[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Solomon The Magnifico (talk | contribs) at 07:11, 16 September 2023 (→‎Personal attacks by Number 57). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    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)

    Start a new discussion

    Dicklyon and semi-automated edits

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    There is a general consensus that automated and semi-automated editing tool use by Dicklyon has been disruptive by being overly error prone, and by Dicklyon's failure to meaningfully address that problem after repeated requests to do so. Accordingly:
    • Dicklyon is banned indefinitely by the community from making edits with any assistance from automated or semi-automated tools. All edits made while under this restriction must be made entirely manually. This is, of course, also a clear endorsement of the removal of Dicklyon from the AWB/JWB approval list during this discussion, and Dicklyon may not reapply for access to any such tools until this restriction is lifted by appeal.
      • For the sake of clarity, a manual edit is done by either opening the edit window in the wikimarkup editor, manually making any desired changes (with use of the tools normally present in the normal, unmodified editor interface), and after any desired previewing and edit summary entry, manually pressing the "Publish changes" button to publish the edit, or by using the Visual Editor utility with only the tools available in the normal, unmodified Visual Editor interface. A manual revert is also considered a manual edit.
      • Dicklyon is cautioned that edits which appear to be automated or automation-assisted, due to their rate or character, are likely to be viewed as violations of this restriction, as it is often impossible to tell with absolute certainty whether an automated tool was used for an edit. Dicklyon is strongly encouraged to edit at such a rate and in such a manner as to leave no room for doubt that the edits are being done manually, and to avoid any behavior which may be interpreted as boundary pushing.
      • This restriction will be logged at the list of community editing restrictions.
      • Dicklyon may appeal this restriction on the first instance no sooner than six months from today's date, and if such an appeal is unsuccessful, thereafter no sooner than six months from the date the most recent appeal was closed as unsuccessful.
    • There is no consensus to restrict Dicklyon from capitalization or other MOS edits generally, provided that such edits are made in accordance with the above restriction. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dicklyon has been using semi-automated editing to correct capitalization issues for many years, but has run into trouble with it many times as well. I recently saw some of his edits on my watchlist, but as they contained a lot of errors, I reverted them and posted to his talk page[1]. Rather unsatisfactory responses, and 3 days later a new batch of changes lit up my watchlist, all of them containing errors[2]. Issues include turning bluelinks into redlinks, changes inside refs (e.g. de-capitalizing titles), changing official names of organisations to decapitalized versions, ... Again Dicklyon gave some feebleassurances of slowing down, taking better care, but the error rate wasn't high, and so on. User:Pelmeen10[3] and User:Butlerblog[4] agreed with my criticism and requests to slow down, check things much better, ... From their responses, it became apparent that Dicklyon still didn't recognize the extent of the issues or the high error rate of his edits, so I checked the first edit of a new batch of "fixes" he did, and reported the rather terrible results[5], which continued all the previous issues and then some (lowercasing personal names, or the first word of a section heading). The full discussion can be seen at User talk:Dicklyon#Slalom "fixes". Can something please be done to make Dicklyon stop (topic ban, block, obligation to run a bot which first gets scrutiny and approval, or whatever solution is deemed best)? Fram (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Remove from AWB checkpage - Dicklyon needs to have WP:JWB access removed by being removed from the AWB checkpage.
    This is just the latest repeat of something that he has been warned about multiple times in the past (causing a high number of errors using a semi-automated editing tool), both on his talk page: [6] [7] and at AN/I: [8].
    He's using the semi-automated edit tool JWB and the issue is he simply goes too fast - editing at bot-like speeds and is not carefully looking at his edits, which results in broken/red links, and other such problems, all of which have been specifically pointed out to him in previous discussions. At those speeds, WP:MEATBOT applies. In that previous ANI discussion, it was pointed out that he was editing at 30+ edits per minute. In this most recent issue that Fram pointed out above, I noted to Dicklyon that his editing rate reached speeds of 40+ edits per minute [9]. Instead of slowing down, he increased to speeds of 67+ edits per minute [10]. While I did not see errors in that last run, apparently Fram did.
    He really seems to be more concerned with speed rather than accuracy. The speed vs accuracy problem has been pointed out many times, he has acknowledged it, and yet time and again he simply does not slow down. Instead, he speeds up. Per WP:AWB, AWB & JWB users are responsible for every edit made. His high error rates and unwillingness to slow down show that we cannot allow him to continue to use the tool. It's an easy solution, and if not taken, this will continue to happen in the future.
    ButlerBlog (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, as this has all been pointed out to AND acknowledged by Dicklyon on multiple occasions, at this point the focus should be on whether the disruptive editing warrants removal of JWB access (either permanently or for a defined period, or any other sanction) as opposed to the "I promise to be more careful" response that we've already gotten in the past. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed Dicklyon's AWB access, if nothing else as a stopgap while this discussion proceeds to prevent further disruption. I will not necessarily be following this discussion, but if there ends up being a consensus to restore access I will not be objecting (though by all means ping me if my opinion on something is needed). Primefac (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Dicklyon response: On 28 August (over a week ago), Fram reverted 11 of my semi-automated edits, for a combination of errors, which I've discussed, learned from, corrected, and mostly not repeated (see User talk:Dicklyon#Slalom "fixes"); mostly, it was for not realizing that "IPC Alpine Skiing" is the name of an organization. I was editing too fast, not looking closely enough at the diffs, in a run about 1000 edits around that time, and made a few other errors, too, and I've been much more careful since. I asked him if he noticed or could find any more such problems, and he did not point out any more. Yesterday, he found some errors in an article that I had edited mostly by hand, while developing some regex patterns, over a period of many minutes. He pointed those out, and I've made another pass over that and a couple of subsequent edits. I don't see how this is a disruptive situation that requires intervention. I've done about 2000 JWB edits over the last week, and judging by what I can find and what's been reported, I think the error rate is probably around 1% (and even in those with errors, such as a case change in a reference title, there's usually a net improvement in the article). Most of these edits just clean up obvious over-capitalization (there's been no suggestion that anything I've done is controversial, just a few mistakes). As for turning blue links to red links, I don't know; I'm usually very careful about that, and none have been pointed out. Dicklyon (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • To judge the accuracy of this reply, let's just look at the final sentence: "As for turning blue links to red links, I don't know; I'm usually very careful about that, and none have been pointed out." My very first, short enough post in the section on your talk page made the explicit claim of turnuin bluelinks into redlinks in this edit, where you changed [[Super Giant Slalom skiing|super-G]] into [[Super Giant slalom skiing|super-G]] (lower case "slalom" in the piped link). So what do you 6 minutes after you have replied to my post about this? You create Super Giant slalom skiing. Yet now you claim not to know if you created any redlinks, and claim none have been pointed out? Too long ago perhaps? In my post yesterday evening in the same section, I even put in bold, turning bluelinks into redlinks, with a clear indication where you could find it. You changed [[2014 European Women's Artistic Gymnastics Championships|2014 European WAG Championships]] into [[2014 European Women's artistic Gymnastics Championships|2014 European WAG Championships]] (downcasing "artistic" inside the piped link, the same also in the Men competition link), which turned two bluelinks into two redlinks. If you can't even see (or admit) this after it has been pointed out to you, and even explicitly claim the opposite, then your being "very careful" is of little value. Fram (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure enough, looks like I fixed those few and forgot. Dicklyon (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, I see now, that's going back to the one redlink found and fixed on August 25. And then on Sept. 4 I made two more in one huge article that I editted slowly. Got it. Dicklyon (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for your claims of making inbetween a few thousand edits with a very low error rate, I notice that you switched to a much simpler change (downcasing "Association Football"), but that a) most of your edits are of the type discouraged by AWB and the like (purely cosmetic changes of piped links, e.g. [11][12][13][14][15]), and b) inbetween you make halfbaked changes, turning the visible text "Association Football" into "Association football" in the middle of a sentence, which is not an improvement[16], or changing the piped link but not the actual, visible text[17]. Fram (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Note that fixing a piping through a miscapitalized redirect is not purely cosmetic. It not only avoids the redirect, by piping instead through the actual title, or by skipping the redirect, but it is also part of the maintenance process of trying to get things out of WP:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations. I'm not claiming that you should care about these small benefits, but the latter is part of an overeall work pattern to improve the encyclopedia, not done for cosmetic reasons. Dicklyon (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Fram They seem to somehow still be doing semi-automated edits despite having had AWB rights revoked? I highly doubt this edit [18] (which I just reverted for a multitude of reasons) was done manually. 192.76.8.65 (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. Fram (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, enough is enough I guess. So while this discussion is ongoing, and after their AWB access was removed, they make "case fixes" inside urls. I guess we can throw all assurances of being very careful and having a very low error rate and so on into the bin. Is there anything short of a block that will drive home the message? It took indef blocks to solve some their earlier editing issues. Fram (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I started by copying the text from an open JWB editor, and hadn't gotten around to finishing correcting it before it got reverted. It's fixed now. You can add 1 to my count of error files. Dicklyon (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dicklyon you really shouldn't be doing any sort of automated or semi-automated editing while this discussion is on-going, especially as the permissions to use JWB directly in the article space were revoked several hours ago. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't automated or semi-automated when I did it. Dicklyon (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You said in the comment I replied to that you had "started by copying the text from an open JWB editor". That is semi-automated editing, as you are using the output of a JWB run as the basis to start your edit.
    You really should not be publishing edits that you know in advance are broken in some way. There's a reason why we have a preview button, so that you can see the results of any edit you're about to make and give you the time to fix it before you publish. As with all of the previous times your conduct has come up in relation to this type of issue, you need to slow down a lot. Focus on quality over quantity, and verify your edits are correct before pushing the publish button. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did look carefully at the preview (see this version), and the only thing I saw was that there was still more excess capitalization to fix. Later, studying the diffs, I saw some other details I got wrong, and I fixed it all up. Whether using JWB or not, I almost always make edits that I believe are broken in some way, as I don't have the patience to find and fix every over-capitalized word. Does anyone? Dicklyon (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether using JWB or not, I almost always make edits that I believe are broken in some way, as I don't have the patience to find and fix every over-capitalized word. That is a really shockingly bad approach to take towards editing articles. While edits don't need to be perfect, and some mistakes will happen as we're (mostly) all human, no-one should be publishing something that they believe to be broken from the outset. That is another sign that you need to slow down. Again, quality over quantity is what is important.
    To answer your question, yes I always check what I'm publishing before I publish it. At minimum I check for spelling, punctuation, Engvar issues, date formatting issues, source reliability, factual accuracy, copyvios, and close paraphrasing. Those are all things you should be keeping an eye out for before you hit the publish button, as it saves others a lot of work by catching and cleaning up after you when you do make mistakes. Depending on the page and topic, as I edit a lot of contentious topic areas, I also check to make sure I'm not introducing/re-introducing text for which there is a consensus to exclude, as well as any text for which there is a consensus for a specific version. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't do much in article space besides reverts, so maybe you don't know how hard it is to feel like you fixed everything that's wrong with an article. Going back a few days, the latest article edit I could find by you that's not a revert or undo, I see you did this edit, leaving quite a few capitalization and punctuation errors and inconsistencies in the section you edited. Maybe some of us are just more aware that we're not fixing everything at once. Dicklyon (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't do much in article space besides reverts, so maybe you don't know how hard it is to feel like you fixed everything that's wrong with an article. Given how the rest of this discussion is going, I would suggest that you strike and rephrase this, along with the final sentence in your reply, as casting aspersions about my editing and speculating over my own experience levels and state of mind will not be helping your situation.
    However, if you check my first edit in that sequence, you'll see that I was dealing with an NPOV concern on a dual CTOP article (BLP and GENSEX). My second edit, the one that you linked to, was adjusting the text that was present prior to the NPOV issue being introduced to bring it in line with standard terminology on this topic. Making sure our text is core policy compliant is of far more importance than ensuring that I correct three capitalisation errors (for the point on Davies' BBC Question Time), the title of one publisher and one book (for the point on the Dorling Kindersley book), and a possible en/em dash issue. It would also be a better investment of my editorial time to convert that list into prose, per the maintenance tag which has been on that section for a little over a year. But we're not here to discuss my edits, we're here to discuss your edits. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I absolutely agree that "Making sure our text is core policy compliant is of far more importance than ensuring that I correct three capitalisation errors...", and I don't mean to be criticizing you, just poking fun at your statement that I shouldn't submit without correcting everything I can find – nobody does that, not even you. Dicklyon (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I shouldn't submit without correcting everything I can find That's not what I said. I said that an editor should always check what content they're changing before they publish it. As in, if you edit a sentence, or paragraph, or citation, you verify that the edit you're about to make isn't going to introduce any new errors. That applies whether you're fixing or rewriting existing content, or adding wholly new content.
    You don't need to fix everyone else's errors in a single edit, or fix an entire section when you're fixing a single sentence, paragraph, or reference, but you do have a responsibility to make sure that your edits are as error free as humanly possible. And that is I'm afraid, based on this discussion and the previous discussions, something that you seem to struggle with, particularly with regards to automated and semi-automated mass changes. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's hard to gauge whether the changes are a net improvement because messing up even a single internal link or a reference url, or a title of a work, which can be a bit of a sneaky error, that future editors might fail to notice, is hard to appraise against having some obviously incorrectly capitalized words sorted out, which is a nice thing to do, but it's also kind of trivial, and such things do get fixed along the way as any article reaches a certain state of maturity. These fixes should follow along the trajectory of the article getting actually better while not introducing any errors that will be difficult to notice even much further down the line. —Alalch E. 23:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • At some point sanctions beyond a prohibition on automated editing are probably necessary, including a topic ban from MOS edits entirely or a block beyond that. Error rate aside, I don't think the changes Dicklyon are making are important enough they need to be automated. This is grammar pedantry of the highest order, and the only thing worse than pedantry for the sake of it is pedantry that's incorrect. Error rates of even "just" 1% when making thousands of edits is still more mistakes than is likely uninvolved editors are going to be able to spot, track, and fix. It's inherently disruptive, has no real benefit for the project, and we've been down this road before with the editor. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That's a purely anti-MOS stance, hardly related to the fact that I made a few errors. The fixes I'm making are not controversial, just moving toward better alignment with our consensus style guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      No, it's based on your refusal to see what you're doing is an issue. This thread is a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT goldmine of quotes and actions from you. No, other editors don't regularly push knowingly broken edits, especially breaking stuff over capitalization. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I do understand that editing too fast such that I make mistakes is an issue, and I did a bit of that a week ago, as I've admitted repeatedly and have done my best to fix. But Fram is now saying that since I made mistakes in another article while editing slowly and carefully I need some kind of intervention, and you're saying that what I'm doing isn't even in the good of the project (you call it "grammar pedantry of the highest order", which I find offensive, though I do practice a bit of pedantry when I think it will help). I don't understand how you think that way. Dicklyon (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I won't comment on the specifics of this case, but I'm familiar with this editor. Previous ANI's on this editor have had long drawn out wall of text comments that ultimately discouraged participation. Dicklyon has had an opportunity to address the issues brought up here and now let others contribute. Thanks Nemov (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      If you refer to past interactions, an archive link is a good idea. Of course you're a bit familiar, as you are the one who initiated the last complaint at ANI, which was pretty much baseless, and on a mild dispute that you weren't really even part of. I still think too much discussion is not an infraction. Dicklyon (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read this entire discussion: User talk:Dicklyon#Slalom "fixes". Fram is making overblown claims of a Dicklyon error rate, and Dicklyon is bending over backward to satisfy Fram, who appears now to have arrived at an expectation of absolute perfection on first attempt, and to have no patience for Dicklyon correcting his own few inevitable mistakes. I'm not buying it. I've been watching this dicussion unfold post-by-post since Aug. 25 (without getting involved), and at every turn Dicklyon has been entirely open to criticism and to adjusting his JWB editing to be more precise and, basically trying to make Fram (and Pelmeen10 and ButlerBlog) happy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, S. Your "Read" is a little ambiguous; did you mean it as an imperative, or as a past tense? Either way, good. But I don't agree that the mistakes Fram complained about were inevitable, nor trivial. He had a couple of valid complaints and gave me useful feedback that helped a lot. Why he decided to file an ANI complaint after that is the mystery. Dicklyon (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I meant it as a suggestion/request; have clarified the wording. As for "inevitable", I mean that everyone makes mistakes, and a large cleanup job cannot reasonably be expected to have a 0.000% error rate.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      If this were the only time this has happened, the penitent response would be adequate. But this is a pattern that continues to be repeated. The first rule at WP:AWBRULES is: You are expected to review every edit, just as if you were making an edit using Wikipedia's edit form when editing by hand. Do not sacrifice quality for speed, and review all changes before saving. Can you review the edit you're making when doing 30, 40, and 60 edits per minute? The rules are clear: Repeated abuse of these rules could result, without warning, in your software being disabled. Personally, I think that alone is adequate. Honestly, per WP:MEATBOT, he could/should be treated as a bot, and thus per WP:BOTBLOCK, operating as an unapproved bot could result in a soft-block. I haven't asked for that, and I don't know if I would support that as necessary. But operating JWB and AWB comes with more responsibility than manual editing. If it's being abused, the only reasonable response is to remove him from the checkpage. ButlerBlog (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • At what point do we finally state that enough is enough? What matters is both the error rate and the number of errors, which combined with repeatedly IDHT and failures to improve standards while making bot-like edits is something that resulted in blocks and complete automation bans for Batacommand and Rich Farmbrough at least. I'm also utterly unsurprised at SMcCandlish bending over backwards to avoid seeing any problems with Dicklyon's edits, because it happens every time Dick gets brought to ANI. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The fact that my mind remains unchanged isn't somehow a failing on my part. Dicklyon gets brought to ANI with weaksauce evidence, a badgering personal-beef vibe to the accusations, and ignoring of any attempts to Dicklyon to address the concerns. I don't find this nonsense persuasive, and trying to turn this discussion to be about me isn't going to do it either. It's ad hominem hand-waving.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor's lack of attention to detail is frustrating. I refer you to this discussion and the one below it from October 2022, in which the editor seemed to think that it was acceptable to ask other people to check their edits when it was pointed out that the editor had made hundreds of bad edits. As a hard-core gnome and someone who has made tens of thousands of minor syntax fixes that sometimes annoy other editors by filling their watchlists, I am sympathetic to Dicklyon's desire to fix minor errors. But when you are making thousands of minor edits that may already be annoying to people, it is extra important to avoid making errors along the way, and to respond fully and rapidly when a helpful editor takes the time to notify you of your errors. Dicklyon does not have a pattern of responding well when errors are pointed out, and the editor does not have a pattern of carefully checking the output of their edits. Some kind of restriction appears to be overdue, unfortunately. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Reading through the threads you linked to, suggest that this may well be a speed issue, and apparently, the editor not handling the increased speeds very well. - jc37 16:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I have so stipulated several times. It's not that I was using JWB, but that I got lazy and didn't pay enough attention to the diff, going too fast. I'm guilty of that. But the last of that was over a week before Fram's complaint here, so it's not clear why he brought this complaint. Dicklyon (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dicklyon - Based upon your sentence: "It's not that I was using JWB, but that I got lazy and didn't pay enough attention to the diff, going too fast." lead me to want to ask something. This is not me asking the community to chime in on some sort of sanction, I'm just asking you, based upon your own discernment, and self-awareness.
    What do you think about taking a break from AWB for a few months, to give you more of an opportunity to get a handle on your editing practices? - jc37 20:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me explain my editing practices, which I have a fair handle on already. For 15 years or so, I averaged about 30 edits per day. Since getting onto JWB, more like 500 per day. My error rate per article, and rate of ANI complaints, per article edit, is down by way more than an order of magnitude, because with JWB I have to be way more careful; I do less that's controversial, and more simple grunt work. And when I make a mistake, JWB helps me find and correct similar mistakes across multiple articles quickly. I've made huge progress on over-capitaliztion, most recently in sports, such as fixing things like "Men's Singles", "Assistant Coach", and "Giant Slalom" in tens of thousands of articles. In late August I had a couple of bad days, and made mistakes that I didn't quickly notice and fix in about 15 articles, possibly more, out of a thousand or so article edits with many case fixes in each. I'm not arguing that that's OK, just that it's not cause for an ANI discussion or admin intervention. Stepping away from JWB would not address the issue, which is that I did get sloppy for a bit and rushed things with barely a glance. I'll be more careful, and give everything a better look in the future, which will take a lot more of my time, but will avoid these embarrassing situations where I have occasionally made enough mistakes for an editor to get annoyed at me instead of just saying what he noticed. And coming to ANI is always a pain, as it's watched by vultures who are always willing to attack me based on memories of long-ago slights. This is not a sensible venue to discuss these issues. Dicklyon (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your response. I had considered asking you the question on your talk page. But I thought that that could just merely split the discussion.
    I thought that perhaps if you took a break from AWB for now, that might resolve any short-term concerns. But I can see how that could also be problematic for you in the future. Hence my asking what you thought.
    Thank you again for your assessment. - jc37 04:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Re-read that again after (re-)reading WP:AWB. And Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules_of_use Rule #1 comes to mind. Asking others to essentially WP:SOFIXIT (Wikipedia:Someone else fix it), when it's a mistake that you made through lack of diligence with semi-automated tools, isn't the best look. The second part of WP:BOLD is "but not WP:RECKLESS". AWB is unambiguously clear that you are responsible for your edits. And that includes cleaning up your mistakes. Others can of course help if they are willing, but there should not be a presumption that others are your clean-up crew. This dances a bit too close to WP:FAIT as well. I really want to AGF here, but the more I look, the more concerns I start to see.
    Let's keep this as simple and straight-forward as possible: Dicklyon - Do you agree that, per policy and guidelines, you are responsible for all the edits on your account, regardless of whether they are done with tools or not? And do you agree that if edits that are unambiguously errors are discovered, that you are responsible for correcting them in a timely manner? - jc37 18:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have always taken responsibility for my mistakes, and have not asked others to fix them. The discussion Jonesey95 linked shows me fixing the categories (asking for speedy moves of cats is a part of the normal process of getting category names to match article names, and I fixed to categories in the articles already so that they wouldn't be red while waiting for those speedy moves). I did ask for more detail on what someone noticed, which helps me be sure I fixed everything. When I asked Fram for more detail on his Aug. 25 complaints, after I fixed what I could find and he said I didn't, he gave me nothing more until I made more mistakes later, and then I fixed all those. In most cases, I would have found and fixed them myself within a day without his help, nevertheless I did appreciate hearing what he noticed and that helped me find more thorough fixes, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your response. - jc37 19:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ?????? Please read the discussion I linked above. This editor repeatedly wrote some variant of "Please do let me know (or just revert) if you see any other errors or non-useful edits that I've made. I fixed a bunch of stuff with a few redirects, but I'm sure more will turn up." This is NOT the same as inspecting every edit carefully to look for errors and then fixing them. The behavior continued over a period of more than a month. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to surface this comment from upthread, with caveated commentary. First, I've made a lot of trivial gnoming edits in my own contributions (like ensuring bylines and publication dates are present in obituary notices for some reason), sometimes accompanied by an edit summary along the lines of "why am i fixing this?". Second, I have been too busy to do anything useful here for about two weeks now, as my contribution history should show. Third, I often knowingly introduce errors which I fix in the subsequent edit, usually a no-target error from citing a source I haven't added yet, although I also sometimes inadvertently duplicate |date= parameters because I miss their presence when fixing up all the parameters some referencing script missed or got wrong.
    Having said that, the aforementioned comment: I did look carefully at the preview ... and the only thing I saw was that there was still more excess capitalization to fix. Later, studying the diffs, I saw some other details I got wrong, and I fixed it all up. Whether using JWB or not, I almost always make edits that I believe are broken in some way....
    Turning a single bluelink red, or messing up a single reference url, are not really that big of a deal. But it's my position that one of those errors is more worse than maybe 150 MOSed recapitalisations – or 25 completed obituary citations – is better. The work being done here is, in the broad view, extremely trivial, so the accompanying error rate should be extremely low. This exact kind of error is why WP:CONTEXTBOT.
    If a "careful look" at the preview is still resulting in multiple errors; if errors are suspected "whether or not" semi-automated tools are used, it seems to me that rate limiting is the solution here. I don't think there's any technical way to cap a human user at, say, six edits a minute, but keeping the JWB permissions revoked seems like a positive step. Folly Mox (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Thryduulf and David Fuchs. At what point do we run out of patience? If it was down to me alone, I would have run out a long time ago. Enough. Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      If that's a reference to David Fuchs' comment on a "topic ban from MOS edits", I certainly agree with that. I've never understood why the community tolerates the level of collateral disruption caused by their marginal/trivial but voluminous MOS-type "corrections". DeCausa (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with a topic ban like that, but it would need tighter wording. For example would it (and should it) include requested moves related to capitalisation (the issue at hand last time I commented on an issue involving Dicklyon at ANI)? What about MOS-related discussions in Wikipedia space? Thryduulf (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Why on earth would someone be topic-banned from an entire swath of guidelines and processes just because (should consensus come to such an assement) some of their bot-like edits of a particular kind of had too high an error rate? That's now how we do things. You have a long history of criticism against various MoS regulars, agitation against MoS being applicable to topics you care about, and vociferous disagreement with various things that MoS says (without gaining a consensus to change them), so this appears to be a personal "help me get rid of an enemy" witch-hunt.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      ... and you have a demonstrated history of defending the same, along with vociferous agreement with the stances. Should we therefore similarly accuse you of knee-jerk reactions in defense of a faction? Ravenswing 23:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @SMcCandlish it's true you have repeatedly accused me of that, but the accusations are a mix of partially true, misleading and false. I have long been critical of the behaviour of you and Dicklyon (both MOS regulars with a very long history of vociferously disagreeing with opinions that differ from your own) but only because of your behaviour. I have never agitated against MoS being applicable either to topics I care about or otherwise, what I have done is disagreed with your interpretation of some MoS guidelines and disagreed with your interpretation of/characterisation of evidence in some specific cases. Finally I don't regard Dicklyon (or you) as enemies.
      Now I've dealt with the entirely uncalled-for ad homimens... when someone has an error rate and volume as high as Dicklyon's, for as long as Dicklyon's, without evidence of understanding why editors are upset about those errors or demonstrating an ability to edit without making so many errors, taking steps to protect the encyclopaedia is what we do things.
      If you'd actually read what I wrote, rather than assuming I was trying to pursue a "witch hunt" you seem to think is the only reason I might have a different opinion, you would see that I was asking questions about what the scope should be rather than arguing that he should be topic banned from "an entire swath of guidelines and processes". Thryduulf (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You're asking to widen the scope to RM and to "WP:" namespace in general, something even ArbCom did not try to do with WP:ARBATC, the discretionary sanctions (now CTOP) applied to WP:AT and WP:MOS (and have refused to do when asked to do it later at ARCA). "Uncalled for"? You started this by going after me by name with insinuations that sound like some kind of conspiracy theory. Your trying to play victim here after picking a fight pointedly, for no apparent reason, is pretty silly. Back to the matter at actual hand, it's clear from Dicklyon's talk page discussion that he's making efforts to slow his roll and produce fewer errors, and has been entirely open to cricism about his errors and suggestions about what he can do to reduce them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You're asking to widen the scope to RM and to "WP:" namespace in general Nope. Try reading what I have actually written rather than what you think someone with the motivation you ascribe to me would write. Please stop attempting to paint my disagreements as some sort of witch hunt, conspiracy theory, and/or fight-picking and accept that I might actually be here in good faith. Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Alright, I'll take this to user talk.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would tend to agree with the assessment by SMcCandlish. Per WP:AWBRULES, DL does accept responsibility for their edits. They do remedy any error they have made when these are pointed out and they have acknowledged that they were proceeding too fast (initially) in this case. WP is a collaborative project based on a principle of continuous improvement. Collaborative improvement occurs through positive feedback. Even preceded by please, undo all your "slalom" related "case fixes" ...by creating a mixed case nightmare... is a demand, it does not move things forward, and it is negative feedback. There is an underlying battle ground tone. The argument is that DL's edits have a high error rate. What is too high? Arguably, he would claim to be running at about 1%. Is this too high? I see one editor posting a 206 word edit to User talk:Dicklyon#Slalom "fixes" with three very clear and unambiguous spelling errors that would have been highlighted by a spell-checker operating in the edit interface. This indicates to me that editors making claims in respect to DL's error rate would hold DL to a higher standard than that which they would hold themself to. Sounds a bit WP:POTish to me. There is an assertion that AWB type edits should be more accurate (have less errors) than edits made manually. It is a fallacious assertion that the oversight provided to an AWB edit can be more accurate than that applied to a manual edit. When one editor may not see a particular tree for the woods, another will see it as if it stood alone in a field. This occurs regardless of whether we are talking about manual or semiautomated edits. It has been my observation over time that DL uses feedback to not only correct an error in a particular article but to learn from this, correct any mis-identification of a pattern, ultimately correct similar errors that may have occurred in other article and prevent the same error occurring in further like edits. This is collaborative editing. It is certainly not leaving a mess for others to fix. It is a process of continuous improvement through successive iterations. If they were leaving a mess for others to clean up, then there would be good reason for complaint but this is not the case. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I see one editor posting a 206 word edit to User talk:Dicklyon#Slalom "fixes" with three very clear and unambiguous spelling errors that would have been highlighted by a spell-checker operating in the edit interface. This indicates to me that editors making claims in respect to DL's error rate would hold DL to a higher standard than that which they would hold themself to. Not all errors are equally problematic. Typos in wikipedia and user talk space are basically a non-issue except in very rare cases where that contributes to genuine misunderstanding; broken links in mainspace actually negatively impact on our readers. Suggesting that people shouldn't object to introducing errors in article space if they make typos in wikipedia space is absurd. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I would add that an acceptable error rate also depends on the type of error and situation involved. 1% might be fine for someone making "generic" edits (for lack of a better term). But as mentioned by Folly Mox, it might not be acceptable when you're making a large number of semi-automated edits. Nil Einne (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      This comes back to the absolute number of errors being at least, if not more, important than the rate of errors. It takes basically the same amount of editor time and effort to fix 50 errors introduced over 100 edits as it does to fix 50 errors made over 1000 edits (actually slightly less time in the former case if you count time spent checking for errors). Failure to grasp this was a key issue with either Rich Farmbrough or Betacommand (possibly both). Thryduulf (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, errors in main-space are more consequential than errors on TPs. However, my point is that every body makes errors and my question was what is too high. Yes, breaking links or corrupting a reference is significant but a spelling error can also be significant if it is a miss-matched word that creates a totally different meaning. DL has acknowledges the significance of the errors. But has everyone here never made a similar mistake? Has everyone here never had a bad-hair wiki day? What quantum of errors are we actually talking about? Yes, leaving 50 errors for others to clean up would be cause for complaint but has DL done this? However, this is not the case. If someone points out one error in one article that he did not recognise, DL looks for and fixes similar errors he may have created. This is being responsible for the edits he creates. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would support a community activity ban on Dicklyon from using JWB/AWB and any other mass-text-editing-engine for 6 months. Lourdes 11:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Lourdes and would support banning Dicklyon from mass-editing for six months. As others have noted, this isn't the first time the community has expressed concerns about the error rate with Dicklyon's mass edits, and it wasn't that long ago. To address the question of what the "expected" error rate is with AWB/JWB, I would say that it ought to be zero. Yes, mistakes will happen, but they should be few and far between. You should be reviewing every edit for sanity, both via diff and preview. If Dicklyon isn't doing that, that's a problem. If he is doing that and not catching the errors that he's introducing, that's also a problem. The nature of the changes is beside the point. Mackensen (talk) 11:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal : Site ban

    This is clearly no consensus for this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I've just read through the discussion. A few points I've noticed - firstly, I agree with Sideswipe9th that fixing egregious BLP violations, factual inaccuracies or bias in articles is much more important than fixing capitalisations. I also agree that not breaking URLs in articles is more important than minor capitalisation issues. Looking at this, I just get the impression that Dicklyon does not recognise how much of a problem he is, and how much he needs to slow down and take more care editing. So I'm going to propose that For continued bot-like editing, despite previous warnings and resolve to improve, Dicklyon is site banned. Your thoughts, please. (I'm not going to !vote one way or the other as I have a known bias against the perceived value of these sort of edits.) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Any thoughts on why a site ban is needed here rather than a topic ban? User has a long block log, but only 2 blocks in the last 5 years. Normally problems with AWB/JWB/semi-automated editing would not get a user a site ban so I am curious if I am missing something. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Nah. Usual story: long-time editor inevitably makes enemies—such as me—through having been here a long time, doesn't realise, notice or care that he's slowly putting an awful lot of noses of joint until a critical mass is reached and site bans can be suggested in faux-but-I'm-only-thinking-of-the-project-handwringing impartiality. Step back and await pile-on of aforementioned enemies and the subsequent leverframe bloc vote. Arrivederci, Roma. SN54129 12:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I'm not going to oppose at this point, although trying a topic ban from automated edits and from the manual of style (but better defined than that) is I think my first preference. Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thinking about your earlier response to my post about an MOS TBAN, I'm just wondering whether it's possible to clearly define what MOS edits are. The issue isn't just automated edits, it's also other disruptive MOS editing as can be seen in previous ANIs. If someone can define MOS edits then TBANs would be preferable. If they can't then maybe it has to be a site ban. DeCausa (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes definitions are tricky. My first thoughts (which probably need to be refined) would be stopping
    • Edits that only change capitalisation
    • Piping, unpiping or changing the displayed text of piped links
    For both only in the article (and draft?) namespaces I think, with an exception for their own contributions when they are the most recent edit (no benefit in preventing them from fixing a typo they made). I would allow them to request such changes on article talk pages, as long as this is kept to a reasonable number but I don't know how to define "reasonable number". Additional points may be required but I think these are the basic two.
    Given past issues that brought them to ANI it needs to be explicitly stated whether commenting on and/or initiating requested moves, RfCs, and similar regarding MoS issues should be included in the topic ban, and I'm not going to express an opinion either way beyond saying it needs to be actively considered.
    Any MoS-related topic ban should be separate from any automation-related topic ban both for clarity now and to allow them to be appealed separately. Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, a piping restriction should not apply to links they add to articles while they are the most recent person to edit a page. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose siteban - too much too quick. This isn't a decade ago. We have more options available before jumping to full siteban. - jc37 12:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Prefer the below suggestion. Black Kite (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose See support proposal below. Nemov (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - When the objective is to remove a bent nail from the wall, one does not use a sledgehammer to tear the wall down when the claw end of a hammer will suffice. Our objective when working with editors that are causing disruption is to close off those specific vectors in which they are disruptive, in the hopes that they can continue to be effective in other areas of Wikipedia. I think SN54129 is echoing (rather glibly) my perceptions here that Dicklyon has made some very high-profile enemies here through his apparent failure to understand the depth of his disruption, and perhaps in some way that informs the siteban. But to me, reading this as an outside observer, it still seems too excessive a response. For now. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - The semi-automated ban suggestion below is a better first step, and echo what WaltClipper said above. It could be argued that it's warranted given his sanction history, but I would suggest that those issues were several years ago and this isn't exactly the same thing. However, in order to warrant a site ban we need to know that the issues extend beyond those of just issues around the operation of a semi-automated editing tool. At this point, I don't think that has been established. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Overkill and I've seen their work and valuable expertise in other areas.North8000 (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Proposal : Banned from all automated or semi-automated editing

    Sticking this in here. Its clear what the problem is, from the long history of issues Dicklyon isnt really interested in doing a better job to avoid the errors, so realistically the only option is to forbid them from doing the thing that is causing the problems. For clarity, this would also include the example above where they are copying from an output. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: These usually have a time frame for appeal. Several above have suggested 6 months. - jc37 12:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support For the record though, I think this will just end up the way all the other banned automated editors went. Constant boundary-testing incurring increasing sanctions that stop them doing what they want to do without oversight, until they reach the point after many long time-wasting discussions where they end up site-banned. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You understand everything, Godfather. SN54129 12:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per my comments above. Black Kite (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support A site ban is too much. Dicklyon has a tendnecy to move too fast which is a problem for automated editing where attention to detail is a higher priority. This doesn't make Dicklyon a bad editor, just an editor not suited for this particularly task. I'm not sure I would be suited for it either. Hopefully, he recognizes his limitations so this doesn't escalate further as pointed out by Only in death. Nemov (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The combination of an automation ban and a separate MOS-related ban (per my comments above) are the best way forward at this time, and hopefully it wont escalate. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support per my comments above on the siteban proposal. Minimum timeframe for appeal needs to be a year at minimum, and in addition, I think we need maybe to not be so ordinarily merciful in granting such an appeal when that timeframe does arrive. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I truly believe the present issue is due to speed. The types of errors generated are specific evidence that he hasn't been able to write regexes that completely evaluate the potential change, leading to false positives and that edits need to be more carefully reviewed prior to saving. I want to be extremely clear on this point - it's not the regex problem that is the reason for supporting this, nor is it just the number or type of errors alone. It's the fact that knowing that and acknowledging it, those issues continue without a change in approach. Had this been the first time pointing it out, my position would be to simply say, "hey, slow down and make sure to look at what you're doing". But, that is what has already been said more than once. It's not a battleground mentality or personal animus to say that if we don't take the tool away, we'll be having this same conversation time and again. It's simply saying that having been warned about it many times, there has to be a consequence when things have not changed. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Seems necessary and is proportionate.—Alalch E. 14:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support A good resolution and not a severe restriction. Maybe add appealable in a year and autoexpire in 2 years. North8000 (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, this escalated quickly from a talk page discussion where the issue seemed to have been handled to an attempt at a site ban and then this proposal which has no set time limit. I'd support maybe a two-week ban from the tools, just to make a point, but removing their use from an editor who has probably made thousands of good tool edits for every handful of incorrect edits (which, when pointed out, he has fixed in good faith and politeness) seems like excess punishment for doing a huge amount of work with some glitches along the way. Tool use is a steep learning curve and Dicklyon has been mastering it and is learning from his mistakes. This ban stops his learning curve before he becomes perfect at the tasks, and would be an overall loss to the project's potential. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      To clarify this: ...an attempt at a site ban and then this proposal - These came essentially at the same time, and should probably be viewed as two alternative possibilities. As you can see, the other had zero support as so was closed already. This alternative probably should not be viewed through the lens of having being proposed since the other failed. It was presented at the same time. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Dicklyon was unblocked in 2015 after socking with a requirement to "avoid large scale, controversial actions". [19]. So hardly a new issue. Black Kite (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as a minimum (no appeal for 12 months), but with the addition of an MOS edits TBAN per Thryduulf and as Thryduulf's defined it in the above closed siteban thread. The disruption isn't just via automated edits. This is a long-standing issue with multiple previous ANIs. Time to fix it. DeCausa (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support with minimum 6 months before being able to appeal. Dickylon needs a bit more care and attention to their work. They are very receptive to making corrections when they are pointed out, but the pointing out of errors happens to often. It's something that would likely be solved with more preparation and thought before carrying out the automated tasks. A period of manual editting and more careful attention may help. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose There are perhaps three premises for this proposal. Because DL makes errors, DL makes too many errors. This is an unreasonable standard. DL makes errors and creates work for others to clean up. If DL creates errors, he creates work for himself to clean up. You are making errors, stop it and revert everything. You are not listening to me! DL takes heed, adjusts, corrects and moves forward. I think that Randy and I are of a similar position. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (and support the topic-ban proposal below). Related thread from a year and a half ago: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096#Dicklyon_and_pointless_edits_once_again. Some1 (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose My interactions with this user have been positive. I'd need clear evidence that his errors are outweighing the good done by his many thousands of edits. Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support enough is enough. This conversation has happened too many times. Removal of all automated privileges seems appropriate. - Skipple ☎ 23:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Per my comments and questions above, Dicklyon needs to slow down in their editing. A TBAN from using automated and semi-automated editing will resolve this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly oppose—per Randy Kryn above. Let me say that Dicklyon has admirable expertise in language, style, and of course editing. We cannot afford to lose his input. What I see here is that a clique of capitalisation lovers has come out in full to thwart his good work. Tony (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Stipulating that (as some of the opposes state) Dicklyon does indeed have "admirable expertise in language," that some editors have had positive interactions with him, and that tools have learning curves, none of that in the least degree addresses the problem that this proposal seeks to mitigate: that Dicklyon is careless with automated tools, does not monitor them properly, has an unacceptably high error rate, and that this isn't the first time this issue has come up. Whether or not he's a hell of a swell fellow is irrelevant. The first time I used AWB I screwed up a number of articles, got a finger waggling for it, promised to do better and not screw up in the future, and did so. Paying attention just isn't that freaking hard, and for those for whom it is, those are people who shouldn't be using automated tools. Ravenswing 02:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The errors appear to be a consistent problem with this editor. This is far from the first discussion on this topic from them and their responses in the thread above don't give me faith that they will correct anything in their editing activity, particularly since they were still doing the same kinds of edits and errors while this ANI discussion was ongoing. A ban on such semi-automated editing seems like the minimum we can do to prevent this. SilverserenC 03:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. This is not about the merits of capitalisation or other style choices. I don't think most people have strong feelings about that and most who do would abide by whatever consensus emerges. The issue here is that Dicklyon has been making large numbers of edits that introduce problems to articles (like breaking piped links or altering proper nouns). Dicklyon has made it clear that he's not interested in fixing these mistakes and his track record suggests there's little chance of the problems going away. This is what happens when the quality of edits takes second place to volume and speed. We've seen it with Rich Farmbrough, Betacommand, Lugnuts, and others. This will hopefully be the watershed moment that gets Dicklyon to rethink his approach; if not, it's a necessary step on the road to a site ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support many of the errors stem from attempting too much speed and several prior statements that they will slow down have not stopped the problem. Ealdgyth (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per my comment in the previous section. I'm not sure, pace the opposers, what capitalization, or positive interactions, have to do with automated editing. There's a long-standing principle that automated edits are held to a high standard. Editors have been sanctioned, or banned, for introducing errors and not being sufficiently mindful about addressing them. This isn't new, and this isn't the first time the issue has been raised with Dicklyon. Go slower. Be more careful. There's no time limit. Mackensen (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Nemov. Number 57 14:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ~ this isn't a new issue, as is shown above; it has been bubbling under for years and the time to resolve it is now. Per HJ Mitchell. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 18:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Cinderella157 encapsulates this perfectly above. Dicklyon is not infallible, but fixes his own mistakes, and is clearly listening to and adjusting based on criticism of his error rate. At bare minimum a proposal like this should have a time limit, during which DL could re-read the related documentation, policies, etc., and work on better regexes to sharply reduce his error rate.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      re At bare minimum a proposal like this should have a time limit: I think most everyone would agree with you on that. There should be a timeframe for appeal. It looks like a couple have suggested 6 months, and most who included an appeal timeframe in their comments have noted a year. North8000 suggested appealable in 1 year, autoexpire in 2. I would certainly support some level of autoexpire where he could reapply on the AWB request page. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I oppose auto-expiry for the same reason I dislike most time-limted topic bans and similar - it can encourage just waiting it out rather than addressing the issue which doesn't end well for either the project or the editor. However I do support a time after which he can appeal, and will support anything in the 6-12 months time frame. Thryduulf (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Good point. I hadn't really considered that. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Removing semi-automated editing premission will likely reduce Dick's rate of editing and therefore mitigate most of the errors that had been mentioned here. The other solutions proposed here seem overly draconic, and I suspect that they are partially motivated by old grudges. Av = λv (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per nom. The most sensible approach, is relatively harmless to all parties, which still leaves DL plenty of editing in his chosen area, just without a particular tool to do so. (Per time-limit, I think the default is indefinite with first appeal to the community after six months and biannually thereafter.) SN54129 14:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. This seems narrowly tailored towards mitigating the disruption and seems preventative in nature. I do hope that slowing down the editing rate will help to ensure that the rate of false positives/breakages created will substantially decreases. Dicklyon has performed tremendously helpful gnomish work on Wikipedia over the years, for which he deserves thanks and gratitude, but I echo HJ Mitchell's concerns about what happens when the quality of edits takes second place to volume and speed. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for 2 reasons; A) This isn't the first time Dicklyon has been at ANI over their semi-automated edits and B) The carelessness of their edits is concerning.
    As someone who too makes semi-automated edits I'm baffled as to how they can make so many edits and not review any of them ?. Sure we all make mistakes and I have too made mistakes with WP:WPCleaner but I've reviewed and fixed those edits as any normal editor should?. If you can't be bothered to check your edits then shouldn't be using semi-automated tools period. –Davey2010Talk 13:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Topic ban on drive-by recapitalisation and repiping, details apply

    There has been some support for this, but discussion has been fragmented so putting it as a formal proposal. This is basically what I wrote above but a bit tighter.

    Dicklyon is topic banned from:
    • Making edits to pages in the article and draft namespaces that only or primarily change capitalisation.
    • Making edits to pages in the article and draft namespaces that change the capitalisation in any part of the page unrelated to content changes made in the same edit.
    • Piping, unpiping or changing the displayed text of piped links, excluding pages in their own user and user talk space.
    These restrictions do not apply to content they added since the last other person edited the page.
    These restrictions do not apply to the reversion of obvious vandalism.

    This restriction is separate from and additional to any ban related to automated editing. It may be appealed no sooner than 12 months after it is enacted. Making an excessive number of requests of other editors to make change that this restriction topic ban prohibits should be seen as gaming the restriction. "Excessive" is not explicitly defined and depends on the judgement of an uninvolved administrator, but frequency of requests, number of total and concurrent requests, accuracy of requests and other factors may all be considered.

    Copyedits and suggestions are more than welcome, especially to the first does not apply to line (I've rewritten that about a dozen times and I'm still not happy with it). The intent there is to allow them to make as many changes to piping and capitalisation as they want until someone else edits the page, at which point they no longer can. Given the lack of explicit response to the RM and other discussion comments I made I'm not adding that to the proposal at the current time, but I really would like to see it explicitly addressed (whether that's a "this is a problem", "this is not a problem" or something in between). Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support (as proposer) per my comments in multiple other sections. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, this proposal does better expose your true anti-MOS motivations in attacking me here and elsewhere. Dicklyon (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      As I have explained repeatedly and at length my motivations are not "anti-MOS", they are pro applying the MoS with care, common sense, and due regard for behavioural policies. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Going to be helpful in tandem with the ban on automated/semi-automated editing, and will functionally form a coherent whole.—Alalch E. 17:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as I noted in my support for the automated TBAN, this is needed as well as the history of disruption as evidenced by previous ANIs goes beyond automated editing. DeCausa (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Ridiculous over-reach. At most, Dicklyon should be removed from JWB/AWB permission for a time until those with concerns are satisfied he understands the tool use responsibliities better. The second of the bullet-points above is frankly daft; we have MOS:ARTCON for a reason, and this bullet would force Dicklyon to violate it. I warned above that Thryddulf was seeking an over-broad T-ban to "get rid of an opponent" on MoS applicability (especially in capitalization), that Thryduulf is a long-term, habitual gadfly about; Thryduulf vociferously denied this, yet here we are with a propsal that precisely fits what I predicted, and which has absolutely nothing to do with alleged miuse of JWB semi-automation, which is what this ANI is about. And obviously "this is not a problem" is the answer to Thryduulf's desire to expand this proposal even further.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I wonder what is about being focused on the manual of style that makes it correlate with leaving personal attacks against me with such frequency (see also the comments on my talk page)? Needless to say they're just as wrong this time as they were every other time they've been levied. Credit where it is due though, accusing me of forcing someone to violate ARTCON is a new accusation. It doesn't make sense to me - if the article is internally consistent already then Dicklyon will just follow that consistency with any new content they add and nothing will change. If the article is internally inconsistent then it is not possible to violate a consistency that doesn't exist. Changing the article to be consistent is something Dicklyon will just have to ask others to do until such time as he is able to convince the community that he can be trusted to do it responsibly. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Being critical of an easily observable behavior pattern is not a "personal attack". And you clearly don't understand ARTCON; it is literally not possible that it means that introduction of a single inconsistency renders the guideline moot, or we could not have that guideline. What it really obviously means (as do all other consistency guidelines and policies on WP, such as WP:CITEVAR, MOS:ERA, WP:CONSISTENT, etc., etc.) is that if the material is mostly consistent toward one direction, inconsistencies that go the other direction should be reversed to conform.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It would appear that you think because this is about the misuse of a semi-automated tool, that the resulting sanction has to be limited to removal of that tool? What part of WP:MEATBOT do you not understand? Bot-like editing can result in being treated as a bot, misuse of which can ultimately result in being indeffed. Thryduulf's proposal is significantly less impactful. You'd be better served to simply stick to addressing the proposal rather than the proposer. I'm still on the fence, but taking both of your statements at face-value, I see a higher level of personal animus in your approach to Thryduulf than they have against you your approach to Thryduulf is the one that comes accross as being loaded with personal animus. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Dickylon's changes haven't been against MOS, but rather not showing due care when making those MOS compliant changes with AWB. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Just to add I don't see anything added after my initial comment as reason to support this tban. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose No actual misconduct unrelated to (semi-)automated editing has been presented here. The topic ban on that is sufficient. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per this ANI thread and the previous ones. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1129#User:_Dicklyon,_behavioral_issues_on_the_topic_of_capitalization was just three months ago; several other ones can be found in the ANI archives [20]. According to an editor from a past ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1037#Dicklyon_and_page_moves, Dicklyon was blocked eight previous times from 2007 to 2015 for edit warring, largely over page titles and other style issues. Dicklyon was also previously blocked for sockpuppetry (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dicklyon/Archive) and his sockpuppets' edits revolved around MOS-related issues such as capitalization of letters, MOS:CAPS, etc. Some1 (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, again, too far for the wrong reasons. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose While automated edits were made in the context of the MOS, there was nothing inherently controversial about the nature of these edits that would warrant such action. This seems like an opportunistic gambit to settle old scores. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Some1. If this was a one time thing I'd understand, but if the issues are continually happening in one area then it's time for a break in that one area. Nemov (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - excessively draconian and seems more like WP:POINTY cruel and unusual punishment than a real sanction. The issue is over his automated edits; I don't see why we should bar him wholly from MOS edits when the issue was specifically how the automated edits had an excessively high inaccuracy rate. Butlerblog (talk · contribs) has invoked WP:MEATBOT, but that ignores the issue that the automated process were more inaccurate than they would be under a human editor. Additionally, no Some1 (talk · contribs) - nearly decade-old misconduct from at least 2015 is not a substantive argument to invoke sanctions in 2023. — Knightoftheswords 23:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      This isn't decade-old conduct, it's conduct that has been ongoing for a decade. There have been at least two maybe three ANI threads about Dicklyon and MOS-related conduct in the past ~18 months. All of which identified issues with their editing but failed to reach a consensus that the problems were bad enough or that there was no prospect of improvement going forwards. We've now moved forwards and the promised improvements haven't materialised. Thryduulf (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Just to make the non-comprehensive timeline more clear:
      This isn't a one time issue that occurred in 2015 and suddenly reoccurred again September 2023. It's a long-term pattern of disruption...with the same user (Dicklyon) over the same capitalization topic area... for almost a decade. I know the proposal title says "MOS edits topic ban" which is a bit misleading and seems wider than it really is, but as the proposal states, it's Making edits ... that only or primarily change capitalisation. Making edits ... that change the capitalisation in any part of the page unrelated to content changes made in the same edit. That's not "excessively draconian" at all. Some1 (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I agree with the evidence Some1 has presented, that Dicklyon's accuracy when making MOS:CAPS related edits is a concurrent issue to the issue with automated and semi-automated edits. Both of these need to be addressed. With all due respect to the points that SMcCandlish has made, I don't find this to be over-reaching at all, as there is a demonstrated issue here going back several years. I also think the point that this is an attempt to get rid of an opponent is pure hyperbole. This isn't a CTOPS broadly construed TBAN, where an editor is being topic banned from all aspects relating to a given topic. Nothing here would prevent Dicklyon from contributing to project space MOS discussions on the applicability of the relevant guidelines.
      There is also a little bit of wiggle room in the proposal as written, to allow for Dicklyon to make a limited number of reasonable requests for corrections on these lines in the talk and draft talk namespaces. All this restricts is his ability to enforce something he has a demonstrated difficulty enforcing directly in the article and draft spaces. If Dicklyon can demonstrate through those that he is capable of making a limited number of accurate requests, alongside any regular editing he may do, this then provides a pathway for this TBAN to eventually be lifted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Sideswipe9th and Some1. Ealdgyth (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarification question - does this proposal only apply to MOS policy and guideline pages or to all Wikipedia mainspace pages? Randy Kryn (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Randy Kryn: In my reading of it, it specifically states main and draft namespaces. However, I believe it was written to provide at least some level of reasonableness. For example, it excludes fixing cases of vandalism. It also means that if he edits content, capitalization can change as a result, in cases where capitalization is not the sole purpose of the edit. Likewise, if it's just a case of changing capitalization, he can point it out to other editors to fix. If someone came in and changed [[Ronald Reagan]] to [[ronald reagan]], I would see correcting that as fixing a case of obvious vandalism. It doesn't appear to be intended to eliminate something obviously reasonable, but does seek to avoid changes that are questionable. I think that if he made the aforementioned change and someone hauled him into ANI to be indeffed on that evidence it would result in a boomerang on the reporting party since any reasonable person can see the error. Also, there's the caveat that allows for asking additional editors to do the edit, provided he's not doing so to game the system, so-to-speak. So... it's a tough sanction, but I don't think it's intended to bar him from reasonable edits (at least that's my take - I could be being to generous on assumptions regarding the proposal; and FWIW, I haven't weighed in on it yet, and haven't determined if I will or not, nor what that position would be). ButlerBlog (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Butlerblog yes, the intent is to be both firm and reasonable. Firm by preventing them making the types of edits that are the reason they've been brought here and protecting the project from the collateral damage, reasonable by allowing them to still make the types of edits that are not problematic and by making it as clear as possible what the ban covers and what it does not - as I wrote somewhere recently (possibly on my talk page) nobody benefits from topic bans that are vague and woolly. Thryduulf (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Randy Kryn there are three aspects to this proposed restriction. The first two, regarding capitalisation, explicitly apply only to the article and draft namespaces, there should be no MOS (or any other) policy or guideline pages in those namespaces. The third, related to piping of links, applies everywhere outside their user and user talk space. I can't think of a way that this restriction will impact their participation in project-space discussions of MOS-related policies or guidelines (they are explicitly permitted to add piped links to content they add, which includes replies in talk page discussions). I intentionally titled the section using the broad language used when the topic ban was first suggested, rather than the narrower topic ban actually proposed, but I'm now not convinced that was the right choice as I think some people might be reacting to the title rather than the actual proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the answers, and it sounds silly to ban Dicklyon from making very simple edits manually. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think your point is well taken. As an additional note, if you go upthread and read Sideswipe's second paragraph, I think she points out well what the objective is. It's not to be jerkish and put DL in a corner to embarass him (and anyone who supported this that thinks that way should be ashamed of themselves). The purpose is to put up some guardrails, allow him to edit appropriately, and have a path to appealing to lift the TBAN altogether at some point in the future. TBANS are not intended to be forever. Only if the editor does it to themselves is that ever the case. At some point, it should be totally reasonable for him to appeal. If you look at his past incidents, that's exactly what happened with his previous indeff - he was granted a return under the standard offer, and then after a time was able to appeal the entire restriction and be restored to full editing (as well as having been given JWB access). The same can happen with this (should this end up as a TBAN - that obviously has yet to be determined). ButlerBlog (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I think the proposal above addresses most of this. This can always be revisited in the future if it turns out necessary. On Wikipedia, we tend to have our policies and guidelines (and sanctions) reflect a belief in the possibility of redemption. If someone makes a mistake and fixes that mistake, we typically move on unless/until a possible pattern emerges which may need addressing. In this case, th the "pattern" seems more a case of issues with the use of editing tools rather than the MOS in general. It doesn't seem liike they are intentionally violating the MOS, but rather are apparently making mistakes while trying to follow the MOS. - jc37 14:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - While I have disagreed with Dickylon in the past on proper capitalization, specifically for MLB related events, I do not believe that they are editing in bad faith as it pertains to the MOS. An outright ban doesn't seem justified. The issue is with the speed and carelessness, not the edits pertaining to the MOS itself. - Skipple ☎ 16:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - i could be mistaken, but i don't think anyone it really suggesting Dicklyon is editing in bad faith; the worst that can be said is that he is failing to read the room and pushing through sometimes questionable changes, on occasion by the speed of his editing which creates a fait accompli, on occasion by repetitive arguing or changes. This ban should change that. Though i don't believe the other proposal i support should have a time limit, i am not at all averse to this one being limited to six months or, certainly, being appealable at that time. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 18:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support As Some1 handily collated, this has been a problem for years and years. The automated editing just makes it more problematic, but the behaviors have not substantially improved; anyone who gets blocked for socking over tiny MoS issues clearly has a value system at odds with the project at large. It's better for everyone if they are not involved in what is clearly an area they cannot edit constructively. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support in principle but the scope of the restriction leaves something to be desired. There are too many caveats which make it unworkable; an unscrupulous editor could tie a noticeboard up in knots debating whether something was a violation and an unscrupulous opponent could drag Dicklyon here for inadvertent technical breaches. Hopefully Dicklyon won't have as many problems with opening an edit window and typing in text as he does with automation. Or, TLDR: see WP:ROPE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I would think that an unscrupulous editor could tie a noticeboard up in knots on something clearly technical or ridiculous is going to end up boomeranging themselves. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I would greatly appreciate more detail on your thoughts regarding too many caveats which make it unworkable as I've tried to word the proposal in away to make it as clear as possible which edits count and which don't, disallowing the problematic stuff but allowing the non-problematic. With any restriction of this nature there is always going to be a need for some level of interpretation (other than something totally ridiculous like a ban from changing the capitalisation of any word in any circumstances), and at some point we have to trust that those enforcing a topic ban will be reasonable. As I note the first "this does not apply to" line isn't the greatest phrasing the project has ever seen, but I still can't think of anything better that allows them to change their own work (we do not expect perfection), the limit on that being while they are the most recent person to edit the page is to avoid OWNERSHIP issues or arguments about what is and isn't their own work if someone changes part of it (e.g. paragraph, sentence or word-level). Thryduulf (talk) 23:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - After reading and re-reading most of the support and oppose positions, I am supporting for mostly the same reasons as Sideswipe pointed out above: All this restricts is his ability to enforce something he has a demonstrated difficulty enforcing directly in the article and draft spaces. If Dicklyon can demonstrate through those that he is capable of making a limited number of accurate requests, alongside any regular editing he may do, this then provides a pathway for this TBAN to eventually be lifted. ButlerBlog (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I think this is far too restrictive as proposed. I mean, a blanket ban on this? Just block him at that point, because I am struggling to see how Dicklyon could possibly edit constructively in mainspace while effectively unable to edit wikilinks; you wouldn't get very far trying to improve an article while having to grovel and beg someone to change a wikilink or an evident miscapitalization. Now if this were a ban on mass edits of this kind (if one could even define mass in this context), then that's something I could probably get behind. Curbon7 (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think you're misunderstanding the restriction proposed. The only thing he can't do under this proposal is change the piping of links he hasn't added himself, and to make edits whose primary purpose is changing capitalisation. The vast majority of editors on the project would find almost none, or in many cases literally none, of their edits would be impacted. Looking through your most recent 150 articles space edits, you would be able to have made 149 of them if you were under this restriction, this one being the only exception (and you would be allowed to request others to change it). Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      As has happened in the past, editors coming in late to this have far too much to wade through, give it only a cursory glance, and thus misread what the proposal actually says. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think I was referring to what you were talking about regarding the changing of the piping of links, as I imagine it would come up frequently if, for example, attempting to improve an article to GA, but if I misunderstood feel free to disregard that portion. Curbon7 (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey mr. deputy dog, wait Just a darn Minute (if passed Dicklyon couldn't fix that sentence). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Correct (unless it was part of a larger content edit involving that sentence or it was that way as the result of obvious vandalism), but he could ask someone else to fix it. However, I don't understand your point? We don't topic propose topic bans for people randomly, and the rationale for proposing this one has been explained at length and is the result of many years worth of disruption. Yes, there will be some things that are incorrect that the person topic banned will not be able to fix, but that's true of every topic ban (e.g. someone topic banned from American politics would be unable to fix the capitalisation of that sentence in a biography of a US politician). Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You need to clarify that this is a comment and not a !vote in addition to your opposition already noted above. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, this is an additional comment to point out how if somehow passed (and any closer approving this is or isn't worth their salt in gold) this is pretty much an indef ban and an insult of an editor who has maybe hundreds of thousands of good MOS edits similar to the edits he would be banned from making. Seems an end-around of commonsense (and that's a difficult play, kudos to the wording of this proposal). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Firstly insults to the prospective closer and prejudging the close are both inappropriate, and the rest of the comments don't seem to bear any relation to the proposal or the background to it? Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly Oppose As I said above, it seems to me, as a non-involved editor, that removing Dick's semi-automated editing permissions will adequately prevent the harmful practices that had lead to these complaints being raised. A MoS topic ban is overly broad, will needlessly cripple his ability to contribute to the site, and open him up to tendentious attacks by editors with an axe to grind. Based on what I read in this discussion, it did seem to me that some of the participants had jumped on just to see an old personal enemy taken down, which I find extremely distasteful and contrary to the spirit of the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ido66667 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Have you actually read the proposed topic ban or just the title? It is possible to legitimately dispute the necessity of a topic ban, but not really to describe it as "overbroad" and it really would not "cripple his ability to contribute to the site". The rationale for the proposal, as explained in detail multiple times, is nothing at all to do with "enemies" or taking somebody down, but the result of over a decade of disruption. Thryduulf (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think you should probably amend the section header for clarity. Sure, we should expect people to actually read the proposal for the details and not just the header, but a mismatched header doesn't serve the discussion well. As for the actual proposal, I support a restriction. Dick's capitalization bugaboo has become a time sink for other editors. I also agree that it should not auto-expire for the same reason you state in the above section (waiting out instead of actually making behavior improvement), so an appeal should be necessary. Let Dicklyon show he has more to contribute than just being the decapitalization guy. oknazevad (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Oknazevad (or anyone else) please feel free to rename the section to reflect the scope of the proposal (rather than the prior discussion). I can't immediately come up with something that is reasonably concise, doesn't come across as trying to unduly sway the discussion and doesn't have all the same problems of sounding overbroad if you don't read the details (e.g. "topic ban from capitalisation"). Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Butterfly and wheel at the moment, although without prejudice to this being revised if the above sanction proves not to have worked in, say, six months. SN54129 14:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. There's healthy debate above on whether the error rate tied to semi-automated editing is too high, but I don't think we can say it's too high for manual editing. I would describe very few editors here as "anti-MOS", but there is widespread opposition to decapitalization, even when it's obviously supported by MOS:CAPS. Subject-mater-focused editors frequently see Dicklyon begin work in their topic area and challenge this regular copyediting, and we end up with a long ANI thread. Above, these recent-ish no-consensus threads are cited as evidence in support of the restriction, but I see them as a sign that this is a matter where editors commonly disagree. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: It sticks in my craw to type this, but. See, we've clashed a number of times. I strongly believe that Dicklyon's anti-capitalization crusade borders on the abusive, that he's way way offbase in his curious belief that MOS overrides how proper usage has been defined for decades by institutions and in the media, and I wonder who the hell decided that MOS:CAPS negated style manuals around the world. But we need more for a TBAN than that, and however much I disagree with his stance, I can't support one without solid evidence that he's trampling policy. Passionately advocating an unpopular stance is not in of itself a policy violation. A ban on him using automated tools in his crusade is valid. This is not. Ravenswing 21:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. If somebody forgets to capitalize "Smith" in "Adam Smith", it makes no sense to prohibit this user from making that fix. If the issue is largely related to the use of automated/semi-automated editing, and we're imposing a ban on that, then I see no issue with the user making thoughtful decisions as to when to manually make these fixes. We want to encourage the editor to put thought into this sort of stuff rather than just doing it en masse; we should let the sanction be narrowly tailored towards the disruption (i.e. editing en masse without checking for false positives) while leaving him enough room to contribute positively (i.e. fixing individual typos manually after evaluating whether or not it's actually a typo). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as as far as I can see they're not making edits against MOS.... they're just making careless edits..., My other concern is that if Dicklyon is MOS-topicbanned then they would only move to something else and would find themselves here again. Simple solution = revoke semi-automated permissions and ban them from using any semi automated tool, Banning them from manually fixing articles achieves nothing as like I say they're not going against MOS specifically. –Davey2010Talk 13:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Oppose because I don't entirely understand what this restriction will do, or why it is necessary in addition to a prohibition against semi-automated editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. This user's edits changing capitalisation appear to be in support of policies and guidelines. We get far too many editors who think that "their topic" is so important that the syntactic rules for capitalisation in English should be overridden and Semantic Rules Based on Obvious Importance Should be Used Instead. Dicklyon does very good work in defending us against such nonsense. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose the discussion above will solve the problem, hopefully. They will surely be able to have a smaller error rate with manual editing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose just because that’s an extremely weird thing to topic ban someone from. It’s a lot harder to avoid a specific type of maintenance editing than something like “GENSEX, broadly construed”. Dronebogus (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Case fixes

    Lacking JWB access, I've done only about 1000 case fix edits in the last week. I'd appreciate it if someone would look at a few of my contribs and say if some of those represent the "drive-by recapitalisation and repiping" that T seeks to ban me from. There are certainly some that don't change the displayed article text, but do have a positive effect in removing miscapitalized redirects from the report at Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations. The last time we discussed this, there was not a consensus that working on this was a bad idea, though some editors failed to see the value of it. Check the history there, to see that I have fixed the majority of the reported errors (from over 500 linked miscapitalized redirects to only 137). Making further progress will be slower without JWB, but I can live with that, especially if someone with AWB or JWB can help on the "long end", which is where I was working with JWB when I messed up. Dicklyon (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Good job. Hopefully you can use the tools again. As you know, the benefits of manual casing runs include the increased overview of both the encyclopedia and the subject matters. I case run on many words, sometimes into the thousands of edits, and have absorbed a great deal of information doing that (although I certainly can't say I remember a great percentage of it you get some good bits now and then). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dicklyon, your post only gives me greater concern. Removing things from database reports is not a useful thing to do for its own sake, and doing so while introducing other errors actually has a negative effect. I'm all for stylistic consistency between articles but it's not an emergency that justifies leaving an article in a worse state than you found it in. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally agree. Notice how I said "I messed up". I didn't say I thought that was OK. Dicklyon (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's useful work, then great. But truthfully, your editing history of the last few days could be summarily discarded as you obviously know you're under scrutiny right now. It's more important what you do when no one is paying attention, or when you think no one is paying attention. If the real issue truly was just carelessness and speed with semi-automated editing, then that will become evident over time, not just a couple of days. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I always edit like people are paying attention. Here I'm just pointing out the type of edits that Thryduulf thinks I should be banned from. Or to inquire what he's talking about, if not these kinds of primarily capitalization changes that often affect piping. His ban proposal had little or nothing to do with mistakes and speed. Dicklyon (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Globally blocked

    User:Juyiscally reappears as User:AOJCCD (removing tags related to the "Chinese New Left", interaction tool) and as User:SKhanask (removing tags related to the "Chinese New Left", interaction tool). Can anyone help look at this? ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 15:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked: CC @Sotiale: You might want to take a look. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also . --Blablubbs (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Blablubbs: Thank you! ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 15:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    As always, you can see that their CA has changed. Thanks, Blablubbs. --Sotiale (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Long term edit war on Ottoman battle articles by possible sockpuppets, 5 reverts within 2 hours

    User: Göktuğ538538

    I would like to show the same boring edit war pattern, possible by the same users (case still open): Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keremmaarda
    These users (or this sockpuppet user) always edit only the info boxes, rewrite many Ottoman battle articles to Ottoman victory, or if Ottoman lost he rewrite like "Ottomans not lost, but Ottomans just went home from a "picnic" due to the bad weather", he always decreases the number of Ottoman army and casualties while he always increases the number of the enemy and their casualties. Even he rewrote the famous Siege of Belgrade was just a "pyrrhic Hungarian victory" (which stopped the Ottomans for 70 years) and he rewrote the "Turks won the battle". He always remove modern academic sources and replace it with 200-500 years sources with bad referencing stlye that hard to check if true of twisted.

    OrionNimrod (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Due to the great similarity of interest among these three editors, Keremmaarda, Göktuğ538538 and Overvecht3301, all wanting to change just the infoboxes of Ottoman battle articles and in similar ways, I would go ahead and block all three for WP:MEAT. The block would be based in this report and on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keremmaarda. I ran a check but did not find anything conclusive. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have noticed a similarity in articles created by Keremmaarda, which are either sieges or battles, and articles created by Kurya Khan and Soldier of Seljuk 1071. These similarities all share the same issues: poorly written(example:"The Sultan reached the Danube after difficulty and suffering."), foreign language sources with no page numbers or impossible to verify, over reliance on primary source(s), and few if any English sources. Kurya Khan's article creation list and Soldier of Seljuk 1071's list are perfect examples. Note the number of deleted articles from both creation lists. I agree completely with Ed's suggestion of blocking all of them. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Kansas Bear, I asked many times readable documents to his always poorly referenced claims (and defending them with edit wars), finally he provided me some. I made a fast google translate of the provided Turkish text, and finally I found those texts does not contradict the original stage of the article what we always reverted, or he just twist the source, for example the modern historical source mentions what was in the past, but just as a mention not as a fact that "500 years ago Mr. X claimed that 1 million Ottomans was in the battle" then this user remove all modern academic estimations and rewrite the article "1 million Ottomans".
    Examples:
    Talk:Battle of Mohács#Hungarian army
    Talk:Siege of Güns#RESULT
    He starts the same edit war again, he created a new dubious article, then he claims the Hungarian king was a commander in Serbia(!) however the Hungarian king was not there at all (he was in Austria/Bohemia campaign, etc in that year) even the biggest Hungarian military history book does not know anything about that. [28] OrionNimrod (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Two editors are one and possible COI

    Sebastian.newdigate12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is replying to messages on Newdigate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) talk page in a way which makes it reasonable to assume they are the same person. Both have only ever edited Simon Lee (academic), and I suspect a COI. Sebastian.newdigat12 has denied being the subject or a relative or employee, but has not denied having some other connexion. I don't think this is intentional socking, but it needs sorting out, and I have to say I find their edits to the article very hard to believe aren't done with the intention of promoting the subject. The article itself has been in a mess for years. Could someone take an admin-minded look at it all? Ta, DuncanHill (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    As you will see, my edits today have addressed material contained within the citations within the wiki for clarity. I was concerned about the questions asked by DuncanHill as they sought personal detail, which might be used for a range of purposes. As indicated in my responses, I am not Professor Lee, a relation, an employee, and have crossed professional paths with him over the years - I do have a high respect for him and his work, particularly with regard to the peace process in Northern Ireland.
    I would agree that the article is a mess, it was a place of some unpleasantness at the time of its origin, but seems to have been tidied up and be less so more recently.
    what I have added is supported by citation, or addresses an opinion added to a cited item adding personal subjective opinion, which I believe is not appropriate within Wikipedia.
    There is no attempt to promote the subject, but rather to clarify material cited. Sebastian.newdigate12 (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As indicated to DuncanHill, to the best of my knowledge I am the only Newdigate who has contributed to this article. I did have a change of email address that may have caused the issue with appearing as two different contributors. Sebastian.newdigate12 (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also Sebastian Newdigate and Sebastian.newdigate1. This user was warned back in 2017 that they must declare use of multiple accounts; see Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2017_March_21#Talk_on_Wikipedia_Page_for_Simon_Lee_(Academic). They do not appear to have done so. Additionally, I'm concerned this is a single purpose account stretching back an impressive 14 years (to the very day). --Yamla (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of SPA's in the history of the article. DuncanHill (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just found Sebastian a newdigate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well. DuncanHill (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And Sebastion Newdigate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Sebastian.newdigate13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) too! DuncanHill (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Kalki Avatar and Muhammad

    The article Kalki Avatar and Muhammad was recently cut down to a redirect following a very contentious AFD. An IP editor then appealed to Deletion Review, which was also contentious, but the quasi-deletion was endorsed, and the IP was blocked as a block-evading sockpuppet. Another IP editor has recreated another version of an article on the book and is edit-warring to restore the article. I request semi-protection of the title. The IP has also filed another DRV, which is tendentious. If the IP is in good faith, they can develop a draft and submit it for review, and the reviewer can compare the draft against the deleted article. But I don't think that the IP is in good faith. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is victim of South Asian sectarian editing's opposition and lot of meatpuppeting and the Afd was also done without proper evaluation before the closing time (closing date was 02:47, 14 August according to the 3rd relist in 02:47, 7 August 2023 by User:Liz but the closing admin User:Drmies closed the discussion in 10 august, 12:35, 10 august, 3 days 14 hours 12 minutes before the deadline) but according to all the guidelines of wikipedia, it clearly meets the notibility. The references undoubtedly meets the solid notibility, except only few among 68 references. If you want a source analysis of 68 references, till noe I can give you. 202.134.8.129 (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock[reply]
    The AfD went for twenty-four days, which is anything other than being "done in a hurry" -- that's an absurd charge. Don't mind me, the IP changed their phrasing while I was typing. A number of experienced editors determined that the "68" references were threadbare refbombing, and did not provide WP:SIGCOV to the subject. (I'm also struck by the inexperience of the Keep proponents, only one who had more than two thousand edits.) The endorse was strongly upheld. That you don't personally like the outcome is as may be, but this is a settled matter that we're not going to revisit for no better reason than it sticks in your craw. Ravenswing 07:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ravenswing, Brother, the south asian topics are not similar to the other common cases of wikipedia, there is a heavy sectarianism, and they are also "recruited", they fiercely pushes point of view and work by team and also do the "cleverest" sockpuppeting and meatpuppeting. I am just giving you only one example, see the edit history of the article List of converts to Islam from Hinduism and identify what has been removed in the name of debunked version and how many times inspite of solidity of notibility of the whole contents, also see the talk page Talk:List of converts to Islam from Hinduism and the clash between the editors then you can understand. A sector of south asian editors have a habit that, if they understand they are loosing the edit they instantly gives the opponent a Template:Ds/alert ([29], [30] [31] there are many more) to horrify them, they also remove the edits comments or edits of other editors which can flash their real face, deliberately says non-trivial mentions as passing mentions if edit goes against their interest, I can give a lot of other habits which are not common to other common wikipedians. This are happening because of this circumstances ([32] [33]) now for the recent past decades regularly happening in the center of South Asia. They hate to co-exist with harmony, while mutual tolerant co existance can save the whole community. So think and see the topic deeply and seriously than other issues. I piled references only because so that the opponent can never avoid or deny the notibility which they always did before. I could give source analysis but giving it to 68 takes too mutch time while being busy in job and daily life but the afd was closed before the deadline I planned to give a source analysis. And this topic is a very hot issue in South Asian interfaith dialogues and also in religious politics, that's why opponents recruited to hide the topic. Another matter is that these editors tells lie to such an extent that many people feel frightened to face them, the recently returned former admin User:A. B. has already understood the matter by such an unexpected incident, I think he/she will always remember what happened. I think the community should concern all these matters seriously on south asian topics from now on and take necessary steps. And the articles deletion cauese was also that the notability of the authour was established by another afd after the closing of the afd, otherwise there would be never too much cheos to establish the endorsement of the article. If it wouldn't be any south asian topic, there would be never so much like this to delete the same article, and then the article would easily retained without much as what happened here. The point is more important because, the whole discussion was "as far as possible fabricatedly" created by a sector to seduce another sector, but after when the targated sector became seduced and completed giving them service, the seducer party started saying that this is the propaganda of the seduced, we never tried to seduce them, this is the defence vs. offence game of the "respective" sectarians which is seen to be always played by them regularly in every age, which the respective sector calls "the inclusive, liberal and absorbing "universal"" ideology of themselves, which they started from till they migrated to south asia from another place thousands of years ago and forcfully taken the places from the contemporary local residents, whom they call now "the low caste" also being based on the "colour of their skin". 202.134.8.129 (talk) 07:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock[reply]
    The IP is correct about the dynamics of the AfD. It was one of my most unpleasant experiences on Wikipedia in 15+ years. Lots of WP:SEALION and what looked like coordinated editing. I was taken to WP:ANI.
    I don’t live in South Asia and I don’t have a dog in its sectarian fights. I just showed up at an AfD that had been floundering through relisting and got involved to be a good Wikipedia citizen.
    I spent several hours on a long source analysis. It was so long I put it on the AfD talk page. I only got through about 25% of the 68 but 2 established notability to my satisfaction. I’m sure there are more useful refs in the remaining 75%; I just didn’t want to waste any more of my life.
    I did not recommend “keeping”however, but rather merging to the author’s article. I disagreed with the admin’s close but I consider it a settled matter, especially after the first DRV. Win some, lose some.
    As I see it, the “delete” crowd was very ferocious and organized. They know all our processes and game the system. Only a very well established editor can oppose them for long without getting sanctioned for some reason. By now, most of their opposition has been marginalized. They don’t know how to work the Wikipedia system so the system works them.
    I don’t care much about the book but I am very troubled about the broader dynamics it unveiled. The broader community needs to be aware of what’s happening with coordinated editing that’s possibly state-sponsored.
    —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 12:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Too many false claims from someone who is not willing to recall being a WP:1AM at the WP:DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 August 17#Kalki Avatar and Muhammad which barely involved any participants from the AfD. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 15:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Related discussion (I think): Talk:Muhammad#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_30_July_2023 Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He is now blocked. This thread can be closed. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 11:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    An inconvenient truth: the IP is blocked but I’m not. I don’t think the thread is ready to be closed, Aman.
    —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 12:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Aman.kumar.goel - Haven't you learned anything yet from the last episode? Even if this WP:ANI thread is ready to be closed, and even if the DRV is ready to be closed, it wasn't ready to be closed by an involved editor, and you are an involved editor as the nominator of the contentious AFD. Wny are you being so aggressive to close this case? Are you trying to prove that the IP's rant was mostly correct, or are you only trying to prove that User:A. B.'s concerns about coordinated editing are well taken? Why are you in such a hurry? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon: Where I have closed this ANI thread at all? I only suggested closing because your problem was solved and we are not supposed to waste on a banned sock. As for the laughable claim of coordinated editing, we all can see that A.B. is the one who is coordinating with the banned sock and has already ignored my query to reveal the name of the account with which the banned sock emailed him. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 15:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Aman, I may privately forward the email I received to ArbCom. I will not discuss it on my talk page in response to your post there. It does not immediately concern the article discussed above.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have tried to avoid getting dragged back into this. The community has a growing problem here and I am not in a position to take it on by myself. I'm happy to help if some other editors and admins have my back and will share the workload but I have not felt that was the case during the AfD or its aftermath.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Aman.kumar.goel - You ask where you have closed the ANI thread. You haven't closed the ANI thread. You have closed the DRV thread, but that was an involved closure. Why are you in such a hurry to close the DRV thread? You say that my problem has been solved. The sock wasn't "my" problem, but the community's problem, and that problem has been solved, and you are creating a new problem. If you have evidence that User:A. B. is coordinating with the banned editor, please either provide that evidence here, or send it to ArbCom. I see that the banned editor was ranting about coordinated editing of South Asian articles, and that A. B. has raised a reasonably stated concern about coordinated editing of South Asian articles. If you do not have evidence of coordination between A. B. and the banned editor, please do not cast aspersions. Why are you in such a hurry to get the DRV closed? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are now just repeating yourself without even reading what even reading what I had said. Your new questions were already covered in my response above with my words that "we are not supposed to waste on a banned sock" that's why its better to close every request made by the sock and I also said "we all can see that A.B. is the one who is coordinating with the banned sock and has already ignored my query to reveal the name of the account with which the banned sock emailed him" which proves coordinated editing between A.B. and the banned sock. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk)
    It most certainly does not "prove" anything of the sort, other than that your repeated "When did you stop beating your wife?" questions is a poor look. I, for one, am a neutral editor who isn't among the "we can all see" brigade you blithely presuppose, nor do I agree that you posing A.B. hostile, loaded questions either imposes on him an onus to respond to you, or that him not doing so is a prima facie admission of guilt. Ravenswing 07:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why he is hosting a banned sock on his talk page and allowing him to email but refusing to share the account's name? It is textbook definition of "coordinated editing" and that too with a banned sock. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 13:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Aman, go ask ArbCom for the emails.
    It’s hard to coordinate editing when ArbCom’s copied on the correspondence.
    As for hosting banned users on my talk page: your comments to me, the Bangladeshi IP’s comments, others’ comments are all there for anyone here to to read. I don’t delete stuff (except routine, automated announcements like the Signpost).
    No need to go through the talk page history edit-by-edit to see what’s been said.
    —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 14:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That does not even answer my question. The question is that why you don't just revert and ignore the sock instead of hosting him your talk page? You are the one who suggested him to email you.[34] I am only saying this because you should be the last person to talk about "coordinated editing" when all you have is your disappointment over an AFD and a DRV[35] that went against you. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 14:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not "hosting".
    I don't delete human editors' comments from my user talk page, whether I approve of them or not. Whether they're flattering or accusatory. Go through 18 years of archives and you'll see it all.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 14:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Bangladeshi IP asked to send me a message. In response, I told him he could use the Wikipedia system; I would not use any other. The diff you just posted (at 14:13 UTC) clearly shows I did not invite a message.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 14:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You told him that he can email you. That was the point. Now instead of reporting him, you talk to him even after knowing he is a banned sock and you continue conversation with him until he is blocked and comes back with a new IP sock.[36][37] It is hosting and contradicts WP:DENY. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 14:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not reply to the sender. I simply forwarded their material to ArbCom to deal with as they see fit.
    Go talk to ArbCom about what I sent them.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m fed up with Aman.kumar.goel and this sort of stuff. In the last month he’s attacked neutral editors such as Cryptic and myself while being uncivil to others who question him (see above). All in defense of some agenda, not Wikipedia.
    —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 12:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What agenda is that? I get that from disruptive editors so you are not even new with this laughable view. You are free to walk away from this entire matter. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 13:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SEALION, WP:BLUDGEON, WP:ASPERSIONS
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 14:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unconvincing wikilawyering. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 14:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Could an admin put a stop to Aman.kumar.goel badgering A. B. here on the basis of an essay? Schazjmd (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Take that "essay" (I am not aware of which one) to AfD if you have a problem with it instead of falsifying my comments. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 17:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DENY is an essay. Schazjmd (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors are supposed to follow it. If you have a problem with it then AfD is thataway. That said, I linked it only one time against my long conversation with A.B., as such you have falsified my comments my terming it as "badgering A.B. here on the basis of an essay". Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 17:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Aman.kumar.goel - In case you don't know the difference between article space and project space, essays are deleted at MFD, not at AFD. But maybe you can't be worried about details. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Aman, Schazjmd is correct. This is the boxed notice at the top of Wikipedia talk:Deny recognition:
    • "Despite repeated discussion about making this essay a guideline, it is originally and fundamentally an essay explaining some users' opinions or actions. It needs neither implementation nor consensus as an essay."
    You can open a request for comment to change this to a guideline.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Who is saying this is not an essay? I am only rejecting the nonsensical assertion that I am "badgering A.B. here on the basis of an essay".
    If you want to wikilawyer in opposition to WP:DENY then go read WP:BMB and note that it is not an essay. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 18:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See here User talk:Aman.kumar.goel#List of converts, the conversation between User:Black Kite and Aman and also the edit history. I commented about reference fromm CNN video of self submission of conversion of A. R. Rahman, which he deleted saying it as rv. I think community should aware of the people who game the system, and the people who game the system, the community should punish them sufficiently so that they feel fear to game with the system of the world's largest online encyclopedia and with the editors who are comparatively " honest" than them and do not know how to defend their gameplay with the system. And I also suspect User:Editorkamran may be a sockpuppet of Aman. Deepmason (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock[reply]
    Obvious sock is obvious. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 18:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe this editor is a sockpuppet, maybe not. Your edits still bear examination.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For other who haven't seen this before, here is a history of 3 investigations (2020 - 2023) of Aman.kumar.goel and others at:
    There has never been any sock puppetry found but two CU staff (Tamzin and GeneralNotability) raised concerns about coordinated off-wiki editing.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Citing failed SPIs against me is not going to work for you.
    Just because you are evidently engaging in coordinated editing with the banned sock, you don't get to falsify history of other editors. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 18:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ArbCom has the same emails. Are they in on this, too?
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am only talking about you here, not any "ArbCom".
    When you know you cannot stand for yourself, you need to stop cooking up a storm. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 19:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    DENY, and Personal Attacks

    On being told that WP:DENY is an essay, User:Aman.kumar.goel wrote: Editors are supposed to follow it. Where does a policy or guideline say that users are supposed to follow it? On the one hand, denying recognition to some sorts of miscreants, especially trolls, is a good idea, and it is also folk wisdom of the Internet. So it is usually a good idea to follow it, but, like most folk wisdom, requires common sense. But it is not a guideline, and there is no guideline that says that editors should follow it. I haven't read the history of the essay, but I would guess that one reason it has not been made into a guideline or policy is that there are different concepts of what should be done to deny recognition of trolls and others (because it is folk wisdom requiring common sense), and that making it into a guideline would result in even more stupid contentious arguments than this one, as more editors tried to use it as a cudgel. AKG's statement that editors are supposed to follow it is indeed badgering A.B. here on the basis of an essay. They can reasonably argue that it is their opinion that A.B. used poor judgment in encouraging the troll, but that is not what AKG is saying. On the other hand, No Personal Attacks is a policy, and the rule against casting aspersions is an ArbCom principle implementing that policy. AKG does have a plausible case that User:A. B. is using poor judgment in receiving messages from a blocked troll, but there is also a plausible case that they are using good judgment in trying to getting information to ArbCom about the troll. I think that they have used poor judgment, but that is only my opinion, and I think that the conduct of AKG is far worse. AKG is casting aspersions that A.B. is engaged in coordinated editing with the troll. By making that claim repeatedly, they are engaging in a personal attack.

    User:A. B. - Do Not Feed the Troll.

    User:Aman.kumar.goel, you still haven't justified an involved close of the DRV. Why were and are you in such a hurry, when there are other editors who didn't nominate the book for deletion? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • And whether or not A.B. has used poor judgment in dealing with the troll, what in the merry hell is accomplished by User:Aman.kumar.goel hammering on that again, and again, and again, and again? If there is an official policy explicitly forbidding editors from communicating with blocked editors, perhaps someone could show us a link, but in the meantime, as far as I know, AKG is neither an admin nor ArbCom's traffic cop, and their standing for demanding that AB account for their actions differs not one clipped copper from any other editor's. The time has long since past for AKG to drop the damn stick, and failing that, we're approaching IBAN country. Ravenswing 04:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I am not the one who invited A.B. to comment here. He jumped here when the thread was already resolved and there was nothing to see here.[38] He is the one who is always poking the bear with his absurd allegations of coordinated editing despite ending up as WP:1AM over the very same dispute as visible at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 August 17#Kalki Avatar and Muhammad.
      Neither I am the one escalating this already resolved dispute where now I am being asked why I made this perfect edit despite having explained it sufficiently that we are not supposed to waste time on filings of a banned sock. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 04:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Robert:
    • 202.134.10.130 came on page and thanked me for my edits at the AfD. After some polite back and forth, I gave him advice on how to edit Wikipedia in a hostile environment while he scrupulous met or exceeded all our behavioral guidelines. I told him if he had private material to send it to ArbCom. I tried to be polite and helpful. I avoided religious discussion.
    • Several days later, 202.134.8.129 asks for my contact information. I declined to give him my private information and pointed him towards "Email this user". He sends me stuff and I send it to ArbCom. What's the problem with these actions?
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Banned editors are not allowed to edit at all thus you shouldn't respond to such banned users. Though if I were you, I would have reverted and reported the sock right away but you can at least ignore the sock. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 04:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ravenswing, all this abuse has occurred on pages involving interaction between Islam and Hinduism, specifically a controversial Indian academic. This is clearly covered by the Arbitration rules on South Asian topics broadly construed. Furthermore, previous incidents he's been involved with all involved this area. I think a topic ban from that area would do more for Wikipedia and community peace than an interaction ban with me. Aman's been working up to this for a long time and this would be consistent with the South Asian topic rules.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What "abuse" are you talking about? Or this is yet another baseless allegation from you? First read why topic ban is imposed. It cannot be imposed only because you want to get rid of your opponent. See WP:BATTLE. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 04:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good night everybody. I'll catch up with this in tomorrow.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In the meantime until tomorrow, these pages contain my interactions with Aman, associated editors and the two IPs:
    Enjoy reading. Some of that stuff is wild! Especially the Kalki Afd and the ANI page.
    Good night,
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why you are always the one seeking sanctions against Aman.kumar.goel and never seeking a single sanction against the ban evading sock even though he is always contacting you while evading his existing ban? This is a clear-cut battleground mentality on your part. Dympies (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It takes two to tango, and while I agree that AB likewise ought to drop the damn stick and walk away, why aren't you? Ravenswing 05:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Vijay Chaudhari / Draft:Vijay Chaudhary.

    SocialTheVpm has moved around one or more versions of this draft to several titles in at least three different name spaces, and soon after I moved it back to drafts, they've created what looks like a copypaste version at Vijay Chaudhari. I've already tagged some of the redirs left behind for speedy, but now with this copypaste move there's probably also a histmerge needed, and to top it all, I suspect there might be COI and/or something else involved, so I'm not sure if the version currently in the article space should remain there or be sent to drafts also, or possibly even speedied as A7. It's all getting a bit too much for my addled brain, so can I leave this with someone who knows how to sort out the mess? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @DoubleGrazing I've deleted couple of the redirects. Regarding the version in mainspace, keep in mind that users are allowed to contest draftifications, and re-creating the article in mainspace should be considered doing just that. I recommend you send it to AFD if you think it is unacceptable. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I've fixed the copy-paste move. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @ONUnicorn.
    Sure they can contest draftification, but a copypaste move is hardly the optimal way to go about it, surely? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and now it turns out they are a paid editor, so should be going through AfC anyway, correct? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, as a paid editor they should definitely be going through AFC. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's to moved back to draft, then may I suggest Draft:Vijay Chaudhary (politician) per WP:COMMONNAME, as the current title doesn't reflect the romanized spelling used in the references cited. Wikishovel (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    At a minimum. I'd advocate SALTing mainspace to enforce AfC in the event they don't end up blocked which I'd advocate for. Star Mississippi 17:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will point out that all the advice at WP:COI and WP:PAID says they should use AFC, not that they must use AFC. The WP:DRAFTOBJECT policy excludes editors with a conflict of interest from being able object to draftification, but it also indicates that "A page may only be moved unilaterally to the draftspace a single time. If anyone objects, it is no longer an uncontroversial move, and the page needs to be handled through other processes, such as deletion, stubbing, tagging, etc."
    Regarding salting the mainspace title, I am not comfortable salting titles that have not had a deletion discussion. WP:SALT does not seem to prohibit salting pages without discussion, but I don't think it's best practice and I like to have the clear record of a discussion, deletion, and then repeated recreations. I don't think move-warring over a draft with no broader input by the community is quite there.
    Again, I will reiterate that someone (not me) needs to take this to AFD. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to take it to AFD. Wikishovel (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done: WP:Articles for deletion/Vijay Chaudhary (politician). Wikishovel (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, I'm happy to come there and !vote. I just think that it's frustrating that a COI editor flouts the rules (whether they shouldn't or mustn't publish directly, either way they have violated at least the spirit of that policy) with impunity, and as a consequence yet another case has to be opened at the already busy AfD. But hey ho. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, it is frustrating as hell. Sorry if I jumped the gun on AFD before consensus was reached. Wikishovel (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely ditto. It's one thing if an established editor contests draftification. It's quite another for a conflicted, paid editor.
    Nothing wrong @Wikishovel. It's the correct process, it just shouldn't be necessary. Star Mississippi 18:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Jaikumar Linga Balija

    A new editor is repeatedly creating problematic articles in mainspace. These articles have consistent problems, including being non-english, being entirely copied from public domain sources, or simply being copies of other pages they have been creating. Other editors have drafitified most of these articles, but the editor still re-creates them in mainspace. I have tried to reach out via their talk page, to no response. I'm not even sure if they speak english, considering that it is impossible to start a dialogue with them. StartOkayStop (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    (non-admin comment) The non-Latin script is Tamil. Narky Blert (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had the same trouble as User:StartOkayStop: editor JLB has tried several times to create an article on a subcaste. When one of the attempts at was prodded for lack of references, I expanded it a bit and the resulting stub can be found at Linga Balija. I then pinged the creator at their user talk, and asked them to expand that with references. This was ignored, and they continued creating CFORKs at variant titles, mostly consisting of long pastes from an out-of-copyright book containing some paragraphs on the caste. Unclear whether this is stubbornness about having their preferred version, or a WP:CIR problem as StartOkayStop suggests. They've also tried a few times to create a CFORK on Kapu (caste), in Tamil. These have been draftified and deleted. Wikishovel (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Same editor has just recreated Linga Balija (Caste), that CFORK of Linga Balija, pasted from Draft:Linga Balija (Caste). User:Citadeol has redirected it the draft, User:CycloneYoris has requested speedy deletion, and I've requested salting. Could admins please advise if this should be redirected instead to Linga Balija, and EC-protected? Wikishovel (talk) 10:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly don't understand why this user is constantly trying to re-create the same article they created at Linga Balija? Seems that CIR issues are more than evident, since they've also ignored every single warning posted on their talkpage. CycloneYoris talk! 10:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, per WP:AVOIDUNCIVIL, insufficient (or absent) explanations for edits can be legitimately perceived as incivility. A block to prevent further disruption seems in order. WaggersTALK 11:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be in support of this. It does seem like there are some WP:CIR issues going on here and the editor's lack of response or acknowledgement to any messages certainly seems to indicate it. A block could act as a way to try and get the user to respond, although I doubt they will considering their lack of responses so far. I don't think salting of the specific pages, as another editor has suggested, is necessary because of the specificity of the situation. StartOkayStop (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, here's Linga Balija (Caste) again. A thought occurs to me: a while back, an admin told me that there's a Wikipedia mobile app, which doesn't display new user talk page posts, so new editors on mobile are unaware of why they're getting reverted. How can we check whether JLB is using that app to edit? Is admin access to logs required? That might explain the apparent incivility. Wikishovel (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It says so in their edit history "Mobile edit". RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, thanks. Their edit history is a mix, and as their last non-mobile edit was on the 11th, with the warnings at their user talk already piling up, we can probably rule that out as the sole problem. Wikishovel (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This user has yet again recreated a page that has been speedy deleted as an A10 of Kapu (caste). Seeing that they have not responded to the many warnings on their talk page, this user at the very least needs a p-block from article space until they can address these concerns. That, or these recreated articles should be salted. The Night Watch (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Tech issue not solved

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges?damaging=likelybad%3Bverylikelybad&hidebots=1&hidecategorization=1&hideWikibase=1&limit=50&days=7&urlversion=2

    I tried clearing my search history and cache but it still does not work at all TheCarch (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This the wrong place to ask for technical help. This board is a place to report "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". You could try:
    I will say that link that you've posted works as expected for me. Good luck tracking down a solution to your issue, Rjjiii(talk) 05:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheCarch This is a WP:VPT question, consider asking/moving this discussion there instead. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor possibly skirting an indefinite GS/Uyghur topic ban?

    Tankpiggy18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indefinitely topic-banned -- see the logs at WP:GS/UYGHUR -- yet this edit looks like an attempt to skirt the topic ban. Amigao (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this is the diff. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep that looks like its within the topic area and the ban is "broadly construed" so there isn't any wiggle room. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a pretty straightforward violation. Blocked for a week. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Am I missing something here? I'm seriously struggling to see why this account wasn't indeffed as WP:NOTHERE a long time ago. Their edits almost entirely seem to consist of unsourced POV pushing and disruption. Just look at some of their edits:

    • Completely unsourced attempt to blame Ukraine for an attack [39]
    • Completely unsourced claim that a political orginisation includes "far right" members [40]
    • Completely unsourced labelling of the US as a totalitarian regime [41]
    • More completely unsourced pov pushing [42]
    • Deletion of sourced content purely on the basis that they don't like it [43]
    • Addition of square quotes around "russian agression" [44]
    • Misrepresentation of the cited source [45]. The source argues that Fang was innocent and was forced to issue an apology.
    • Spot the bias: [46] [47] [48]
    • Whitewashing [49] [50]
    • [51] masses of sources in 1946 Romanian general election show this edit summary is not true.

    And on and on it goes. I genuinely cannot find a single edit where they have cited a source for any of their claims. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding Fang, Chait is a columnist and his words should not be used as statements of fact, so that edit is probably net-positive (although still poorly-sourced either way). A few other of these are of at least marginal merit (e.g. Flophouse should cite Jencks directly, not a random National Review blog post about it; but removal was overkill). But I agree that, overall, this account is being used to whitewash claims about authoritarian regimes, on the basis of personal opinion rather than reliable sources. In some cases I'd tend toward an only warning, but given the username, I'm not assuming a huge amount of good faith. @Extraordinary Writ: Would you object to me bumping this to indef? I'd note that the first week of the block remains a GS action. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Go ahead, Tamzin—I didn't look too far beyond the t-ban violation, so if there are more problems an indef is fine by me. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Marcelus 1RR violation

    Moved to WP:AE. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    I remember supporting his 0rr appeal as he previously seemed to understand the disruption caused by his editwarring in the past. I ran into him again while commenting on some WP:RM's (namely [52]), noticed his contributions and saw what looks like a 1rr evasion to me. Marcelus was originally given a 0rr [53] which was later downgraded to a 1rr per an appeal at AN (see [54]). However, on Povilas_Plechavičius he engaged in reverting twice within a 24hr period - Marcelus first manually reverted Cukrakalnis' removal of content [55] here [56]. Cukrakalnis removed the Polish name again [57] while Marcelus reverted Cukrakalnis' edit within a 24hr period here [58]. That's 2 reverts in 24 hours. #prodraxis connect 04:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Your second Marcelus revert diff was the same as the first. I've fixed it for you. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, @Prodraxis, this is a WP:CTOP sanction, so this would be better raised at WP:AE. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, got it. Btw thanks for fixing the diff. I will raise this at WP:AE #prodraxis connect 05:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Completely unresponsive disruptive editor

    Articist is a completely unresponsive disruptive editor. His talk page is full of warnings but he never responds.

    He edit-warred me on All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam to remove reliably sourced information and I left a talk page message to pursue the content dispute.[59]

    Upon reviewing this editor's history I found him to be completely unresponsive in violation of WP:COMMUNICATE. I left him a talk page message to communicate people.[60] However, this user is still editing and still refusing to communicate.[61] Editorkamran (talk) 05:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It gets better. Just on a lark, I scanned his Talk page contributions generally. Aside from his own talk page, each and every talk page edit he's ever made is a page move. Of the couple dozen complaints on his own talk page over the years, he's responded exactly three times: each with an exhortation to leave his edits alone and stop bothering him. This doesn't sound like an editor interested in collaboration. Ravenswing 07:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've advised them of our guidelines about explaining their reverts and responding to good-faith questions. If they continue editing without responding, I will block them from the article namespace. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Qwerck is engaged in OR and revert war without engaging into discussiopns despite multiple warnings in their talk page

    (non-admin closure) Qwerck has been indefinitely blocked as a sock by Bbb23. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Please take a look into their talk page, User_talk:Qwerck#Two_remarks. Today they again restored a dubious unreferenced statement I deleted previously twice.

    The person is uncooperative (i.e., refuses to follow (ande discuss) the rules I indicated) and thinks that I have a personal vendetta. - Altenmann >talk 05:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. I reviewed their edits. It turned out this is a new very prolific editor working in an underdeveloped area. Unfortunately they are very easy on referencing. I tagged some, added some refs and removed most egregious writings. - Altenmann >talk 06:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've blocked Qwerck as a sock. They really should be globally locked as are the other socks in this farm, and their creations should be G5ed, but I'm too tired to do either at the moment.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User harassing editors past final warning

    (non-admin closure) Meroitte has been blocked for 72 hours by Waggers for personal attacks. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

    This user has been repeatedly harassing other users (diff1, diff2 with RD3d edit summary, diff3), was given a final warning for it by Dudhhr in Special:Diff/1175383031, and then harassed Dudhhr in Special:Diff/1175476725.

    user:A smart kittenmeow 09:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 72 hours. If they come back and carry on without improving their behaviour (or carry it on in their talk page in the mean time) we can extend that to an indef block. WaggersTALK 09:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any hope for them tbh. Secretlondon (talk) 10:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I'm all for giving second chances, but happy to reblock as indef if that's what we all think. WaggersTALK 10:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If it continues, I'll support an indefinite block. I tried to constructively engage with the editor, but they haven't budged. StephenMacky1 (talk) 10:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Cleaning up after protracted move vandal

    I'm going through the latest mess created by repeated sockpuppeteer User:Anup Rajbanshi. This guy has a very weird behaviour. He keeps creating new sock accounts, and will immediately move tons of articles to random new locations (creating a huge mess in edit histories). In his latest sock venture (User:9kol28), he only moved redirects to new locations. He then logs out of the sock account, and starts editing the new redirect locations and thereby converting the sock-created redirect into an article on Nepalese provincial politics.

    From what I gather, all past efforts to try to get him to understand that messing up edit histories creates a huge mess (and hours of unnecessary extra work for other editors), I propose that all the articles he creates through this sock/anon IP switching be deleted in the spirit of WP:DENY. I'll commence tagging articles for speedy, and I wanted to flag the issue here, in case there would be questions on the deletion drive (as, at first look, the anon IP account edits may seem quite harmless). --Soman (talk) 12:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems he's active on Commons as well, with plenty of violations of copyright material. See [62]. If anyone wants to raise the issue at Commons, much appreciated. --Soman (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and uses simple.wiki as his sandbox for editing, see User:12gokinmk, [63]. --Soman (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Any edit that they make or new page they create can be reverted or deleted per WP:G5 and WP:BANREVERT, but of course that shouldn't be done for split histories. I'll see if something more can be done. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    BUT the redirects need to be restored, attribution is required for the original contributor. This is indeed a huge mess. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh wow this is a pile of spaghetti. firefly ( t · c ) 16:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These pages might have been moved by a sockpuppet but they don't fit the CSD G5 criteria because these pages were created by other editors and they should not be deleted. I've untagged a few but I don't think many (or any) are appropriate for CSD G5. Liz Read! Talk! 17:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The dilemma is that with the moves, new locations are created that serve as repositories for the sockpuppeteer. Few points,
    1) The sockpuppeteer is not the usual disruptive vandal, but seems genuinely interested in article creation but is totally unwilling to play by the rules and seems unable commit to any sort of meaningful collaboration. There is, to my knowledge, no mea culpa or expression that he's willing to change behaviour. The behaviour to overwrite articles completely or make massive moves across hundreds of articles creates such massive mess. Today I found out he's behaving in the same manner on Commons, just look at the bizarre upload/revert pattern at File:Shiv Chandra Chaudhary (2).jpg (there are plenty of other similar examples on Commons).
    2) The modus operandi of the latest detected sock account, User:9kol28, is moving redirects and then from an anon IP editing the redirect. For example take a look at Gayananda Mandal Gangai. By moving a completely unrelated redirect to the genuine article Maina Kumari Bhandari before 9kol28 gets detected as sock and banned, he creates a placeholder article title. This enables him to return to the redirect Gayananda Mandal Gangai and create a new article as an anon IP. From my side, we should delete the redirects to ensure that he can't just wait out that no-one notices and create articles as anon IP.
    3) Now all of this is obviously complicated by the fact that in spite of the disruptive behaviour of the individual, virtually all of his intended article targets could easily pass WP:NPOL in terms of notability.
    4) I think the action taken by Ivanvector at Indra Bahadur Angbo is the correct one, by reverting the pre-vandalism redirects back to their original location and deleting the redirect location created by the disruptive move. I apologize if the {db} template was not the best modality, but in all honesty I didn't really find something to use to tag articles precisely matching this someone unique method of sabotage against wikipedia.
    5) Looking at the editing pattern and the claims of having produced hundreds of photographs of political office holders (most of them in a specific region), could this be a case of WP:PAID/WP:COI? I just find this whole pattern very strange and I struggle to find a good explanation. If it was a pathological OCD thing to populate all pages on a specific subset of politics, then I'd expect the editor to be more open to constructive critique. Again and again he wants to create certain articles at all cost, in total disregard of all types of inputs from other editors. And when blocked he tries to find a way to game the system to create the articles anyways. --Soman (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor demanding to approve edits to a page

    Over the past week or so, user B3251 has been making small changes and adding cleanup tags to the University of New Brunswick article. They've been editing the page intermittently since May of this year, but made a flurry of edits recently which seem to have drawn the attention of new user RetroTetra. RetroTetra seems to be upset that in the midst of B3251's editing, a different editor changed the article's assessment from B-class to C-class (originally assessed in 2007).

    RetroTetra left a message for B3251 (see Special:Permalink/1174864255#Stop vandalising the University of New Brunswick page) which was, let's say, less than civil. When B3251 declined to revert their edits, RetroTetra removed some of the cleanup tags, and B3251 reverted. RetroTetra removed the tags again and was reverted again. These two reverts are RetroTetra's entire contribution history on this article.

    RetroTetra then left messages on my talk page and on Bearcat's user talk asking for a "senior admin" to intervene. Bearcat removed the message and didn't get involved, while I decided to review the edits. I found that the tags were reasonable, and set about addressing most of them, and made a few improvements (IMO) myself; I also removed some that I thought were excessive or unnecessary. I then suggested on the article's talk page that the assessments are really meaningless but offered to help if the editors were interested in a GA drive, and left that along with one of my usual "play nice and don't edit war" comments. RetroTetra responded to my message insisting that all of the edits must be reverted wholesale before they would discuss anything, which I declined to do. I offered to review any issue they had if they would identify what it was, but they responded only by citing the consensus policy, again demanding to revert all changes and discuss each one individually. I declined again, repeating my invitation for them to point out any particular issue they wanted to discuss, and also started a new discussion about one of the remaining cleanup tags, in which I also pinged them specifically with an invitation for their feedback.

    RetroTetra's response to those invitations to comment was yet another demand to mass-revert, this time quoting this principle from an Arbcom case on medicine, which reads: "Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits." RetroTetra bolded the last two sentences, while I believe it's the first sentence that's pertinent here as I've repeatedly tried to engage in discussion but RetroTetra has refused. In exasperation that they were still demanding to personally approve all of the changes, I finally just said "no" and went back to working on other things. They've responded this morning with an obtuse attack on my integrity, and still haven't said what their issue is with any content in the article.

    I'm posting here for a sanity check. I find RetroTetra's behaviour patently absurd, but am I in the wrong here? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't have much to add here — as Ivanvector notes, I didn't get involved in the dispute — but I did want to note that the principal reason I opted to remove the intervention request from my talk page was that after RetroTetra posted it, but before I had made any sort of attempt to step in, B3251 also posted to my talk page to essentially start an argument with RetroTetra by refuting their claims. So I kiboshed that because I really wasn't interested in having my talk page turn into a slapfight between two other editors about an issue that didn't have anything to do with me. I know Ivanvector knows that already and isn't suggesting that I did anything wrong, but I just wanted to provide that added context for the benefit of any other outside admins who decide to look into this. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think your concern makes sense. Though I don't think that enough has happened here for it to be more than a conduct dispute, I do absolutely think it's broadly inappropriate to (as RetroTetra has done) mass-revert otherwise uncontroversial edits based solely on the argument that they need to get consensus. Consensus is presumed for all edits and while it only takes one objection to breach that presumption, you do still need a specific objection. If the edit was previously uncontroversial, that objection can't be "you need to get consensus before making that edit", because they don't. Otherwise we end up with WP:OWN / WP:STONEWALL issues. RetroTetra needs to give at least some indication of what they find objectionable about those edits, or drop the issue. And I think that our policies could perhaps be clearer about encouraging people to focus on article content, not on meta-discussions about who has consensus. If an editor seems to constantly be trying to avoid being "pinned down" into stating an actionable objection by instead prevaricating about consensus, that does IMHO eventually rise to the point of being a conduct issue due to OWN / STONEWALL concerns - though again, this dispute was short enough so far that I don't think anything needs to be done beyond getting RetroTetra to state their objection clearly and avoid it being like pulling teeth in the future. --Aquillion (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not too sure what I can add that'll be of any value to this discussion, but I'll offer my comments on here. Firstly I'd like to acknowledge that I have a WP:COI with the article in question, the University of New Brunswick (UNB), because I've been a first-year undergraduate student ever since my first term started just over a week ago. You can see my disclaimer here. I've made various edits to the article before and after I started my term at UNB, and I've made a vow to myself to assume good faith through not adding original research and maintaining a Neutral point of view. I have no intentions on attempting to promote UNB, I fully intend nothing more than to do what I can to improve the article because it is, unarguably, pretty messy. I invite anyone, if they would like, to look at my edits.
    As @Ivanvector mentioned, I've been off-and-on making improvements to the University of New Brunswick article for quite some time now (fixing some problems, adding content) as well as adding improvement tags, mostly as a reminder for myself in the future whenever I'd like to try and tackle it. I can admit, however, that I am quite inexperienced when it comes to adding improvement templates so I sometimes tend to overuse them. I sent the article to a cleanup guild as an attempt to get help fixing mostly primary sources (though I can see now that certain topics such as this may need more primary sources than usual) & seeing how the article could be cleaned up or rearranged to improve it. RetroTetra, a complete outsider, seemed to have came out of nowhere and removed all the templates while, in the edit reason, stating that I had been “repeatedly told by others to stop labeling/requesting extra sources for one well-established article of many decades”. I was never told by anyone to stop doing anything (which is nothing more than just trying to make improvements) so this left me confused, and, assuming it was just a troll edit (especially given the lack of edits they have), I reverted their edit and sent them a warning on their talk page. Not sure if it was warranted, but given the circumstances that's how I viewed it as.
    RetroTetra proceeded to retaliate as shown here, here and here, accusing me of vandalism, "taking revenge on UNB for failing a class or getting expelled" and, due to the article's B-Status at the time, seemingly felt as if this meant the article could be free from errors.
    I won't add on to this as to not overlap what Ivanvector said, but seeing the way RetroTetra has responded to both myself and Ivanvector, it seems as if they resort to demands/accusations if they cannot get what they want. I'd like to continue to make improvements to the article in question, but I would also not like to remain hesitant due to RetroTetra wanting myself and others to conform to what they want. Lastly, I'd like to apologize to @Bearcat for engaging in an argument in your talk page; it was definitely not the most mature thing to do, and I definitely made an emotional decision to respond to them because I felt as if I had to defend myself from RetroTetra's strange accusations, but going forward I'll keep in mind to lay it off and wait. Thanks. B3251 (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparently spurious closures of AfD discussions

    (non-admin closure) 2600:1001:b04c:7c80::/64 has been blocked for a month by Ivanvector for impersonating another user. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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



    More eyes, please. See edit history of 2600:1001:B04C:7C80:B0DB:1C38:398A:9C3B (talk · contribs). 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    They're signing their edits as Blablubbs. Blocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. I've reverted some of the edits. Thanks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    They came back as Special:Contributions/108.58.79.74, which is also now blocked. Probably an LTA sockpuppet with a stupid vendetta. Block on sight. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive IP user on Ekadashi page

    This IP user 175.101.13.123 has incorporated poorly sourced information on the Ekadashi page and is engaging in edit war (diff 1 diff 2 diff 3 diff 4 ).

    On their talk page, they have been issued a warning twice - for copyright violation and use of promotional material.

    Chilicave (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverted. I think the IP should be temporarily page blocked since he is continuously adding same promotional content from the blog despite warnings.[64] Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 19:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks by Number 57

    Instead of easily resolving the edit dispute by producing sources to back up his claims, Number 57 is resorting to WP:BULLYING and WP:PERSONALATTACKS by calling me a liar and incompetent. I stand by my point. It shouldn't be that hard to understand. An Indian political group is being inserted into an infobox about a Bangladeshi (formerly Pakistani) election. All I did was to remove the Indian political group (Scheduled Caste Federation). I am doing so because I am not finding evidence that SCF existed as a formal political group in Pakistan and Bangladesh.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately this is a clear case of either incompetence or disingenuity/dishonesty on Solomon's part. In 2017 I inserted a results table to the 1954 East Bengal Legislative Assembly election. This was based on this source used throughout the article, which makes numerous references to the SCF contesting the election, with page 167 showing them as winning 27 seats. The article on the East Pakistan Provincial Assembly, expanded by someone else, also showed the SCF as winning 27 seats at this time. In 2019 RaviC added the SCF to the infobox as the second-placed party.
    Today's order of events has been as follows:
    1. Solomon removes the SCF (and National Congress) from the infobox with no explanation)
    2. After this is reverted, Solomon removes the SCF from the infobox again, initially claiming it "was allied with the winning coalition"
    3. After this is reverted, Solomon again remove the SCF, now claiming it was unclear if the SCF was a formal political group in Pakistan claiming there is no evidence that it was (despite the source mentioned above)
    4. Ignoring a request to follow BRD, Solomon removes the SCF from the infobox for a fourth time, also misleadingly claiming that "The infobox looks very good", despite having messed it up (the second party is not correctly filled in and the infobox is distorted).
    5. After being asked on their talk page to undo their edit, Solomon claims "there is no source or evidence to back up your claim that SCF existed as a formal group", despite the existence of the aforementioned source. They also claim "the infobox was fine before you messed it up months ago" and that they were restoring the stable version, with both claims clearly being untrue. At this point I noted that either they were lying about the page history, or were not competent enough to understand it.
    Had Solomon actually read the section of the article that Scheduled Caste Federation links to, they would have seen that it states "There was also a party called Scheduled Caste Federation in Pakistan".
    In summary, this appears to have been a series of desperate attempt to justify an initial bad edit, evolving into more and more ludicrous defences. Cheers, Number 57 20:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The sentence of there being an SCF equivalent in Pakistan has no source. Also, why not stick to the actual name of Pakistan National Congress instead of "National Congress"? As someone from the area, I know the name "Pakistan Congress" is actually used to refer to this group, instead of "National Congress" (which no one uses).
    The problem is that SCF is taking us to a link called the Republican Party of India. This is very problematic. It tells the reader that an Indian political party founded by B. R. Ambedkar contested an election in East Bengal in 1954 (which was then part of the Dominion of Pakistan and later became Bangladesh). Due to the partition of India, this problem should be understandable to any reasonable editor. Only a genuinely disingenuous editor can resort to personal attacks over these very legit concerns. It gives the impression that East Bengal was not a part of Pakistan but a part of India. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to the query "why not stick to the actual name of Pakistan National Congress", because the article title is actually National Congress (Pakistan and Bangladesh).
    If the problem was really the target of the SCF link as you now claim, you could have just changed the target rather than deleting the party from the infobox. However, I don't believe you were actually concerned about the link at the time, as you made no attempt to change other links in the article (such as in the results table), and were claiming the SCF didn't exist in Pakistan. I suspect you have just moved onto this as the latest attempt at defending your edits after your previous claims were rebutted. If you really believe the link was the problem, then the solution is very simple: Restore the infobox to how it was, but just change the link to Scheduled Caste Federation (Pakistan). Number 57 21:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, you are really full of hatred aren't you? Are you from the RSS or do you sympathize with them?
    Interestingly, it was RaviC who moved the page from Pakistan National Congress to the present title. The move was absolutely unnecessary. PNC existed in the 1950s. RaviC is also responsible for the poorly drafted infobox.
    My only reason for the revert was the link to the Indian party. I do not prefer the red link. If the page does not exist, it means SCF did not exist as a formal group in Pakistan. You asked me to gain consensus. When I tell you my problem, you are again going into borderline WP:PERSONALATTACKS and questioning my integrity. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop personal attacks ("full of hatred") and casting aspersions ("sympathize with RSS"). Ymblanter (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a rhetorical question in response to his incessant personal attacks, didn't you notice? No aspersions. Valid questions because he is suspiciously and mysteriously promoting a flawed infobox with a foreign political party. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Solomon The Magnifico: well whether it's a personal attack or a WP:POINT violation cut it out if you want to continue to edit. Note that it makes no sense to first claim something is a "rhetorical question" then say it's a "valid questions". (Asking if someone is "Are you from the RSS or do you sympathize with them?" is definitely not a valid question, and if you do it again you probably should at a minimum be topic banned, but maybe just site banned since we don't need that sort of nastiness here.) As for the rest, if you know something is always called XY instead of YZ because you're from X, then you should be able to provide reliable secondary sources demonstrating this. You're then free to make a WP:RM based on WP:Common name. Failing that, we don't care what you know. Also whether our article should link to a page where the only relevant coverage is

    There was also a party called Scheduled Caste Federation in Pakistan after Partition. Ramnarayan Rawat stated that the SCF "created the space for an alternative to Congress-type 'nationalist' politics in post- 1947 Uttar Pradesh".

    is an editorial decision and I can see valid arguments either way. I see no valid editorial arguments to removing a party which won 27 seats as per the sources used, from our article. The solution if it's felt linking to the article isn't a good idea is either to make it a red link or unlink it, rather than removing it completely. If it's believed the sources are wrong and no such political party existed, sources need to be found demonstrating this before removing the sourced info from our article. Nil Einne (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those were absolutely aspersions and personal attacks. Peculiarly enough, disagreeing with you doesn't equate to being "full of hatred," and it is only "suspicious" or "mysterious" to editors who feel that no one can disagree with them without there being some sinister motive behind it all. I agree with Nil Einne that such mindsets are incompatible with this encyclopedia. Ravenswing 04:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Boomerang

    Is a WP:BOOMERANG applicable here? In January, Solomon The Magnifico's incivility and disruptive editing was discussed here (reported by myself). At that time Schazjmd suggested a topic ban. In the end no sanctions were applied, but Cullen328 noted, "Another similar report in the future may well result in much more serious sanctions". In May, Solomon The Magnifico was blocked for two-weeks for edit warring. Nevertheless they've continued to edit war, and spew incivility. There's no sign that they want to change or can. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    What do you mean by they? I am a singular person here. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 07:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Warfacts

    Indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Resolved
    Block for disruptive editing.

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

    WP:NOTHERE, more or less all their edits have been reverted for being POV pushing (either them inserting their own opinion, removing or altering info). They only have 51 edits, and their talk page is already full of warnings, which they haven't even bothered to respond to. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @HistoryofIran I'm not seeing where you notified Warfacts of this discussion? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone ahead and left the required notification for you. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ops, sorry. Thanks for notifying them, completely forgot about it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If User:Warfacts doesn't show up quickly to discuss their edits, a NOTHERE block is warranted. Drmies (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Editor is a net negative and unwilling to communicate with the community. Moxy- 02:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Spurious closures, redux

    I wish the original report hadn't been closed so quickly. Lots of block evasion here, now by 47.21.141.210 (talk · contribs) 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    To what are you referring? -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Apparently_spurious_closures_of_AfD_discussions although @Drmies took care of this one too. Star Mississippi 01:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Fanery Hoax

    I think this article on Fanery may be a hoax. All the pictures and information come from a single user whose only edits are to this article. I can't find any other information online about Fanery and there aren't any corresponding articles in other languages. The article seems suspicious to me. Polyquest (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    A quick Google on my part has likewise failed to turn up anything that supports the article. What hits did come in were from that page. Pending further investigation or input from someone with competence in the subject, I have tagged the article as a suspected hoax. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Last night I attended a live performance of the Depths of Wikipedia show, and Annie Rauwerda mentioned the Jar'Edo Wens hoax. I could barely restrain myself from yelling out "hey, I'm the one who deleted the bogus Jar'Edo Wens page after it was there for ten years!" It's embarrassing that the "Fanery" page, which also is blatant nonsense, has survived for even longer. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Polyquest Good catch on this. I am increasingly thinking that this is a likely hoe-axe as my southern friends would put it. I'm going to send it to AfD out of an abundance of caution. But it certainly fails WP:V right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! The pictures are interesting! Someone put a bit of effort into this one. Polyquest (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Aluminum traditional monetary objects!! Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed; it's an impressive fake, for what it's worth. Ravenswing 04:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    RM closed prematurely by brand new zero-edit user

    A brand new user with zero edits (prior to this RM close) just prematurely closed an RM discussion. I know I can revert it, but, as the nom, I’d rather an uninvolved admin take a look. Thanks. —В²C ☎ 04:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Not an admin, but this seems like a reasonable close. However, it is pretty suspicious. Probably a sock. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This certainly looks like a WP:BADNAC to me, especially considering point 2 "The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial." But the thing that concerns me more is that the account Alexandre Fruta (talk · contribs · logs) was just created, and has only contributed to that discussion and no other edits (obviously going against point 3 of BADNAC). Also, the account is indef blocked from the Portugese Wikipedia for socking on the same article. Certainly seems likely that the same thing is happening here, and I would be tempted to check the CAs of other involved accounts in the discussion to see if something similar is going on. (I wasn't able to find if there was a sockmaster listed anywhere on the PT WP.) I'm not involved in that discussion, so I'm going to be bold and un-close this discussion which was clearly closed inappropriately. StartOkayStop (talk) 04:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1175622073"