Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Timhowardriley (talk | contribs) at 07:35, 16 May 2022 (User:Chatul reported by User:Timhowardriley). 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

    BoMadsen88

    BoMadsen88 has been conducting an ongoing harassment campaign against me, with the most recent case being here. As you can see, the account does this via Talk pages that I frequent: Special:Contributions/BoMadsen88. There was an ANI raised about the account previously and the following was stated: "Other than that I don't think there's need for blocks or bans provided that the harassment stops. signed, Rosguill."

    Also, the timing is almost too coincidental between this post on Reddit and the above mentioned Talk page edit. QRep2020 (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Please do tell me how I am harassing you. Did I contact you? I am pointing out what might potentially be a very big problem. With your edit history and behaviour there is unfortunately a very great risk of a strong COI. This has to be addressed asap. BoMadsen88 (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    BoMadsen88, please don't use article talk pages to post conduct reports, those belong on a conduct board such as this one. Beyond that, QRep2020, this report provides a poor summary. You don't link to WP:DIFFs but rather to entire discussion threads. You're expecting quite a bit from a reviewer here in that sense (WP:VOLUNTARY). And maybe someone will do it (delve deep), but if this thread goes stale, that'd probably be the reason why. Also, I don't know what you expect us to tell from linking BoMadsen88 contribs. At a glance, they just seem to be an Elon Musk WP:SPA. El_C 19:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What may also need addressing 'asap' is your continued use of an article talk page to engage in the harassment of a contributor, after being formally warned to stop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Diff of warning? I must have missed it. El_C 19:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, never mind, a year ago, I see it. El_C 19:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:BoMadsen88#Indefinite_block. El_C 19:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    BoMadsen88 sitewide block converted to a p-block, the exact same one as QRep2020's. See my notes at the unblock request. While it doesn't negate some of the problems mentioned above, I'm inclined to give them the option of participating in this thread. El_C 21:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at their edit history. Their "purpose" was to get me banned and, hey, they did it. Only a matter before they come to my Talk page and gloat again. QRep2020 (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not banned. WP:BLOCK ≠ WP:BAN. El_C 22:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    El_C Hello, as stated above my sitewide block has been converted to a p-block for the Elon Musk Article only. However, this should be removed as well.
    I was banned because of “conducting an ongoing harassment campaign against QRep2020” (Qreps2020 quote). But the only thing I did was pointing out my observation that the behaviour of was QRep2020 had been very problematic. QRep2020 has now been p-blocked by the exact same reasons that my work and research unraveled. It is therefore fair to say that QRep2020s problematic behaviour has only been uncovered and stopped now thanks to my observations and persistence. The reason that I have was p-blocked in the first place is now not valid anymore.
    I only tried to make one of the most visited articles on Wikipedia less biased because of very problematic behavior I had witnessed for a long time. I accomplished that and I believe that is what every good Wikipedia editor should strive to do - don’t you too?
    QRep2020 had a lot of edits on Elon Musk which gave him an authority on the page - this meant that other Wikipedia editors did not dare push the matter whenever anyone tried to point out the obviously biased sections in the article. And there has been many editors throughout the last 2 years that has tried in vain to make the article less negatively biased - each and every time QRep2020 has immediately shot the attempts down.
    I am sorry I had to post my observations on the Elon Musk page, but I did not know where else to go. That will not happen again. BoMadsen88 (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "The bridge crew remark sadly on their unwillingness to give up their hate"... Begoon 10:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    "At a glance, they just seem to be an Elon Musk WP:SPA"

    Refactored from my talk page. El_C 19:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The same applies to QRep2020. Their top ten most edited articles are all Musk and Tesla related. This editor's purpose here on Wikipedia seems to be to make Musk and his businesses look as bad as possible. Cullen328 (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Well shit, so the good and the bad. Symmetry? I'm gonna re-open that ANI thread and refactor this, as they might need to be shown the door, too. El_C 19:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is absurd. If you look at my edits, they are not all negative. I've contributed 10 entries of my own. Please do no feed into this castigation. QRep2020 (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    QRep2020, if by "entries" you mean articles, isn't it true that all the articles that you have created are related to Elon Musk and Tesla? Isn't it true that in the past 24 hours, you supported keeping the poorly referenced quote calling Musk a "total and complete pathological sociopath" in the article? Do you deny that your main activity on Wikipedia is to add negative content about Musk? Cullen328 (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I deny it. Hindenberg Research has nothing to do with Musk. I've contributed extensively to the Fraud "article" (I was a little upset when I replied before and used the wrong word) and to the Trevor Milton article. Ken Klippenstein rubbed up against Musk but he is important reporter in his own right - same goes for Lora Kolodny. I can be obsessive sometimes, yes, but I always try to follow the rules. QRep2020 (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    QRep2020, Hindenburg Research is an aggressive short selling operation involved with the electric vehicle sector, and Tesla is the market leader. You also wrote and are the main author of TSLAQ, an aggressive short selling operation focused on criticizing Musk and Tesla. Cullen328 (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on my limited interactions with QRep2020 I think they are a good faith editor who clearly has an interest in Musk/Tesla but also tries to follow the rules. Springee (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps QRep2020 should be advised (not instructed, advised...) that expanding their editing to a broader range of topics might be of benefit. It should make claims of SPA editing seem less credible, and maybe help build a sense of perspective. As fascinating/annoying Musk is, he isn't the centre of the universe (yet ), and I'm sure QRep2020 can find other topics of interest, if editing Wikipedia is their thing (which it need not be...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC) Strike that, per El_C below - I'd missed that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    On closer review, I've p-blocked QRep2020 indef from Elon Musk and Talk:Elon Musk (see block notice). There are so many other topics to write about besides just negatively, about Elon Musk and his companies. Too many red flags, like, in the edit (diff) about and header titled "total and complete pathological sociopath" (link) and the one that states [E]veryone in Tesla is in an abusive relationship with Elon (diff — quoting WIRED, but still). And these are just edits from April 18 and April 20, respectively! El_C 20:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't add the sociopath remark, merely defended that it was used in accordance with the rules. QRep2020 (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't. See WP:BLP, and in particular the section on tone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My initial impression is that this block was too hasty. ‎The "sociopathy" language went through a whole RfC and was present in the Good article pass version. Speaking of which, QRep appears to be one of the two main shepherds of the article through the GA process. There's been a lot of critical coverage of Musk over the past two years in reliable sources. I can't say I've reviewed QRep's editing pattern enough to say if they've outpaced the RS or not. I can say they've been quick to accept consensus and admit an error. I wouldn't be surprised if a warning sufficed to stem even the perception of disruptive editing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's just negative material, though, isn't it more wolf than shepherd? I realize there are a lot cheerleaders, too, but is doing the opposite really any better? I'll keep an open mind, though, sure. El_C 21:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't all negative material. It's a balancing act. I have stayed out of plenty of matters concerning Elon Musk that I could have "fomented" if I wanted to turn the article into a hit piece.
    Look, I got heated these past few days because I discovered people talking about me offfsite. And I shouldn't have focused on the stupid line about sociopathy - I just saw people coming out of the woodwork and was reactionary. I am a grownup, I can admit that.
    Please give me a chance to show that I am not who you think I am. QRep2020 (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I saw the protection request yesterday, which I declined (RfPP diff), and which is partly why this thread peeked my interest. In any case, these are only two pages you are restricted from, out of millions and millions. Indefinite does not necessarily mean infinite, but could just be undetermined length. El_C 21:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but that one page and its Talk page are visited by hundreds of thousands of people each day, that is why balance is so important. And yes I stepped over the line, like I said, but when the subject of the article tells people to modify the said, there is a constant need to maintain some semblance of critical ratio.
    I would also like to point out the irony here that, regardless of what I am "answering to" here, I do not deserve to be libeled on a Talk page that is viewed by said thousands and now I cannot even answer to it because I elected not to give into a baser instinct. Given my status, can someone please remove the BoMadsen88 text from the Elon Musk Talk page about me. QRep2020 (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Elon Musk can say whatever (he can maybe even buy Twatter to make sure that it's his hivemind friend), but the fact is, as I mentioned in my decline of the RfPP request, that most of the users involved in recent disputes were extended confirmed, so it's unlikely they came from unReaddit. El_C 21:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Firefangledfeathers; I believe the block should be lifted, with encouragement for the editor to spend a little less time editing Musk-related articles and a little more time editing other articles. BilledMammal (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, new comments go at the bottom. Weird placement. Had I not looked at the revision history in passing, I'd have not seen it. Anyway, I'm not unblocking either user. They both can appeal their block in the usual way. Appeals which I'm unlikely to comment on, either way (because because). El_C 01:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just chiming in to add that I also believe QRep2020 is a good faith editor and valuable contributor to the project. When I started editing a few years back, all articles on Wikipedia related to Musk were extremely biased and promotional, failing to mention almost all of the well-documented criticism and controversies surrounding Musk and his companies. The number of trolls who still to this day try to change Musk's article to call him a business magnet is indicative of the "reality distortion field" surrounding Musk[1][2][3], and QRep has been one of the few active contributors pushing back to maintain neutrality. So while they may have been overly zealous at times, and a warning could certainly be warranted, I believe that the block was premature as they have made a very valuable contribution by providing some much needed balance in this subject area. Stonkaments (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted on QRep2020's talk page, they should probably substantively address the possible WP:COI raised by Cullen328 (diff), who unlike me fumbling about, actually seems to have done his research. El_C 02:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Cullen328, were you raising the possibility of COI there? I just read that comment as an elaboration on the SPA point, tying all the articles back to Musk. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Firefangledfeathers, I have not had the opportunity to read those more recent links so will respond based on what I knew at the time. I have seen no evidence of a clearcut conflict of interest though I am aware that some editors have accused this editor of being a Tesla short seller. I literally have no idea and even no hunch whether or not this is true. But following my criticism, they posted a denial on their user page. What I do know that this is a highly skilled SPA editor who seems to think that Elon Musk is a "very bad person" and is determined to use Wikipedia as a platform to negatively impact Musk's reputation. In the spirit of full disclosure, speaking personally, I think that Musk is a bizarre person who has received a lot of legitimate criticism. I am not a fan. He is obviously also a highly successful person with major accomplishments. He can deploy a troll army to have the Wikipedia biography say that he is a "magnet" instead of a "magnate" and I have opposed such baloney when it has come to my attention. But what I see is that this is an editor who by all evidence is here only to add content that reflects negatively on this living person and his businesses. Yes, there are a lot of negatives about Musk. But accounts focused on praising or discrediting Musk are equally disruptive. The Neutral point of view is a core content policy and editors who are here to push a negative point of view about a living person are inherently disruptive even if they try, on the surface, to comply with policies and guidelines. Contrition when an editor is sanctioned should be evaluated with a certain degree of skepticism, and the "I blew my stack" defense is not too persuasive, unless accompanied by persuasive assurances thst the disruption will not resume. Cullen328 (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for responding. I was mostly asking for clarification on COI, but I also appreciate your thoughts on the SPA-ness of it all. My angle is: could we have prompted similar levels of contrition and (hopefully soon to come) assurances against future disruption with a warning or temp block (though I know El C is allergic). I've said my piece, and I'd like to leave space for the opinions of others. So, I'd appreciate your contemplative thought on the matter, but please don't feel compelled to reply. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was planning to take a few days off of Wikipedia before appealing and making assurances, but I do not want to invite a COI over my head too so I will say the following in hopes that it shows where my mind is at the moment:
    Though I do not agree that I have exercised a "special purpose" here on Wikipedia - often narrow, yes, but not exclusive - I have no doubt grown obsessive about getting in front of what I came to perceive as a bend in the encyclopedia towards promoting Musk and his endeavors. In recognizing this, I promise to reread NPOV immediately during my small break from the site and assure that, if granted clemency, I will not make any updates to Elon Musk for a period of a month and will not push for any changes via discussions on Talk:Elon Musk as well. I also promise to not make any updates on other Musk-related articles during this time besides reverting obvious acts of vandalism or disruptive editing as a way of forcing myself to try and upend these assumptions I have cemented. Finally, I will force myself to spend time contributing to relatively distant topics on Wikipedia like @El C hinted at and will figure out a way to record any such non-Musk related updates I make on my Talk page as a testament to what I am doing to fix my behaviors.
    Thank you. QRep2020 (talk) 06:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is difficult to assume good faith with your statement given that you do not agree that I have exercised a "special purpose" here on Wikipedia, given that your past 1,000 edits (dating back to April 2021) exclusively deal with Tesla and Elon Musk-related articles. Obsessive is one way to put it. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they don't. Look harder. QRep2020 (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? You're going to flat out lie about your edit history now? See for yourself: here and here. You're really going to still maintain that you are not obsessed with Tesla-Musk-related articles? What a farce. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Exclusively" has meaning to some. QRep2020 (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not lying. "Exclusively" means all. Not all of them are. QRep2020 (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I found two whole edits out of your previous 1,000 edits, my bad. 998995 edits out of your past 1,000 edits pertain to Musk in some shape or form pretty much constitutes exclusivity. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if anyone can explain User_talk:QRep2020#Notice_of_Conflict_of_interest_noticeboard_discussion and User_talk:QRep2020#Tesla_short-selling_group_WP:COI_username, I'm all ears. El_C 02:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Might as well link the COIN discussion itself too. Still reading. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure El_C. Maybe SPA-like activity coupled with the letter Q is enough to say "this is a clear COI"? I think the COIN discussion came to no consensus on that point. QRep2020 clearly denies having a COI and has an explanation for their username. I get some real "small world" vibes from the cast of characters there, that's for sure. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I'm not sure I follow, Firefangledfeathers (RE: "cast of characters"). But just to clear things up: I am Q. Tremble before my stromzezes. El_C 03:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    El_C, you messed up your link. I think you meant Q. Springee (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my God! He admit it!
    I just meant that I see a lot of usernames in common between that January 2021 COIN discussion and recent discussions in the QRep2020-sphere, this one included. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Springee: dude, I've already been called a god (fondly, I'm sure) once tonight. Or was it not-a-god? Anyway, I'm not tempting fate!
    @Firefangledfeathers: that's right, I have QR clearance. Erm, I mean, you suck, Paul! El_C 03:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, there was a serious part: I dunno, at a gleence, it seems like it had fairly limited participation, either way. Not sure what prompted what by whom when. Mind you, like with the ANI report that QRep2020 provided in their OP, I see HAL's sig and my eyes sort of glaze over. No offense to him, nice guy and good content editor, and hopefully he returns to the project soon, but I just find it visually jarring. Damn, I'm terrible. El_C 03:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It is always either amusing or disconcerting to see such highly experienced editors stray so far from the substance of the matter being discussed. Is that the norm these days? Cullen328 (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    i mean, have you read the responses on long anis? 晚安 (トークページ) 06:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328: for my part at least, notwithstanding the undoubtedly excessive levity (though hopefully not too tone deaf), I hope you know that I always give serious comments, from you or anyone, serious consideration. El_C 13:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Woah, this case is really testing the breaking point of WP:CANVASS. See my list of evidence: Post at reddit of QRep2020 got partially banned; and r/EnoughMuskSpam where the pinned comment is featuring Criticism of Tesla, Inc. article. All I can say (as an editor mainly edit about SpaceX articles) that both User:Stonkaments and User:QRep2020 has been civil to me, and I think they are either from the most to least likely: simply growing obsessive at the topic, an activist, or a SPI/LTA. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this your first day at ANI? ;-) Levivich 19:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps a reasonable compromise is QRep2020 agrees that no more than 50% of their meaningful edits will be on Musk related topics. By meaningful I mean things other than minor edits/contributions/spelling corrections etc. My concern here is that, so long as the editor stays within the rules, I don't see a clear issue with an editor having only a narrow interest. It's OK to argue that some content is DUE etc so long as an editor is also willing to accept when consensus doesn't go their way.

    Springee (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Seconded. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This block is warranted. There's a pretty big difference between "having only a narrow interest" and fixating on adding negative information. The latter falls into WP:SPA and WP:NOTHERE. Honestly I think QRep2020 is nice enough, but the editing behavior is clearly problematic. It has been problematic since COIN, and in fact has only gotten worse. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any evidence there is actually a COI? Can you point to edits you think are over the line? Springee (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that they listed a few here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_167#QRep2020. Personally, I am not convinced, and giving QRep another chance and see how it goes would be much better (that however does not mean that QRep is free of problems, it is best left to others to decide). However, Elephanthunter have very strong evidences of canvassing outside of Wikipedia in Reddit ([4], [5], [6], search result of QRep2020 on Reddit). In fact, a boomerang may apply here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for pointing all of that out. QRep2020 (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @CactiStaccingCrane: Can you explain your last two sentences with a bit more detail? BOOMERANG against who, for what? --Elephanthunter (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Three questions:

    1. The COI thread linked above resulted in no consensus and was from over a year ago. Does anyone have any new evidence of COI to present?
    2. Being an SPA is not against policy. Adding negative information to articles is also not against policy. Can anybody post three diffs of "bad" edits by QRep2020? Because I'm not seeing the problem here, other than someone editing a lot about a particular topic, which isn't unusual at all.
    3. Are we within WP:OUTING policy to link any Wikipedia editors to those Reddit threads about QRep2020? Because if so, that's a real problem that needs to be addressed. And if not, then it should go to arbcom via private evidence rather than be raised here on-wiki at ANI. Levivich 19:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth: A quick review of that WWW site indicates that people are not attempting to attach an identity or any personal information to the Wikipedia account, and are referring to it by the account name. Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment and Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment do apply, and the account-holder has said "Look, I got heated these past few days because I discovered people talking about me offfsite.", though, so I think that people should be cautious about this. I think that great caution should also be exercised in trying to link the Reddit accounts to Wikipedia accounts, to the extent of not doing it, not least because it appears that the Reddit accounts are just trying to take credit for what someone else did. "We" did this? There's no evidence there of their actually doing anything. It wouldn't be the first time in the history of the world that people have indulged in empty bragging. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tesla,_Inc./Archive_2#Founders Certain users (QRep2020) involved in biographies policy violations participated in the conversation. I propose a new conversation about the founders of Tesla. A lawsuit settlement agreed to by Eberhard and Tesla in September 2009 allows all five – Eberhard, Tarpenning, Wright, Musk, and Straubel – to call themselves co-founders. --JShark (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It runs deep... I shouldn't have been involved in this thread. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This, and your edits to Tesla, Inc. come close to WP:GRAVEDANCING - Behaving as though a consensus is no longer valid simply because a blocked or banned editor contributed to it. Whilst consensus can change, the simple act of blocking does not change it - if you wish to overturn the previous consensus then further input should be sought. If you want to overturn the consensus, then open a discussion, but the status of QRep2020 is not relevant. BilledMammal (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    QRep2020 isn't even being "blocked" in the usual sense, which further invalidate JShark's argument. I have fear that this ANI thread is becoming (or have been per off-wiki Reddit posts) a place for people hate and love Musk clash together, and I hope some administrator would lose this asap. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If We're handing out topic blocks I think JShark has also gone out of their way to earn one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support partial block. The last few edits include [7][8][9][10][11][12]. Actually they don't include that, those are literally the last few edits (no cherry picking). A single purpose account whose sole objective is to add negative information to a BLP should not be editing that BLP. Good block. Aircorn (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You linked to six edits in reverse chronological order, let's look at them each.
      1. Sixth edit (Apr 16 21:41) was re-reverting a bold edit that was made at 07:41, reverted by another editor at 09:29, and reinstated by the first editor at 18:51; it was a good edit per WP:BRD and WP:MANDY
      2. Fifth edit (Apr 17 14:53) was implementing the talk page discussion at the time at Talk:Elon Musk#Should this material on racial discrimination be included?; good edit
      3. Fourth edit (Apr 17 19:57) was reverting a bold removal made at 17:25; the phrase that QRep restored with the revert, "stances and highly publicized controversial statements", had been in the article for at least on year prior in the form "stances and highly publicized controversies" (that's as far back as I looked); good edit
      4. Third edit (Apr 18) is the edit I talked about above, that was per an RFC result, and also was in the Good Article version of the article (the first edit C linked to in the comment above at 20:25, 20 April 2022); it's also a good edit, because it's backed by an RFC
      5. Second edit was implementing a talk page discussion from Talk:Elon Musk#Bad writing at end of lede; good edit
      6. First edit was a bad edit (it's the second edit C linked to in the same comment above)
      So five good edits and one bad one. Levivich 23:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Its not about whether the edits are good or acceptable. It is the simple fact that every edit is negative to a BLP. Taken as a whole this is someone whose only intention is to add negative content about Elon Musk, not to actively contribute to making the encylopaedia better. Aircorn (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      It's exactly about whether the edits are good. A group of good edits, taken together, are not a bad thing. It's not all negative (not all of those six were negative), there's a lot of negativity in the sourcing, and correcting constant whitewashing means introducing negative content. It's just how it is. Did you read the Slate article from a couple days ago about this by the way? It explains this. Let me quote a part for you: As the user Warbayx put it, “literally 1/4 of Musk’s front page is dedicated to criticism, how can anyone think this is unbiased and fair?” To which the user PraiseVedic replied, “I would say that more than 1/4 of the coverage Musk receives in the media is critical of him, so if anything Wikipedia is under-criticizing him, if that’s a thing.” Anyway, six negative edits on one day is not a lot. I've added a lot more negative stuff about people on this website than that. You know all my edits about the police are negative, for example. Because I edit articles about police brutality. It's inherent. If you edit about Musk or Putin or Johnny Depp or many other high profile people, it's gonna be a lot of negative. Levivich 13:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Its not though. The only difference I see with this case and StuartYeates a month or so ago is that we don't have the smoking gun of a linked twitter account telling us of their intentions. If anything this is way worse from an onwiki behaviour point of view as Stuart worked on multiple other topics and BLPs without much problem whereas here we have a SPA with one very clear intention. Again if your only reason for being here is to add negative comments to a BLP (which is not refuted and should not matter who the BLP is) then you shouldn't be editing here. You do a lot of other things, including mostly adding good commentary here, so your situations don't compare. Aircorn (talk) 08:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      But they're not only adding negative comments to a BLP. Look, of the six edits you posted, only one--the First edit--was adding negative content...
      • The second edit is not negative content, it's just neutral wordsmithing. Also, it's implementing a talk page discussion started by, and with the participation of, editors other than QRep. There is no way we can call that "QRep adding negative content to a BLP"; it's multiple editors figuring out how to say something neutrally, which we call "consensus". Implementing consensus (or attempting to) is not "adding negative content to a BLP".
      • The third edit was restoring negative content that had been removed against an RFC, and that had been there since the GA. Restoring longstanding negative content is not "adding" negative content.
      • The fourth edit also did not involve negative content, just wordsmithing. Also, it was restoring longstanding language. So it's not "adding" anything.
      • The fifth edit was adding negative content, but it's following talk page discussion, and the suggestion to add the content was made by an editor other than QRep (and other editors agreed). It's not fair to pin that on Qrep as "adding negative content" when they're not the impetus for it, they're just taking the crack at writing it up after a talk page discussion.
      • The sixth edit wasn't adding negative content, it was re-removing overly-positive content recently added by someone else, that was already reverted by someone else. That's not "adding" anything either.
      Implementing talk page consensus, reverting promotional language, restoring longstanding language changed against or without consensus... none of these things is "adding negative content to a BLP". These are all things we should be encouraging editors to do. I think of these six edits, five are good edits that we want people to be making. That's not something to sanction someone over. Levivich 01:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Second this. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Also agree - I see they have appealed their block, and I hope the appeal is granted. BilledMammal (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The block has been removed. Appreciate the votes of confidence, everyone. I believe this discussion can be archived now. QRep2020 (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Page move user right revoked after good-faith RM close

    Admin @El C: revoked my page move user right after my close of an RM at Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Russian occupation (link to the RM see also User_talk:Vpab15#Page_move_user_right_revoked). I thought there was a consensus that "Russian" should be removed from the title so I chose one of the many options that corrected that. But even if the close was really bad (which I don't think it was), removing the user right for one mistake seems like a huge overreaction and totally disproportionate. To be clear, the revocation was done without any kind of discussion with me about the close. Honestly, if any mistake when editing will be harshly punished, I don't think I want to bother contributing. To sum up, I'd like to have my user right reinstated and I think admins shouldn't punish other editors for good faith edits without giving them a chance to correct or explain themselves. Vpab15 (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It wasn't a punishment, it was to prevent future disruption (AEL diff). And I'm also not sure it's just one mistake, as they claim, seeing as pretty much the only discussion threads displayed on Vpab15's talk page right now are about contesting their closures. This user did not make a substantive effort to show that they understand the reasons for why it was a bad close and provide assurances against repeating it (here). They don't seem to understand what a WP:SUPERVOTE is, still. Which displays a fundamental misunderstanding on their part, one which I continue to argue needs to be sufficiently addressed if they are to be given back this use right (which used to be part of the admin toolkit, lest we forget). El_C 21:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have just checked WP:ACDS#Awareness. I wasn't aware of the discretionary sanctions. Can I be sanctioned in that case? Vpab15 (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize this might be confusing, but I didn't invoke WP:ACDS for that sanction, but rather for the protection actions (diff). I just made a note of it in the log because it was an integral part of related events. Basically, this was a WP:CIR revocation. I had no idea whether your editing at WP:ARBEE/WP:APL is problematic (I still don't). Did the fact that it was a contested ARBEE/APL page (and currently at AfD) exacerbate the problem? Sure, but it wasn't about the topic area, specifically. And again, you didn't inquire about any of that till now. El_C 22:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. Any misunderstanding is my fault because I didn't inquire. On the other hand you can revoke someone's user right without giving them a proper explanation. Very reasonable. Vpab15 (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The explanation was provided: WP:BADNAC WP:SUPERVOTE close/move, the basis of which I still don't know if you understand, even now. El_C 22:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I still don't understand it. Neither WP:BADNAC nor WP:SUPERVOTE mention anything about revoking someone's user rights. WP:SUPERVOTE explicitly says If you believe that a closure reflects the closer's own opinion instead of consensus, civilly ask the closer to revert their closure and !vote by their preferences. Vpab15 (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, if any admin thinks you should have your page mover user right restored, well, I think it'd be a mistake, but I won't stand in the way. Needless to say, I'm concerned about non-page mover -related closes if this is the approach and your threshold of understanding of WP:CLOSE overall. El_C 23:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Supervoting seems like it would be covered by Wikipedia:Page mover#Criteria for revocation #1. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Criterion #1 mentions a pattern of controversial moves. The revocation was done in response to a single move, so I don't think it applies. Vpab15 (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, but then I saw your talk page where prior to me posting, displayed 2 of 3 threads that contested your closes/moves. And you still haven't demonstrated that you understand the problem with the move/close I overturned. You've basically just been arguing procedure about the revocation, but you've said nothing about why it was problematic, what you'd do differently next time. It's a wrongheaded approach which, I'm sorry to say, does not inspire confidence. El_C 23:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am arguing that the procedure to revoke the user right hasn't been followed. If so, I don't understand why it is not restored. Aren't we supposed to follow the procedures that are in place? Regarding the other contested closes in my talk page, I am happy to provide more info if needed. One of them was taken to a move review that was endorsed, so hardy a smoking gun. In any case, if there is a pattern of bad closes (which I strongly reject), the investigation into them should have been done before the revocation, not after. Vpab15 (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    but then I saw your talk page where prior to me posting, displayed 2 of 3 threads that contested your closes/moves on the other hand, only one of those (George I) was actually taken to MRV, and in that case Vpab's closure was endorsed by the community. Colin M (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vpab15 The criteria for revoking page mover rights are laid out in the appropriate section of WP:Page mover, WP:Page mover#Criteria for revocation. This right generally does not require any process or notice prior to revocation. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think El_C's log entry is really confusing; it mentions four separate actions 1) overturning close, 2) revoking page mover privileges, 3) ECP, and 4) move protect. They added that to Arbitration enforcement log without qualifying which actions were normal admin actions and which were AE actions. Any editor could reasonably assume that the log message was treating all actions as discretionary sanctions. If it is true that the first two actions were normal admin actions, they should amend DSLOG as soon as possible. Politrukki (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This won't be a popular thing to say, but El C's made more than one mistake and no one removed any of his perms. Removing page mover over one bad close (or even three bad closes) seems overly harsh, and punitive, since removing page mover won't prevent future bad closes (you don't need the perm to close an RM). If there were to be a sanction, a TBAN from closing RMs would make more sense, and there are useful things one can do with page mover other than closing RMs. But I think we should respond to bad closes with education/advice rather than removing perms or other sanctions, at least as a first step. Levivich 18:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      (Not unpopular --> (in response to Levivich’s comment). I believe regular editors are cautious and detour criticizing an editor with more powers over them. Anyway, here is my humble opinion. So prompt removal of rights was a very bad administrative decision even if the action of the closer was a mistake (was it?) (sorry El C, people make errors in their judgements, yes, you too.) - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • El C, I'm not sure this was the best way to handle this. If you think the close was bad, I think it would have been better to go through the established WP:MRV process. If you think there's a systematic problem of Vpab not having the competence to close RM discussions, maybe you could open a discussion to see if there would be community consensus for a topic-ban against them performing RM closures? Removing their page mover right doesn't actually prevent them from continuing to do RM non-admin closes - they can always close a discussion and then list the move at WP:RMT. If this were a truly clueless editor jumping in to RM closure and making an obvious mess of it, then unilaterally overturning their close would be reasonable, but this was a good faith closure by an editor who has been closing RMs for a couple years. (And I say this as an editor who has challenged Vpab's closures in the past, even taking one to MRV.) Colin M (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm dealing with a medical emergency, so for expediency, I'll just quote myself: Anyway, if any admin thinks you should have your page mover user right restored, well, I think it'd be a mistake, but I won't stand in the way. Needless to say, I'm concerned about non-page mover -related closes if this is the approach and your threshold of understanding of WP:CLOSE overall. Thanks. El_C 20:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry to hear that, take care - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      +1 Politrukki (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Messy situation that could have been handled better perhaps, but ultimately it’s a terrible close that does not even begin to explain its conclusion and instead appears to rely on an articulated personal view that the move is “fixing a problem”. Per WP:RMNAC, an NAC should normally only be done in cases of a clear consensus which not even the closer claimed existed here. Even if such closes were allowed, there would still need to be a very thorough written articulation of how the consensus was interpreted, not just a simple declaration that the move is beneficial. I sympathize with the user and I’m willing to AGF, but competence issues with assessing consensus in the RM area is quite simply usually going to be disqualifying for what is one of the most restrictive user rights on the project. I would not regrant here personally. ~Swarm~ {sting} 09:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • You've also made more than one mistake and no one pulled your PERMs. Arguing that the close was bad is straw manning: no one is arguing that the close was good. Did you want to address whether (1) this is a pattern or one time thing, or (2) why would we remove PM for a bad close, or (3) why we would remove PM for one bad close?
        Anybody here want to make an argument for why one bad close should result in PM revocation? Like how does that prevent bad closes in the future? Or that it wasn't just one bad close?
        Should an admin who makes a single bad AFD close be desysoped? Should we remove rollbacker for a single misuse of rollback? If the answer is no, then... I'm openly annoyed that the question is even needing to be asked here. Levivich 14:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        One argument would be that all it takes is convincing an admin that you'll use the right responsibly in the future to regain it. An admin would have to re-run for RFA, which is clearly a whole thing. In this situation, likely all it would take is an honest "I understand how that close and move was a mistake. In the future I will be much more careful." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        When we make one mistake with a PERM, we need to convince an admin that we won't make a second mistake, in order to regain the PERM? Levivich 14:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Depends on the severity of the mistake, and the consensus around it. I'm just saying that comparing getting page mover or rollbacker pulled to being desysopped is apples to bananas. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I went into this totally agreeing with you, I nothing short of shocked and outraged that an admin would revoke a perm over a disputed close. I was actually upset, and I shouldn’t have been. Looking into it, I think it’s actually an uncontentious revoke and I 100% agree with it. Discretionarily revoking a perm is a very aggressive, unpleasant action, and no admin does it lightly, but in this case, I genuinely don’t see how there was any alternative. When it comes to subjective close challenges, I’m usually pretty defensive of the closer’s discretion. But here the close wasn’t some sort of mistake, it’s either incompetence or willful misconduct. Framing this in the most favorable light, a page mover is demonstrating that they are not familiar with important policies and procedures in the area of page moving. This is quite simply incompatible with possessing the PM right. ~Swarm~ {sting} 21:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        The reasons for revocation of page mover right are clearly stated at WP:PMRR and it is obvious that a single good-faith mistake is not enough reason. I must also say that I find the lack of civility by two admins quite shocking. Things could have been said much more respectfully. It was really not necessary to repeatedly call me incompetent. Vpab15 (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Per PMRR, the very first sentence, the permission can be revoked for “misconduct”, also I would argue that the issue lies within the purview of #4 anyways; a formal closure performed in your capacity as a page mover, so-designated in the closure statement itself, identifying as a highly experienced and thoroughly-vetted expert in this field. I would further argue that you have demonstrated that you do not satisfy the granting guidelines to begin with and thus a revocation is a procedural matter. I would further argue that none of that matters, per WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:NOTBUREAU, and WP:IAR, we operate based on common sense above all and this is supported by my common sense. I’m sorry if you feel offended, that is sincerely not my intent, but you asked for uninvolved users to investigate and this is my conclusion as an uninvolved admin. IMO you’re not in a position to ask to be coddled, you are the one who betrayed the trust an admin placed in you. ~Swarm~ {sting} 23:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        @Swarm
        My opinion (if that matters):
        1 - point out the incorrect close and illustrate the issue
        2 - issue a warning
        If the user argues (but is proven wrong) or is on the second serious (proven) error, then remove the rights.
        Is that too much to ask? GizzyCatBella🍁 00:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        PMRR #4 says one reason for revocation is: The editor used the permission to gain the upper hand in disputes. It says nothing about competence. Can a single page move be considered participating in a dispute, let alone trying to gain the upper hand? I think the accusation is unsubstantiated and violates AGF. I also think it is very problematic we are still discussing the reason for the revocation. It should have been made clear from the beginning. Vpab15 (talk) 08:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        This would be done under criteria 1, failure to determine consensus, or the catch all "misconduct" clause, criteria 4 is unrelated to the issues with your moves. Looking through a few of your other closures there does seem to be a repeating problem with failing to establish consensus properly. This RM [13] in another discretionary sanctions area (Israel-Palestine) is very unsatisfactory IMO, it should have been closed no-consensus. I don't see how that could have been closed as "moving to a more neutral name" when multiple participants expressed concerns that the proposed name was just swapping one POV for another. This closure of a RM here (overturned at move review) [14] is also extremely problematic. I don't see how that discussion could have been read as any kind of consensus at all let alone a "Clear consensus". From just a few days ago we have this closure [15]. Gender and sexuality is another controversial topic area under discretionary sanctions. When closing a discussion where two options are being debated along with the relative merits of COMMONNAME vs up to date terminology I would expect to see a more detailed rationale than "x has more support". 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:NOTBUREAU. Procedural objections will never win when an action is in the best interest of the project. ~Swarm~ {sting} 22:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Multiple users have questioned whether this is in the best interest of the project, so I don't think this appeal to WP:COMMONSENSE/WP:NOTBUREAU holds up. Last month the RM backlog reached an all-time high. I don't think we should be pushing willing editors away from closing RMs unless a) There's clear consensus that their closes are doing more harm than good (considered as a whole - not just focusing on one bad close). b) Other less harsh options have been considered (e.g. mentoring, guiding the editor toward less controversial closes). Colin M (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Good news then, the user is not banned from RMs and may continue to participate there. I am not arguing in support of a TBAN from RM, I am simply explaining why I would not regrant PM at this time. ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        You're using the word "participate" but we're talking about closes. Vpab can not only continue to participate, they can continue to close RMs. That's why removing the page mover right doesn't prevent bad RM closes. Levivich 14:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, that’s exactly what I meant. Revoking PM does not even do anything to address the user’s participation in RM. It is a bare minimum intervention, and thus I view it as quite lenient, particularly with the caveat that any admin who sees fit can reinstate it without any further discussion. ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        You think I made an unforgivable mistake closing the RM in question. It was so bad my PM right had to be revoked immediately and totally out of process. You also see no problem if I continue closing RMs. How does that make any sense? Vpab15 (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Swarm has explained what was wrong with Vpab15's close. But I think removing page mover right was overreaction that makes very little sense in the context. If Vpabl15 would have been asked to temporarily stop closing (controversial) RM's, would they have said no? I don't think so. There was no immediate threat that could not have been resolved with discussion. As Levivich and Colin M argued, if Vpab15's close was so utterly incompetent that page move right had to immediately revoked, why should we allow Vpab15 to continue closing move discussions? I have not seen evidence for topic-banning from move discussions.
      El_C admonishes Vpab15 for omitting in-depth closing summary. I do think that the RM Vpab15 was sanctioned for should have been closed as "no consensus". However, El_C's summary does not specifically explain how that result was arrived, i.e. they are guilty of what they are accusing Vpab15 of.
      El_C should refrain from using CIR as a blunt instrument and remember what CIR does not mean. Even if Vpab15's rights were not to be restored now, we should provide them a path to regain the PM right, unless we think they are a lost cause, which is not the case here. Politrukki (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree, in addition to the removal of the page mover right, and the logging of it as an AE action, one of the stranger aspects of this is El C's closing statement which admonishes Vpab with Contested moves usually should have fairly in-depth closing summaries, but then goes on to close the RM with this as the closing summary: Either way, no consensus and back to the status quo ante, for now., and that's it, nothing else. In addition, C gives a substantive opinion on the title (I don't have an intimate familiarity with the historiography, but probably Soviet should supplant Russian if the current title is kept (?). Or maybe there's a better a title, I dunno.), which is a !vote. The close also references the essay WP:BADNAC, but doesn't mention the one applicable to RMs, which is WP:RMNAC. C full-move-protected the page, which is also an overreaction after one bad move. Finally, it ends with a reference to 500/30, which doesn't apply to this article. There are more mistakes in El C's actions than in Vpab's actions here. Despite numerous mistakes, nobody is suggesting removing any perms from El C. Levivich 14:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      With regards to your comment about 500/30, discretionary sanctions are Byzantine. Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Russian occupation might be considered under Antisemitism in Poland topic. The talk page has Antisemitism in Poland warning template because it was added by GizzyCatBella on 27 April, right before Vpab15's close. Standard discretionary sanctions are not authorised for Antisemitism in Poland specifically, but it's a subtopic that falls under EE (standard DS). EE does not have 500/30 remedy, but Antisemitism in Poland does, see WP:APL50030.
      I don't think we have discretionary sanctions specifically for Byzantine Empire as of yet, but it might or might not fall under EE. Politrukki (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not seeing how a discussion about the title of the article "Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Russian occupation" could possibly be considered part of the topic area "Antisemitism in Poland", even if the article mentions antisemitism in Poland. (It definitely falls under "Eastern Europe", but as you say, EE doesn't have a 500/30 restriction.) Levivich 16:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Page protection is authorized under standard discretionary sanctions. ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yup, but we're talking here about 500/30, not page protection. Levivich 01:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      UPA (Ukrainian Insurgent Army) with headquarters in Cracow operated on the territories of the occupied Second Polish Republic, particularly in Volhynia and Galicia. The organization was also implicated in pogroms, the Holocaust and ethnic cleansing on occupied Polish territories. Stepan Bandera, the leader, (an antisemite, fascist and Nazi collaborator - see article) was not only born in Poland (Russian partition) but also lived there all his life (before moving to Munich after the war). He proclaimed Act of restoration of the Ukrainian state in Lviv, General Government. This is all WW2 history of Poland, that’s why 500/30 apply. - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That's not true. The Second Polish Republic did not exist when Ukraine Insurgent Army was created in 1942. Also, in 1941, Nazis put Stepan Bandera in a Nazi concentration camp. So no, Bandera was not UPA leader. The UPA was a militia who fought against Russian/Soviet occupation from 1942-1960. WWII was over in 1945, not 1960. So the 500/30 does not apply. It was erroneously added, unilaterally (with no discussion), and it should be removed BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Levivich: I agree with you, the 500/30 does not apply to "Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Russian Occupation." I feel it was erroneously applied to that article & it should be removed. Best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a misunderstanding. 30/500 protection can be applied as an AE measure under standard discretionary sanctions, anywhere in the Eastern Europe topic area. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good faith is not particularly relevant. This is about an action done to prevent a non-admin from making further controversial page moves. As such, Vpab15 should first acknowledge the error, as nobody here has asserted that the contested page move was correct. Second, Vpab15 should explain how their approach will improve. Third, they should politely ask for their permission to be restored. It may be best to let the dust settle and think about this for a while before going through these steps. The current discussion is unlikely to convince an uninvolved admin to restore Vpab15's permissions. Jehochman Talk 13:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is about an action done to prevent a non-admin from making further controversial page moves. An action that should not be done after one bad page move. One bad page move out of how many bad page moves? What's the error rate? And why the hell would this editor ask for the permission to be restored, or ever want to help us with moves or anything else, after being treated like this? Man you old timer admins are really myopic sometimes. Levivich 13:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not an admin. If somebody does something troublesome, it's just fine to stop them from repeating the error. This is the definition of "preventative." We are not passing judgement on the editor or their whole history. We are saying, "This was a mistake, please stop and address it before you continue." Had the editor acknowledged the error (or even acknowledged that they might have made an error), I don't think the permission would have been revoked. Jehochman Talk 15:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          If what you describe actually happened, nobody would be complaining about it. What actually happened is that El C never talked to the user before revoking their perms. See User talk:Vpab15#Page move user right revoked. There was no opportunity to acknowledge the error prior to the permission being revoked. In fact, the OP says this: To be clear, the revocation was done without any kind of discussion with me about the close. So what you're saying just isn't factually accurate.
          Note also that this user is not in any prevented from closing RMs. So this doesn't in any way address or prevent bad RM closes, as has been stated repeatedly in this thread. That's why people are saying it was a bad call: there was no prior communication, no warning given, and the action taken is not preventative and doesn't address the actual problem. The problem isn't a mis-use of page mover perms, it's a bad closing statement. Levivich 15:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          Folks, what I witnessed around here is that regular editors (in general) rather avoid voicing negative comments about administrators. Those who dare are very few. I don't think I have to explain to you why. So you folks, who are in a position of power, please appreciate this constructive criticism, particularly Levivich's, reflect on it and restore the rights revoked due to a poor administrative decision. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I've said before, I appreciate El C's committed admin work in contentious topic areas, but I think this was a series of poor administrative decisions. Some comments:
      1. Mistakes are acceptable for any user right holder. Unilateral revocation is only really acceptable for misuse, gross incompetence, or for inactivity/procedural reasons. For PMR, WP:PMRR outlines 7 criteria for unilateral admin removal without notice or process, and none are met here.
      2. Page mover, as with all other non-admin user rights, is a technical user right. Closing discussions is not a technical task, thus is not within the scope of WP:Page mover, and the editor remains able to close any RM discussion which means the preventative purpose of the revocation is unclear.
      3. Except in limited circumstances, I don't feel it's appropriate to unilaterally overturn closes. As an ACDS action, I think the admin should be able to justify why the unilateral overturning of a close provides a stabilising impact in a contentious topic area, and why it outweighs any concerns of due process (WP:CLOSECHALLENGE/WP:MRV) not being followed. There are a lot of good reasons we have these processes. I cannot see any reasons for avoiding process, or any reason why this move was destabilising in the topic area.
      4. I don't find the close to be a gross error. I think the discussion does show consensus for the nominator's concern regarding the presence of "Russian" in the title, though not a consensus for the proposed title, with disagreement on a suitable alternative title. I would not personally have moved and instead suggested future discussion, but I've seen cases where a move is allowed to a 'better title' with future moves suggested to stabilise on the ideal title. Overall, I think the close is sufficiently within reason to deserve a MRV discussion.
      I hope El C (or another admin) restores the page mover user right to Vpab15. Aside from the substantive issues, I'm concerned of the effect sanctioning mistakes has on editor retention. We're a volunteer community that needs good editors, including RM closers where we often have backlogs. Sanctions are not conducive to editor retention, and should be a last resort to prevent disruption to the project where other means fail or are reasonably likely to fail. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re point 2: You are technically right, but in practice lack of Page Mover right precludes you from closing most RMs. A good deal of redirects are nowadays salted for one reason or another (WP:Redirect categorization being the main culprit) so, if you cannot execute pageswap, you must ask someone else to do it for you, which becomes nuisance for everyone soon enough.
        Substantially, I agree it was a bad removal by El C, and unfortunately, I begin to see a pattern of rushed and overaggressive actions by him, where a simple quiet talk or would do the job better and with much less drama. No such user (talk) 07:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree that this was a pretty bad removal and that the right should be restored. Was it a bad closure? Sure, but this is simply not a justified response. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since there are two open threads at WPO that highlight this matter right now, meTa it's better that I provide an updated summary. I recognize that many participants in this thread feel the revocation was a mistake. But Swarm, a PERM regular with 700 actions to my 30, had said above that though originally he was nothing short of shocked and outraged that an admin would revoke a perm over a disputed close, once he looked beyond its surface, he 100% agree[d] with it. He even said that he genuinely [didn't] see how there was any alternative. As well, above, IP editor 163.1.15.238 has provided other troubling examples.
    In my view, a bad close and subsequent move of a contested EE/APL page while it's being challenged at AfD (which is how I found out about this, GCB ping'd me to the AfD at which point I noticed its title didn't match the article) is quite a serious lapse. But, again, any admin is free to reverse my revocation. Re-applying at WP:PERM is also an option, if that doesn't happen. The venue doesn't matter. All it would take is for one admin to feel confident Vpab15 should have the PM right back (presumably, with Vpab15 providing some substance, but maybe not).
    I'm certainly not gonna hold any ill will toward any admin who might re-grant it (truly), but I'm just not comfortable reversing myself right now, even with all the pressure. Referring to 163.1.15.238's evidence again, I'm concerned for bad closes/moves going unchallenged due to inertia. That said, multiple people above said that I should slow down, so upon reflation (no pressure!), I'm trying to take that on-board. El_C 20:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Countless times on this very page, users are told that when a number of experienced editors are telling them that they are making a mistake then they should correct that mistake, regardless of what they may "know" is right. I don't think anyone has told you to "slow down", I think you've been, quite directly, asked to correct your mistake. Primergrey (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll restore the page mover rights. One mistake in closing a discussion is not enough to unilaterally revoke per WP:PMRR, and there's enough agreement above that this wasn't a good revocation.
    I'll also go out on a limb and say that I don't think the close by Vpab15 is actually bad. It's a very poorly argued discussion overall, but a couple of the opposition !votes don't make any sense and most of the "oppose" !votes seem to be about whether the article is about actions against Poland too, which is kind of irrelevant to the Russian vs Soviet question that the requested move is mostly about. Honestly, I could see myself very well closing that discussion in a similar way (but maybe better explained), since the people who actually argued Russian vs Soviet mostly agreed on Soviet. But the discussion in unclear enough that NC is also valid.
    I definitely don't think El C should've unilaterally overturned the discussion, either. There's no policy that NACs can be unilaterally overturned in general. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll quickly add that the close definitely should've been better explained, but the outcome itself isn't bad. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO It’s been established that the user doesn’t satisfy the granting guidelines. None of my arguments that the right should not be reinstated have been refuted, and yet you’re arbitrarily regranting extremely powerful tools to a user who has demonstrated problematic conduct in the area of specialization. Over what, a procedural technicality that the criteria for revocation were not satisfied verbatim? Galobtter, I feel you betray the best interests of the community here. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nowhere in Wikipedia do we we do anything without giving a user a warning or a chance to improve their behavior. Instantly revoking a user right for a good faith, not unreasonable (as I explained) close is not how Wikipedia should work. That's what I mean by WP:PMRR not being met - I don't care that much about the technicalities but thought I'd refer to the relevant guideline, since it does bolster the case for re-granting.
    As far as I can tell, your main argument is about violating WP:RMNAC, but that part of WP:RMNAC doesn't actually reflect community practice anymore (as ProcrastinatingReader notes). Even 4 years ago when I was an active NAC closing WP:RMs I made many close-call NACs and no one had any problem as I long as I explained myself properly, so I don't see how we can fault Vpab15 for making the NAC close. Your other argument is about the close being bad, which as I explained above, I don't quite agree with even if I do think it wasn't the best explained.
    I think you also overstate the powers of page mover, and Vpab15 has not actually abused any of the page mover technical powers. So what harm do you think Vpab15 would do with the page mover rights now that they have them? Make controversial closes? As many people have pointed out, that's something they can do regardless of having the right. They were never told to stop making controversial closes, which would be the first step if that's the issue.
    I also don't see how you can say I betray the best interests of the community if most of the community that has expressed an opinion above think the revocation was not good. Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Basrasaab and IPs (likely the same person) not following Wikipedia policies on honorifics and WP:V

    User:Basrasaab (using IP socks) is adding/readding honorifics contravening WP:NCIN and MOS:HON

    Disruptive/edit warring continues [23], as well as in Jaimal Singh using IP-Sockpuppet [24]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Disruptive behaviour and addition of unsourced content continues [25] [26] [27]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @Deepfriedokra: as well as @Lightbluerain: who are aware of the situation. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Discospinster: as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Disruptive editing continues with POV edit summaries like "He is a Spiritual Leader. Please respect him", disregarding WP:NCIN, MOS:HON → [28] [29]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really that familiar due to memory loss from Slow Covid, but after seeing what I saw, I partial blocked Basrasaab from article space, requesting they come here in my block notice. SP'd a couple of pages. Some already protected. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      As always, any admin can modify or reverse my actions if they feel it is warranted. ( A ping would be nice.) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks Deepfriedokra. They are everywhere it seems (IP including). Just did cleanup in these articles. Wishing you good health. I can't see well thanks to Covid (2020). - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      SP"d those two. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I fully agree with Deepfriedokra's Admin action in the case, and I greatly appreciate Fylindfotberserk's sending proper warnings to the user —this gave them enough opportunity to know and correct their mistakes. I am not very aware of the ANI proceedings, (this is the first time I came here) but that, I think, having an ANI thread for just a few days/edits old account is a bit too much. Maybe the user didn't realize that Wikipedia actually had some policies that governed it. Deepfriedokra's block and your warning messages can definitely help them in it. Regards. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk💬 Contribs✏️) 18:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Lightbluerain: Appreciate your comments (just saw now). It seems that the person has been IP-hoping and making these kind of changes well before creating this newbie account. SPIs don't work on IPs well, so I wasn't left with many choices, other than to come to ANI to have a 'centralized' discussion. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Alright, great then. Lightbluerain (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Deepfriedokra: Same disruptive editing immediately after the release of block [30] [31] [32]. I reverted them and issued a level 4 warning here, but they wouldn't stop [33] [34] [35] [36], even removing the protection templates from the articles. Pinging @Lightbluerain: as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This one as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Basrasaab site blocked one week for not citing sources. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Disappointed they did not heed my request to discuss the problems here. Should not need a sledgehammer to get someone's attention. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like an SPA. Lightbluerain (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They were on mobile, so it's likely a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 16:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption of consensus building process on List of political parties in Italy

    There's a consensus for a three month topic ban and partial block from List of political parties in Italy and Talk:List of political parties in Italy for both Checco and Scia Della Cometa. Hopefully a break from the article will help resolve things. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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


    This is a long running content dispute which Robert McClenon has tried to resolve at WP:DRN and, after forty-odd statements by both sides, eventually closed as unsuccessful. The disputants now propose a long series of RfCs. We (S Marshall and I) believe that Checco and Scia Della Cometa are bludgeoning, owning the talk page, and sealioning to such an extent that the dispute has become totally bogged down.

    What should be done about this civil yet disruptive behaviour? These two editors are wasting so much time from other editors in their petty dispute because they refuse to give ground. As I said to Scia before, it's like every time they want to change a lightbulb they feel compelled to demolish and rebuild the house. We feel this is excessive and it should now be stopped. I am sharing this issue with the community because wider community input is needed to stop this issue from continuing. I hope editors more familiar with the dispute are willing and able to provide diffs if the community thinks that is necessary, but the level of reading it would take me as an unfamiliar editor to the year-long dispute prevents me from doing so. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 12:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Countersigning this: I endorse and support Ixtal's words.—S Marshall T/C 15:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      1. Be grateful that the dispute is confined to this narrow topic
      2. Don't provide any additional oxygen for it
    Maybe not the type of advice you were looking for ~Kvng (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I will briefly summarize (if possible) what happened: a year ago I realized that the list of Italian parties was far behind the other pages. I also noticed that there were some inclusion rules (some extremely complicated or extremely inconsistent with each other). The entire set up of the page had been decided exclusively by a user a few years earlier who kept the page de facto blocked. I tried to involve other users right away to improve the page, to no avail. So I tried for 6 MONTHS a compromise with the other user involved to simplify the rules. In vain, almost every proposal was rejected by him. So I realized that those rules had to be removed. A Drn was launched in January: following an RFC, the rules of that page were finally rejected. A new discussion has begun on wikitables and the organization of the lists, with him always intent on maintaining the status quo. The DRN was declared failed, but other RFCs need to be started, with the puropose to have a consensual set up of the page. And now Am I accused by Ixtal of wanting to own the page? Me, the one who tried to involve other users to find an agreement? It is simply absurd, I don't want own anything. Frankly, such an unfounded accusation offendes me... And now even other obstacles are being placed on the road map that was designed to reach the consensus with other users on this topic...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Scia it would be helpful if you mentioned who the other user is, as we cannot really do anything if we're left guessing. I also mention that your efforts are in good faith and we mention above the civil character of your behavior.
    I'm not saying that you haven't been trying to improve the page, I'm just saying that the way you are going about it currently is disruptive towards the collaborative consensus-building process that leads to long-term improvement. That's what it felt like to me when you say that (emphasis your own) The thing that worries me the most are the technical problems of this RFC: it lacks the main topic (politics, hovernment and low), so the potentially most interested users will not intervene; it lacks the preview of the 2 Plans. [sic] Insisting on an entirely new RfC and demanding the old one be withdrawn because it is missing a tag (which can be added during the RfC) and you disagree with its preview (which has no effect on the resulting consensus) is the type of nitpicking that is unhelpful when trying to reach consensus and incredibly confusing to editors trying to participate in the talk page (is the RfC going to be withdrawn? Should I vote in case it won't? Is it worth participating if the past eight RfCs have been ineffective at creating consensus?). While you may not have asked those questions to yourself, I had to when voting in the last RfC as someone new to the dispute. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 13:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect to the RfC closure request. I reviewed it last night, checking both the state of the RfC and that of the discussion in the subsequent section. While I haven't formally marked it as "not done", as I would appreciate a second opinion on it from another more experienced closer given the circumstances of that conversation, aside from the comments by Scia Della Cometa and Checco at WP:CR I did not see a consensus for an early closure. I have no other comments to make about the underlying dispute, other than agreeing that it appears to be both messy and long in duration. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ixtal I have now reread some of your questions: I thought it was explicit that I was referring to the user with whom I have been discussing for months, that is Checco. And not all RFCs have failed: The New RFC on Inclusion Rules for Italian Political Parties has been the key to unblocking the page, as it removed all the quibbles that had been imposed on the page for years.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    At Wit's End

    Unfortunately, I agree with Ixtal and S Marshall that these two editors are part of the problem, or are the problem:

    As a long-time DRN volunteer, I prefer to look for the content portion of any dispute, and if the content dispute can be resolved, any conduct will either subside or at least be contained. I would prefer to try to resolve a dispute in almost any other forum than WP:ANI, but at this point I don't think that there is any other forum. We tried DRN, which went on much longer than DRN is expected to last. I asked for ideas at Village Pump, where one conclusion seems to be that sometimes certain editors are the problem. I was unable to get these two editors to agree even on how to try to agree to resolve the content dispute.

    I am thinking of a principle that the ArbCom has occasionally adopted, known as "At Wit's End":

    In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia.

    The draconian measure that I suggest that the community consider is to topic-ban the two editors from the area of Italian political parties, broadly defined, for three months, and see whether other editors are willing to work on the topic in their temporary absence. I think that part of the problem is that each of them, for some reason, will not agree to anything that the other one proposes or even agrees with.

    Do the two editors have any ideas that will permit them to continue to edit without requiring a third party? Does anyone else have a different idea? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, I do. I think the key to this is that the content dispute is between options that are not mutually exclusive. We can, and arguably should, have several lists of Italian political parties each with its own inclusion criteria. There could be a list of current ones, a list of historical ones, a list of notable ones (i.e. Italian political parties with their own articles), a list of parties with seats in the national parliament, and a list of parties with seats in the local parliament -- all valid lists that meet WP:CLN. Therefore we topic-ban both of the disputants from the main list and put a two-way iban on each, thereby forcing them to work on separate lists of political parties in Italy. One possible end state is to turn the main list into a disam page.—S Marshall T/C 17:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If a topic-ban is required, I think that may be too broad. Perhaps a topic-ban from lists of Italian political parties would be better, and if required later expand and/or extend that ban. I also don't think an IBAN is warranted. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 18:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    With regards to scope, you (Ixtal) and Robert seem to be the most recent DRN volunteers (that I recognise, there may be others) active in this dispute. If the editors are t-banned from just lists of Italian political parties, or perhaps even just the page at the locus of this dispute, is there any risk that this dispute or a similarly intractable dispute between these two editors will spill over into other Italian politics articles? Or are these editors able to edit well together on other related topics? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't want anyone to miss how much of a major red flag it is that Robert McClenon is at his wit's end when it comes to dispute resolution. I threw in the towel much sooner, and am sad to see how long it's continued. My alternate proposal is that Checco and SDC voluntarily agree to abstain from dispute resolution processes higher than just talk page discussion – excluding ANI. Echoing a point S Marshall made at the talk page: the time of experienced volunteers is expensive, and this dispute has consumed a lot of it.
      I'd be saddened to see both editors sanctioned identically, as in my view SDC – as the editor pushing away from the status quo ante – has more egregiously failed to drop the stick and done more damage while holding it. Regardless, please count me in favor of whatever approach is the closest to consensus, as we owe it to our dispute resolution veterans to do something. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Concur with FFFffffffffffffffffff. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rather than a broad TBAN, wouldn’t a partial block/narrow TBAN from that one article be more narrowly tailored towards preventing future disruption? Looking at it, I think that there is clearly an intractable issue with ownership and WP:SEALIONing, but if the scope is limited to one article, I can’t see why a ban or block should be broader than that. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was involved in this Dispute.... but I could not stay fully engaged for the six months it raged on and on. The two main combatants kept reversing positions, arguing over even the smallest details, and just generally keeping any genuine progress from happening. There is complete WP:OWN behavior going on and any dispute that has caused Robert McClenon-, one of the most patient, level headed editors- to quit mediating out of frustration, deserves some admin attention. These two editors are not contributing. Yes they are making good faith efforts- but they are so stuck on their chosen point of view that they have actually hindered that page being improved at all for over six months. Please- this needs to stop, and I agree that a TBAN is appropriate at this point. I won't go back to working on that page as long as I have to deal with either of those two- I just don't have the mental energy for it. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you really think that a ban is necessary for me? Do you think I can't take a step back on my own? You underestimate me. If you invited me and Checco to abstain from discussing the improvement of that page, I would accept, but Checco should accept too. Don't you realize? That page has been owned by one single user for years. Why do you think the discussion lasted for months? For his stern opposition to making any changes to a page that he had made subject to his will. And because almost all the other users have often refrained from expressing a clear position: if other users had intervened, we would already have a consensuual set up of the page. Instead many have preferred not to get their hands dirty and act as spectators to the discussions between two users with completely opposite ideas This is a fact. Do you think I want to decide myself on that page? You are very wrong if you think so, I just wanted to free it from setting and rules established by a single user. I did a dirty job, but if I didn't, that page would still be controlled by one user today. What User:Firefangledfeathers describes as my demerit (trying to change the status quo imposed by a single user), honestly for me it is a merit!
      I more than willingly step aside in the discussion (but Checco must do it too), a ban is certainly not necessary, who did you take me for? But in this case all of you will have to discuss yourselves the new set up of the page. All those who have intervened so far. Me and Checco did not agree on almost anything, but finally we had agreed on a road map to follow in order: RFC on the organization of lists, RFC on the format of Wikitable, RFC on the separation of lists of coalitions and parliamentary groups on a separate page. If this process has stalled, it is also because Robert McClenon refused to close or modify that RFC, stating litterally that it was no longer his problem (but now he intervenes again by asking for a ban). Do you all want to put an end to this endless discussion? So far I have seen very few concrete proposals: I invite you to come forward, to propose changes, to improve that page yourself. I have my ideas on that page, but I never pretended to decide on its layout and content. I will be grateful to be on the sidelines with Checco, my only goal was to free the page from not acceptable constraints, now discuss and decide how to improve that page yourselves, but you really have to do it! .--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you two hear yourselves? Look at the finger pointing and childishness you are both exhibiting. Yes- I think a topic ban is necessary for both of you. You are both being ridiculous, you both need to stop it with that page. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, that's a little condescending, but it's also a little deserved, so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ casualdejekyll 21:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, to be fair- I was polite and not condescending for the six months we were at the DRN. So.... yeah. Maybe a little- but it is sad. Two good editors reduced to a "No you, no you, they started it" argument? They are good editors- it should never have got to this point. Nightenbelle (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I've closed one of the more recent RfCs, and read part of the discussion that had happened until that point. It's unfortunate to see that things didn't settle down. I think a topic ban for both editors would prevent further waste of time, and, as mentioned before, could allow for other, interested users to take a stab at improving that article. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 22:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I thank User:Isabelle Belato for closing the substantive RFC, which she and I both hoped would permit progress, but it didn't.
    I don't think that an interaction ban will be useful or necessary. Interaction bans are required when two editors are uncivil to each other, or when two editors are reverting each other's edits vindictively, or for a few other reasons that do not apply. These are two editors who did not try to collaborate, which created more work for the mediator, who eventually gave up. An interaction ban might require another mediator, and I don't think that it will be easy to find one. The question is what the scope of the topic ban should be.

    Robert McClenon (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi all. I have been involved in many Italian political parties articles, and I know Checco and SDC well enough as WP editors, so that I feel that I can contribute to this. I have also been directly involved in the DRN on the "List of Italian political parties" and in the latest RfCs. These two editors edit mainly politics articles, and they are two of the main contributors to virtually all Italian politics articles (they are also quite active on it.wiki on the same topics). They come in good faith, and with a sincere will to make WP better and more accurate, obviously each according to their opinions to what is "better". And I think I am not overstating it when I say that more than half of the discussions of the latest years on these articles have featured Checco against SDC and viceversa: they are somehow always in contrast on almost every issue. (I am also no saint myself, I also had many harsh discussions, sometimes with Checco, sometimes with SDC.) Checco has been editing on WP since much longer than SDC, and therefore he is the one who often originally started many Italian politics articles, and probably gave the structure that he liked to many of them – something that might justify the WP:OWNish behaviour that some of you attribute to him. IMHO, this is why he is usually on the side of keeping the current status quo. SDC on the other hand usually has a different idea on the structure and content of these articles, and he usually has very good and thoughtful proposals, but he tends to be aggressively stuck on his position and shows just a small will to compromise, even on tiny secondary things. The two editors do have something in common though: (1) they write long and wordy explanations of their positions, often repeating themselves many times: this is why we have huge talk page sections and this is why the DRN was 40 iterations long; (2) they (in good faith) do not always follow the rules, for example I had to stop SDC and Checco from unilaterally editing Robert McClenon's RfC header without his permission. I have no opinion on what is the best way to go forward in solving this issue. I just know that they as editors are very passionate about this topic, and this explains their perseverance on every issue arising about it. Yakme (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you. This means that if a topic ban for either or both is part of the solution, then it needs to be a narrow and well-defined one, because a broad one in this topic area would lead to an unacceptable amount of collateral damage by stopping key article maintainers from doing their work.—S Marshall T/C 13:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also feel that it bears repeating that the options they're fighting over are not mutually exclusive. We can and should have several lists.—S Marshall T/C 13:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Yakme: for the summary. I was only involved at List of political parties in Italy and didn't know this behavior affected the broader topic area. ~Kvng (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can support much of what Yakme has written -- for at least as long as I have been involved with editing articles on Italian political parties, Checco has been contributing, as he has always been involved in good faith discussions. He has strong opinions at times, but that is merely because he has a clear desire for strong quality control of wiki articles, a MO which can step on other users' toes at time, but to my view he has never acted as anything but a well-meaning editor. As for SDC, he is also a sincere editor who has strong feelings on issues and formatting, so there is bound to inevitably be a clash with other editors at times, not helped by (IMO) SDC being more often reactive to constructive criticism from others. I have to admit that I suffered from mental exhaustion on this topic and found it difficult to contribute much as time went on, becoming unable to expend the mental energy to keep up with the ongoing discussions. I have at this time no exact solution I can suggest to solve this impasse, but I honestly think that with some compromises, a consensus could eventually be reached.--Autospark (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yakme's account is mostly fair and correct. Before getting to know User:SDC, I was not particularly involved in talks in en.Wikipedia. After, I have always played by the rules and I have been patiently answering to any proposal or question (even though User:SDC often complained that I could not answer in real time—same with User:Autospark). That is no mistake to me and I would do it again, despite my preference for mainspace editing. I should be credited for User:SDC's evolution from his initial and instintictive edit-warring to a more consensusal attitude. I am much more of a consensus-seeker and –builder—as such, I usually avoid total rollbacks and sometimes wait years before editing (see 1 and 2). After User:SDC quit edit-warring at List of political parties in Italy, some of his proposals were accepted by other users, others were rejected. User:SDC has every right to think that his opinions are the best, but most efforts were doomed by his "all or nothing" approach and his little ability to compromise (as shown lately by the "preview" issue). As User:Firefangledfeathers correctly pointed out, I had every right to reject some proposals and defend the status quo—and I was not alone in doing that. As I said, I played by the rules and I participated in any discussion I was asked to. I really appreciated the Moderator's effort in the DRN, but I have to say that most interactions were repetitive because the questions were repetitive. My answers in the DRN were always short and focused: I put confidence in the process and I even accepted RfCs, despite not being a fan. Now that the DRN is over, I still think that compromises could be easily reached by the editors most involved in the discussion, notably including User:Yakme, User:Autospark and, albeit not recently, User:Nick.mon. I would accept a topic ban or a pause from the List (better a voluntary one, per User:SDC), but I agree with User:Firefangledfeathers that a better proposal would be that User:SDC and I "voluntarily agree to abstain from dispute resolution processes higher than just talk page discussion". User:Firefangledfeathers and User:ScottishFinnishRadish are also right on principle that I should not be sanctioned identically as User:SDC: I was not the one edit-warring and, later, insisting with proposals and calls for other users' interventions. This said, I feel very sympathetic to User:SDC, I agree with most of what he wrote here, I am confident (as I have always been) that we can solve this through debate and compromise, and the fact that User:SDC and I agree on a path forward should be accepted and encouraged by the "community". In a nutshell, I equally accept three options: 1) User:Firefangledfeathers's proposal plus debate and compromise in the List's talk page involving all the users, old and new, interested; 2) the road map designed by User:SDC above (first of all replacing the current RfC text—I would accept both his latest proposals); 3) a voluntary topic ban / pause from the List by User:SDC and I. --Checco (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Ehm, it is quite easy to say "I had every right to reject some proposals and defend the status quo, and I was not the only one to do so" when you had established the entire page layaout yourself, taking advantage of the general disinterest of the community and with the usual support of one user. Everyone has the right to express their opinion, not to appropriate a page. No list except the one on Italian parties is controlled by a single user. Continuing to claim that my approach was "all or nothing" is equally inaccurate: you rejected almost every compromise proposal of mine, claiming that you were "fine with the current form of the list" anyway. The first valid RFC rightly rejected those rules you had kept on the page for years. Then it is true, in the past, after having failed with the attempts of cooperation (since sometimes I had to wait even more than a week for your answer), I tried with some bold edits, but where it was decided that that page could not be changed by a comma? Unlike what you were saying, the setting of that page was nowhere established. Is my fault that I tried to give a consensual layout to the page? I think not. And it is difficult to find a compromise if you place all those vetoes: compromises do not come with vetoes. However, I really appreciate your willingness to take a step back. The same willingness to take a step back also applies to me, if that can serve as a turning point. Anyway, a ban of any kind would mean no confidence on my willingnes to stand on the sidelines.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Our purpose here is to stop the disruption this dispute is causing. The section called "at wits end" means we've tried being fair and nice and the disruption hasn't stopped, so now we've got to be unfair. And whatever we decide, it isn't going to be "voluntary". It's going to be something that we can enforce.—S Marshall T/C 16:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Scia Della Cometa wrote:

        Anyway, a ban of any kind would mean no confidence on my willingnes to stand on the sidelines.

    Some editors don't want to rely on a voluntary statement that you and Checco will stand on the sidelines, when you couldn't make progress with a mediator. Indeed, some editors don't have confidence in your willingness to stand on the sidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal 1: Limited Topic-Ban and Partial Block

    In response to the discussion above, I propose that the two editors in question:

    be topic-banned and partially blocked from the specific article and its talk page for three months:

    They may edit in any related areas such as more specific lists of parties, or AFDs to delete parties not having a reliable source, or any other topic. They are not interaction-banned, except that they will not interact on the main list and the main list talk page. So-called voluntary bans are ineffective. After other editors have made progress in three months, the ban will expire. If other editors do not make progress in three months, the ban will expire. If there is disruption in the meantime, the ban can be extended, or Community General Sanctions can be imposed. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Like User:SDC, I would be very unhappy with this solution, if not voluntary, and I hope we could avoid it. My wrong was to answer to each proposal, question and community effort I was asked to. I hope that more moderate solutions, like those proposed by User:Firefangledfeathers and User:SDC, can be applied. --Checco (talk) 05:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC) Rephrased 16:18, 8 May 2022[reply]
    The fact that this proposal would make the participants unhappy indicates we're on the right track. The goal here should be for these editors to learn how to self-regulate this behavior so I like the option to extend the ban if disruption continues. I'm past trying to attribute blame for the disruption to one or the other editor and we don't have reports of problems except when both are involved so, although it won't seem fair, it makes sense to apply the remedy equally to both editors. ~Kvng (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:SDC self-regulated his behaviour by not edit-warring anymore, making proposals and, lately, asking for help from the "community" as there was no consensus for some of his proposals in the talk page. I appreciate his efforts and his evolution. My impression is, more than ever, that User:SDC and I, along with other users interested in the issue, can either 1) sort this out or, otherwise, 2) go to the sidelines voluntarily, with the civility that marked our discussion over the last months. I understand User:SDC's disillusion in the process and, more than before, I feel sympathetic to him: he looked for help, but he was completely let down by the process. He is right when he writes that "almost all the other users have often refrained from expressing a clear position: if other users had intervened, we would already have a consensuual set up of the page". In different ways, sanctioning him for asking help and me just for playing by the rules of the DRN and giving focused answers to each question is not fair. --Checco (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, the dispute between the two of you involved DRN for six months with no conclusion other than an RfC that both of you wish withdrawn, and Robert losing patience. What has changed in the last seven or so days that would indicate to us that should we do nothing that we will not be back here, in a similar thread, in another 3 to 6 months time? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that Robert is a very respected user and that criticising his conduct will not help me in this proceeding, but, frankly, the main problem of the last months was the quality of his moderation and, in the end, his push for the latest RfC. The DRN involved some questions repeated many times. Along three/four other users, I put confidence in the process, I carefully respected the rules given and I answered to virtually all statements in most cases in 48 hours (sometimes real life made it very difficult). I am now criticised precisely for having played by the rules. My confidence and, yes, my patience were not rewarded—at all. --Checco (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not read nor will I read the DRN, but you enabling SDC's issues with the last RFC and expecting what is really a very simple issue to need multiple months more of discussion paints a different picture, Checco. At some point it's not you being patient, it's you continuing a discussion which should not be continued. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 20:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a pity that you did not read it. The latest sequence of events precisely shows how much I was open to multiple solutions and I was accepting basically every proposal by the Moderator and User:SDC in order to go forward, even though I would have preferred fastest paths and the Moderator could have easily found a middle-of-the-road solution, as other three users were consistently contributing with their opinions. --Checco (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Checco "accepting basically every proposal" might have been the issue that led to the dispute taking so long. I think also you and SDC trusting your own opinion more than the community-at-large (from what I saw in my brief interactions in the talk page) also played a part. You'll probably find more clarity once the page block ends (if enacted). — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 20:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as proposer. This is the minimum real remedy that I can think of, for two editors who didn't agree on anything except that it would take them several months of further mediation to reach agreement, so they can wait a few months to see if other editors can accomplish something while they are kept on the sidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - It seems that the two editors are just asking the community to be patient with them for a few more months. (I think that I was patient with them too long.) Maybe they can be patient with the community for a few months instead. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Over the last six months, User:SDC and I refrained from any controversial edits to the List and duly followed all the indications we were given, especially in the DRN. Consistently with this behaviour, we can easily abstain from editing the talk page too, voluntarily. Once again, before being caught by real life for a few days, I prefer User:Firefangledfeathers's solution ("voluntarily agree to abstain from dispute resolution processes higher than just talk page discussion"), but I would also accept, as also User:SDC indicated he would, a voluntary abstention for both the List and its talk page for all the time I would be asked. User:SDC and I are passionate, but truthful users. --Checco (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per my comments above in this thread. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 21:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - From what I understand, it appears thatRobert McClenon has hardly read anything I've written lately. I have already stated that I want to step aside to allow for a more constructive discussion, and Checco said the same. When I read Robert writing "two editors who didn't agree on anything except that it would take them several months of further mediation" it means that he hasn't read anything I've been writing lately. This discussion seems to me to be a waste of time: you are here discussing whether to ban me and Checco from that page when we have already given the willingness to take a step back to allow you to discuss constructively how to improve that page. It's okay with me if you continue the discussion, you free me from this commitment, the topic ban would be quite useless since I would be the one to withdraw. Instead, I confess that I agree with all of Checco's latest statements. I had honestly appreciated Robert's effort to mediate the dispute, but we had 40 statements without a final solution because he frequently repeated the same questions (leading us to repeat the same answers) and never took matters into his own hands. Finally, the most serious mistake in my view, was to push on an RFC in a writing stage and the subsequent refusal to withdraw it (because it was no longer his problem). Frankly, it didn't seem very fair behavior to me. After Robert's step back I had to pick up the situation again and Checco and I had already agreed to start 3 very specific RFCs that would finally give the page the definitive structure. The process would have taken some time, but no mediation would have been necessary. Do you want to exclude us from that discussion? Very well, no problem, we have already stated that we stand back on our own. Give us a time limit in which we will have to refrain from that page, if we do not respect it, please ban us. But rather than waste time now with bureaucratic quibbles, like topic bans, carry that discussion forward. If, on the other hand, you want to waste time discussing this forcing, well, it will be a useless ban anyway (and time stolen from that discussion).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Having read through statements 30 to 40 on the DRN, as well as all of the comments made here, I concur with what Robert McClenon has said. I'm also particularly concerned about the questioning of Robert's competence as a moderator at DRN by both SCD and Checco in this thread, as well as by Checco at their fortieth statement in DRN thread. Both SCD and Checco seem to have, at various points in the statements that I've read, have either forgotten or were unaware that DRN is not there to act as a content arbitrator. However both wanted Robert to act as one. I have a strong suspicion that if these two editors are temporarily topic banned and paged blocked from those pages, that after a short period for the other editors to recover from the exhaustion caused by this very long and drawn out process, progress towards finding a consensus on the actual content issues will rapidly become unstuck. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – I totally agree with the issue here being trusting [their] own opinion more than the community-at-large. They show exactly the kind of behaviour described in WP:KEEPTALKING – especially SDC, he simply cannot let go. However I am not sure whether a topic ban is going to be effective; it is quite likely that after the ban, Checco and SDC will start fighting again on that talk page about some details that might or might not have been implemented by the rest of the community. And of course an indefinite ban is not the best option, given that these two users are some of the most knowledgeable on this matter, and these articles would be largely incomplete if it weren't for them. Probably something more efficient would aim to free up community energies from this issue, i.e. something like a ban from DRN that FFF proposed – they would only be allowed to use normal talk page discussions. However I am also a bit dismayed by their comments against the DRN moderator (who, as a non-expert of the field of Italian politics, asked a lot of questions to understand what was the problem – also probably out of confusion for the level of detail of the issue), and by some comments like that this is a waste time now with bureaucratic quibbles, like topic bans. Is it not clear that this is not a bureaucratic issue? Yakme (talk) 12:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just wonder if you've fully understood the proposal, Yakme? They will not be able to start fighting again on the talk page.—S Marshall T/C 14:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes sorry I meant "after the ban is expired": the topic ban is only going to pause this behaviour, but it is not a guarantee that the original issue is going to be solved. I am quite confident that the discussion will simply be revamped once the ban is finished, because both editors – being more expert than most on this topic – will surely find something inconsistent or incomplete after a 3-month-long block, and have strong opinions on it. Actually during the ban period, they could even just move the discussion from Talk:List of political parties in Italy to Template talk:Italian political parties and circumvent the ban. OTOH, somehow I feel that a ban on the use of DRN / RFCs is a more efficient solution, in the sense that it will confine the (IMHO unavoidable) damage to that specific talk page, and release the rest of the WP community from this pain. Yakme (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        With respect to the parties moving the discussion to another talk page, that would (I believe) be a violation of the concurrent topic ban that runs alongside the partial block. While the partial block would prevent them from editing List of political parties in Italy and its associated talk page, the topic ban would prevent them from discussing that page and its content anywhere else on wiki. I suspect any such circumvention attempt would also be seen as a bad indicator, and would imply that stricter sanctions would be necessary if it were to occur. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Honestly, when I read certain statements, it makes me smile ... do you think I'm any vandal who can't control his behavior? Everything I've done so far (that is my effort to unblock a page that for a long time was not taken into consideration by anyone) was intentional and I don't regret it. If I said I want to step aside, ban or non-ban, it means that I want to step aside. Attributing to me eventual pathetic attempts to circumvent the ban by moving the discussion elsewhere means that you have not really understood anything about me ... Do you want to give the topic ban to me and Checco on that page? Ban us. But you continue that discussion! If that RFC, according to all, is well done, why (almost) none of you intervened in it? If you are able to make the decisions on all aspects of the list and template, I will have no complaints in the future. If you want to exclude other users from the discussion, it is up to you to decide on all aspects of the page. Because the time has come for community decisions to be made on that page, with or without me and Checco.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Ps. Furthermore, I confirm that for me it is just a bureaucratic matter, I don't care if you ban us (more likely) or if you simply ask us to refrain from the discussion, because it would not change anything in practical terms. The only thing that matters to me is that the discussion is continued by you and that the unresolved aspects are decided (structure of the lists, structure of the wikitables, structure of the templates).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        @Checco @Scia Della Cometa It is quite possible there will be no significant changes to the page during the proposed ban. The goal here is not to get you guys out of the way so that everything can be tidied up there. The goal is to pull the breaker and stop the sucking of time from other editors by this unresolvable dispute. Ideally when we reboot we'll somehow be on more productive footing. If not, we have the option under the proposal to extend the ban. ~Kvng (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        @Kvng: Frankly I did not understand your statements: is there or not the intention on your part (all of you) to discuss about that page without the two of us? That's what interests me. Now the list of Italian political parties is in Limbo: it is drawn up according to rules that are no longer in force and there are only skeletons of wikitable (rather useless in that form). The "unresolvable" thing was the convergence of ideas on the content of that page between me and Checco: we had finally decided how to carry out this long dispute, but we were not allowed. That is why I am now here to say that the set up of that page should be decided by you, since two users with irreconcilable ideas will no longer be part of the discussion. It seems to me like a request for common sense.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, then, as this is the only proposal on the table.—S Marshall T/C 14:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Responses to my comments above supporting the proposal were not reassuring. Following the rules has proven insufficient. This pattern will likely continue until the editors involved accept responsibility for their role in it and are motivated to resolve it. ~Kvng (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support both are too emotionally involved with this page and need an enforced break from it, but without stopping their valuable contributions to other pages. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Gosh, just preventing them from editing that one page is not a big deal but will greatly reduce the disruption.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    OR edits and name change without consensus

    Šitādālu keeps removing information based on reliable references about the modern Kurdish mastiff dog and enters OR territory when they can't prove the link between the modern dog called "Kurdish mastiff" and the ancient "Assyrian mastiff". This edit summary is also a plain lie,[37] just look at the version prior and its referencing. I've warned them on their talkpage, explained to them on the talkpage of the article that they shouldn't remove RS-based info and linked the OR site to them so they could understand the issue. Moreover, I explained that they should refrain from changing the name of the article without consensus/support. None of this has been effective. --Semsûrî (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Semsûrî: Your diff link is incorrect — it leads to the edit window for creating a new ANI section. They recently overwrote the article contents to be about only the Assyrian Mastiff and not the Kurdish Mastiff, and also moved the page to Assyrian mastiff. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Yes I meant[38]. The main problem here is the lack of reliable references pointing out that the ancient Assyrian dog and the modern Kurdish dog is the same. They can create an article called "Assyrian Mastiff" pertaining to the ancient one instead of doing what they are doing now. --Semsûrî (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would a new article for an Assyrian mastiff need to be created when the dog is native to the homeland of the Assyrians? How can the dog be Kurdish when Kurds are originally from Iran and the dog is native to Iraq? There are also little to no books even referring to a "Kurdish mastiff". Šitādālu (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:EEng, isn't it time you added dog breeds to User:EEng#EEng's half-serious list of topics on which WP should just drop all coverage as not worth the drama? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Has there been any WP:HOUNDING or WP:BITEY behavior? EEng 06:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Semsûrî is playing a nationalist agenda game. This dog is clearly older than the kurdish identity and is referenced in many books including works by Charles Darwin. The stable version had the name Assyrian mastiff used before another kurdish nationalist changed it here: [39]. This is the version prior to the other nationalist user changing it which even calls it Assyrian mastiff: [40]. What makes it so obvious that the dog is clearly Assyrian in origins is the fact that there are endless books and works referring it to an Assyrian mastiff but little to none calling referring to a Kurdish mastiff. Also, the dog is native to northern Iraq which is the homeland of the Assyrians that they still inhabit today. Šitādālu (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) This appears to be part of a long-runnig content dispute on the history and name of this dog breed, which is linked to the broader Kurdistan controversy, but it is clear that Šitādālu should not have overwritten the content without discussion. For timekeeping, this July 2021 version is likely the last stable revision, under the title Pshdar dog and about the modern breed, before users started adding content that attempted to link the modern Kurdish mastiff to an ancient dog breed of Assyria and changing the breed name to "Assyrian Mastiff". The IP editors are likely different users, as they geolocate to different countries and have different ISPs, and it is likely that the non-OP. The nominator restored a March 2022 edit by HistoryofIran (talk · contribs) which attempted to reestablish NPOV. This edit by Semsûrî is the last before Šitādālu, where they correctly removed unsourced content and non-inline refs that did not mention this breed. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Kurdistan is an autonomous region created recently. Clearly the dog predates that. Also this user uses rudaw which is a biased kurdish nationalist news source. The Assyrians still exist today and I see no books stating that the mastiff disappeared. Also, the dog is native to northern Iraq, which was majority Assyrian until the mongols arrived. This "Kurdish mastiff" is even described exactly like the Assyrian mastiff. I have no issue with him removing the unsourced content. He completely removed the Assyrian mastiff part. The word kurd is only a few hundred years old. How can anyone think that this dog just appeared in the homeland of the Assyrians just a few hundred years ago? Šitādālu (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's about as lame as they come.
    I must have had more to drink today than I thought I did, because I am clearly hallucinating. Are people really getting into a nationalist conflict over the name of a breed of dog? I thought I had seen some pretty lame disputes since Wikipedia started but this must be the lamest. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To the Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars page! casualdejekyll 22:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point its not content but behavior. An admin should either protect that page or block the editor per this edit[41]. --Semsûrî (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are adding sources that are unreliable and riddled with grammatical errors. Anyways I already found a source that confirms it is an Assyrian dog and it isn't only found in the kurdish region. The fact that you're begging an admin to block me just shows you don't want anyone correcting your nationalist vandalism. This user should be blocked for vandalizing and erasing the facts on Wikipedia. Šitādālu (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop with the rants and go and read about how Wikipedia works. You have called me a nationalist and a racist, doomed an academic article unreliable because it is written by Kurdish academics, removed information that was referenced and still don't know what OR means. Now that it is mentioned that the dog is also called "Assyrian dog", what is your issue now? Semsûrî (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No I never called you a racist. Your "academic article" is full of grammatical errors and lies because the dog isn't only found in the kurdish region. So that alone should raise red flags. Your entire edit history is removing information that either makes kurds look bad, or tries to kurdify everything. You even removed the previous source that states that it is called Assyrian Shepherd here: [42] which clearly shows you only care about furthering your agenda. The source I added states the dog is 5000 years old which further proves that it's an Assyrian dog. The article name should be either Assyrian mastiff or Assyrian Shepherd, not Kurdish mastiff. Šitādālu (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Rûdaw source says "Assyrian Shephard" not "Assyrian Mastiff". For the tenth time read about OR on Wikipedia: "The source I added states the dog is 5000 years old which further proves that it's an Assyrian dog"... This is not how Wikipedia works. And " The article name should be either Assyrian mastiff or Assyrian Shepherd, not Kurdish mastiff." goes against Wikipedia:Article titles. Semsûrî (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are only a few books that even mention the term "Kurdish mastiff" compared to the many that use Assyrian mastiff. So what if it says Assyrian Shepherd? It is referring to the same dog. Thta's why it says Kurdish mastiff OR Assyrian Shepherd. The article also says it's 5000 years old, so why should the article title be Kurdish mastiff instead of Assyrian? As another user stated, WP:COMMONNAME applies here and Assyrian mastiff is the more common name if you check sources. Šitādālu (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I think my new findings should bring this debate to an end. Here is the exact same kurdish nationalist website that the user Semsûrî cited stating that it is indeed an Assyrian dog as they call it an Assyrian Shepherd: https://www.rudaw.net/english/lifestyle/18022020 or https://archive.ph/nZG4f. They even state that the dog is 5000 years old which is long before the kurds even existed. Šitādālu (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The archive.ph reference doesn't work and yes now you can add "Assyrian shephard" dog to the page as another name. Semsûrî (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, the article at the locus of this dispute consists of four sentences. (Of course, bringing together dog breeds with WP:ARBKURDS was never a good plan.) As it's not mentioned yet here, there is currently an RfC on the talkpage regarding the name of the article. Hopefully editors will be able to uncover some relevant sources on the matter. CMD (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I suggest uninvolved people with WP:COMMONNAME experience answer the RFC. Currently it's more heat than light over there, mainly fueled by Šitādālu. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I've weighed in on the RFC, and I'd suggest others do as well. Regardless, I think User:Semsûrî, User:Šitādālu, and User:Kaghassi have, to varying degrees, acted inappropriately. Edit summaries from these three accuse each other of vandalism over what is ultimately a content dispute [43] [44] [45]. Semsûrî and Šitādālu are displaying WP:BATTLEGROUND-like behavior; the engagement on the talk page for the relevant article is minimal from both editors, with most of the arguments made through edit summaries. I do not believe any of the involved editors are currently deserving of a block, but this was, in general, disappointing. Lkb335 (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      FYI, User:Semsûrî and User:Šitādālu have begun reverting each other again at Savur. Again, edit summary squabbling favoured over talk page engagement.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      What I removed from Savur was copyright infringement and blogs. And I think Šitādālu has now been blocked. --Semsûrî (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Šitādālu is not blocked; I checked. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 16:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      It does look like the account has been global'd, though I could be misreading that. Lkb335 (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You read that correctly; they indeed are global locked. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Celestina007's secret tools

    TOPIC BAN
    There's a lot going on here, and I have been waiting for some totally uninvolved person to come along and close this, but it simply has not happened. My own previous involvement here was administrative in nature (revocation of user rights based not on my own opinion but on the consensus in this discussion), I am not involved in the underlying dispute, and have recused from the pending request for an ArbCom case because I think this just really needs to be closed. It has been a week, leaving this open is not good for the community, for the project, or for Celestina007.

    There were several proposals presented, with varying degrees of support.

    • Early in the discussion there was a groundswell of support for an indef block or siteban, or even some sort of "infinite irrevocable block". The community rightly concluded that the latter does not, in fact, actually exist. As discussion continued, support for a full block or ban seems to have waned in favor of alternatives.
    • A few users supported a global lock or global block or ban, but there was little to no grounds for such a drastic action.
    • User:DGG made a proposal that they be allowed to mentor Celstina007 for six months, and that the community re-evaluate the situation at that time. While a number of users supported that proposal, a significant number also opposed it, and took the time to re-affirm their support for a topic ban. Additionally, such mentorship would have to be volutarily agreed to by Celestina 007, and she has not indicated agreement, or made any other edits in about a week.
    • I would like to clearly state that all comments based on "shoot the messenger" type rationales were given diminished weight. While we should be always be mindful of outright trolls and banned user attempting to manipulate discussions here for their preferred outcome, no actual evidence was presented that the OP was a banned user or otherwise evading scrutiny. IP users do not have certain rights in certain community processes, but they most certainly are enfranchised to file complaints about other users and should not be automatically assumed to be acting in bad faith. The attempt by an administrator to completely remove the original complaint is troubling.
    • There was considerable support for a topic ban, while there was some disagreement as to the duration.
    • taking all the above factors into consideration, I find there is sufficient support to enact User:Iridescent's rewrite of User:Ritchie333 topic ban proposal.

    Celestina007 is indefinitely banned from interacting with, or mentioning on any page, any editor she believes is a potential spammer or sockpuppet, from editing any page she believes is potential spam, or from nominating any page for deletion regardless of whether or not she believes it to be spam. If she believes an editor to be a spammer or a sockpuppet and this belief is on the basis of demonstrable evidence, she may make a single post at either Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations as appropriate, in the form "I have concerns about [editor name] based on [evidence]" to allow third parties to assess if her concern is legitimate and deal with it appropriately.

    • These conditions are of course subject to the usual exceptions. This topic ban may be appealed in six months time, and once every six months thereafter.
    • It is always the sincere hope of any good-faith Wikipedian that sanctioning a fellow user tells that user that, while there may be some problems with their contributions, the community does not consider them to be a lost cause, hopes one day to be comfortable removing the sanctions, and welcomes any other contributions they may make while the sanctions are in place. Let's hope that is the result here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Celestina007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    On a few occasions, User:Celestina007 has claimed to have access to secret tooling that gives them information about Wikipedia editors and their identities. The most recent example I could find is [46]. They used to brag about it on their user page, but it has since been removed ([47]). There are a few possibilities: (1) They have unauthorized CheckUser permissions that need to be revoked (2) They have external access that they are using in violation of WP:DOX (to say nothing of the Wikimedia TOS, the GDPR, and who knows what other laws) (3) They are lying to create a chilling effect, which is also harassment. There simply isn't any option here other than indeffing this user - to say these claims are incompatible with editing privileges is the understatement of the week. 207.38.145.230 (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This appears to be a legitimate complaint about a matter of genuine concern. It might possibly have been preferable to raise it with ArbCom first, by email, since Celestina007 seems to be claiming to be acting on their behalf. I very much doubt that this is true, but before we can act further, we should probably ask for clarification from them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Celestina007 is a member of the Volunteer Response Team FWIW. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 03:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes it more concerning, in my opinion. We need clarification. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Celestina007 miswrote. She doesn't have secret tools. She has a secret talent. She has a gift for reading an editor's identity from the verbal nuances of the editor's writing. This means that she can infer what blocked user is writing from an IP address. So don't post from an IP address if you are a blocked user. That is already block evasion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon If it were a one-off I'd buy User:Celestina007 miswrote—we've all been there—but the comment Meters has pointed out on her userpage makes it clear that "I've been secretly granted the CU permission" is what was intended by I belong to a small group of trusted editors who possess access to very sensitive non public information. As far as I can see someone is engaged in serious misconduct (and potentially illegality) here; the only issue is whether the someone in question is Celestina007, Arbcom, or the WMF. ‑ Iridescent 04:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought I knew something. I don't. I have no idea what Celestina007 is trying to say. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I second AndyTheGrump here and have no idea why this thread was removed without explanation. There are only four ways I can see to interpret I have access to certain tools which are clandestine and mostly reserved for serial anti UPE editors which aid me in nabbing unethical practices, please do not take this to mean I believe you are engaging in any form of unethical practice, but using my anti UPE/spam tools, certain things which are relatively worrisome about you did pop of, unfortunately this are things I I can only share with Arbcom; either:
    1. Such a secret toolset does exist (speaking as a former arb, CU and OS I can assure you that it as of my time at least it didn't) and Celestina007 has been entrusted with it, in which case not only is Celestina007 is committing a gross breach of trust by disclosing its existence, but Arbcom is engaged in a cover-up so serious that I'd argue it would be a matter for immediate resignation and sitebanning of every member of the committee which authorized it;
    2. Such a tool has somehow been created externally (vanishingly unlikely as it would either need high-level cooperation at the WMF or the resources of an intelligence agency), in which case we have a security breach that urgently needs addressing;
    3. Celestina007 is intentionally lying in an effort to harass another editor; or
    4. None of this is true but Celestina007 is a fantasist who genuinely believes it.
    In the case of 1 or 2 this needs immediate investigation; in the case of 3 or 4 then at minimum Celestina007 should probably be indefblocked as a protective measure. I won't take any action unilaterally either to revoke permissions or to block just in case there somehow is a good-faith explanation for this, but I certainly can't think of one. ‑ Iridescent 03:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)I'm more than a bit curious about this too, and why the report was initially blanked with no explanation. I note that Celestina007 is not listed as having VRT permissions (that may be perfectly normal for VRT members, I don't know) and does indeed claim to have special access to tools. See User:Celestina007#What I Predominantly Do As An Editor On This Collaborative Project: Having shown proficiency in accurately detecting UPE in the last three years, coupled with my dedication in serving the collaborative project, trusted system operators and functionaries entrusted me with anti-UPE tools. Meters (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, at the time of writing Celestina007's full range of permissions is autopatrolled, page mover, IP block exempt, mass message sender, new page reviewer, pending changes reviewer, rollbacker, two-factor authentication tester; unless there's some kind of global permission she's been granted from Meta which isn't showing up on her en-wiki logs, there's absolutely no indication that trusted system operators and functionaries entrusted me with anti-UPE tools. ‑ Iridescent 03:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) (VRTS Admin hat on) Celestina007 has access to the VRT system, specifically the info-en role. The VRT global permission is only issued to users who work in permissions (to help with edit filters.) See also meta:Volunteer_Response_Team/Users ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 04:03, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Matthewrb: I don't want to step on VRT's toes, but you (plural) may want to consider temporarily suspending Celestina007 until it's clarified what's going on here. As per my earlier comment the only potential explanations I can see are either that she's involved in a serious security breach or that she's giving out seriously misleading information about the way Wikipedia operates; in either case, she's probably not someone who should be the first point of contact for new editors who are likely to be unfamiliar with how we operate and will reasonably assume that whatever she's telling them is true. ‑ Iridescent 04:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iridescent I have sent an email to my colleagues, discussing that question. ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 04:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Matthewrb: Following on from that, could you perhaps clarify what information info-en VRT team members have access to, if any, beyond what is publicly available? I'd assume it doesn't include clandestine tools, or means to "link an IP address to a specific registered account", but would she say have access to email addresses of people she was dealing with? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @AndyTheGrump VRTS Members have access to email addresses and any information that a user chooses to provide (Some send their passwords for example, though those are redacted). There are some specialized queues with more information (Think Stewards), but Celestina007 does not have access to any of those. ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 04:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumably Celestina007 would have been required to sign the Wikimedia Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information [48] then? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Celestina007 appears to have signed it, as they are on the applicable noticeboard. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 04:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) @AndyTheGrump Yes, all VRTS members sign L45 (which is the Confidentiality Agreement for Nonpublic Information) before their account is created. FYI, L45 does require a Phabricator account to view. ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 05:03, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barkeep49, looking at the history, you appear to be (or at least, to have been) Celestina007's mentor. Given that you'd presumably need to recuse from any putative arb case in any event, are you able to shed any light on what exactly is going on here? ‑ Iridescent 04:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve notified the Arbitration Committee of this discussion via email. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 04:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to have something to do with ACC?. Pinging Stwalkerster to see if they know what Celestina007 is on about. SQLQuery Me! 05:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I may be missing something about how ACC works but Celestina does not seem to be listed as someone with access to that tool. The tool does reveal the requesting user's IP address, which seems to be what they are implying they have access to. Sam Walton (talk) 05:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Another note on Celestina's talk page previously mentioned "that technically I can perform a Checkuser [if I wanted to] Due to an external tool which was developed in the Anti-fraud department of the government organization I work for. The tool works in the same manner as Checkuser does." Sam Walton (talk) 05:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging TheresNoTime, who removed that. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 06:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The removal is weird: Celestina007 do not claim to have access to Wikimedia CU tools but some foreign tool, provided by a government department, that uses some breach in site-security to perform the same tasks.
    As Iridescent said, Such a tool has somehow been created externally (vanishingly unlikely as it would either need high-level cooperation at the WMF or the resources of an intelligence agency), in which case we have a security breach that urgently needs addressing. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If taken as sincere (which frankly, I cannot), it would seem to imply that Celestina was using her employer/government's tool for purposes that they would appear to have been unlikely to authorise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Or if its use was authorised they would have almost certainly not have authorised disclosing its existence. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They had access to ACC 2021-10-13 04:02:22 to 2022-03-27 20:16:51. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting that Floquenbeam asked Celestina007 about the said Checkuserish tools here Can you explain further what you are talking about on your user page, regarding your claimed technical ability to determine the IP address and/or other personal information of editors with user accounts solely on the basis of edits they make on Wikipedia? This is either unlikely, or very concerning to me, depending on whether I'm understanding you or not.. Their response was are you referring to the external tool given to us at my organization ? If yes then email me. If you are referring to anything, please still email me I’m not comfortable with discussing any of this on wiki. When you do, I can give a very vague summary of how this works. Nothing to worry about here. Princess of Ara 06:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And what about Celestina007's essay Wikipedia:Death of undisclosed paid editing? Wikipedia:Death_of_undisclosed_paid_editing#For_Veteran_Anti_UPE_Editors says: For regulars at anti spam unit, we have a plethora of tools at our disposal. Contact Myself or MER-C, explain what you want to achieve and the relevant tool would be given to you. Meters (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Celestina appears to be claiming that MER-C is involved in this, I've notified them of this discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 07:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well then, they might be referring to other tools or simply misrepresenting facts in order to intimidate the users they investigate as demonstrated above. Princess of Ara 07:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is on the Arb Radar. The Arb-dar, if you will. I will clarify that as far as I can tell and am aware, Celestina does not have access to the Wikimedia CheckUser tool, and ArbCom has never authorized her to. We're looking into this more closely. Speaking without my ArbHat on, Celestina's representation seems to be in part bravado and exaggeration. Though as she mentions, there seems to be a grain of truth: her employment may offer her the use of some data procurment tool. Has she actually used said tool? I've not seen any indication of it, but ArbCom will look into it deeper. Even if she hasn't used it, merely mentioning it does strike me as an attempt at intimidation, which is very disappointing. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I just want to add on that I have an educated guess as to what the tool is, which I don't think is related to Wikipedia, but I'm not saying more for WP:BEANS reasons. Folks should stop trying to guess, lest less scrupulous users get some ideas :) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @CaptainEek:
      >>> Has she actually used said tool? I've not seen any indication of it
      Consult this warning. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If such an external tool exists, related to Wikipedia or not, capable of doing the things that Celestina007 claims, it is more than a little worrying, as Iridescent notes above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      At the same time, they've said before that they've never used it on any user but their alt, and would consider it unethical to to do so, which is very contradictory. The diff seems to be an attempt to intimidate UPE's into disclosing, which is not the way to go about things. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      +1 to what Eek said. To soothe some nerves I'll note that the "tool" in question seems to amount to "get someone to click an external link to a website/service that you control and then record their IP address". It's a pretty low-tech "tool" and not much of a security threat (and certainly not something that implies that an intelligence service is acting through Celestina or something). Of course if you can convince someone to click an external link under your control, you can record their IP -- that's how websites work. TLDR, false alarm, don't worry about this. ArbCom will have a chat with those involved to clear up any loose ends. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Is there a need for ArbCom to handle this, given that this isn't yet an issue the community has been unable to resolve? BilledMammal (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Given that Celestina007 seems to have made claims to have used a tool in violation of the Wikimedia Terms of Use (see section 4, "Refraining from Certain Activities"), The WMF may well need to handle it ultimately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @L235 I take it from your statement that the ArbCom is not much concerned with editors sleuthing others by "convincing them" to "click an external link under [their] control [and] record their IP"? Wow. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @L235: can you clarify whether "false alarm, don't worry about this. ArbCom will have a chat with those involved to clear up any loose ends" is a collective ArbCom response, or one from you personally? AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Iridescent and AndyTheGrump: Thank you both for taking this seriously.
      No matter who the OP may be, using such claims to try to intimidate fellow editors is heinous. I recognize that Celestina007 views rooting out paid editing as her main work here, but it has been my understanding that one of the functions of the WMF is to impose and enforce standards on users with privacy-violating permissions, in particular checkusers. If there is actually any backdoor access to checkuser-style tools, that program needs to be revealed immediately and I would very much expect it to be discontinued. If as Celestina007 has claimed in some of her statements, the tool(s) to which she has access are actually through her employer, it is equally inappropriate for her to use them against fellow editors; and she has stated that she tested them on Wikipedia. I do not feel safe editing on this project if I might someday fall foul of an editor who might run checkuser tools on people because they disagree about the merits of an article on some business, or place a relatively higher value on WP:BITE and WP:BIAS; I am aghast at the prospect of an editor's threats to use such tools chasing off other editors, especially new editors; and I am appalled that even if the threats are bravado (or even if they are based on some trick like inveigling someone into clicking a link they shouldn't), they would be in any way condoned. Someone who has made such threats, empty or not, should not be on any special response team. If they have been granted any special tools at all, including access to e-mail addresses, that should be revoked. Mentioning such tools as a threat, as in the warning to Reading Beans, is in my estimation worse than masquerading as an administrator, because it bears on the user's real-life identity.
      Indefinite block on the same "chilling effect" basis as a legal threat, please. Hatred for paid editing does not excuse this. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      AndyTheGrump, that's me speaking personally and not on behalf of ArbCom. Thanks for asking clarification – I should've made that clear in my note.
      TrangaBellam, I can't speak for ArbCom as a whole. Happy to talk about this more but I think my comments may have been misread. Would I prefer that sleuthing tools not exist? Sure. Am I concerned that Celestina will use those tools on Wikipedia? Not at all. I am concerned about the "bravado and exaggeration", as CaptainEek eloquently put it, but I am not worried that Celestina will try to dox Wikipedia editors or something.
      BilledMammal, this has been on ArbCom's plate for some time as it does encompass some matters not suitable for public discussion, which is squarely within ArbCom's remit.
      All, what I'm trying to say is that this isn't a five-alarm fire that needs some kind of emergency immediate action. It's 2am here, so I'll return to this discussion in the morning if needed. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      >>> Am I concerned that Celestina will use those tools on Wikipedia? Not at all.
      Why - what additional information you are privilege to? Shall I assume that Celestina007's intimidation of multiple editors by pointing to veiled tools of CU-esque capability went on with full knowledge of the committee (or at-least, you)? Where things stand as of now (esp. considering TNT's edits), such a conclusion is not far-fetched.
      What is the government dept. that she works for? Is that a truth or again, "bravado and exaggeration?" Is Wikimedia in some (hitherto undisclosed) collaboration with Nigerian Govt. to fight spam etc.?
      Overall, we have someone claiming to have tools provided by a state that provides CU-esque capability while you insist that there's nothing to worry about. I cannot overemphasize how unsafe I feel and I join Yngvadottir in calling for an indef. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @CaptainEek: If that tool is not related to Wikipedia, how can you make a guess as to what it is? —usernamekiran (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with indef per the above. Email phishing for UPE hunting is "not here to build an encyclopedia". Levivich 11:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a lesser measure than a full siteban, I'd also support a TBAN from "UPE-hunting", i.e. no more trying to find/catch/accuse/interrogate other users about UPE/COI/promo/spam/whatever. Threatening suspected UPEs with a secret tool--which has been on going on for months, most recently yesterday--is beyond the pale. It's disappointing to learn that other experienced editors knew about this and didn't stop it. I disagree strongly with the suggestion that this is no cause for alarm; it is in fact very alarming. I'm reminded of Jytdog; some of us need to stop encouraging others to engage in this sort of "volunteer police force" behavior. Levivich 18:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Struck as I do not want to support all the canvassing that's gone on here. Levivich 13:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm rarely comfortable being on the other side of a question from Yngvadottir, but I want to say that if the tool that Celestina007 says exists, does exist and is run by her employer, then I don't see how the proposed indef-block of Celestina007's Wikipedia account does anything very much to enhance anyone's safety. What we need to determine is to what extent this alleged tool exists and who has access to it. I mean, personally I don't feel at risk from it because I edit under my real name and display my location and date of birth on my userpage, but other editors are more vulnerable and it's mission-critical that they feel safe. To me this whole matter feels like it's what the UCOC is about, and I wonder if it shouldn't be on Trust and Safety's desk as well as Arbcom's.—S Marshall T/C 11:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any tool I make mention of are not "secret" I use the term tool and script interchangeably and all this tools are available to everyone on the the English Wikipedia, examples include tools and script to check who reviewed an AFC draft, major contributors to a an article, and basically tools like that. They are clandestine because they are difficult to navigate, anyone can add the scripts to their .css. I’m also not shocked that an IP Address with 4 edits would be the one to coincidentally report me. But be that as it may, I made an error sometime in the past that gave the impression that I had a special tool that could operate as CU, no I did not it was a mistake and misinterpretation on my part and Floquenbeam & was the first to scold me, what I had then was access to ACC and nothing more. I considered making a public apology but I wasn’t sure of the appropriate venue for that, let me say it now that I’m indeed extremely sorry to anyone who got distressed due to that. It wasn’t responsible of me to have said such. At the time I did apologize on my Userpage. I’m grateful for this report as it has given me the opportunity to apologize properly. Let me say again that I am indeed sorry for any misrepresentation of facts which all solely my fault. But as for me having "secret tools" that is not true as this scripts are available to anyone on the English Wikipedia. Celestina007 (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Bullshit - why did you write that the tool was provided by the govt. agency you work for? You were mistaken about who runs ACC?
      Even if I assume a mountain of good-faith and buy your version, you lack the maturity to edit Wikipedia. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      TrangaBellam, please do not harass the person. You should focus on the arguments being presented - not people and whether or not they are capable of editing Wikipedia. 0xDEADBEEF (T C) 11:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You are barely 1050 edits old with a paltry 63 non-minor edits to main-space. Please do not be preachy in a meaningless fashion. I (or others) are asking for an indefinite block since we think Celestina007 to be unfit for our project. Stating to such effects is not harassment. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The statement you just made made me feel attacked. Please strike-through or reword your uncivil comment. 0xDEADBEEF (T C) 12:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If you feel attacked, that is because you climbed upon a high horse and attempted to chastise someone when it isn't your place to. Consider it a life lesson. Zaathras (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Anyone should be able to call out perceived issues whenever they want, edit count be damned. This is a community-driven encyclopedia, not a meritocracy. The original reply by TrangaBellam made no mention of a block, so they were not "stating to such effects". I think it is more of an ad-hominem attack than an actual criticism, and it definitely was not delivered in a civil manner. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 17:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      And what about the link-tracking, referred to by Kevin and CaptainEEK? TrangaBellam (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      TrangaBellam, I’m sorry this is coming up now, I really should have made a public apology at the time, although I did explain to the best of my knowledge to ArbcCom, I do not comprehend what you mean by link tracking, but I have never done such and technical anyone can confirm that. Celestina007 (talk) 11:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      KevinL, an arbitrator claims that the "tool" in question [amounted] to "get someone to click an external link to a website/service that you control and then record their IP address".
      I do not know what caused KevinL to reach such a conclusion but you ought to know more. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see a mistake there. I see a lie that was meant to scare the crap out of people, and succeeded too well.—S Marshall T/C 11:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      AndyTheGrump, BilledMammal, CaptainEek, TrangaBellam, This is indeed quite disappointing, because I should have known better than to make such claims, I merely misinterpreted information and made a honest mistake even though it was my intention to be transparent and not cause panic, allow reiterate that I do not possess any tool related to CU & once again my apologies. S Marshall, I would never intentionally be dishonest. Celestina007 (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Once again, I enquire about why did you write that the tool was provided by the govt. agency you work for? You were mistaken about who runs ACC? TrangaBellam (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • You say that the tools aren't secret and are available to everyone on the English Wikipedia, but you also say that these tools produced information that can only be shared with ARBCOM. I don't believe that both of these can be true, and at the moment I am in agreement with S Marshall. BilledMammal (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does look like a lie that succeeded to well. I would like to know more about the govt agency thing and I'd like to hear back from ArbCom as a whole on this issue, per the ArbCom member's information that they have emailed the rest about it. Oz\InterAct 11:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Let's not raise expectations about what we'll get from Arbcom. Per statements above, they're considering secret evidence and they don't think this is particularly urgent, so I'd anticipate a characteristically inscrutable holding response and then nothing for a long time.—S Marshall T/C 12:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Right. Oz\InterAct 12:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      BilledMammal, Inter, TrangaBellam, I think we are dealing with two topics simultaneously hence the confusion, there is the issue of me having secret tools of negating spam which I have explained aren’t secret but at best are clandestine and secondly there is the issue of me claiming to have access to CU tools. Allow me explain both, the first is there is no special secret tools as they all available on the English Wikipedia, having said, some are indeed very clandestine and may indeed require someone to make you aware about their existence that the reason I use phrases as "anti spam tools" all of which have a purpose. Now there is a more concerning matter which is me claiming to have access to CU data, no I do not, I misrepresented and misinterpreted information. I explained in entirety what transpired to ArbCom & TheresNoTime and I was admonished to be careful, it isn’t my intention to cause panic and I do take full responsibility because I should have looked for a broader venue to apologize to the community because I was indeed aware of the panic I inadvertently caused. I do my best to grow each day, I am not perfect but I try to do what is right. Celestina007 (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I enquire once again about why you claimed that the CU-esque tool (irrespective of the fact whether it is indeed CU-esque or not) was provided by the govt. agency you work for? You are evading scrutiny; please answer the particular question. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Even if I think that ACC tool (or whatever it is) is some backdoor-CU and choose to boast of it, I won't claim to have received it from a government agency, supposedly concerned with anti-fraud activities.
      This is an abnormal claim to make - so I insist that you shed light on how you misinterpreted available information to make the above claim. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yesterday you said that you have access to tools that provided you with information that you can only share with ArbCom - sensitive information.
      This means that we are not dealing with two separate topics; the issue is your claims to have access to sensitive information, and using it to scare the crap out of people. BilledMammal (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      What is the difference between secret and clandestine? There's also the aspect of you continually using information from the so-called "clandestine tools" to continually harass other users despite multiple warnings. Princess of Ara 12:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Princess of Ara: secret is something that is undisclosed, but doesn't need to be harmful or illegal. eg "Bob likes to fart in crowded elevators" is a secret. Whereas clandestine, by definition (and dictionary) is "something done or kept in secret, sometimes to conceal an illicit/illegal, improper, or unethical purpose." —usernamekiran (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Saying that one is running a clandestine tool provided by a government agency has exactly the same chilling effect as threatening to take legal action. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      No comment on the rest. Strong agreement on this. Especially with regards to IP editors which may be newbies, such strong and obtuse language is a massive conduct issue to me. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 20:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a few different points to be noted here, within this thread there are diffs provided in which Celestina007 says:
      1: (Celestina007 has) a tool provided by government agency (which acts something similar to CU)
      2: a tool whose results can be shared with only ARBCOM (so its safe to assume either ARBCOM provided these tools, or arbcom is aware of its existence, and its use by Celestina007)
      3: I have access to certain tools which are clandestine and mostly reserved for serial anti UPE editors which aid me in nabbing unethical practices.[...] trusted system operators and functionaries entrusted me with anti-UPE tools.
      4: We have no proof/evidence supporting Celestina007's employment by any government agency.
      • Its either WMF/ARBCOM is breaching the trust of all the editors ("breach of trust" used here generally, not as a legal term), or Celestina007 is lying through their teeth.
      • It is possible Celestina007 have practised the external link concept, which is nothing less than a form of phishing.
      • It is also crystal-clear that Celestina007 has intimidated other editors with disclosing information of said tools.
      • We have no means of knowing if Celestina007 knows about some backdoor to CU, or some other tool, or if they are playing a good hand-bad hand with UPE.
      • I support immediately revoking NPP/R for a while (till this is investigated properly), and permanently revoking autopatrolled, IPBE, and two-factor authentication tester so that they can't lie further saying "look, I have these special rights. I am a part of wikipedia's special team". —usernamekiran (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I genuinely thought Celestina007 was a sysop until this thread came about. Whoops. casualdejekyll 18:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • PS: I have no objection with indeff glocking Celestina007 after reading their further rambling. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've noticed there's a lot of established editors coming into this case to voice their opinions, and also TrangaBellam attacking another editor within the thread. Looking at their particular behaviour, it seems to be a lot of emotional investment coming to the fore here. I would like to suggest everyone take a few deep breaths before continuing the discussion. Oz\InterAct 12:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Inter, and this my fault because I failed to explain to the broader community that I certainly didn’t have any CU right and I merely misunderstood and misinterpreted information. Celestina007 (talk) 12:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      (Sorry, Inter, but this is quite grave.) @Celestina007: I am struggling to understand here, with no success. On 15 March, you wrote on your user page: Side note: For the sake of transparency as of Friday 11th of March 2022 I’d like to state that technically I can perform a Checkuser [if I wanted to] Due to an external tool which was developed in the Anti-fraud department of the government organization I work for. The tool works in the same manner as Checkuser does. Let it be noted that I have never used this feature except on my alternate account Celestina007 (alt) in order to “test” its veracity. Note that this feature cuts across multiple websites. Furthermore, asides the test I performed on my alternate account to see just how it works, I would not ever use this feature on Wikipedia for any reason as I deem it highly unethical. One of the edits noted by the reporting editor above (and please note that the number of edits an IP has is fairly meaningless; the same person may well have edited numerous times from other IPs, quite apart from its having no bearing on the validity of their argument whether this was that person's first or 2,000th edit to Wikipedia, I would expect you to know this) was about 4 hours later on the same day, when you changed I belong to a small group of trusted editors who possess access to very sensitive non public information this allows me to link an IP address to a specific registered account created through ACC & can tell when an editor is editing via a VPN or an open proxy. to I belong to a small group of trusted editors who possess access to very sensitive non public information which allows me to tell when an editor is editing via a VPN or an open proxy or engaging in block evasion. Which is it? The ACC tool; some other Wikipedia tool; or a government-created tool that works similarly to checkuser to which you have access through your work? I am afraid I also find your explanation regarding your use of the word "clandestine" in the warning to Reading Beans (as you may know or many not know, I have access to certain tools which are clandestine and mostly reserved for serial anti UPE editors which aid me in nabbing unethical practices) less than persuasive. Clandestine means "secret". It does not mean "arcane", that is, little known, or hard to use. Your story changes too often.
      Moreover, it is very clear that your mention of this or these mysterious tool(s), whether or not you have exaggerated their capabilities, was intended to intimidate fellow editors, to have a chilling effect, as S Marshall puts it, to scare the crap out of people. (Maybe that's overstated and your intention was only to scare them enough to do what you wanted.) We don't need Arbcom here, much less an appeal to the WMF. We have a policy against threatening legal action because of its chilling effect on fellow editors; the threat to access another editor's personally identifying information has a similar intentional chilling effect and is incompatible with a collaborative editing community. You repeatedly made such chilling statements. I see here no assurances that you recognise how wrong this was. I maintain that your account should be indefinitely blocked. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yngvadottir, Indeed it’s serious I’m grateful for the opportunity to explain myself. So Thank you, all I do seek is a chance to explain myself, at the time I possessed both Access to ACC that was why I said that I belonged to a small group of people had access to private data, I was referencing ACC. ACC only allowed me to link IP addresses to accounts which I expressly stated that i never divulged as ACC admonished us never to discuss ACC business outside ACC. When I mentioned that I had access to CU which was a honest mistake I did it thinking I was being transparent not knowing I was making a premature statement that wasn’t the case at all. I honestly do not know how else to express my apology. It was a honest mistake that wouldn’t ever repeat itself. I strive to be a better person each day all I’m asking for is a chance to do better next time. Celestina007 (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      This person still has not directly addressed the "government agency" claim, what we've gotten is a bunch of smacks-of-desperation platitudes. The account should be locked until this is sorted out. Zaathras (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Zaathras, Hey, the reason is this isn’t a new case and was reported to Arbcom a long ago who reached out to me and I explained things to them. Celestina007 (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Explain it here. Zaathras (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Zaathras, you're new here but they don't need to nor should they. Celestina has the right to keep their employment status protected and secret. Arbcom is aware of their employment and the exact tool used and we trust them to manage that properly. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 20:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Ixtal, they're the one who made a grandiose claim, there's no concern with "outing" to expect a reasonable explanation. As for the "you're new here", been here 4 years, so, don't address me again unless you plan to drop the ad hominem (linked for your convenience) and be less condescending, thanks. Zaathras (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      My deepest apologies, Zaathras! I assumed from your edit count that you were only here for a short time. In any case, while they made provide an explanation if willing, they do not need to specify for which government agency they work for or what is the scope of their employment. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 22:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I feel like Celestina007 needs to clarify and elaborate more on what they meant exactly when they claim to have access to special tooling. Here are some questions that I think needs to be answered:
      • What information were you misunderstanding and misinterpreting?
      • What exactly did you mean when you used the word clandestine?
      • What specific tool(s) were you referring to when you claimed to be clandestine and mostly reserved for serial anti UPE editors which aid me in nabbing unethical practices?
      • What specific tool(s) were you referring to when you claimed to be developed in the Anti-fraud department of the government organization [you] work for?
      • What specific tool(s) were you referring to when you claimed to allow link[ing] an IP address to a specific registered account created through ACC & [telling] when an editor is editing via a VPN or an open proxy?
      • What is the small group of trusted editors who possess access to very sensitive non public information? 0xDEADBEEF (T C) 13:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • 0xDeadbeef, I was referencing ACC, at the time I was a member of a small group that had access to private data but I never divulged any personal data as I clearly mentioned. Celestina007 (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          Celestina007, we want to see all questions answered please. Please take a moment to clarify. 0xDEADBEEF (T C) 13:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          0xDEADBEEF most definitely I would, The information I was misinterpreting was I thought i had a tool that worked like CU thus I wrote on my UP that I had a tool that worked like CU when in the end it was nothing like CU and a very unwise statement seeing as I certainly do not know how CU works. The answer to your second question is something I’ve explained to ArbCom but do not mind sharing via mail. The answer to your third question is anyone in ACC than handles a request knows the IP of the user they created an account for by default which I clearly stated that I would not and never share, The answer to your fourth question is ACC itself. I really am sorry I caused panic it wasn’t my intention. Celestina007 (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          So how do you reconcile an external tool which was developed in the Anti-fraud department of the government organization I work for with I was referencing ACC? This isn't a case of good-faith misunderstanding—there's no alternative but that one or the other of your statements is a deliberate lie. ‑ Iridescent 13:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • In light of Celestina007's responses here, switching to support indef. ("Indef" in the sense of "for the indefinite period it takes for us to be convinced this won't happen again", not "infinite and forever".) It's impossible to reconcile I’d like to state that technically I can perform a Checkuser [if I wanted to] Due to an external tool which was developed in the Anti-fraud department of the government organization I work for. and I have access to certain tools which are clandestine on the one hand, with Now there is a more concerning matter which is me claiming to have access to CU data, no I do not and as for me having "secret tools" that is not true on the other. (She's also clearly lying with either asides the test I performed on my alternate account to see just how it works, I would not ever use this feature on Wikipedia for any reason as I deem it highly unethical or using my anti UPE/spam tools, certain things which are relatively worrisome about you did pop of, as the two are inherently contradictory.) Either Celestina007 is deliberately lying in order to harass and intimidate users to whom she's taken a dislike which is completely unacceptable; or she's using some kind of phishing tool which is grounds for an immediate and permanent siteban; or she's genuine in her assertion that she accidentally typed "technically I can perform a Checkuser", "I belong to a small group of trusted editors who possess access to very sensitive non public information", "using my anti UPE/spam tools, certain things which are relatively worrisome about you did pop of" et al in which case we're looking at a CIR issue so glaring that she shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a project which relies on the ability of its editors to assess the reliability of sources and summarize them accurately. (I'd also add that in this instance, it makes not the slightest difference what Arbcom or the WMF says, so we don't need to wait for them. There are circumstances when Arbcom and T&S have legitimate grounds to override a community consensus and block based on secret evidence; there are no circumstances when Arbcom and T&S have legitimate grounds to override a community consensus and unblock based on secret evidence.*) ‑ Iridescent 13:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      *Except in a couple of very specialist use cases that don't apply here, where information pertinent to the appeal is unsuitable for public discussion. Chapter and verse is here as to the very limited circumstances in which community-enacted blocks are appealable to Arbcom.
      • Iridescent, it’s like I said I use tools and scripts interchangeably and no nothing of the sort would ever happen again and no I do not lie. For example when I told a user that I used a tool and something odd popped of I was referencing this tool I saw certain overlaps that I wasn’t comfortable with. Celestina007 (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I think there has been enough apologies in the thread. I would understand that all of us wanted more clarifications to the claims that you made at this point. 0xDEADBEEF (T C) 13:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        @Celestina007:, you said that you used a tool that provided information that you can only share with ArbCom. That tool cannot provide such information. BilledMammal (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Celestina007: your statements are becoming incoherent now. I recommend you to stop making up stuff, and start speaking truthfully. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      usernamekiran, you can chastise me all you want, I know I deserve it for causing panic but you wouldn’t do is call me a liar or dishonest I’m taking that from you. I bend my back over and try as much as I can to be transparent please do not call me a liar. Thank you. Celestina007 (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Celestina007, a simple question. Was your claim to be using "an external tool which was developed in the Anti-fraud department of the government organization I work for" truthful? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If you don't want to be called a liar, don't tell lies. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you by multiple people, your stories are mutually contradictory; you can't possibly believe that the MediaWiki interface was "developed in the Anti-fraud department of the government organization I work for". ‑ Iridescent 13:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) Not me, not Iridescent, its your own statements thats calling you a liar. To follow-up with AndyTheGrump, you still havent explained about "a (government) tool that can cut across multiple websites". Or are you still thinking about ACC? —usernamekiran (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary break

    • At this point I support an Indef (remember indef is not permanent), or at least a complete block from mainspace and interaction with users (would like to maintain their access to this board for now.) Celestina007 keeps asking for a chance to explain, but is refusing to take it. And it's hard to believe from all those comments that there's a misunderstanding here, there's just deliberately chosen and edited words that are not at all being explained and Celestina007 is at this point just becoming contradictory, evasive and outright refusing to explain. Until the community is fully satisfied with their responses, they should be outright blocked and all rights removed. I really have a hard time believing there is a positive outcome to this as it's not a single instance but what appears to be a sustained narrative. Canterbury Tail talk 13:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Celestina007, you either have access to "an external tool which was developed in the Anti-fraud department of the government organization I work for", or you are a liar. There is no third option. I support indef block here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — I’m not how else to say this, I have never stated that wikimedia software was developed in the organization I work for, what I stated was a tool that works like CU was developed & this was a very unwise comment from me seeing as I have never been part of the CU team. In bid to be as transparent as can be I put penned this on my UP and immediately Floquenbeam & TheresNoTime were amongst the first to correctly chastise me and what followed was an enquiry from ArbCom in this tool and how it worked. I made a honest premature statement not to brag, but to be transparent. I have never and will never divulge personal information. When I mentioned that I was a member of a small team that had access to private data I was referencing ACC, as I was a member at at that time. Celestina007 (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You are still ignoring the big question that you have been asked multiple times. Explain "an external tool which was developed in the Anti-fraud department of the government organization I work for"! You will be indefinitely blocked for sure if you do not address that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Boing! said Zebedee The evasion is intentional. They are not inclined to engage with the question since the ArbCom is (apparently) aware of everything since long. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      She made the claim in public, so she can confirm or deny it in public. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Enough is enough; I now support an indef in the sense of "forever", not "undefined" as you're clearly just wasting our time. If you're going to lie, at least tell lies that are vaguely convincing. You were making the same "I have access to a secret tool" claim yesterday, a full two months after your conversation with Floquenbeam. ‑ Iridescent 13:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The government agency stuff looks like either fibbing or a serious problem with privacy for Wikipedia users. Personally I suspect the former, but you haven't done yourself any favours here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Seems to be a bit of a Sunday pile on, which I'm uncomfortable with. They are many many types of network utilities ranging from the very simple to the very complex, that use AI, that are available to anybody who can afford them and can use them correctly. Wikipedia and wikimedia doesn't have a monopoly on any tooling, nor they're use and never will have. scope_creepTalk 14:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      So does Celestina007 have access to "an external tool which was developed in the Anti-fraud department of the government organization I work for" or not? Can you answer that, User:scope_creep, seeing as she won't? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Obviously not. A tool may exist. If it does, it cannot be anything remotely resembling CheckUser as originally claimed. MarioGom (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That would make it incompatible with Celestine007's claim that she is not lying. And that is why we need an answer from her, not from other people speculating. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef block per Iridescent above. 'Indef' as in 'forever'. The least-worst case here is that Celestina007 is incapable of distinguishing truth from falsehood. Wikipedia can manage well enough without such contributors, regardless of their alleged 'UPE detecting powers'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef, per Canterbury Tail and Iridescent. I note that yesterday they said that they had access to a tool that revealed sensitive information that could only be shared with ArbCom, and now they are saying that the tool is the Editor Interaction Analyser. This explanation is inconsistent; either the tool wasn't the Editor Interaction Analyser, or it was and they were lying about the information it provided to scare the crap out of people. BilledMammal (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC) Oppose indef, per discussion below. BilledMammal (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      BilledMammal, the tool in question was Editor Interaction Analyser and what I meant from that was the report was one I could only share with ArbCom. Celestina007 (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Why? Interaction-analyzer reports are shared in every SPI courtesy the default template. Doesn't it appear that you were lying about the information it provided to scare the crap out of people? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      lol. Which "Editor Interaction Analyser tool" are you talking about Celestina007? Can you provide a link here?—usernamekiran (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      They linked it above, it's this one. BilledMammal (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      lol, lmao, rofl. And what happens when I share the results with someone else than arbcom? Say, SPI case page? —usernamekiran (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TheresNoTime: One of the edit summaries in edits listed above indicates that you emailed Celestina about the claim that she has government-made tools for the purpose of tracking down UPE editors. Is there any context missing from this discussion that might be relevant? The content of your email to Celestina seems like it could be potentially relevant. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Mhawk10: I did email Celestina regarding the claims, and informed ArbCom of my concerns. I have nothing further to add to this discussion though — TNT (talk • she/her) 16:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • support global lock not just enwiki block. As per their claim, "the goverment devloped tool can cut through multiple websites". An eternal glock while we are at it. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That sounds like an overreaction to me. It seems very unlikely that such a tool actually exists, and far more likely that Celestina007 was just lying in an effort to bully and intimidate. This is obviously unacceptable conduct here, hence my support for a block, but it would be for other projects to decide if they're willing to make allowances should she want to edit there. I wouldn't want to set a precedent for globally banning people just for being disruptive on one project; a surprising number of people who get kicked off en-wiki go on to be productive editors elsewhere in the WMF ecosystem. (There's also the purely practical matter that we can't issue global locks on this board; only the stewards or in extremis the WMF can do that.) ‑ Iridescent 14:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      And even if such a tool exists, a global lock won't be of any use. Their employer can just open a new account if it at all needs a Wikimedia account to operate etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) @Usernamekiran: I don't think that's in scope for ANI – we don't really !vote on locks outside of global ban discussions. If you believe there is a security risk (as opposed to a behavioural issue) here – and it seems fairly transparent to me that there isn't, since that would either require a massive conspiracy involving Celestina, Arbcom, and people with very privileged access to WMF infrastructure (Iridescent's scenario 1), or that a government employee with very high-level access hasn't gotten arrested yet despite disclosing extremely sensitive details on their Wikipedia userpage (Iridescent's scenario 2) – you'll have to go through m:SRG. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      yeah, I know they are just making the stuff up, and process for glocks. But there claims, and activity were so outrageous, I felt a block would be a little lenient. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Usernamekiran you are aware that global locks have a specific list of use cases, none of which Celestina in anyway meets, and she also does not meet the global block standards. This would also be the wrong forum for such. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      yes. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef Until Celestina007 can answer reasonable, basic questions from the community about their conduct they should not be editing. AusLondonder (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Holy... Okay, I think I have it straight. The government stuff was a simple phishing-ish tool that Kevin mentioned above. It was dealt with by functionaries and arbs, and Cel was properly educated/warned about it all, so it's no longer an issue to worry about. I think both Cel and arbs should explain themselves better about this (without causing Cel problems with her employer but also without leaving any concerns in the community). The rest of her warnings were regarding ACC which she misrepresented and wrongly implied to others that she could use it to do scary stuff which she was not at all allowed to do. She has been suspended from ACC; so I think that is not a concern anymore either. If there is a way to make the suspension permanent, and note somewhere about the history for the future, that should be done. Finally, there seems to be a pattern of trying to scare users she suspects of UPE by exaggerated claims about what she can do (be it government phishing tool, ACC, editor interaction, page logs, page history, or whatever else). I think this is the concern that remains unresolved. I would suggest that she should not be a mentor to anybody while these issues persist. I would also urge that her VTRS permissions be revoked while these concerns are not adequately addressed and long in the past. I leave it to admins to judge whether or not it would be helpful to remove other advanced permissions so she can not use them to intimidate newbies. To me, it seems more like a communication problem. What's clear is that she should not be intimidating newbies intentionally or unintentionally no matter how noble her intentions; I think she has enough track-record in the anti-UPE and NPP departments to establish that her intentions are indeed noble. I think she was intimidating and/or exaggerating to the point of lying to intimidate suspected UPEs and she should be reprimanded for that.
      I think the extent of her lies toward the community has been in trying to resolve this without admitting that she indeed lies to/intimidates suspected UPE editors in an effort to make her investigations more efficient. I think infinite indef would be an overreaction (although it wasn't while the community was genuinely suspecting we had the Nigerian Intelligence surveillance watching over us). I think the community should give her another chance if she comes clean about her tactics with suspected UPEs, and I urge her to do so. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If she comes clean then I would strike my !vote, though I would support an indefinite ban from holding advanced permissions, and an indefinite topic ban from UPE and SPI investigations, appealable in six months, as she has demonstrated that the community cannot currently trust her with such permissions, or in such topic areas. BilledMammal (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      (I consider Cel a friend, so I may be biased.) ACC, VRT and mentorship should be removed because the issues presented have a direct bearing on them. I think she does good work with her permissions and it's not the permissions but language that she uses that has created a chilling atmosphere. That is why I don't advocate removing her perms. UPE and SPI are not permissions and removing permissions don't hinder those. Most socks and UPEs are not investigated but simply stumbled across. And investigations after stumbling across are so vague and undefined processes, I don't know how a ban from them is supposed to work, though it is absolutely clear that she needs to do better in handling suspected UPEs. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The topic ban from SPI and UPE would require her to not open cases or investigate editors she suspects of being socks or UPE's; she would be required to leave them to other editors. Socking and undisclosed paid editing is unacceptable, but so are her tactics, and we can't tolerate them just because they were aimed at editors who might (but might not) be socks or UPE's.
      The permissions is because she intimidates new editors by claiming to have access to advanced permissions and sensitive information; a long list of permissions helps convince new editors, who don't know what these permissions actually involve, that she is telling the truth. BilledMammal (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I understand the logic. Personally, I fear it maybe counterproductive, as removal of advanced permissions is always demoralising and maybe a bit punitive without direct connection, especially, if the alternative, that she do better of her own accord has as much chance of success. At the end of the day, it is about communication with new users, and the only permission one needs to do that is an ability to edit. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Usedtobecool: FYI, Celestina's access to ACC was removed back in March. stwalkerster (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Would it be unreasonable to ask why access was removed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      [49] Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)To comment more substantially, I'd be entirely unsurprised if an American law enforcement agency (such as the FBI) were to have a tool within its anti-fraud division. Seeing as there are three Wikimedia server farms hosted in the United States and the FBI is known to subpoena companies for information regarding who accessed particular web resources at a particular time, the existence of a tool to connect IP addresses to edits seems technically feasible. Technology could even be based on something like an externally hosted edit-monitoring workflow that stalks the recent changes feed and triggers externally hosted edit filters; it seems more likely than not to me that at least some sort of technology like this exists. That the FBI may have been involved in investigating paid editing schemes also makes me not want to dismiss this sort of stuff as fake off-hand.
      At the same time, there are plenty of false claims of IP tracing that are made. Within the past month, I emailed Trust and Safety regarding a less-than-reliable online website that claimed to have performed an IP trace on an editor in order to confirm their identity. Trust and Safety indicated that they believed the claims were simply made up. There are even people who have claimed that they have traced my IP to areas that I simply have never been to. I think either that the claim of an external tool being present and known is possible in this case, but I'm not quite convinced either way unless Trust and Safety can clarify. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      We know for certain that US law enforcement agencies have tools monitoring Wikipedia; the WMF has taken them to court (and lost) over it. Since in the unlikely event that Celestina007 is an NSA agent trying to infiltrate Wikipedia she'd not be boasting about it on assorted talkpages, I think we can safely assume she isn't. ‑ Iridescent 14:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Re: "There are even people who have claimed that they have traced my IP to areas that I simply have never been to". Ha, that's nothing! Even my ISP sometimes traces my IP address to areas I've never been ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair, though I assume your ISP isn't trying to frame you as a part of a grand conspiracy theory. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • A thought. Surely we don't have the power to impose an infinite indef, do we? That would need the power to bind a future community consensus to today's decision with no ability to reach a different decision. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • We don't have the power to bind the future community but we can tell them what we think. Levivich 14:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly. I'd hope that 'future community consensus' would take such statements into account when considering an unblock. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      No, we don't, that is extremely clear. Nor would it be logical to do so - either misconduct is so clear that no future community would consider unblocking (so any "special indef" is unneeded) or it's not at that level, in which case trying to change the rules seems morally dubious. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I interpret the phrase to mean SBAN. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Which a future consensus can overturn just like any other community sanction. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes. Like everything else. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's pretty clear what outcome this is headed for, so can people please refrain from posting here unless they have anything new to say regarding this editor? There's no need to pile-on with the me-too comments or the comments about other issues. Remember that the section is about a real, living person. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose ban (but not other measures/restrictions) I'm reasonably confident that most of the statements Celestina made about her their access to secret tools and information were...to put it kindly...overstatements to intimidate newer editors. But Celestina has also made a lot of productive contributions to the project. When her their early behavior in how shethey approached new editors was criticized, shethey took that criticism onboard and made changes to her their behavior. SheThey has worked closely with a number of administrators and her actions appeared to have their support, so unless any of them come forward to say that shethey continued to do/say certain things after being told privately to stop, it seems to me like shethey didn't think it was a problem because it was in service to protect the project from UPE. I think if Celestina is told to stop (insert specific behaviors), shethey will. Schazjmd (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      This [50] was from yesterday. After being in contact with ArbCom over the matter, apparently. Doesn't look like stopping to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I am fairly certain at this point that she's simply using standard tools we all use. The use of "clandestine" has to be an exaggeration or miscommunication. The claim about results being able to be shared only with arbcom has to be a gross exaggeration to the point of factual inaccuracy if indeed that is the case, as in truth, it's a case of WP:NEEDTOKNOW at best. And that is what Cel needs to come clean about. If she has access to tools that provide results only arbcom is able to know, the community needs to be made aware. I would imagine we would have a lot of questions for arbcom and others in the know. If she doesn't, she needs to say now that she doesn't, that she was not being entirely forthcoming with users she investigates, and that she will do better in the future. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      In reading again, it appears she wrote only arbcom can know when in fact she meant the information could not be shared with the user in question (NEEDTOKNOW). So, appears to me, not a lie but another miscommunication. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Usedtobecool: that is not the case at all. SPI case page has a section for users to defend themselves, there is an option to notify the users about SPIs. And an editor who claims to be "beacon of hope for 6 years" making such a "miscommunication" is a little bit difficult for me to digest. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      There is a reason it is optional. We only do it if we need the input. For example, someone claiming I am your sock. In most cases, we can do a public SPI but try to not let the suspects know. But there are many cases, where SPIs are done on admin's talk, admin's emails, arb complaints, etc. depending on how much we can disclose publicly. We don't want UPE sockfarms knowing their tells. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If Celestina's alleged secret government tools turn out to not exist, then I think that a warning to Celestina not to misrepresent themself as a government agent. The fact that we're thinking about an indef over comments made in March that appear to have already been addressed is a bit odd to me. Blocks should be preventative, not punitive. If there is a more narrowly tailored way to stop Celestina from giving the appearance of legal threats than an indef (and I'm fairly certain there is one), an indef is simply not the way to go. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The issue is not masquerading as a government agent. The issue is persistent intimidation of new editors by falsely claiming to have access to special tools etc., including as late as yesterday. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      My point is to say that if the user is given a final warning on this sort of thing that we might achieve the preventative purpose while allowing the user to positively contribute to other areas of Wikipedia (such as content). Indefs are very blunt. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we slow down? Celestina007, I think you need to come entirely clean about everything, as your comments here do not appear to fully explain the situation and your past remarks, and don't seem to fully address the community's concerns. If the community does get a satisfactory response to all this, I don't see a need to block an otherwise productive editor (I'm assuming, I don't know Celestina007), so we don't need to rush with the "indef block" pile-ons. But we really do need to get a full understanding of what's going on and what Celestina007 meant by her past comments, and some apologies issued where appropriate. Endwise (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'm interested in who the reporting IP is or was. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef block per AndyTheGrump, Iridescent and others. Celestina's comments and conduct are very troubling. Even if she doesn't have any access to some "secret checkuser", her behavior of scaring fellow users has no place here on Wikipedia. It shows us she is not here to build an encyclopedia. - Darwinek (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef block I don't think it even matters if the tool actually exists in any form at all. Even if the entire thing is a lie, to use that claim to intimidate and harass other editors is entirely a WP:NOTHERE problem and the user is clearly not here to actually work on making an encyclopedia in that case. And, of course, if the tool in any form does exist, even just as the external website trick to get someone's IP address, then my indef block vote is x100 even stronger. SilverserenC 18:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef block Well this was an interesting random thread to read through. This feels like one of those cases where it's not the crime, it's the coverup that makes me doubt Celestina's benefits to this project. People rightfully noticed what she was doing and told her to knock it off... and instead of just coming clean and admitting her mistakes, we've gotten a full bingo card's worth of excuses, deflections, and counterattacks without accepting the issues people have with her behavior, right up to the great "I have a disability and cannot be held responsible for my behavior" free space in the center. Especially after reading through the 2021 ANI thread it seems clear Celestina has a battleground mentality that is incompatible with collaborative, good faith editing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 23:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been away from wiki all weekend and so only now am seeing this thread, including the ping Iridescent gave me early on. I will admit I have more skimmed than read this conversation, so please take that into account when reading my comments. When this was initially brought to ArbCom, I was as alarmed as I see many in this thread are at the moment. Upon hearing the full context - which to the best of my skim still hasn't been presented here though it's also not substantially beyond what has been discussed here at times and because of the expectation of ArbCom confidentiality are not mine to share - I became considerably less alarmed. Instead I saw an editor doing her best to combat UPE and exaggerating slightly for status, which while human and understandable was also something that needed to cease. Another arb reached a similar conclusion and drafted a response which a number of arbs agreed to and was then sent. I thought the message conveyed to Celestina clearly what needed to stop - and from what she wrote elsewhere in this thread she seems to have heard it. I gather that she has not ceased making such claims and has said something similar in the last few days. It seems like in this case that tool is the editor interaction analyzer and so it's deeply unfortunate she framed it that way because it offered a clear tie-in the the previous more incendiary claim. Self-evidently the full extent of our warning was not adequately expressed or not adequately heard. And so now we find ourselves in this discussion.
      I can see from my skim a number of editors have made posts that suggest some combination of Celestina, ArbCom, and/or the WMF must be a villain here. ArbCom gave a courtesy explanation of our understanding of the situation to the foundation, but this has basically never been on their radar and there is not any, to my knowledge, spread of any data from Wikipedia that would be covered by something like the m:ANPDP (the document all checkusers and oversighters sign). So I would take the foundation off the hook here. I also think ArbCom acted as the community would like - it took serious claims seriously, acted quickly to ascertain the facts, and closed the loop in a relatively reasonable timeframe (about a week - which I won't say is fast, but is on the upperend of ArbCom speed once it's determined there is not a crisis). The fact that the tools in question turned out to either be wiki tools, like the editor interaction tool, in common knowledge among projectspace regulars, or common webtools accessible to anyone is why ArbCom went from very alarmed to disapproving but not alarmed in the way that we did. If the community doesn't like that, well that's fair enough and Arbs should consider that feedback and act accordingly (differently) in the future. But, from my individual perspective, it's important that the feedback be based on what really happened and not an imagined worst case scenario, triggered by the alarming comments made (which to be clear I understand - I too was alarmed at first). Instead I think there is no villain to be found, just a number of editors, including in this thread, doing their best if imperfectly. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Barkeep49, did your 'skimming' of this thread include the post of 07:37, 8 May 2022 made by fellow ArbCom member L235? [51] Because that post seems to be describing something else entirely, stating that the "tool" in question seems to amount to "get someone to click an external link to a website/service that you control and then record their IP address". L235 follows this description up with assurances that this is a false alarm, don't worry about this. ArbCom will have a chat with those involved to clear up any loose ends". L235 is not describing the use of publicly-available wiki tools, but is instead describing something that appears to me to be the illegitimate use of Wikipedia facilities to help obtain data which is intentionally hidden to all but checkusers: the IP address of a named account holder. Frankly, I find L235's complacency about this scenario more than a little troublesome, since it would appear to constitute a breach of privacy contrary to the Wikimedia Terms of Use. Even if L235 is incorrect (as seems quite possible), and Celestina007 wes not engaging in such subterfuge, we are surely entitled to clarification as to whether ArbCom would endorse such behaviour on the project from other contributors, and in what circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Hi Andy. I'm not sure why you put skimming in ' ' when you use the tq (my favorite as well) to quote other stuff, but yes my skim did include a read of both L235's comments (and also Captain Eek's). L235 and I are describing the same thing. There are common webtool accessible to anyone (my words) that can record their IP address (L235's words) when clicked on. My understanding is that this tool use was all hypothetical - that is Celestina never actually used it on anyone except herself. I can't really speak for ArbCom about to clarification as to whether ArbCom would endorse such behaviour on the project from other contributors, and in what circumstances. But speaking for myself, if this wasn't just used by Celestina testing things onhself that's a different scenario all together. But I am not aware of any such evidence. Do you have a diff that suggests it was? Because if so I'd love to see it, as it would definitely change my read on this because I am not ok with anyone harvesting private info about Wikipedia editors. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Break, response

    • Comment — BilledMammal, Boing! said Zebedee, usernamekiran, Iridescent, AusLondonder, TrangaBellam & the entirety of the project has a right to be angry. It is true that I have avoided the question of the government agency tool and I’d address that now, for starters I have never lied and would never lie, it is against my very core, if by saying this I get indef blocked then I’d leave knowing I did so with a clear conscience. What started all this was ironically in bid to be transparent and let the community know what it is I can do, i have addressed the issue of ACC but would still address it further after addressing the government agency tool. What did happen was a department where I worked in showed me a tool, which when clicked upon showed the IP address of the scammer they had been tracking for a while, I didn’t buy it so I tested it using my alternate account and it showed my IP. Ignorantly I immediately penned it down on my UP (Letting the community know that I have tested it on my alternate account but would never ever do it to anyone else as I deemed it unethical) I also mistook it as though it was how CU worked. Immediately TheresNoTime immediately removed part of the information from my UP and queried me and so did Floquenbeam who chastised me and told me to remove all of such information from my UP, I did but left the part which stated "I belong to a small part of editors who can link IP's to accounts but would never divulge personal information" which for record sake I have never done, (I was referencing ACC) once again Floquenbeam emailed yet again and correctly told to remove such information from my UP and told me it was a bad idea to put such information. Note that I did all this for the sake of transparency if I have ever betrayed the trust of the community and technical editor can go through my edits and spot any anomalies, I have never divulged nor betrayed the trust of the community and my track record in anti spam, article creations and in all of my editing proves this. Furthermore, what followed was an email by ArbCOM asking me to explain how this so called tool worked and I explained it to them, they weren’t too happy with me because they had received emails pertaining the claim I made, I was admonished to tread with caution and watch what I say, but by making comments such as "clandestine tools" "special tools" which I made erroneously, I had falling afoul of my promise to be cautious and select my words carefully. I am but a work in my progress and such comments are not intended to scare anyone, although after an introspective analysis I can see how such comments are chilling and intimidating which isn’t my intention I promise you all, Like I said it wasn’t smart to say I could perform a CU as clearly the tool and CU are not alike. I have no possession of any special tools, the tools i make mention of are majorly scripts but yes in some cases they are real tools available to all but may require navigation or guidance in order to locate them. In the last 6 years I have been a beckon of light and hope, not just at negating unethical practices but also at the Teahouse, New page reviewing and article creations. This one mistake i made is provoking and rightfully so, I should have gone to a broad venue to explain everything long before now but to be honest I wasn’t sure where or how and predominantly I was indeed scared. That is the truth in its entirety. I’m sorry to you all I caused panic it wasn’t my intention. My core is transparency and moving forward not only do I promise to do better but I promise to always let the community know the truth upfront even if it be at my detriment. Thank you all. I really am sorry is all I can say but I promise you I have never and will never betray a community that has put so much trust in me, had I let the community know about all this earlier I wouldn’t suffer this today. Thank you all for your time. Celestina007 (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you Celestina007, I think you are trying to explain in good faith. I would appreciate an explanation about your comment on Reading Beans' talk page; why did you say that you had information (from the Editor Interaction Analyser) that you could only share with ArbCom? And could you also list the tools you were referring to here? BilledMammal (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      BilledMammal, thank you for giving me a chance to explain. To let you know that I never lie please in your spare time see this that entry was on the 29th of April. To answer your question, I have a medical condition that makes me interpret words as sounds, Infact I wasn’t aware it was a real medical condition until Timtrent told me about it and my doctor confirmed it thus to me every editor has a manner in which they sound. So for a while now the editor ReadingBeans had sounded like the topic banner Nigerian editor named Nnadigoodluck, I proceeded to use Editor Interaction Analyser and juxtapose their edits, they were some significant overlaps which was a source of concern to me. I proceeded to send my reports to Arbcom, which they can confirm I did using Editor Interaction Analyser tool only. Anybody in ArnCom can confirm that and I allow for ArbCOM to redistribute this e-mail to verify all that I have said. Celestina007 (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      This is somewhat off the point, but makes me interpret words as sounds isn't "a medical condition"; it's called subvocalization and about 80% of people do the same while reading. (The expensive "speed reading" courses one sees advertised primarily consist of just training people not to 'hear' the words as they read.) ‑ Iridescent 16:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Something still feels off even after this explanation. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I am not a doctor; I interpreted this as synesthesia when it was explained to me, and suggested this to Celestina007 since it reminded me of someone in my family who sees musical notes as colours. I make no comment on any of this thread, though reserve the right to do so later. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      ArbCom, can you confirm that Celestina007 contacted you with an Editor Interaction Analyser report concerning Reading Beans? If ArbCom can confirm this, then I think is largely resolved - it wasn't an attempt to intimidate, just a bizarre belief that Editor Interaction Analyser reports contain sensitive information.
      I do have some concerns about communication issues, but those can be discussed separately. BilledMammal (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Celestina007 I actually have two questions, but you tend to only answer the first part of what someone asks, so I'll stick to one: There's something unaddressed here. Several commenters have expressed concerns that regardless of nature of your claims to access to special data sources or their truthfulness, you have (potentially without intending to) used them to intimidate editors and create a chilling effect. How do you plan to address this going forward? -- ferret (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Ferret, Moving forward I would be mindful of my tone. I think I’m oblivious of how chilling I sound and it’s something I see now and to be honest I’d cease and desist from using words like "special tool" or anything of the sort. I grow daily and treat each ANI I’ve ever been in as a learning curve. I never would have imagined a day where in bid to be transparent it would backfire on me this way but moving I’d be choose my words extremely carefully. Celestina007 (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Celestina007 Now my second question, which is actually to prompt you to answer something BilledMammal already asked. What are the tool(s) you're mentioning at Wikipedia:Death_of_undisclosed_paid_editing#For_Veteran_Anti_UPE_Editors? -- ferret (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Ferret, Oh my! There are a plethora of them, say for example you wanted to know what articles a user with NPR rights are reviewing you use this quite difficult to navigate. For AFC you use this. There are actually a number of them depending on what it is you want to achieve but those two especially the one for NPP is quite difficult to find. Celestina007 (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      (after edit conflict) Celestina007, I think you are probably mistaken about the scope of the tool you were shown at work. It would be a pretty trivial task to identify who within your organisation made a particular edit, a rather more difficult task to identify who within an ISP had made it, an even more difficult task (with the difficulty depending on exactly how the Internet works in that country) to determine who in your country had made it, but a very difficult task for anyone but the most resource-hungry intelligence services in the world to determine who had made it if the edit didn't even pass through your country. Unless of course there was phishing involved as described above, which requires the user involved to cooperate unknowingly. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Celestina007: I am happy to put my support for any indef block on hold now that there's an apparent good-faith effort to address community concerns, pending further discussion. My major concern is regarding the contradictory statements and the issue of trust at this point. AusLondonder (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        AusLondonder, thank you for your faith in me. Please ask me any questions and I’d answer. Celestina007 (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support an indef, despite the explanations I don't see how this editor can be trusted any longer. Fram (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Are we to assume that Celestina was acting alone? Meaning, on one hand, could there be others doing what Celestina has allegedly done (esp. if these mystery tools are indeed in the public domain, and not top secret spook stuff), but they just haven't been found out yet? But also, were/are others involved in authorising, condoning or facilitating this, and if so what needs to be done about their role... and how high does all this go? (Regarding the latter point, I note that the OP chose for some reason to whistleblow on a public forum, rather than take this somewhere behind closed doors — why might that be?) It looks like a major breach of trust. How will the trust be restored? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @DoubleGrazing you are currently accusing every functionary on the list - it doesn't matter if you do so directly or in a passive voice "are we to assume". If you want to make accusations on the ANI board, whether as a separate discussion or as part of another's, you are required to list evidence. Please list evidence that indicates that functionaries are "condoning, authorising, or facilitating" action comparable to the plain-text reading of C's and OP's statements. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I am not accusing anyone, I am raising the question whether this is just an isolated incident, and pointing out the possibility that it might not be. If what is being debated, at least implicitly, is whether a particular editor can be trusted going forward, then is it unreasonable to ask whether the breach of trust is limited to only that one editor, or could there be a wider issue to address? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      DoubleGrazing, not only are you casting aspersions against functionaries as noted by Nosebagbear you are also casting aspersions against me, What do you mean by "Was Celestina Acting Alone"? that would mean I did something wrong when I just explained in detail that I have done nothing wrong and ArbCOM has been aware of my miscommunication problem (this one) since March? Please make your point politely. Celestina007 (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me offer a partial good faith explanation: there is something lost in translation. Celestina007 is not the most effective communicator. Add insufficient technical literacy to the picture and there may be a plausible explanation . Anti-spam is a highly technical field. I think a more mundane explanation of "special tools" is the techniques and heuristics (like abuse filters, but with longer run times) used to detect spam, publicly available tools (stuff on Tool Labs or other websites), the ability to query the Wikipedia API programmatically (like SQL queries) plus attention to detail, or bog-standard tools like WHOIS. Just wait until sockpuppet detection based on linguistic heuristics gets used on a systematic basis. (For the record, Wikipedia:Death of undisclosed paid editing#For Veteran Anti UPE Editors was not written with my endorsement.) One also has to remember that Nigeria is not the West; there are cultural differences. Nigerian spammers are nasty. MER-C 17:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I removed the "For Veteran Anti UPE Editors" section as it did not seem appropriate. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If Celestina007 is not sufficiently "technically literate", how are they engaging in a "highly technical field"? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Like everything else on Wikipedia, self-selection. You don't need to know how the more sophisticated means of spotting spam work in order to be effective: spam is detected by how an article reads from the new pages feed or sockpuppets detected through behavior. But if you don't, you should not comment on them as if you do. MER-C 17:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Many Western spammers are nasty too. We shouldn't be making generalisations about anyone. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      True, that. Harassment and intimidation are tactics employed by spammers regardless of nationality. The OP could be an example. MER-C 17:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, Celestina did email us about Reading Beans re: data from a "secret tool"...which turned out to be the editor interaction analyzer on Toolforge. I agree that it was a bizarre belief, but I think there is a language barrier here. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:03, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      What Eek said. I'd like to be very clear that the committee does not have any super secret evidence it is sitting on, so nobody should be considering that ArbCom has given some sort of free pass here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Intimidatory Behaviour (More diffs)

    As I have stated above, the core issue is Celestina007's intimidating attitude to new editors. Every alternate interaction of them with a new editor reflects this trend. For an example, consider this gem of a comment from nine days ago:

    The difference between Praxi & I, is that she is all encompassing, nigh all knowing, but you see, as for me, Nigeria related articles are my forte and I can unequivocally say all the articles you created are all promotional articles on non notable persons. I’m literally the most renowned editor dealing with Nigeria related articles in the history of the English Wikipedia so please respectfully do simmer down, as all the sources you used are all unreliable pieces from reliable sources, the rest are press releases or mere announcements, God's honest truth if you keep creating promotional articles I would be left with no other choice than to file an official report.

    How does Celestina007 plan to rectify this unless we force them out of any area that requires interaction with newbies? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This is my core concern. A lot of the above, about the tools and their nature, is misunderstandings and bad communications. But the poor behavior towards editors, and use of references to such tools as a form of intimidation, is on-going. Celestina007 has partially acknowledged this above where I asked them about it. -- ferret (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree Her behavior is troubling. The discussion about specific tools is not relevant to what we do with her, and should be handled separately. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ferret, rsjaffe, Indeed I acknowledge my shortcomings and promise to do better moving forward. Celestina007 (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Celestina007:
    • Please stop using flowery words and ornamental phrases.
    • Write shorter sentences — bland and without rhetoric.
    • Nobody cares that you are the most renowned editor from Nigeria. There are many excellent editors from your country including Ammarpad.
    • Please avoid needless theatrics. If you see evidence of UPE, ask for a disclosure. If they decline, send all evidence to functionaries and forget the issue. No point in trying to force a disclosure by pointing to the alleged mountains of evidence from various tools. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • TrangaBellam, Thank you, I understand you are angry but please don’t be, Your points are noted. Celestina007 (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Not angry; rather, frustrated.
        Anyways, assuming that you do plan to correct your course and will be receptive to feedback, I might think of withdrawing my support for an indef. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        And I will rather appreciate that you take a self-imposed vacation from NPP/AfC. Please write content (stubs/start class/GA - I don't care) - that will improve your language skills while affording a different perspective on how Wikipedia runs. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do not bother; you have been already warned for the same behavior. I am not changing my position. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Just noting here that Celestina has received multiple warnings for similar intimidatory behaviour in the past and was given WP:ROPE here where the closing admin wrote Celestina007 is advised to review the civility and no personal attacks policies, and moderate their tone in discussions, otherwise future sanctions may occur. and has been warned on multiple other ocassions to quit being aggressive and stop throwing her weight around. Princess of Ara 18:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging Ritchie333: if he has any opinions. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Boing! said Zebedee and @Mhawk10 fyi. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    One of such warnings that comes to mind is this one where Liz counsels; You are well-respected here but please do not try to throw your weight around like this and try to intimidate other editors. Princess of Ara 20:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @TrangaBellam: Your process above doesn't work. Handing the problem over to the admin corps, doesn't work either. Your list above, apart from being a bit nonsensical, has no relation to reality, how people operate or how they think and react. There is a huge and unmanagable problem on here, and that is UPE, and to get angry about and those who promulgate it and promote it, is a natural consquence of their actions. It is natural to get angry. If you don't understand long phrases and sentences, with flowerly language and complex clauses in those sentences, then you shouldn't be on here, as words are very essence of what we deal in. It is extraordinary hard to get somebody to change their language. Its almost impossible. scope_creepTalk 20:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The point is not about whether you or me understand flowery words. The point is Celestina007 using it to shield her relative lack of fluency in English and airing an intimidatory appearance, probably unintentionally.
      Kachru (1994) notes Indian speakers of English to regularly incorporate "excessive stylistic ornamentation", "usage of high sounding words (which are often inaccurate)" and "indirectness” to the extent of confounding a native speaker. Other linguists have documented adjective piling, needless use of compound words etc. Schadem (2007) repeats these for Nigerian English. Frankly, we have enough literature on the subject to draft a new article. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't think so. Most of the core group that come to work here, expect a collegiate atmosphere, because that is type of people they are. More than 80% of folk who work on regular basis here, have a degree of one type of another (I saw the figure 83%, not the research), so are capable of taking any type of written English to any complexity and understanding and even sitting down to learn a new word now and again, which is enjoyable. In the many hundreds of interactions I've had with Celestina in the past, there has never been any instance where I have read one of her comments, and never understood it. I think assuming AGF is always the best approach. scope_creepTalk 10:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    IP Finder

    Celestina007 writes,

    What did happen was a department where I worked in showed me a tool, which when clicked upon showed the IP address of the scammer they had been tracking for a while, I didn’t buy it so I tested it using my alternate account and it showed my IP.

    Assuming they are truthful and had the bare-minimum technical literacy to avoid being pranked, this is a security breach since some random tool ought not show the IP address of a random Wikimedia account. Celestina007 claims to have informed ArbCom of the details. So can the committee disclose:
    • If they informed WMF Security Team?
      • If so, what was their assessment of the situation?
    • Or did the committee, by itself, evaluate the tool to be a link-tracker which was not worth probing? [See KevinL's comments above.]

    Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Frankly, Celestina007's lack of command in English coupled with a proclivity to using flowery words is troublesome.
    A tool, when clicked upon - Is she speaking about running the program (let's name it "IP Finder")? Or is tool = url? In which case, ArbCom's understanding is warranted. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fram, TrangaBellam, DoubleGrazing I have never used the tool asides on my own alt account as it is highly unethical this is precisely why I put on my UP in the first place, you all know I would never betray the trust or the community. Celestina007 (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This section is not about you or your activities; rather the tool. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, with regards to my earlier questions, whether or not you used the tool is pretty much irrelevant. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • From that description it would seem that the tool was used at work. If that was the case then the same results could be obtained in most large workplaces anywhere. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    this is a security breach since some random tool ought not show the IP address of a random Wikimedia account. While I cannot know 100% what the tool is, what transpires from Celestina007's description is very different from what you are implying here. I'd suggest trying to avoid expanding the FUD and myth creation as much as possible. MarioGom (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's fairly evident to me that such a tool does not exist. That's simply not how computers work – or governments, for that matter; one could probably write multiple pages about why that's the case, but that would be a waste of time. Celestina may have misunderstood something, they may have deliberately or unknowingly embellished something. Trying to untangle that by looking for the massive security hole or the grand functionary conspiracy is essentially ordering an XXL nothingburger with extra nothing. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      "Conspiracy" - someone was pointing to it but I didn't, eh? To think of it is patently ridiculous.
      If you feel Celestina's claims to be nonsensical to the extent of not bothering at all, you can close this section. (But, I have a decent idea about the extent of surveillance possible on FB accounts via intel agencies and I don't think the claims are impossible. Obviously, Nigeria is not USA and I cannot think of a reason about why such tools would be disclosed to someone so careless.) TrangaBellam (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure tools like that exist, here's a talk about one which works off of data collected by a browser extension: www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nvYGi7-Lxo
      Sure the researchers used only data from Germany and had to pretend to be a company to get access to it and the data was "anonymised", but they show that even that doesn't stop them from being able to deanonymize it. It would definitely be a lot more illegal for someone to have access to the data without it being anonymised, but it wouldn't be impossible (and at times not necessary), nor is collecting data with a browser extension the only way to do it.
      All in all, "that's simply not how computers work" is just an uninformed statement. None of what I said proves this one is real though, or that it is as good as advertised, likely it isn't, if only because governments tend to not like it very much when other governments are looking into their citizen's browsing history, their own citizens in the other hand? Probably not as much. – 2804:F14:C060:8A01:E1C3:BA06:9472:DAC3 (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Turns out I should have read more, the tool was revealed to just be Editor Interaction Analyser, so my whole comment is pointles... – 2804:F14:C060:8A01:E1C3:BA06:9472:DAC3 (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Never mind, I think I misunderstood what I read... I'll just let this statement stay here, I don't have an interest in understanding this whole report deeper or opining more, just wanted to point out that tools like that likely do exist, although with varying effectiveness. – 2804:F14:C060:8A01:E1C3:BA06:9472:DAC3 (talk) 01:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    CU does not show anything obvious --Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • Shouldn't we first try to find out who the reporting IP is? IMHO, there's something not quite right about this, when the IP has very few contribs (7 edits since Nov 2015) to the project. Could there be socking or evading, involved? GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      No. That's a completely separate issue. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If you believe that the IP's actions merit scrutiny, please proceed. But such an investigation is irrelevant to this section. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      GoodDay, thank you, that is indeed a discussion for another day, but today as stated by TrangaBellam and Phil Bridger the onus is on me to clear myself from any form of foul play. Celestina007 (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @GoodDay: Why first? Why does who the IP is have any bearing on this legitimate report? AusLondonder (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to give some technical perspective here: For the Nigerian government to know my IP, they would have to a) hack the WMF (very unlikely), b) compromise one of a small number of highly trusted developers who've signed extra-scary NDAs (a whole lot of work for unclear benefit; compromising a CU wouldn't work because checks are logged), or c) compromise my ISP and do some complex timestamp analyses to get around HTTPS. Given that I'm not in Nigeria, that last step would be near-impossible, but even if I were, it would require mass data collection that Snowden could only dream of, setting aside the technical difficulty of efficiently querying billions of POST and GET requests sent to an ISP in a particular timeframe, narrowing those to en.wikipedia.org ones, and then doing the necessary timestamp analysis, which would still have no guarantee of outputting a clear answer.
      No comment on the intimidation concerns, but the "government tool" stuff reads to me like a naïve misunderstanding of the technologies involved, coupled with a tone-deaf (and unnecessary) public statement about it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Or as mentioned above, they could send you a link to a website they own, which if you click would immediately reveal your IP. That seems like a very reasonable strategy for a government to figure out the IPs of scammers, but not something to worry about as long as you don't click random links sent to you. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh sure. Or subtler means still. Considerations for any editor who does anti-vandal/UPE/sock/etc. work to be aware of. I'm just commenting on the idea of an outside actor possessing a CU-like tool, and how incredibly difficult that would be on both legal and technical levels. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      As long as you don't click random links sent to you. This is easier to do in regards to like... not opening links sent to you in an email by people you don't know and trust. Honestly, not at all if you're being careful, because who knows what your friend's security practices are like unless you've had that conversation with them. But doesn't this have broader implications for people who edit Wikipedia in general? Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but say this link was used as a reference. People verifying that citations actually support claims made in an article could be vunerable to this sort of thing. Clovermoss (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      This seems like the most likely explanation to me. Celestina says they "clicked on the tool", which seems vague, but I suspect by that they mean clicked a link, which then said "your IP address is XXXX". If that is all that happened then it is not a problem (although the way Celestina described it with what seems like a clear intent to intimidate people obviously is.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment what am I reading here? This whole thread has been a head-ache. I need to come back after rereading this thread with free mind, ofcourse when the involved editors include Celestina, one of the most known ANTI-UPE editors. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User rights changes

    I have just removed a number of Celestina's advanced permissions, leaving only IPBE, rollback, and PC reviewer. I have done this in my capacity as an individual admin, it is not an arbcom action. These tools are for trusted users, and it is clear from this thread that the community has lost a fair share of their trust in this user, so I have acted in accordance with that. I would suggest that, now that this has been done, perhaps a more limited sanction such as topic bans from new page patrol or UPE should be considered by the community. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I should add that it is my personal opinion that Celestina wants to do the right thing and is sincere in their desire to rid WP of UPE, but she is also in many ways her own worst enemy as she has repeatedly stepped over the lines of appropriate behavior in her efforts. I don't think this makes her irredeemable, but clearly previous attempts to communicate to her that she needs to take it down a notch have not had the desired effect. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The community is angry with Celestina007 because she misrepresents her status and capabilities to intimidate others. Revoking her advanced permissions doesn't do anything to prevent that behaviour.—S Marshall T/C 21:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say or imply it totally resolved this issue, in fact I quite clearly suggested specific sanctions. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This user has also been removed from VRTS. ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 22:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that, I think that's the best for everyone involved, since most of us can't see what's going on there and there's clearly a trust issue here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beeblebrox: At the risk of asking something that might soon be made moot, why remove the autopatrolled right? While I see a lot of concern about activities in the UPE space (which would encompass the patroller right and parts of the page mover userright), I don't think anyone here has brought up any concerns about articles that Celestina has created. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I firmly endorse removing autopatrolled here, quite aside from everything else raised in this thread. It should never have been granted in the first place; autoptrolled is not a general attaboy for service, but explicitly meant only to be given to "prolific creators of clean articles and pages". That is clearly not the case here; aside from redirects created as a result of page moves Celestina007 has only created a handful of articles, and having checked every creation in the past two years every one has been clearly inappropriate (unsourced BLP, completely unsourced, completely unsourced bio written in a totally inappropriate tone, completely unsourced, unsourced BLP accusing someone of terrorism in Wikipedia's voice, unsourced BLP, unsourced BLP, unsourced BLP, completely unsourced, completely unsourced, completely unsourced and consisting of a single incomplete sentence).  ‑ Iridescent 03:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    When I read your comment above, I was initially very concerned. But a closer examination shows that the characterization of those creations above resulted from a misreading of the page historry. Generally, the articles that you've included above were created in the draft space and moved to the mainspace only after there had been at least one source added. Because the page was moved from the draft to the mainspace, the first edit to the page was the first edit that was made to the draftspace article. The sole exception to the sources being present prior to a draft-to-mainspace move was Ban of Twitter in Nigeria, which the editor added citations shortly after moving it into the mainspace.
    With the specific issue of terrorism, the article that accused someone of terrorism included references to this BBC article and this BBC article at the time it was moved into the mainspace, each of which frame the individual as a Boko Haram terrorist. He'd actually been convicted in 2013—eight years prior to the article's creation—and sentenced to life imprisonment for his role in bombing a Church on Christmas day in 2011. While it would have been ideal to add citations in the very first version of the draft, the fact of the matter was that the conviction lacked an in-text citation for all of sixteen minutes after the draft's creation. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, here are the revisions of the drafts at the time they were moved into the mainspace (middle) as well as the time that Celestina finished editing them during the session in which they were moved to the mainspace (right). Since I don't have login data (nor any other information besides edit history), the "end of session" tab below is the first time that there's a substantial (~8 hour) break between edits after the article had been moved to the mainspace.
    Articles of Celestina's that Iridescent took issue with
    Article Move to mainspace End of session
    Ebube Muonso Diff Diff
    1996 Otokoto Riots Diff Diff
    Ezego Diff Diff
    Ban of Twitter in Nigeria Diff Diff
    Kabiru Sokoto Diff Diff
    Rita Edochie Diff Diff
    Odumeje Diff Diff
    Iyke Nathan Uzorma[1] Diff Diff
    Ikeji festival Diff Diff
    Olumba Olumba Diff Diff
    Clifford Orji Diff Diff
    Looking at these pages above, the end-of-session results seem (with one exception) to be free of flagrant policy issues. They all are sourced, I can't spot any flagrant BLP issues, and all but one of them seem to have stuck around without their notability being challenged. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not how the NewPages feed works. Pages are listed at the moment of creation (in whatever namespace), not at the moment they're moved to mainspace. If she's habitually creating pages as drafts and then moving them to mainspace later, that's more of a reason for her not to have the autopatrolled right, not less, as there isn't even the "it prevents legitimate articles from showing as unreviewed in the Special:NewPages?namespace=0 queue" argument to be made. ‑ Iridescent 13:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iridescent, you are mistaken. The new pages feed indexes a mainspace article every time it is created, moved from another namespace or expanded from a redirect. Giving autopatrolled to editors who create drafts and move them to mainspace cuts back on the mainspace backlog same as direct creations. Reviewers don't check every draft that is created. So, if it didn't, any autoconfirmed editor could bypass NPP by creating a draft and moving it to mainspace. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Autopatrolled would also be useful for editors who improve articles in draftspace and move them to mainspace or expand redirects, even if they didn't ever create an article from scratch. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, The new pages feed indexes a mainspace article every time it is created, moved from another namespace or expanded from a redirect is not true. Go to the move log and find a page that's recently been moved from a draft to mainspace, note the timestamp, and then go to Special:NewPages and look for it; you won't find it. Special:NewPages only logs page creations. ("New pages is a special page that lists recently created pages in reverse order of creation" if you want chapter and verse from the documentation.) ‑ Iridescent 14:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Many New Page Patrollers do not use Special:NewPages, they use Special:NewPagesFeed, which does work the way described by Usedtobecool. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Page reviewers use the Newpagesfeed which indexes articles moved from draftspace at the time of the move and queues them ordered by creation date. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Notes

    1. ^ (WP:BLAR'd here by TrangaBellam)

    BLP and NPOV violations

    • As indicated by Iridescent, they are violating WP:NPOV and strict WP:BLP policy from some time. On stumbling upon their page creations, it is clear they have created many WP:ATTACKPAGES, mostly against clergypeople, such as Odumeje (I can share many examples, but one enough for time being). @Celestina007:, indeed, you wrote this content, [52]. You just filled up their biography with controversies only? You never tried to balance the article (Maybe you're too biased against occults). What about his work and his followers? A clear WP:NPOV violation, when you yourself are fighting against COI editors (editors that violate WP:NPOV policy). Now, how can you justify this para (from same bio): Odumeje was born in Imo state into a family of six and was the third born child. He had very limited formal education as he dropped out of school at an early age and cited “financial constraints” as the root cause. Prior becoming a clergyman, he relocated to Anambra state in search for a better life where he established a business as a struggling leather designer, a profession he would eventually abandon to establish a church. Where are multiple high-quality sources demanded by WP:BLP? There are numerous such examples available and there is a lot of evidence of these violations. I believe need a rest, so can better familiarize with these guidelines and policies. 2A02:810A:C80:280C:ED86:D00A:3C61:D9BC (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC) — 2A02:810A:C80:280C:0:0:0:0/64 has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      See also the Rita Edochie article, which claims to be about a 'veteran actress', but tells us nothing about her supposed acting career. Not the slightest indication of what her career entailed. No indication of roles she played. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. Instead we have a few details about her personal life, and some badly-sourced waffle about Edochie supporting Trump and upsetting fans. And then take a look at the final section, laballed 'Controversy' (always a bad sign...) A section apparently about Edochie "allegedly running a scam alongside a Nigerian pastor by the name of Odumeje, in which Edochie coerced or paid individuals to feign ailments and have the pastor pray for them and they got healed whilst in actuality they were never ill." That section is an unambiguous, blatant violation of WP:BLP policy. A moments inspection of the sources cited reveals that they offer no evidence regarding this alleged 'scam', and nothing to indicate that the incident was anything more than a dispute over remarks made by a Nigerian comedienne. Not that the sources cited give any appearance of being more than tabloid gossip. And note that this article is discussing the same clergyman that IP 2A02:810A:C80:280C:ED86:D00A:3C61:D9BC above points out is the subject of a frankly ridiculous supposed 'biography' hit piece full of sub-tabloid nonsense about miracles (staged or otherwise) and mysterious aliments which 'defied medical science'. A hit-piece biography that alleges that Rita Edochie was the pastor's alleged accomplice, while citing exactly the same garbage sources as the Edochie biography, for things the garbage sources don't even say.
      Creating articles, supposedly biographies, which are constructed almost entirely to disparage the subject - attack pages - is entirely unacceptable. As is the creation of a supposed biography to attack other individuals. It violates multiple policies, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP fror a start, even if properly sourced. And Celestina007 self-evidently either doesn't have the slightest clue what reliable sources are, or knows full well but ignores it when it suits her. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      And see also Ada Jesus for yet another 'biography' focussed almost entirely on pastor Odumeje, citing the usual sub-tabloid sources, when it cites anything at all.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @AndyTheGrump, Ada Jesus was created by Nnadigoodluck a few months before Celestina got him tbanned from BLPs. Cel hasn't edited the article. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion continued

    Having just arrived at this thread I find the betrayal of WP confidence so appalling that I support a global block on the user. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

    • Comment I encourage editors to read this section. There are issues that need to be resolved here, but they are not as bad as initially thought. BilledMammal (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Frankly I find threatening new users and pretending to have advanced permissions pretty appalling. Or maybe I'm just out of touch with what's considered acceptable here these days. Intothatdarkness 01:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      They gave the impression that they were threatening new users and pretending to have advanced permissions, but I believe that there were miscommunications and misunderstandings; Captain Eek has confirmed that Celestina provided an Editor Interaction Analysis report on Reading Beans to ArbCom, in the bizarre belief that the report contains sensitive information. There is a communication issue that needs to be resolved, but I don't think an indef is needed at this time. BilledMammal (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure how much miscommunication is better than malice here. If this is all because Celestina007 is having trouble making themself understood...holy WP:CIR, Batman! It's clear that UPE brings out the worst in this user, and if they're productive in other areas, a topic ban from UPE might solve the problem. 207.38.145.230 (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly disagree with a site block. I trust that the information that arbcom has received covers the complete picture of the situation and even more strongly trust their judgement on this matter. With Celestina's advanced permissions (mostly) revoked, I don't think any additional sanctions in this regard would be prudent. While I understand that a lot of editors might feel deeply uncomfortable with Celestina's statements, I'm not very confident in whichever reasoning is being used to justify the block. Their terrible wording/boasting of tools does not seem to warrant such a heavy sanction as a total block for me, really. Additionally, the arbs are satisfied with Celestina's private explanation. I do however strongly support a topic ban from UPE as the editor does not seem to be able to handle themselves in this topic area in a manner conducive to a collaborative editing environment, especially around editors with very few edits or unfamiliar with wiki processes. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 01:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's hard to dismiss what she said about the external tool which was developed in the Anti-fraud department of the government organization she works for, when she insists on saying that she never lies. M.Bitton (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral ... so far: Like many other editors, I've deep concerns about Celestina's actions, and am well aware that we've community banned people for less. But a heap of advanced permissions have already been stripped away, Celestina's been booted from VRTS, so correct me if I'm wrong, but as of right now Celestina not only has no more rights than Any Common Editor, but fewer than many. (That being said, I'd like to see Celestina remove mention of being a Teahouse Mentor from their talk page -- I doubt more than a bare handful of us aren't cringing right now at the thought of Celestina "mentoring" anybody.)

      Given that, perhaps Celestina can agree that our tolerance of their continued presence on Wikipedia relies on simply, basic, encyclopedia-building: no ANI disputes, no throwing their weight around, no playing UPE traffic cop, no boasting about how great a Nigerian-article-builder they are ... just working on improving articles. Celestina may be repeating that they would never betray our trust, but the bottom line is that such trust was betrayed. This is the only way I see for rebuilding any trust to move forward. Ravenswing 03:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • If someone told me they had access to secret government tools that could track my IP address through my activity on Wikipedia, I'd be very uncomfortable. If that had happened in my first decade on Wikipedia, when I still thought I could keep my identity somewhat private, I might have quit the project. That's what bothers me most here - the newbie intimidation. The contradictory claims that Celestina has made, the explanations that don't match the facts of the matter - all these things are very problematic. But it's the newbie biting that bothers me the most - and it doesn't seem like they've addressed that in their responses (though I might have missed something). Guettarda (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef — on en.wiki. Oppose global block as out of our purview and out of proportion, too. I've been busy off-wiki all day my time, but I note that threats, however veiled, that were designed to intimidate other users, are still being excused by some as acceptable in hunting down undeclared paid editors. Wikipedia is not a shooting gallery. This kind of bullying, which is what it is, is not condoned via mention of laws and not condoned via misuse of the checkuser tool; harassing a fellow editor on the basis of mere suspicion that they might be a sockpuppet of a blocked or banned user is also punishable, whether the suspicion is based on the interaction tool, knowledge of the blocked or banned user's tics, or hearing an echo of their voice, as in this case. We require people with such suspicions to submit them to a checkuser, and we require checkusers to scrupulously follow a code of conduct, precisely to avoid such a chilling effect. Celestina007 writes above of panic, which is missing the point. Scope creep seeks to excuse her conduct on grounds of justified anger: There is a huge and unmanagable problem on here, and that is UPE, and to get angry about and those who promulgate it and promote it, is a natural consquence of their actions. Few of us can control our emotions, but we are all expected here to control the way we interact with others. UPE is not such a "huge and unmanageable" problem on Wikipedia to justify suspension of basic civility, or unchecked assumption of bad faith and bullying based on it. I don't care one whit whether Celestina007 has been angry, or whether the warnings she previously received scared her (I had missed the earlier AN/I at which she was taken to task for assuming bad faith of editors in her hunt for paid editors). I care that she has probably lost us several good-faith new editors, made many of us feel unsafe, and remains unblocked. I want to make quite clear here that I regard her differing form of English as neither exculpatory (we expect editors to know the difference between "clandestine" and "not directly linked in the sidebar on every page") nor disqualifying; in service of our basic mission of broad encyclopedic coverage, and the subordinate objective of avoiding systemic bias by welcoming the broadest possible range of editors, we specifically accommodate different varieties of English, and far less comprehensible, syntactically weaker, and more "flowery" English than hers can be found in almost any of our articles tagged "Use Indian English". I wanted to leave the quality of her article creations (and of her NPP reviewing as demonstrated by an article I looked at yesterday that I believe falls under discretionary sanctions) out of this. And I can hardly opine on anything technical or judge anyone else's technical knowledge, but I suspect what happened in her test of her employer's tool was that she was in the office at the time and thus detection of her IP was kind of trivial. But AGF is not a suicide pact. The mission to root out paid editing does not override the need to protect the community and thus the encyclopedia from someone who repeatedly makes chilling threats. And an editing restriction won't do away with that danger to the encyclopedia, because it's behavioral. She needs to be blocked until she can convince an admin that she understands what she did wrong and will not do it again. I see Iridescent advocated above for a permanent indef, a ban. I feel a bit nervous not following suit, but I'm still AGFing enough to think she might get it. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Disclosure: I am a good wiiki-friend of Celestina007, so I find this a difficut discussion to see. I am not sure I should add a formal opinion and full opinion. Every time I have advised her to look carefully at a behaviour she has done so and moderated it. While one might argue that behaviours exhibited are unacceptable, and do so with success, I predict that she will moderate the behaviours that this discussion concludes to be unaccetpable, provided she is given the opportunity to do so. Thus I feel that an irrevocable outcome would be inappropriate. I believe we need an outcome she can recover from, and continue to be a useful and productive editor. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 05:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The degree of egotism on their user page, although no crime itself, should raise a red flag. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
      @Xxanthippe May I suggest that this is a behaviour susceptible to self moderation after advice? Many editors express egotism. By no means all are criticised for it. It is a point that should be made directly to Celestina007, so may I encourage you to do so? I do not see it a a particularly heavy weight in the scale pan of the decision the community is in the process of taking 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 05:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I completely agree with you that being egotistical is not a hanging offense and, in the absence of the stories in the threads above, nobody would consider that it should lead to disciplinary action. Many of us would fall by such a criterion. However, the impression that comes to me from the user page is that the primary objective of the editor is to promote themself rather than Wikipedia. I also note complaints in the threads above of POV editing of BLPs. In addition to the very serious matters raised about truthfulness and bullying inexperienced editors with trumped-up claims, my conclusion is that the editor has not shown a temperament conducive to editing Wikipedia in a collegiate manner and is unlikely to change their ways without much effort and self-examination. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
      @Xxanthippe I understand the points you make. I simply wish to point you back to my comment above: Every time I have advised her to look carefully at a behaviour she has done so and moderated it. I choose not to make a formal support or oppose regarding blocks or other measures based upon my disclosure. I have a general AGF for all editors until they prove to have no ability for redemption. I do not see that we are even close to that proof of irredeemability here, and my good faith remains intact. I am not concerned that we differ in our opinion, assuming we do. Disagreement is healthy. It creates better decisions. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I think she takes advice mostly from people she respects or sees as "powerful" editors. If a random editor with lesser privilege were to provide a constructive criticism or suggestion, it is very likely she would not take it well. Going forward, this is an area she needs to work on. Personally, I can count how many times she has deleted my comments from her talkpage, without any response. She should focus more on the message, not a supremacy battle with the messenger.HandsomeBoy (talk) 07:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      In her usual Kiss up kick down fashion. Princess of Ara 07:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Princess of Ara, that remark is an unpleasant ad hominem attack, and should be beneath you. WP:CIVIL is required at all times, please, whether you have a cordial relationship with an editor or whether you do not. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can't work with people who lie.
    When someone adds a source to an article we've got to be able to believe that the source says what they say it says. Liars are toxic because our job is to educate and inform and we have readers who are children or impressionable, vulnerable people. Lying has got to be grounds for an indef.—S Marshall T/C 08:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, this whole thing has been a mess, so I might have missed something, but I think we've established that there were no deliberate lies, only exaggerations and inaccuracies, some of which stem from the language barrier and genuine misconception on Celestina's part. For example, she didn't lie about having information she could only share with arbcom, but she actually believed editor interaction analysis was for arbcom eyes only and sent it to them as confirmed by CaptainEek. Are there any outstanding concerns about blatant and deliberate lies? Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any action per https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12529, and https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12581. I don't see how anyone can read through those discussions and still support any sanctions. Let alone how @Boing! said Zebedee: and @AndyTheGrump: haven't violated WP:STEALTH or a similar canvasing/harassment guideline in the process of their involvement in both discussions. As a side to that, if I'm reading the discussions right the IP editor that opened this is Giraffe Stapler, a banned user who has a personal axe to grind with Celestina007 for some reason. Also, the existence of the discussions is probably why Bbb23 reverted this. I can't say I blame them. The whole thing really isn't a good look. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem with Wikipediocracy is that it is to a certain extent a self-help and mutual therapy group for people who failed at Wikipedia: human beings so crap that they can't even navigate Wikipedia's lax and tolerant minimum standards of behaviour. There are reasons why they're gone. And any thread there consists of some reasonable people, some people who're deeply angry and resentful about how Wikipedians were nasty to them, and some people who think they're hilarious. I mean, I get why Wikipediocracy exists (hi guys, I hope Wikipediocracy is helping you to feel better about whatever mean things Wikipedia did to you) but we can't reasonably base useful decisions on Wikipediocracy threads, and we need to learn to disregard them.—S Marshall T/C 09:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't necessarily disagree with that, but neither discussion serves the purpose of being a "mutual therapy group." The discussing are about a specific person, their edits, and involve brainstorming how to get her banned. I'm sure you know the difference between a self-help discussion and one that's sole purpose is to drag someone through the mud and get them blocked. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        If you would like to try to breath life into WP:BADSITES, more power to you. But, as things currently sit, there is nothing preventing editors from participating or reading WO. They have a long track record of uncovering real issues mixed with bluster and conspiracy. I, personally, have found their commentary to have a respectable signal to noise ratio with a small amount of sieving. My account there is disclosed on my userpage and I skim the new threads once a week. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Adamant1, I don't really understand the point you're trying to make here. If you'd found evidence that they were working off-wiki to fabricate evidence that would be one thing, but nobody (including Celestina007 herself) is disputing either that the allegations made by the OP are genuine nor that they're issues of legitimate concern. I'm no fan of Wikipediocracy—in my admittedly limited reading of it I've found that what legitimate commentary there is gets drowned out by the old-timers kvetching about how much better things were in their day, and people who love to point out problems but never suggest workable solutions—but if they did identify the issue before we noticed it here and that was what caused the original post, then if anything we should be thanking them.
        I'm also a little confised by the IP editor that opened this is Giraffe Stapler, a banned user. I'm not seeing anything to suggest either that "Giraffe Stapler" and 207.38.145.230 are the same person, nor that either is a banned user—have you any evidence to support either claim? (I suspect you may be confusing "Giraffe Stapler" with the almost-homophonic Graaf Statler, but anyone with the slightest experience of the latter can see that they're neither Giraffe Stapler nor 207.38.145.230; both of them are clearly capable of making coherent statements.) ‑ Iridescent 12:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't mind or care if you read or comment at Wikipediocracy, Guerillero, and BADSITES is a hopeless non-starter for about four reasons. What I said is that we can't base good decisions on Wikipediocracy threads (or Wikipedia Sucks etc. either).—S Marshall T/C 13:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Get a room, guys.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    If anyone seriously thinks that Wikipediocracy discussing something is a legitimate reason to do nothing about it, I can only suggest that they need to think a little harder... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this really reminds me of the current situation here in the States, where a document leak has caused a great number of people to be horrified at the implications, while a minority are more upset about the leak. You can attack the messenger all day, but that doesn't change the valid comments from users in good standing. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not "Wikipediocracy discussing something" that I have an issue with. It's the extremely negative tone of the discussion, that it shows users involved in this discussion were targeting her/her BLP articles before this was opened, and that there is clearly an effort going on by them/others to get her blocked over things that are mostly hyperbolic and should have been dealt with in other ways on Wikipedia. Like someone else said, if her BLP articles are crap, cool. Edit them or take them AfD. Where have AndyTheGrump or Boing! said Zebedee done that? On or off site it shouldn't be OK to go off for a month about how a user is dumb, mentally ill, Etc. Etc. and then report them without doing anything else. Hell, from what I can no one going back to at least January has brought up the BLP thing on her talk page. The default shouldn't be to shit talk someone off site and then report them once it looks like you've gotten enough of an angry mob together for the person to be sanctioned. Outside of that, I don't support an indef block. That doesn't mean I don't/or wouldn't support other actions, like maybe a six months topic ban or something along those lines, but she's already been stripped of the privileges that led to this and I don't think the BLP thing alone is worth an indef as it mostly comes off like an issue of language/cultural differences. In no way was her being stripped of her privileges "doing nothing about it" either. I don't see why that and people sending her through the wringer in the meantime wouldn't be enough. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You may be surprised to learn that, not being an undeclared paid editor for Wikipediocracy, I don't read every thread there assiduously and then rush off immediately to Wikipedia to rectify things. And nor do contributors there all act in concert. We are generally too busy disagreeing with each other, or taking note of the failings of the world in general (the forum tends to wander off-topic rather a lot), to act in unison as Wikipedia-fixers, even if we wanted to. Some there clearly don't. A good few can't (or not without violating bans...). Those that can, do, sometimes. As and when they feel like it. Just like any other volunteers for this alleged 'online encyclopaedia'.
    Blaming Wikipediocracy for pointing out systematic failures in Wikipedia process really isn't a good look. And this is a systematic failure. It isn't just about Celestina, it is about Wikipedia enabling, long term, the behaviour that has led to this trainwreck of a thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure dude. Comments like "That's the bit that really screams "Look how dumb I am!", "Celestina007 has some S-tier delusions of grandeur", "She's a lying liar who habitually lies", or "Again, she's a lying liar who habitually lies. Indef is the only option here" aren't about Celestina and are just pointing out systematic failures in Wikipedia processes. Right. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem no have some difficulty understanding the concept of a 'forum'. I'm not responsible for everything everyone else posts there. So don't make accusations about me personally, and then quote what other people wrote as 'evidence'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what your talking about or where I made accusations about you. The quotes where in response to you saying that the Wikipediocracy discussion is about systematic failures in Wikipedia, which it clearly isn't. They had nothing to do with being 'evidence' for any non-existing accusations that you think I've made about you. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So your remarks about someone who you claimed violated WP:STEALTH or a similar canvasing/harassment were referring to another AndyTheGrump, were they? One alleged to go off for a month about how a user is dumb, mentally ill, Etc. Etc. and then report them without doing anything else? In which case, I suggest you clarify exactly who you were referring to. That, or cut out the shit-talking... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The quote was in reference to the IP editor that opened this. Whoever it, is I assume they are involved in the Wikipediocracy discussion. Nowhere have I said your the IP editor. That said, at least from what I've been able to tell neither you or anyone else involved in that discussion started a discussion on her talk page about the BLP issues or made any attempt to improve her articles before this was opened. So the discussion does come off like a bunch of shit talking all around with no actual action being taken outside of opening this. Just because you criticized the articles and otherwise participated in the discussion, but didn't go as far as calling her dumb like other people did doesn't mean you had nothing to do with it or her being reported. That said, if you can show me where you discussed the BLP thing with her or improved her articles after the Wikipediocracy discussions were started and before this was opened then fine. I'll strike your name out of what I said. I don't see any edits from you on either the Pericoma Okoye or Ebube Muonso articles though, just you criticizing them in the Wikipediocracy discussion. Nor have you attempted to discuss this with Celestina on her talk page. At least not that I'm aware of. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you will strike my name out regarding accusations that weren't referring to me in the first place, but only if I prove to you that I've already made edits to meet some arbitrary condition you've just pulled out of your arse? Ok, then, here's a counter-offer: I won't call you a fuckwit over on Wikipediocracy (not here of course, per WP:CIVIL) if you can prove to me that you aren't Lord Lucan. Or editing (paid or otherwise) on his behalf... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how it's an arbitary standard that I pulled out of my arse when your literally critizing her over, and said she be indefed for, her edits to BLP articles. Whatever you say though. In the meantime you can call me a fuckwit anywhere you want, including here. Whatever helps you cope man. I could really care less. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if you're missing that Adamant1's proposal was to do nothing because of the Wikipediocracy thread. My position is that lying should lead to an indef block no matter what Wikipediocracy's opinion on the matter might be.—S Marshall T/C 19:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If she hadn't of clarified what she meant then I'd agree with you, but her explanation seems plausible. She's brought up before that she has a disability. Depending on what the disability is, I can see where someone with a mental health condition might get a little confuddled. IMO the solution would have been to not give her the privileges in the first place if it was obvious from the start, which it seems to have been, that she wasn't cognitively capable of handling them appropriately. It's obvious she was in way over her head. I don't necessarily put that on her though. In the meantime I can see why she might use flowery, hyperbolic language as someone from Nigeria who has a disability. It's likely she's just trying to fit in with way more affluent, "better" speaking Westerners. I don't think she should be faulted for that. I've seen it happen a lot with users from India and I'd probably do the same thing. I don't know how many times I've been criticized or made fun of on here for making basic grammatical mistakes. Read the comments people made about her on Wikipediocracy or at least the ones I've quoted from. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've said in a previous ANI about Celestina, and will repeat: this happens because Celestina has chosen to work in an area that is completely impossible, and ultimately futile: UPE-hunting. There are two sorts of UPE-editing: (1) edits that are non-neutral, biased, or using private sources about the subject; these are unacceptable from any editor, paid or not, and can be corrected without assuming bad faith (much as we routinely remove obvious vandalism with the comment "unsourced" because that's easier than proving that the Pope isn't called David Beckham). (2) edits that are sourced and neutral; these are indistinguishable from good unpaid edits, and the payment cannot be discerned without either special tools or wild guesswork (anyone here got access to my bank account?). By definition, the UPE-hunter needs tools or can't assume good faith; so if Celestina has no such tools, she can't do the job. We would save a huge amount of time if people concentrated on sorting out biased and unsourced articles, promulgating their expertise in assessing sources (e.g. all those awards in dubious BLPs!), and stopped following the red-herring of payment. So logically, I'm in favour of a complete topic-ban on UPE-hunting extending to all users who are not part of a defined group equipped by WMF with appropriate rights and tools. Otherwise this debate is going to happen again, and again. Elemimele (talk) 09:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or we could indefinitely block, and this debate would immediately and completely stop happening.—S Marshall T/C 09:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I strenuously disagree with this. The fact is that plenty of UPEs are so blatant that they easily fall under WP:DUCK, and many of them are careless enough to repeatedly use the same account to push multiple clients. It is important to WP:AGF, but Wikipedia:Our social policies are not a suicide pact applies as well. And it's not sufficient to say "well, just edit from the perspective of making articles more neutral" - the freedom to determine that an editor is an UPE via WP:DUCK is necessary in order to go over all their edits with a fine-toothed comb while making it clear that you're not WP:HOUNDing them. Additionally, identifying and calling attention to such editors is important. Obviously you have to be careful when overtly stating that an editor's conduct breaks the limits of AGF, and if someone's judgment in that regard seems terrible then they shouldn't do it, but there's more than enough UPEs who clearly reach that point, and I'd strongly disagree with the argument that regular editors should never do it. If nothing else a large number of regular editors who keep an eye out for blatant UPEs is important because it provides direction to the people with the necessary tools (after all, none of our tools are magical - people have to read articles, determine if something looks like possible UPE, etc. The tools are only required at the last step, if anywhere.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • 99% of the time "UPE-hunting" is looking for correlations between off-wiki job advertisements and on-wiki edits. It doesn't need any special tools. – Joe (talk) 08:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The comment by Elemimele above, is the first sensible comment I've read on this witch-hunt so far. That could go a long way to start the process of defining a group along with a set of protocols, guidance, policies and tools to tackle these types who act against the WMF and us directly. scope_creepTalk 09:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Scope creep I am also very interested in what @Elemimele has said. Working at WP:AFC reviewers are exposed to all sorts of poor drafts, UPE included. I believe the project requires definite guidance, perhaps a defined group, into which we, the non group members, report our suspicions, much as happens at SPI. That removes the burden from the shoulders of those who work for the good of Wikipedia, but do not possess the tools to go beneath the surface.
      Perhaps we should consider this to be the outcome of the criticism of the single editor, and move the project forward into a better project for all. I would most definitely like to report UPE suspicions to a strained and licences team, and walk away from the report I might make. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi @Fiddle Faddle: Indeed, I totally agree. It would take a lot of the stress out of the whole thing. scope_creepTalk 10:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Scope creep As someone who often tries to work out how to process suspected UPE, I find I have no defined route to turn to. I have a feeling that any of us who do this could fall into the trap of a hostile report from a resourceful and determined UPE editor, after which historic actions that may have been innocent can be made to haunt us. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Very much so. Indeed. There is no guidance on it, at all. It is very much a black art, an amateur endeavour, the kind of industry you find before it professionalises. They are few specific or detailed approaches. As there is no guidance, actions taken that seem perfectly rationale at the time, may be seen to be ill advised in the present. scope_creepTalk 11:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Scope creep I am more than happy to make a proposal for a formal "SPI-Like" team top be set up. I am unsure of the correct venue. I find that the approach taken up to now of highly committed yet undirected amateurs (if you will pardon the word in this context) attempting to attack the problem has harmed some of those committed and gifted amateurs. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Fiddle Faddle, please do. It's not really my bag. I'm happy writing articles. I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with. I will be interesting. scope_creepTalk 18:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Timtrent and Scope creep: WP:COIN is the most appropriate venue to handle UPE. If we create a guidance page on how to identify UPE, it will be a guide for UPeditors as well, "how to avoid getting identified". If we discuss a lot about UPE on same venue/page, it will be full of WP:BEANS too. Creating a formalised team is a good idea. But again, I have seen some editors with clear record, lengthy tenure to be involved in paid editing. I have also seen some paid editors who started their account with intentions of UPE, blended in with the community as good-faith editors. How can we avoid such editors joining this team? Even if a team is set-up in future, the discussions should not spill beans. This conversation is sort of off topic, but if you (plural) are interested, then we can continue it on scope_creep's talkpage. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to User:Timtrent, User: scope_creep, User: usernamekiran, User: Elemimele - I agree that we need to discuss how better to fight Undisclosed Paid Editing. I invite you to offer a few ideas at the Idea Lab. (I don't think that WP:ANI is the best place to discuss solutions.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments - I will try to explain my comment at the very beginning of this thread, and to offer my own thoughts that mostly agree with much of what has been said. On her talk page, about two weeks ago, Celestina007 described her unusual mode of perception, a form of synesthesia that enables her to recognize the human behind an IP address or sockpuppet. That is the talent to which I referred at the very start of this thread. However, I see that she has also stated that she has special tools, and that she has been inconsistently intimidating in those statements.
      • So Celestina has made two actually unrelated claims, to having a talent or special mode of perception, and to having tools. I believe her statement about being able to identify the human behind a post. I don't know how much of her statement about tools to believe, but I think that it is mostly false, and mostly bluster intended to intimidate.
      • Undisclosed Paid Editing is a serious problem, and is a threat to Wikipedia. It in particular is an attack on the second pillar of Wikipedia, neutral point of view. But we must maintain the fourth pillar of Wikipedia, civility, in fighting UPE. Falsehoods are not an acceptable way to advance support of truth. Paid editors tell lies. Those lies do not justify lying to new editors who may or may not be paid editors.
      • Sometimes editors who are fighting undisclosed paid editing feel that they are all alone and that the community is ignoring them. They are not alone, and the community supports the editors who work against paid editing honestly. But they make themselves all alone if they resort to falsehoods or empty threats.
      • I don't know how much of what Celestina says about her tools is true, but I think that she is mostly lying.
      • I don't know what the community should do.

    Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for that, Robert McClenon; now, back to you in the studio. SN54129 16:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Celestina has been stripped of her tools. That's enough. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal : Topic ban

    Above, I was pinged for my opinion, and it is : The civility policies are not optional when working on anti-spam and vandalism.

    There is no point being incivil or intimidating to vandals and spammers (or, to be more accurate, people you think are vandals and spammers). Genuine bad-faith editors thrive off attention, and getting angry or aggressive tells them that they can poke your buttons and get a reaction. We have an essay, Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals. On the other hand, mistaking a new good-faith editor for bad and then being incivil at them is a straight forward violation of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers.

    I appreciate that Celestina007 is trying to explain themselves and doing so badly, which has caused so much confusion and concern on this thread. As mentioned above, I have previously closed an ANI thread admonishing them and asking them to be more civil in future. Combine that with the general feeling that Celestina hasn't got the required communication skills to justify use of any tools, means they should not have them. I would support an indefinite block as several other editors have proposed, but I don't see a consensus for one, so instead I am going to propose that Celestina007 is indefinitely topic-banned from all anti-spam activities, broadly construed. Your thoughts, please.

    Support as proposer Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Support as a minimum, assuming we're not going down the blocking route. I'd probably word it slightly differently, to "Celestina007 is indefinitely banned from interacting with, or mentioning on any page, any editor she believes is a potential spammer or sockpuppet, from editing any page she believes is potential spam, or from nominating any page for deletion regardless of whether or not she believes it to be spam. If she believes an editor to be a spammer or a sockpuppet and this belief is on the basis of demonstrable evidence, she may make a single post at either Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations as appropriate, in the form "I have concerns about [editor name] based on [evidence]" to allow third parties to assess if her concern is legitimate and deal with it appropriately.". I personally don't feel a topic ban will be sufficient—while it addresses the concerns about false accusations and newbie-biting it fails to address the apparent issues with integrity, and I suspect we'll be back here a third time in another couple of months—but it doesn't appear there's consensus for a block and going the topic-ban route would give her the opportunity to demonstrate that she's able to follow our rules regardless of whether or not she agrees with them. ‑ Iridescent 12:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In light of all the discussion of potential mentoring below, reiterate my support for at minimum a topic ban along the lines of my proposed wording. Claiming to have access to secret government surveillance software and threatening to use it against editors against whom she's taken a dislike is not over-exuberant language, it's either lying in an attempt to bully and harass or it's truthful in which case it's grounds for an immediate siteban. Even if some kind of mentoring goes ahead, Celestina007 should not be allowed to interact directly with new users or people she believes to be spammers on the basis of 'instinct' (although I'd be happy to vary the second sentence of my proposed wording above to "If she believes an editor to be a spammer or a sockpuppet and this belief is on the basis of demonstrable evidence, she may make a single post at User talk:DGG, in the form "I have concerns about [editor name] based on [evidence]" to allow third parties to assess if her concern is legitimate and deal with it appropriately.".) ‑ Iridescent 04:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I have been watching this thread, but also trying to be mindful of Phil Bridger's sage advice to not pile-on. I do not doubt Celestina007's good intentions here, but the conduct is indeed troubling. I have noticed (100% possible this is just my subjective experience) an uptick in editors who seem primarily concerned with Wikipedia rectitude, whether for reasons of paid editing, competence, or simply not being here to create an encyclopedia. These are all needed functions, but I fear that there's a bit of a rush from such successful "prosecutions," such that those pursuing them are incentivized to continue doing so. I don't want to call them "witch hunts," but I fear I don't have the vocabulary to invoke a less ideologically freighted term. I felt the need simply to shine a bit of a light on that--but as to Celestina007, I think she should be encouraged to continue working on Wikipedia, but I agree that she needs to take a break from this sort of activity for some time. Both she and the community need a reset, and I think Ritchie333's proposal is narrowly tailored to achieve that. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I've followed the thread and stepped in where I figured it was necessary, but I have also been careful to avoid any direct judgement without a clear community consensus. In my mind, the biggest offense here by far is the civility, past and present, towards other editors. There's a good reason we have several policies in place such as WP:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers & WP:CIVILITY. Now, being a typical "in the breaches" admin on Wikipedia, I'm no stranger to vandalism, abuse and trolling but no matter how you look at it we should always strive to be nice and respectful to one another regardless of viewpoint and agenda. Perhaps we could learn something from each other, even though we are different and in different circumstances. It is also for this reason that I support a topic ban more than a straight up indef block. I always try to give people second chances and perhaps that is lenient given this has happened before but I also never give up hope that people can learn something from the consequences of their actions and move on as a more complete person. Oz\InterAct 13:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd like to clarify I am supporting a temporary TBAN, say 6 months. Oz\InterAct 15:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN from UPE. 0xDeadbeef (T C) 13:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a topic-ban from UPE work and anti-spam. To be clear, I would also support going beyond that to an indefinite block due to the breadth of issues brought up now and in the past. I agree with Elemimele's very sensible comment that this is a thankless area. Problems created by UPE (which are very real) can be handled under our core principles of neutrality, verifiability, and notability. I've now read this whole thread. This user's behavior has crossed the line many times - in implying or claiming to have tools they don't, in threatening users they believe are taking part in UPE (sometimes baselessly), in describing themselves as "renowned" (a red flag if there ever was one) and implying that they have the power to block users, which they do not. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose ill-defined. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Reaffirming oppose on tban. Further sanctions here are not going to do better than mentorship offered by highly respected editors below. As I have said earlier, the problem is obviously communication. Tbanning from one area is not magically going to improve that, but a mentorship might. Cel has already been stripped off multiple perms; I don't think more pile-on is the answer. We might as well ban her (she might not even return at all anyway) if we are not willing to give mentorship a chance. Speaking for myself, a ban is way premature. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Opppose I must oppose. I think a period of introspection for six months or a year would do any person good, and this would apply equally well to Celestina, but indefinently topic banning would lead to a net negative for Wikipedia as a whole. There is so few folk working in the difficult area of UPE/Spam/Anti-vandal area that removing an active particpant makes a real difference. I think an indefinite ban is self-destructive. There is no people lining up to happily work in this area. I would support a year's topic ban. scope_creepTalk 14:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm assuming Ritchie333 means "indefinite" here as "undefined". Given that I think there's virtual unanimity that Celestina007's continued participation in this area is currently actively damaging, a topic ban of some kind is the minimum that can happen here; "until you understand what is and isn't acceptable" is much more likely to work than "in six months you can come back and pick up where you left off". ‑ Iridescent 14:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I understand what your saying, but a year is a long time. Unfortunately there is no training or guidance a person can take that helps. You just have to hope the person gets it. I suspect if that happens, Celestina will leave, it will be one editor less working in this already unpopular area, leading to many dozens to hundreds of other junk articles coming onto Wikipedia. That group and the people who work to take articles to Afd and CSD, the regular and irregulars, they are keeping it all bay. If they stopped en-masse, Wikipedia would be gone in weeks. It would be overwhelmed. So I like preserve capabilty as much possible and try from this point forward. It takes an age to learn to spot a coi editor. But time is needed, no-doubt, hence the reason I suggested a year off for reflection. scope_creepTalk 14:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Iridescent is right - "indefinite" means "until Celestina files a successful appeal". As for the rest of your comment, it seems to be a cliche covered in WP:UNBLOCKABLES - "This reasoning implies that if this one user isn't allowed unrestricted access to the article or topic area, it will rapidly fall into ruin and become an embarrassment to Wikipedia." At least one could make the argument that Eric Corbett wrote articles that people might actually read. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      On the subject of WP:UNBLOCKABLES, we mustn't fall into the trap of thinking that an editor shouldn't be blocked/topic banned because they fall into categories (such as women and people from Africa) that are severely under-represented on Wikipedia. Yes, we should encourage more such people to edit, but we shouldn't hold them (I say "them" because I am a white, late middle-aged, middle-class European man with only my mild invisible disability putting me in a disadvantaged group) to any different standard. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with what the three of you are saying, it makes perfect sense, that is what makes it so difficult. I think I've made by point. scope_creepTalk 16:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as insufficient, and merely shifting problems elsewhere, and giving an entirely false impression that Celestina007's editing behaviour elsewhere has been acceptable. As has been noted above (see the section entitled 'BLP and NPOV violations') it is readily apparent that Celestina007 has little grasp of central policies (WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS in particular), and has created articles which on their own would quite arguably justify a topic ban from writing biographical content on living individuals. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That section has been created by a WP:SPA with an an axe-to-grind, who has likely had a run-in with Celestina at some point in the past. Having checked it, I see it has little bearing on reality. scope_creepTalk 14:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't give a damn if the section has been created by the thirteenth reincarnation of Beelzebub himself (which it might as well have been, given your lack of evidence for your claims regarding this 'SPA'). The evidence of significant violations of WP:BLP policy is in plain sight, for all to see. I suggest people go see for themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      They have. If you think they NPOV or BLP violations, or they're is something else that at odds with acceptable standards, take the articles to Afd, then we will decide how good the quality of article is. I don't take anything that a SPA says with 6 edits. Not one word. scope_creepTalk 16:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Could you translate that into English please. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      "People have seen for themselves. If you think the articles do not have a neutral point of view, or violate the policy on biographies of living persons, or they break some other policy, then you should voice your concerns at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I do not trust anything which is said by a single-purpose account with 6 edits. Not a word." @AndyTheGrump a translation for you casualdejekyll 18:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support along the lines of Usedtobecool’s objection and Iridescent’s alternative proposal. I cannot see a good reason to sanction her for removing obvious link-swapping vandalism, even though it is an anti-spam activity (a somewhat nebulous term). I would be ok with something along the lines of a one-year TBAN on anti-spam activities provided that there is an exception for blatant vandalism. A one-year implementation of Iridescent’s proposal also seems appropriate, since it would allow the user to report obvious socking while addressing the civility issue. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC) (modified — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC))[reply]
      To further emphasize this point, I think that a time-limited TBAN (whether it be six months or one year) is probably better than an indefinite one in this case. The user has not exactly been banned for this sort of thing before and they are able to positively contribute to other areas. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that DGG's mentorship offer is something that will likely work if Celestina is willing to earnestly take it. If the community feels like this will not work and that a topic ban is necessary, I still endorse my comment directly above this one in holding that a temporary ban is better than an indefinite one. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose an indefinite topic ban. I believe editors need to be able to redeem themselves, and indeffing seems to be a kick in the teeth, a punishment, not preventative, and with a feeling that there is no way out. I would support a short duration topic ban, no more than six months, and align myself with Scope creep's comments in this section. I ask the community "Who woudl work in this imoportant area if we punish someone whose heart is in the right place though whose methods have been judged to be contriversial?" 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      For the avoidance of doubt I am aware that 'indefinite' does not mean 'for ever'. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having been throughout the discussion, I tend to Oppose an indefinite TBAN from UPE etc. however like scope_creep, I feel that the community must give some time to introspect and see if any change is coming up or not, as Celestina promises in several of her responses. I support a limited TBAN from UPE as well. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd drop my opinion even on limited tban, if DGG's mentorshop proposal is followed by Celestina, as MER-C has pointed out. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - albeit a little regretfully and perhaps using the wording proposed by Iridescent. I appreciate the genuine desire of Celestina007 to root-out UPE but I just can't endorse the methods used, particularly towards new editors who may very well be creating a spammy article in good faith. Having read much of this very lengthy, convoluted and often bizarre thread I ultimately don't think this behaviour can go unsanctioned. Indef does not mean forever and if Celestina007 can show competence in other areas of the project then any topic ban can be appealed. AusLondonder (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite I consider the interactions between Celestina and any editor she is they are suspicious of to be the most critical issue in all of this. HerTheir obsession with UPE and hertheir conviction that hertheir "instincts" are evidence have resulted in behavior toward other editors that is detrimental to the project. Schazjmd (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reaffirming my support for indefinite topic ban and Iridescent's clarifying language, because of DGG's offer of mentorship. Celestina's judgement has been called into question in this discussion, both because of statements she'sthey've made herself and the questionable articles that she'sthey've written. Other editors have relied on hertheir personal determinations of which Nigerian topics are notable and which are UPE, and I think there should be some concern that hertheir opinions might have been granted too much weight. I agree with what Intothatdarkness says below: I'm also a bit concerned that we have to rely on the "accurate instinct for what is actually notable and important" of a single user when dealing with an entire content area. Doesn't this open that area for bias and slanting by that single user's opinions (no matter how noble they might seem to be)? Schazjmd (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support although I would also support an indef block, this seems to be the most accepted solution. The user's behavior is simply unacceptable, and I find arguments based on the areas they work in unconvincing. Intothatdarkness 15:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Ritchie, as has been the case with other Topic Ban proposals I have run across in the past, I am inclined to ask for clarity. When you say "anti-spam" does this include "anti-vandalism" activities to include reverting clear cases of vandalism or spam on the project? --ARoseWolf 15:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I would assume the policies set out in WP:BANEX would apply. So, for example, blatant and obvious vandalism on their user page would be fine to revert. The "vandalism" that might be controversial is the more subtle kind of POV pushing or promotion done out of malice to prove a point. Again, if an article is a clear and obvious G3 candidate that just about any admin would delete without hesitation, would be covered by this criteria. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you, Ritchie. I really appreciate the time you took to answer my question as it helped resolve my position. --ARoseWolf 16:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have updated my support/concerns the comment below. support indefinite topic ban, with appeal no sooner than six months. This entire thread has grown a lot in last 24 hours - the last I had seen it. To summarise what I want to say: the topic ban only discusses about UPE/anti-spam activities. The issue is not limited to only this. The major issue is their tone with new comers. Celestina007 was cautioned about their intimidating other editors, which they reverted with edit summary "enough" diff. Later, they were also taken for their improper accusations regarding UPE to ANI. The thread was closed without any action, but they were warned by the closing admin: Celestina007 is advised to review the civility and no personal attacks policies, and moderate their tone in discussions, otherwise future sanctions may occur. That was around none months ago. (ANI thread). I am not contesting their work in UPE related areas, but there have been many inaccuracies as well. If some self proclaimed "literally the most renowned editor dealing with XYZ related articles in the history of the English Wikipedia[...]" had talked to me in that tone, with threat to my privacy, I would have left Wikipedia out of concern/fear (diff)(I changed "Nigeria related articles" to XYZ related articles). That begs the question, how many good-faith newbies did we lose because of Celestina007's communication? Celestina007 was given the rope already, she was cautioned multiple times, yet there is intimidating behaviour again - 48 hours ago from now. Celestina007 had ample time to cut down their intimidating communication. That also brings us to "language barrier". Like TrangaBellam said above, Celestina007 should stop using flowery words and ornamental phrases. Even though English is my third language, I have native fluency in it. But lot of my friends dont, and they end up twisting up the meaning of their statements in attempt to use "fancy" words. Celestina007 should avoid it as well, and try to use plain/simple English. They should also be mindful of WP:RETENTION, and like this proposal says - about WP:Please do not bite the newcomers as well. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • support indefinite topic ban as suggested by Iridescent, with appeal no sooner than six months. My original comment was a bit little longer, but my browser crashed suddenly (a known issue), hence the second version came out a little differently. My original comment included a few things/advices on communication with newbies, and if Celestina007 should be firmly admonished about it. That includes, but not limited to bitey stuff, and self-praise (losely "greatest Nigeria related editor in the history of english wikipedia" - diff in the comment above), and in this thread they've said themselves (sic) "In the last 6 years I have been a beckon of light and hope, not just at negating unethical practices but also at the Teahouse, New page reviewing and article creations." I find such comments in self-praise objectionable/concerning, and they need to be discussed. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose tban, of any duration to be assessed (but preferably some point before Vigilant runs out of popcorn, although god knows when that'll be at this rate). WP:PAID is a sink—both time and a personal one—and while the amount of work one puts into an area is no excuse for ill-behavior, it's certainly mitigation, and I find most of the complaints tendentially exaggerating. Mostly, I think, born out of a highly-idiosyncratic orthographical style combined with misunderstanding what the tools (scripts?) she's using actually do and what they demonstrate. I think the issue is more a combination of enthusiasm to get the job done with an over-certainty with what what that particular job in hand entailed. Put it another way—and this can be taken as applying to all the crappier, unsexy corners of the project editorts leave whether through Arbcom, ANI or sheer burnout—Volunteers are being broken and to a great degree it is our fault for providing minimal tools and even less support. For those of us who do not think "editor retention" means giving paid spammers a warm welcome, think on. In this particular case, an editor who jas had very few run nis at ANY seems to be treated like an egregious character, which is I think as much a misunderstanding on our part as they have been accused of herself. And yet misunderstandings continue: G-locks proposed that could never be achieved, infinite blocks that don't exist, NPP processes that it now appears are rarely used, all weaken the case for the prosecution. Immeasurably. SN54129 15:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Iridescent's proposal, Neutral on this, Oppose a glock or block. casualdejekyll 18:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Iridescent's proposal. I understand the rationale for a time limited ban, but I disagree with them because this is a "show me you've changed" problem which time is not guaranteed to fix. No comment on the other stuff. MER-C 19:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I would suspend the ban provided that mentorship is undertaken with DGG. MER-C 16:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    *Opppose I don't see how she can do anti-spam activities or miss-represent things now that she's been stripped of her privileges. In the meantime having her privileges cut down to less then a lot of regular users seems like enough of a sanction/lesson. The BLP thing might be problematic, but it seems mostly like a language/cultural issue that can be solved other ways besides sanctioning her. Making it so she can't do UPE or anti-spam activities definitely isn't going to improve her article writing abilities. Honestly, I really don't get why AndyTheGrump Et al. didn't just discuss the BLP issues with her, edit the articles, or AfD them if they were that horribly written. I'm sick of seeing ANI used as the default, lowest effort way to deal with problems. That said, I might support a time limited topic ban per Timtrent, but like I've said I don't really see how she can have any problems with UPE/anti-spam activities going forward when she's been stripped of her privileges. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support indefinite topic ban appealable at AN after a year, although I would very much prefer an indefinite block. Celestina has made similar promises to be less bitey but here we are again after just 9 months. The fact of the matter is that she has a long history of taking a combative and uncivil approach to discussions, which is a behaviour we need less of amongst editors here. Princess of Ara 19:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I still support an indefinite topic ban as the minimum sanction and will still readily vote in favour of an indefinite block. It's quite alarming that someone who has been mentoring new users is now being put up for mentorship. This is an editor who has been under the tutelage and guidance of respected editors such as [MER-C and Kudpung] yet still has chronic and intractable behavioural issues.Princess of Ara 18:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite topic ban, broadly construed. Indefinite seems best to prevent harm because this sanction relates to WP:CIR, WP:BITE, and WP:IDHT. A time-limited ban does not seem adequate to address the future harm that may occur if Celestina007 returns to anti-spam work without a clear acknowledgement of the reasons for the sanction and a confirmation of what must change to prevent future harm to the encyclopedia. Beccaynr (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as a minimum sanction. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adding to the removal of sensitive permissions, I Support indefinite topic ban as proposed. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as both insufficient and setting the editor up to fail. Identifying and punishing UPE and more broadly "spam" is Celestina007's main focus. She has made at least one statement trying to get others to join her in this quest, and I first became aware of her when she was posting here frequently asking for blocks of fellow Nigerians on that basis. A topic ban would be extremely hard for her to adhere to, especially now that attention has been drawn to the weakness of her own article work. (Apart from the question of attack articles, last night I spent a lot of time on Clifford Orji, the last article on Iridescent's list of poor initial creations above, and found most of the sources did not support what they were cited for, while some supported things they were not cited for. Celestina007 was the main contributor to that article. And the actress article with nothing about her career is on my list if nobody else improves it first.) We need more articles on notable Nigerian topics; one of the reasons Celestina007's "throwing her weight around" (Liz's word and hyper-focus on witch-hunting (Dumuzid's reluctantly suggested term) is so damaging to the encyclopedia is that she has lost us new editors in this under-represented area, by deliberately driving people away. But as the discussion above shows, her hatred of UPE and belief that it represents an existential threat to the encyclopedia are views shared by other editors. Note the references above to a "pile-on" to people who criticize her conduct as fundamentally damaging to the encyclopedia. Her problem is her bullying behavior based on that belief. The ends do not justify the means, but she and others writing here regard those ends as not just noble, but overwhelmingly important. So the appropriate remedy is a block to protect the encyclopedia from her zeal until she can figure out that the problem is her behavior as gate-keeper (which may be less than a day after the block for all I know). That is, as I understand it, the basis of our entire civility policy: given the nature of the project, we will disagree with each other, sometimes over quite basic things such as whether to worry more about someone being paid or the quality of their work (I think I am seeing the basis of Elemimele's argument differently from some others here, as suggesting hunting for paid editors is a violation of AGF best removed from editorial give-and-take and left to a special group analogous to the check-users), but we must work together, which requires basic respect for the person and their right to have a different perspective. As S Marshall among others has emphasized, lying is a breach of that principle, but I take Celestina007's untruths, which include a lot of contradictory responses, as an indication that she does not yet understand the fundamental point: that how she has treated people was not justified by her objectives. That does not indicate she could follow a topic ban. I apologize for pinging so many people and for getting into aspects of her editing that I had hoped to avoid in this discussion. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose an indefinite topic ban, support a 6-month topic ban mentorship. Celestina had made some very serious mistakes in her communications and representations of her aleged authority, however, she has done excellent work rooting out WP:UPE and WP:SPAM. UPE/SPAM in my opinion corrupt the integrity of the encylopedia and lowers the credibility of Wikipedia. If we look at the big picture, she is, and always has been, a net positive here. I believe the core of her character is deeply ethical, but she let her ego and associated feelings of power get the best of her, and it did some damage. She was not truthful and lost the trust of the community. I believe she can change, rehabilitate and restore her innate sense of caring and kindness; behaviors we have also seen again and again in her time here. I think a six month topic ban mentorship is more appropriate - she is smart and quick to learn and I have no doubt that she can become a fully competent and honest member of this community that she so deeply cares about. Netherzone (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I modified my !vote above, striking "6-month topic ban" and changing it to 6-month period of mentorship by DGG, which he kindly offered. To my mind, this seems like a win-win for the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support an indefinite topic ban but would prefer an indefinite block. The egotistical tone of the editor's user page and behavior on these threads and elsewhere makes me doubt that they will ever change their ways. Any discussion on Wikipediocracy should be completely ignored. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
    • Oppose - Just can't get passed the fact that a 7-edits in 7 years IP, made this ANI report. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      What has that got to do with the merits of the case that has been made? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
      A 7-edits in 7 years IP presumably controlled by a banned user not banned user (sorry, Stapy) who is very active on Wikipediocracy....
      Seems relevant, but not to the merits of the case, necessarily. casualdejekyll 23:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      What should we do, mass phishing through talk page links that actually take you to another site and back to Wikipedia to unmask anyone who we are curious about? 73.6.77.46 (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      And to clarify, that isn't a suggestion. It would be evil, yet simple. It's the reason I don't have an account. 73.6.77.46 (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Love ya too, Stapy. I take it back. You do not appear to be Stapy. I do not love you. [Humour] casualdejekyll 23:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Dad??? :( 73.6.77.46 (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Stapy has a step-brother?! —usernamekiran (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Support topic ban per suggestions by Ritchie333 and other users. Haleth (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    (This is to the IP editor. Not sure what the daddy stuff is in-between, but whatever. To each their own) Sure we can't go mass phishing through talk page links to unmask people or whatever, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be a factor. Just like other forms of off site canvasing/advocating are often factored into discussions. Otherwise, your kind of allowing people to do things that are otherwise not allowed just because they offloaded it to another site. At the end of the day things related to Wikipedia should be discussed on Wikipedia. Especially in cases like this where there was supposedly a serious concern about Celestina using hacking to tools to out people. If it was actually serious and worthy of her being banned over then it shouldn't have been discussed off site for two months before it was reported. Otherwise, it just comes off like a bad-faithed, meritless, revenge report that only happened because enough people on Wikipediocracy eventually got behind it. I don't see how that isn't relevant or can just be ignored. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    At the end of the day things related to Wikipedia should be discussed on Wikipedia? Um, no. This isn't some piddling little sect (political, religious, whatever...) that keeps its secrets to itself. This isn't a Democratic Centralist organisation that compels members to toe the party line, under threat of expulsion and/or holidays in Siberia. This is a volunteer website hosted by a charitable organisation with an annual revenue of over US$150 million. This is a website that consistently gets its articles at the top of search engines. This is a website that considers it appropriate to create articles of sometimes questionable merit on anyone and anything it choses. So no, 'things related to Wikipedia' should be subject to scrutiny anywhere and everywhere. By anyone who choses to look. And discussed in any way they damn well chose. Because, you know, 'free knowledge', 'free speech' and all that... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So your fine with nothing being done about someone potentially using hacking tools to dox users except for people discussing it off wiki for 2 months in some random forum because 'free knowledge' or whatever? Weird take, but alright. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm not fine about any such thing, as should be obvious to anyone with an IQ above that of a bag of cashew nuts. So remind us again who it was that wrote Oppose any action because Wikipediocracy had a thread on this. And then, for the sake of all that is holy, and unholy, and all that denies the existence of such things, go consult a dictionary and look up "your" and "you're". This purports to be an English-language encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd welcome "scrutiny" and it doesn't matter if I didn't; Wikipedia is going to get scrutiny whether we like it or not. But this is not the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. People like Tarc or Jytdog can't, and site-banned users are disproportionately represented on Wikipediocracy because of its origins as a voice for the axe-grinders. Surely you can see the problem with site-banning them for terrible judgment and horrible behaviour but then running around editing to their order.—S Marshall T/C 01:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't edit to anyone's orders. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm...doesn't it say in the masthead on the main page that Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit? At least until they violate rules, policies, or standards and are removed by community action. Maybe some of those folks have, maybe they haven't. I have no idea. What I have seen in this thread are pretty clear examples of a user who has violated standards and compromised their trust with the community. I've also seen some pretty strident attempts to minimize those transgressions (which appear to have happened frequently enough in the past to be considered a pattern of behavior on the part of Celestina). Removing permissions may mitigate some of the damage, but it's not going to address the underlying behavioral issue. And it's that behavior that can (and apparently has) drive off new users. Intothatdarkness 01:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide some examples where she drove off new users (preferably ones that were not SPAs/paid editors)? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm referring to comments made earlier in this thread. I doubt if we'll ever know for sure how many new users her behavior may have impacted, so I will show good faith and strike one part of my earlier comment. You seem to be fine with her behavior, though. Apparently standards have changed... Intothatdarkness 02:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. There's a difference between someone being "impacted" by her actions and "driven off" by them, which is what you originally said. I'm not saying examples don't exist, but I've read through the whole discussion and don't remember there being any examples of her driving off users. Obviously it would be an issue if there were, but I don't think people just being "impacted" by her behavior justifies any actions being taken beyond her privileges being revoked. Let alone an indef block or anything close to it. Everyone's behavior impacts other users. That said, if there are provable examples of her driving people off I'm willing to support a six month topic ban or something along those lines depending on how many people she drove off and what the circumstances were. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretending that you have access to some vague "government surveillance" and holding that over someone's head like a threat is just nasty behaviour in principle, whether or not it actually intimidated anyone into not contributing. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 03:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with Ficaia and others. We indef for "legal threat" in cases far less explicit than "I will sue you!", including cases in which the threat is patently unrealistic (as it seems was the case with some of Celestina007's claims of technical resources) because the threat has a chilling effect. However, Adamant1, when looking at that earlier AN/I (opened on July 22, 2021, closed on July 26), I was struck by the cited example of Armanoid, a legal intern whose talk page she peppered with assumptions of bad faith, whose article she AfD'd apparently on the assumption the subject was not notable—closed as keep on July 12 after no one else argued for deletion, but with Celestina007 arguing tenaciously for her viewpoint—and the editor's last edits were on July 13. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure that wasn't great of her, but I'm not going to advocate for sanctioning someone because of a single incident from a year ago that was already dealt with. In general the whole idea of taking action against someone purely because of the existence of a past ANI complaint is just ridiculous. Especially when it was from a year ago and no action was taken. Sorry, but there should really more then that. In this case, the bar has moved so low over time to sanctioning her for such ridiculously benign behavior that it's bordering on the farcical. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    At 19:55, 29 April 2022, Celestina007 posted a UPE Warning at User talk:Gabriel601, and Gabriel601 denied a COI. At 19:56, 29 April 2022, Celestina007 posted a Sockpuppetry Warning at User talk:Gabriel601, and Gabriel601 replied they had only one wiki account. Celestina007 replied at 10:55, 30 April 2022:

    It’s an AGF warning, I have AGF warned you, Timtrent has been gracious enough to do same. It’s one thing to claim you have no COI or engage in socking and its a whole other thing for your actions(article creations) to betray your claim. If you continue creating promotional non notable articles that you’d be indefinitely blocked is a certainty. I wouldn’t AGF warn you again.

    In a discussion with Timtrent, Gabriel601 denied being a paid editor at 07:38, 30 April 2022. At 11:19, 30 April 2022, Celestina007 nominated Guchi (musician) for deletion (created by Gabriel601), after removing sources listed at WP:AFSL, [53], [54]. The nomination states,

    Promotional paid job on a non notable WP:TOOSOON Nigerian musician who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them and do not meet any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO. I’m an expert on Nigerian sources and I can expressly state that sourcing is absent in this article. Furthermore the article creator has been indicted in deliberately adding falsehood in their articles which was first spotted by Praxidicae & Timtrent. Please see AFD & this AFD. They are intentionally adding falsehood in their articles perhaps hoping it gets undetected.

    As of this writing, Gabriel601 has not edited since 07:40, 30 April 2022. Beccaynr (talk) 06:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Beccaynr. Adamant1, benign may not have been a good choice of words, but I'm pinging you anyway in case you didn't see that a second example has been found, and it's recent, and in case the number of users demonstrably driven away is still important to you. And I don't think we should forget that several admins and other experienced users have cautioned and tried to advise Celestina007 to be more civil. Nor that the AN/I closed with her being strongly cautioned. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping and for finding some actual proof of her running off people. I've changed my vote to support the topic ban. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose (short reason) - per WP:ROPE. (TL/DR reason) - While I appreicate Ritchie333's proposal, I think we need to look at the wider picture of Celestina007's contributions. An editor in pretty good standing, with a clean block-log and no editing restrictions to date (that I'm aware of). If someone acting in good faith makes a mistake, then they should be able to learn from that mistake without the fear of restrictions on what they do, or worse, an indef, as called for by some, above. I think there's a recent shift in wiki-culture to go to harsh(er) penalties for editors without trying to help them fix a problem in the first instance. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Lugnuts and Ravenswing: since you said tl;dr, my support comment in this proposal section may give you a little idea. To be very very brief: they were cautioned warned about intimidating other editors a several times (including by Liz on Celestina007's talkpage). Flouq had warned about these CU claims almost a month ago, and so did TNT a few days ago. Still they hadn't removed the claims, there were emails as well to Celestina007 from both the users. Regarding rope, they were already given rope nine months ago, but their behaviour has not changed much (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1073#User:Celestina007). —usernamekiran (talk) 07:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, no, I did read through the whole thing, heaven help me. I stand by my concurrence to Lugnuts' opinion. That being said, I also don't feel hugely strongly about it, I agree that Celestina007 screwed up hugely, and I'm not going to gnash my teeth in fury if a ban is enacted. Ravenswing 18:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      PS: I did not want to badger your opinion, I explained it because you used tl;dr, and wanted to explain breifly. To be honest, I havent read the recent 20% ish thread. It really is tl of tl;dr. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      No, that's fine. I think it's one of those cases that if you start to read every last comment and explore every single diff, you'll have wasted a day! Thanks though. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I closed the previous ANI, and have since spent time talking to Celestina007 both on and off-wiki about conduct, trying to explain to them why some things they said were problematic. I'm sorry it's come to this, and the topic ban proposal is nothing personal and simply done because I can't think what else to do. There are far too many complaints from the community that Celestina's conduct is damaging Wikipedia's reputation to new and less experienced editors, even though I still think everything they do is in good faith. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    *Oppose: per Lugnuts. While I don't have a particular problem with Iridescent's version of the proposal, Lugnuts' sensible and succinct take on this pairs with something else of which I'm mindful. Many ANI threads target editors who prove to be combative, if not outright defiant: they've Done Nothing Wrong, they're being accused for No Reason, Never Mind Me What About The Other Guy??? and so on and so forth. Celestina's been little but apologetic, acknowledging that she's screwed up, and pledging to be more mindful and do better. If she had a long history at ANI, that would be one thing, but it seems to me giving her the chance to earn back that lost trust is reasonable. Heaven knows there'll be enough eyes on her if she backslides. Enough diffs are popping up for me to realize that my belief that Celestina didn't have a long history of making promises at ANI was unfounded. Changing my position to Supporting tban. Ravenswing 06:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support indefinite topic ban, broadly construed. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Iri's phrasing, oppose original TBAN proposal. Iri's phrasing is a reasonable set of actions - given that this is C's second intimidation set of edits, an indef block could be justified. As it is a repeat offender, I do feel that an indef (appealable in 6 months) TBAN is the way to go, not time-banded. The original proposal is vague. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      One reason I support a broadly construed tban now is because there appears to be a broader immediate need to prevent intimidating conduct, whether it is intentional or not, than what is addressed by the phrasing proposed by Iridescent. For example, Celestina007's userpage [55] currently includes:

      Having shown proficiency in accurately detecting UPE in the last three years, coupled with my dedication in serving the collaborative project, trusted system operators and functionaries entrusted me with anti-UPE tools. On 30-09-2021 (within my capacity) I commenced overseeing and assumed the role of a caretaker maintaining the collaborative project as a whole.

      (emphasis in the original). I also think Iridescent offers a solid start to a future discussion related to a tban appeal initiated by Celestina007, and the types of limitations that can specifically help prevent harm to the encyclopedia and help Celestina007 rebuild trust with the community. I think it would be most helpful to have Celestina007 involved as an active participant in a community discussion related to future conduct limitations, because this can help confirm the concerns are acknowledged and there is a mutual understanding of the conduct changes needed to protect the encyclopedia.
      I am also sensitive to the concerns expressed by Scope creep and Timtrent about the need for additional guidance on conduct in this particular topic area generally, and I think there are broader benefits to the encyclopedia that can be gained by including Celestina007 in a future community discussion about how to prevent harm to the encyclopedia while seeking to protect it.
      There also have already been multiple mentors, a previous ANI discussion, and attempts to individually counsel Celestina007 that have not been successful in preventing disruption, so it appears that these issues are now best addressed by the community. I think this initial discussion has generated a lot of heat, and my hope is that a future community discussion initiated by Celestina007 can generate more light. Beccaynr (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topicban or any other formal action.. Celestina's descriptions of what she knows tends to be over-exuberant, as does lots of her language. It's common for people working here to claim to know what they do not actually know; and tho this could intimidate the other user, the editors who get intimidated generally turn out to be undeclared paid editors or similar. This can be done more quietly and meaning the same thing but in milder language, and most of us who work with simiar problems have learned how to do it. She's learned to moderate what she says to new editors, and she can learn to be more discreet in general.
    The reason I'm prepared to continue to educate her is because of her unique and invaluable work. (I don't say this lightly--"unique" is quite rare here, because we generally can fill in for any one person.) There are many good editors here from Nigeria, but they are mostly -- and very reasonably-- involved with trying to write and improve satisfactory articles; none of them has her dedication and effectiveness in trying to stop paid editing. The special skill she has great familiarity with the publication and advertising methods in her country, and an accurate instinct for what is actually notable and important. Everyone working with paid editing makes errors in judging a good faith editor to be promotional , because they fall into the common trap of trying to write articles like the ones they see here, without realizing that in some fields they are very likely to be copying a promotional article that has not yet been removed.
    Her work has had some major accomplishments: apparently she has managed to put an end to the current paid editing rings from Nigeria. Nobody will succeed in putting a stop to paid editing by individual entrepreneurs, but at leas she can detect it. I'm not sure how we would deal with this area without her--the only thing I can suggestis an attitude of great skepticism--but that's unfair to `actually notable subjects, because for many articles where I would have deleted or declined as advertising, she has been able to keep by informing us that yes, this person is worth a wp article.
    I do have some prejudices here: first, I rely on her for discerning coi in he area. Second, I've worked with her for quite a while, she usually follows my advice, and I am prepared to take responsibility for instructing her further If she wishes, I'm even prepared to undertake a formal mentorship, something I have never done before. I don't want to exaggerate my own skill or importance, but I think she has sufficient trust in me that I can do it. Give me 6 months, and let's see how I do. DGG ( talk ) 10:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    apparently she has managed to put an end to the current paid editing rings from Nigeria? Citation needed, as they say around here... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also a bit concerned that we have to rely on the "accurate instinct for what is actually notable and important" of a single user when dealing with an entire content area. Doesn't this open that area for bias and slanting by that single user's opinions (no matter how noble they might seem to be)? Seems to me it's a great way to set the stage for failure, especially when others have articulated valid concerns about that user's own article creation abilities. Intothatdarkness 15:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @DGG: I'm afraid your reasoning strikes to the heart of what I see as wrong here. You say you rely on her for discerning coi in he[r] area, that apparently she has managed to put an end to the current paid editing rings from Nigeria, that you and others have been relying on her to discern notability in Nigerian topics—she has been able to keep by informing us that yes, this person is worth a wp article—and refer to her work as unique and invaluable because no other editor from Nigeria has her dedication and effectiveness in trying to stop paid editing. You imply also that her knowledge of Nigerian publications is second to none, which I find hard to believe, but it is possible that she has an unusual level of knowledge of the editorial policies of Nigerian media, perhaps from the government job to which she has referred. However, your words indicate that without any formal vetting process, Celestina007 has in fact been granted the privilege of acting as effective gatekeeper over fellow editors from Nigeria and over Nigerian content. No wonder she has continued to put claims of authority on her user page and speak of having special rights and privileges in order to threaten new users on the basis of her personal suspicions. Making any user a gatekeeper outside our normal processes is unjust. Choosing a single user as the arbiter of reliability and notability for sources and topics in their country is also, I put it to you, tokenism. I've seen some shade being cast at Nigeria (Nigerian English, Nigerian spam, Nigerian newspapers) both here and on WO. I put it to you that you, too, are making invidious assumptions about the country (I draw attention here to your statement above, the only thing I can suggest is an attitude of great skepticism—partly based, I imagine, on Celestina007's own testimony and her sharing your own view of the gravity of the threat posed by paid editing to the encyclopedia—and that by choosing to rely on one user, you and the others you write of when you say "us" have closed off the possibility of input from other editors with expertise relevant to Nigeria, both established and new editors, and most invidiously, have deliberately relied on her judgement to reduce the pool of editors from Nigeria. Choosing one editor as a gatekeeper or vetting authority, even if processes were followed so that it was firmly established that she could be trusted, is quite sharply contrary to the goal of crowdsourcing an encyclopedia, and even though it is not couched in the language of cultural supremacy, it smacks of colonialist paternalism. (I should know, I was raised in the UK.) Also, the basis of the argument, that her work is so important that she must be able to continue it and merely needs mentorship to ensure she couches her statements in more polite language, meaning the same thing but in milder language, more discreet in general, conflicts with policy as I understand it. WP:CIVIL is not optional. We are required to show respect for fellow editors, not merely to pretty up our statements. Celestina007 did not merely "misspeak": she bullied people. This project stands or falls on our being better than that. Ritchie333 has drawn attention to the misapprehension outlined in WP:UNBLOCKABLES as underlying some of the arguments here; I think it goes further than that, but I'd like to also take issue with what he said in that comment, At least one could make the argument that Eric Corbett wrote articles that people might actually read. Because that's actually more of the same, in my view. I value Celestina007's articles, and other articles on Nigerian topics. It's a big country whose culture we don't adequately cover. What Ritchie may have meant is that Eric wrote better. Yes; he was one of our best writers, and importantly, did a lot of his work in collaboration with other editors. But we need more editors working in the area, and more collaboration in the area, not less. The sad thing here is that had Celestina007 not been unofficially endorsed in her vendetta against fellow Nigerian editors, based on bias, her articles might by now have been improved by subject-matter experts. It is not that her well-intentioned promulgation of this vendetta and the support she has received in it, outside our processes, has damaged Wikipedia's reputation to new and less experienced editors so much as that it undercuts what we do here, which is draw in people to help us build the encyclopedia. I'll stop there before I repeat any further the content of the boilerplate to which Arbcom pays lip service at the top of every decision page. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I was already leaning towards this, but DGG's statement above sealed it. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 12:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Iridescent's proposal. And I do not support DGG as a mentor. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      May I ask why you don't support DGG as a mentor? He is a former Arb with excellent policy knowledge. Perhaps you see him as an unknown quality as he suggested he's not been a mentor before? While it's unprecedented for DGG to offer formal mentorship, he did informally mentor a certain legendary editor back in 2009. What really impressed us in the rescue squad wasn't just DGG's wisdom, tact & praxis, it was his unflinching loyalty in the face of increasingly determined opposition. The legendary editor became even more successful with DGG's guidance. As ever, the brightest light casts the darkest shadow, but DGG's support remained steadfast, even though as an esteemed admin he had much to lose from his association with a controversial editor. You couldn't ask for a better mentor than DGG. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      +1. I disagree with DGG a bit, but I have always respected his views, and at level worst have seen him as a fellow veteran editor with vast experience and a love of the encyclopedia. Ravenswing 18:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I think they mean they do dont support DGG's proposal of "not banning, and instead providing mentorship." —usernamekiran (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I made a typo in my previous comment, which changed the meaning drastically, I fixed the typo, and and also added quotation marks to decrease the ambiguity. Courtesy ping to Ravenswing —usernamekiran (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I wouldn't think that was the case; Iridescent's proposal and any notion of mentorship are wholly different things. Ravenswing 22:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Iridescent's proposal. Celestina does not need mentorship. As can be observed already in this discussion, she had the goodwill of so many admins and experienced users who watched her do all she did (and some offered advice and guidance to her, which she didn’t adhere to). Her issue have been discussed to death on ANI and other pages, but she keeps coming back. What she needs right now is to finally get a consequence for her long term problematic behaviours. SuperSwift (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Indef topic ban, weak support for a 6 month time limited ban. An indeff topic ban from their fave area might be especially severe in this case. I find their explanation re the government tool plausible, but others may not and this would make any appeal to the indeff especially risky. We should be looking after a valuable editor like Celestina. As well as the "unique" skillset described by DGG, Celestina is also an exceptionally kind person as per Netherzone. They help good faith newbies, defend prolific but ill-protected editors such as the Commander, and even taking the time to give good advise to long term but low profile edtiors like myself. It's regrettable that Celestina's kindness towards the ingroup has sometimes been matched by aggression towards the outgroup, i.e. UPE and possibly bad faith newbies. While they seem to have remained much more moderate compared to before the 2021 ANI, per the recent issues they probably could benefit from a 6 month ban. That said, despite protecting newbies being a high priority, I'd downgrade to neutral even on the time limited ban if Celestina accepts DGG's mentorship offer. To Celestina in case you read this, here's some advise you might not get even from DGG. One of the reasons not everyone is AGF re the truthfulness of your explanations is that you do come across as having a bit of an ego. Effective methods for reducing the conscious ego include prayer and attention to the other. It can be worth combining that with efforts to increase the strength of the unconscious ego (i.e. in dreams) which you can do simply by willing it. Its a work of some years, but someone like yourself could gain considerable benefits from such an undertaking. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban as Iridescent has worded it. I have milled this over since the thread first started, trying to see what seems like the most appropriate way forward here, from doing nothing to a full site ban. Neither of those ends seemed sufficient here, but Iridescent's proposed sanctions seem apt and properly tailored to what is an actual problem with Celestina007's work with UPE editing. It still allows the out of issuing a single report at COIN or SPI, but restricts the kind of interactions that led us here in the first place. I have the utmost respect for DGG as an editor, and if the consensus is to NOT enact the ban that I support, I trust that his mentorship will be offered in good faith and hopefully will help fix the problems as well. --Jayron32 13:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban as Iridescent has worded it. It would allow her to continue identifying UPE but prohibit the direct interactions that have been the problem identified here. Additionally, it would allow her continued significant positive contributions to Wikipedia. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef ban. i decide to change my support on topic ban and let's vote on indef ban and end this long debate. Has she not been under the guidance of notable Wikipedians all this while? SuperSwift (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, with conditions If Celestina agrees to allow DGG to mentor her about what is expected in civil discussion with those whom she finds herself in conflict with then I feel a ban is not needed. If she does not agree and does not follow every good practice in regards to this mentorship by DGG then I would support a topic ban or even further sanction. Personally, I love Celestina as a human being and someone I consider a friend here. I do not condone, nor ever will condone, uncivil behavior from anyone for any reason. It is wholly contrary to the basic foundations of this community written collaborative encyclopedia. It must not be overlooked or glossed over. But I do believe that problematic behavior in otherwise good faith editors can be corrected when there is a desire and incentive to correct it. In most cases taking someone out of the area in which the behavior has occurred is necessary but in this case I think allowing her to continue in the area but with extremely limited abilities and under the constant mentorship of DGG will be both beneficial to Celestina and correct the uncivil disruptive behavior in that area while allowing Celestina to continue helping safeguard the encyclopedia. Regardless, a strong admonishment from the community is needed. Misrepresenting ones self is not inherently dangerous but when you use that misrepresentation to threaten or intimidate someone with which you are in conflict then that is an action that goes against the very fabric of the libre mission. She has lost most of the privileges she had and the community trust in her is severely shaken but her actions do not leave her irredeemable, imo. We can not overlook the bad. Obvious and immediate action is needed to correct it but it does not automatically cancel out the current and future good that Celestina will be for the encyclopedia either.--ARoseWolf 17:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC) --edited 17:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per DGG. I think mentorship (and continued scrutiny) would help alleviate my concerns. I'd imagine Celestina is scared straight to some degree after the discussion here, and I'd rather avoid punitive measures in favor of productive ones. Lkb335 (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban under Iridescent's wording. This is an editor who has on mmore than one occasion been uncivil or rude (at the least) to new editors because she disapproves of their potential UPE status, and that isn't acceptable. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 19:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral at this time. I still don't know what the community should do. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose at this time, per DGG's statement. DGG (experienced in the area) asserts to the usefulness of the work and is undertaking to mentor and advise which may help rectify the legitimate concerns expressed here. I'm willing to see how that goes. Short comment as I think enough words have been expended here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Based on the quotes provided, it's clear she has lied about having vague 'government surveillance tools' to intimidate. And she continues to make excuses, expecting us to believe that this was somehow unintentional. If her command of the English language is so poor that she can unintentionally threaten people, then she should stay away from new editors. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose warning is sufficient. Many have got far too excited and extrapolated too far, from what was just some intimidating talk. There is plenty of that above, but no need to block everyone who made a threat. We need those to get on with useful work instead. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, per DGG's offer of mentorship, and to encourage Celestina herself to engage and lay out the red lines she won't cross in future (on pain of more than a topic ban). If I were Celestina right now, I would be deeply upset at my own foolishness in how I misrepresented my role and activities here, and mortified by the position I find myself in. I would find all this very chastening and I am sure she does too right now. TBH: this is as close to the brink as it can come (and consensus could still push it over, of course). At the Teahouse and elsewhere I have seen a lot of care and respect shown by Celestina to others (the 'ins' as someone above called them), as well as some over aggressive or assertive tones to those she suspected of not being here in good faith, or of doing something wrong. I have, admittedly, been stunned by some of the diffs I've seen here, which I am only now catching up on, having gone right through this extremely long thread. @Celestina007: I believe you and I respect one another? In the past, I have put many of your mannerisms and ways you 'speak' to some editors here down to cultural and language differences, though I do wish I had said something when I saw you trying to resolve one rather delicate issue between two other editors, only to make things worse and then you got unjustifiably heavy-handed. That sort of extreme assertiveness towards some people has to stop. And I mean permanently. Like DGG, I am willing to help guide and steer Celestina if she and the community wish it, as I would not want to lose a committed -and indeed a caring- editor. I fear, however, that I do not have the time to offer all that full mentorship might entail, but would do what I can. If I can offer one piece of guidance at this stage, it is to always imagine that the person at the other end of the keyboard is a relative or friend (even if you distrust their motives). Always speak respectfully to them, even if occasionally you need to be firm but fair. You never, ever need to sound like a bad policeman, threatening retribution with links to policies, inscrutable tools, or worse - and that is what appears to have happened here, even though you believe you were simply trying to maintain the rule of law. Step back from that 'bad cop' persona and always be the good, caring person that I believe you genuinely are, and do not take what we do here with such earnestness or semi-religious fervour. I would be very willing to talk with Celestina privately by email should she so wish, once we have settled on a way forward. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, after reading much of the discussion, I have similar thoughts to Nick Moyes, Graeme Bartlett, and FeydHuxtable. This mess of a discussion has shifted focus several times, but it seems clear to me that Celestina007 has made a mistake that is not unfixable or irredemable. DGG's mentorship, or the mentorship of any of the others who have offered advice/the possibility would go a much further way here than a topic ban would. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 03:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose finalise the mentor, give a timeframe and move on. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Losing a talented UPE fighter would hurt the encyclopedia. This sanction seems like it might be too strong. If desired, I think a milder sanction that addresses WP:BITE without affecting the ability to fight UPE could be tailored. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Some sort of civility-effect ban, at the very least. On her user page "In the famous words of MER-C, if you ask me an unintelligent or nonsensical question or leave a bizarre statement on my TP (except from a new user or one of my mentees who are still learning the ropes) not only would I not respond to the question, I’d remove it from my TP and wouldn’t even extend you the courtesy of explaining why I removed the question. [...] ask me only smart questions [...] if you fail to do so, I would invariably embarrass you (publicly) which of course you do not want...(My bold) I am dismayed by this attitude, what constitutes a "smart question?" Declaring this attitude is very troubling. Celestina007 says these are "famous words" of MER-C. Hope that's untrue. In the prior paragraph, she says Wikipedia already has a false reputation of being a bad source for information, so you knowing that and still decide to perpetuate upe, is not only wickedness, it is sheer evil. (My bold) I think this editor is too emotionally involved to make clear-headed decisions. Also I am confused, as it's late at night, by the "false reputation of being a bad source for information". Surely, this could be stated more clearly? Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 05:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose indefinite block I have worked with Celestina007 a lot over the past few years and the words I would use to describe her are dedicated and zealous. I have chided her when I thought she was coming on too strong with editors, especially when she inferred that she could get them blocked. But I have also seen the success of her work and how she takes on her anti-spam and anti-paid editing campaign to great lengths, to a degree that I haven't seen since Jytdog was an editor here. Maybe this type of work can lead to editor overreach which is why I'm commenting on the discussion of a site block and not the topic ban.
    Celestina007 has rooted out a lot of problematic editors here trying to misuse Wikipedia for promotional purposes. I think whatever she stated about her "special tools" were an exaggeration on her part, not intentionally lying, and the conspiracy theories floating through this discussion about special governmental tools are just absurd and show how discussions on ANI can quickly spiral out-of-control. While I think Celestina007 could rein in her attitude and her approach to new editors, that is something that can be adjusted and I think she does adjust to criticism. I think a block at this point is punitive because editors are angry with her not because of potential misbehavior on her part. I'm seeing a lot of FUD (Fear, uncertainty, and doubt) in this discussion rather than evidence of extensive misconduct. Exaggeration of your abilities is not a welcome attribute on Wikipedia but I don't see it as a major conduct violation. I don't have a perfect solution to this raging dispute but I think we need to all realize that Celestina007 is just an editor, not some vandal or unknown danger, and we deal with editors by correcting behavior not punishing people because of a bit of arrogance. I realize that I may be in the minority here but I've seen her do such great work, I would hate to think we would just not acknowledge that and also that there is not an editor here in this discussion who has not made mistakes, some have made serious mistakes in your time here on the project...but most of us are fortunate not to become subjects of discussion on ANI. Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps "the conspiracy theories floating through this discussion about special governmental tools" are something to do with her claim that "technically I can perform a Checkuser [if I wanted to] Due to an external tool which was developed in the Anti-fraud department of the government organization I work for". 92.40.196.139 (talk) 08:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The danger here is her conduct occurs in an area where we seem to lack SMEs (Nigeria). That places her by default in a position to have an outsized impact on editing in that area. I brought this up before, but people seem more fascinated by her UPE activity than they are her lying (I don't consider some of her statements to be simple exaggerations, especially when they're used to intimidate and harass) and the accompanying breach of trust that brings. It seems she's been to ANI before for the same issue, and was given a pass then. If she only follows policy when she's caught violating it that's a problem. Intothatdarkness 13:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Intothatdarkness: What does SME stand for? It's not in the list of Wikipedia:Wikipedia abbreviations. Clovermoss (talk) 03:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Clovermoss "Subject matter expert". You're not finding it on the list of Wikipedia abbreviations because it's a piece of American management-speak rather than Wikipedian jargon (here, "SME" means "Super Mario Effect"). ‑ Iridescent 05:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iridescent: Thank you for clarifying that. I didn't think WP:SME was what Intothatdarkness was referring to, so I apprcicate the alternative explanation. Regardless, that is an interesting page. I will keep it in mind. Clovermoss (talk) 10:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for using shorthand. I don't think it changes the underlying issue, though. Relying on one person's supposed unique and mysterious expertise in one area is detrimental to the project, especially when that area is an entire region. Intothatdarkness 12:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Not terribly impressed by the apology grand tour. Schierbecker (talk) 07:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support in line with Iridescent's proposal, while supporting the DGG exception, perhaps in an even more expansive capacity. This thread has been tricky to understand in parts, from the initial removals to the apparent disconnect between what ARBCOM was seeing and what was presented here. It took a long time to get answers to basic questions repeated multiple times. Given the removal of some permissions and the offers of assistance from others here I do not think a block is needed, however given there has been a previous AN/I on a similar topic some restriction appears warranted to reduce the chance this ends up here again. Taking into account DGG's proposal, if DGG wants six months to mentor, and Celestina agrees to this, I think that should be allowed, allowing not just a single post but entire discussions on DGG's talkpage. This would allow work to continue while preventing the odd comments on new user talkpages seen, and also provide a forum in which improvements could be demonstrated. CMD (talk) 07:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some clarifications:
        To reassure some people: Yngvadottir, I do recognize the problems in having only one editor we consider reliable in an area few of us have the ability to verify by ourselves, and one of the things I would try to do is to interest some of the other good Nigerian editors in assist in this work. WP relies in all its aspects upon having several people independently interested in something-- I chose the word unique rather than indispensable.
        I also agree there is a limit. Some of us who have been on arb com can remember another anti-UPE editor, who was removed from wp because their methods seemed to be getting too close to RW confrontations. This ed. was to some extent my friend also, and when it reached arb com I abstained (but I told the other arbs privately afterwards that I agreed with their decision). I should mention I am also aware of some oversighted material. , and it convinced me she needed assistance--but also that the assistance might be productive---what it showed was naivety rather than anything more dangerous. I've been a teacher a good part of my life, and if it comes down to it I know how to persuade someone in difficulty to withdraw from a course rather than stay in and fail. I've succeed in this on wiki with particularly difficult coi editors. I will also mention that if I thought there was any real use of actually secret or outside confidential data here, all I would be offering would be to help her leave. DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        David, after this thread I really don't think "No action" or "Compulsory mentorship" will fly. I mean, we have plenty of naive people on Wikipedia but not many of them are so naive that they accidentally mislead people or accidentally menace them. If you want to go short of a topic ban, maybe propose something that still reflects the community's concerns?—S Marshall T/C 09:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sorry, DGG, but your offer rests on the assumption that fighting UPE justifies suspending our basic behavioral rules. As S Marshall reminds us just above, Celestina007 has threatened fellow editors. There is an immediate need to protect the editing community from attacks. As Iridescent states above and as Ritchie333 states below, there is a disconnect here as to what the issue is; your proposed mentoring comes from the view that all that matters is how politely the threats are couched. I recognize the magnitude of our disagreement as to the position of UPE on the scale of threats to the encyclopedia, and I suspect part of the problem is that after openly revealing your identity on-wiki, after many, many years as a respected administrator, and after many years on Arbcom, you are at some remove from the justifiable fears of an ordinary editor that their personally identifying information might be accessed through their volunteering to work here. Also apparently you fail to grasp the injustice and inevitable erosion of both trust and participation here of selecting one editor as the arbiter of what is "good" or allowable from an entire country. After so many years in authority, you appear to have forgotten the basis of our rules for selecting those with access to private information, and for limiting their actions, and to consider civility merely a matter of education in polite formulae. (As to the education analogy: Celestina007 didn't sign up for a course, she is one volunteer among thousands in a collective endeavor. In any case, as a former educator myself, I am proud of how many failing students I got through my courses, and sad at both those who I was unable to get there—which was, after all, my job—and those who wasted their money by withdrawing, mostly because I wouldn't guarantee an A.) Frankly, I don't get it; Ritchie's analogy of educating COI editors is apt, but I don't understand yours. Perhaps you are agreeing with me and others that Celestina007 should withdraw from the pursuit of UPE and from otherwise judging her fellow editors and the topics they choose to write on? That would be a desirable outcome here. Your offer is noble, but in my judgement you are unqualified to mentor her because your argument demonstrates that you don't fully appreciate the problem. The objective should be to guide Celestina007 to become a productive member of the editing community and begin to allay the fears that her actions (and their evident more or less tacit endorsement) have raised; not to further endorse them. However well-intentioned on her part, yours, and any others'. If mentorship is the only way to break this logjam (I do realize that the perfect is the enemy of the good, but you and I differ on which is the graver threat to the encyclopedia and much of the disagreement remains between topic ban and block), the mentor should be an uninvolved editor, preferably a neutral administrator, not an admitted wiki-friend and defender. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        @Yngvadottir: What are your thoughts on the advice given by Nick Moyes? Would that resolve your concerns at all? He's offered to provide advice, but I can see why you might not think of that as good enough, especially since it's not an offer for full mentorship. Honestly, I see your perspective and I see mine. I also think of how overwhelming it must be for this gigantic thread to exist for someone. I think I get now why people avoid contributing to ANI, it's a depressing atmosphere. Maybe I'm just way too optimistic because I don't have that experience. But I'd like to think that Celestina007 isn't at the point where they're completely unreedemable and can potentially still be steered in the right direction. Clovermoss (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm trying to work out what the disconnect is here leading to wildly conflicting views in this thread. At the fundamental core of it, I want to educate COI editors, explain what it is, why COI editing is a problem and why you shouldn't do it. Educating users is difficult, and I don't think I'm particularly successful, but a number of times I have said something like "Would you pay for somebody to fix a leaking tap when they've got no experience of plumbing? So why would somebody pay you when you've got no experience of Wikipedia editing?" and it's generally been better received than just slapping a template or getting aggressive. Even the actions that finally made Jytdog jump ship / get booted off (depending on your view) were done out of a belief that our on-wiki communication tools are confusing, opaque, archaic and user unfriendly. You can't educate people with templates. In fact, pretty much every case where I have been cross or yelled at someone is because they didn't explain things sufficiently. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ritchie333: It depends widely based on what the nature of the COI is, no? If someone is actually interested in being an editor here then sure that might work (or your conversing might cause them to become interested in being such an editor). For others it may convince them to at least desist and go inactive without need for action. But for a large bulk of editors who fit both the SPA and COI labels, their sole and fundamental interest is in pursuing their external interests, in which case I'm convinced that extensive conversation is largely a waste of time. Of the PAID variety, some employers/individuals are more reasonable and willing to comply with our goals and policies than others, but usually those groups don't try problematic promotional editing in the first place, and also those producing the stereotypical entrepreneur garbage almost certainly don't fit into that box. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as the minimum It's too little, too late, for a mentorship right now. I find the reasons given for the actions completely insufficient and the things continuing to be written and still appears on Celestina's pages as completely unacceptable. There are a lot of opposes here that don't even touch on the behavior, but only the positive contributions of the person in question suggesting an WP:UNBLOCKABLE issue. I feel a mentorship is only appropriate as a condition for returning once the consensus of the community is that Celestina is not evasive (at best) or lying (at worst). I'm weighting contributions -- for some, these actions should lead to an indefinite ban -- but the time period where a wait-and-see slap on the wrist was two months ago. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This thread is huge, and even after reading it all I'm not quite sure what to make of it. I think the general sentiment of Liz, Serial Number 54129 and Yngvadottir's comments stood out to me the most if I had to narrow it down. I think it's important that Celestina007 takes a step back and thinks about what their impact on other editors can be. It's good that they have a history of interacting kindly with people who they perceives as good faith newbies (and I think this is why they've listed themselves as a Teahouse host, I contribute there occassionally and they seem to be welcoming in general to people who post there). But it's also important that they extend that good faith to people they might suspect as COI or undisclosed paid editors, especially since they doesn't have access to technical tools like CheckUser (and shouldn't intimidate others into thinking they do, even if it is a misunderstanding of how such things work, as indicated by the comments about the Editor Interaction Tool above). I think Ritchie333's comment about COI editing is an interesting way to think about all of this. At best, you're right, they're an undisclosed paid editor and they're going against our Terms of Use, but they're still a human being. At worst, you've scared away a newbie who was making a good faith attempt to contribute by editing a topic area they're interested in and not understanding that their enthiuasm is promotional/doesn't comply with encylcopedic writing. The whole "I have access to a secret tool" thing could definitely create a chilling effect, and I get why other's are concerned about that, because it is concerning. If you don't know how something works, it's okay to step back and let someone else deal with it. I don't understand the more technical aspects of the project that much myself. You can always ask for another perspective. No one editing here should have to do all of this alone. That's the whole point of a colloborative project. I think part of the issue here is that New Page Patrollers are also kind of overwhelmed right now, not that this excuses this mentality. I don't know how Celestina007 feels because I'm not them, but I can see why working on a backlog that's so large it's currently over 14,000 articles which has resulted in articles are already being indexed by search engines without review and being one of the few that actively contribute there... could lead to a mentality where someone sees themselves as a defender against all spammers/paid editing trying to infilitrate its way into the project and maybe take that a bit too far. You could definitely get burned out and stop seeing the forest for the trees. That said, letting bite-y behaviour continue isn't a good idea. I'm not sure if a indefinite topic ban would be the best solution, since we don't want to be going in circles forever or set a precedent that it's okay to discourage newbies, but I see why it was proposed. I'd support mentorship as proposed by DGG and Nick Moyes because that could go in a positive direction and I think that's a better option to try before going to a topic ban, at least. If that doesn't work, ANI is still here. Or ARBCOM. The last ANI thread offered some advice, but maybe mentorship can actually help with following it. I can only imagine what it would feel to be reading a massive wall of text like this and have the focus of the entire conversation be on you. Clovermoss (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC); edited to correct errors and provide clarification[reply]
      • I promised not to comment further and while I think that stepping away was good for my own mental health, I did want to make another comment. While I still think Celestina007 is not completely irredeemable, I'd reluctantly support a topic ban if mentorship is not accepted. Celestina007 hasn't edited since May 8. I can't imagine what a nightmare a thread like this would be when I'm not even the subject of it and it's stressing me out, but I do think it's important that concerns are addressed. Especially since the hypothetical scenerio I wrote earlier at worst you've scared away a newbie who was making a good faith attempt to contribute by editing a topic area they're interested and not understanding their enthiuasm is promotional/doesn't comply with encyclopedic writing is no longer just a hypothetical. Rereading the previous ANI thread, with promises to do better, makes me reluctant that things will get better if all this dies down and no action is taken. I still do think mentorship is feasible, if difficult option. If that doesn't work, we'll know that all options have been exhausted. But I want to believe that it will work. I still have faith that Celestina007 can rethink their interactions with others. I think a topic ban would make it difficult to actually understand why actions taken weren't right, since "broadly construed" would prevent them from talking about it. Mentorship is an alternative to that, but if it's not accepted, a topic ban may be the best way to prevent further harm. Clovermoss (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree with Adamant1, unfortunately. It really is disappointing because I have faith in Celestina007 even though I don't know them that well, but the more I think about this... the more it doesn't feel right. It's sad because I've only seen their positive contributions before encountering this thread, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be held accountable. Especially when you think of these examples within the context of the internim of the last ANI thread. Looking at how they acted in that AfD, specifically... it's just not okay. Plenty of people have already tried to steer them in the right direction. They've been editing here even longer than I have and I've never acted like that. If someone told me that I should seriously reflect about something, I would. This doesn't seem to have happened, really, apart from promises. Celestina007 hasn't accepted any mentorship offers, either. At what point is enough actually enough? That's not to suggest that people can't learn from mistakes... I think that Celestina007 could successfully appeal someday in the future if they can acknowledge what they did wrong and how they're going to take steps to address that in the future. Clovermoss (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC) atleast for now, I disagree with Adamant1 enough to strike this. I think it's possible to still accountable for actions yet participate in mentorship. Maybe I'm too optimistic and I'll regret this. But I want to have faith in Celestina007 even if they've made serious mistakes. I stand by the comment preceding this one. I still feel awful about this entire situation. Clovermoss (talk) 08:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC) Actually sleeping has made it clear to me that despite my doubts, a topic ban is the best choice. Clovermoss (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is still going on? Better have my 2c then. Oppose sanctions per SN54129 and DGG. --JBL (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does this need to go on any longer? I know it has only been 3 1/2 days, but how many more admonishments can be said? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ban them I believe that we have a competency issue here. I firmly believe that people have an epistemic responsibility to make sure that the statements they make are as true as possible. I see this as binary, either we have an editor who genuinely didn't know that they didn't have access to the tools they claimed to have or they couldn't be bothered to check properly. Either way we have a person who doesn't have the requisite judgement, clarity of thought, and grasp of English that it takes to work here. I'd suggest that they edit in their native tongue and wish them well. --AdamF in MO (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a topic ban as a bare minimum, but an indef is preferable. Zaathras (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • my rationales. I am not sure this will succeed, but I would not be offering if I thought I was certain to fail. It is not proper to use a psychiatric approach, but there isn't that much difference beween education and psychology. I don't see her style as a fault of character, but as an expression of lack of confidence and of bluster. As Clovermoss and others have said the work off AfC is demanding, to do it successfully one needs to know several different approached and when to use them. It is not simply a matter of not discouraging potentially good users. We could write feel-good biolerplate messages that would encourage everyone like you would a naive juriour high schooler, which seems to be essentially the current formal approach.We could write warning boilerplate about the illegality of promotionalism and coi, aimed at the cynical upe who knows to skip overt hem--the current alternate formal approach. Even at that primitive leve, one still has to know when each is potentially appropriate, and this can be pure guesswork--I and everyone I know has a high error rate in both directions. But writing appropriate personalized encouragement aimed at providing actual help, not merely links ton which some vaguely appropriate help can be found, and discouraging messages of the appropriate level of intensity that remain objective, but make it clear why the request will never be accepted here. I have a number standard but modfiable initial formulas, as do others, but we still have to be prepareeto be friendly, sympathetic, but direct. This can be done much better at a lvie edithon, because if you actually speak to people, most of us know how figure out what's happening and get the one right. Doing it on line with anonymous people, especially in a situation like afc where the actual majority of them are confident of their ability to deceive you is much more of an art, Those of us who are good at it have mostly learned by self-guided practice, and observing the reactions of the contributors and the other editors. Some people have preconceptions or mannerism or inappropriate communication styles that need a direct approach, and it is obvious if nothing else here is that Celestina is one of them.
    I have taught others; I can probably teach her, and if she turns out not to be able to learn it, I can tell her. I know one way of teaching which will not work, and that's the ANI approach, of suspensions and penalties. They never work, except sometimes for the rare person who does know how to do things right, but is playing with us and willing to stop if given a harp reminder. Teaching someone to communicate better can not be done by stopping them from communicating for 6 months.: it's as absurdly counterproductive an approach as I can imagine. "You don't kick well enough--I forbid you to get near a football until you have learned to kick better." . Or we can remove her. I notice many of the people urging that have very little experience in the area, and are unaware of what's needed or how to learn it. Some are -some of my very experieced colleagues, and I am takign their advice seriously. I'm not going to say I am a better judge than they, but I am perhaps a litttle more persistent. Some of them are reasonably enough concerned withthe damage that might be done in the meantime, but I intend to check every posting before she sends it.
    and as for any who want to stop discussion because we have not reached a concllsion, they need to rethink what the purpose is of WP consensus. . DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DGG: My comments were more about NPP than AfC, but there's a lot of overlap between them. But you'd know that, since you've been around forever. Honestly I was suprised to be pinged at all. I wouldn't say I'm experienced in any of this, either. I am interested in getting involved in NPP so I've been reading stuff that's related to it, but I'm not sure that gives the same weight to my arguments as someone who's actually active in that area. I don't think you nessecarily have to be to have an opinion that counts for something and I don't think that makes the perspectives of people who are or aren't active in that area any less important. I will say that I think Celestina007 has potential to improve. They do care about the project, or they wouldn't have spent so much time here. They do care about trying to help others, or else they wouldn't have almost 700 edits to the Teahouse. They haven't edited all this in awhile, so maybe they're taking a step back to just gain perspective on things. Or try to relax. I've said this before, but I really can't imagine how overwhelming an experience like this would be. I also think it might help to address some of AndyTheGrump's concerns about content creation, because it is something that kind of got lost among the massive wall of text that is this thread. Writing about living people is a big deal on Wikipedia because it impacts the real life lives of those subjects. Even if I don't agree with his methods for communicating that, I agree that it is an important thing to note and provide mentorship on. Clovermoss (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I've done some work on articles related to Africa. At least from what I can tell a lot of it comes down to the frankly horrendous standards of media outlets in African Countries. A lot of the more absurd things in BLP articles that were created by Celestina are also stated by the sources she's using. So it's not really on her. IMO the way to deal with it would be to get a lot of the outlets she uses as sources put on the Perennial sources list. That's probably not going to happen though because of the incessant paternalism/infantilization and double standards when it comes to anything even slightly related to Africa on here. The answer isn't to sanction particular editors who write bad articles because that's how the sources are though. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Adamant1: This is what I mean by different perspectives. There's a lot more that can be done about a situation other than topic bans and indefinite blocks. I don't want to hold Celestina007 to a different standard than anyone else, but I'd like to think I'd think the exact same about a newbie who was overzealous in regards to the same issues (COI, paid editing and dubious sources but attempting to improve the project through their efforts). Civility is much more than a "be polite" thing, but I also don't think Celestina007 is incapable of rethinking their interactions with others. I'll reiterate that in general, I've seem them be welcoming to newcomers at the Teahouse. I think they can change and I really think that Nick Moyes's advice could be useful. I may be a bit biased because I think he's amazing, but it is an option and people seem to be focusing solely on DGG's offer of mentorship, even if this would be complementing that. Discussions about perennial sources and the impact they can have on BLPs seems like a good start to that issue, specificially. I don't think this discussion should end with people feeling like their concerns are ignored [56]. I do think the point Princess of Ara made about how they've already had mentorship to some extent in the ArbCom case request to make me pause and re-evualate... but does that really mean we should just give up? I think that she might have something interesting to say in regards to sources since she's an editor living in Nigeria. I will say that generalizations about sources from an entire country make me pause and wonder if that's really a judgement individuals can make, because that just doesn't seem right. It's definitely not what I feel like the spirit of Wikipedia is, whatever its supposed to be. But discussions about specific issues with specific sources are definitely more constructive than ambiguity. I think further mentorship addressing these potential issues could help, though. It's possible we do get the point where there's nothing that we can do as a community, that the issue is intractable behaviour, as the ANI banner points out. But I don't think we're there yet. The direction of the conversation seems to be going a different way and I appreciate those perspectives, even if I disagree. I think I'm going to stop commenting on this because I've made my arguments and there's not much I can do to elaborate beyond this. Clovermoss (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I should clarify that by I think that she might have something interesting to say in regards to sources since she's an editor living in Nigeria. I will say that generalizations about sources from an entire country make me pause and wonder if that's really a judgement individuals can make, because that just doesn't seem right, I was referring to Princess of Ara because she might have an opinion about all this. I noticed that Celestina007 indicates that they are agender on their userpage, so I've been using they/them pronouns to refer to them. If they'd rather I not, I'll fix that. But discussions about sources like this should involve more than one person and the perennial sources noticeboard does seem like a good place to start. I will say that both these editors could have arguments about the reliability of sources and more than one person should be making these calls. That's the whole point of trying to find consensus. I do agree with this specific argument by Intothatdarkness: Relying on one person's supposed unique and mysterious expertise in one area is detrimental to the project, especially when that area is an entire region. That said, that really is all. I won't comment further. I just felt that it was important to make this clarification. Clovermoss (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I do have an opinion on Nigerian sources and curated WP:NAIJARS with contributions from other WP:NIGERIA editors. The list is not exhaustive and is open to continuous modification. There is also a bit about reliable sources occasionally publishing unreliable pieces which I think is pretty much a global issue. Princess of Ara 06:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Courtesy Notification See  – Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Celestina007. Princess of Ara 16:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN on SPAM and UPE. Oppose block of any sort. see reordered below Celestina's enthusiasm for protecting this project has led her to say and do things she should not have. She needs time away from SPAM and UPE to regain her perspective and work constructively in other areas. To destress so that she can remember to remain CIVIL even in the most trying circumstances. Any disruption or policy violations were due to her over exuberance on behalf of the Project. It would not spill over into other areas. It is to Wikipedia's benefit to allow/encourage her to help build the encyclopedia in other ways. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Believe mentorship by DGG is a wonderful idea. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @DGG: underestimates himself and his abilities. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:NLT does not apply. She was not threatening to take off Wiki action via law enforcement or the courts. She did cross the border into Lala Land, which is why a TBAN is a good first step. A block should be the last resort,used only if problems continue, and as a preventative rather than punitive measure. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      No, she was threatening phishing attacks (leaving out super sekret toolz at least). That's worse than the fantasy legal threats people are indeffed for. Arkon (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Great Ghu! There are no words. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Arkon: Diff? IIRC the only mentions of phishing were by ArbCom members. L235's comment above first introduced the idea, and Barkeep clarified My understanding is that this tool use was all hypothetical - that is Celestina never actually used it on anyone except herself. Neither ArbCom member claimed she threatened to take phishing attacks on editors, and I don't see any diffs of her threatening anyone onwiki with phishing attacks (but I may have missed some comments in this huge super-section). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @ProcrastinatingReader: Thanks. That's a relief. Separately, it has been suggested that mentorship by DGG makes TBAN unnecessary. I think both are essential to retraining/recovering a long-term user. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Not to go off topic, but I've been wondering if her only using the tool on her own account is still violation of the guidelines or not. I mean, it's still a phishing attack right? I doubt someone could get away with or reasonably justify using hacking tools to maliciously authenticate into their account just because they lost the password or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Pretty sure there is no such tool, beyond "what's my IP." Nothing at all at the level she claimed. Looks like bluster and puffery on her part. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Support new article creation restriction requiring all new article creation be done via WP:AfC, with AfC vetting before main spacing. God bless whoever winds up closing this --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Arkon, ProcrastinatingReader, and Adamant1: Even though Celestina didnt explicitly say "I will use phisihing attack on you" to anybody (as per my knowledge), they have have clearly said (loosely): "I have access to special tools, and I will use it them on you if you dont confess to socking/UPE". I dont know what (imaginary or puffed up real) tools they were referring to. Might as well be phishing. @Deepfriedokra: lol. Now some editors might say that you got involved in the thread so that you wouldnt have to close it. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Not with a 10 foot pole. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reordering by preference:
    1. TBAN UPE/SPAM, with or without mentoring. New article creation via WP:AfC.
    2. CITEBLOCK indefinitely
    3. mentoing alone. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef block Someone above made the comparison to how accounts are blocked for NLT when we obviously know such a thing wouldn't even happen. This was worse. Arkon (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      We immediately indef on NLT to make it absolutely clear that they can either edit here or seek a legal course but not do both. All that is required for them to get unblocked is to say they won't make such a threat again. In this case, it would have only made sense to immediately block when the issue was first raised. It makes no sense to indef now after all the clarification has already come. Some of us can want Cel to be indeffed but that's not going to be akin to a NLT indef, it's going to be a BAN. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef block Celestina007's behavior is totally inappropriate for any Wikipedia editor, much less a admin.Pyramids09 (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I do believe Celestina is not an admin. Lkb335 (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Celestina is not, and never has been, an admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I suspect the confusion arises from her subscription to the admin newsletter that appears on her talk page. Intothatdarkness 00:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Pyramids09, Lkb335, and Intothatdarkness: A lot of users are subscribed to the admin newsletter, that may not be the reason. I think it is Celestina007's over-confident tone, self praise/puffery wherever possible, and their userpage, with large size of the talkpage may be the reason. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Oops, sorry! Will fix. Pyramids09 (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I tend to consider it a combination of those factors. Intothatdarkness 17:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • How long are we going to keep tolerating Celestina007's incompetence to edit the English Wikipedia? On 23 July 2021, at the 2021 ANI case against them, they promised to be a better version of themself saying Moving forward and from advice from both ARBCOM and a sysop here actively engaging in anti UPE I know exactly what to do when tackling UPE in the most appropriate and civil manner, I do not envisage ever being reported here ever again as I know just exactly what to do in tackling UPE, it would less confrontations and more civil action by using the appropriate channels, which I have largely tried to follow since the advice from ARBCOM in June. This promise was preceded by similar promises they made a month earlier on 23 June and 24 June 2021 in another ANI case filed against them. If this editor who isn't an admin could threaten this editor and this editor with a block in 2021 and got warned and still repeating same incompetence in 2022 after they threatened to block Gabriel601, I doubt if I can still believe anything they say. The claims of possessing an external tool that works exactly as the Wikimedia CheckUser tool in a continued bid to harass, scare and intimidate fellow editors is the height of it all. After Reading Beans voted keep in a delete discussion Celestina007 started, they went to their talkpage, possibly in a bid to harass this editor and force them to change their vote to delete using the same "possession of secret tools" intimidation tactics. Enough is enough, I've no other thing to add, but to support an indef block at this time, until they can convince the community they can be trusted again. Sorry. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 04:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any TBAN if DGG's offer to mentor is accepted. TBAN will encumber Celestina007 learning to teach rather than intimidate UPEs. Celestina007, please see this as a chance to regain the trust and respect of your fellow Wikipedians while learning more powerful ways to discourage UPE. We should be careful to avoid authoritarian approaches to protecting Wikipedia. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 05:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC) —[reply]
    • About original contributions: some topics of significance in Nigeria and other counties are those which mosr of us have very little personal sympathy for. I am extremely skeptical, for example, about personality-based religious movements and megachurches, , about hereditary leaders of traditional groups, about over-emphatic emphasis on certain commercial activities, about people claiming political influence without any distinct positions to show for it, about tradition healers and about the personal notability based upon relatives and traditional affiliations. Given the prevalence of PR, I am very reluctant to accept press coverage for notability not based on definable accomplishments. In the US, and other countries where I do understand the general and journalistic culture, I think I cna distinguish actual notability without succumbing to pure prejudice. From experience at WP, with the help of those who know the area, I can by now sometimes tell true significance for such topics in India. I cannot do this in Nigeria (and many other African countries), though I hope to learn with guidance from responsible WPedians familiar with those societies. But most of these seem to a part of current Nigerian culture, and aside for Celestina, I have no trustworthy guidance--and I am aware that hers' also has been questioned. It's partially a culture-bound limitation from unfamiliarity, but I know myself well enough to recognize the overall result of this is not that far from systemic prejudice and cultural insensitivity, and I assume this is the case for other WPedians with similar cultural backgrounds. Left to myself, I would have the dilemma of either accepting all such topics indiscriminately to avoid expressing my lack of knowledge and sensitivity. or of rejecting them indiscriminately without major international coverage from completely trustworthy major sources well-known sources for such topics.
    Celestina has sometimes worked on such topics. I can not judge her work by myself, any more than I could judge that of any editor with a similar background, but I cannot say I am satisfied with some of it. The approach I would take as a mentor is to urge extreme caution and insist on impeccable conventional sourcing--notthat her work here is necesarily worse than other editors in the area, but that she should by bow be able to upgrade her own

    standards, first, and only then to guide others. DGG ( talk ) 08:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      • First of all, I need to apologize to Celestina007 for misgendering them. I hadn't seen that they have an agender template on their talk page. I shouldn't have inferred their gender from their user name. That was wrong of me. (But no, I won't be installing any widgets to automate the task of identifying preferred pronouns.) DGG, let me draw your attention to the case of Gabriel601, laid out some distance above by Beccaynr. Celestina banged away at that editor, accusing him of UPE and of being a sock (without filing a sockpuppet investigation, as they should have done if they had plausible grounds for suspicion). They stripped references out of an article of his (mostly on incorrect grounds; the majority of those sources are listed as useable by the relevant WikiProject) and then nominated it for deletion with a nomination statement dripping with bad faith. And no BEFORE; it turns out the article was badly out of date. This is deplorable conduct. I note that Timtrent came by later to repeat the UPE question more politely; but the editor has not returned after responding with a strong denial. So we have probably lost another editor with an interest in Nigerian topics, and we almost lost another article on a notable Nigerian topic. Driving away editors who are interested in them and deleting their articles on spurious grounds is not how we get better coverage of Nigerian topics, and informed discussions on Nigerian sources and on problems presented by Nigerian topics, of whatever nature. I appreciate your honesty in confessing that you do not like many topics covered in Nigerian newspapers, but neither one chosen editor, Celestina007 or any other, nor you and other experienced Wikipedians, can do all the work. That's why we are a project to write a crowdsourced encyclopedia, not a project to farm out articles to hand-picked researchers and writers. That's the other lot. I am aware that I am disappointing a lot of editors I respect and consider wiki-friends, and I want to reiterate that an indefinite block is not an infinite block; I opposed that suggestion; and that that's one of the reasons it would be better than a topic ban: as soon as Celestina007 was able to convince an admin that they understood what they did wrong and would not do it again, they would be unblocked. Over. Finished. But I'm not sure you, personally, see the gravity of what they did. So let me put here a couple of links from 2016, when Celestina007 was a new editor themself. What if that new editor had been attacked as a paid shill, with equal vehemence to Celestina007's attacks, for adding this bit of gushing fan writing: Jim iyke is also into martial arts making him the only Nigerian Actor to achieve this. Reminding you again why he is Top ten Greatest Nigerians to walk earth. (Their previous edit, also unsourced, was a BLP violation.) They got better, partly because Materialscientist reverted a later unreferenced addition with a warning tenplate about the need for sources; here's Celestina007 acknowledging the point. They're still here, and I welcome their expertise on Nigeria and hope they continue to use it. But how they have treated other editors is unacceptable and harms the project, and they appear to have been misinformed as to the acceptability of treating other editors harshly because you have indeed conferred a special status on them that avoids scrutiny and balances and has led to abuse. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose in favor of the mentorship route, DGG and Nick are both great users who I think we can trust to handle this. Either it'll work and we'll never hear about it again, or it won't work and we'll know for sure that we're in CIR territory. ~Swarm~ {sting} 13:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The diffs provided by Nnadigoodluck, and Beccaynr show it that this has been going on a lot more than what was thought earlier, and since a long time as well. This definitely does not look good in the good run. Again, I am not disputing the good work put in by Celestina007, but it looks like we have lost at least a few editors because of Celestina007's behaviour. We can't continue to keep on losing multiple editors like that because of one editor. This has to stop now, I again reaffirm my opinion of topic-banning them like Iridescent has proposed. The reason I am commenting again is, I came across a recently created AfD by Celestina007 (currently open). It seems like they decided it was paid/spam/promotional article, and are not willing to listen to otherwise. They removed well sourced content with summaries like "false", and "promotional" even though when it wasn't. Celestina007 even went to the talkpage of the editor who commented "keep" in the AfD, and tried to intimidate them. Celestina's behaviour of bullheading through a notable article, removing well sourced information, calling it "false" when it wasnt, then taking it to AfD, and then intimidating the editor is not acceptable behaviour at all. I have provided all the diffs of content removal in my AfD comment here, and the intimidation can be seen here: special:permalink/1086719271#Query. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Um—you've not "come across" it, Celestina007's response to that AfD is literally what this thread was originally about (go back up to the original comment and check the first link). As I've said on multiple occasions here I do feel there's a genuine problem here which warrants at minimum strict restrictions and potentially an outright block, but making this comment like you've uncovered some kind of new evidence just weakens the case by making it look like you're trying to pull a fast one by presenting the same discussed-to-death issue as a separate incident. ‑ Iridescent 18:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Iridescent: I apologise for being vague in my previous comment, and if my wording was off, giving the wrong impression (I was in a hurry, and multitasking on my computer, now I am on mobile). I am aware about the original comment, but I recently saw the edit history of the article, and she removing the well sourced content as "false", and neutral content as "promotional", and then taking the article to AfD is not acceptable behaviour. The intimidation after that is a separate issue. Here, it has been discuused how they generally accuse editors of UPE without evidence, but removing well sourced content, and then calling it non-notable is concerning as well — thats what I wanted to point out. After-all, thats why everyone has been backing up Celestina — because of their work in UPE. But that work is flawed too. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I think a topic ban is justified in light of the new evidence provided by @Beccaynr: showing that she ran off multiple users. On top of that there's the evidence that she deleted valid content from an article in order to win a dispute. Both are inexcusable. Honestly, I'm pretty disappointed and at a lose over the whole thing. She seems like a good faithed, reasonable, and caring editor from the interactions I've had with her. She's clearly made many mistakes in the interim though. Ones that I don't feel comfortable excusing by not supporting at least a topic ban. I think if the other oppose voters put aside the paternalism they would agree with me that at least a topic ban is justified given how she's acted, if not something more severe. Especially considering she hasn't shown any interest in the whole mentorship thing. People who oppose sanctions because of the mentorship offers should really reconsider their positions now that it doesn't seem like something she's going to do. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think supporting mentorship is nessecarily paternalism, but I agree with the rest of your comment. In my case my reluctance to change my mind was my relentless optimism... I feel awful about everything, honestly. Clovermoss (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think the offers of mentorship themselves are necessarily paternalism, but the over reliance on the offers as reasons to not topic ban her definitely are. It's not like they aren't mutually exclusive. She can be topic banned and still receive mentorship. So the whole thing just comes off like handholding. Maybe a topic ban will be good for her. Who knows. Even if it isn't, she has enough autonomy as an individual to be responsible for, and suffer the consequences of, her own behavior. In the meantime I share your feelings about this. She went to bat for me awhile back when I was probably going to be blocked so I don't feel great about voting to have her topic banned. I don't think doing nothing is adequate though. There's just to many instances of her being dishonest and clearly acting in bad faith to make me think it's all a big miss-understanding or something along those lines. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      This entire situation is bothering me enough that I'm losing sleep over it. I don't really participate in ANI and I feel completely overwhelmed thinking about possibilities. But I guess my main doubt at the moment is that if Celestina007 does show up and accept mentorship, even though they haven't edited for days, wouldn't a topic ban be less effective? My understanding is that it would prevent someone from discussing their mistakes and learning from them. I do think they have autonomy as an individual, though. If mentorship does happen, would it really be excusing this behaviour? Clovermoss (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If this is causing you such distress it might be best if you just do your best to forget about it, you don't owe Wikipedia or anyone involved anything. On the mentorship point, they won't be able to discuss anything covered by their topic ban while banned, at least not on-wiki and IMO it's inadvisable for them to do so privately. However there's no reason mentorship has to end before they successfully appeals their topic ban. Depending on how long their topic ban lasts, perhaps their current mentors will no longer be able to function in that role in that time. However it seems likely there would be someone willing to offer to help and indeed it could be a condition imposed by the community as part of her appeal. And if such a condition is imposed, they'd hardly be the first person required to have a mentor as one condition for lifting a block or ban. Nil Einne (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Apologies for misgendering, I made the mistake of not properly checking before going against my norm of using gender-neutral pronoun by default. When it's been such a while I normally use del and ins to indicate where I modified my post but in this case it seems like it would harm the intent and with no one having replied I have just modifed my initial comment. Nil Einne (talk) 08:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support an indef topic ban from UPE, to be suspended if mentorship is accepted. Given the severity of the problem (scaring new editors), in combination with an apparent willingness to learn, mentorship seems worth a try. Competence is acquired at different rates, and I am confident that with mentorship of DGG there will be no further damage to Wikipedia in the meantime. Femke (talk) 07:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was not intending to offer any opinion here, with most of it covered very well by others - Iridescent, I think, has it right, and Yngvadottir's analysis is spot on (to highlight just two). But reading over this again, a few things do disturb me and this is my chance to air them. I agree with all the comments that Celestina007's aggression and air of authority amounted to bullying, and their style of interaction with newcomers has been unacceptable. But I have sympathies too, as Celestina007 has been getting a lot of support and praise from NPP/UPE folks. Where was the feedback from fellow volunteers working in the same area that Celestina007's approach was a long way wide of what's acceptable? (And I don't mean the occasional bit of friendly advice that was then allowed to go unheeded.) It's very easy for groups of people working closely on one specific area of a project to lose sight of the wider aim, and perhaps to become a bit overzealous in their focus. What's the overriding aim of Wikipedia? Is it to weed out undeclared paid editors, and to purge the project of any suspect new pages? No, it's to create an encyclopedia (which should not need saying). The priority should be to attract good new content, not to excise poor content (yes, I know the two are closely related, but it's an important distinction). That AFD is an example of how focus on the wrong thing can do so much damage. I can understand why people supported the deletion of the article as it was presented, an the grounds of notability. But where were the queries of Celestina007's assertion that it was a "Promotional paid job" and the "I’m an expert on Nigerian sources" assertion? And the unsupported claims about the article creator? Did people just accept Celestina007 as the authority and not do their own checking? If anyone did, shame on you. Content acceptability should never be decided by authority. Did nobody examine the state of the article before Celestina007 removed pretty much all the content and some sources that are deemed acceptable? The article was by no means clearly a paid editing production, and Celestina007 presented no evidence at all that it was. Has nobody ever seen music fans getting a bit over-enthusiastic about their favourite musicians? Until this ANI report, nobody appeared to have found any problem with the nomination, and that disturbs me. Anyway, this has turned out to be a lot longer than I intended. I do want to acknowledge the hard work that NPP and UPE people do - it's endless, and largely thankless. But let's not lose sight of the real goal. (TLDR: I support a restriction from NPP/UPE work until Celestina007 can convince the community that they truly grok the problem - it's not just changing the way they talk to people, it's about changing their whole attitude). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Boing! said Zebedee: Celestina007 is no longer a new page reviewer, so aren't they already restricted from doing further NPP/UPE work? I guess they could still thereotically scroll through Special:NewPagesFeed and try to deal with what they think is UPE, but at this point that would make me lose what little remaining faith I have in them. I agree that they need to change their entire attitude. That AfD is awful, beyond words, honestly. Clovermoss (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I'm not sure which permissions allow people to do what these days, so I'll remain unspecific on what kind of restriction is needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      After a little more consideration, I support a Topic ban as worded by Iridescent. I think we need more than technical restrictions on the use of specific NPP tools, we need to say clearly "You are not allowed to do this". (I haven't considered an indef block simply because I see no likelihood of a consensus for it.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Indef as first option and TBAN per Iridescent as second option. Is there anyone who contributes to Wikipedia that Celestina hasn't accused of UPE? Gabriel wasn't the last person. Celestina007 bullied User:Solaeleko, a faculty member at Federal University of Technology Akure. The user created their first article on 14th of December 2021, Celestina007 falsely accused this academic of UPE without evidence and moved his article to draft space. This academic never returned to Wikipedia since then. How many academics have we lost because of a single user? Last month, this user falsely accused User:Kaizenify of death threat without evidence] . She wrote "Kaizenify has continued to create possible paid jobs and currently have three UPE templates on their TP, im not sure what to do to refrain them from creating non notable articles on entrepreneurs but they have continued with impunity, i am afraid if I make an official report against them, my life would be in more danger.. The three UPE template she mentioned in the quoted text were added by Celestina007 herself without evidence. When Kaizenify asked her to present her evidences, no evidence was presented. Kaizenify threatened to file a report with the WMF T&S. Shortly, a wiki-friend of Celestina007 User:TheresNoTime showed up to accused Kaizenify of making a legal threat, and removed Kaizenify's Event Coordinator User right. When does filling a legitimate report to T&S becomes a legal threat on the English Wikipedia? This is a high level of impunity in a bid to protect Celestina007. Celestina007 has been under the guidance of DGG, and mentorship of Barkeep49 for enough time with no good result. It's ironic that DGG is proposing mentorship again. Users like Celestina007 should never ever be allowed to continue to contribute to Wikipedia. The project would survive without users like Celestina007. 105.112.181.2 (talk) 09:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:SPA with one edit, who has made no other contributions to Wikipedia. scope_creepTalk
    • Addendum There is attack page created by Celestina007 to harass a banned editor in violation of BLP and the community WP:BANPOL. We cannot excuse these bad behaviors with her shady UPE works. Accusing users of UPE without evidence are not UPE works, they are called harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.181.2 (talk) 10:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      It was originally at "Wikipedia:Oluwa2Chainz Sockpuppetry and Undisclosed paid editing", and was meant as an essay. I moved it to its current title as an LTA. I was going to take it to MfD after this ANI. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any sanctions and support mentorship by DGG and Nick. If that failed then indef block should be the only option to deal with this issue. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban as worded by Irishdescent. I didn't even know the query on my talk page was made due to my keep !vote on the AfD. I'm supporting this sanction because I think that Celestina007 needs a break; rest their head and chill for some months. I oppose any form of mentoring, if you go through their userpage, you wouldn't need a sooth-sayer to tell you that they are (being) mentored by numerous admins and checkusers prior to this day, so any oppose to the topic ban (or indeff) would only imply that Celestina007 is unblockable. To me, it appears she wants to be the ONLY profilic editor from Nigeria; Celestina007 has had a fallout with ALMOST ALL Nigerian editors, Princess of Ara, Nnadigoodluck,Kaizenify just to mention a few. And among these editors, are editors who are here to build an encyclopedia. Just like I've told them in our previous interrogations, I do not need their trust as I am not here to earn trusts, I am here to build an encylopedia — that should be of utmost importance. I joined here after I found out the gap in the Nigerian novel space. Had I not have my reasons to be here, I would have left this very collaborative project after her interrogation which later prompted her to file a sockpuppet investigation against me, also note, I have no vendetta against them, but I sincerely think that they are overzealous with their job. They might have acknowledged that no one is all-knowing, but their actions tells a different story. please use a ping. --Reading Beans Talk to the Beans? 19:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban as per Iridescent's wording, oppose block or site ban. Don't oppose mentorship but don't think it's enough by itself. I first saw this early on and was fairly concerned by what I saw and even more concerned about Celestina007 refusal to comment on certain concerns, especially the way they kept just ignoring questions about the government tool. I've largely refrained from commenting first since I was hoping they would eventually say something better which IMO they did. And after that mostly since I wasn't sure how we should proceed. I've had some disagreements with Celestina007 at the ANs and also been concerned by some of the stuff I've seen for a long while. Although I understand their frustrations with UPE and accepts it's a very difficult and unsatisfying area to work on with very limited support, I held the view they sometimes went too far even before this thread and with all the issues raised it's even more clear they've gone way too far. So many others have described why so I won't say much more on that. However as with some others I find the NLT angle a little unsatisfying. I've long emphasised that it's the chilling effect that matters and in fact something that isn't a "legal" threat per se can be worse than a dumb legal threat. However we only indef editors for legal threats as long as we need to. Provided editors withdraw the treat and stop making them we don't keep blocking them. So blocking or cbaning Celestina007 for this reason seems a little weird especially since while they have been warned a lot and made promises before, it's not clear to me they really understood the NLT angle of what they were doing. So I see this more of a bite, NPA and civility issue, albeit an extremely severe one. Given the severity and the history, I've come to the conclusion I just don't have confidence that mentorship will be enough by itself. I think we need that enforced time away. This also gives a clear message that we do not accept such intimidatory behaviour. I've been unable to decide whether it should be indefinite or time limited, so leave that to others. But I feel a site ban or a full block is too far since I'm not convinced they will continue to exhibit sufficient problems when topic banned and I guess partly also in recognition of the extreme difficulty UPE places on editors. And I don't know why we're even discussing a global lock here rather than meta. Nil Einne (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      A final comment, almost an aside hence a separate post, from my PoV it doesn't matter much whether they were lying or thought they were truthful about the tool at the time, both are deeply troubling. It's more concerning if they are still misleading about this tool, but I've seen enough and can imagine enough on my own to see why there are various explanations about what this tool does that may have cause them to say what they've said without any intention to mislead. Also, while they may have inappropriately brought up this tool, I don't think this justifies us demanding they reveal stuff they probably aren't allowed to. So from my PoV, they've said enough to satisfy my concerns and I don't think we should expect more. And while their limited technical understand suggests they need to be cautious when using technical evidence, it doesn't seem to preclude them from involvement provided they exhibit sufficient caution in line with their limited understanding. And while they may have not done so, frankly this is only a minor part of the reason they should be topic banned IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Very well said. As usual. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I admit I'm pretty shocked to find this discussion going on. Celestina007's contributions to the anti-spam initiative have been considerable. I haven't, in my dealings with her, noticed any evidence of any shady dealings or dishonesty. If she's done wrong and explained herself badly, I suppose she must be admonished in some way but it seems to me like more-than-adequate action has already been taken. There's nothing to be gained by pursuing someone who has done a lot of positive work. Deb (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Look up a little way at the information provided by 105.112.181.2. I'm concerned that in her responses here, Celestina007 does not appear to recognize the seriousness of their offenses against WP:CIVIL, a basic condition of participation here, and further examples of her being shockingly harsh keep emerging. Solaeleko may have been lying at their talk page about being university faculty. We've been burned before. But after 11 useful edits, none of them deleted, last December they created Wale Oke, about the chancellor of a completely different university, and someone not in the same professional field. Celestina007 assumed the article was created for money and draftified and tagged it 45 minutes later. It looks to me as though it has an adequate claim of notability and two valid references. I really don't like to work on Christian-themed articles, so please can someone else fix the reference error and consider moving it back to mainspace? Kaizenify also got treated very rudely. Looking at the state of his talk page on April 11, I see this assumption of bad faith from Celestina007 by way of a section heading Could you be so gracious as to explain why you are creating promotional articles for non notable businessmen? and several now deleted articles that I can't examine to see whether their (and others' including Dennis Brown) verdict that they were irredeemably promotional is justified. Perhaps they were. Unlike Celestina007, Kaizenify states that he is not a native speaker of English, and with businesspeople, it's hard to get the balance right between demonstrating notability and sounding promotional, because of our strong aversion here to business hype. But the AfD I selected to look at (for Antonia Ally), he didn't participate, and it was closed soft delete on grounds of low participation. Kaizenify is active in the WMF, including in Wikimedia Nigeria and promoting Wikidata, so doesn't really need me to defend him (and it's a bit ironic that I should do so), but his later answer to Dennis Brown impressed me as direct, introspective, and cordial: Thank you, Dennis Brown. I have never been compensated for any contribution to the English Wikipedia or any other languages Wikipedia and I do not intend to get paid for any contributions in the future. I am fully aware that UPE violates the English Wikipedia policy and the WMF site's Term of Use. I have been around for more than 5 years editing on less controversial topics such as biographies of Notable Nigerians. I cannot deny that some of my articles have been suboptimal partly because I am an inclusionist trying to increase content relating to Nigeria; I think it’s high time I raise the bar. Please let me know if you require additional information. For the article closed as soft delete, there was a suggestion of adding brief information at The HOW Foundation, so I looked at that, only to find Celestina had gutted it (with nasty edit summaries), so that it's now useless to the reader; it doesn't even say what the organization does, except in the infobox. Ironically, it now serves only to namedrop its founder. I admit, I haven't looked at the previous version; but Kaizenify's only edit to that article was a move; he didn't even link Antonia Ally's name. That's fairly poor promotion. I also examined and rewrote a film article they started that was mentioned at Wikipediocracy, Hire a Woman (film); in my estimation any promotionalism in that stub was caused by difficulty in making a complex point in English, plus some carelessness as to how much the cited sources actually said—bog-standard stuff. At what is now Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Oluwa2Chainz, Usernamekiran removed the following clickbait-style grave-dancing, advocating in which Celestina007 advocated we all assume bad faith: So what then is precisely The O2C FACTOR, now, the biggest shock was Oluwa2Chainz was noted as an editor who did a good job at tackling unethical practices in Nigeria related articles, The O2C Factor is really simple to grasp! It’s simple! Sometimes, those who appear to have the most 'integrity' or trust of the community, or the overzealous ones who claim to be the gate keepers stopping non notable articles from making into mainspace and combatting unethical practices might be the very ones perpetuating it, this, in summary, is The O2C Factor. I have to say, that's remarkably close to a self-indictment. (It's also ridiculously cynical; doesn't it amount to: "If they're trusted and seem to be doing a good job, they're probably crooked"?) But the most saddening thing may be what the IP highlighted about the death threat accusation that Celestina007 made concerning Kaizenify, at Celestina007's own talk page. There's a quote above, but when I looked at the section in its entirety (minus something that's been oversighted), I was appalled that such a rant was made on Wikipedia, with multiple pings, and the editor thus attacked was apparently punished with a loss of privileges for threatening to go to Trust and Safety (which was interpreted as a legal threat). Kaizenify's response to that interpretation; this was April 8. The evidence just keeps mounting. We as a community have let people down badly here, including Celestina007 by condoning her behavior. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Yngvadottir: I did not say/advocate that we all assume bad faith. Did you mean Celestina did that? And indeed, eveidence of Celestina's incivil, odd, and attention seeking behaviour keeps on increasing. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I did mean that Celestina advocated assuming bad faith. Sorry! strikeout and rephrasing above. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      lol. no need to apologise :-) —usernamekiran (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Yngvadottir: I think you have summed up the situation very well there. And I repeat my sympathy for Celestina007 (and this is such a sad and painful discussion), because of all the uncritical praise they've been getting from those turning a blind eye to unacceptable behaviour in the name of rooting out UPE. Everyone here saying "no action needed, because Celestina has done a lot of great work" is part of the problem. No amount of great work justifies the behaviour that has been highlighted in this discussion. Action is clearly needed here - not punitive, but corrective. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban as worded by Iridescent, as per the reasons given by Iridescent, Nil Einne, and others. The evidence presented by Nnadigoodluck, Beccaynr and 105.112.181.2 was particularly troubling to me. Endwise (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support any sanction - indef block still preferred, but I support any topic ban... anything other than doing nothing. I don't agree with everything that's happened in this thread, but I do not understand how anyone can look at last year's ANI, look at the diffs presented here of what's happened since the , and conclude either that there is no problem, or that a third round of mentoring will help. Most troubling is people in this thread who are saying the exact same thing they said last year: that it must be a misunderstanding, that they do good work, that surely a little advice can correct the... ugh, no. Go read their user page, go look at those diffs: this is not what healthy volunteerism looks like and we all need to stop encouraging such nonsense. Levivich 14:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      +1 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Celestina007 and COI editing - Celestina007 has engaged in COI editing. Celestina007 uploaded the image of Angela Okorie whom she described as someone close to her (friend, family member etc) (see the image description) and added the image to the article without declaring that they have a COI in violation of WP:COI. It's ironic that someone who consider herself as UPE police is engaging the same or similar behavior. Supporting Indef of this user!. In one of the articles she wrote, Liz Anjorin, Celestina007 wrote "Lizzy Anjorin fought Toyin Abraham for no apparent reasons and called her unprintable names in blatant violation of WP:BLP. Three sources were added to this claim and none of the sources supported that claim. I also noticed the same problem in Ebube Muonso where sources added to the article didn't support the claims. It looks like there are significant violation of BLPs that require a separate investigation. If this user is not indeff, they should also be banned from creating new articles in addition to whatever restrictions. 105.112.75.106 (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Your first three edits 'ever' & it's to this ANI report. Something's wrong here. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose - This saga started before I went on holiday and here it is still rumbling on one week later. That in itself is very unfair on Celestina007 and must be a great source of worry and stress. When this first kicked off I felt a great empathy with Celestina007 and thought that she was being unfairly demonised. Sure some silly things were said but I have sen just as bad statements from admins that have passed without comment. I just wish I could find them now and provide diffs. I believe that we are failing to acknowledge how neuro diverse our editor population is and what is normal and acceptable to one editor is grossly abhorrent to another. Wikipedia needs its rules and needs to enure that editing behavious operates within those rules. However, we risk loosing an invaluable resource if we misjudge the outcome here.  Velella  Velella Talk   17:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:AG20044018

    AG20044018 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has never edited with an edit summary and has never edited a talk page. They consistently mark edits as minor when they don't seem to meet WP:MINOR, despite them being warned about this numerous times on their talk page. They repeatedly add unsourced content to articles, and they've been warned for this numerous times on their talk page as well.

    Some diffs: 1 2 3 4 5. Maybe this is a case of WP:RADAR? At the very least we still need editors to communicate with others, so can we get a partial block to article space here to give them an oppourtunity to respond and explain their edits, here at ANI, or on their talk page? FozzieHey (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    They appear to be editing on mobile, so perhaps the issue here is WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Many mobile users do not receive pings, and some don't even know that talk pages exist. Endwise (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing that out! They do seem to be editing from mobile web (although they did seem to edit sometimes from desktop before 2021 (indicated by no edit tags), most of the warnings came after that). In which case a partial block could help get their attention, as custom block messages should display to mobile web, according to WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. FozzieHey (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It never ceases to annoy me that the WMF hasn't fixed these issues, it would be good to know if this person is just ignoring all this or is genuinely unaware of it. I've partial blocked them from article space as they were just editing a few hours ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hear, hear! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Please revdel?

    MYSTERY LINK LOCKED FOREVER
    (non-admin closure) The requested edit was revdeled by RickinBaltimore. As for whether that link would be malicious... that is a mystery best left unsolved. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    the link. I don't know where this link goes, and I don't feel like getting a "Oops! All your important files have been encrypted" message this (UTC) afternoon, or crashing my browser or whatever. If anyone is feeling game and has a virtual machine to open this link on, sure, go ahead (I can't stop you). Otherwise just revdel, no one needs it, and it's possibly malicious. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

     Done RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:StatsFreak

    Threat of retaliation after giving advice that edit warring can result in a block. See this edit. Inappropriate comments such as "tough pill to swallow" and "fuming at this decision." I'm merely trying to keep the information accurate. I have no personal attachment to the company or the city of Sandusky. Also, please review user's talk page. This user has a long history of disruptive editing and multiple warnings. The edits and reversals are often spread apart by several days or weeks, but they are still disruptive.—JlACEer (talk) 03:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I warned them about their comment. I see enough decent looking edits in their contributions, that I don't know if a block is appropriate yet, but if they continue inappropriate behavior it can certainly can be done. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The comment was inappropriate but the content dispute itself is legitimate, and their comment is more understandable given the context. Looking up sources it looks like the company has been shifting their corporate operations away from their original HQ in Sandusky to Charlotte, and from what I can tell it is at the point where the CEO, COO, and other top executive staff are largely based out of the Charlotte location now making it a de facto corporate headquarters, much to the concern of the Sandusky camp. ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Richard Zimmerman, the President and CEO, was in Charlotte prior to becoming CEO in 2018, so that is nothing new. The CFO is still in Sandusky and all the partnership shareholder reports, SEC filings, and IRS tax documents still list Sandusky as the corporate headquarters. Until those things change, the wiki page should not be changed.—JlACEer (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the argument you are making, that's a content matter, and should be discussed at the article talk page. Yes, the comment that StatsFreak made is inappropriate, but this is not the place to litigate a content dispute; we only deal with behavioral matters here. You may be right (or not, I don't take any stance on that), but even so, that doesn't mean that other people don't have reasonable perspectives; if there is a dispute that cannot be worked out on the article talk page, invite extra commentary from uninvolved editors using dispute resolution processes. ANI is not a place to discuss content matters. Good faith users who disagree on how to interpret a complex situation is a content issues. Stats Freak does need to take care to remain civil and avoid edit warring, but let's keep content discussions in the right spot. --Jayron32 17:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So the de facto headquarters is only the headquarters because the CEO was already there before he became the CEO and made his existing location his new headquarters? But on the official paperwork, nothing’s changed? A fascinating content dispute, to be sure. Not something we’re going to block over. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm more concerned with the comment "this will not end well for you" along with the long history of disruptive editing and block warnings. Please look over his talk page. Warnings are useless if they are not carried out. I see this far too often where admins don't want to issue a block because the disruptions are not occurring "right now." I realize blocks are not supposed to be punitive, but at some point, someone needs to show these users that disruptive editing and threatening other users is not acceptable. He has reverted the content four times and ignored the discussion on his talk page. What happened to the three-revert rule?—JlACEer (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m sorry, are you reporting this user per your original post? Or for a 3RR violation? Or for a pattern of behavioral misconduct? Your complaint has been actioned, and unless you have very convincing diffs handy, we don’t look kindly on this kind of goalpost-shifting. An admin has already told you that they have your back and that they will block if necessary. Don’t push it. ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving discussion to your talk page.—JlACEer (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    40.133.234.46 Disruptive editing and edit warring

    Please see 40.133.234.46 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) they have been blocked before for 31 hours and then for 1 year back on 10th Feb 2021 for WP:NOTHERE, they have come back and was blocked from one article on the 17th March. They mix in ok edits with disruptive ones and some edit warring as per Harold Lloyd and current events. They wipe their own talk page so if you may come across one of their edits, you wouldn't have noticed so gets a lot of first time warnings and welcomes. The account needs to be blocked and made account creation only.— NZFC(talk)(cont) 05:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This IP editor has been warned at least six time in May 2022.
    Diffs of the user's reverts:
    1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harold_Lloyd&type=revision&diff=1087226742&oldid=1087226178&diffmode=source
    2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shredded_Chicken_Mini_Quesadilla&diff=prev&oldid=1087226331&diffmode=source
    3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carlos_Ezquerra&type=revision&diff=1085831601&oldid=1085820452&diffmode=source
    4. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rooibos&diff=1085931210&oldid=1085918941&diffmode=source
    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:40.133.234.46&diff=1085836900&oldid=1085649861&diffmode=source
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:40.133.234.46&diff=1085980113&oldid=1085979963&diffmode=source
    Please block editing on their talk page as in the 2021-02-09T06:34:03 block, otherwise this IP editor will remove the block message template & any "this is a shared IP" templates.
    Also, continually blanking their own talk page seems to be their way of hiding warnings so other editors do not see them. I cannot AGF any longer on this one. Peaceray (talk) 06:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since someone did the EXCITING task of removing my response, I will paste it here (notably they also do not even feel like giving constructive reasons for things other than clearly that they do not feel like letting my edits stand):
    Hi Spencer. Since they posted here and it hasn't been removed, can I request that someone do something about this? I strongly suggest you block the ABOVE users for attempting to constantly revert my *constructive* edits. THEY are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. I'm not sure why a quesadilla should be redirected to a dollar menu item at some fast food place instead of to, you know, the actual food item. And obviously the definition of 'resultant' is not the mathematical definition (it could use a disambiguation page, but one exists for results, hence.). I tried to mention this on the Administrator board last week and got nowhere. I am tired of people accusing me of doing what *THEY THEMSELVES* are doing to me. Thanks! 40.133.234.46 (talk) 05:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'll admit I could provide summary's in some places instead of using reverse vandalism button, rather than WP:BRD this IP would rather edit war and doesn't seem to realise even in the edits they have just reverted back again that they are doing things like removing references when they do it. They aren't WP:CIVIL and while they make some good edits, it doesn't make up for their history of bad ones and edit warring.— NZFC(talk)(cont) 06:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting here that 40.133.234.46's statement that someone did the EXCITING task of removing my response (...) clearly that they do not feel like letting my edits stand was part of an administrator's routine maintenance:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=1087231153&oldid=1087229751&diffmode=source

    I would ask that anyone reviewing 40.133.234.46's actions start with reviewing all the edits on that editor's talk page starting at:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:40.133.234.46&diff=prev&oldid=1085649861&diffmode=source

    Then go look at this editor's May 2022 edits on the pages mentioned in the warnings:
    Peaceray (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And *I* would ask that you clearly stop screwing with me. References were removed from some things, for instance, because they were patently false. Thanks. 40.133.234.46 (talk) 10:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thus far this month, several editors have warned this IP editor for unconstructive editing, edit warring, removing another editor's talk page comments (without leaving an edit summary), warning about the three-revert rule, violation of the Manual of Style guidelines, vandalism, unconstructive editing, & disruptive editing. That is eight warnings in total. I have gone through all eight, & none of the warnings were for removing references or citations, as this editor seems to allege.
    A cursory review of this IP editor's edit summaries reveal a failure to assume good faith, with edit summaries such as
    • Clearly the person who keeps REVERTING MY RESEARCHED EDITS needs to be blocked.
    • STOP EDIT STALKING ME AND REMOVING MY EDITS. SERIOUSLY.
    • NO. THE MEANING OF SUPPOSITION IS INDEED UNCERTAINTLY. SEE WIKTIONARY. STOP EDIT STALKING ME.
    • STOP EDIT STALKING ME AND REMOVING MY EDITS. SERIOUSLY.
    • stop randomly reverting my edits. I CLEARLY STATED THEY WERE MOVED TO THE APPROPRIATE ARTICLES
    This editor appears to only engage in discussion via the edit summary. Thus far this month, this editor's only edits to an article talk page were to remove material by another editor on Talk:Rooibos.
    Thus far during this month, this editor has not provided edit summaries for about 70 edits. The MediaWiki software tagged nine of these edits with Tag: references removed. There were other edit summaries with the references removed tag in which the reason for removal was not stated. For example, weird crap is an insufficient explanation for removing references, IMHO.
    I think that reasonable fellow editors would find this editor in violation of several behavioral guidelines & conduct policies. Peaceray (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor, Peaceray, *IS* CLEARLY edit stalking me. I replied to the individual, but I am going to message here (because it seems like they are waiting until I am idle to leave messages here that I do not get notified of). While today they have at least have stopped ARBITRARILY REVERTING MY EDITS (WITH NO REASON, the same thing they KEEP ACCUSING ME OF), they are STILL SPECIFICALLY TARGETING MY IP. Isn't there some rule against this? I'm trying to be nice, but this is very aggravating. It feels very distinctly like they are trying to take over what I am working on, and if they want to work on things WITH ME (they specifically are targeting pages that I am working on, and I'm not saying today's edits are awful but they are MY INTERESTS and it would appear that this person is clearly doing it SPECIFICALLY because they are trying to start something with me) then they should have the decency to ask. I have very specific interests and skillsets and education and it's very frustrating to feel like someone is only interested in MY edits (or whomever they are doing this to at the time; it appears this editor has a history of doing this). It's so stalkerish. Thanks. 40.133.234.46 (talk) May 11, 2022, 23:56
    We really need an admin to step in here, there is a bit of WP:OWN happening with IP user going by the message left on Peaceray talkpage.
    • These are MY pages that I am working on and if you were interested in collaborating, you might have had the courtesy of asking me (and also not METICULOUSLY GOING THROUGH EVERY EDIT I DO WHEN I AM NOT AROUND, AND SPECIFICALLY MINE)
    I also have been keeping an eye on IP edits but decided not to engage with any improvements to their edits until discussion happens here, because like the message on Peaceray page, I assumed IP would react the same way if I did.— NZFC(talk)(cont) 00:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Editor NZFC is clearly trying to manipulate words. I was not implying that they were "my pages". I am not claiming to own them and if you read both of my replies, and looked at my whole responses, you'd see that. My issue is both you and Peaceray are SPECIFICALLY looking at MY edits for no reason. Why are you doing this? I never started anything with you. I never got in your way. I never got into any sort of "edit war" with you. You instead chose to instigate by meticulously going one by one through all of my edits and reverting them. I once again request that Peaceray and, really to a larger extent NZFC, be spoken with with regards to edit stalking. There's no reason that I can see for this happening other than trying to get me upset (I don't like some other words that some people use, as I find such words the opposite of constructive, though it feels like they are specifically doing it). Thanks. 40.133.234.46 (talk) 40.133.234.46 (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer, & will use, the word "monitor". I am monitoring 40.133.234.46's edits because some of this editor's edits, comments, & summaries are disruptions that go against English Wikipedia policies & guidelines. This has gotten my attention. I will revert actions that are clearly disruptive or that are against policies & guidelines. Peaceray (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I am perplexed. Currently this editor is by far making useful edits, but seems resistant to guidelines from the Manual of Style. When I make corrections in line with MOS:SURNAME (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_Shana_Grice&action=history) or MOS:DABORDER (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Javier&action=history) this editor seems to feel that the MOS is to be disregarded & reverts my corrections. Peaceray (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    91.148.86.115

    This user has edit-warred at Bosnia and Herzegovina at the Olympics [57]. They have also made uncivil comments. --Firestar464 (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Firestar464: See also this IP, who appears to be the same person. NonsensicalSystem(error?)(.log) 09:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That gives a range of 91.148.64.0/18. Firestar464 (talk) 10:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's edit-war because you people keep adding Yugoslav athletes who competed for SFRY into post-1992 Bosnia and Herzegovina Olympic article which they have NOTHING to do with. There already is another article dedicated to them and those athletes are already mentioned there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.97.216 (talk) 10:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I have semi-protected Bosnia and Herzegovina at the Olympics for two weeks. That should put a lid on it. As for "incivil comments", I don't think it's anywhere near the same ballpark as this. Also, Firestar464, is this supposed to be ironic? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    What do you mean by "ironic?" Firestar464 (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure the IPs use of "coon" can be considered somewhat incivil. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP certainly seems to be up for picking a fight. If there are any other articles actively being disrupted, we can protect those as well. The diff presented by Firestar464 seemed to be little more than mild sarcasm and asking a question, though. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ritchie333: IP back at it again with this edit. NonsensicalSystem(error?)(.log) 09:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like they're WP:NOTHERE with their behavior in general "who cares about consensus," etc. Firestar464 (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep lying, that's probably the only thing you're good at. 91.148.82.106 (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    IP is back at it again with this edit at North Macedonia at the Olympics.Jeff in CA (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    And why are you adding Yugoslav results and medals on the list of another country? Macedonia did not exist as a state back than, nor before second Yugoslavia. I explained in my edit-summary why I removed that content. 91.148.82.106 (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User XxDIxX is posting false information

    User XxDIxX is posting false information on the Dimitri Minakakis Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitrisminakakis (talk • contribs) 19:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hold on, are not going to address the fact that a brand new account, with an account name the same as the article subject, came here to complain about the article as their very first ever edit? Canterbury Tail talk 20:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) User:The Blade of the Northern Lights OP should be blocked too for using a username that represents a famous person. 106.214.120.46 (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I get where this is coming from, but let's try to have some sympathy for our BLP subjects who almost certainly have no knowledge of our internal policies or procedures, and who may suffer real-world harm from actions taken here by malicious actors. Beside which per REALNAME editing with your real name is allowed (if discouraged), and while the account may be soft-blocked there is no requirement to do so, keeping in mind that the purpose of such blocks is as a precaution against damaging impersonation. Probably best in these cases just to provide an OTRS pointer. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    NO, Not going to happen either. Chip3004 (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we should not block them. WP:AGF. This may legitimately be that person, and people are allowed to use their real name as their username (though we do advise against it.) Lots of Wikipedia editors also are notable enough for articles, and use their real names. It's a non-issue, unless you have evidence this person is impersonating Dimitri Minakakis. --Jayron32 17:20, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not sure. We do sometimes politely block with a request that they authenticate themselves. Doug Weller talk 18:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Mike Bacsik (2000s pitcher)

    Today, I came across two edits made to Mike Bacsik (2000s pitcher). I used the undo function because the removal of content was removing content related to the subject and follows the IP's point of view by wanting to portray this person only in a positive manner. I left a message on the IP's talk page. Later, the IP performed the same edit, which I reverted for the same reason. I went to their talk page to leave another message, and saw they replied. The IP reverted my revision again, this time leaving a rude edit summary. After reverting again, I warned the person about personal attacks. Then, they reverted again, leaving an offensive edit summary in the process. I stepped back for a while in order to avoid breaching the three revert rule. I would like some help in dealing with the matter. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 21:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is clearly not acceptable. An argument could be made about WP:UNDUE, but that isn't what the IP is doing, they have made it quite clear they want to just remve any mention of anything negative as it is "in the past". What's in the past is kind of the whole point of an encyclopedia, so that doesn't hold water, and needlessly personalizing a minor content dispute is never a good thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have removed the excessive detail about his firing from a radio station from the lead. This person is notable as a professional MLB baseball player, not as a radio sports host. He made a stupid racist tweet on one day that caused him lots of problems including loss of that job, and he apologized repeatedly for that tweet. The previous version devoted undue weight to this particular incident, in violation (in my judgment) of BLP policy. The article, and especially the lead, should summarize this person's entire career, and not over-emphasize one really bad day for him, even if he was responsible. Cullen328 (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I get you don't want to highlight his racism in the lede, but you do realize racism isn't a thing that happens to you on bad days, it's a deeply ingrained way of misthinking. No need to downplay it for the guy. Lila Wrist (talk) 05:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          I wouldn't say racism is always deeply ingrained. Sometimes it's simply the result of ignorance to certain phenomena or issues, and can range in extremes from nazism to simply using stereotypes because you think they're true. Seeing the original tweet and its content "dirty mexicans" makes it seem to me like he thought such a phrase was equivalent to "cheeseheads" out of sheer ignorance, especially since no other tweets he has made convey hatred for hispanic people.
          While it should stay in the article due to the fact that it happened and was sourced, it should not be in the lede and only the major effects of it (him being hired by a new radio station), for the same reason we don't recognize Elon calling a rescue worker a "Pedo guy" in the lede, merely the effects that followed (him winning the defamation lawsuit). ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 11:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article looks compliant with WP:BLP currently, WP:UNDUE problems with the lead looks fixed, and let's face it, this isn't the correct venue to discuss such matters anyways. As a content matter, this should be discussed on the article talk page. No one is going to get blocked, so any objections to closing this thread? --Jayron32 16:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, it looks like the matter has been resolved. There haven't been anymore edits removing the content, and Cullen328 blocked the IP from editing the page indefinitely. I have no objections to closing it. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 22:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      An indef block is clearly an overreaction, since they started editing the day they were blocked. They should have been blocked for no more than 31 hours. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2A00:F41:2C25:7865:0:5F:1D97:2E01

    STALE
    given the nature of IPs, especially specific IPv6 editors, it is unlikely that the user in question is still using the IP address. We don't normally block IPs 3 days out for anything. It's worth monitoring, but there's nothing to do in this venue. Furthermore, simple vandalism can be reported at WP:AIV in the future. --Jayron32 13:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user is a huge Islamophobe who vandalizes mostly Kurdish pages and usually insults the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in his edits or is just purely doing it for vandalism. Vandalizing/disruptive edits include: this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, and this one. This guy has been doing this non-stop for about 10 days, and telling him to stop is like talking to a wall, he won't budge. Kelhuri (talk) 10:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kelhuri: You have failed to notify 2A00:F41:2C25:7865:0:5F:1D97:2E01 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) of this discussion, as required by the large red notice and edit notice when making this section. I have done so for you this time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 12:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing to do here at this point. The IP hasn't edited in 3 days. They've been sufficiently warned. If they vandalize again, report them to WP:AIV.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Legal Threat and Socking

    LOCKED
    Accounts locked, etc — TNT (talk • she/her) 02:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Special:Contributions/Paul Strahleckisch and Special:Contributions/Paul $trahleckisch are probably the same editor, but more concerning is their legal threats. With this edit summary and if my google translate is anywhere close to correct - this edit and this edit and a lot more.--VVikingTalkEdits 14:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    that's all WMF slandermen
    that's all WMF slandermen
    P.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul $trahleckisch (talk • contribs) 14:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked as socks. Not too interested in the backstory (overspill from something at plwiki?) —Kusma (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. 10 years of edit warring at pl:Paweł Strzelecki (muzyk). Nothing to do with the English Wikipedia, and showing firmly and immediately back out the door is the right thing to do here. Uncle G (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Spammy userpage User:Messymelly

    RESOLVED
    (non-admin closure) Page has been deleted and user has been blocked. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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


    This page seems to be promoting a website. I tagged it for deletion under G11 but it failed. Can someone do it for me? Thanks, எ (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It would seem it's already been deleted under G11 indeed. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 22:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Cassiopeia at Tony Ferguson

    I recently removed the full name of UFC fighter Tony Ferguson from his article because it's not used in any independent media sources whatsoever. The source used to include it is independent research via a commission document. Per WP:BLP, this is a no-no because it constitutes WP:DOX. We need to err on the side of NOT including personally identifiable information on Wikipedia unless it is already widely available, and by all accounts, the only reason his is available via a Google search at all is its presence on his page.

    When making this deletion, I explained my rationale on the talk page, Talk:Tony Ferguson.

    User:Cassiopeia reverted the edit, ignored the talk page discussion I started, and decided to call me a vandal on my talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sorry_sir,_that%27s_classified_information&diff=1087400445&oldid=1073662994

    I am bringing this to ANI attention because I take BLP extremely seriously with a lot more scrutiny than a typical Wikipedia article, which is precisely what WP prescribes. I am in general concerned that User:Cassiopeia may have something of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality on his edits to MMA articles, often gatekeeping the contributions of neophytes like myself, but I wish to assume good faith on that matter and await a greater rationale for why he decided to call me a vandal after reading WP:BLP. --Sorry sir, that's classified information (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • The overwhelming majority of news sources don't include the full legal name of their subjects, but those legal names are nonetheless valid inclusions in articles about them -- and indeed, are routine -- even in many cases where the subjects themselves would devoutly love to suppress the information. This particular case scarcely involves someone seeking to avoid publicity, or unwarranted digging. This is someone actively participating in professional sports, and the source in question is a publicly available government document issued in support of that endeavor. (It's a freaking scoresheet, for pity's sake.)

      Furthermore, WP:DOX absolutely, positively does not apply here: it's intended to protect the anonymity of Wikipedia editors, not of BLP subjects, and the only guidance there dealing with non-editors is "Content and sourcing that comply with the biographies of living persons policy do not violate this policy; neither do discussions about sources and authors of sources, unless comments about persons are gratuitous to determining source quality." Finally, I'm missing the diff where you talk this over with Cassiopeia before dashing straight to ANI to complain; might you provide it, please? Ravenswing 02:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Perhaps you were thinking of WP:BLPPRIVACY instead of WP:DOX? 🙂 — TNT (talk • she/her) 02:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to note, 'twas me who reverted the removal and restored his name. Cass only restored the current ranking that you reverted, which could be what prompted the warning template being issued. That aside, I completely agree with Ravenswing. Media sources probably don't publish his full name because, why would they? Not all that relevant, but the guy has "Anthony Armand" tattood on his arm. I think it's safe to presume he's not trying to hide his full name. – 2.O.Boxing 02:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added a more appropriate source for the name. – 2.O.Boxing 03:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Come to that, a simple GNews search for "Anthony Armand Ferguson Padilla" turns up articles on CNN and in the Kenyan and Indonesian press; elapsed time, less than it took me to type this response. Ravenswing 05:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry sir, that's classified information See below
    1. The warning was for the edit you removed the source ranking info see here here-1. I am one of the counter vandalism trainers in Wikipedia and it is my work to warns editors who make disruptive, vandalism, promotion, copyvio, NPOV, adding unsourced, spam and etc edits.
    2. DOX has nothing to do with BLP. Pls understand the guidelines.
    3. The full name is support by independent, reliable sourced content.
    4. I am not the one who reverted or restored the full name info but other editor - see here-2. Pls check carefully next time before state the wrong fact. So I have no idea why the ANI is for.
    5. Pls note if any disagreement, then go to the article talk page and "invite the involved" editor and discuss is "extensively and lengthy and you can also invite other experienced editors to comment who know a lot about the subject". If after all the above, and still distributive then an ANI can be raised for ANI is the last resort and not without discussion then go to ANI. You have not event ping me and any discussion of the issue and straight went to ANI and this is not how thing work. Thus, pls understand the the procedures. In Wikipedia, editors should discuss the issues in hand on the article talk page and not run to ANI for every issue. I have about 200K edits and have
    6. Finally I am an experienced MMA editor in Wikipedia, and I am here to help. Do raise any questions or seek any assistance if you may. Cassiopeia talk 09:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought WP:DOX applied to other editors? As far as I'm aware Ferguson does not edit wikipedia (if you've seen his twitter you can probably figure out why.) ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 20:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a BLPN regular, I have a fairly different perspective from most others here. While User:Sorry sir, that's classified information may have used the wrong policy and came to the wrong board (they should have raised this at WP:BLP/N rather than here), their actions quite correct and it's User:Squared.Circle.Boxing and User:Cassiopeia who at least initially edited completed inappropriate. Per WP:BLPPRIMARY and to a lesser extent WP:BLPNAME we do not rely on primary sources no matter if they are government issued or part of some competition to support someone's name. We require that the name is published in reliable secondary sources. Until and unless someone adds such a source, it is appropriate to remove the name. It does not matter whether we have reason to think the person is trying to intentionally conceal their name. In the absence of sources it's not our concern. In particular, it does not matter whether editors think like User:Ravenswing that it's basic information. No suitable sources then no name, period. You can yell until you're blue that it's basic information but if it's basic information then it should be trivially for you to find suitable soures. Perhaps the OP could have done WP:BEFORE but if you regularly edit BLPs you come across a lot of these terribly sourced names all the time, and sadly a lot of experienced seems to think it's acceptable when it isn't. Knowing jack shit about MMA, I would have no idea whether this is one of those large number of cases where the name isn't available in reliable secondary sources and so should not be included or it is it's just that editors seem to think it's acceptable to source it to crappy "official" sources and myself would likely have just removed it if an editor brought it to BLPN and fought to keep it out until an editor acceptably sourced it. It's good that this eventually happened but it should not have taken an ANI thread for that to happen. If you're fighting to keep a living person's personal information an an article you should be the one finding the sources, not the editor you are reverting. Nil Einne (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I should clarify it's possible in some cases evidence that the subject is trying to conceal their name or not trying to conceal their name may be relevant. But this is only likely in certain cases, such as when there are very few sources covering. It doesn't matter when there are no reliable secondary sources, nor if a lot of them. Also thinking about this more IMO this is serious enough that I'm hoping we get rapid correction from the editors concerned since if we don't, I could see a BLP topic ban in order. For that reason, I've given discretionary sanctions alerts to the two editors involved, as well as to Ravenswings who while not involved expressed some extremely concerning views here which as I said are not at all in accordance with BLP policy. It may be that Ravenswings thinks such things but fortunately does not involve themselves on adding or keeping real names in articles so it's not an issue and if so I apologise. But it seemed better to be safe than sorry, if these editors do exhibit non BLP compliant editing in the future, it would be easier to deal with under DS rather than needing a community ban IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 07:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Nil Einne I am NOT the one who revert the info, pls check the article history page and read the comment on this discussion first prior messaged on BLP DS alert me on my talk page.[
      Both user Sorry sir, that's classified information and Nil Einne didnt check the article history log and jumped into ANI immaturely on me. Please check first or come to my talk page or article talk page (ping pls) and discuss prior this uncall for ANI..[User:Cassiopeia| Cassiopeia]] talk 23:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    176.219's concerns about ZaniGiovanni

    I am a long time IP user interested in Turkey related articles, some of those include hotly debated topics such as the events of 1915.

    For I stated my opinion that the events of 1915 does not constitute genocide (of course with references), he called me a "genocide denier" several times.[58][59][60][61]

    Genocide denial is a crime in some countries and calling someone "genocide denier" amounts to accusing someone of committing a crime apart from its aspect as a personal attack.

    I told him several times not to call me as such on his talk page.[62][63][64]

    He then confused me with another user who edited the same page with me. Then, he then wrongly reported me to an admin for the perceived sock puppetry, which resulted my IP range being blocked for a week. By the way, the block was implemented without a checkuser verification.[65]

    I think such actions should not be tolerated for the well-being of editors.

    Best regards.--176.219.213.79 (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Aside from the personal attack aspect, if you are alleging that no genocide took place, you do understand that you are in fact a genocide denier, right? It's not as if it's untrue, is it? Considering that your IP geolocates to Turkey -- not a big surprise there -- you can't complain that ZaniGiovanni has left you vulnerable to any legal problems whatsoever, given that your government shares your opinion. Ravenswing 03:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Simply because I am disputing that the events constitute a genocide does not mean I am a genocide denier. There are a lof of historians that dispute Holodomor constitutes a genocide and this doesn't mean they are all genocide deniers. The legal aspect of the accusation is not unrelated to the topic because accusing a Wikipedian of a crime is a heavier form of personal attack (Wikipedia:Casting aspersions). 176.219.213.79 (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      "Genocide denial is the attempt to deny or minimize the scale and severity of an incidence of genocide;" first line of Genocide denial. Since doing so is not a crime in your country, exactly what about this is bothering you? Your dismay is surely no worse than that of any Armenian editor seeing your remarks, regarding a genocide that the vast majority of academic and historical sources (and the overwhelming majority of non-Turkish ones) states did occur. Ravenswing 05:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I've already answered this question here. 176.219.213.62 (talk) 08:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Plus, whether my stance on the events of 1915 is mainstream or not does not mean such name-calling is allowed. WP:NPA considers using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream to be a personal attack. 176.219.153.100 (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Simply because I am disputing that the events constitute a genocide does not mean I am a genocide denier." -- lol. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Funny joke but you might want to read Appeal to ridicule. 176.219.215.107 (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you the previous IP who was, rightly or wrongly, blocked for for being Ungitow? - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        @ActivelyDisinterested They admit they are in their first comment here He then confused me with another user who edited the same page with me. Then, he then wrongly reported me to an admin for the perceived sock puppetry, which resulted my IP range being blocked for a week. This IP range needs a block for a combination of WP:DUCK block evasion and Genocide denialism related disruption. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 11:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks 192.76.8.94 I missed that. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        You can start a WP:SPI to see your assessment is incorrect. 176.219.152.135 (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        SPI will not link IPs to accounts. Instead it's done on user behaviour, say if they have been pushing the same genocide denialism on the same pages as the account. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        About 80% of people (about 60 million) in Turkey concur that the events of 1915 do not constitute a genocide. Therefore, it is highly plausible there are multiple users having similar thoughts editing similar articles. Your behavioral assessment, therefore, is incorrect. 213.14.255.20 (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I never made an editorial assessment, or any comment on you. I was just bring up a possible conclusion. That's all you're doing right? - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Is there some annual ANI comment special going on that I'm not aware of? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't even remember you. Looking at the report User_talk:Blablubbs#Sock_IP, I had all the reasons to suspect sockpuppetry, and seems like the admin Bbb23 who blocked you for a week also thought so. This aside, why are you wasting my and everyone else's time? From your comments on Talk:Armenian_genocide#Suggestion, and extremely WP:TENDENTIOUS edits such as this (using a couple of WP:UNDUE partisan Turkish sources to prove a point) and these [66], [67], [68] (basically edit-warring and removing well sourced info from the article that the blocked for denialism account did as ell [69]), all of this led me to believe that you're an Armenian genocide denialist. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've blocked the same range again, this time for one month, and because of the IP Talk pages havoc that occurred last time, revoked Talk page access from the get-go.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Bbb23: I just saw this. Is it a troll account or related to this case? --Mann Mann (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Honestly I don't know. You could open an SPI and request a CU. They haven't made many edits for much of a behavioral analysis. They're much older than Ungitow, but there's a 4-year gap in their edits between 2018 and 2022.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I saw that the other day, possibly a hijacked account? RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Genre warring by music fan in Canada

    Three IP ranges in Western Canada have been genre-warring in music articles and making other disruptive edits for a few months now.[70] They keep edit warring at Beautiful Eyes and Fast & Furious. There's an obvious problem with WP:CIR,[71] and they haven't communicated via Talk pages except to make unclear edit requests[72][73][74][75] which are never revisited to continue a conversation. The disruption is annoying but not outright vandalism. Binksternet (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked through the ranges I only see one warning by you a month ago. Looks like they are mostly fiddling with things a good faith way but maybe not always helpful way. I don't really see enough explanations of guidelines/warnings for any action. Galobtter (pingó mió) 22:03, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for speedy blocking of IP User 95.186.184.224

    IP User 95.186.184.224 (talk) has been warned regarding possible disruptive editing done by them in article Harrison Davis and a level 1 warning template was sent to them. However, they started to edit the warning templates. The edit was later reverted and another warning template {{'subst:uw-tpv2'}} was sent to them but they continued to edit the template. They also began vandalizing the warning templates with nonsense, Used edit summaries that are uncivil, inappropriate or otherwise unconstructive and restored the reverts made by me. EnIRtpf09b (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 36 hours. Thank you for reporting, EnIRtpf09b. Another time, WP:AIV is a better, and usually faster, board for vandalism reports. Bishonen | tålk 11:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

    TotallyNOTMISTERDATA12

    Will someone ban TotallyNOTMISTERDATA12 and nuke their edits? They are a WP:SOCK of MisterData124 and they (both accounts) serially insert unsourced data in articles about Romania. Global lock would be all right. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked the new account. I see no basis for global locks for either account.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Bizarre anonymous threats and spam

    IP 142.162.133.44 left three of the same bizarre message under three headings, each differing by the different South Park Paramount+ specials. They're all unsigned and mention a Pebbles I never mentioned. They end with "I'm getting fed up with this whole thing! Now, I'm gonna kill you!". I'm not quite sure what's going on or how serious they intend it, but to play the same line instead of following up with details feels like it's already saying "I'm not gonna follow through". I will still probably email the emergency email to have my bases covered--CreecregofLife (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @CreecregofLife: Blocked and revision-deleted. I'm sorry this has happened to you. I would recommend that you email emergency just so that T&S are aware. I can e-mail them in case you haven't already. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I will gladly email them. I was readying to do so when the repeat incident occurred CreecregofLife (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: It was republished. Reverted quickly after, but still wanted it noted CreecregofLife (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Music vandal in France

    This IP range from France was blocked nine months ago for vandalism. Since then, the person has continued to change chart statistics to be wrong. For instance, they altered the chart rankings of the album Planet Her to be far higher than actual. The same thing happened at the song "Anaconda". They added a false chart ranking at the song "No Air". Every contribution from this IP range is bad. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TheKinkdomMan

    Blocked for a legal threat; three unblock requests denied. Drmies (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    TheKinkdomMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly violating WP:NPA. They have been falsely accusing me of being a liar in nearly all of their messages to me and their messages are often peppered with various other ad hominem attacks, all while they purport to trying to be civil and insisting their conduct is fine.

    [76] - "How can you talk to someone who clearly doesn’t respond to messages on the talk pages and yet has the balls to accuse me of not wanting to work things out"

    [77] - "Just note this user never messaged me and is clearly lying out their ass to cover there’s"

    [78] - "My conduct is fine, you are clearly lying"

    [79] - "you’ve been lying trying to get me blocked on here when you’ve been proven wrong, standing up for yourself and calling someone out isn’t a attack", "I hope you have a pleasant day and a healthy life outside of being on a keyboard, enjoy life get outside more to life than arguing over something that I’ve clearly proved", "no rules have been broken by me besides edit war, cut your BS Lying"

    [80] - "My logs clearly point out I made the talk page again another lie, your digging your hole deeper", "stop playing victim every time I say I’m done you add to it causing more fire to the BS that you clearly don’t see"

    [81] - "I’m not guilty of Jack Shit, you’ve been lying for the start"

    [82] - "I’m trying to be civil but you want to act like a winning key board warrior", "being caught in a lie is disgusting but yet I’m trying to be civil with you"

    [83] - "you started this by acting like a cry baby by reporting", "two wrongs don’t make a right and acting like a child doesn’t either", "go on with your day and enjoy life instead of being on a keyboard"

    [84] - "you continue to act like a cry baby", "I’ve caught you in multiple lies and you back track, enough is enough grow up act like a civil human being and leave it alone", "I’m done fighting over something so Fn stupid", "if you stopped acting like a winning baby there wouldn’t be any issues here, bitching back and fourth gets us no where"

    Contrary to this user's assertions, they have not provided any evidence for my "lies". They have also been ignoring other Wikipedia policy and insisting a recommendation is a rule that must be followed, but I am most bothered by these repeated personal attacks and false assertions against me. I would greatly appreciate any intervention ASAP, as I know they will continue to defend their conduct and make more personal attacks against me here for filing this. Bluerules (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I’ve also told this person to Leave me alone but yet they can’t now I have no choice but to involve the police, I’ve stated multiple times to come up with a solution I’ve left kind messages and left messages on a talk page now I’m contacting the police for harassment TheKinkdomMan talk 19:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I asked them kindly to leave me alone and leave things alone but no they want the last word, I’ve contacted the police and I will press harassment charges since I have traced your IP Address, last chance to leave me alone TheKinkdomMan talk 19:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    [85]

    Messages not even responded too TheKinkdomMan talk 19:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    [86] Every message as I’ve asked to be left alone they keep on antagonizing me TheKinkdomMan talk 19:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not going to be silent while you accuse me of being a liar and sling further insults at me. Bluerules (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    As you can see, this user is now threatening me with police action and claims to have cyberstalked me. I have nothing more to say on this matter for now. Bluerules (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC) As you can see you’ve been harassing me what part of leaving me alone don’t you understand, one more comment towards me I’ll press charges towards this user, I shouldn’t have to ask to be left alone or have to defend myself for cry babies who wine and can’t take constructive Criticism and I have contacted the police and have traced the IP address as I asked to be left alone that’s what I want, the constant stress of someone trying to have the last word after I asked to be left alone is annoying and is in violation of the Rules both parties are at fault as I apologize for my behavior I do not apologize for defending myself or providing evidence of all the messages TheKinkdomMan talk 19:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


    I shouldn’t have to ask multiple times to be left alone as I already said my part to this user on my opinion and then I asked if we were both done bitching and to move on and they they report like a baby to get there way, I moved on when they didn’t reply to open my account to see a message board TheKinkdomMan talk 19:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


    Am I wrong for calling them a cry baby yes however I don’t go crying to a admin board when you can’t agree when someone stops messaging and moves on, only to see being reported again so they can get what they want is absolutely ridiculous, do I apologize for the name calling yes but I do not apologize for standing up when I asked to be left alone, however this user shows they will not leave me alone after all this, asking someone to stop bitching and moaning isn’t a crime nor a rule breaker when your asking to move on, can’t be any clearer than that, if you want me to blunt then here is it can this user please leave me the Fuck alone, I haven’t bothered them after they didn’t respond to my message so from there you’d think you’ve moved passed all the drama but nope they want to have the last word and keep on digging at a person, I ask for justice in this case for this user to never talk to me or bug me again, I’ve said repeatedly to leave me alone TheKinkdomMan talk 19:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @TheKinkdomMan: I suggest you promptly retract those (laughable) legal threats before you find yourself promptly blocked. It would also be advisable to admit you're lying about tracing another editor's IP address. – 2.O.Boxing 19:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) For this edit here: Special:Diff/1087829395 I have blocked TheKinkdomMan for WP:NLT. Even if this was facitious and done to troll, the effect is a direct chilling effect, and has no place on Wikipedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that there is also a clear legal threat in this thread [87]. Meters (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    original complaint unaddressed

    • Whilst they have withdrawn the legal threat, I'm disinclined to unblock. The NPA and harassment are not dealt with. @Drmies: --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    TPA of user:MasterWalz

    Trolled after blocked, on their talkpage, TPA revoke requested.--PAVLOV (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Already handled. --Blablubbs (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:UkroNazi

    I would've reported this to UAA or AIV but I think this more of an account with an agenda than a vandal. Anyway the account, based on the contents of what they posted in their sandbox, seems to be only here to say that Ukraine is a Neo-Nazi state, in line with Russian propaganda. Likely WP:NOTHERE to help. funplussmart (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Clear user name violation and this sandbox screams WP:NOTHERE Valenciano (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Profoundly not here to build an encyclopedia. Indeffed. Acroterion (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Urgent block and protection needed

    I think he's just adding the name of some friend or something as the shooter. Some other editors doing the same, so suggesting ECP protection. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Acroterion beat me to it (three days, by which time the page will hopefully settle down). All the best, Miniapolis 22:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent WP:TENDENTIOUS editing by user:Giorgi Mechurchle

    User:Giorgi Mechurchle has a long history of making irredentist edits, accusatory/inflammatory insults and in general WP:TENDENTIOUS edits in many articles related to Iran and Georgia. In 2021, he was blocked for persistent edit-warring at the Safavid Georgia article, after being warned a few days prior.[88] Now, after a hiatus, he has returned to active editing, resorting to making the same sort of edits that resulted in him being blocked back in the day:

    • "(...) but it does not mean, that I have right to distort the names of this Shahs in English Wikipedia. I don't do that, because I have enough culture for that."[89]
    • ""Stop distorting Georgian and stealing Azerbaijani (i.e. Qizilbash) history!"[90]
    • Tried to remove sourced content from the Zurab I, Duke of Aragvi page[91] No edit summary/explanation.
    • "This is English Wikipedia, not Persian. Furthermore, you can not call Teimuraz I - Tahmuraz, he never converted to Islam, neither did Baadur Eristavi. The latter, even never visited Iran"[92]
    • "this editor - "Louis Aragon" - tries to falsify Georgian History. He slanders our saint Kings, their biography, even names..."[93]
    Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that they are not here to build this encyclopaedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record; these are the same sort of talk page comments he wrote towards other established users back in 2021 (Kansas Bear, Wikaviani, HistoryofIran), during his previous attempts at removing/changing sourced content in Iran-Georgia related pages:
    • "In Persian Wikipedia you can call them in Persian manner - no problem, but in English definitely no, do not be vandals! "[94]
    • "Are you normal?" [95]
    • "They were Georgians and Christians, not Persians and Muslims. What Persianised names of Georgian kings are doing in English Wikipedia?" [96]
    • "As I see you love to lie, you were lying about Safavid State which was definitely founded by Shiite Turkic tribes (they were not just soldiers as you tried to show :D) in those lands where, till nowadays absolute majority of the population is Turkic (Azeri), their first capital was Tabriz - also center of the Turkic (Azeri) culture nowadays. Now you are lying about 1 year, my advise for you is to receive history as it was. However, I am not here to educate you and heal your complexes toward Turks/Azeris (it is not our, Georgian cup of tea). Only thing what I want is to stop Islamisation of the names of Georgian and Christian kings which is anti-historic absurd"[97] - LouisAragon (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


    LouisAragon permanently falsifies Georgian History, using Persian/Muslim(!) names for Georgian kings/nobles etc. Even though all of them had Georgian names, most of them never converted to Islam and most of the academical society knows them by Georgian names (Teimuraz I, Luarsab II, Baadur Eristavi, Giorgi Saakadze etc.) His hypocrite argument is that, "everything is sourced" but in reality this is a form of the spuriousness. For example French king Louis XIV in German sources is known as Ludwig XIV, however in English Wikipedia his names is Louis, not Ludwig. One should be LouisAragon to distort the name of the foreign King in English Wikipedia, using Persian/Muslim version of his name.

    Moreover, this user regularly falsifies history of my country, for example by his provocative version, Georgian king Teimuraz I "spent most of his Childhood at the Safavid court", in reality Teimuraz spent only 1 (one) year - 1604-5 there.

    Additionally, LouisAragon tries to falsify history of the Turkic peoples i.e. Azerbaijanis, calling Safavid State as exclusively Persian, in reality Safavid state was established by Shiite Turkoman tribes, known as Qizilbashes. Direct ethnic neighbours of the Georgians were Turkomans (modern-day Azerbaijanis), not Persians. Those Safavid armies with whom Georgians had to fight in the sixteenth-seventeenth century were mainly composed by the Qizilbashes, not by ethnic Persians - see the battles of Garnisi (1556), Martqopi and Marabda (both 1625) etc. I think this user is Persian irredentist and falsifier.--Giorgi Mechurchle (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Tried to remove sourced content from the Zurab I, Duke of Aragvi No edit summary/explanation. - another falsification here, everything is explained, see the Talk page.--Giorgi Mechurchle (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    They were Georgians and Christians, not Persians and Muslims. What Persianised names of Georgian kings are doing in English Wikipedia? - This is a question which I can repeat, both of them - Teimuraz I and Luarsab II were Georgians and Christians, not Persians and Muslims. Actually, they and their families were killed by the Muslims, for not betraying Christianity. Most of academic society knows them, by their Georgian names. If in Persian sources or in the Iranists articles, names of the Georgian Kings were written in a different way, you can repeat that in Persian Wikipedia, not in English. Exactly the same, as it is in case of Louis XIV - in English Wikipedia his name is Louis XIV, not Ludwig XIV.--Giorgi Mechurchle (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment : Giorgi Mechurchle's above comments show their battleground mentality (WP:BATTLE), refusal to accept what reliable published sources say (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:OWN), besides, this user has proven unable to distinguish reliable sources from random websites [98] (WP:CIR) and constantly behaves in an agressive manner with any user who disagrees with them. Given what has been said above, i think that Giorgi Mechurchle is not here to build an encyclopedia.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 00:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


    • "Moreover, this user regularly falsifies history of my country, for example by his provocative version, Georgian king Teimuraz I "spent most of his Childhood at the Safavid court", in reality Teimuraz spent only 1 (one) year - 1604-5 there."
    Actually, that part was written by Kober[99], not LouisAragon. So all your personal attacks are misplaced. You did not even take the time to find out who actually wrote anything in that article. Ownership? Anyone? Anyone?
    • "For example French king Louis XIV in German sources is known as Ludwig XIV, however in English Wikipedia his names is Louis, not Ludwig."
    Your example is nonsense as it is silly. Teimuraz I wrote poetry in Persian, did he not, and was born there and died there?King Teimuraz/T®ahmu@rat¯ I (r. 1603-63) deserves special notice here, because his life was closely connected with the history of political relations between Persia and Georgia. This poet-king was born in Persia, was proficiently fluent in Persian, and appreciated and highly valued Persian poetry. Some source(s) use an Islamic version of his name.
    None of what you have written explains the continued personal attacks made by you.[100] You have incorrectly attributed Teimuraz and then, even after being warned,[101] making more personal attacks,Stop distorting Georgian History,"Louis Aragon" - tries to falsify Georgian History. He slanders our saint Kings, their biography, even names
    • "everything is explained, see the Talk page"
    Which starts out "Stop distorting Georgian History. Gosh, who would want to respond to that? Considering you do not even know who wrote the Teimuraz article to begin with!
    Add battleground comment, Persian falsification to the list of not here editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your example is nonsense as it is silly. Teimuraz I wrote poetry in Persian, did he not, and was born there and died there? - 1.No, Teimuraz was not born there. 2.He died there in captivity, he was fighting against the Safavides for 50 years. 3.Poetry is not argument, Persian language was popular at the Ottoman court too, but this means nothing, or you think you can write the names of the Ottoman Sultans in Persian? :)))) 4.My example is valid, because Louis XIV had German-speaking subjects too (hundreds of thousands), but in English Wikipedia his name is Louis, not Ludwig. Giorgi Mechurchle (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    And whose arguments are silly now, mine or yours? :D --Giorgi Mechurchle (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • "1.No, Teimuraz was not born there"
      According to Encyclopaedia Iranica he was. Still no excuse for personal attacks
    • "2.He died there in captivity, he was fighting against the Safavides for 50 years."
      Still no excuse for personal attacks
    • "3.Poetry is not argument, Persian language was popular at the Ottoman court too, but this means nothing, or you think you can write the names of the Ottoman Sultans in Persian?"
      Still no excuse for personal attacks
    • "4.My example is valid, because Louis XIV had German-speaking subjects too (hundreds of thousands), but in English Wikipedia his name is Louis, not Ludwig."
      Still no excuse for personal attacks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Giorgi Mechurchle also just violated the three-revert rule [102], with another interesting edit summary; "Nope, those sources just repeat Persian version of the names (Sohrab, Tahmuras, Murav and other loathsomeness). Again, all of them were Georgians, most of them were Christians, you can not use Persian names in English Wikipedia, in Persian did what you want." Based on this and the rest of the diffs, I think it's safe to say he is WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    You did absolutely the same, stubbornly trying to Persianise the names of the Georgian Kings and nobles, in English Wikipedia. Y gave you tons of explanation, but still, you are repeating the same. Giorgi Mechurchle (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't though, I only reverted thrice. You violate the rule once you go past three of the same reverts in the span of 24 hours, as the links I added on your talk page explains [103]. You've already been told this various times as well: kindly lay of the accusations. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Teimuraz I was born in Gremi, Georgia, this is well-known fact (you can find tons of Georgian and Russian sources), if in your encyclopedia is written something different, then this "encyclopedia" is another falsifiacation.--Giorgi Mechurchle (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Still no excuse for personal attacks. - Its not me who started that, Its not me who tries to insult and falsify others history. Teimuraz I and Luarsab II are our Saint kings, monarchs who died for Christianity and now you want to Persianize/Islamize their names in English Wikipedia? Insolence...--Giorgi Mechurchle (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    And one more revert, you're not helping your case. Also your edit summary about "consensus" makes no sense, since the burden to achieve said consensus lies on the user who tries to changes something in the article (you), not those who revert to the stable version (me and others). quite odd how you ignore our guidelines while you've been editing here for about 13 years.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 02:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Some beautiful canvassing too

    As we speak, user:Giorgi Mechurchle is trying to WP:CANVAS user:Kober.[104] Google translate:

    Hello, if you can here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent_WP%3ATENDENTIOUS_editing_by_user%3AGiorgi_Mechurchle Help me, Iranian users Who have never converted to Islam. They deliberately write Khan or the ruler, but not the king, even though even the most proselytizing ruler held the title of king in the official title, along with the debt. Eastern Georgia is presented as a province of the Safavids (such an administrative-territorial unit has never existed. At the same time, it also focuses on the aspects that make them, wars, confrontations, etc., never or distorted). In addition, they falsify biographies (Teimuraz I, Luarsab II, etc.), invent non-existent facts, and so on. --Giorgi Mechurchle (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC) Also, if there are other Georgian Wikipedians who can be involved, it would be good if they write 1-2 sentences, Eugene is 4-5.

    Can any admin step in and close this thread? I believe we've seen enough of this nonsense. They've violated about every WP right now. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Giorgi Mechurchle blocked for two weeks. I considered indef, but will give them a chance. Acroterion (talk) 02:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Warriorempath

    (non-admin closure) Indefinitely blocked for WP:NOTHERE. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 02:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Repeated disruption at Nordicism, whitewashing the article here, here, here, here and here. Already notified the user here, here and here, but they doesn't seem to care. The user seems like WP:NOTHERE and possibly WP:NONAZIS for whitewashing. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 02:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeffed. Acroterion (talk) 02:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Pointn

    This editor is continuously adding unsourced content on wikipedia page of Rukmini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) from last few days. He has been requested to provide relevant supportive references multiple times. But, so far no supportive reference provided. I also informed him about WP:RS on his talk page, but still he keeps on doing non constructive editing which results into edit warring and violation of WP:Tendentious editing. Please take note of this incident. Thank you.

    Kridha (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked user aggressively attacking other editors on talk page

    CLOSED
    User:Ljvdp's talk page access revoked Deb (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    On May 1, Ljvdp was indefinitely blocked for repeatedly making personal attacks and harassing an editor. On May 11, Ljvdp made multiple edits removing notices from their talk page, and in the edit summaries, they again made aggressively personal attacks against those editors, including such statements as "Shut up. Unbearable idiot.You are really uncharacteristic. You are insignificant in the real world" and "Shut up unconscious". I think it's clear at this point that Ljvdp can not use their editing privileges productively, so I believe it is time that they lose their talk page access. Cpotisch (talk) 05:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Deb (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Sock puppetry, vandalism, and harrassment by User:Rope lesa

    I believe that user:Hull Slicks, user:Laced taut, user:Preen Alpha are all sock puppets of User:Rope lesa. The all four accounts are now blocked and all accounts have engaged in vandalism of various pages concerning the Duggar family within the past few hours, with much of the more recent vandalism is attacking admins. Additionally, under the sock user:Preen Alpha, they vandalized my talk page. User:Rope lesa talk-page recently involved insulting admins and then the user disputed a speedy deletion request that was posted. I put a notice on the sock puppet noticeboard, but the user continues to create new accountants as fast as they can be blocked. Wikipedialuva. (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Laced taut. Uncle G (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Tatsuro22

    Please look the editing of new profile User:Tatsuro22. Tatsuro22 is inserting news incidents which did not made controversy or related to controversy in controversy section with bold sub headings to highlight the individual to look negative. There are no references that identify it a controversy. No support for him in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Angana_P._Chatterji. He is revering without showing any reasons and canvassing many people to join him.101.50.2.74 (talk) 06:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:68.132.133.66

    Clearly NOTHERE. This account has been indentified as an open proxy. It was warned for vandalism in June and December 2018, May 2019, as well as in January 2021. Then, in October 2021, it was blocked and recieved 8 warnings. It was then globally block as an open proxy for 6 months. Within 3 days of being unblocked, it was blocked for 3 months. There has been only one contribution by this user that is not obvious vandalism. Starship SN20 (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Starship SN20 As you noted in your report this IP had already been re-blocked by the time you reported them here, what do you want an administrator to do? 192.76.8.94 (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like a bog-standard fiber-optic business connection, possibly a school, rather than an open proxy. Regardless, it has been blocked for three months for vandalism, the latest in a series of escalating blocks, and that is sufficient for now. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Telanian7790 back at ANI again for tendentious behaviour on article talk page

    This is the third time Telanian7790 (talk · contribs) is back at ANI.

    Quick summary Telanian7790 refuses point black to focus on the content of the open RfC at Talk:College of Policing. He/she just wants to argue endlessly with anyone who disagrees with his/her point of view. In the past 48 hours Schazjmd, who put in place a {{Cot}} on part of the (now expired) RfC discussion, has removed it after another user, Hippo43, objected so some of his/her comments being hidden. Telanian7790 argued with Schazjmd (see User talk:Schazjmd#Please revisit), who sensibly told him/her to just focus on finishing the RfC (as others have previously done). Telanian7790 has instead reinstated the {{Cot}} *and* has deleted Schazjmd's comments.

    Telanian7790 just will not let this drop, will not back away from the horse, and has spent so much time with tendentious behaviour that the original RfC has now expired. This an editor making virtually no positive content contributions to Wikipedia, this is a user just spoiling for a fight. --10mmsocket (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarification: on Talk:College of Policing, JulieMinkai applied a {{hat}} to part of the RfC discussion.[105] I changed it to {{cot}} and moved the {{cob}} so as not to hide RfC comments that were not part of the tangent.
    Since then, Telanian7790 and Hippo43 have had a slow edit-war in which they took turns moving the start of the collapse to either show or hide more of the tangent. 10mmsocket brought it up on my talk. Since the collapse was doing nothing to keep the RfC on topic and had instead just become a new battleground for the opposing editors, I removed the collapse tags and left a comment explaining. Telanian7790 reverted the removal of the tags and my comment.
    (Previous ANI discussions: Telanian7790 uncivil behaviour, Hippo43, BLUDGEONING again by Telanian7790: all 3 archived without resolution.) Schazjmd (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks so much for clarifying. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    IP Vandal 82.16.254.42

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.16.254.42

    This IP needs blocking, dedicated solely to vandalism. As they have some knowledge of wikipedia jargon, I would imagine they have other IP's going, if anyone fancies doing some detective work.

    --Boynamedsue (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    What makes you say they have knowledge of Wikipedia jargon? I see four edits, none of which were particularly constructive, but none are using any jargon. Girth Summit (blether) 15:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, yes. I misunderstood the edit summaries as something the user was typing, my bad. All the edits are clear vandalism though. The nicknames applied to these individuals do not exist and are insulting. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit from today was pretty silly - probably a reference to this interview. The previous edits were from weeks ago - there isn't really anything urgent that needs addressing, but if they keep doing it you can report to AIV. Girth Summit (blether) 16:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikidellhi, PRODding Jain articles under BLPPROD and removing AFD tags

    Hello. Long time since I've been at ANI, but this one does not fit into AN3, AIV, or other noticeboards. Apparently, this user had been PRODding articles about Jain groups under BLPPROD, which I quickly dePRODded procedurally, as they were not BLPs. They had also removed an AfD tag here, which I promptly reverted as well. They had also left some rather inappropriate warnings here. I am seeing a couple of constructive edits coming from this user, but they had already been blocked for edit warring. Thanks, and I hope to get some feedback. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 16:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    A site block of 24 - 72 hours would be fine to stop this disruption. 106.214.120.46 (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He has already got site block and the user is still engaged in adding unreferenced material [[106]], he also gave inappropriate warnings when in fact it was him who was edit warring just to add word "Jat" there. And for this wrong prod it looks like some kind of revenge based editing against me. Just see he added BLPPROD on an unrelated article where it is not applicable [[107]]. He also removed AfD tag from an article. I think there is a case of WP:CIR, and all this is happening after facing recent ban for edit warring.RS6784 (talk) 05:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The user is also continuously directing personal attacks on other editors, just see here [[108]], here again putting personal attacks- [[109]]. Now just see here [[110]] the editor created a new page- duplicate version of the one Khokhar page where he had been banned for edit warring. This is open case of WP:CFORK RS6784 (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:‎Palow s coba11 / another unresponsive mobile editor

    ‎Palow s coba11 (talk · contribs) looks like a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Most edits are adding bare links to other Wikipedia articles (or mirror sites like wikiwand) as citations. Talk page messages have had no effect. MrOllie (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @MrOllie: As a Wikipedian who is hard of hearing, can I ask we don't use "deaf" in this way? — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 17:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The only time that you can see notifications on mobile is when about to edit. Hopefully they see it then. RHF 19 (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What rubbish, I always see all notifications on my mobile device. Oh, yeah, I virtually always use desktop mode. 😁
    Clearly good faith, so I've left them further advice, hopefully they actually read that (and everything else on their talkpage). Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 03:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war - User:Binksternet

    I’ve read the instructions carefully and I hope I’m wrong to report here.

    Recently there was chaos started happening on Dalida regarding her nationality, altho the wording was agreed 2 years ago. Two useres constantly change the info, while I'm the sole one who returns it to old state. User:Binksternet and I got in edit war an hour ago. He then proceeded to threaten me with blockage on my talk page.

    Isn't it biased to warn about edit war while you are involved in it? What to do, should I stop editing now as I may get blocked? Dalida Editor please ping or message me 21:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    "Italian-French" or "French-Italian" is better for lead because she was a French citizen but born to Italian parents. 106.214.120.46 (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if you are correct, you should request for the page to be protected. Edit warring is not a smart choice. RHF 19 (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @RHF 19 But this what you said has nothng to do with my question...? It is not the content what is the problem now. The problem is how I was threatened by the user who is involved in conflict with me. And now you placed the warning to my talk page, and nothing to his? What is happening? I am not the first who started making changes. It is them. Dalida Editor please ping or message me 22:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @RHF 19 forget my previous question, please respond on my talk page. Didn't understood... Thanks for advice.Dalida Editor please ping or message me 22:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Response posted. RHF 19 (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @DalidaEditor There have been no threats to you from any user to date. Even less from @Binksternet. Just when a user acts like you do it can have consequences. It's not for lack of having written to you on your page to establish an agreement, but your actions show that you formally oppose it. Look, even users come here talking about Dalida's French Italian nationality which you refute without reference, reliable/secondary sources. Unfortunately the problem extends to many other points. Elenora.C (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Dalida biography has been suffering from WP:OWN with DalidaEditor batting down good faith suggestions, arguing that their desired version is the consensus version. Last September, Nikkimaria tagged the bio as containing a fan's point of view, which was an accurate assessment. The problem still exists. Currently, the article has suffered edit-warring over the lead paragraph, with DalidaEditor leading the defensive tactics, resisting change. If this behavior continues, the article will not shake its fanpov tag. Binksternet (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, DalidaEditor is now up to 6RR, passing the WP:3RR rule at high speed. Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @DalidaEditor, you should probably appeal that block. RHF 19 (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    LTA at Laguna Woods church shooting

    Both the user and IP are adding hoax content to a page about a recent mass shooting. They appear to be User:Meters/Frank Mortenson LTA (courtesy ping Meters), but either way it's getting tiresome reverting this BLP-violating material. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    A Tele2 ISP out of Lithuania making an edit about Frank Mortenson is a big duck to me. Meters (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ossible socks?p RHF 19 (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, comment error. Think they're a sock? RHF 19 (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It most certainly looks like it to me. Love of Corey (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe there is an SPI on this one. Users are just using my LTA data. Several previously blocked users are listed in User:Meters/Frank Mortenson LTA#Accounts. The behaviour is a bit odd, since the intent is usually to promote Frank Mortenson, but as I wrote, a Tele2 Lithuania IP with a focus on Frank Mortenson is unlikely to be anyone else. Meters (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Another for the list, @Meters. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Quick update, the article has been semi protected. RHF 19 (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Meters. There is an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Birdsflyinghigh123. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page Protected x 72 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks! Love of Corey (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Will update behaviour and account/IP Meters (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Ad Orientem Thanks, by the way. RHF 19 (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Time for an edit filter. Already done. Acroterion (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Meters, the socks kept using an article from a Medium columnist that just posts derogatory, false claims about Frank Mortenson, like he's being investigated by the CIA, he's a white supremacist, involved with the KKK, guilty of terrorism, so I'm surprised that the former IPs and accounts were promoting him because it looked like online harassment to me. But we have less to worry about now that there is an edit filter. I have to learn not to try to make sense of the behavior of sockpuppets. Liz Read! Talk! 04:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism and disruption from an IP range

    2601:205:C002:D1E0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
    204.129.232.191/16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

    Could someone please give these two IP ranges a block? They are obviously the same person - they reply to each other's comments and edit requests and have the same obsession with the year 2020. Basically all the edits from the /64 over the past 2+ years are disruption or vandalism.

    A small selection of diffs:

    • Adding racial slurs to articles [111]
    • Creating Vandalism drafts, e.g Draft:What is 2020 was a person?
    • Making dozens and dozens of stupid edit requests just to waste other people's time, e.g. [112] [113] [114] [115] [116]
    • Giving out fake warnings to editors that haven't edited in months [117]
    • Blatant vandalism of articles [118] [119] [120] [121]
    • Dozens and dozens of unproductive edits adding their own opinions on what is good or not to articles [122] [123] [124]
    • Having stupid talk page conversations with themselves [125]
    • Resubmitting spam articles to AFC without making any attempt at fixing the obvious tone issues, just to waste reviewers time and add vandalism to the short description. [126]

    Thanks, 192.76.8.94 (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    So sockpuppeting? RHF 19 (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @RHF 19 It's not sockpuppetry, that's just how IPv6 addresses work. One user typically gets a /64 range to themselves, which is something like a billion addresses. The IPv4 range is registered to a educational network, so I assume it's the same person editing from school. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 01:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, i see. RHF 19 (talk) 01:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @RHF 19: See WP:/64, quite helpful. As an observation, an entire /16 (65000+ adresses) for a school, even for every school in a county, seems ridiculously large. Oshwah blocked the range Special:Contributions/204.129.128.0/18 back on 11 March 2022, so they may want to be the one to expand this to a broader block, Special:Contributions/204.209.128.0/17 seems to cover the actual adresses being used. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 03:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Syedaadi and User:Growthsakup

    These users seem to be WP:SOCKS of each other. They edit the same pages and the same topics, give each other barnstars, and have the same user page design. Could someone investigate this, and block the accounts if they are connected. I'm only posting here and not at WP:SPI because my account hasn't been autoconfirmed yet. Regards. -- எ (talk) 04:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chatul reported by User:Timhowardriley (Result: )

    Page: Operating system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Chatul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User:Chatul is not contributing to Operating_system#Interrupts using reliable sources. Instead, he is hindering my attempts to do so. I rewrote the Interrupts section because it had this deficient legacy version. Whereas each sentence in the legacy version was technically correct, the section suffered these deficiencies:

    1. The sentences didn't form a narrative.
    2. The section was entirely original research.
    3. The section lacked a thesis: An operating system has an interrupt module, and its core function is to efficiently and effectively switch between running computer programs. In computer jargon, an interrupt module will likely perform a context switch. (For more information, visit Context_switch#Interrupt_handling.) If an operating system's interrupt module and context switching module are ineffective, then your computer will periodically be sluggish or freeze.

    Judge for yourself if the current version alleviates these deficiencies. See Operating_system#Interrupts.

    Unfortunately, improving Operating system is hindered by the unwarranted improvement tags posted by User:Chatul. His common complaint is I'm inaccurately paraphrasing the sentences in textbooks; he's being fastidiously semantic. In the Interrupts section, notice citation "[43] [44] [45] [c]"? This is citation overkill, and it's a consequence of him being fastidiously semantic.

    Unwarranted Improvement tags and condescending talks are causing me stress. Maybe he doesn't realize the stress he is causing. Or maybe he wants me to go away. Anyway, I've had enough. Here are, in reverse order, his edits and talks that cause my stresses:

    1. With this talk entry on May 12, 2022, User:Chatul agreed that an interrupt service routine may cause a context switch. I then added back context switch to the section's lead resulting in this version. Then he moved my newly added sentence from the article to the citation's quote section. So, I started this talk thread: Talk:Operating_system#Unethically_misquoting_a_textbook.

    2. With this edit on May 11, 2022, User:Chatul tagged this sentence as disputed, "The control flow change is known as a context switch." The sentence had two citations from a textbook by Abraham Silberschatz. Silberschatz explains in two different sections that an interrupt will likely cause a control flow change which is known as a context switch.

    3. With this edit on May 10, 2022, User:Chatul tagged this sentence as disputed, "Interrupts cause the central processing unit (CPU) to have a control flow change away from the currently running process." The sentence had a citation referencing page 308 in Andrew Tanenbaum's textbook. User:Chatul's tag justification was, "The cited text does not mention context switches." However, the sentence he disputed didn't have context switches in it either.

    4. With this edit on April 20, 2022, User:Chatul tag bombed the subsection I/O channel. The subsection was entirely paraphrased from Tanenbaum's textbook and was well cited. Moreover, each citation had a link to the specific page in an online version of Tanenbaum's textbook, like page 55. However, User:Chatul was not pleased. Instead of improving the subsection using his own reliable sources, he generated this talk thread. I was disturbed that he accused me of violating the neutral point of view requirement. This talk thread caused me to run out of energy. The talk thread was 2,063 words, but the subsection had only 134 words. I deleted the subsection.

    5. With this edit on April 19, 2022, User:Chatul accused me of violating the neutral point of view requirement. Again, I/O Channel was entirely paraphrased from Tanenbaum's textbook.

    I'm a student of computer technology; I have no bias. Different technologies have different strengths and weaknesses. User:Chatul's NPOV accusation is an unsupported denigration. Moreover, it's not just me he's denigrating. With his talk section titled NPOV: undue emphasis on microprocessors, he's denigrating all of the editors. If I were pretending to be Sigmund Freud, I would say he's projecting his IBM System/360 bias.

    Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Disputing_the_reliability_of_apparently_good_sources says, "There is nothing wrong with questioning the reliability of sources, to a point. But there is a limit to how far one may reasonably go in an effort to discredit the validity of what most other contributors consider to be reliable sources, especially when multiple sources are being questioned in this manner." * The Interrupts section has multiple textbooks as sources. It's been stressful to be denigrated while studiously performing secondary research.

    Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Attempts_to_evade_detection says, "Bad-faith disruptive editors attempt to evade disciplinary action in several ways: Their edits occur over a long period of time, in which case no single edit is disruptive but the overall pattern clearly is. Their edits are largely confined to talk pages; such disruption may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve it." * After a long period of time, I now get stressed feelings making edits to the Operating System article. User:Chatul doesn't improve the article using reliable sources. Instead, he questions my edits in the talk page and posts improvement tags in the article.

    Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Examples_of_disruptive_editing says, "A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following: Engages in 'disruptive cite-tagging'; adds unjustified citation needed tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable." * See here.

    Generally speaking, User:Chatul is more concerned with nuance than writing an encyclopedia. He finds a flaw in everything. Here is one example. Well, maybe technology is so vast, that flaws in sentences are unavoidable. Put another way: for a technology sentence to be flawless, it must be overly qualified. The Wikipedia principle that comes to mind is Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy. It says, "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them." * If there's a rule saying that paraphrasing a source must contain every word in the source, then ignore that rule. Otherwise, very little will get paraphrased.

    Operating System is an important article in computer science. Moreover, there's a lot of reliable sources available to make it a good article. To become good, it needs to attract editors stimulated by secondary research. Please help provide a non-hostile environment by blocking User:Chatul from editing it for one year. Don't get me wrong — User:Chatul does know about operating systems. However, he needs to gain experience in secondary research to appreciate its benefits. Timhowardriley (talk) 07:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1088115032"