disease stuff (an area I have a PhD in), so yes, I understand how frustrating it can be to have non-experts tell you you're wrong, or you need better cites, or your phrasing is incorrect, when you literally have spent years of your life researching something in extreme detail. I've also done this with my patients, with whom I've had long conversations about vaccines and other such things. I've had patients tell me I'm a government shill, that I must be "gay for Fauci", that I drink children's blood. I've had patients tell me I must be getting paid by pharma to get them to take their diabetes medication. But you know what? I still manage somehow to not raise my voice with them, and convince them to do the things that keep them alive. That's also one terrible thing about peer review in academia, that people who are really experts in something totally different in your field tell you how you're wrong over and over again and you have to figure out how to please them. Trust me, I know the feeling you're describing.But, you know what? I somehow manage to edit here without calling other people names, saying they stalk me, WP:OWNing articles, or edit warring, and again, I manage to do it without getting blocked. I don't even think it's that bad for users to slip up and get blocked sometimes. But 10 or 11 times? And getting in several other unnoticed edit wars? I also tend to give a lot of leeway to long term contributors who are dealing with disruptive editors. I absolutely think that's a fair thing to do. It's easy to get exasperated in such situations. But eventually, there's a point where it's unacceptable. — Shibbolethink 23:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

    Go and research and write an FA a journal article. Spend two >8 months having your thousands of words picked apart only to have somebody a reviewer who learnt everything they know about the subject from your article tell you you did it wrong. JoelleJay (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

    Precisely. You've spent months or years working on something. You have an emotional attachment to it. Now imagine your reviewer is me, somebody with no scientific background, and I'm adamant that your placement of a comma is wrong, for example. But from your perspective it reads fine as it is and my change alters the meaning of a crucial sentence. You would be a little bit annoyed. That, of course, would not excuse you losing your temper but you would be entitled to some sympathy if somebody then proposed to ban you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

    Considering you posted What would we stand to lose from you if you were banned? to Shibbolethink earlier, that's quite the double-standard on your part. You're expending a lot of effort to intimidate and excoriate a user here, when you yourself admit you rarely spend time on this board. It does not reflect well on you. — The Hand That Feeds You: 20:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

    My comment was simply pointing out how ridiculous it is to suggest that someone who has published multiple biomedical papers in high-profile journals needs to go through the FA process to understand the frustrations of peer review. Not that you would need to have any writing experience to empathize with someone who was threatened with a ban merely for being grumpy occasionally about others changing wording on their FAs. But that's also obviously not a faithful digest of the conflict here. JoelleJay (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

    In reality, if someone became abusive with a reviewer of an academic journal, I'm fairly sure there's a good chance they would be banned from making any submissions to the journal, possibly for a very long time. If they continued to be abusive years later, they'd find themselves in even deeper trouble, possibly under investigation from any institutions they worked for or are associated with. They'd have receive very little sympathy from anyone involved. Any other authors of the original paper, even if they also felt the criticism was unfair would likely be extremely pissed off at this person way more than they were with the reviewer. There's a fair chance they'd never work with them again. I don't think comparing the situation here to academic review of a journal submission is particularly comparable even if this does show how silly User:HJ Mitchell's comparison is. Nil Einne (talk) 05:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

    This is shockingly condescending, bad-faith, and intentionally chilling. Can another admin please deal with this appalling behavior? 67.80.122.184 (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

    I guess I am everything that is wrong with this thread and have no business editing the project space. Good to know where I stand, at least. Dumuzid (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

    Likewise. I guess it's okay to make personal attacks as long as you do so in the context of insulting people for daring to think you had previously made personal attacks. But it's hardly surprising to see a user with a lot of FAs belittling someone who doesn't meet his standards. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

    @HJ Mitchell: FWIW I've edited with Shibbolethink in the past and at that time primarily saw them in the mainspace, with a good understanding of sources and immensely helpful in resolving intricate content disputes on medical content. Not that any of this is really relevant to the discussion IMO, but I'm not sure your analysis on Shibbolethink's editing contributions is accurate. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

    Yeah I've seen Shibbolethink around a lot and they are very helpful and an incredible asset to Misplaced Pages including mainspace. I have not seen anymany such contributions from HJ Mitchell. I strongly suspect HJ Mitchell does contribute incredibly productively probably way more than me, but if I was to go solely by my own experience HJ Mitchell does not contributive productively but Shibbolethink does. This is why we should be very wary about casting aspertions on another editor's track record without careful analysis of said track record. Nil Einne (talk) 05:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

    Sorry a poor wording on my part. I said any, should have said many. I've seen HJ Mitchell occasionally. I can't recall exactly where or what they were doing but I'm sure most of those I did see were were productive and either in mainspace or related directly to mainspace. However it still pales significantly by comparison with the productive edits I've seen from Shibbolethink as others have said especially for medical content and for past nearly 3 years now this has often meant COVID-19 related stuff. Again I'm not intending to compare their respective histories since I have not done any analysis. I'm just illustrating with it's a terrible idea to make such comparisons without having done a proper analysis. As further illustrated by the several editors who have defended Shibbolethink's editing history in response to HJ Mitchell's indeed ill-conveived and evidence free accusation. Nil Einne (talk) 06:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

    What an appalling, ill-conceived, evidence-free accusation by HJ Mitchell about a top WP:MEDRS editor with an impeccable record, clean block log, 500 mainspace edits in the last two weeks, 10k article edits in the last twelve months, and a highly respected contributor at the WP:WikiProject Medicine board. What have you been smoking, to get this so wrong?

    The only way I can account for your comments, coming from a respected admin, is that you've been a bit over-subscribed (I get it), you assumed there must be some he-said, she-said, or some balance needed, and you thought providing some pushback on what seemed too lopsided a tally with too few admins involved to establish some "balance" would be a good idea. Unfortunately, you didn't do your homework.

    I can tell you why they have 200 edits here: it's because like any scientist, once Shibbolethink decides to participate in some piece of research, then they are all in: doing all the research, exposing all the data, and being completely transparent about data that either supports or challenges any prior impression they may have had, as well as entertaining any well-founded comments about data or methodology.

    Finally their 200 edits are not "to get an editor banned", but rather to lay out the data to the community, like any scientist publishing a paper for their peers, and let the paper stand or fall on its own merits. Like any author of a published scientific paper, this doesn't preclude the author from drawing a conclusion when the data merits, and they have done so, perfectly in line with scientific publishing, here intended for the community audience at WP:ANI to read and either ignore, thumbs-up, or thumbs-down.

    If you knew the first thing about Shibbolethink, or had spent minimal effort (say, a dilettante-sized scoop, not a scientist-size in-depth one) looking into his contributions and history, you would have discovered this for yourself. It's regrettable that you did not. Mathglot (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

    I have mot levelled any accusations. You clearly haven't read what I wrote. The rest of your comment is simply playing with semantics. One of the accusations levelled against SchroCat is that he has a persecution complex. Another is that he is bludgeoning discussions. I would think I was being harassed if somebody put that much time and effort into arguing with me on talk pages and advocating banning me on a noticeboard; most reasonable people would. And if this isn't a textbook case of bludgeoning then I've been discussing and sdminning wrong for the best part of a decade and a half. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

    But does he care about feeling harassed? SchroCat made those damaging/"Battleground" edits well before people noticed/brought it here. As Beyond My Ken says, SchroCat is essentially giving the community the middle finger. That's what this boils down to, not if he actually cares (which he very clearly doesn't). Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

• The editors who began (in concert) this AN action against SchroCat often disagree with him at infobox disputes (including at least two current ones), and so they wish to get him banned. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Do you have any evidence that this is some kind of coordinated hit? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  I would tell you, @Ssilvers, I actually actively tried to discourage other users from bringing this here to AN , for exactly this reason. It becomes a giant cluster-F, and people question you every other way, assume you're acting in bad faith, etc. I'm quite certain my behavior will be hyper-examined with a magnifying glass for months after this, by SchroCat's advocates. I hate bringing things to AN/ANI. I tried to discourage this because I wanted it to be a better case. But if it's here, I'm not going to hold back. And it turns out lots of other people have problems with this person's behavior, and it's a pretty clear cut situation all things considered. So I'm glad they did. — Shibbolethink 23:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Other ranges not included in this proposal to keep an eye on moving forward

2A00:23C7:2B86:9800

2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I noticed there's an extremely close range just outside of this /64 that has some problematic behavior similar to what's described here:

• disagreements with anyone who wanted to fix comma splices or unclear phrasings over at Talk:Moorgate tube crash (see here) and this edit war over "theories" vs "hypotheses":
• not following BRD for others attempting to improve the style at Operation Mincemeat
• personal attacks, not following BRD while telling others to follow BRD
• calling good faith edits vandalism
• edit warring to keep out good faith edits and editors concerned about the length of a lead
• edit warring to keep preferred version of infobox at Fight Club and then aggressively blanking attempts to talk about it

This "9800" range edits right up until May 2022, which is when @Levivich identified this current "9801" /64 as starting. I don't think we should include it here, because, as mentioned, it hasn't done anything since May and I think we should minimize any and all collateral damage. But I would emphasize: it's important to keep an eye on these similar ranges. — Shibbolethink 20:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC) (edited 23:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC) only to add missing links and fix typos, not for any significant changes to arguments or content thereof)

2A00:23C7:2B89:BE00

2A00:23C7:2B89:BE00:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This range has a very similar style to SchroCat, but I'm not 100% it's all them. They do have a pretty long block history, though, escalating up to 6 months in June 2021 for disruptive editing. They also frequent many of the same places, e.g. Ken "Snakehips" Johnson, ARCA, User talk:SchroCat, Misplaced Pages:In the news and Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates. As I said above, I don't think we should block these ranges, given the age of the contribs, and our interest in reducing collateral damage. But I think we need to keep an eye on them. Especially since SchroCat has admitted in the past that they reset their router, etc. to game blocks. — Shibbolethink 17:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

86.155.193.0/24

86.155.193.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Contributions from SchroCat in the above thread.— Shibbolethink 19:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

On a point of accuracy, the former SchroCat has to my certain knowledge at least one new FA to add to his impressive total since he renounced his user-name. It was something we had worked on together and I took successfully to FAC in July. I think it would be barmy of Misplaced Pages to prevent further such FAs because some users have a gripe against our colleague. Tim riley talk 00:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh yes, I’d forgotten about that one! According to Beyond My Ken, I’ve been “too busy edit warring, attacking other editors”, etc to do anything like that, but this is AN, where anything goes. Anyway, I’m on leave from tomorrow morning, so TTFN. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6486:7533:98F3:7C9F (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Editors who are excellent content creators, such as yourself, get a lot of behavioral leeway. Maybe it shouldn't be that way, maybe it's appropriate, but we're not going to settle that here. Instead, we're wrestling with the question of whether you have finally reached the limit which the community is willing to put up with, even for an editor of your quality. You've been here a long time, as have I, and we've both seen excellent content editors push the envelope until the community finally banned them or they got indeffed by an admin. That's where we are now, and your appeals to your excellence as a content creator are really beside the point. I don't see anyone here denying the quality of your career output, they're protesting about the lack of quality in your behavior, which you've done nothing to explain or excuse, just outright denied that it happened. That simply won't fly, the evidence is there and it won't go away. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

BTW, FWIW, this says that the SchroCat account created 89 articles excluding redirects, and that 24 of them are Featured Lists, 9 of them are Good Articles, and 1 is an FA. The rest are a mixture of everything from stubs up to Bs. This is the editor that Tim riley called "one of Misplaced Pages's most eminent editors ... he has contributed so many FAs...", an "impressive total"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Two different automated processes give vastly different numbers. See the IP's comment below.

Before anyone jumps to make the comparison, no, none of the 232 undeleted articles I've created (,) are FAs, and only one is a GA - but, then, I don't go around extolling my own virtues as a content creator. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

9 GAs is nothing to scoff at, but it's also not an excuse for their behavior and Tim riley et al. seem to think it is. casualdejekyll 00:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:List_of_Wikipedians_by_featured_article_nominations: 58 FAs as SchroCat, 2 as The Bounder, one as an IP. I lost count of the number of GAs. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6486:7533:98F3:7C9F (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and 47 FLs. Added 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6486:7533:98F3:7C9F (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I also have a bunch of FPs and an FT, which I’d forgotten, plus some DYKs and ITNs - I probably have more ITNs as an IP than I had as a regular editor, but these are all small change things really. Added 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6486:7533:98F3:7C9F (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

60 FAs is both nothing to scoff at and also not an excuse for the behavior. It could be 1000 FAs and I'd say the same thing. casualdejekyll 01:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I never claimed it was: I’m just correcting the misleading figures put out. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6486:7533:98F3:7C9F (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Two different automated processes give vastly different results, so I've struck-through my comment above, since its accuracy is suspect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

But I also note that the two processes are measuring different things. The stats I posted above are for articles created by SchroCat. The stats cited by SchroCat-as-IP (at least some of them) are for articles nominated for FA/GA by SchroCat and accepted.But, of course, Casualdejekyll is completely correct that the issue here is not the quality of SchroCat's content editing, but the quality of their behavior, especially as -- only partly identified -- IPs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at, BMK. "Nominate" is one of those terms we use to diminish the value of our contributions on Misplaced Pages. Nominating an FA is not like nominating at RfA, for example, where you say your piece and back off. Nominatiors at FAC are expected to be major contributors to the article and must be familiar with the source material. In practice that means reading just about every word written on your chosen subject and becoming an expert on it. That's why FAs are so rare and why their writers should be given a lot of deference. Or should be if we're truly about writing an encyclopaedia. I'd be happy to mentor anyone reading this who wants to put the effort in to get their first FA. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm simply pointing out that the stats I originally cited were for article which were created by SchroCat, and the status they are currently in, while the stats cited by SchroCat are for article they actually brought to FA etc. and were accepted. I think that his stats are the more relevant ones, which is why I struck-through mine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• The editors who began (in concert) this AN action against SchroCat often disagree with him at infobox disputes (including at least two current ones), and so they wish to get him banned. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  I brought this here and have disagreed with you in the past. I don't want you banned. You seem to be a fine editor who is capable of giving your opinion without casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Do you have a specific defense of SchroCat's long history of accusing other editors of harassments, gaslighting, and stalking? This isn't a content dispute and I would hope an editor of your experience would recognize the difference. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Ssilvers wrote:

  .. disagree with him and so they wish to get him banned.

  Really? That is an accusation of bad faith retaliation on the part of those editors. If that is what you are alleging, then that is a serious matter, and you should raise this separately in a new section at ANI against the editors who brought this AN action against SchroCat, along with your evidence of same. If I misread you, and that is *not* what you meant, or if you've changed your mind, then you should indicate your disavowal of your previous statement by redacting it using <s>strikeout type</s> to indicate the part that you recant. In blunter terms: put up, or shut up. Mathglot (talk) 02:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

A topic-ban from anything to do with adding/deleting infoboxes, might be another alternative. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Ignoring approach

In the event that SchroCat & his IPs are not c-banned? There's another way to deal with his behaviour when it's deemed problematic, in infobox discussions. Ignore his posts & notify a closing RFC editor, to do the same. Denying recognition, has its advantages. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

There are plenty of IP editors who make fine GF arguments. I'm not sure how we're supposed to carve out a problem users who uses multiple IPs. This behavior is just going to continue to cause problems. Probably more so if he's able to avoid getting banned this time. Who would want to raise the issue again after this? I'm kind of stunned that people are defending it. Nemov (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

If I'm understanding many editors here, identifying SC's IPs isn't overly difficult. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure, if someone looks it up, but 6 months from now on some random discussion, newer editors (especially if they're not familiar with this case) won't know the identity of the IP user. Nemov (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. Most sockpuppets/returning editors get caught because they can't help themselves--favorite articles/disputes, rhetorical style, users they don't like. I don't doubt there are banned users editing productively because they stopped doing the thing that got them banned and no one noticed them. The issue is that the way SchroCat edits creates conflict, whether anyone links that disruptive behavior to the main account or not. All the rhetoric from his supporters above doesn't change that fact, and doesn't offer a sustainable path forward. Mackensen (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I would say, if the user is not CBANned, the correct approach would be to wait. See if this experience had any beneficial effect on the user, and attempt to collaborate as we always should in this project. If the user continues to be disruptive, display OWNership, cast ASPERSIONS, throw personal attacks, and edit war, or resumes this behavior in time, then the approach would be to go to WP:AE (if in infoboxes or another similar DS notice area), or return here to AN/ANI and show the behavior has not changed. Long-term abusers are given a lot of lattitude on this project, but there is a length, a pattern, and an unrepentance for which this community trust is no longer extended.And aside from that, it's still true that basically 2/3 of respondents believe the user should be CBANned. It hasn't been closed yet. — Shibbolethink 16:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll give SchroCat or whoever's behind the IPs, some credit. They're smart enough not to annoy me, at those infobox keep/delete discussions. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you talk about anything else? 2A02:C7C:A400:EF00:3DE9:3F2:337:22BD (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't even (including here) try it. At best, you'll merely entertain me. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Fan Club

I guess I was unaware that SchroCat had a WP:FANCLUB willing to simply ignore his problematic behavior and also celebrating his returning. Embarrassing really, but I want to make it clear my issue here wasn't that he was editing as an IP user. His return to the original account doesn't solve a problem. The problem was the editor's behavior towards other editors. It doesn't matter that his edits are coming from an IP, the problem are the edits. SchroCat doesn't get a "get out jail free" care because they made unfounded accusations from an IP. Editors need to quit obfuscating the issue. SchroCat is a hostile editor who continually makes unfounded accusations towards other editors. That's all you need to know and the evidence in the edit history is overwhelming.

The editors blaming other editors for this behavior are disappointing. Favoritism blinds the ability to see clearly and that's it certainly happening after reviewing some of the arguments here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemov (talk • contribs) 13:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe there are "fans" who would excuse absolutely anything (and maybe a couple long-term grudges for whom the recent stuff doesn't even matter), but I suspect most of the rest of us who don't support a ban simply don't agree with you that there's enough justification for one. That doesn't mean SchroCat has been a model of prosocial behavior, but that we're being asked to assess whether we should issue the strongest sanction at our disposal, and the evidence just isn't sufficient. Wording of "WP:FANCLUB" aside, yes we absolutely do -- and should -- weigh contributions to the project when determining something like a CBAN. There are times that the same 5 edits that gets a brand new user indeffed are outweighed by 50,000 preceding good edits. The challenge is figuring out where that line is, and the reality is it varies by person. You don't have to be a fan of SchroCat to be a fan of high-quality article work, and to have a subjectively high bar for sanctions that would stop someone from producing that work. It's frustrating when people skirt the lines of acceptability for a long time, but thankfully it doesn't happen all that often. I wouldn't blame anyone for feeling like the bar for problems is too high when it comes to FA writers. There have been times I've felt that way myself, including, as I said above, with SchroCat. In this case, however, looking I think we're solidly on the "oppose" side of that line.

Beyond that, there's also the extent to which infobox disputes are so fraught. There are people who view bad behavior coming out of those discussions in a different light because of the dynamics in play. I wish infoboxes weren't so triggering to SchroCat, et al., and I wish we didn't have people so quick to disregard the opinions of those who put hundreds of hours into building out articles when it comes to how best to present the information. Yes, you could reframe that and say "per WP:OWN, devoting you blood, sweat, and tears to a single article doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to drop in and have just as much influence in an RfC", and in many cases I'd agree. The issue is, with many cases we're dealing with things like NPOV, V, NOR, and other policies where consensus can be based on application/interpretation of policy. With infoboxes, there is no real policy guidance, and it's just personal preference in the guise of "what I think helps readers" or "why I think they make sense in X domain but not Y". For something that's about personal preference, surely you can see that someone who labored for a subject might be bothered by the fact that some people go from article to article contributing nothing to an article except to argue about an infobox when there's no policy-based rationale? Again, not saying people shouldn't be allowed to have a say, but I don't find it hard to empathize, or to understand why some see behavioral issues arising from infobox disputes in a different light. YMMV. — Rhododendrites \\ 15:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

This isn't about infoboxes and I wish editors would quit hiding their bias behind this nebulous argument. This is an editor with a long history of hostility and an editor who continues to do it without fear from punishment because editors like yourself just make excuses for the behavior.

We don't own anything on this project. Our job is simply to improve it with the help of the community. When you endorse an editor who doesn't respect other editors you in turn endorse disrespectful behavior. Nemov (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be falling into the same kind of behavior you're accusing SchroCat of, making accusations of bias and "fan clubs" and masking bad intentions using "nebulous arguments" and "endorsing disrespectful behavior" when I'm doing nothing of the sort. I don't have to endorse disrespectful behavior to decide that it's not disrespectful enough for a ban. A look through my editing history would reveal many times that I've been critical of people defending bad behavior just because of FAs. The difference is, in those cases, the behavior was worse. You're making accusations based on what you think my motivation is, when the reality is you just haven't made as good a case as you think you have. IMO. — Rhododendrites \\ 16:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

My conscious is clear on this subject and I'm simply pointing out what should be obvious. As you admitted, SchroCat hasn't been a model of prosocial behavior. When a user has been banned in the past for this behavior and the behavior continues then it's on the editor to either acknowledge a long term problem or ignore it. It seems like you've made your choice. I don't know what your motivation is, but Misplaced Pages isn't a WP:BATTLEGROUND. WP:ASPERSIONS cannot be any clearer.... It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause. If you can convince yourself SchroCat doesn't routinely do this then we're at an impasse. Nemov (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Just FYI, I have never been banned. - 86.155.193.84 (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

My mistake. I meant you've been blocked with cause 5-9 times? It's a chore combing through the wreckage. Nemov (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

A block is not a ban. Please keep that in mind especially when you are citing WP:ASPERSIONS. You do little good for your case when you're not even sure of the accuracy of the facts you are citing. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I already said "my mistake" but I appreciate your feedback. Nemov (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Every one of these threads is Lynch Mob v. Fan Club. I believe those are the names of the WMF's softball teams. Levivich (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey, I'm just trying to use the softball field to play fetch with my dog. — Rhododendrites \\ 16:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Put me in coach! I'm ready to play! Jip Orlando (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this the equivalent of an Army–Navy Game? Dronebogus (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Collapsing sideshow featuring thoroughly disruptive IP who is apparently *not* SchroCat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

in the interests of transparency, I called out Nemov on their talk page for, quite frankly, embarrassing double standards. Such hypocrisy has undermined their argument to such a point, that this whole time-sink of a discussion seems rather ridiculous. 2A02:C7C:A400:EF00:3DE9:3F2:337:22BD (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC) Are you the user formerly known as SchroCat? or somebody else? — Shibbolethink 19:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC) Mind your own business. 2A02:C7C:A400:EF00:3DE9:3F2:337:22BD (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC) Interesting: Mar 2022: Liverpool IP 77.101.108.58 removes a sentence from Sophie Dahl Oct 31 07:31: London IP 2A02:C7C:A400:EF00:39B0:392:9BC0:53B (2A02:C7C:A400:EF00::0/64/64 range contribs) removes the infobox Oct 31 07:33: The same "EF00" IP removes the sentence Nov 6 13:34: London IP 2A02:C7C:A471:7B00:7CEC:AAB0:91A3:36AC (2A02:C7C:A471:7B00::0/64/64 range contribs) removes the infobox with edit summary Please do try and grow up Nov 6 13:36 The same "7B00" IP removes the sentence with edit summary Please discuss, do not edit war Nov 7: 2A02:C7C:A400:EF00:8479:1FB8:B09A:26A0, a different IP on the same "EF00" range, removes the infobox with the edit summary No consensus for this. Today: 2A02:C7C:A400:EF00:3DE9:3F2:337:22BD, a third IP on the same "EF00" range, posts "I'm not Schrocat", and then the message above. I don't know if this is SchroCat or not, or if it's one person or more than one person, and I don't want to connect users and IPs by naming who else has removed this stuff from that article in the past, but this isn't how WP:VANISH is supposed to work. Levivich (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC) I'm not Schrocat So are we expected to believe that there's a second person who: is in London is also a person who hates infoboxes on the same /64 ranges which frequented several of SchroCat's old haunts (e.g. Sophie Dahl) is now in-depth reading this thread (enough to understand the "fanclub" discussion) and is posting on Nemov's talk page, just to harass the user about this thread but isn't SchroCat? Definitely sounds like a case of WP:LOUTSOCK to me.To be fair, it looks like this user is a customer of Sky Broadband . But it very well could be a work vs home situation. Or work vs coffee house, etc. I wouldn't think the isp alone would be enough to differentiate this when the user behavior is so glaringly similar.I just hesitate to believe that London is a hotbed for infobox extremists. (kidding, kidding) — Shibbolethink 19:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC) Actually, yes, I can think of several former editors who fit that criteria. Levivich (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC) I think I'm just not up-to-date or in-the-know about the infobox wars, and so I have literally no idea how many people it could be. But it is overall interesting.I hope they all get together for tea and crumpets and talk about the latest articles that have had infoboxes added. That would just warm my cold dead heart. — Shibbolethink 19:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC) I mean I did hear this one theory once: that it's always been just one person, who hates infoboxes, and in Misplaced Pages's early days, he started using multiple accounts to fight against them, eventually going so far as to hire actors to portray these other editors at London Wiki meet-ups, but then--much to the chagrin of this editor--the meet-ups kept happening, year after year, and after like a decade and a half, the editor just didn't have any more money to pay the actors, so he had to self-destruct each alt account one by one before the next meet-up, but then--to the further chagrin of this editor--the pandemic happened, and all of a sudden meet-ups were online, and the editor didn't need the actors anymore, he's a skilled actor himself so just like a hat and some sunglasses would do fine, so now he's been trying to resurrect each account one by one... but, I think it's more likely that it's actually several different likeminded people. Levivich (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC) Two-year old mystery solved! Now I *finally* understand why my hat and sunglasses Amazon store went through the roof two years ago, but has been slowly withering ever since. Mathglot (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC) "I don't want to connect users and IPs by naming ..." then don't...oh, you have. Futile. See WP:ASPERSIONS 2A02:C7C:A400:EF00:3DE9:3F2:337:22BD (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC) What suggestions do you have for how others should be able to examine your conduct, as they do with most[REDACTED] users? — Shibbolethink 19:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC) I'm not arrogant enough to make suggestions on other people's behaviour. Live and let live - sticks and stones, blah blah blah.... 2A02:C7C:A400:EF00:3DE9:3F2:337:22BD (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC) I’m sorry to pop the merry bubble of speculation here, but I am currently in Amsterdam on a long weekend break. I had previously mentioned to a small group of editors that I had not edited the Dahl article and was informed by one, EnPassant: “Schrocat, it's blatantly you on the Sophie Dahl article. Nobody else is such an infobox warrior as that. Trying to hide behind an IP is dishonest, about as dishonest as pretending you couldn't possibly use different London IPs.” All made assumptions, much like a few people on this thread, but only one bothered to notice that my editing is from BT Internet on all my IP edits except this one. Not me, I’m afraid: I don’t have Sky. Oh, and by the way, EnPassant - the person calling me dishonest when I informed them I had not edited Dahl for at least two years - has been blocked for sockpuppetry. 77.249.149.237 (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC) I hate to burst every ones little bubble about how UK IPs work. I am most definitely not the editor previously using the SchroCat account - my one and only account was abandoned years ago mainly due to the bullying and underhand shenanigans undertaken by the pro-IB precious followers of a certain COI editor. Please note like SchroCat I'm also on BT/EE but if you try checking using 'whatismyipaddress' it will probably tell you I'm in London......yet I'm actually more than 500 miles from there. And before any of the more vehement in this thread start with any aspersions, my abandoned account is not banned, blocked or under any kind of restrictions whatsoever. 2A00:23EE:1580:DBE4:F4E4:AC9A:65F1:1E1D (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC) This is why you two should both make accounts, so we don't accidentally confuse the two of you. — Shibbolethink 21:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC) Oh right, so if I 'make a new account' as suggested this will create the opportunity to scream 'Sockpuppet'!!! No thanks. As stated above I abandoned my account after I spent years investing a lot of time, money and effort creating and expanding articles yet threads like this truly cement my intention not ever to return except for occasional comments in ridiculous vendettas like that on display here. 2A00:23EE:1580:DBE4:F4E4:AC9A:65F1:1E1D (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC) You can actually have more than one account and acknowledge that you had a previous one, have it hidden/deleted, etc. per WP:FRESHSTART. — Shibbolethink 21:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC) Really? Why thank you so so much for giving me such wonderful advice. However, I must respectfully suggest a more detailed reading and digesting of what I stated in my previous comment. Please have a wonderful rest of your day and accept my humblest apologies for attempting to point out incorrect assumptions made about UK IPs. So very very sorry. 2A00:23EE:1580:DBE4:F4E4:AC9A:65F1:1E1D (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC) Geez, are all UK IPs sarcastic? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC) Please remain WP:CIVIL, Kenneth. 2A02:C7C:A400:EF00:3DE9:3F2:337:22BD (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC) <personal attack redacted> 2A02:C7C:A400:EF00:3DE9:3F2:337:22BD (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC) Not always, but even people with long blocklogs are capable of knowing when something's a problem. casualdejekyll 23:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC) And what does my block log say about me? Just curious. — Shibbolethink 23:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC) Whoever you are, you're not helping anything. Also, while I opposed the ban above, I dare say we do have rules about registered users logging out to disrupt noticeboard discussions anonymously. — Rhododendrites \\ 22:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC) Please read my comment above - my account was abandoned long ago so 'logging out' does not enter the equation. I was simply trying to dispel the blatantly incorrect assumptions concerning UK IP addresses. So sorry my attempts to help appear to have caused so much consternation. Hope you all have a truly wonderful day. 2A00:23EE:1580:DBE4:F4E4:AC9A:65F1:1E1D (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC) "...accidentally confuse the two of you - so only two people in the entire world use IP addresses, do they? I'd call your "accidents" aspersions, but there we go. 2A02:C7C:A400:EF00:3DE9:3F2:337:22BD (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC) So you're another editor who used to have an account, but now edit anonymously so you can continues a grudge. Your a blight on IP editors, if there isn't a policy against this there should be. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC) Please try to use correct grammar and spelling as otherwise it's difficult to fully comprehend any points being made. This is most definitelynot a criticism, simply a hopefully piece of helpful advice. 2A00:23EE:1580:DBE4:F4E4:AC9A:65F1:1E1D (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC) I'd ask you to remain WP:CIVIL, please, thank you. As an IP, I have just as much right to edit here as you do. What grudge do you suppose I have? Or is this something simply to say to prop up your actively disinteresting comment? 2A02:C7C:A400:EF00:3DE9:3F2:337:22BD (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion

Arbcom & infoboxes

If I recall correctly. Arbcom made a ruling on how editors should behave at infobox discussions. GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Here. Standard discretionary sanctions were authorized, and editors were "reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to not turn discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general." The committee also recommended further community discussion re; infoboxes. Specific remedies addressed to SchroCat did not pass. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Specific remedies addressed to SchroCat did not pass

• He does have an edit restriction to disclose future accounts, to ArbCom.
• The finding "SchroCat has historically exhibited battleground behavior around the addition of infoboxes" failed 6-to-5 with at least one of the opposed votes (a vanished arb) saying: Conduct is relevant when establishing a pattern."
• another noted "SchroCat seems to have consciously stepped back from infobox debates for the past 18 months"

— Shibbolethink 07:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

There was also this amendment request at ARCA, which didn;t result in any action being taken. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

As the person who filed that request, what got me mad at the time, and frankly gets me upset again reading that ARCA now, was JzG's decision to overrule 3 admin and Newyorkbrad's idea that a single administrator deciding to not levy a sanction deserved deference. As one of the original drafters of the DS reform about to pass you can draw a straight line from that ARCA to the fact that this won't be allowed going forward. The fact that it was about Schrocat, Cass, etc was incidental to me. The choice of Cass and Schrocat to retire did have some bearing on the ARCA's outcome but I think it's important to realize how much of that discussion was not about Cass, Schrocat, any of hte other editors, or infoboxes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

• I asked Bishonen about DS for IP? I understand the reply as WP:AE is possible also for IPs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  adding: now that it isn't even IPs any more: arbitration enforcement (AE) is horrible, as I watched and experienced, but it's less horrible than banning, so: could the AE route be pursued before banning is considered. Or any other means to get to comments in discussions that don't hurt other editors? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

  I don’t want Schro to edit from IPs because he has used them to dodge scrutiny, and I think a lot of people agree. As long as that gets done somehow I’m happy. Dronebogus (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

London Beer flood

I’m having a problem with another editor who does not log in and edits by IP address, which I consider suspect, why do this if you are a reliable editor? He stated in our Talk:London_Beer_Flood#Mass_of_beer conversation that he is “the editor formally known as SchroCat, editing as 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:710B:FCB:E462:EC60”. Note there is no profile or Talk page for this editor.

I read this article and realized from my knowledge of physics regarding density and the volume of the litre that the mass of water quoted was not only incorrect, but off by a factor of about 18. Despite his insisting it is my own original research, it is not, it is a scientific fact of density and volume, easily noticeable by anyone who knows the Metric system. I’m amazed no one at Misplaced Pages noticed this error prior to naming it one of the best articles produced. Getting this error corrected has been difficult, the other editor decided the mass was important when it was incorrect, but now I have a source and it’s been corrected, the mass of the beer is no longer important.

I’ve also edited the article because it was missing metric units contrary to . This has been reverted a number of time with the other units hidden “in a citation”. Readers outside the UK may know of Imperial Gallons but the rest of the planet may or may not, and as per the MOS it should be “visibly” included. Readers in the USA may assume their gallon is the same imperial Gallon. The SI unit and US Gallons should be visible without checking citations.

As mentioned in an email with the author of the book used in this article, the vat contained the equivalent of a number of barrels which was a unit used in the 1800’s, these barrels contained 32 ale gallons or 38 imperial gallons, the physical size of the barrel did not change. wp:Reference English brewery cask units. I emailed the author of the book used as a reference in this article (attached).

It seems no amount of additional information will persuade this editor to accept the figure I gave for the mass of beer in the flood or the inclusion of units other than Imperial Gallons, which are not even used in the United Kingdom except in conversation.

Email from author of book used as reference: Avi8tor (talk) 09:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Avi8tor, just wanted to ping you to let you know that there is a larger thread about SchroCat and I have folded it in to that. I also had to remove a few weird bits of text that got added in (see Special:Diff/1127546933), so please make sure your original message is still largely intact without any major disruption (it was just a few stray headers and AN notices). Primefac (talk) 09:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Why is this being brought up here, rather than discussed on the talk page (which hasn't been touched for two weeks)? This noticeboard doesn't adjudicate on content questions. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth I did not notice the time stamps, so if this just needs hatting/removal feel free; my actions were mainly to keep related threads together. Primefac (talk) 10:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Avi8tor: I see you have been in discussion at Talk:London Beer Flood but it's all over the place. When you return there, please make a new section with a proposal to change specific text. It would be preferable to stick to one issue at a time and the question of whether the stated volume is accurate is obviously important and should be addressed first. I work on {{convert}} and have seen the issue of historical units being a problem many times. It needs calm investigation, not administrative action although I will watch the article for a while. Johnuniq (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I've been getting nowhere with the editor using an IP address (SchroCat) who keeps reverting what I add and has been accusing me of Original research which it is not. I ended up writing to the Author of the book used as a reference in this article, but could not see how to attach a pdf of the email with addresses redacted. I will do as you suggest. Avi8tor (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth on the specific point of the placement of conversions, MOS:CONVERSIONS is the direct shortcut to the guideline specifying inline conversion in all but a handful of types of article. XAM2175  12:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Let's get back to the proposal

Just a reminder to all that there's a serious Proposal being considered in which the Misplaced Pages community is deciding whether or not to ban a long-time editor from contributing here. That's a serious matter in this context, but it's spawned a lot of side discussions and other distractions. Can we please get our focus back to where it belongs, on the ongoing survey? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The Cat came back. GoodDay (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards