Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:34, 17 April 2023

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Onel5969

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

• Onel5969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

First, please note that I'm French and so almost all my contributions are on wiki.fr and English is not my mother tongue. So sorry if I don't know perfectly the rules here and sorry if I don't use the right words.

Nowadays, I consider that behavior of User:Onel5969 are very problematic. I created the article Handball at the Goodwill Games on 24 February 2023‎. I've nothing to say when he added on 4 March 2023‎ templates asking for primary sources and notability, I'm totally fine with the fact that the article is a stub and can be improved. Fine.

But then :

• 10 March 2023 at 11:25 first clearing (so only 4 days after having added the Multiple issues banner whereas, for instance, Figure skating at the Goodwill Games has the banner "One source since October 2012!)
• 10 March 2023 at 15:51 second clearing
• 17 March 2023 at 10:52 article moved to draft
• 24 March 2023‎ at 10:59 third clearing
• 24 March 2023‎ at 14:12 fourth clearing
• 24 March 2023 at 14:39 nominated for deletion.

I really don't understand how it is possible that such an experienced and many many times awarded user can act with without any piece of collaborative behavior nor empathy. If this person does not want people to contribute here, I'll take refuge in wiki.fr, it's not a big deal for me, but if he acts like that with everyone, I think it's a problem for wiki.en!LeFnake (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a behavioral issue, this is a content dispute. Where is your attempt to discuss this with Onel5969? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

That's rather generous of you. This is a content dispute that the OP has made into a behavioral issue by twice removing the AfD template from the article and never warned; removing it once is at least disruptive but twice is nothing but vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)\

Good point. I was referring to Onel, but you're right that there could be a WP:BOOMERANG here. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that I shouldn't have to remove AfD template, sorry for that angry outburst :-( LeFnake (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Disagree with this take, Muboshgu. Obviously it's inappropriate to remove the AfD template, but it's also obviously inappropriate to blank a page four times (not including a move to draftspace), edit warring with two other people, before nominating it for deletion. That's a conduct issue, not a content dispute. Of course a single redirect/draftify is ok, but when challenged edit warring isn't an acceptable solution. So why is the burden only on the newbie to follow basic protocol, and not on the experienced editor, who also made no attempt to discuss beyond dropping a template? — Rhododendrites \\ 16:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Also a good point. Backing away now like Homer Simpson into the bushes. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• I must say I've found this behavior by Onel5969 (across many different pages, either edit warring to restore redirects for undiscussed articles with no major issues (something that is not to be done more than once); or his draftifications for new articles (ones that don't have major issues) because... I don't actually know why he does that - and he does it sometimes (both redirection and draftification) for very clearly notable articles as well, for example D-I college football seasons, college football teams, etc.) a bit annoying and problematic. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• Onel5969's behavior has driven away other productive contributors, so I agree that something should change here.  — Freoh 16:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Onel5969 doesn’t “drive away” anyone who creates articles with decent sourcing to start with, or responds to tags by adding appropriate sources. Mccapra (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you know how many editors are able to write a decent, well-sourced article on their first try (or one of their first attempts)? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Well I’m pretty sure I did, but in any case, the point of tagging and draftifying to precisely to give the creator scope to improve their work, with suggestions about how to do so. Mccapra (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I've created one article, I reread the appropriate notability guideline several times, asked advice on it and made sure I had my sourses all lined up. I'm now working on getting sourcing for a second. I feel we push new editors towards article creation to quickly, and only afterwards warm them of notability and independent reliable in-depth coverage etc. It would be good if we had a "I see you're trying to write you first article" script to guide new editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. XAM2175  02:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I second this. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 05:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Dare I say Wi-Clippy-tan? –Fredddie™ 05:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• This is the stub in question. I'd have redirected it too, easily. There doesn't appear to be any other interaction between Onel5969 and John Quiggin beyond that single dispute. DFlhb (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• @LeFnake: As I wrote above, I don't agree with Onel's repeated redirection here, but it's reasonable to expect that an article created on the English Misplaced Pages (I can't speak to frwiki) in 2023 with only official sources will be redirected or nominated for deletion. New articles are generally expected to be supported by reliable sources independent of the subject which show that it meets a relevant notability criteria. Usually that means making sure there are at least two or three sources with no connection to the subject writing about the subject in some depth. Repeatedly redirecting such an article isn't appropriate, but if you restore a redirect a deletion nomination is all but assumed. While I haven't looked at the newly added sources closely enough to see if they pass the bar, cheers to KatoKungLee for doing the necessary work to find independent sourcing. — Rhododendrites \\ 16:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  As I wrote above, I agree that removing AfD template was stupid. For me it was the last straw and I outbursted angry, but I shouldn't.

  About new articles, we have barely the same rules on frwiki. When someone logically add templates asking for sources and/or notability, the article goes to AfD if it haven't been improved (or not enough). BUT this process generally takes monthes and transfer to AfD is not made by the one who added the templates in the first place but by another person (most of the time, an admin I think). That's why I considered the AfD was inappropriate now.

  As previously said, English is not my native nor daily language and I don't really know where I can find reliable sources. That's why I asked for help on WikiProject Handball and just had an answer today. Too late unfortunately. LeFnake (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  Things used to move more slowly here, with more patience for gradual improvement. We've gradually moved from a focus on quantity to quality, however, and there's now a mostly unwritten expectation that articles show notability at the time of creation. Good in some ways, bad in others. IMO this thread earns a WP:TROUT for both parties for edit warring, etc. (IMO a bigger trout for Onel, who should know better), but at least the article is a bit better now and you know what to expect on the next article, for better or worse. — Rhododendrites \\ 21:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: @LeFnake:, you’re obviously an experienced editor, so you’ve probably had and seen bad moments, which I think explains Onel5969 interaction with this article. It looks like the article will survive AfD, do you intent to ask for sanctions? I believe they have taken this into account, would you let the community know how you wish to proceed? Greetings from Los Angeles,  // Timothy :: talk  21:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for asking. I think Onel5969's behavior is not acceptable: he does not have more rights than anyone else to solely decide what is ok or not. Asking for sources and notability is 100% normal. And if improvements are missing or insufficient, the fact that an article goes eventually to AfD, that's also 100% normal. But here, the timing has been very very short and he just considered that his vision was better than the community's one.

  I forget to say it before, but I never previously met him, so there is no revenge or something like that in my mind. In the opposite, I then easily imagine what happend here can't be an isolated incident.

  So yes, I think sanctions would be appropriate. LeFnake (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

so, just for clarity, were you intending to add more sources? If so, how much time do you think would be appropriate? Would you prefer to have your articles quickly sent to AfD rather than draftified? What outcome do you think would be optimal? Mccapra (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

honestly, no, this way to proceed just discourage me from doing anything. I thought that Misplaced Pages's purpose is to benefit readers by containing information on all branches of knowledge and that Misplaced Pages should be written collaboratively. I know now that this time is over on wiki.en and I'm 100% I'll never try to create another article here. LeFnake (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• In my experience, Onel5969's interpretation of WP:BLAR is aggressive, and their interaction with newer, inexperienced users leaves something to be desired. Looking at their talk page just for the last few days, I see User talk:Onel5969#The Lions of Marash. The article, The Lions of Marash, did in fact have sources, though apparently not good enough for Onel5969, who blanked and redirected, and then told off the creator when they came to their talk page for an explanation. It's not up to Onel5969 to decide whether an article passes GNG or not. There's a responsibility for long-time users, administrator or not, to treat good-faith editors with respect. No one makes you edit here. Mackensen (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Page triage is mainly about deciding whether an article meets notability requirements or not. There’s always recourse to AfD to make a final determination but patrollers make that decision multiple times every day. Mccapra (talk) 07:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Regardless of article quality or anyone else's actions, Onel was way out of line in blanking the page 4(!) times without starting a discussion. This is unacceptable and deserves a warning at the very least, especially for an editor who's been around long enough to know better. I'm not generally a fan of articles based solely on statistics but these olympics articles are normally built around stats tables and are a rare case where it's acceptable to not have SIGCOV sources. –dlthewave ☎ 22:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• Edit-warring in a redirect is never the right decision (and AfD was clearly the right decision if Onel cared enough and they were blatantly aware of AfD being an option considering their edit summaries, but were refusing to start one and instead kept up the edit war). Another problem is trying to do the edit war over an extended period of time, which gives the impression that Onel was trying to sneak through the redirection at a later date to try and get it accomplished without being noticed. Silverseren 23:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  • - seren - This is what happened to me. I used the site frequently a few years ago then lost interest. Then the new rules were made after the Lugnuts situation finished and the requirements for posting articles got more strict. Within a few weeks of returning here, Onel drafted about 9 articles of mine that would have been eligible before the Lugnuts situation finished. This was completely new to me since I only knew of the AfD process. So I got very upset about it and it really soured me on this site. It created a lot of extra warring, arguments and issues with not only me and him but other users as well that might have not existed otherwise if the articles were just AfD'd in the first place.KatoKungLee (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• I've noticed his edits and deletions many many times, and I'm glad someone brings this up. He's sneakily getting rid of pages without getting called out. I would endorse at least a short ban for the editor, and at least complete prevention from redirecting/deletion for at least the foreseeable future.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think that's a bit disingenuous and I don't believe we should stop assuming good faith. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• I am undecided on how to handle this, but how many times has this editor been referred to ANI these past couple years? It seems like we have this same discussion every few weeks. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Since this discussion started a couple of weeks ago Onel5969 has conscientiously avoided redrafting and, as other editors wanted, sent anything contentious or disputed to AfD. As the desired objective has already been achieved therefore, I don’t believe any action is necessary here. Mccapra (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment- I was also about to report this editor; they have tried to draftify three separate articles that I have made (and I don't make that many articles). In all three instances their claims ranged from misleading to simply wrong, and the articles eventually were let stay. They consistently refused to respond to me or incorrectly interpreted the notability policy. The articles were Wilburn Ferguson (they were the only person complaining about it), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (legitimately a tighter call about when she became notable, with multiple people commenting on different sides of the issue), and Costa (Pante Macassar) (currently ongoing). I'll admit to having a negative opinion of the notability policy, but none of these were articles that I considered a stretch from a notability perspective. Still, whatever your thoughts on the notability policy, letting people who obviously and blatantly misapply it go ham on new articles seems like a bad idea. This editor's actions have consistently and significantly reduced my motivation to edit Misplaced Pages, especially as, until I saw this, I thought I might be in WP:HOUNDINGMcavoybickford (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  Wilburn Ferguson had (and still has) huge swathes of unsourced text; that was a perfectly legitimate draftification which I'd reinstate if it was worth the fight. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez looked like this when Onel got to it (five months ago), and at that point she'd never been elected to anything; most of the coverage was run of the mill; redirecting was a good call. Costa (Pante Macassar) okay probably passes WP:GEOLAND but I'm sure if you'd put any effort into researching it you could have written more than one sentence based on a single source, which is still its condition a month later. Addressing problematic articles is not hounding. If you don't want your articles to receive this kind of attention, write better articles. Or draft them first then move them to mainspace when they're ready. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Back-Door Deletion

The major complaints about User:Onel5969, and the usual complaints about any reviewer whose reviewing is criticized, are about what I will call back-door deletion. There are at least two forms of back-door deletion, but the concerns about the two forms of back-door deletion are similar. The two forms of back-door deletion are moving an article to draft space, and cutting an article down to a redirect, sometimes called BLARing the article. Are we in agreement that the complaints are about back-door deletion? Are there any other forms of back-door deletion? Repeatedly taking action to delete an article via a back door is edit-warring. The reason that reviewers sometimes edit-war to back-door delete an article that is not ready for article space is that writing a successful Articles for Deletion nomination is work. It is easier to move an article to draft space or to replace the text of an article with a redirect to a parent topic than to write am AFD nomination. An AFD nomination with an analysis of sources is especially demanding, but is sometimes required when an editor is persistent. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

There are at least two subvarieties of edit-warring over draftification. The first is moving the same page into draft space a second time, after it was draftified once and moved back to article space by the author. I think that we are in agreement that draftifying the same article twice is edit-warring and should be avoided. There is another way that persistent editors edit-war to try to force articles into article space. That is moving a copy of the article into article space when the previous copy has already been moved into draft space once. Then the spammer or POV-pusher may think that the second copy is safe in article space, because draft space is already occupied. However, some reviewers will then move the second copy of the article to draft space as a second draft with the numerical label '2' to distinguish it from the first. The more appropriate action would be to nominate the article for deletion, which does however require more work than just moving it to draft space with a number after its title. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Are we in agreement that the controversy is primarily about use of back-door deletion by Onel5969, when a formal deletion process should be used? Are we in agreement that a logged warning to User:Onel5969 is the appropriate action? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Robert McClenon - Onel does three things that create problems: 1) He marks articles as drafts instead of nominating them. While he says he does it so writers can improve the article and not get it deleted, which very well could be the case, it can also be taken in a negative way like I took it - as a way to get around the AfD process and basically force an uncontested deletion. This leads to another problem: 2) The user then has either make edits to the article, they have to remove the draft tag, which can be seen as edit warring or they have to have to hope someone else sees their situation and nominates the article for deletion themselves, since User:Rosguill had stated that users cannot nominate their own articles for deletion - https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:KatoKungLee&oldid=1135792356. I can't find any proof that this is a rule either, but when you un-draft something, you already feel like you are taking a rebellious action and nobody wants to ruffle someone else's feathers as well. The third thing that happens here is that - 3) if you do remove the the draft tag, Onel does not nominate the article for deletion immediately. Again, it may be so the article can be improved or it may just be an "I didn't get to it yet thing", but it lead me to believe that no further action would be taken, when the article was just nominated later, which just creates more tension. The problem is that if a user doesn't back to wikipedia for a while, that article could be gone before they could even make my case of it and waiting for Onel to decide to nominate an article or not is very frustrating. The situation got so out of control in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Harry Sperl that User:GhostOfDanGurney had to step in and nominate the article for deletion just so we could get it over with, since I was concerned that publicly asking people to nominate my own article could be seen as some kind of bizarre meatpuppetry move.

I would personally much rather have articles nominated than deleted. Sometimes the nominator gets it wrong and the article should not be drafted or deleted. Sometimes, the afd process can lead to other people finding sources and improving the article, while nobody ever sees drafted articles. And if nothing else, the AfD process just provides extra sets of eyes who can provide extra takes on the situation.

I also do not believe that users know that they can remove the Draft tag on articles, which leads to more confusion and problems.KatoKungLee (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

sorry but I think the point above makes no sense. If a NPP reviewer sends something to draft they are not personally bound and responsible for bringing it to AfD themselves if the creator moves it back to mainspace. Indeed if they do, they will be accused of hounding, and editors who have created a run of new articles with inadequate sourcing will claim they are being victimized. Better to leave it to someone else to take a second view and bring it to AfD if they think it appropriate. Mccapra (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Mccapra - Unfortunately, Onel is marking articles as drafts, then after the author rejects the draftifying, Onel nominates the article for AfD. As you said, it comes across as exactly like hounding, especially after it has happened 8 times like it did in my case: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hamburg-Eimsbütteler Ballspiel-Club, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Harburger TB, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Uwe Bengs, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lars Kindgen, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Harry Sperl, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fritz Sommer, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Otto Oeldenberger and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Christian Cavaletti.KatoKungLee (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Now I’m lost. In your points above you were complaining about instances where Onel5969 didn’t quickly take your articles to AfD, and now you’re complaining about when they did. I’m not sure what to make of this: perhaps that NPP patrollers shouldn’t draftify, shouldn’t AfD, and should just tag and pass? Mccapra (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Mccapra - As I said above, I think taking articles to AfD is the preferable move from the start over draftication. It avoids edit warring. It avoids continued arguments. It avoids situations where articles were incorrectly marked as drafts. And it also avoids situations where an article gets marked as a draft and then gets forgotten about and eventually deleted. It also avoids situations where an article's draftication is rejected, then put in post-draftication rejection purgatory where the person who originally drafted it can put the article up for AfD weeks and months later when the author may not see it.KatoKungLee (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

(ec) This is an approach that I consider entirely appropriate. In many cases an article could go straight to AfD, but sending it to draft instead is a courtesy to give the creator an opportunity for fixing it up before it gets thrown to the wolves. If the creator doesn't want to take that option, then back to the main sequence we go. If it seems targeted in your case, that's probably a consequence of Onel checking up, and then following up, on past creations of the same editor based on finding something in need of handling. As one should. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Elmidae - As I said above, with draftifying, while you may take it as a courtesy to avoid the wolves, I and others take it as a way to backdoor an article into deletion. My dog thinks he is helping me by barking at night when he hears something, but I don't find it helpful as it ruins my sleep. KatoKungLee (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm confident that most article creators don't share your preference of slugging it out at AfD over being told "this is unsourced, I am assuming you actually have sources somewhere, please add them to this draft before someone deletes the entire thing". You may complain about being shown extra consideration, but frankly that's your own lookout. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Onel5969 is a very active patroller and I think they make mistakes given the volume of articles they try to review. I get frustrated when I see an article draftified several times and I just came across an article moved to draft space 4 times though not all of the moves were by Onel5969. But I think that is often not an instance of move-warring but a mistake of not checking the page history before draftifying a second time. But there have been a number of threads about Onel5969's patrolling on ANI and so I'm not sure how much of an impact this one will have. We can address the OP's article but I don't see anyone suggesting sanctions here. Liz 06:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I don’t agree with the characterization of draftifying or redirecting an article lacking adequate sources as being “back door” anything. Both are valid courses of action, depending on the circumstances. Some article creators object if their work is draftified or redirected, but they will equally object if it is brought to AfD. If the community wants to direct NPP not to draftify or redirect but to bring all articles of uncertain notability straight to AfD that’s fine, but that’s not how it operates at the moment. In fact the opposite - we are supposed to try alternatives to deletion. When we do, we’re accused to doing things by the “back door”. Mccapra (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Mccapra. It is common enough to hear actions such as redirecting referred to as alternatives to deletion, especially at AfD. It is not uncommon for it to be argued that such options should take place before an AfD. A logged warning for following a common AfD argument is a terrible idea. (Regarding drafting, it is quite common to see it increasingly referred to as almost a form of deletion, but this is not a firm consensus either.) CMD (talk) 09:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The argument isn't that it's wrong to BLAR (of course not, it's perfectly fine to do so), it's that it's wrong to edit-war about it. If you BLAR or move to draftspace and get reverted, you have to AfD the article if you think it should be deleted; you can't just repeat that action again. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The argument was explicitly "Are we in agreement that the controversy is primarily about use of back-door deletion by Onel5969, when a formal deletion process should be used?" CMD (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, it is a form of back-door deletion. Let's say you're a new editor and you start an article, and that article is suddenly moved to the draft space and has the AfC template slapped on it. It sure feels like deletion, but without the additional oversight that comes with AfD. I've seen this done to articles that could obviously survive AfD (and in some cases did). Is rejecting the draftifcation and moving it back legitimate? Probably, but that's not obvious and if a new account does that I'm sure someone will decide that's worthy of sanctions. Mackensen (talk) 12:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

It is absolutely wrong to BLAR a reasonably well-developed article with reliable sources, particularly if it reflects the work of multiple editors, if the basis of that action is the BLARing editor's personal philosophy that the topic of the article should not exist. Just imagine an editor BLARing US Senate career of Barack Obama to Barack Obama because Obama's tenure in the Senate was relatively short. This would remove sources and content not found elsewhere in the encyclopedia, so would amount to a removal of notable information without discussion. BD2412 T 15:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Is rejecting the draftifcation and moving it back legitimate? Yes, definitely, it's called a "revert". It is a shame that a new user would probably get sanctioned for it, but that's a problem with the (hypothetical) sanctioning admins, not with our policies, IMO. Levivich (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The reason draftification is "back door" deletion is because a (non-admin) editor does not have the power to unilaterally remove something from mainspace; that requires one of our deletion processes; except to draftify, which is kind of a loophole in our general "one person can't unilaterally delete a page" rule, hence the "back door". That back door is fine to exist so long as we all use it responsibly... Levivich (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

If one person unilaterally added it to mainspace, one person should be able to unilaterally remove it if it doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. If the two disagree about whether it meets the criteria, then we have a discussion. NPP do a difficult and thankless task keeping crap out of the encyclopaedia. Mistakes are inevitable, especially as we can't expect patrollers to be experts on every conceivable topic of an encyclopaedia article, but it boils down to "if you think the subject is important, demonstrate that it's been written about somewhere else first". If an article creator doesn't do that, they can have no reasonable expectation that their article will stay. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

If one person unilaterally added it to mainspace, one person should be able to unilaterally remove it if it doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. If the two disagree about whether it meets the criteria, then we have a discussion. Doesn't the person removing realize that by rule of this logic a discussion is required for the removal since the disagreement is apparent by virtue of the fact that the person who unilaterally added thinks it meets inclusion requirements or they would not have added in the first place? It seems fairly obvious to me that there is a disagreement the moment someone decides anything other than what was added should be modified. I guess what I'm asking is, why does your rule suggest we wait until a second objection has been raised before a discussion begins after a first objection has already been raised with the removal itself? To me, a rule like that seems like it would be a barrier to discussion. Huggums537 (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, after thinking on it some more I realize the rule suggests we wait until a third objection has been raised before discussion starts since the first objection technically begins the moment one person "unilaterally" adds, and it becomes explicitly implied that they would object to any removal. The moment another person performs a unilateral removal, the second objection is also implied. Why force the adding party to object twice before a discussion occurs? If we are going to have an "I can remove if you can add" mantra, then at least make the rules for it equally fair like maybe one objection each side requires discussion. That means I assume good faith that you already object to my removal, and knowing this would be a disagreement since I object to your addition, I take it to the appropriate discussion venue because I know your objection plus my objection equals one objection each. Me making you go object one more time just to make absolutely sure you're pissed about it is why Misplaced Pages needs to change. Huggums537 (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I think they make mistakes given the volume of articles they try to review. I know this is heresy on Misplaced Pages, but maybe they should reduce the volume? Levivich (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I think Onel's volume is fine. His ability to judge notability is top notch. His method involves a careful evaluation of the sources (I know this because he taught me his method when he was my instructor during NPP school), and his knowledge of notability has been calibrated through participating in thousands of AFDs. Keep in mind that Onel is the NPPer that handles the borderline articles that sit at the back of the NPP queue that no one else wants to touch, so that may skew his AFD stats a bit. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I have seen editors & admins who retaliate by editing pages by other editors who they dont like, tagging pages with COI, UPE, Promotional, no main space editing, draftifying the articles and then propose a speedy deletion. The page is usually gone within an hour or two. There are several that seem to embrace a swarm behavior which leads to this result since it usually takes about 4-5 of them working in unison. It is unfortunate and certainly is driving away editors and positive contributors. On another note, there are so many editors who seem to be stat padding while reviewing articles. They are so quick to deny the articles but rarely leave any comments or constructive criticism that would indicate their actions were for the good of the community.47.153.142.52 (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

A logged warning to not edit war over drafting a article, especially not over an extended period of time, is warranted. Other than that editors don't like having their articles drafted/redirected or sent to AfD but that's not against policy. Maybe a centralised discussion about the acceptability of WP:ATD-R and WP:ATD-I would be a way forward. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Onel5969 never responds to these discussions, and this is a deliberate choice: I am also appalled by this and this which are blatant personal attacks. --Rschen7754 17:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I have left him a note suggesting that he drop by. Mackensen (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

That is significantly more concerning than drafitfying an article with no reliable sources. That suggests a behavioural problem, especially when taken with the edit warring to redirect an article, to the point that I'd be tempted to revoke their NPP rights. The first person to find a new article does not get to be the final arbiter of its fate, and disputes should be settled at AfD rather than editors insulted and belittled. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

My response to Refrain from adding templates regarding the article's notability not being notable enough in the future until you learn what notability on Misplaced Pages is. would have been equally short. I can also understand Onel5969 reluctance to respond here, given the nonsense of past fillings. However they should post something here to the context that they won't edit war in this way again. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I find the two diffs of personal attacks to not be as bad as they look. The new user ImperialMajority, with 200 edits, patronizing an experienced NPP by telling them until you learn what notability on Misplaced Pages is, is really rude. While ideally we should not respond to rudeness with rudeness, it is a mitigating circumstance here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Arguing with a jerk is not a big deal. Not ideal, but not a big deal. Levivich (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - Mackensen has kindly invited me to participate in this discussion. I rarely do so, as there seems little point in participating in the drama. Especially with how often I'm brought here. I’ll try to keep this brief, but there are quite a few things to point out, so apologize in advance for the length. And these are in no particular order. First, since they so kindly invited me to participate, Mackensen’s comment “It's not up to Onel5969 to decide whether an article passes GNG or not” shows a complete lack of understanding of one of the purposes of NPP. They then followed with a comment about treating editors with respect. I treat the folks who come to my talk page with the exact same respect they give me. That editor came to my talk page and told me what I should do. I responded in kind by telling him what they should do.

Going back to the original OP, I find it interesting that neither they nor the other editor who “edit-warred” were admonished for doing so. There’s another editor in this thread, who I will not point out, who’s behavior regarding poorly sourced or non-notable articles led them to getting blocked. A block, which has since been reversed, and I may add, they have acquitted themselves quite well since they were unblocked. But they obviously have some latent bad feelings towards me. In addition, we have an admin calling me out for personal attacks who has their own history of personal attacks (see this, this, and this. And that's just towards me.

Finally, at NPP we endeavor to avoid AfD, not because we don’t want to go there, but because there are better ways to solve issues than throwing everything to AfD. I almost always tag something and give about a week for improvement before going back to the article. At that time, if no improvements have been made, I'll take another action, either redirecting, draftifying, or AfD/Prod, depending on the circumstance. I think we have to decide whether or not we intend on being an encyclopedia, or just another fan wiki. You call what I did on that article “edit-warring”, and looking at the definition, you are correct. However, per WP:IAR, I look at it as trying to avoid creating more work for a lot of editors by clogging up AfD. I would hazzard a guess that about 90% of the time it is successful and ends up with the articles getting proper sourcing, but I admittedly have no data to back that up, just my own personal anecdotal experience. But if you want EVERY redirect which is contested, no matter how ludicrous the contention, sent to AfD, so be it. Onel5969 22:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for participating. Two observations:

• I treat the folks who come to my talk page with the exact same respect they give me.: leaving aside that this contradicts the letter and spirit of Misplaced Pages:Civility, this strikes me as the exact wrong way to work with editors involved in new article creation. If you're burned out, do something else.
• You call what I did on that article "edit-warring", and looking at the definition, you are correct. However, per WP:IAR... (emphasis added). If you look to WP:IAR to justify your standard mode of engagement, you're in the wrong. WP:IAR is an escape hatch, a safety valve. I appreciate why you think it's necessary, but if you're edit-warring in order to avoid sending an article to AfD, you're explicitly working against Misplaced Pages:Consensus and you need to find a different approach.

Mackensen (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's just agree to disagree on IAR. If you think leaving articles on WP which do not meet the notability or verifiability criteria makes WP better, I can't agree with you on that. I look at this as an encyclopedia, not a fan wiki. Regardless, I've stated that if you folks want stuff to go to AfD if the redirect is challenged, so be it. Onel5969 01:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Onel5969 – You wrote: If you think leaving articles on WP which do not meet the notability or verifiability criteria makes WP better, I can't agree with you on that.. That's a strawman argument. The question is not whether to leave the cruddy articles on WP, but whether edit-warring to remove them is better for WP than the use of AFD. The spammers who repeatedly revert a WP:BLAR may honestly think that putting their cruddy articles on article space makes the encyclopedia better. That is why we have consensus processes such as AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

if you want EVERY redirect which is contested, no matter how ludicrous the contention, sent to AfD, so be it That is what should be done (unless the article could be CSD'd, but in most cases that wouldn't apply). Elli (talk | contribs) 01:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Would just like to add, that while this conversation was ongoing, and they were participating in it, this edit was made, reverting a redirect with a single google maps source. Just saying.Onel5969 01:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes and clearly if that is not notable, it will be deleted at AfD. It's better to follow the procedure here, even though that can obviously be a bit frustrating at times. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I would just be happy, Onel5969, if you didn't draftify an article more than once. Although I check the draftification list daily and see some of your page moves reverted, I'm fine with one draftification. But if the article creator objects and moves it back, you shouldn't persist. And that's my view for every NPP. Liz 02:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Liz: A wise and perspicacious view. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

IAR is great, unless the Community says, "Nope. Not this rule in this circumstance." -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, IAR should be invoked as sparingly as possible. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" 23:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Not that anyone needs my opinion, but that strikes me as an entirely equitable and sensible conclusion to this issue. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This user is also trying the delete NRL team's season articles, funnily enough edited this article and didn't try and delete it.. looks a bit like personal preference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Local Potentate (talk • contribs)

• I took a look at User:Onel5969/Draftify log and see from just this month, over 1,250 draftifications. Does that seem like a bit much to anyone else? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  High volume doesn't necessarily correlate with low quality. Keep in mind that Onel is one of the top NPP reviewers by volume. Got any specific draftifications you object to? –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  I doubt there are any numbers, but how often would you say NPP-ers get it wrong? For the sake of demonstration, I'll assume 3 errors in 1000 page reviews, which is a 99.7% success rate. With 2100+ reviews in the last 7 days, just based on the law of averages alone, Onel has likely made 6 errors this week. I think that is what @BeanieFan11 was really alluding to; that Onel reviews so many articles that on average there would be more errors than any other editor.

  I'm not going to suggest that we pore over Onel's logs and contribs to find errors, Ain't Nobody Got Time for That. What would be better is if the people with the NPP right who aren't listed on Misplaced Pages:Database_reports/Top_new_article_reviewers picked up the slack a little bit, or we grant the right to more users so Onel doesn't have to review 2100 articles per week. That way, it'll be easier to spot check how a reviewer is doing, the process improves, and the community improves. –Fredddie™ 00:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  I have seen a lot of draftifications from Onel. I have only sent one back to the mainspace. In fact, I think I have only sent a few in total from all other editors who have draftified back to AfC. I think as reviewers we should limit the number of times it gets sent back (one time, after that it is an AfD candidate), but I generally don't see an issue with Onel's work. The process has worked. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Yup. I've had problems with Onel's edits when I was significantly less experienced a few years back, but I've grown to realize that trying to push back would end poorly. From my perspective, draftification is meant as a space for incubating potential articles, not as a backdoor for deletion. I've started numerous articles in draft space and user space. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 23:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

How many pages have they reviewed for NPP in that timeperiod? --JBL (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

In the past year they're responsible for marking over 26 thousand articles and 7,300 redirects as reviewed, based on Misplaced Pages:Database reports/Top new article reviewers. Their Xfd log is also quite long. They are by far the most active NPP reviewer. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Just realized you asked for the past month, so I'll point you towards the 30 section of Misplaced Pages:Database reports/Top new article reviewers#Last 30 days. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks; I would say that 1250 is not a particularly large number in the context of the number of pages they're reviewing. --JBL (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

That number also doesn't factor in that they routinely tag pages and move on without marking a page as reviewed, draftifying, or sending to AfD. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Nope, not in proportion to the number of pages they review. XAM2175  19:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Onel reviews a lot of pages, so this isn't really surprising to me. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 19:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Support warning. Thank you Devin Futrell. NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

For context, Onel placed a notability on the Futrell page before they just draftified it, when I have taken care to include multiple sources. Now I cannot send Futrell to DYKAPRIL. NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

FWIW I only see one GNG source there (Tennessean). Levivich (talk) 02:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I think Onel5969 does understand that the community majorly disagrees with their actions. So, we could give them a warning about it, but I think they get the idea from this discussion that they should know what to expect if it is brought up again, so the warning probably isn't even needed. Huggums537 (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC) To be clear, my comment should be interpreted as an oppose to any sanctions, and that a warning could be given, but I think it is not needed because this discussion appears to have already served that purpose since the editor has proven they understand the concerns brought up. Huggums537 (talk) 11:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• I endorse any sanctions.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanctions or warnings. The theory of "back-door deletion" outlined above is nonsensical. The reason AFD has the high threshold it does, and the structures it does, is because it is difficult to enact and reverse; the same is not true for draftifying or redirecting a page, which any editor is free to do WP:BOLDly at any time they please. Likewise, the argument of "the article's creator might not see it!" is nonsense - if an article doesn't have anyone watching it who is willing to make a single edit to retain it, and at least one editor sees a reason to redirect or draftify it, then the safe thing to do is to go with redirecting or draftifying (which is also appropriate per WP:EDITCONSENSUS.) Newly-created articles with literally nobody watching them are a danger to the reputation of the encyclopedia and anyone putting in the time and effort to go over them should be commended, not criticized. If there are objections, of course, such bold actions generally get reverted and then needs to be hashed out (like any bold edit) but implying that there is somehow something intrinsically wrong about draftifying an article (giving the creator a change to show it can be salveaged) and then nominating it for deletion (if they reject this) is silly and smacks of red tape - we shouldn't default to the most process-heavy solutions. --Aquillion (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - Draftification and subsequent deletion when an article remains abandoned for 6 months are normal parts of our established creation and deletion processes; if folks disagree with a process, they should work to change it instead of criticizing those who use it. I can maybe see the argument for years-old stubs that might go unnoticed, but a freshly-created article is going to be on the creator's radar if they have any interest at all in developing it.

There seems to be an idea that articles on notable topics shouldn't be draftified. Draftspace is for developing articles on notables topics that shouldn't go to AfD but also aren't yet ready for mainspace (for example, articles about sportspeople that don't have the mandatory two SIGCOV sources). Our goal here is to build a quality encyclopedia, not placate the feelings of editors who refuse to learn about our notability standards and take personal offense when their subpar articles are not published. –dlthewave ☎ 16:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose all sanctions per Dlthewave above. Well said. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 22:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support doing something. Bad draftifications and unsubstantiated UPE allegations like this one can really drive away other editors. When a state legislator dies on October 10 and someone writes a bio of him on Oct 12, UPE is quite unlikely, don't you think? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Onel adjusted his behavior in response to this ANI. If you search his AFD log located at User:Onel5969/XfD_log for the term "contested redirect", you can see that he is now sending these to AFD. Onel is the bus factor at NPP, our highest volume reviewer, a huge net positive, and the reviewer that is willing to deal with reviewing the borderline articles that everyone else leaves sitting in the queue. Unfortunately this is bound to generate some friction, so any ANI opened against him gives a huge surface area of things to criticize about his reviewing. It is easy to lose sight of the fact that he is a massive net positive, and tens of thousands of his reviews are spot on. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Give them a Barnstar instead. And the accusations in this thread are full of problems that it would take a giant thread that I don't have time write to respond to all of them. But I'll point out a glaring one. The mere act of calling draftifications that somebody did "back door deletions" is a severe violation of wp:AGF, and then going on to say that such violates non-existent newly invented "offense" of draftifying an article which "should" go to AFD is a second problem on top of that. . North8000 (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Novem Linguae Mccapra (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Recent claim by onel5969 that he can use AfD for cleanup

In this AfD today (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2022–23 Michigan State Spartans women's basketball team), onel5969 appears to claim that they have been directed by a "consensus" at ANI that they can/should nominate an article for deletion: (i) without doing a WP:BEFORE search, (ii) even where abundant SIGCOV is revealed by a simple BEFORE search, (iii) simply because the article needs improvement (which would be contrary to both WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and WP:INTROTODELETE ). Even when abundant SIGCOV was presented at the AfD, they refused to withraw the nomination. This is simply a time waste. Cbl62 (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I suppose one benefit of making them actually use AfD is it really more directly reveals to a wider group of editors just how bad Onel's deletions frequently are, with little regard for notability and content. Silverseren 19:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, while some of his AFDs are ridiculous, I'd much rather prefer that to lots of articles wrongly draftified / redirected and removed through the backdoor - at least with afd you must have people comment or it gets relisted, oftentimes with the draftifications and redirections nobody ever goes back and it works as a backdoor deletion when it shouldn't. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I sympathize that patrollers deal with a lot of unsourced stubs, and it's difficult if it's in a domain which one might not be familiar with. Still, we have WP:BEFORE, and it must be followed; alternatively, get consensus to reform the system.—Bagumba (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

No, this is untrue. WP:BEFORE is optional; it is a suggestion, not a requirement. Per WP:NEXIST it is merely strongly encouraged; likewise, the top of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion says This page explains what you should consider before nominating (emphasis mine) - it does not set requirements. More importantly, while those parts are ambiguous, WP:BURDEN is unambiguous that the burden of finding sources ultimately lies on the people who add or wish to retain text, never on the people who wish to remove it. Making it a requirement to search for sources before nominating something for removal would be completely inappropriate, and people who inaccurately cite WP:BEFORE in arguments like these are weakening their position by doing so. There is no requirement to do any sort of search-search before a nomination; and it is entirely appropriate for editors to decline to do so on every nomination they make. If you wish to retain the challenged material and therefore wish to search for sources yourself, you are free to do so, but you cannot require that nominators perform such a search. --Aquillion (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Not commenting on this specific article / AfD, but on the general comments by some.

• 1: you may only draftify very poor articles once (if even that), after that it is AfD
• 2: if you bring a very poor article to AfD, but the subject is notable, then woo to you, you didn't follow the rules

Can anyone who uses argument 2 please stop using argument 1? What you are actually saying is

• 1: you may draftify very poor articles only once (if even that), after that you should tag them or improve them but otherwise just leave them in the mainspace.

It may or may not be the majority position, but at least it would be more honest and useful than this "gotcha" you are creating here with urging people to use AfD for article which need extreme cleanup, and then lambast them for using AfD because "AfD is not cleanup". Fram (talk) 07:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a "gotcha" at all. If an article needs extreme clean-up then either clean it up or tag it as needing it. The answer is not to nominate for deletion articles about subjects that don't qualify under our deletion policy. This is yet another problem caused by the introduction of the totally anti-wiki idea of draft space. The whole point of a wiki is that articles are improved and developed in main space where they can easily be seen and found. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that you get utter garbage which has to be kept "where it can be easily seen and found". The point of a wiki is not "I can put whatever drivel I want in the mainspace as long as the subject is notable", the point is "I do the best I can in a reasonable amount of time, and others will improve it even further". For something like Draft:Unnamed Girl, what would you have done? I am not able to reverse engineer some Japanese search terms to determine if there might be the start of something here or not, but it seemed most likely that there was nothing there, based also on other things this user created. By draftifying, they got 6 months to improve it, while at the same time we prevented this from being shown to our readers, for whom it was totally uninformative. Or take Draft:Papua New Guineans in New Zealand, probably a notable subject, but as with other creations of the same editor, the article and the sources given didn't match (or the sources weren't even about New Zealand). Why would we knowingly keep an article with almost all incorrect information in the mainspace? But bring it to AfD, and the response of at least some would be "AfD is not cleanup". Perhaps, but mainspace is also not a dumping ground for any and all shit someone can produce (or have produced by AI). Fram (talk) 07:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

If I may stick my nose in ...you're both right. Creating a fenced area to put problem articles removes them from our usual collaborative processes; they don't, for example, show up in maintenance categories or when searching from a list of requested/needed articles. But the draft namespace in association with the AfC process does provide a way forward for COI articles and other topics with possibilities where it would be inappropriate for the unimproved article to be in mainspace, but there isn't the urgency of copyvio or unreferenced BLP. It was even a good idea as a catchall successor to the article incubator and in response to the confirmed right becoming required for article creation. The problems are (a) the institution of 6-months-and-it's-gone; interacting with (b) the professionalisation of NPP and AfC so that a very small group act as gatekeepers, raising to almost a certainty that they will be passing judgement on articles on topics they know next to nothing about—it magnifies their conscious and unconscious biases; and with (c) ratcheting up of standards, partly because the reviewers are dealing with so many badly written articles, they get jaded (they could usefully recalibrate by looking at "random article" from time to time, neither the PAGs nor community standards require a new article to spring like Athena from the head of Zeus, in good English, with footnotes and no bare links, and making a valid claim of notability in the first sentence while avoiding promotional language, especially when "valid" means "this particular reviewer will instantly recognise its validity) and partly because those who are willing to go through the training and install the widget are likely to be self-selected defenders of the wiki from dross. If Onel5969 or any other NPPer uses AfD as a way to get an article cleaned up—or just to get eyes on it from people who know the topic—after draftifying it, let alone after repeatedly draftifying it, they're admitting that it may be notable and their main objection is to the execution. Unfortunately, we lose a lot of encyclopaedic coverage that way. It's extremely hard for a new editor, an editor with less than stellar English (and increasingly that includes native speakers unfamiliar with the formal registers we expect, as well as our older problem that some new editors are unfamiliar with any encyclopaedias except this one) or an editor writing on anything even slightly off the beaten path to get through the process of brushing up their article and getting it accepted, even if they figure out how and attempt it. (Lower on this page is a section on a new editor who's been recreating and resubmitting an article. I won't ping them because I suspect they're also a victim of the shite mobile software. They're temporarily blocked, but I've just filled out and re-mainspaced Kyuso. It's a town and sub-county in Kenya, and was on needed article lists. Misplaced Pages should cover the sub-counties in Kenya. It's part of our mission, and we need more coverage of Africa, and we need new editors willing to write such articles (whether they're from Kenya or from Alpha Centauri is not my business.) If I hadn't done my usual eccentric and inexpert thing and bypassed the whole AfC "wait and get rejected because the standard is wayyyy higher than AfD" thing. Credit where credit is due; I have a suspicion it was actually Onel5969 who told me to go ahead and re-mainspace any article I was willing to stand behind, after a particularly painful attempt to get a rewrite/expansion of an article by an indeffed creator, bristling with reliable references, past a reviewer's sniff test. Then 6 months later, poof goes another little bit of our coverage. (Also ... AfD as cleanup, whether or not one views it as heinous, assumes the AfD will attract editors capable of judging the situation. Unfortunately, AfD's are increasingly sparsely attended. We now lose a trickle of articles because nobody turned up who knew the topic area and how to find sources. Not helped by the increasingly common practice of not notifying even the article creator. Not everybody reads their watchlist daily. But then of course some mobile users won't even see an AfD template on their talkpage.) Back when experienced editors were encouraged—begged—to review new pages, it was much less likely that a few people's tastes and blind spots would be magnified in this way. Back when AfC was thought of primarily a way to guide new editors to refine their drafts until they were ready (not likely to be AfD'd and deleted), AfC and draftification worked well to save articles and help retain new editors who wanted to broaden our coverage. But now drafticication is used as a badge of shame or a dustbin, and the bin almost inexorably auto-empties. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to use Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Autovia C-13 as an example of what I think is wrong with Misplaced Pages's deletion procedures. I note that Onel5969 started the AfD to forestall an edit war and gave a reasonable good faith rationale for doing so. Other editors objected, one of whom supplied some sources to look at, which other editors agreed gave an indication of notability. All fine in and of itself - here's my problem - not one of those editors improved the article - making the AfD something of a pyrrhic victory as it didn't ultimately help improve the encyclopedia. Now, I don't mind people supplying sources but not improving an article where they don't understand the subject material - in this case, the majority of not all the suitable sources are in Spanish. And indeed, one neutral participant at the AfD said "I do not know Catalan my ability to find sources to demonstrate that notability is limited." - which is fine. But if you don't improve the article - who will? Therefore, I have to take Onel's actions as a good faith attempt to clean up an article nobody was clearly ever interested in improving. Ritchie333 12:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

But if you don't improve the article - who will?: Per the policy WP:NOTCOMPULSORY: Misplaced Pages is a volunteer community and does not require Wikipedians to give any more time and effort than they wish People can and do volunteer their time to participate in an AfD and identify a notable topic, without choosing to volunteer more time to improve the page. —Bagumba (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I know the policy, and to cite it here kind of misses the point I was getting at, which was aimed towards the readers. If somebody reads a Misplaced Pages article, that in their view is rubbish, they probably aren't going to think "oh well, it's a work in a progress, somebody will fix it eventually, maybe, perhaps"? Ritchie333 13:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

There's no excusing the fact that there is no indication in that AfD nomintation that WP:BEFORE was done, ignoring WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. AfD is not an alternative to bypass WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION on content. —Bagumba (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Whether WP:BEFORE is mandatory or not was one of the questions at the now defunct RFC on AfD. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

My problem with this view is that someone was concerned enough about the lack of sourcing in the article to put it through AfD. As part of the process other editors found sources. They could have added those sources to the article but didn't. But the editor who AfDed it in the first place now has access to these sources and if they were so concerned about the state of the article could add the sources to the article themselves. Of course, they are no more compelled to add them than the editors who found the sources. And there may be circumstances - especially when dealing with foreign language or offline sources - when it may not be reasonable for the nominator to add the sources. But if editors are concerned enough about the state of an article to nominate for AfD, I'd think that in most cases they would be happy to add the sources that are found in the course of the AfD. Rlendog (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:NEXISTS is policy. I will also point out that say I did add those sources - all I will get in reward is another 3-4 AFDs of various roads (and in fact, Onel still has some AFDs open from his last batch). Given that, I am not especially motivated to do any substantial content work at this point. I don't get paid for this. --Rschen7754 00:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The crux of this all from a PAG perspective is WP:ARTN. So long as an article doesn't qualify for CSD the guideline is clear that it remains regardless of how poorly written, though potentially in consolidated form. Conversely articles that are highly polished and informative should nonetheless be deleted unless the content is appropriate elsewhere. As a practical matter if poorly written article unlikely to ever be improved were a WP:DELREASON we would extend the tally for AFD well into the millions. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

And yet continually publishing unsourced or poorly sourced articles is disruptive to other editors, who have to try and clear up the mess. Something editors get routinely blocked for (at least twice on this board since this thread started). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Well there's no obligation for anyone to cleanup anything, however it does obtrude in a way that interferes with the collaborative nature of the project, especially when done at scale. Views on the type and quantity of actions needed to constitute actionable disruption have shifted over the years and both timing and social relationships influence day-to-day enforcement.

As I write this the indexed backlog for just those articles that are entirely without sources goes back 16 years, and would be longer if routine tagging had started earlier. It's still quite underinclusive, and the underreferenced tracking categories are even more so.

How that set of facts should influence our appraisals is a source of friction. Some may focus more on equitable treatment and assess in terms of par for the course, others may focus more on the law of holes. There's quite a range of views in practice and not just in a single dimension. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:TBANs can be proposed for any frequent abusers.—Bagumba (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE issues?

I've had another Onel5969 Redirect-into-AfD nomination pop up on one of the delsort lists I watch, at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Motorcenter Norway. I am concerned that they rushed to AfD here without bothering to check sources in Norwegian, for an article very clearly about a Norwegian topic. Within 2 hours of the nomination, numerous Norwegian sources were added to the article. Further, I am concerned by the lack of time Onel gave the editors working on the article from the restoration of the article from redirect to the AfD nomination. Overall, I am now beginning to feel like they need to take a chill pill and possibly reread WP:NODEADLINE. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree here. I have come across multiple articles where there was clearly no WP:BEFORE done before redirecting an article. For ex , and my edit to add sources to the article. I think a restriction of some sorts is needed here. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Protip: If you complain about "WP:BEFORE", a bunch of people will kneejerk-respond "BUT WP:BEFORE IS NOT REQUIRED!". That's technically true, but to nominate something based on notability is to assert that sources don't exist (that's what notability means). That's not something you can determine without checking to see if sources exist, so nobody should be nominating anything for deletion without checking to see if sources exist. That's not WP:BEFORE; it's basic WP:N. The fact that a list of best practices is not itself a policy or guideline doesn't mean the policies and guidelines it's based on don't still apply, of course, but it's a convenient way to wikilawyer the acceptability of absolutely any deletion rationale. — Rhododendrites \\ 16:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted that Onel was told to send these to AfD above, and it was pointed out that that would result in exactly this ANI report. I suggest Onel redirect on WP:V grounds rather than notability, then WP:BURDEN applies. If it's the restored with additional references no AfD would.be needed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

But...it was nearly all verified at the time Onel redirected it. As an aside, one of these days we need to figure out the whole "can you remove absolutely every statement without an inline citation across Misplaced Pages, even if they're verifiable, and cite WP:BURDEN to keep it out?" thing. My sense of the consensus position on WP:BURDEN is because WP:V doesn't require inline citations, it's only supposed to apply when someone challenges the material or when it's the kind of material that's likely to be challenged as being unverifiable or failing verification. i.e. it's not a catch-all to purge all unsourced statements, but requires a judgment call in each case. Using WP:BURDEN to circumvent guidelines on when it's acceptable to, say, draftify would then seem to be WP:GAMING. But I may be wrong about where consensus stands, or my view may be outdated. If that's true, why wouldn't we just codify "all statements must have an inline citation" rather than assume that someone won't abuse "if someone challenges material, it must have a citation" by simply challenging all statements without citations? Sort of a procedural tangent, granted. — Rhododendrites \\ 22:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Last month I chatted with Onel about this issue at Talk:Quebec City#Infrastructure. The sequence of events was roughly this:

1. An editor split off most of the content of the "Infrastructure" section of Quebec City (transportation, mostly) to a new article, Transport in Quebec City. This content was mostly unreferenced, as it had been in the parent.
2. Onel reverted the split on these grounds: Restore redirect - not enough in-depth coverage to meet GNG, and not enough sourcing to meet VERIFY. I think they're correct, FWIW.
3. The original editor reverses Onel. They should have opened a split discussion on the talk page instead of doing that.
4. Onel stubs down the content on Transport in Quebec City to what was referenced, and nothing else, which is as it stands today. Given that most of the original content on Quebec City was split, this created a situation where Misplaced Pages had almost nothing to say about transportation in one of the largest cities in Canada.

When I stumbled across this situation (personal interest, thinking about traveling there) I assumed that the article had been vandalized and was surprised at this sequence of events. I agree with Rhododendrites that WP:BURDEN shouldn't be read this way. The information is uncited, but verifiable, unchallenged, and perhaps more to the point uncontroversial. Onel's explanation left me unsatisfied: Hi Mackensen -- I don't care one way or the other, really, just felt that there should be some discussion before splitting. Once it was split, I simply removed all the uncited material as per WP:VERIFY. This is a lazy application of WP:VERIFY, in that it doesn't identify problematic material. If WP:VERIFY was a license to simply remove all uncited material, it would say that. It doesn't, and WP:BURDEN is clear about when WP:VERIFY comes into play. Mackensen (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Onel5969 should not have let Tbf69 force the contested split without obtaining consensus. This edit by Tbf69 to the source article where they edit-warred to enforce their removal without creating a summary per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is purely disruptive. A totally terrible edit. When your bold split is reverted, it's reverted on both ends. You can't enforce removal on the source side citing contested WP:BLAR; that's worthless wikilawyering. Tbf69 has been indeffed in relation to ill-advised bold actions that are not entirely dissimilar to this. Onel5969 should have protected the article more aggressively instead of conceding to the split, and finding a half-way solution that satisfies no one. Apart from that, Onel5969 did acceptably well here. —Alalch E. 23:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

A similar issue to what occurred at Transport in Quebec City has occurred at The Language of My World. They've repeatedly WP:BLARed the article to Macklemore, without taking into account an RfC closed in 2021 which suggests that that WP:AfD would be more appropriate in these situations. Also, Template:R with history and Template:R with possibilities could have been added, but weren't.

To allow time for the article to become notable per WP:NALBUM, I've moved undone Onel5969's last WP:BLAR on The Language of My World, and moved it to Draft:The Language of My World. I've retargeted the resulting WP:CNR to Macklemore, so it appears similar to the previous situation.  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 16:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

See the section above where people say Onel shouldn't move articles to draft as it's a "back door" to deletion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested I'm not intending to use it as a backdoor to deletion.  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 17:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

In fact, I'd argue that the WP:BLARs used on the page were worse, as they actually deleted useful information about the albums content (which wasn't included at Macklemore). On the other hand, this draftification retains the article's content until it's ready for mainspace.  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 17:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Your lack of intent to cause back door deletion doesn't affect much here, unless you personally intend to fix up the article; there is a perception among some editors that draftifying an article you do not intend to edit further is always tantamount to back door deletion, as described in tthe discussion above, largely due to the WP:G13 time limit that kicks in for any drafts over 6 months without an edit. _signed, Rosguill 17:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@Rosguill The issue is I personally think Draft:The Language of My World is pretty much okay for mainspace, providing it's tagged with Template:More citations needed. There's definitely worse articles. However, if I'd only reverted Onel5969's last WP:BLAR, and left it in mainspace, it would probably be WP:BLARed again.  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 17:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Last month I did a history merge on the article Rodovia Luís de Queiróz. Onel5969 then took it on himself to remove everything that was unsourced. This is well outside the scope of NPP and I sure don't want to go around doing history merges if I then have to fix up the entire article. Most of the material could have been cited using the ptwiki version of the article which is what I wound up doing in the end. --Rschen7754 18:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Of all the kvetching in this thread this flavour seems the least well justified. If you can source an unsourced block of text, great; if you can't or don't wish to spend your time on that but still take responsibility for keeping the encyclopedia verifiable, also great. "Letting stuff sit in mainspace with a cn tag" is a method that starts to look less attractive the more crap you see, and Onel sees a lot of crap, so I don't blame him in the least for this kind of predilection. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Undergirding most Misplaced Pages policies is the belief that unsourced, non-controversial (yet verifiable) information, added in good faith, is not harmful to the encyclopedia. This way of editing runs contrary to that belief, and it shouldn't be surprising that editors have a problem with it. Mackensen (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mackensen What about Draft:The Language of My World then? Onel has WP:BLARed it, when at it's current stage, rather than WP:DRAFTIFYing as I've done.  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 09:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

There a very simple total solution. Step 1 of building an article is finding 1 or 2 GNG sources and putting them in. Do that. Then every problem and invented "problem" in this thread would vanish. North8000 (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@North8000 GNG as evaluated by new page patrollers, or by an AfD discussion? If we imagine deletionism-inclusionism as a continuum, I think we'd find new page patrollers somewhat to the "deletionist" side of the average Wikipedian. I can see why dealing with low-quality pages would engender that outlook. It does create a difficult situation wherein a new page patroller is draftifying a page that would easily (and does) survive AfD. That's not an outcome that makes sense to a lot of people. There are examples in this thread of articles with "GNG sources" (to use your phrase) that were treated that way. So long as there's a gap there is going to be tension, and it shouldn't just be hand-waved away as so much carping. The issue is a legitimate one. Mackensen (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mackensen: As defined by the GNG part of WP:GNG And I mean this as a structural answer, not a flippant one. And NPP and AFD should be doing their best to implement that. Even the creator just making a good attempt at understanding and doing that would pretty much solve all of the above. North8000 (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mackensen: if's you'd like to point out an example where it was even argued that the article had GNG sources and you think that the disposition by One was handled improperly, I'd be happy to dive in on that. North8000 (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I think this comment summarises this thread well, some editors believe NPP to be on the side of the "Deletionists", and that there is a tension with articles that are notable but don't meet other policies (particularly V). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Subject notability doesn't depend on what anyone thinks. Subjects are notable because they have verified sources. The idea that a subject could be notable, without verifiable independent reliable sources is the problem - Especially when it comes to BLPs.

Participants at AfD that habitually ignore core policy such as WP:V and WP:BLP to bludgeon discussions is causing a lot of disruption, contributing to a (continuing) toxic environment at AfD. A perfect example of this toxic bludgeoning and ignoring policy is happening right now at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Robert Zebelyan with @Das osmnezz: walls of text. Regardless of the outcome of this particular discussion, there is no way this type of participation should be allowed to continue.

In this case the disruptive editor was even warned by an admin to stop, but they have continued . These walls of text an d spam references are making any close determination difficult to impossible. The relisting comment says: "Needs more assessments of the sources". I agree that any closer needs a good assessment, but in this case how can anyone even begin to put a source eval together given the state of the discussion.  // Timothy :: talk  13:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• @TimothyBlue:, I won't participate in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Robert Zebelyan again (I like how the BLUDGEONING somehow only applies to me though...), but could you please tell me how your most recent article Serhii Korovayny meets the standards above that you apply to others articles? Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Other than some specialty items from wp:not and wp:speedy, WP:Notability is the the main criteria in play regarding whether or not it should exist as a separate article and at the core of that is 1-2 GNG type sources. And the main job of NPP is evaluating that for new articles. There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding this in the discussion. Including criticizing NPP for doing their job and confusing article quality issues with "existence of the article" issues. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I have similiarly encountered issues with Onel5969 as well, recently. While I understand there is some contention around the creation of , I felt his approach was heavy handed and not in accordance with wiki policy. Even though I asked for his help, he simply just abandoned my request. Additionally, he threatened to speedy delete my article if I moved it again. I intend on making another pass with the inclusion of multiple research papers that have included this piece of software, but I felt his manner was incredibly crass and unwelcoming to a newcomer. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: We had someone at the Teahouse confused about Onel5969 move-warring over Draft:Philip Lintilhac just today. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits from IP editor

• 185.24.188.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

For about three to four months now, this IP editor has removed content from articles without explanation (mostly alternative names in the lead and infobox). Despite warnings in the past, their behaviour has not changed. I have just given them a warning about removing Sámi names, but upon a deeper examination of their editing history, this seems to be a recurring issue. They haven't engaged with any of the comments on their talk page thus far, so it seems unlikely that they'll change their editing in the future. ArcticSeeress (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The IP has made about 50 edits since the beginning of 2023 and has never left a talk message or an edit summary. A block may be needed to get them to communicate. Other editors have left messages on their talk four times since 1 January. Their anti-Sámi campaign is their most distinctive behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: It seems they have continued removing alternate names without consensus. I've also noticed that they keep changing German IPA transcriptions to unattested pronunciations, chiefly the diphthong ei to , which they have done at least five times by this point (including one today). All but three of their edits have been undone in some way, and they have yet to reply to any of their talk page messages, so I agree that they should be blocked until they learn to cooperate with other editors. ArcticSeeress (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Other editors have reverted just about everything this IP has ever done. Getting consensus is not optional, and being constantly reverted ought to be powerful feedback. The IP has continued to edit without responding here, so I've blocked them for two weeks. Any admin can lift this block if they become persuaded that the editor will follow Misplaced Pages policy in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Beauty pageant SPAs needs help understanding verifiability

• Mauriziok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hitsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 49.145.40.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2001:4454:1f2:dd00:9d9b:b8df:5e5c:e6d1 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Mauriziok has edited virtually exclusively in beauty pageant related articles, a topic covered by WP:GS/PAGEANTS. Plus hundreds of related pages in userspace, I don't know what that's about.

The complaint is this: They recently added back large sections of unreferenced content at Miss World 2017. The edit summary seems to state that they think that I should be adding references. They have been discussing on their talkpage with another pageant SPA, Hitsme, how to preserve the unreferenced content as well, in this and other pageant articles. I think they both need help understanding WP:V and WP:BURDEN. One of the editors has been blocked for disruptive editing in the past, and the other has a recent warning from an admin on their talkpage. I'm out of patience and don't want to get into 3RR territory. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I'm just trying to ensure that the information that has been placed with so much effort is not suddenly deleted. Placing an improvement template like <nowiki>{{refimprove|date=April 2023}}</nowiki> seems the most appropriate thing to do, in fact I just placed it in the article Miss World 2017. Obviously, as always, the information must be duly referenced. The issue here is that they are being deleted from the '''final results''' of a Big 4 competition, removing them completely seems like an outburst. Like the preliminary competitions that in Miss World have considerable importance. Other details such as the order in which the contestants are named are characteristic of beauty contests.

In any case, if you consider and persist that the information should be removed without any consideration, I will not oppose it or enter into any pitched battle.

I understand the good and logical intentions but the actions taken seem hostile and do not invite responsible and friendly participation from the Misplaced Pages editing community.

No more to refer to.

Says goodbye Mauriziok (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Mauriziok. Here is some friendly advice. If you want to add substantive new content to this encyclopedia, provide a reference to a reliable published source. If you want to restore content that another editor has removed as unreferenced, then provide a reference to a reliable published source. There is nothing at all unfriendly about any of this. It is how we maintain a high quality encyclopedia. Can you agree to that? Cullen328 (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I already mentioned it before. The background of the action is reasonable but not the way in which it is done. If you want to revert the edits. Do it no problem. Mauriziok (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I'll bite: in which way do you believe that unreferenced information should be removed, except for, well, removing it? You've been editing on Misplaced Pages for five years now, and you should have learned long since that unreferenced information is liable to be removed at any time, in any quantity. You should also have learned -- long since -- that your edits are liable to be changed, edited further or removed outright at any time, without prior warning to you or to any other editor.

The purported "importance" of the information is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it should not have been put in in the first place if you were unprepared to properly reference it at the time. If there's any "hostile" action at work here, it's in adding information and expecting that some other editor is going to do the work of properly sourcing it. That's not what I'd call "responsible" OR "friendly." Ravenswing 06:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I think there may be a bit more of a fundamental problem here. Just scanning their contribs I haven't been able to find any where they add any refs, despite being quite prolific on adding tables of info. I've checked about a dozen of their larger edits where they add material and I haven't been able to find one where it's supported by a citation. if there are 6k of edits specifically to beauty pageeant pages on that basis... DeCausa (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Even worse, they've been adding large amounts of data to articles like Miss Venezuela 1957, Miss Venezuela 1958 and Miss Venezuela 1960 where not only are they adding no sources, there actually aren't any in the article apart from the pageant's website. Not sure how these articles have existed for 16 years; any of them could be AfDd with no issues. Like many pageant SPAs, both accounts have poor English (that's not saying one is a sock of the other, but they're equally poor) and are adding material that isn't particularly good. In the end, if editors are adding no value to our articles, they should probably be restricted from doing so IMO. Black Kite (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

This is an issue across hundreds if not thousands of pageant articles. Unfortunately I have been placed in a position where even bundling the AfDs was met with resistance. Unless something changes, AfD is a no-go at scale. So I'm kinda out of steam on that front. Now just PRODing onesies and twoesies, and trying to identify and deal with some of the prolific poor-content contributors. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Mauriziok, you said, I'm just trying to ensure that the information that has been placed with so much effort is not suddenly deleted. With all due respect, that's absurd. It's sources first and content second, not the other way around. And the content, of course, must be worthy of inclusion in the article. Since you've been actively editing for over five years, I assume you know all this. If you would put "so much effort" into finding reliable sources as you have for placing information, you wouldn't have these problems. This ongoing pattern of improper editing is disruptive. Stoarm (talk) 04:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Same situation is recurring at Miss Earth 2023 with apparently coordinated anon editors (2 minute time delta ), edit summary when they restored unsourced content is "Please conduct research before removing a confirmed contestants". ☆ Bri (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Here we go again with a group of pageant article editors not only telling other editors not to remove their unsourced content or outright OR, but also having the audacity to tell them to do their work for them by finding sources. This highly disruptive, coordinated effort needs to be stopped. It's time for restrictions to be handed out. I know almost nothing about pageants, but I'm curious to know, generally, who's causing the problems in these articles. Is it some pageant contestants or organizers? Or just superfans? Thank you, Bri, for all your time and effort to protect and improve this project. Stoarm (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

A small discussion broke out on my talkpage and I asked people to contribute here, which I hope they do. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Greetings! To answer the question of @Stoarm, problems regarding these articles are usually from the superfans themselves and not the contestants or the organizers. Some instances of vandalism became too much that it was reported in the news (i.e. Miss Universe 2015 article vandalism of changing Pia Wurtzbach as Miss Universe 2015 to Ariadna Gutierrez as Miss Universe 2015).

Now, as for my contribution in this discussion, I agree with the points of @Cullen328 , @Ravenswing and @Stoarm that for one, if you are to add information in an article, it is your responsibility to cite references to validate the information, and making others cite references for the information you added seems disrespectful and irresponsible. The key here is responsibility, and if you are to add information without sourcing, why add it? The solution here is really simple (in my opinion): cite references, that's it, problem solved. Unsourced content should be rightfully removed since it violates WP:V and the "Order of Announcements", "Final Competition Scores" and "Order of Introdcution" sections of some articles especially in Miss Universe are considered as fancruft. Majority of the articles even violate MOS:BOLD. There are a lot of contributors to pages regarding beauty pageants but none really seems to care to add references to articles for past Miss Universe editions, some even cite a reference erroneously which could be in danger of link rot.

For example, articles for Miss Universe in the 1990s and 2000s are already here for years and years and yet there is still no progression in citing references. Yes, it may have an external link linking to the official page of Miss Universe, but does that website even carry information about those years? Especially from the 1990s or even the 1980s? Not anymore. That single link is not enough. And do you think Pageantopolis, a long dead pageant blog would be considered as a reliable source? No.

I am citing a tip from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Beauty Pageants:

• "As with any article, cite reliable sources for any facts in the article. Ideally, they should be independent sources (not just what the pageant or contestant says about themselves, which is often promotional). Also, independent coverage is a good indicator of notability, which helps justify inclusion in the encyclopedia."

That is from the project itself which is the umbrella project for all of the articles in this discussion. If it is clearly stated from the page itself. It is even mentioned at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Sources as to which sources are deemed reliable or not. Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources would also help. These users defending unsourced material are making this situation worse even if this situation could easily be solved.

Now, I am finding it hard for some people reverting back my edits where I remove unreferenced articles and not giving edit summaries (which is also a problem). I even state why it was removed in a nice way but some find it to be insulting. What is insulting is that you are reverting back unsourced material that clearly violates the aforementioned policies. @Raymarcbadz for one reverted my edits at Miss Universe 1991 without even an edit summary and they even have to shout at me (although they removed it) for doing a "disrespectful" action.

"WHY CAN'T YOU DELETE ALL THE PAST MISS UNIVERSE AND MISS WORLD ARTICLES and INSTEAD RECREATE A NEW ONE WITH SOURCES? YOU'RE TRYING TO MESS UP ALL THE ARTICLES BECAUSE OF REFERENCE ISSUES. WE HAVE OTHER MATTERS TO FOCUS ON." Is what the user said verbatim to my user talk which prompted me to halt editing in English Misplaced Pages. The problem regarding the articles could really be fixed by just searching on Google for articles, checking on Google News Archives, checking for digitized historical newspapers on reliable sites such as Delpher, National Library of Israel, Newspapers.com, National Library Board, Trove, etc., but instead they have resort to this. I do not have bad intentions regarding the user and the articles I have edited but why should it be like this? I assume the user should know already about the policies at WP:V etc., especially that he is editing in Misplaced Pages way longer than I am. The disruptive editing are adding unsourced material should end. Allyriana000 (talk) 03:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

As someone who has edited a lot of pageant articles, I'd rather not see competitor lists or results from pageants removed even if unreferenced. A lot of these pageants completely remove all information when a new pageant happens and various news websites move pages and then it gets lost. It's not as much of a problem for a recent edition of Miss Universe, but it becomes a major problem for smaller and older pageants. The media often also never posts full competitor lists.KatoKungLee (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Unsourced or unreliably sourced content regarding living persons should never be added and when it is found, it should be removed per WP:BLP. These edits are a problem: , , , , .  // Timothy :: talk  21:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, well, honestly? Too bad. We're not merely permitted to remove unsourced information concerning living persons, we're enjoined to do so. I am militantly indifferent to excuses why that's somehow harmful. If, in the example you use, smaller/older pageants don't have enough regard for their own history to maintain their own lists, I don't see any reason why we need to save them bandwidth costs ... or that we have the authority in the first place to override a core content policy of the encyclopedia.

Because there's this curious notion that's been bopping around Misplaced Pages for many years now: that if there's some putative excuse why the media isn't covering a subject (or, as you state, isn't doing so thoroughly enough for your liking), the provisions of WP:V and WP:N are suspended in its favor. This notion has no foundation in any policy or guideline, and we want a far better reason to defy the WMF on BLP's provisions than the lack of a well-sourced full competitor list for the Miss Upper Sokovia 1993 pageant. Ravenswing 05:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

This is perhaps a tangent, though relevant. I think for years, maybe from the beginning, Misplaced Pages has become a very useful 'archive' for information which the Internet doesn't always keep: as the comment says, websites get updated and delete information while Misplaced Pages can be a permanent record of history A strict reading of notability guidelines would remove acres of useful information, from local election results to movie information to weather events to pageant lineups: it has always been a push-pull relationship between encyclopedic content and a record of facts. Obviously in this specific case we can't allow things to go silly, but I'd be cautious about being ultra prescriptive. doktorb _words 05:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Stipulating so, Misplaced Pages is not a webhost. It is not within our mandate to store movie information, insignificant weather events, obscure pageant lineups, municipal election results or any of the rest of that. Quite aside from that, a large part of the reason for WP:V being a core content policy is that without verification from a reliable source, we have no idea if the information presented is accurate. That unsourced Miss Upper Sokovia 1993 pageant list could, in fact, be completely spurious. We've certainly been hoaxed many times before, to the point where there's not only a Misplaced Pages:List of hoaxes on Misplaced Pages article, but the section on known times we've been hoaxed with a spurious article lasting more than ten years is nearly fifty deep.

In any event, as we've seen half a thousand times over at AfD, on article talk pages and, well, here, editors riding their pet hobby horses have a curiously elastic definition of what constitutes "going silly," and those pet hobby horses seldom seem to fall within it. Ravenswing 09:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your last point. I've had many successful AfD nominations of very minor political parties because the argument 'all political parties are notable' doesn't stand up. And yes, adding lists of pageant lineups without proof of them even being genuine is the act of a potential vandal. Where I divert from you is the idea that certain subjects can't fall within the remit of Misplaced Pages: I'd say Wiki is the most reliable source of comprehensive UK local election results on the Internet. "Encyclopedic" can be flexible enough if the content is important or non-trivial: if the choice is "local authority election results verses Pokémon varieties", I know where I'd land.

Anyway, I think this is a tangent for somewhere else :) doktorb _words 10:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Completely agree with Ravenswing's comments above regarding AfD discussions; it is long past due for this type of disruption regarding BLPs to be stopped.  // Timothy :: talk  10:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

KatoKungLee, you are not an SPA, but seem to need help understanding verifiability. If lists of competitors have not been published then we can't include them. If they have been published by reliable sources (which don't have to be available online) then we can include them. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks by IP 2603:9001:7500:3242:fccf:e04f:c45c:73d9 (and similar) at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Adding NATO support for Ukraine

Please see following diffs:

ANI notice posted here. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

1. Using this address (2603:9001:7500:3242:706b:3a36:c7d6:eb67) the IP would asset that their comments are acceptable. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

User:MickTravisBickle

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

MickTravisBickle (talk · contribs) has been belligerent in violating BLP, by giving unsourced/badly-sourced claims, on certain articles related to trans people, particularly Dana Rivers. They have been repeatedly been warned of being blocked, and have just continued, and kept up pointless arguments against policies. --Rob (talk) 05:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

That’s false. I have not made bad claims about “trans people”. Rob et al have exhibited unfairness around both Dana Rivers and Camp Trans articles. Murderer Dana Rivers was associated with camp trans. It’s documented, and it was on Rivers’ main article page until *yesterday*, when I wanted to also include it in the camp trans page. When I move to do any editing on the pages, everything was reverted, including verified facts. Rivers appeared as a speaker, an advocate for camp trans. All I wanted to do was include in both the rivers articles and the camp trans article and my edits keep being reverted. This is clearly a case of protectionism and ownership and attempted ownership of articles

http://eminism.org/michigan/20000812-camptrans.txt MickTravisBickle (talk) 05:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

A topic ban on gensex is required at a minimum here. A brief review of MTBs edit history shows that they have trouble with NPOV in this area, Very Average Editor (talk) 07:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Propose indefinite block for incessant wp:bludgeoning, egregious BLP violations, WP:GREATWRONGS and POV warring on trans issues. The user’s recent editing history has been exclusively in this area and entirely negative. Dronebogus (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• Thats quite enough of this. Indeffed for complete failure to follow BLP or NPOV, and generally NOTHERE. Courcelles (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Tekrmn

Tekrmn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created their account on 2023-02-10, they made one edit, then went dormant until 2023 Covenant School shooting occurred. At this point they began editing significantly on the subject, as well as other transgender subjects. They were given the standard contentious topics alert (notice). Since then they've repeatedly misrepresented sources, our policies and guidelines, edit warred (AN/EW report), and engaged in personal attacks (accusing an editor of "vandalizing", "your opinion doesn't matter" and another "vandalism" claim, casting aspersions about other editors), finally culminating in this edit they made that's a combination of WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS: this template does not belong on this page, and locke cole has been consistently vandalizing this page, misusing wikipedia guidelines, goading people into edit wars, and now marking the whole page as not being neutral because they don't like that we aren't consistently deadnaming the shooter. why haven't we removed this template and why haven't we removed locke cole from this article? (as regards the end of their rant, the reason the NPOV tag is still there is because a number of other editors agree there is an issue). Their edits show signs of being a WP:SPA, seemingly here to WP:RGW. Behavior like this is not conducive to building an encyclopedia. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

While I have edited multiple pages that involve transgender people or topics, I have also edited a number of pages on other topics and am working on a draft that is on another unrelated topic. Many wikipedia editors have specific areas of interest. The edit warring report was dismissed for good reason. I think if you take a look at Locke Cole's own history and the context of the quotes they've given above you will see what is actually going on. Tekrmn (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you deny saying locke cole has been consistently vandalizing this page, misusing wikipedia guidelines, goading people into edit wars? You shouldn't because I literally linked to the diff of you saying that. So since you made those multiple claims of misbehavior, do you have any evidence of that to back those claims up? Because if you don't, that's exactly what WP:ASPERSIONS warns against. The edit warring report was dismissed for good reason. You did four reverts in less than 24 hours, after being warned about WP:3RR. Nobody forced you to do those reverts. The only reason you weren't blocked was because you ended up self-reverting. I don't know that I'd call that a "good reason" when you had all the reason in the world not to revert the 4th time already. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Locke Cole, do you have diffs to support repeatedly misrepresented sources? Schazjmd (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Was debating another editor over someone being characterized as a "friend", the linked source is even titled "Friend says she contacted authorities after messaging with Nashville shooter Audrey Hale on morning of attack". (As an aside, Derekeaaron1 and Tekrmn are the same editor, they changed their name in the middle of this, which ended up with editors restating arguments repeatedly because it seemed like another editor was engaging the topic.
• Claimed all social media accounts had changed their name, but this was demonstrably not true (specifically, their LinkedIn profile still used the "deadname").

Pretty sure there were more, but that was all I could type out in five minutes.. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

On the debating another editor diff, that isn't misrepresenting the source. The linked source quite clearly states Paige Patton, a Nashville radio host who goes by the name Averianna, told ABC News that said she played basketball with Hale in eighth grade and remained in occasional contact with Hale.

On the claimed all social media accounts diff that seems more like an honest mistake than anything particularly nefarious.

Do you have any more diffs? Because what you've provided so far doesn't really support your assertion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I mean the repeated claims of editors being "vandals" and asking when they're going to be blocked is really enough. Unless that's your definition of a collegial editing environment... —Locke Cole • t • c 04:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty clear that I was referring to the two diffs on repeatedly misrepresented sources when I said that the diffs you had provided don't support the assertion. If you do not have any other diffs that support the assertion on misrepresenting sources, I would ask that you strike it.

In relation to the three diffs in your opening comment, I'd agree that the first two are mildly bad. But only so far as they should be warned not to do that again on an article talk page. The third diff however, could you explain what the aspersion here is? The first sentence of it is certainly overly personalised, and could have been phrased with more tact (for example saying something like "I think you're overlooking the part that it can affect other trans people"), but it does not really fall into aspersion territory.

The fourth diff is something that doesn't belong on an article talk page, but would be appropriate at a noticeboard like this with sufficiently strong diffs to support it. But as with the first two diffs, this only really rises to the degree of a warning to stop making that sort of comment outside of an appropriate noticeboard.

As to your accusation of being a WP:SPA, I have to disagree. While a lot of Tekrmn's activity has been on the 2023 Nashville school shooting article, its talk page, and the current discussion at WT:MOSBIO about deadnaming of deceased trans and non-binary people, there are also mainspace contributions to a pretty wide array of topics. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I understood what you were asking about. I just think it’s akin to worrying about the walnut shell littering while the forest is burning down. Personal attacks and casting aspersions like that (all while advocating for “removing” me from the article) from an editor with less than 500 edits strikes me as enough to skip to NOTHERE. For anyone else reading this, understand that Sideswipe9th and I are on seemingly opposite ends of a discussion on that article talk page, and their appearance here feels like ally-protecting. It would be nice to see some uninvolved admins taking a look at this. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

And now Tekrmn has upgraded to WP:GRAVEDANCING with this edit, knowing that InedibleHulk (talk · contribs) is currently blocked and unable to respond, they've decided to respond to a nearly week old comment of theirs. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

More aspersions. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Not aspersions, nor is that gravedancing. It fully appears Tekrmn is unaware of InedibleHulk's block. Recommend closing this nothing burger. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming you don't know what aspersions are or what WP:GRAVEDANCING says. And note here again, FD and I are on apparently opposite ends of the discussion at the talk page there. It would be incredible if someone uninvolved took the time to look this over, or should I just go to AE since apparently that's what we do when we want to get rid of people? —Locke Cole • t • c 17:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I did not know that user was blocked (or even how to find that information), and responded to a comment in a discussion that I was not aware of until today. Even if I was aware they were blocked, I do not see how that would constitute gravedancing. you have been consistently misrepresenting my actions in order to try and get me banned for a week and a half. you know full well that I am a new editor who does not know the rules as well as you do and is therefor likely to stumble into them and not be able to defend myself against your accusations. or show the other side of the story. to any admins weighing in on this, I would appreciate it if you would look at the history between Locke Cole and myself, as well as their individual history. I feel this user is going out of their way to attack me. Tekrmn (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Issues with a user attempting OR and refusing to engage through appropriate channels: MatthewS.

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

This user has been "sitting" on Egyptian pound for some years attempting to impose an abbreviation the sources do not use and appears unable to recognise the validity of any point of view to the contrary despite reliable sources being cited. He is intent on using "E£" as the primary abbreviation, when no reliable sources do and it feels like arguing with a brick wall. This article was the subject of an edit war last year resulting in the blocking of both participants, one of whom is MatthewS. Valethske (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I have to say, this is one of the ballsier moves I have seen in quite a while... Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

There's an open SPI case for the reporting user Valethske at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/TheCurrencyGuy. — AP 499D25 (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Valethske now blocked as suspected sockpuppet of TheCurrencyGuy after SPI case above. I think we can close this thread now. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Alpinegora

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

Well, I was told by WP:AIV to take it here.

Major WP:NOTHERE, WP:POV issues, and anti-Iranian/Persian behaviour as seen through their edits and comment. Not a single edit by this user (starting from this summer) has been constructive and neutral. The vast majority of their edits have been reverted (some recent examples , notice their dishonest "simple changes" edit summaries) and they also responded to my warning with this grim comment, accusing me of getting paid for my edits, etc . --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Writing so it doesn't get archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: this page is archived by Lowercase sigmabot III, which according to its manual should obey a Template:Do not archive until. I've added {{subst:DNAU|10}} to this thread, which should keep it here for 10 days. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, that's a thing. Err.. well, this is embarrassing. Thank you very much Apaugasma! --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

IP making personal attacks

At an argument over at an RfC on whether to ban joke BLP AfDs, 163.1.15.238 (talk · contribs) said that they "know have WP:CIR issues" and told me to "come on" after I argued that tasteless AfDs can be made for non-BLP subjects. NotReallySoroka (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

And Ad Orientem already told the IP to tone it down, in that thread. Schazjmd (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, since you've brought my comment here let's have a discussion about why I said what I said, because I have had some serious concerns about your editing for a long time.

Let's start with your ongoing harassment and gravedancing campaign targeting TheCurrencyGuy. That account was blocked 6 months ago, and since then you have been embarked on a crusade to completely remove every single one of TheCurrencyGuy's contributions and preferred spellings from articles, not on the basis of policy or guideline or consensus, but seemingly so you can spite them. You are making poorly thought out, completely unjustified reverts of their edits for no good reason at all. One example is trying to remove every instance of their preferred spelling of Rouble. You have reverted months old edits they made while not blocked on the basis that they are "disruptive" or that they were later blocked, which is not how sock clean-up works e.g. reverting , reverting a ton of edits . You have left articles in a broken state, because you were more focused on reverting TheCurrencyGuy than looking at what you were doing . You have made ridiculous edits like swapping the spelling Rubel to Ruble, on the disambiguation page for Rubel because you are focused on removing every instance of TheCurrencyGuy's preferred spelling . You are currently trying to get an RFC overturned despite an overwhelming consensus against you, because you view it as an obstacle to continue reverting TheCurrencyGuy's edits . You have a similar, completely unjustifiable obsession with removing every single instance of "stg" in favour of "sterling", not based in policy, but seemingly because TheCurrencyGuy liked using stg .

I could continue by pointing out that your disruption related TheCurrencyGuy is just the latest example of a long list of you making disruptive, WP:POINTY edits in response to disagreements. Another example would be the time that you requested an admin block you if the result of a deletion discussion wasn't to your liking .

We could discuss your history of disruption with regard to the arbitration committee? let's start with the time you tried to file an arbitration case for a routine matter which didn't involve you and which did not require arbcom involvement at all ? How about the time you falsely accused Thryduulf of disruptive editing because they made some redirects you didn't like then threatened to drag them to arbcom because they are a functionary . How about the time you decided that you wanted arbcom to rule that no-one was allowed to make pages you don't like and enshrine your opinions in policy . Shall we finish this off with a review of your recent, useless comments in cases that have nothing to do with you? Let's start with your involvement in the deletion discussions case, where you decided that arbcom needed to clarify if an AFD topic ban applied to other deletion venues, and felt it needed an explanation of how it applied to April fools jokes . How about your comments in the Lugnuts case, where you felt "I had to ask Lugnuts for clarification once" was evidence of "misconduct" worthy of arbcom .

We could talk about the fact that you cannot accept criticism and have "retired" from the project, only to come back once the heat dies down? How about your ridiculous dramatic WP:PRAM "I demand release to elsewhere" messages when asking for self requested blocks and dramatic, ridiculous leaving messages .

Shall we discuss the massive amount of disruption and time wasting you have caused with regards to April fools day? Let's start with this edit, where you simultaneously acknowledge that an editors' behaviour was "disruptive" and "strongly inappropriate" while insulting the admin that refused to unblock them with accusations of bias and calling them "the fun police" . Does it really require 4 admins to explain to you why AFDing Donald Trump is a terrible, terrible idea ? How about this egregious waste of community time, where you opened a deletion review over an April fools joke page you G7'd, waited for a bunch of people to comment, then decided to keep the page deleted anyway to make a WP:POINT when someone criticised your timewasting . How about the Bobby Witt Jr. AFD , which you created, decided was too offensive to keep and blanked, spent two weeks messing around with the humour template, added a disclaimer, started an MFD discussion to delete it decided you wanted to keep it, unblanked, and proceeded to spend months continuing to mess around with. You were still messing around with this page in July!

We could discuss your attempts to write your own essays and policies (e.g. WP:FRIED, WP:NOTSEARCHENGINE) which were unanimously rejected by the community and the follow up tantrum where you deleted everything when you didn't get your way?

What about the fact you accused a 10 year old, 30k edit account of being a sockpuppet of a user who joined last year with absolutely no sensible evidence whatsoever in a sockpuppet investigations filing you described yourself as "contrived".

Shall we discuss your disruptive, often downright nasty comments at RFA where you find flimsy reasons to oppose everyone you've ever had any kind of minor grudge adainst? Lets start with your oppose on Spicy's RfA on the basis that they weren't sufficiently polite when telling you your baseless SPI was without merit . How about Extraordinary Writ, who you opposed because they declined a WP:RM/TR you filed once . How about DatGuy, who you accused of UPE because they made a mistake filling out the nom statement .

So yes, I said you have CIR issues, because you have CIR issues, and I had the diffs to prove it. I acknowledge that I was rude in that discussion for which I apologise, I should have voiced my concerns in appropriate venue and just posted here, but a review of the last 2 years of your editing shows an endless pattern of disruption, pointiness/revenge editing and screwing around. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 08:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Administrator note I have re-opened this discussion as one of the parties apparently feels there are unresolved issues here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The only outstanding issues of mine from your wall of text is the Witt AfD (that I am willing to let go if consensus so mandates) and the TCG situation. Yes, I admit that I favour "ruble", but if you think about it, it has been "ruble" for quite the time before TCG started to mass-change them into "rouble". And over at Talk:Pound sterling, I did hold an RfC on "stg", and consensus favoured its removal in favour of "GBP". Therefore, the TCG situation, though controversial, is a non-point in your argument.

If you really think I am that problematic, you should hold a discussion here regarding sanctions against me - after all, you do have a superficially strong case to do so. And if you think the Witt MfD is unfunny, please go MfD it (again); I pledge that I will not unpromptedly repeat the acrimoniousness that was my DRV. Just try not to dig up my rookie mistakes like WP:FRIED that has long been the water under the bridge, and present them as evidence as if I have been an LTA all along.

After all, if I really were an LTA all along, why didn't the admins block me in my early days when I made WP:FRIED? How about the fact that I was never warned (let alone blocked) when I reverted TCG or made the Witt AfD? Not that any of those were meritorious actions, of course, but why have no-one noticed my apparent lack of competence until today (or yesterday, depending on time zones)?

Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@NotReallySoroka I mean, if anything that response only serves as more evidence that you have WP:CIR issues. You don't seem to have understood anything I wrote.

The only outstanding issues of mine from your wall of text is the Witt AfD ... and the TCG situation. Bullshit. You were being disruptive with April fools rubbish on TonyBalioni's talk page hours before I wrote the original response. Your disruption with regards to arbcom has been a feature of your editing from the moment you joined to some of the most recent cases arbcom heard. Your most recent RFA disruption was two weeks ago. This isn't an issue consisting of specific incidents, this is a long term pattern of disruption.

over at Talk:Pound sterling, I did hold an RfC on "stg", and consensus favoured its removal in favour of "GBP". 1) your edits were not swapping "stg" for "GBP", they were swapping "stg" for "sterling" which there is no consensus for at all in that discussion. 2) An article talk page is not an appropriate place to come up with style guidelines that apply across the entire site, this discussion should have taken place at the manual of style.

Therefore, the TCG situation, though controversial, is a non-point in your argument. The major "point" regarding TheCurrencyGuy is that you have shown that you are willing to sacrifice the project's integrity just so that you can further a grudge. You are making edits not on the basis of "what is best for the encyclopedia" but instead on the basis of "what would most upset TheCurrencyGuy". You are willing to discard good quality, reliable sources because they support TheCurrencyGuy's position instead of yours. You are trying to subvert our usual consensus building process and overturn an RFC not because there is a legitimate problem with it but because it is getting in the way of you removing everything TheCurrencyGuy did.

If you really think I am that problematic, you should hold a discussion here regarding sanctions against me What on earth do you think this discussion is?

you do have a superficially strong case to do so. How is my case "superficial"? I have backed up every single allegation I have made with evidence in the form of diffs showing your long term history of disruption. Do you want me to add more evidence here to make my case stronger? I could easily add a paragraph or more about your disruption at ANI if you want?

After all, if I really were an LTA all along Where do I refer to you as an LTA? Do you even know what "LTA" means? I said you had WP:CIR problems, which is a very different thing to being an LTA.

why have no-one noticed my apparent lack of competence until today? You mean like for example? You have also quit the project multiple times in response to people pointing out your disruptive behaviour. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• I noticed this after the mess on my talk page about the Trump AfD which they didn't even start: I agree with the IP editor's comments after reviewing all the diffs. NotReallySoroka, you're bordering on a WP:NOTHERE/CIR block because you treat Misplaced Pages like a social network and not like an encyclopedia, while making things harder for the people who are here to contribute to its building or maintenance. I don't think this should be closed with any sanctions at this time, but a firm warning that continued disruption will likely result in you being indefinitely blocked, either by an individual administrator or by the community at a noticeboard, is in order. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree with TonyBallioni and the Oxford IP. NotReallySoroka's conduct on Misplaced Pages, particularly in the RfA space, has been needlessly disruptive. A firm warning is certainly called for. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

    IMO a topic ban from April fools day, a topic ban from project space (or at least certain parts of project space) and an interaction ban with TheCurrencyGuy would all be worth considering. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

User: FortUser actively gaming EC

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

See the history at Misplaced Pages:Sandbox, several warnings on his talk page. Think a block only thing get it to stop and get them to understand the rules and the point of extended-confirmed to begin with. And by actively I mean literally right now. nableezy - 02:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I will no longer seek extended-confirmed protection by gaming the system. Please don't block me. FortUser (talk) 02:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Have left them an edit-conflicted note. If they stop with the sandbox games and go back to regular editing then hopefully there's nothing more to do. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, thank you. Only came as it continued for a while after the talk page messages. nableezy - 02:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely shouldn't be getting EC without requesting at WP:RFPP. To prevent someone being automatically assigned EC, do we usually grant and then immediately revoke EC? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 02:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Or wouldn't that really be necessary now since they've well and truly attracted everyones attention? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 02:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Just leave it, we'll see what happens from here. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

• Indeffed for the clear trolling at Selenium (software) \ Misplaced Pages application \ Proof of concept. Yes, that was the title. Courcelles (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

trolling my talk page

.Raven is trolling my talk page. I've asked them several times to stop, but they continue. I don't know if this is some sort of game, or if they think they're somehow scoring points, but it's getting tiresome. — kwami (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

.Raven left 4 different warnings on Kwamikagami's talk page, with Kwamikagami reverting the warning each time with an edit summary of "rv. troll". Diffs of the warnings: 1, 2, 3, 4

It looks like these warnings were in retaliation to an edit warring warning that Kwamikagami left on .Raven's talk page here. .Raven did reply to the warning on their talk page, indicating that there has been disagreements across multiple pages in this dispute. So there's history here which I, frankly, don't want to take the time to dig into.

Your report is very vague and expects others to do the leg work of looking into the situation. Please try to explain a situation better when making reports at ANI and include diffs to evidence when you can. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

After Kwamikagami told Raven to stay off their talk page twice, .Raven posted additional template warnings to User talk:Kwamikagami, which might be considered harassment. Schazjmd (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Very simply, I did not see his edits on my talkpage because I was still posting on his. – .Raven  16:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

If I may offer background? kwami and I first encountered (as far as I know) in late March when he was changing numerous China-related articles – Cheng Man-ch'ing was the first I noticed – to change the ordinary apostrophe (') to an ʻokina (ʻ), a Hawaiian character. I did not revert him there or even edit that article at all; I objected on its talkpage, and as one outcome @Peaceray reverted, and took the larger issue to WT:MOS#Disallowing use of the ʻokina in Chinese romanized article titles, still open as I write. With that unresolved, I've tried helping restore the pages to their stable status quo ante, the default or neutral position... with kwami reverting my reverts, a move war. More recently he moved a page I'd been working on, from its clear WP:COMMONNAME of Theban alphabet (~32,900 Ghits) to the less specific Theban script (~74 Ghits, including Misplaced Pages)... which I reverted under WP:RMUM, and again he reverted – so that when *I* opened Talk:Theban script#Requested move 3 April 2023 it was a case of BRRD. It turns out he's done the same to a number of other "alphabet" pages that (per WP:NCWS#Alphabets and the consensus on WT:NCWS) should be titled "alphabet"s. Oddly enough, he claims WP:NCWS justifies this. So now there's discussion on WT:NCWS#RFC on alphabet definition (opened by me), as well as more page move requests on some of those articles' talkpages. And discussion on his talkpage and mine. He's repeatedly accused me of "playing stupid" for not agreeing with him, and also repeatedly of "bad faith" (for instance, because I posted those page move requests.) Today he put a user warning on my page in which (with his own added text) he told me that since those page move requests were open, I shouldn't edit the text of any of the articles. This is not only not the rule as I understand it, he himself has continued to edit those articles, so it's a "rule" he doesn't obey himself. I've responded with the same 3RR warning for the sake of the record (since he's far more active, despite being "semi-retired from Misplaced Pages", and engaging in both edit- & move-warring); as well as warning him about his violations of WP:AGF, WP:BRD, and WP:NPA, etc. As you saw, he's "rv. troll"'d them, and come here. I've just learned today from this page's archives that edit-warring is not recent behavior on his part. Apparently he lost at least one user-rights bit over it. That might be useful context. – .Raven  16:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

• Whoops! Date is about right, but I forgot an encounter before the China-related articles, in which he insisted it was "racist" of me to refer to indigenous peoples as either a "tribe" (even if they have a "tribal government") or "ancient" (even the ones with continuous cultures since before the cut-off date in the definition of "ancient"). See User talk:.Raven#Racist use of "tribe" to mean "primitive". – .Raven  17:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I think .Raven leaves some important context for the greater issue, and it does look like they are doing the right things with regards to dispute resolution. That being said, .Raven: if you haven't seen it before, please read WP:DTTR, and especially in light of the sequence of edits here from 13:33-14:10 today, I'm not sure how to read that as anything but low-level harassment. If kwami is reverting your warnings with "rv troll" (and yes, they should absolutely not be calling you a troll), the message is plain that they aren't interested in getting warning templates from you. If you've got a problem, explain the problem in plain English. If they ask you directly (or make it clear through their actions) that your messages aren't welcome on their user page, don't keep hammering at them. Instead, bring the matter up for dispute resolution. If they don't want to interact with you, fine. Find someone else to review the matter and give a neutral assessment. At no time should you be spamming a user's talk page with warning templates, especially not when they are currently in an active dispute with you. It comes off as rather rude. So yea, if your summary is accurate with regard to starting discussions on the talk pages, you did that part fine. That doesn't excuse hammering Kwami's user talk page with pointless templates. Start a real conversation next time, at the minimum, and if that isn't received well, then just don't. --Jayron32 16:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Fine, OK. In my own defense, once kwami started communicating on my talkpage with a template – to which he'd added a nonexistent rule even he wasn't following – that seemed an invitation to communicate with him likewise (but with better justification, since he'd *actually* violated more policies than he alleged I had) on his webpage. Or is one-way communication a thing on WP?

And as I told Schazjmd above, I was still on his talkpage while he posted on mine; so I didn't see his messages until I got out (the alerts don't show up on my screen when I'm at the bottom of a page). – .Raven  16:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

"Someone was rude to me, so I thought it was license to be equally as rude to them" is not a defense. Next time, let other people be the wrong ones, instead of joining them in being wrong. --Jayron32 18:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

That's a good principle, which is why I haven't simply reciprocated to his repeated and unfounded personal attacks of "playing stupid" and "bad faith", or even simply reverted his reverts with non-explanations like "rv", "rvv", and "rv. ignorance", as he's done – but rather, if my detailed and RS-citing explanations fail (as usual), taken the issues to RFCs and PMRs. I've been "letting him be the wrong one" for a while.

Note that even kwami calls my last comment on his talkpage "substantial", though he then repeats the unfounded attacks... to which, of course, I must not give any answer at all. – .Raven  01:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and now that I've had time to check, I see kwami has once again reverted me on N'Ko script (as he has renamed it from N'Ko alphabet), to delete citation of an RS which contradicts him – commenting "rv: this is an ongoing discussion -- wait for the result". But the "ongoing discussion" is Talk:N'Ko script#Requested move 10 April 2023, a page move request, which is not (that I ever heard) reason to stop editing the article text. He's deleting valid info I added, using a bogus reason.

No wonder he posted that bogus message on my talkpage. – .Raven  17:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Likewise this edit by kwami on 'Bassa Vah script', deleting three refs and fouling up two others. This seems to be reversion for the sake of reversion, as if he owns these articles. – .Raven  23:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Also please see Talk:List of numeral systems#Please provide RSs (not fandom sites etc.) for these prefixes to -gesimal. Or perhaps fandom sites are now RSs for adding mathematical vocabulary here; how could I not have known? Though Google can't find any site or book except the above page for the term "quitrigesimal". So is a Misplaced Pages page sufficient RS for itself? Please advise. – .Raven  06:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Unblock request - Eni.Sukthi.Durres

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

On 10 April 2023 Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk · contribs) was blocked by @Kinu: following an ANI discussion (currently at #Long term disruption, edit warring and general incompetence by Eni.Sukthi.Durres, likely to be archived soon). I did not take part in that discussion.

Yesterday, ESD emailed me to state:

Hello old mate, hope you have been fine. I'm very glad to see that you're still active on wikipedia as I always appreciated your major contribution here.

Ok firstly I have to say that 5 years ago I declared an retirement from wikipedia as I had many engagements and I didn't had time, but due to my old passion for wiki last year I decided to return back to work even in part time and that you can see on my user page history where you also intervened against edits by unauthorized users https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Eni.Sukthi.Durres&action=history I also appreciate that. I must admit that I feel ashamed on you but I'm forced to bother you since you've been very nice to me, since here on my talk page *(I don't know if it will work as a link, sorry) but despite you blocked me in the beginning but that however served me as a lesson as we had very good collaboration then.

My friend I would be honest with you, I had very harsh disputes with experienced users including admins. here because happened to me things which I never seen before, such as reverts of my whole edits in few pages with reason of containing exaggerated text addition and not correct english but instead having also useful edits such as stats. table for example, but they reverted anything like never happened to me before with anyone of you. Believe me I asked only my rights but for wikipedia to not delete all useful edits but also to improve exaggerated text, and what did they do, attacked me, offended me also especially with pervert word d**k, etc. In the end they blocked me step by step by anything for speaking in favor of the truth. If you see my recent contributions in 2 or 3 pages you'll understand anything https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Eni.Sukthi.Durres I would thank you if you do something even minimal for my rights as I know you're a fair admin, cheers.

I am bringing this here for community discussion. I have no opinion on the matter, and I fact I am away most of the weekend and then away on holiday for most of the next 3 weeks with limited internet access. GiantSnowman 14:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

A cursory look at the talk page suggests to me that there is a competence issue here. If someone says they have been away so long that they have forgotten how to speak English and how to use Misplaced Pages, then they shouldn't be creating or amending articles until their memory is jogged. Deb (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

As the blocking admin, I strongly oppose any unblock. Unfortunately, they do not have the ability to contribute at a reasonable level of English. (For what it's worth, their grievance of "offended me also especially with pervert word d**k" is clearly a misinterpretation of the statement "you can't be a dick when someone corrects your English" in the original ANI thread here; perhaps linking to WP:DICK might have helped, but that's moot now.) All of that aside, were they willing to drop their battleground mentality, there might have been areas to which they could have contributed outside of the Article namespace, and it might have resulted in a better outcome for them (e.g., only a partial block from the Article namespace). However, their threat here is grossly inappropriate. There are two possibilities: (a) that statement is not intended to be a threat, but their lack of command of English is such that it had the syntax of one; or (b) they knew exactly what was being said, and it was intended to be a threat. Whichever is the case, at least one of the two rationales for blocking applies. --Kinu /_c 18:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, there is a reason WP:DICK is marked historical. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

A valid point. Not the idiom I would have used, especially given that it could be grossly interpreted by a non-native speaker. --Kinu /_c 19:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

• Decline unblock Looks like the problems persist. Recommend editing on a different Misplaced Pages for at least six months and at least 500 edits, and then request reconsideration. Rights? Face to face? No clue as to why they are blocked.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• Decline - It seems to me that the CIR block was appropriate, that it was de facto endorsed in the discussion which provoked it, and that it is much too soon for any kind of appeal of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• Decline does not have the English-language skills to edit this project. Star Mississippi 00:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
• Decline - No one has any "rights" to edit Misplaced Pages and beyond the competence issue, there's still a great degree of WP:NOTTHEM in that complaint. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

User:MrsSnoozyTurtle

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

Greetings! I think we have to discuss User:MrsSnoozyTurtle editing once more. I understand MrsSnoozyTurtle are passionate about fighting WP:COI, but their recents edits are unfortunately not helpful. There was a discussion about them, where many editors shown their concerns and there was some sort of consensus to topic ban them, but due to broad proposal a consensus was not reached and the discussion was archived prematurely. Hence, they received WP:ROPE (again) from the community.

I just checked their recent edits on Douglas Cumming, Berry Campbell Gallery, Ignition system and found them disturbing. They are continously failing to assume WP:GOODFAITH and are deleting useful contributions even after being reverted by by an editor who is a professor and gave a proper summary. It is clear now that they are not well-versed with WP:AFD/WP:DRAFTIFY guidelines, or even aware but don't care to follow. They nominated this page, without WP:BEFORE and without even going through the references, just because it was drafted by a "disclosed paid editor" - good way to punish them - first nominate and if that doesn't work then delete the page to bare minimum. Similarly, in the case of Berry Campbell Gallery where there is no apparent WP:COI and they are just assuming and based on that assumption, converted from a well-sourced version like this to something like this. This is what vandalism guideline says: "deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose" which I belive applies to them nicely.

We have to find a solution to this behavior as this is driving new potential editors away from Misplaced Pages which is a big loss. Thanks. 82.4.215.32 (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Please notify the editor. See When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. Also, I find it suspicious you know so much about this editor's activities given your first edit was made earlier today. Did you forget to log on? Ppt91 23:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The IP notified the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And who exactly are you? An IP whose only edits are to post here with a rather expansive knowledge of policy pages, diffs, etc.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Just an IP. I travel widely, somewhat nomad lifestyle, so this happens with me. I like being an IP: we can't delete sourced information like MrsSnoozyTurtle can because somebody would revert us, can't nominate page for deletion, AfD rationale holds little value, so we just contribute and build encyclopedia. 82.4.215.32 (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

As for Berry Campbell Gallery, WP:OVERCITE is not well-sourced. @MrsSnoozyTurtle had every reason to made these edits and to question the subject's notability given that these sources were only passing mentions rather than significant coverage. And a commercial announcement published on Artsy about the gallery's expansion does not pass WP:RS. Your remaining examples of alleged wrongdoing are similarly flawed (that being a "professor" is somehow synonymous with editorial authority and so on), but I see no point in dissecting these just to waste more time. Ppt91 23:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't have the bandwidth to list all of their edits here. The editors who participated in the previous discussion know it is a long-term issue. They deliberately avoid scruitny by deleting all the warnings on their talkpage. I don't want to go through their talkpage again. Regarding edits, even their summaries are wrong: they removed this saying "Removing unreliable sources". Is Sangbad Pratidin unreliable? How about this: , remove references and then label it as "Removing unsourced text, article structure". Wow. 82.4.215.32 (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Having read the previous discussion it was not "archived prematurely", it fizzled out with the now indef blocked OP barely missing a WP:BOOMERANG. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

"indef blocked" how? 82.4.215.32 (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry that could be ambiguous, I meant the OP of the previous post not this one. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I should be sorry - I linked up wrong discussion. I was talking about the discussion in which you participated. Sorry for messing it up - somehow linked wrongly while searching. 82.4.215.32 (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

That thread had a lot of diffs showing a specific problem, particularly edit warring. It wasn't enough to get a consensus. If those issues have returned (I hope they haven't) you'll need to show with diffs, not waving at the edit histories of articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I was just about to post a similar comment. Between the misrepresentation of the old discussion and the nothingburger complaints about specific articles, there's no cause for sanctions on MrsSnoozyTurtle here. IP seems to be either deliberately misrepresenting or just reading with grudge-colored glasses. MrOllie (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• Corrected the previous discussion. Apologies again. 82.4.215.32 (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Found another comment regarding their grasp of AfD: Hello Jeppiz. Notability is not the basis for this AFD, please see the nomination statement. If notability is not an issue then why nominate? 82.4.215.32 (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

    WP:TNT is a valid reason for deleting an article, if contentious. This wasn't a brilliant nomination, but mostly because another editor cleaned up the article (with a hatchet). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

    • WP:TNT is an essay. 82.4.215.32 (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

      Its also shorthand for a widely accepted principle that is used in dealing with problematic articles created under notable titles. If there is a consensus in a discussion that TNT embodies the correct action to take, then it violates no policy or guidelines and is an acceptable outcome.  // Timothy :: talk  01:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: (I am adding this prefix per below) While there are problems, this is a Grudge complaint with no merit, clearly arising from AfD disputes. This exceeds my threshold for AGF. This is clearly an editor with a grudge that is trying the "everything and the kitchen sink" tactic hoping something sticks.  // Timothy :: talk  00:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
  • TimothyBlue, maybe, but

    I agree there are some problems, but this feels like a grudge match. I've refactored my comment to be clearer. Thanks,  // Timothy :: talk  02:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

    And I admit my own personal disbelief of the IPs claim not to have a regular account (IP or reg acct), is a large factor in my belief that this is a thinly disguised AfD grudge match (an opinion, but most cmts are).  // Timothy :: talk  02:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

    I am glad you voiced your belief aloud, because it is something that I believe is a recurring issue with how users treat IP editors. We wouldn't tolerate an IP editor accusing a regular user of being a sockpuppet without evidence. I don't understand why it isn't considered dirty pool when the accusation, implied or not, is the other way around. There are plenty of editors who roam between IP addresses and have been recurring contributors to Misplaced Pages, and in fact have been reasonably effective in sniffing out vandals. There are lots of disruptive IPs too, of course, but we identify those based on their actions and not by presuming their intentions. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

    Its the lack of an editing history of any substance, combined with a knowledge about internal wikipedia stuff that most don't have (reg or IP), combined with the circumstances, which makes me believe we are not being presented with the full picture/background. I'd feel the same way if this was a newly registered acccount.  // Timothy :: talk  15:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

    I was an IP editor for a long time, and you're right that they are treated with little respect (something I've mentioned before on this board). However given certain things I don't think Timothy is wrong here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• I've reverted the blanking of content done to Berry Campbell Gallery. That was very blatantly MrsSnoozyTurtle just doing another vandalism. An argument could potentially be made for removing the selected artists list for those featured at the gallery, but not the removal of the history section and the specific selective removal of the references supporting that content. Just pure vandalism of the article because the AfD didn't result in the deletion they wanted. Silverseren 02:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  I cannot speak to MrsSnoozyTurtle's past edits, but this was neither blanking nor vandalism. That article, which is about a contemporary commercial gallery, uses promotional content to establish notability (Artsy and Artfix Daily are just two examples). The whole thing reads like a press release, including a lengthy quote from the gallery's founder. It is also a prime example of WP:REFBOMB--why would a mention of an artist represented by the gallery need 4 of 5 footnotes? Finally, the AfD was without consensus, rather than keep. Ppt91 02:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Silver seren Just so I am specific: in references 1 through 9, used for the actual content of the article, not one passes WP:RS for significant coverage in establishing notability (a single interview from Surface is not sufficient). References 10 through 45 are used as citations for a list of artists, which should be done with a single source and is nothing short of ridiculous. Ppt91 03:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  (EC) A quote can be shortened. And I don't consider a quote from the creators of a gallery on why they founded it to be all that promotional. Especially when it is taken from a reliable source magazine. And there are certainly references that can be removed, but there are sources at the top level of reliability that discuss the gallery featuring various artists' work. And there is absolutely no explanations I can consider reasonable for turning the article into this and removing literally all of that. That is indeed blanking and vandalism of the article. Silverseren 03:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'm glad for your opinion. Still not an explanation for the blanking of the article. Silverseren 03:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  NYT discussing the artist's work is a reliable source for that artist, not for the gallery which represents the artist, unless its notability can be independently established. The gallery was established in 2013 and while it's great they are promoting under-represented artists, I have yet to see art historical or cultural notability. And relying so heavily on commercial content to prove notability is just egregious. Ppt91 03:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  I never said the New York Times article was a source meant to establish notability. But it was an accurate source for the usage and there was no reason for it to be removed. And that's especially so for the Surface interview article. Hence why MrsSnoozyTurtle's blanking actions were vandalism. They bizarrely also left just one unreliable source in there, I guess as an argument to then claim the article is bad and non-notable? I can only guess to that being the reason, since they might as well have blanked everything and called it unreferenced at that point. Silverseren 03:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think the article absolutely warranted an intervention but I respect your objections as to how that was handled. I hope that clarifies things. Ppt91 03:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment this editor MST has been making harassing edits for some time. I will offer diffs when the community has the appetite to sanction MST and not the reporters. Lightburst (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• @Lightburst:, please do state some specifics, both to support the IP (who's getting extra-heavy flak for the non-crime of being unregistered) and to avoid a charge of casting aspersions. Further, this is at least the 2nd time the editor's conduct has been brought here recently,and I agree with Drmies that removing a list of books published from an academic's article is not a good edit; that's a standard part of such an article, important for demonstrating notability, and the list was not indiscriminate as the edit summary claims. I've restored the list with refinements to its presentation. Gutting articles like that—even more so, like this flagged by Silver seren as well as the IP editor—doesn't help the encyclopedia at all. (WP:TNT is blowing it up and starting again, not just blowing it up.) So I think we should have it out now, so that MrsSnoozyTurtle can be induced to stop doing things like that and like whatever you refer to, and concentrate on their useful work. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: The last ANI was full of diffs that editors here dismissed. And claims from @Tryptofish: that MST was harassing and needling ARS. Nothing came of it and it has continued. If I felt this was going to go anywhere I would provide diffs again. Basically MST has been harassing myself and the ARS for more than a year by: refactoring edits to the project page, and WP:FOLLOWING to ivote angular without ever trying to rescue a single article which was posted to ARS. After Sozo Water Park was posted for rescue, members improved it and MST waited until the AfD closed as keep and then erased most of the article with a misleading edit summary of "various changes". When I reverted the erasure they reverted me. That was December and more following has occurred since then. MST's following, and needling has been a puzzling thing to deal with. In March I had this discussion on @Star Mississippi:'s talk page. Lightburst (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and I note the removals at Sozo Water Park have since been reverted; I have done some tightening. But I'm afraid specifics are needed if harassment is at issue, especially since definitions vary. In particular, some would not place activity at the Article Rescue Squadron under that heading, since it is itself an advocacy group within Misplaced Pages. But refactoring others' edits at the project page is wrong; can you show a diff of that? @MrsSnoozyTurtle: Have you been careful to assume good faith of ARS members? And what's your rationale for cutting down articles after they have been examined by multiple editors and kept at AfD? In terms of ridding Misplaced Pages of promotional material, wouldn't it be more useful to accept consensus and move on to another article? Yngvadottir (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: Read Tryptofish's comments in the last MST ANI to see. The first ANI was full of problematic edits by MST - maybe too many diffs, so that editors were too overwhelmed to read them all. Lightburst (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. My semi-revert of MrsSnoozyTurtle at Douglas Cumming was mentioned in the report. I take the editing here to be in good faith: I believe the list belongs in the article for the reasons in my edit summary, but without book reviews it may not be completely obvious. MrsSnoozyTurtle did not revert me after that, although she converted from a list to a paragraph (since reverted back to a list by Yngvadottir). I agree with Yngvadottir that the list format is preferable here, but I also think that there is room for reasonable people to disagree. I do agree with the totality of the recent edits at the Douglas Cumming article of MrsSnoozyTurtle and others, which cut the Douglas Cumming article down from a huge mess to a reasonably sourced article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• I've been aware of and have been following this discussion, and I'm commenting now, because I've been pinged. It's true that I raised some significant concerns at the last ANI discussion, about MrsSnoozyTurtle acting in unpleasant ways at the ARS noticeboard, and interested editors can look back there to see what I said then. We came out of that previous ANI with a consensus that MST should be on her best behavior going forward. From what I'm seeing above, there have been some suboptimal edits (notably the one highlighted by Drmies), but not the sort of thing that rises to being sanction-worthy. At the same time, I've also see evidence of MST doing good work (having gotten thanks from @Bishonen:), and having had to deal with some unfair trolling: . At the same time, Lightburst, who pinged me here, does not have entirely clean hands (). And yet, Lightburst, too, has also been doing a lot of good work since he was last at ANI, so I didn't pursue that incident I just linked to any further. I'm not sure whether this current ANI thread can really lead to any sort of action being taken, but I'll strongly urge that all involved be on their best behavior, for real. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• I've looked at the previous AN/I again, and noted that quite a few editors argued there for a restriction on MrsSnoozyTurtle, but that discussion ended after she promised to re-familiarize herself with the rules on PROD and draftification. She does seem to have been doing better, to judge from the balance of responses here. But I find disquieting that she has yet to respond here, which is why I'm pinging her.Russ Woodroofe, thanks for noting my edit at Douglas Cumming. But this edit by MrsSnoozyTurtle shortly after the article was kept at AfD was far too severe, removing information filling out the subject's actual biography. A common argument for deletion at AfD, related to BLP1E, is that we lack information to write a biography and can only report what the person is known for; this arises especially with academics, who rarely get profiled in newspapers and magazines and usually have very recentist mini-biographies online at their institutions or at proceedings of conferences. When I looked at that list of books, I was struck by the fact that, as MrsSnoozyTurtle had written in her paragraph version, they all have the same co-author, and independently discovered references at the Florida Atlantic University business school website naming the co-author as the subject's wife. Moreover, those references state the subject's previous position, which should definitely be in the article! Hence my edit added quite a lot of material.I agree with MrsSnoozyTurtle's removal of the number of children the couple have—others might disagree, but if we were to include that, I think it should be in a separate "Personal life" section, and the article had in the interim had its blended early life and personal life section rolled into the main Biography section. But I note she also removed his past as an athlete; there was no justification for tagging that as unimportant and then removing it, given that we are writing a biography rather than a paragraph on "the one thing you need to know about this person", and the medals ought to be easy to independently source. (And the Memorable Manitobans source that was misused for his mother's profession is an excellent source for his father; sensitive editing would have kept it.) That article was a mess because of inexpert assembly; taking a scythe to it made it less useful to the reader, and less appropriate as an account of a person whose notability had been established at AfD. In a more extreme form, this is the sum of MrsSnoozyTurtle's edits at Berry Campbell Gallery immediately following the AfD being closed as no consensus. (I note that in the spirit of WP:TNT, Silver Seren did not just revert this wholesale blanking but has since improved the article.) MrsSnoozyTurtle's good faith in zealously pursuing COI edits and promotional content is not in doubt, but this is a project to write an encyclopedia, and once a topic has been determined to merit an article by virtue of notability, gutting the article is a disservice to the reader and unjustifiable damage to the encyclopedia. Tags and removal of truly trivial or undesirable material is one thing, although looking for a reference oneself is much to be preferred. Laying waste to the article looks like sour grapes, and evinces an assumption of bad faith in editors who argued for the article to be kept. That may be one source of the continuing accusations of harassment? I've nominated articles for deletion and had them kept. It happens. This place operates by consensus. MrsSnoozyTurtle, can you undertake to accept consensus and walk away from an article after it's kept at AfD, rather than cutting away at it? Consider what other problematic articles you might more usefully spend time on rather than attempting to relitigate the decision in this way. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: D'ya think you could throw a couple of paragraph breaks into that wall of words to make it possible to read? MEGO. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I've tried. But whatever I do always seems to violate accessibility guidelines in some way. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, Ive made some formatting changes which I hope represent your intentions, and which I think are not a problem in terms of accessibility. If I'm mistaken, please feel free to revert. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

More block evasion from Colombia

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

• 186.155.104.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Colombian IP Special:Contributions/186.155.172.57 was blocked three weeks ago for disruption in music articles. Before that, the person used other IPs in the range Special:Contributions/186.155.168.0/21 and was reverted a bunch of times but not blocked.

Now this same person is using Special:Contributions/186.155.104.0/21, continuing to disrupt music articles, especially by genre-warring. Can we protect the wiki from this new range? Binksternet (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I’ve given the /21 a month off anon only. I’d want a CU to take a look before anything stronger. Courcelles (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing to see. Drmies (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Need help with Nexon page. Myself and 3 separate editors want a controversy section but 1 editor reverts edits and got into dispute with me on my talk page.

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

I want to bring the Nexon page current with the current controversy regarding Dark and Darker. Since this is the biggest gaming controversy in international news in a little while. But one editor thinks he has more voting power than 4 editors and he doesn't bother to research. I caught him saying it isn't news but I linked him 4 major gaming articles from last 24 hours Netherleash (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Small issues in video games often get magnified as "controversies" and try to be push as that in WP. This is yet another case of that. Masem (t) 15:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

https://www.ign.com/articles/dark-and-darker-devs-distributing-game-on-discord-as-playtest-goes-ahead-amid-legal-issues https://www.eurogamer.net/dark-and-darker-dev-asks-players-to-torrent-latest-playtest-after-removal-from-steam https://kotaku.com/steam-pc-rpg-dark-and-darker-ironmace-torrent-playtest-1850338181 https://www.gamesradar.com/dark-and-darker-devs-ask-fans-to-torrent-april-playtest-because-its-taking-time-to-resolve-the-steam-situation/

I assume the editor with whom you're having a dispute is Soetermans, whom you've failed to notify of this thread. You must do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I did inform him. What can be done? He's outnumbered based on Nexon edit history page. We need to honor the wishes of 4 genuine editors. Nexon needs a Controvery section today while it's breaking news. Readers have a right to be informed on major controversy. Netherleash (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're saying about honoring wishes. In this edit, you are adding a "Controversy" heading, which is deprecated, and you add a sentence, that unencyclopedically written stuff about thousands of fans leaving some place, without inserting a reference that proves it. This edit basically does the same thing, but worse. If you add something to a sentence/paragraph that has a source at the end, you are implying that that material is verified by the source. It is not. The revert was absolutely correct, and it seems to me that you need to practice editing a bit more--and that you shouldn't run to a noticeboard the first time you get corrected. Drmies (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Also for the record, I did inform https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Soetermans but they deleted the notice promptly from their talk page. I petition this board that this user be blocked from Misplaced Pages for period of time this board finds appropriate. The actions of this user are suspicious, disruptive and anti-concensus. Netherleash (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

they deleted the notice promptly from their talk page—Did not delete notice. —Alalch E. 14:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

You may want to duck the WP:BOOMERANG that would be heading your way if you keep this up. Per Drmies above, the edit was correct in being reverted. You need a source to validate this, which you do not have. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

And don't insist on packaging your desired additions as a controversy section.—Alalch E. 14:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of boomerang, here's a message Netherleash sent on their talk page following Soetermans' {{uw-vandalism1}}: This is your final warning. You must reach concensus before reverting. Do it again. And I will petition admins lock you due to distruptive editing. You lied and said it's not newsworthy. Yet a simple Google search reveals multiple articles and multiple wiki editors requested the page be brought current including myself. (diff) I would support boomerang on Netherleash based on their constant aggressive attitude about the situation. LilianaUwU 07:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

"Constant aggressive attitude" is how I would describe Soetermans, since he's now resorted to following my contrib page and undoing everything I contrib. I could correct a typo and he'd undo it out of spite. I joined Misplaced Pages to contrib. But have faced accusations of being a ban evader from him (I'm 33 years old and have a busy life, I maybe visit Misplaced Pages twice a year) I want Soetermans to leave me alone and he wants to not leave me alone. He's essentially cyberstalking and harassing me. I could contact his local police station and ask for a restraining order against him. Because I am not going to accept being cyberstalked, harassed, or gaslight into accepting it. That is a Misplaced Pages security flaw that I cannot personally block users from sending me personal messages. So I'll have to go the old fashion method and contact the non-emergency police number. Netherleash (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

he's now resorted to following my contrib page and undoing everything I contrib evidence of this? cuz what I am seeing is that your edits are being reverted by different editors (me included), not him alone, which I don't think we are going to your user contributions and check out. Watchlist is a feature for a reason.

I could contact his local police station and ask for a restraining order against him ... So I'll have to go the old fashion method and contact the non-emergency police number. Some may construe these as a WP:LEGALTHREAT.

He's essentially cyberstalking and harassing me. What Soetermans have left on your talk page are is not threatening, harrassing or of stalking nature and he had gone above and beyond by actually giving non-templated advices/warnings that your behaviour is less than stellar.

I suggest that you drop this and everything related to the game on Misplaced Pages and walk away. Yes, you seem to be passionate about the game, but it is a beautiful Sunday with probably a beautiful view in the nature. Take a walk and have a breather. – robertsky (talk) 09:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

He's a harasser. I'll msg admin directly. Look at my talk page please. I already deleted 4 of his messages then left a nice notice and he still felt emboldened to keep going. Also be careful with using that legal threat page. If someone needs to report something to law enforcement say go ahead. Never try to discourage them. That could be considered obstruction or deprivation of emergency service. Law enforcement handle mostly non-emergency complaints it's their job to determine if something is actionable, not yours. Netherleash (talk) 10:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you may be misreading WP:NLT, or at least not getting the main idea of it. The page is about not posting your legal threats on the wiki; it's not about stopping people from calling 9-1-1. If criticisms or disagreements come up during WP discussions, a threat to call the police can have a chilling effect on otherwise productive discourse. Larry Hockett (Talk) 10:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

⚠️He's actually continuing to harass me right now me even after 2 serious warnings to stop. Reported him to admin. If he continues next step will be contacting law enforcement. I really pray that he stops this ain't right. No one should be subjected to being called delusional, gaslit, accused of being ban evader, contrib-stalked, unwanted messaging. Netherleash (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

There are plenty of reasons to block this user, but the most blatant is for the legal threats. Can't an admin just get it over with? These long conversations leading to the inevitable are getting very tiresome. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I never insulted him once, but endured multiple insults and unwanted messaging from him as evidenced on my talk page, history, here. Harassment is a much bigger concern because it's a misdemeanor crime. Wanting to call authorities to deter bad behavior is not illegal, in fact law enforcement encourage it. Netherleash (talk) 11:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

No, it is not illegal, but it is incompatible with editing Misplaced Pages, per WP:NLT. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Harassment is more serious violation of wiki rules. I hope no one ever harasses you on a website with sluggish reporting and blocking. Netherleash (talk) 11:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're trolling or delusional, but this ridiculous. You've been here less than 24 hours with 31 edits to your name. My messages were about your attitude. I at no point have been harassing you or "cyberstalking" you. Also note I use my real name and you can find the place where I live on my talk page. Besides your username, I know nothing about you. I haven't contacted you through email or through any other channel, yet you suggest to call the police on me because... I pointed out you fail to follow standard editing guidelines? Don't know what a reliable source is? Aren't particularly civil to others? You are clearly WP:NOTHERE to help Misplaced Pages. soetermans. 10:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

You've been here less than 24 hours and most of your edits have been reverted, and not just by me. I'm pretty sure you threatening to call the police on me (really, for an edit dispute?) is a WP:LEGALTHREAT. soetermans. 08:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Where/who are the "3 separate editors"? I looked at the page history of Nexon and I only see two editors directly involved in the dispute, you and Soetermans. You having made more edits than the other editor doesn't make you outnumber them. — AP 499D25 (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Anyone mentioning Ironmace, Dark and Darker or controversy. It's all the same thing. Basically one gaming studio had a competitor delisted and their studio raided by police. But despite that, Dark and Darker is reaching massive popularity and critical acclaim through an underground torrent download. Its the biggest gaming controversy of the year so far. Netherleash (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

That's not an answer to the question. Who are these other editors? If you can't or won't back up your accusations with evidence a WP:BOOMERANG might end up heading your way. MrOllie (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

https://imgur.com/gallery/0h3l8KZ

Here's a screenshot. it's actual 5 editors including myself, who have a natural genuine contribution interest in the Nexon-Ironmace Controversy. Netherleash (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Somebody adding a wikilink is not supporting your position. You need to go back to the talk page and reach consensus there. It is not a vote, counting unrelated or barely related edits from the article history will not help you. Going to noticeboards to try to get your opposition blocked for routine editing will not help you. There is no substitute for using the talk page to discuss and reach a consensus. MrOllie (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Them adding content about the furore over the game is not the same as them explicitly supporting a Controversy section. – robertsky (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

My issue is resolved. I'm very happy with the Nexon page edit Alalch just did. Way better than anything I could ever do! Thank you team. Sorry for being a pain. The other four editors would be happy too. And this will help protect the page because Nexon is getting review bombed, so being truthful and accurate is important. Netherleash (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

This is what we get from keeping those old (and not so old) controversy sections around in so many articles. New editors are used to seeing them and believe it's a normal practice to add them. —Alalch E. 16:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Now I've got the time to reply properly, I see the issue is resolved. Are your issues with me personally also over, Netherleash? Let me repeat some arguments:

• Misplaced Pages is not a WP:DEMOCRACY. You kept going on about other editors that also supposedly agree with you, but Misplaced Pages doesn't function on a democratic process.
• I told you to start a discussion on the relevant talk page. You leaving on message there and me replying let you to start this discussion. Was that really necessary? We have to assume good faith in our fellow editors.
• At no point did I say the bit shouldn't be expanded. Your choice of words however were inappropriate and I wasn't about to change it into something acceptable. I'm not here to do your work. You can thank Alalch E. for fixing the bit.
• I didn't remove your comment on my talk page, I moved it down. I also notified you, as you can see here.
• Despite your very short time as a registered editor, you've used terms like admin, consensus and starting a discussion at ANI. Have you been editing before? Anonymous, or under a different account? soetermans. 20:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Zeno, HaeB, and I did a clean-up on short controversy sections in BLPs in 2021. I think there's a common misperception, particularly among readers, that any negative information about a person will be highlighted under a controversy heading. Schazjmd (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Schazjmd, it seems you're replying in the wrong discussion, no? soetermans. 20:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

No, it's a reply to my unindented general observation about controversy sections above. —Alalch E. 21:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I was thrown off by the BLP bit, I apologize. soetermans. 21:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• Noting for the record I’ve Indeffed Netherleash for NOTHERE and NLT. Courcelles (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Thewikipedian7534

Thewikipedian7534 stirs trouble at Talk:Yahweh, despite several warnings. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Not "stirring trouble", just insisting on using the article talk page for their personal analysis of the subject. Which might even be correct, but that's irrelevant; the presentation is one of personal opinion. --jpgordon 15:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

They are now at level 4 warning about WP:FORUM. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Through they have acted against a level 4 warning about WP:FORUM. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Now blocked for 3RR, but the problems are deeper than that. --jpgordon 16:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing?

There are lots of companies out there that engage in undisclosed paid editing. One of those is Prestidge Group. It's named after its founder, Briar Prestidge. Her bio, which is new (got previously deleted under A7 in Oct 2022), has been put up for deletion by KH-1. Whether Prestidge is notable or not is not my concern. What I wonder, though, is whether we have one of her staff writing the article. User:TeenNick24 started the bio a few days ago (and also authored the previously deleted version). This user has a total 56 edits. Smells like an employee who uses multiple accounts, which is common for undisclosed paid editors.

The other bio that this user started was for Paul Cole Chiori aka Ossy Achievas. Chiori's bio got deleted on 31 August 2018. And on 18 September 2018, it got recreated under the second name by User:Buzzy anslem, who's since been blocked for socking. Also very fishy.

Does anyone have a good idea what to do about this? Schwede66 10:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

You should ask them if they are paid by the company or not. Point them to WP:PAID and ask them to give a disclosure on their user page about their connection to what they are writing about. This request has not been made to TeenNick24. Also if identical content has been put back to what was deleted then it could well be a copyright infringement. And a sock puppet investigation could be called for if a user looks like a blocked sockmaster. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I was meant to point out that the Chiori / Achievas content was distinctly different. Schwede66 10:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

IP 116.206.158.105 troubling me

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

This ip has been troubling me for the past few months and telling i am sock and says i am vandalising ,if the ip claims ,i dont understand why doesnt he try to file a spi on me and solve but they doesnt do and trouble me .please check this matter as soon as possible . ArmyOnceBlinkMidzy (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

A E Francis: calls me a vandal, adds back unsourced (BURDEN, OWN) content in a very slow edit war

User A E Francis intends to keep restoring, over and over, as they have done for roughly the past 7 months, their version that violated BURDEN and against which there is a consensus. There were multiple attempts at discussing, but the user simply IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

• I made the user aware of their violation of BURDEN in September 2022
• the user was warned in September 2022 by admin DatGuy, see this ANI case; to which A E Francis replied he had only orrected vandalism.
• a page protection had been put in place due to our disagreement by Anachronist, who stated: Resumption of disruption after protection expires will result in blocks on involved accounts. To which A E Francise did not react and simply waited, to later restore their version.
• there was a clear consensus that the user's version was unacceptable, explaining the user what the problem was
• the user called my removal vandalism again and again ( ). They have received explanations on why their behaviour was unacceptable in January 2023 by admin DragonflySixtyseven.
• the user tries to restore their content every 2-3 months, never changing it, whatever others say. Recently (April 2023), they have done so, claiming to fight "vandalism" (i.e. my edits). To which another user (Ltwin) replied that none of the problems pointed out previously (such as the user signing their own reflexions inside the WP article itself) had been fixed.
• I had reverted the user and gave a final warning to the user on their talk page. But then I realised it would do nothing, that this problem has been running for too long and that I had already given numerous warnings to the user at their talk page (I also undid my undoing 30 minutes later, as it was likely a form of edit-warring)

So, unless the user is blocked from editing this very page, I am afraid they will always come back to restore the article as they see fit (with the unsourced content, violating BURDEN) as they have done since roughly September 2022, in a clear WP:OWNERSHIP (something they were reproached as far back as 2008) and WP:ATTRITION mentality. And, if nothing is done, they will continue to call those who disagree with them'vandals'. Veverve (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• You are probably wise not to revert the edit to Thomistic sacramental theology, but I have done so. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• After reading A E Francis's version of the article, none of which is sourced or appropriate encyclopedic language, and seeing in their contributions that they've been pushing this text for 7 months; and that their posts to its talk page basically consist of calling removals of it "vandalism", I think at a minimum that A E Francis should be blocked from editing Thomistic sacramental theology. Schazjmd (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  Might as well indef him seeing as its literally the only article hes edited recently. 2601:18F:107F:E2A0:7D34:A823:E451:2EA0 (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Klyhorio

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

I noticed this user adding content that seemed unrelated to an Eastern European dog article earlier today. @Justlettersandnumbers noticed this and reverted the edit. The user reverted that edit, and I proceeded to revert it because they had not fixed the issue pointed out by the last editor. Upon having a look at their user page, they have a problematic history (, , ) with edits related to dog pages (in fact, their ban for the Šarplaninac page just expired two months ago). I support a stronger ban on this user for their problematic edits and edit warring. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 14:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

A year partial, back to the same stuff? 24 total edits? NOTHERE. Indeffed. Courcelles (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, edit warring, and personal attacks

The user Panam2014 has engaged in multiple edit warrings on the articles Islamic schools and branches and Non-denominational Muslims due to his/her disagreements with other editors, including me, User:Srnec, and User:Soyouy553 (see his/her recent edit history). Despite a Lv1 warning that I left on his/her talk page in which I notified to them that they had deleted sourced content with references without providing an adequate edit summary for their edits (), they continued to revert me and accusing me of lying on my talk page and Srnec's talk page as well ( ). Despite my attempts to collaborate and inviting them to take it to the article's talk page, Panam2014 instead continued to revert both my edits and those of Srnec.

After demonstrating on the article's talk page that Panam2014 was misrepresenting or misreading the source and its content, he continued to accuse me of lying, he accused Srnec of being a biased user (), and proceeded with multiple insults and personal attacks both on Srnec's talk page and the article's talk page (). Judging from their persistently uncollaborative pattern of disruptive editing and aggressive behavior towards other editors, I think that it is abundantly clear that Panam2014 is WP:NOTHERE. GenoV84 (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Update: I just notified Panam2014 about the current WP:ANI discussion, he immediately reverted the notice in their usually aggressive way (). They have also opened another WP:ANI discussion about me. I don't know why.... maybe, revenge? GenoV84 (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• While sorting this report out, the article is now fully protected after being rolled back to the 15 April version of the article, before the edit warring began. —C.Fred (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  @C.Fred:The source is misused. Because the source is clearly misappropriated. Misappropriation of sources must be sanctioned Panam2014 (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Panam2014 If this is a content dispute, that should be addressed at the article's talk page. If this is about editor conduct, please provide a diff that clearly demonstrates the conduct in question. —C.Fred (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  @C.Fred: it is not a content dispute. Please read the section. The contributor have insulted me as a vandal and liar various times. See Report of GenoV84 by Panam2014. It's not a content dispute. The source is completely distorted Panam2014 (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• (after numerous edit conflicts) You both need to discuss content on the article talk pages in a civil manner, without accusing each other of lying or vandalism. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  I reported this user for multiple insults and personal attacks towards me and User:Srnec (see diffs linked above); this is not a dispute about content. GenoV84 (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  @GenoV84: you have insulted me 4 times : 2 times as a vandal and two times as a liar. Panam2014 (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

You insulted me first and then Srnec because he disagreed with your way of treating other editors and engaging with them, and he was right about that (, ). GenoV84 (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@GenoV84: you have insulted me first. Srnec have commited personal attack against me. Panam2014 (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Stop pinging everyone. Srnec didn't insult you at all, he just stated his disagreement (). That is not a personal attack. GenoV84 (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

", your hairsplitting makes no sense to me" is a violation of WP:Good faith and Misplaced Pages:Civility. You have insulted me for 4 times. Panam2014 (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you talking seriously now? Unbelievable. GenoV84 (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• (more edit conflicts) Well, at least you agree with each other that this is not a content dispute. Can you both now stop insulting each other and discuss the content, which a disagreement about sources is about. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Phil Bridger:It's not a disagreement about the source. The source is clear. It has been denatured. She says nowhere what he wants her to say. This behavior is prohibited, as is a contributor who adds that Biden is a communist based on a source that mentions his support for Obamacare or student aid. Panam2014 (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  The source is this:

  I read the survey above that Panam2014 attempted to remove and then whose content he attempted to rewrite according to his own liking on the article Islamic schools and branches, and it's fairly clear to me that either he is misreading or misrepresenting the source itself, since the Pew Research survey explicitly speaks of Muslims worldwide who choose not to affiliate with a specific sect, aka Non-denominational Muslims. Therefore, the content that he kept deleting is sourced and accurate, fully in accordance with the cited source which he continued to disparage with a useless edit warring:

  “Just a Muslim”

  "Many Muslims worldwide choose not to affiliate with a specific sect but volunteer that they are “just a Muslim.” This affiliation is most common in Central Asia and across Southern and Eastern Europe; in both regions, the median percentage stating they are “just a Muslim” is half or more. In Kazakhstan, nearly three-quarters (74%) of Muslims volunteer this response, as do more than six-in-ten Muslims in Albania (65%) and Kyrgyzstan (64%).

  In sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia, substantial minorities also consider themselves “just a Muslim” (medians of 23% and 18%, respectively). And in three countries – Indonesia (56%), Mali (55%) and Cameroon (40%) – “just a Muslim” is the single most-frequent response when people are queried about their sect. Identification as “just a Muslim” is less prevalent in the Middle East and North Africa (median of 12%) and South Asia (median of 4%)."

  GenoV84 (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  @GenoV84: the Pew Research survey says "just a muslim" not " Non-denominational Muslims". It is your personal interpretation cf WP:OR that connects the two notions Panam2014 (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  In other words, the full quote and the sentence before the prhase "just a muslim", which explicitly speak of non-affiliated Muslims, are of no value according to your judgement. GenoV84 (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  Again, it is your own interpretation.Moreover, the source is not centered on Muslims without denomination but on a survey on how the Muslims questioned define themselves. Panam2014 (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  Many different Muslims define themselves in many different ways, including those who are explicitly unaffiliated and without denomination, just as the source itself states. GenoV84 (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• GenoV84 and Panam2014 have each had four previous blocks for edit warring, and GenoV84 was also blocked last year for improper accusations of vandalism. Disappointing to see that apparently neither editor has learned how to hit the brakes on an edit war. DanCherek (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  @DanCherek: He also called me a liar. And another thing: the heart of the problem is the fact that he misrepresented the source. There is a mismatch between the text it supports and the source content Panam2014 (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  Please see the diffs that I provided above. This user has continued to provoke me both on the article's edit history and my own talk page, as well as WP:AIV and here on WP:ANI, not to mention the insults and personal attacks on Srnec's talk page, which I mentioned before. GenoV84 (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  Your attitude is inappropriate. You should be punished for your personal attacks and especially for having distorted the source Panam2014 (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  Said the one who insulted and reverted three editors on two different articles! It's not my fault if you can't read a source. GenoV84 (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  The source is clear and you and you distorted it Panam2014 (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  My immediate advice to both of you is that with any further inflammatory comments, you're each at risk of a long-term sitewide block given your extensive block histories (see C.Fred's comments below, and seriously, four edit-warring blocks is four more than the typical editor has), so – and this is directed at both of you – it would be great to reflect on your own behavior in this dispute, and/or let uninvolved editors comment here instead of the back-and-forth bickering. Stop trying to get the other person blocked, please. DanCherek (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sorry for the edit warring, but Srnec didn't do anything to deserve this kind of treatment, and I personally find it depressing that a content dispute about a single source has turned into this mess, but I have genuinely tried to collaborate with Panam2014, both on my own talk page and on the article's talk page before he started to insult me and Srnec out of nothing. GenoV84 (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sorry for reverting the edits but 'I received personal attacks from these two contributors Panam2014 (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Report of GenoV84 by Panam2014

He committed personal attacks (vandal and liar) : and

He violates WP:Edit warring : , , , , .

And the third problem : He is guilty of original research and misappropriation of source. It is a disruptive behaviour. The survey is about people who responded that they consider themselves as "just muslim" not about the fact a certain percentage of the population belongs to Non-denominational Muslims. So he added false content. Panam2014 (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC) --Panam2014 (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Initial findings and remedies

• Findings:
  1. The underlying dispute is whether a survey where respondents identified themselves as "just a Muslim", not affiliating with a specific sect, is the same as those respondents identifying as non-denominational Muslims.
  2. The dispute quickly led to an edit war at least at Islamic schools and branches, if not other articles.
  3. The dispute spread from edit summaries there to article talk and user talk pages.
  4. The rhetoric among the users quickly escalated to become inflammatory, with accusations of lying, vandalism, and bad-faith editing from both sides of the dispute.
• Remedies:
  1. The break-glass remedy of full protection to the article will remain in place until it expires.
  2. @Panam2014, GenoV84, and Soyouy553: @Srnec: As parties to the initial dispute, I invite you to use the article's talk page to have a civil discussion about the merits of the survey as a reliable source and how to deal with the results. You may want to open a Request for Comments to get broader community input. You must, at all times, assume good faith and remain civil toward fellow editors.
  3. Any further name-calling or personal attacks—including but not limited to accusations of lying, vandalism, or bad-faith edits—is grounds for an immediate sitewide block.
     1. @Panam2014: It is acceptable to say something along the lines of "I do not see that in the source"; but do not make comments along the lines of "You are misinterpreting the source".
     2. In the event any party to the dispute needs to report said behaviour at this noticeboard or anywhere else, you may link the diff of the edit, but refrain from labeling it. You may, of course, ask an administrator to review the diff in question.
     3. Nobody is getting any sanction at this time because there has been such a garbled interchange of posts in multiple places that it's hard to see who "started it", and because I think the community is best served if everybody gets a chance to calm down and try to work through this together.

To draw an analogy with a rugby match I watched this week, this is the referee calling the team captains together to say there's been a lot of foul play away from the ball, you need to get your teams under control. Editors, please let this dispute turn out differently than that match, because if the analogy holds, the next inappropriate action will result in somebody being sent to the sin bin. —C.Fred (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

GenoV84 and Panam2014 have now been informed of this message via a {{uw-npa4im}} templated message on their respective user talk pages. —C.Fred (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@C.Fred: he continues). Enough is enough. I am engaged to not revert again but he continues his edit warring as WP:3RR. It is not fair. Panam2014 (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Soyouy553 has been advised via a non-templated message. Srnec has been removed as a party, since they have not edited the articles in question since the dispute began. —C.Fred (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Paolo E F Maurício

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

• Paolo E F Maurício (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See contribs. Looks like a case of WP:NOTHERE. Only edits are complaining about "extreme left ideology" and trying to add plainly inappropriate controversy sections to promote their POV, after being warned and asked to find another area to edit. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

No thanks to this POV pushing… Indeffed. Courcelles (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Tag-team edit warring by promotional SPAs at Aegean Oil

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

As discussed at Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Aegean_Oil, there appear to be a number of promotional SPA and IP accounts engaging in edit-warring in order to restore self-sourced promotional material on the Aegean Oil article. Despite being repeatedly asked to respond, most of the accounts have never responded to repeated notices on their talkpage regarding the issue. One of the IP users has responded to the above COI post, and gave in my opinion an unconvincing denial. . The accounts include Aekara-lfc21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Yioryiosaek21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and the IP range 2A00:23C7:E53E:AD01:186A:FCF6:786D:BB11/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Courcelles has blocked the users and the IP range and semi-protected the page. Many thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• Accounts blocked, pages protected. What a mess those accounts have made. Courcelles (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  And now I’ve reverted the article back to before all the spamming and puffery. At least I’m not itching to G11 this version. Courcelles (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Nalinsharma80 is still creating unsourced articles

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

Nalinsharma80 (talk · contribs) has been an editor since the beginning of 2017, and has made just over 3000 edits. Their focus is geographical locations/administrative divisions in India and Indian politics, particularly small or local political parties. Thir user talk page has more than 40 speedy deletion notices, 20+ BLP prod notices, 33 draftification notices, and multiple warnings (including several final warnings) about addition of unsourced content and creation of unsourced articles. They have been blocked twice, including one 42-day block back in 2020 for "persistent disruption and addition of unsourced content, refusal to discuss". A previous ANI report three months ago resulted in this unambiguous final warning.

Their editing behaviour has not changed, however. Yesterday and today, they created five unsourced articles which have since been draftified by other editors. Two of the drafts were immediately submitted for review by Nalinsharma80 without any changes: , . They have also continued to add unsourced content to many articles, e.g. this from today. They have never posted to a user talk page. I'm afraid it doesn't look like this is going to change. --bonadea contributions talk 08:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Indef blocked. I see they've been blocked before, repeatedly warned, and, apparently, are unaware of the existence of their own talk page. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Min-Seo O'Connor

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

User:Min-Seo O'Connor seems to be doing a bunch of random reverts along with "this is your only warning" messages on editors' talk pages. I got one, and others who did are responding on the editor's talk page. Perhaps he needs a block? Dicklyon (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The user was about 40 minutes ago by Spicy. Their edits were mass reverted by MaterialScientist, myself, and a few other users. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Was blocked, you mean? Good. No indication on their talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

UPE - User:Shouryasbaghel

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

Undisclosed paid editor continued editing despite several warnings. User made numerous promotional edits to articles . Fancy Refrigerator 13:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

User blocked by Courcelles RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

You edit conflicted me saying that! Yeah, blocked as spamming/shilling/promoting/UPE, whatever you want to call it. Admins will be able to see they created a spammy article as far back as 2016. Courcelles (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards