Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Girth Summit (talk | contribs) at 12:21, 14 February 2023 (→‎Proposal: Superastig is topic banned from closing AfDs: Closing discussion (DiscussionCloser v.1.7.3)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Open tasks

    XFD backlog
    V Jan Feb Mar Apr Total
    CfD 0 0 0 18 18
    TfD 0 0 0 0 0
    MfD 0 0 0 1 1
    FfD 0 0 0 1 1
    RfD 0 0 0 43 43
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0


    Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

    Report
    Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (28 out of 7631 total) (Purge)
    Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
    Cliff Cash 2024-04-29 15:24 2024-06-04 12:22 move Persistent sockpuppetry: extending Ohnoitsjamie
    Michael D. Aeschliman 2024-04-29 06:44 2024-05-13 06:44 edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy Anachronist
    Wikipedia:Free encyclopedia 2024-04-29 03:24 indefinite edit,move Drop prot Pppery
    White Colombians 2024-04-29 03:17 2024-05-20 03:17 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: straight to WP:ECP due to involvement also of several confirmed accounts El C
    Government of Iran 2024-04-28 20:25 2025-04-28 20:25 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/IRP ToBeFree
    Everyone Knows That (Ulterior Motives) 2024-04-28 17:30 2024-04-30 15:20 edit Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: increase requested at WP:RFPP Favonian
    Draft:The Car Accident Lawyer Group 2024-04-28 08:07 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Jimfbleak
    Battle of Ajmer 2024-04-28 06:42 2024-05-05 06:42 move Don't move an article being discussed at an AFD discussion Liz
    Khymani James 2024-04-27 21:35 2025-04-27 21:35 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    Minouche Shafik 2024-04-27 18:35 indefinite edit,move oops, accidentally full-protected Daniel Case
    User:Travism121212/Privacy law - Group D 2024-04-27 06:36 2024-05-04 06:36 move Stop moving this article around. Submit to WP:AFC for review Liz
    Travism121212/Privacy law 2024-04-26 22:17 2024-05-03 22:17 create Repeatedly recreated Liz
    Connecting Humanity 2024-04-26 19:45 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C
    Mirna El Helbawi 2024-04-26 19:45 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C
    User:Samory Loukakou/Erin Meyer 2024-04-26 18:29 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP BusterD
    24 Oras 2024-04-26 18:25 2024-06-26 18:25 move Persistent vandalism; requested at WP:RfPP BusterD
    Nasimi Aghayev 2024-04-26 17:17 indefinite edit Community sanctions enforcement: sorry, WP:GS/AA, that is (so many AAs!) El C
    Atrocity propaganda 2024-04-26 17:09 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR, WP:PIA and others, I'm sure El C
    Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 April 2024 – present) 2024-04-26 16:49 indefinite edit,move and it continues... Robertsky
    Beit Hanoun 2024-04-26 14:48 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:AELOG/2024#PIA Malinaccier
    Rangiya Municipal Board 2024-04-26 13:12 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated by sock of Rang HD Dennis Brown
    Siege of Chernihiv 2024-04-26 12:40 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/RUSUKR Filelakeshoe
    Bed Bath & Beyond (online retailer) 2024-04-26 03:31 indefinite move Repeated article moves despite recent RM discussion Liz
    Carlos Handy 2024-04-26 00:14 2025-04-26 00:14 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/BLP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    Pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses in the United States 2024-04-25 22:17 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish
    Israa University (Palestine) 2024-04-25 17:35 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Blu del Barrio 2024-04-25 17:14 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Daniel Case
    Gaza Strip mass graves 2024-04-25 17:03 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Red Phoenix

    Superastig non-admin AfD closes

    Superastig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a non-admin who closes WP:Articles for deletion discussions. Since January 2022, eight of their closes have been challenged at WP:Deletion review, with only one being endorsed. WP:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions (guideline, shortcut WP:NACD) states: Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins.

    WP:Non-admin closure (essay, shortcut WP:NAC) has more guidance:

    While rare mistakes can happen in closes, editors whose closes are being overturned at decision reviews, and/or directly reverted by administrators, should pause closing until they have discussed these closes with an administrator, and that administrator gained comfort that the closer understands their mistakes, and will not repeat them.
    — WP:Non-admin closure#Who should close discussions, emphasis in original

    A non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following situations:
    ...
    2. The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial.
    — WP:Non-admin closure#Inappropriate closures, shortcut WP:BADNAC

    There were eight DRVs opened from January 2022 through January 2023, and two more in 2021:

    DRV date Original AfD result Notification Result Closing statement excerpt
    2023-01-25 No consensus Special:Diff/1135512002 Reclosed as redirect User:Sandstein: A majority here, even if maybe not amounting to a consensus to overturn, agrees that this was a mistaken and inappropriate non-admin closure.
    2023-01-19 Merge Special:Diff/1134641042 Vacate/relist
    2022-11-18 Keep Special:Diff/1122578945 Overturn to no consensus User:Sandstein: I advise Superastig not to close any more AfDs whose outcome is not obvious.
    2022-08-13 Redirect Special:Diff/1104261998 Relist as new AfD
    2022-06-20 Redirect Special:Diff/1094105741 Overturn to relist User:King of Hearts: Overturn to relist as WP:BADNAC.
    2022-03-10 Keep Special:Diff/1076316147 No consensus, relist User:Sandstein: Opinions are divided, which illustrates that this was probably not a good AfD for a non-admin to close. As is possible in a no consensus DRV, and also per WP:NACD/WP:BADNAC, which allow the reopening of non-admin closures by admins, I'm relisting the AfD to try to get to a clearer consensus.
    2022-02-13 Keep Special:Diff/1071676119 Endorse
    2022-01-28 Redirect Special:Diff/1068521194 No consensus User:Sjakkalle: no consensus and I will default this to letting the redirect stand. Making a close like this as a non-admin was probably an overly bold move, and probably out-of-process.
    2021-11-03 Keep Special:Diff/1053393810 Endorse User:Scottywong: Some users want to trout User:Superastig for performing a non-admin closure on this AfD. While the outcome of this AfD was obviously not controversial, I can think of very few topic areas less controversial than US politics and US presidential elections, and therefore it probably would've been better to wait for an admin to close it, to avoid any potential drama (e.g., this DRV).
    2021-06-24 Keep Special:Diff/1030232459 Relist User:RoySmith: I can't begin to cogently summarize everything that was said here, but there's clear consensus that this was a WP:BADNAC. I'm going to back out the close and relist it. @Superastig: If you want to wade into closing the more controversial discussions, WP:RfA is always looking for new candidates, but if you don't want to go that route, I would encourage you to be more conservative with WP:NAC.

    Superastig's DRV count is egregious. It clearly does not meet the standards of WP:NAC (albeit an essay). Also, there may be other questionable closes. Daniel noted two recent ones at the last DRV. Randykitty reopened and relisted one (notification) in the last 24 hours. From January 2022 to January 2023, Superastig closed 276 AfDs and relisted 57 (Special:Contributions range, Ctrl-F Closed as or Relisting discussion). The close count reduces the error rate (7 / 276 = 2.5%), but it should be practically zero, as non-admins are expected to avoid closing discussions where errors are possible.

    Superastig's closes can be replaced easily. 276 closes (even when adding the 57 relists) are less than one per day on average over the 13 month range. Since proper NACs are obvious, each should take a few minutes or less, especially when using a tool like WP:XFDcloser.

    Feedback has not corrected Superastig's closing behavior. In addition to pre-DRV talk page queries and the DRVs themselves, seven of the DRV closing statements (excerpted in the table above) called out the NAC and/or Superastig specifically. Two should be noted:

    Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Notification diff. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does this discussion have so many sections and so much formatting? I picked one of the recent discussions at random. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Radha Jayalakshmi is a bit confusing. Why was that closed as "redirect"? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Superastig is topic banned from closing AfDs

    I see consensus for Superastig to be topic banned from closing AfD discussions. I will inform them of their editing restriction, and list it at WP:EDRC. Girth Summit (blether) 12:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


    • Oppose. ...the error rate (7 / 276 = 2.5%)... - if someone closes correctly 97.5% of the time, I do not think we should TBAN them from closing. Instead, I'd say thanks for closing/relisting almost 1 AfD per day for the last year. Levivich (talk) 05:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • A purely symbolic gesture at this point, but I'm striking my oppose because I cannot get on board with someone continuing to edit but not participating in an AN thread about their closes. (Particularly as there has been one close during this discussion.) I agree with NBB's point below that if you NAC AFDs, you take on WP:ADMINACCT, and that means responding promptly to good-faith concerns, such as the ones raised here. Also per NBB, I would support some lesser sanction like "must re-open any challenged close", which would also have the benefit of forcing Astig to be damn sure their closes won't be challenged (which is what I think the community wants). Levivich (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I was planning on bringing this here myself, for largely the same reasons as Flatscan. I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that Superastig has had more AfD non-admin closes overturned at DRV in the last year or two than any other editor (by quite a wide margin). That's a problem because of WP:NACD, but it's also a problem because each of these contentious closures wastes a week's worth of editors' time at DRV and unnecessarily prolongs the deletion process. Just as concerning is the failure to listen to consensus: Superastig was told nearly two years ago to be more conservative with WP:NAC, but instead the out-of-process closures have continued apace (and indeed advice has been mocked, as noted above). As for the idea that this is an acceptable error rate, non-admin AfD closers should hold themselves to a very high standard of uncontroversialness (back when I did AfD NACs, not a single one of my 393 closures was ever even taken to DRV, much less overturned), and at any rate the 2.5% figure excludes the bad closures that were never taken to DRV. That said, if editors don't feel a full TBAN is warranted, we could also consider a lesser editing restriction, e.g. "if someone makes a good-faith challenge of one of your closures on your talk page, you must re-open the AfD". But in my view, someone who keeps doing the same thing that consensus rejects shouldn't be closing AfDs at all. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Firstly, the fact that none of your closures were brought to DRV as opposed to 8 of his is irrelevant; there are no minimum requirements to bring them there, and the losing side (the nominator of a failed discussion, or the author of a page deleted per a successful one) could do it with little cause; and a bad closure of a page in an unpopular topic may never be examined. And secondly, there is no way to know, without someone taking a reasonable-sized sample, to rule that any closure he did was wrong without a major case-by-case review - which we only have for 8 closures. Animal lover |666| 08:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't really disagree with any of that, and perhaps I phrased my comment poorly. The main issue for me is that 1) Superastig made controversial and incorrect closures, 2) he was told by numerous editors at DRV to stop doing that, and 3) he hasn't heeded that consensus and keeps doing the same thing. This is a longstanding problem that's consumed countless hours of editors' time, and the problem doesn't go away just because Superastig has also made uncontroversial closures. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. As long as the other 268 closures went unchallenged, they are to be assumed to be correct. Having roughly 1 mistake in 40 does not look so bad. Animal lover |666| 06:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      One more remark, related to below: If an AFD is closed as delete, then any user may create a redirect at the same title; if the closer thinks it's appropriate, is there any reason not to do it immediately in stead of having the page deleted first? And is there any reason not to state this in the closing statement? And, that having been said, would a case with no clear result between delete and redirect, but with those 2 clearly far ahead of keep, be best closed as redirect? Animal lover |666| 17:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Levivich. Apparently, a vast majority of his closes are good. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 16:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban - If you're a non-admin and you're going to get yourself involved in an area of Wikipedia that already gets quite hot due to the implications involved, then you better get it right all the time. Serious errors which result in DRVs waste everybody's time, and combining this with obstinate behavior is hardly a desired temperament for someone making NACs.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support based on the most recent 15 closures listed below. If you're going to do NACs, they should only be done on very uncontroversial closures and you really need to get them right. My first preference would be for this thread to be closed with a Warning, but based on some of the diffs presented this user doesn't seem very receptive so stronger measures may be necessary. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The community has indicated that it prefers admins to make close calls and controversial decisions and, less formally, also recognizes that WP:RELISTBIAS exists. If this editor isn't able to make those distinctions - and the analysis below suggests that there's not - there's plenty of ways for them to help out without closing discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. As a regular DRV closer, whenever I see Superastig in a DRV it is because they mistakenly closed an AfD. We do not expect perfection from closers, but an ability to learn and communicate, both of which I see no evidence of here. Sandstein 22:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Editors undertaking admin-level tasks should be expected to display admin-level behavior regarding those tasks, and that is definitely not occurring here. Superastig has a poor response rate to problems raised re: his AfD participation, and when he does respond it's often dismissive and incomplete. It also is apparent that he has not listened to the recommendations by several admins that he desist closing marginal AfDs. This is especially an issue given his dismal DRV stats, the numerous issues identified with the closures that aren't taken to DRV, and the quite poor AfD !vote match rate. This is all under circumstances where BADNACs should be extremely rare.
    Superastig's seeming agenda of purposely closing discussions leaning delete as redirects or NC, often based on single !votes and against consensus, just to prevent deletion, is completely at odds with deletion policy and NACD. Nowhere does DEL "require" an ATD be considered, much less implemented against a consensus to delete. DEL says A page can be blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate.. That's "can", not "must" or even "should". In fact, the only place on DEL that uses any sort of binding language regarding an ATD is in the WP:ATD section WP:ATD-E, which states If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. "Editing" in this section strictly refers to disputes, vandalism, and stubbification, and obviously not any of the other ATDs, which have their own sections. This distinction is also referenced in DELREASON: Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page). So his overriding consensus delete discussions with useless redirects has no policy support. In fact, Rosguill's assessment understates the degree some of the closes go against consensus:
    ...Radha Jayalakshmi (closed 7 Feb) was 5d:1r:2k, with the first keep being blocked for sockpuppetry on 5 Feb and the second blocked and struck at the same time as their sock. Neither keep made any P&G-based argument anyway and so should have been totally discounted even if they hadn't been blocked.
    ...S. C. Krishnan (closed 7 Feb) and ...T. R. Mahalingam (closed 6 Feb) were both 3d:1r:1k, with the keep !voter the same as above (blocked 5 Feb)
    ...Runa Laila (closed 6 Feb) was 2d:1r
    ...Kanak Chapa (closed 5 Feb 15:00) was 2d:1r:1k, with the keep from the sock (blocked two hours after the close, but their !vote should've been ignored anyway as it's just Legendary singer and well rererenced discography)
    Fire Eshona (closed 17 Jan) was 2d:1m, but the nom notes that there is nothing reliably sourced and encyclopedic to merge. Superastig didn't even perform the merge, either.
    Fatih Mehmet Gul (closed 15 Jan) was 3d:3k, but none of the keeps had valid arguments and so should have been ignored even before two of them were struck as socks.
    Closers need to assess not only the argument weights, but also the users behind the !votes, so it is inexcusable for Superastig to have "missed" the glaring blocked socks and suspicious IPs, and even worse that he apparently lacks the competence to recognize invalid !votes. JoelleJay (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved from the bottom of the "discussion" subsection below. ansh.666 03:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose. If the issue here is that about 1-in-25 closes made by the user are incorrect, and less-restrictive-than-TBAN corrective actions have not yet been attempted, then I think a general TBAN from the topic is premature. Rather than TBANNING them, I think assigning the user a mentor to help their ability to discern when a case is going to be contentious would be wiser. The user seems to have become a little more bold lately, and a warning to the user to slow down on that might be warranted, but an indefinite TBAN seems excessive when there are ways to address this that are not nearly as restrictive. Allowing the user to take on some of the bureaucratic work while under guidance from an admin will improve the user's competency here while also allowing them to perform good work for the project. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The community has indicated, unlike RMs, RfCs, and even TfDs, that it prefers admins handle AfDs. Assigning someone a mentor to something that is already a marginally endorsed activity feels like a poor use of everyone's time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I understand that the community prefer admins handle contentious AfDs, particularly so given how much community time poor closes take up. That being said, the community also acknowledges that there is a role for NACs at AfD to help clear out more of the simple closes, thereby allowing admins to spend more their AfD-closing admin-hours analyzing the tougher calls. A mentor would be there as someone to bounce off "is this something I should leave to admins" and to offer advice in responding to challenges of AfD closures. This doesn't seem like a waste of community time; something informal that could offer fraternal correction seems to be utterly reasonable. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Is Superastig actually interested in receiving mentorship? Usually mentorship is offered when an editor is facing a sanction and clamoring to avoid it, but Superastig has essentially ignored all discussions regarding their closures not posted on their talk page (and even then, the responses have uniformly been to demur concerns) signed, Rosguill talk 17:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, Superastig's lack of response here is making me reconsider my !vote. As is the apparent fact that they've never self-reverted a close? I wouldn't TBAN on "failure rate", but on lack of engagement? Absolutely. Levivich (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      This is very much my concern (the responses, that is) - but to clarify, it's not lack of engagement, since there's evidence of interaction, there's just complete refusal change their position in the face of clear evidence they've made mistakes. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Levivich, apparently he did revert himself once, in the talk page discussion linked by Sergecross below, with the comment (after being threatened with DRV) fine! I already reverted the closure, but I'm doing it just because I'm pressured with your hissy fits. His comments in that thread suggest he at least at that time had an egregiously deficient understanding of what "weighing consensus" means. After Sergecross explained that a keep !vote that simply stated an album got 3 stars from Allmusic was not policy-based and should not have been weighed equal to policy-backed redirect and delete arguments, Superastig's response was I've seen a few discussions like this, where each of them has only 1 "keep" vote and 1 "delete" vote. Either of them is weaker than the other. But after two relists, it was closed as "no consensus". The same case as this discussion. The "keep" vote is weaker than the "redirect" vote since the voter only mentioned nothing else but AllMusic. But, whether it is rebutted or not, it is still valid like the "redirect" argument no matter what. It doesn't sound fair to say that it's not valid. For the nth time, there was really nothing wrong with the closure I did. I did what I could to make the closure fair and square, though I could've added an explanation to back up the closure in the first place. Therefore, even if you throw hissy fits all day long, I really did a good job in giving proper weight to the given arguments. And there's nothing you can do about it because I am telling the truth. This conversation is now over. I'm not gonna waste my time responding to this again. JoelleJay (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah they definitely lost their cool on that one, but that was 19 months and probably like 300+ closes ago; I don't think isolated incidents that old are worth considering. I think the tone of their recent discussions (the last month) were fine. But just as I don't think 7/276 is too many DRVs, it's also not too many times to self-revert, so it cuts both ways. Levivich (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I see that disagreement as part of a pattern of dismissive behavior, but I acknowledge that Superastig's tone has improved for the last several months. Superastig was fond of telling enquirers to [[WP:STICK|drop the stick]]: June 2021, November 2021, January 2022 talk page header (removed within a few weeks, after a request), and August 2022. Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      In my opinion it's a problem that he has continuously characterized all opposition to his closes as "hissy fits" and has ignored the advice of a very large number of people over a very long period recommending he desist in closing AfDs, including pretty strong warnings from admins at DRV. And that only 8 of his articles have been taken to DRV does not mean his other closes were acceptable or went unchallenged after being discouraged by the notice at the top of his talk page, which until recently said If you're here to throw hissy fits over the closures of any deletion discussion, either drop the stick and accept the consensus or take them to the deletion review. The closures I've done are well-thought and therefore final, whether you like it or not. So, ain't nobody got time to argue with anyone over this matter. And it is certainly not acceptable that he purposely prevents deletions with preemptive redirect/NC/merge closures even when there is no consensus for those outcomes and/or they make no sense. His failure to recognize poor !vote arguments and obvious socks (and even socks that have been blocked and their !votes struck) is also concerning. JoelleJay (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That talk page header was ridiculous, but that was a year ago, and I don't see it as "continuously" being uncivil. The Aug 2022 link Flatscan posted above doesn't read as problematic to me, except maybe the link to "stick" was not necessary. So if there haven't been communication problems in 8-12 months, I just don't see it as relevant; it's been fixed. There are, of course, more recent concerns raised in this thread, and I don't think those can really be addressed by anyone other than Astig. Levivich (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      As Extraordinary Writ has pointed out way down at the bottom of the discussion section, Superastig's "response" to this thread suggests that they still hold the same mentality espoused in that talk page header. signed, Rosguill talk 23:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That one, Danko Jones (EP), is the only self-revert of a close I found when skimming (Ctrl-F doesn't work well in this case) Superastig's contributions (2 pages) since they started closing AfDs in March 2021. Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support While I agree the errors are an issue, by themselves alone I might not be on this side of the argument. However, it is not the overall error rate which puts me here, it is the repeated refusal to reconsider their closes when requested. That appears to be an 80-90% error rate. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Only 8 out of 276 closes went to DRV? That's a much better rate than I have! I'd probably encourage them to voluntarily back off a little or limit themselves to the REALLY obvious closes, but a topic ban goes way too far. WaggersTALK 13:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support. It is not a question of the numerical percentage of a deletion review in regards to unchallenged moves, but the overall frequency of it occurring. I remember my struggles when I was first getting in to RM closing, and some utter cluelessness on my part encouraged me to rightfully back off and simply watch and learn until I could better weigh arguments. Having more than two NACs vacated/overturned within a month is more than enough of a warning to stop closing until you can either (a) understand the weight of policy to avoid poor closures (b) realize that you're clueless and should stop for good to avoid SUPERVOTEing. I encourage Superastig to pick one of the two, and in the case of a, suggest that they find a mentor of some kind to help. If possible, I'd support a six-month topic ban at the minimum to help them slow down and learn. The Night Watch (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as per Sandstein. My name is mentioned above as offering commentary in the most recent DRV, and I do have concerns about this editor's ability to consistently close AfD's within the parameters set by the NAC guidelines. If this was a one-off or even a small number, you live with it (heck, one of my closes is at DRV currently), but there is a long pattern here with no real engagement by Superastig on the issues. Daniel (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per arguments of Levivich and Red-tailed Hawk. I suggest he should slow down in closing AfDs coz I feel that sometimes he acts like an admin-level closer when it comes to closing them and he should focus on the ones with easier outcomes. On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with most of his closures IMV, I'd question only a couple of them in fact. 268 of his other closures are correct. So it'll be unfair if he'll be TBANned indefinitely (or temporarily) just because of the 7 challenged closures that are overturned/relisted. Especially that he sometimes votes in AfDs. SBKSPP (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Please move your recommendation to the Involved subsection below. You are clearly acquainted with Superastig. Most of your 24 edits to their talk page relate to their AfD closes and/or DRVs, including your comment shortly before participating here. You also supported endorse at all ten of the DRVs listed in the table. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh. Didn't know where to vote. Thx anyways. SBKSPP (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Moved below. SBKSPP (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (for several reasons) - having 8 DRVs as a NAC is not necessarily an issue. Having 1/8 DRVs upheld is significantly more a problem. But the user's issues there are somewhat broader. I concur their civility in the process is much improved and no longer a particular issue. However, as a nac user, general community consensus is that they are not to take on close closes. In that position, their reticence to reopen their own close when asked is a persistent failing. Beyond that, I find their lack of engagement post-discussion, or in DRVs, or in this discussion itself, especially concerning. Anyone who makes a nac is taking on the same onus that ADMINACCT applies, and I do not believe their engagement to date demonstrates meeting that obligation. Multiple DRV closes have provided warnings, so I believe a TBAN is justified. Should someone propose a reasonable lesser limitation (e.g. obligated to reopen on GF request), then I can be viewed as a support for such above the TBAN. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support because of the continuing high rate of BADNAC seen in the analysis by Rosguill and the confrontational attitude towards this issue seen in the comments linked by Extraordinary Writ. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose Not seeing any obvious reason to ban this user. Superastig has closed almost 300 AfDs, and most are closed correctly. So apparently, closing seven AfDs incorrectly is so horrible that it warrants a topic ban? I'd probably at most support a warning as a reasonable concession, but a topic ban is really excessive. Nythar (💬-❄️) 08:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      What effect do you expect a warning to have? As pointed out already, including by Nosebagbear two recommendations up, Superastig has received ample directed feedback via the DRV closing statements, but they have not corrected their closing behavior. Flatscan (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Flatscan, the formal warning I am suggesting (not one at DRV) would discourage Superastig from engaging in controversial AfD closures and to generally not engage in AfD closures for a period of 6 months. This is different from a topic ban, which is a complete restriction. The reason I support this is because I simply do not understand why 7 supposedly "incorrect" closures are justification for a topic ban. And they're technically not "incorrect" either. Sometimes a discussion at AfD will result in "keep" the first time, and perhaps the second and even the third. And the fourth nomination then results in the article getting deleted. Can't the same thing happen at DRV? Of course it can. Maybe if it were an entirely different group of editors voting at DRV, Superastig would have been wrong only 3 times. I'd like to see conclusive evidence that Superastig's AfD closures are very disruptive and that the only solution available for this disruptive behavior is a complete restriction--a topic ban. I have seen nothing resembling this. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 06:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Based on the evidence presented, I believe that a formal warning will be ineffective. I note that WP:Banning policy (permalink) does not mention "warn" anywhere. I disagree that DRV has the high variance you describe: it has consistent participation and a group of regulars, encouraged by having a fraction of AfD's volume. Flatscan (talk) 05:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I did not say DRV participants vary greatly; I said "if" there was a different crowd at DRV, some of the results may have been different. As for a warning/topic ban, that is up to the participants of this discussion to decide. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 07:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. If 2.5% of closures are taken to DRV, it does not mean that 97.5% of closures were good. Only a fraction of bad closures are taken to DRV. In my experience, it is a small fraction (acknowledging that there is no objective definition of goodness). So the statistics are against Superastig, not for Superastig. If stronger evidence is needed, someone experienced has to go through the last, say, 50 closures. Zerotalk 09:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Zero0000: Perhaps you could do that instead of assuming that a large percentage of Superastig's AfD closures are incorrect? That's the problem with assumptions; you can't know if they're correct, and they could be wrong. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 10:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        My claim that only a fraction of bad closures are taken to DRV is my experience over many years. Zerotalk 14:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Not to mention a 1/7 endorse rate indicates he's actually really bad at closing controversial discussions, which he shouldn't even be closing in the first place. JoelleJay (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Zero0000, I meant that you should look through Superastig's closures and list every obviously incorrect and disruptive closure you can find. "My experience over many years" is not justification for a topic ban. If I supported a topic ban for an editor, why shouldn't I at least try to justify my vote with actual evidence, instead of just assumptions? 97.5% is not a bad look. If this were to decrease to, say, 60%, that then that would be a bad look. Even then, a formal warning and recommendation to stay away from all AfD closures for 6 months seems like a reasonable solution. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 06:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Many, if not most, of the contributors here are less concerned about the specific statisical incidence, and more the (continuing) nature of response when asked to reconsider, depsite multiple opportunities to amend. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Like I said here, Superastig's seven closures might not have been considered "incorrect" if there was a different crowd at DRV. And in fact, one of the 8 closures taken to DRV was accepted by the community. It's difficult to expect an editor to "amend" when it all depends on the community's opinions. "Superastig should only close AfDs if the closure lines up with our opinions which we will voice tomorrow at DRV" is the vibe I'm getting here. Again, this can be easily solved with a warning and recommendation that Superastig not engage in controversial closures and to generally refrain from closing AfDs for a few months. And this time a formal warning, not requests at DRV or talk pages. If there is disruption after the formal warning is issued, a topic ban will likely uncontroversially follow. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 10:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not about a difference of opinion, or who turns up to a discussion, it's about *how* one expresses oneself, the *nature* of the response, its effect, and subsequent actions, not simply the closure decision(s). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Diffs have been posted above of attempts to discuss the issue with Superastig, he has been shown to be less than willing to accept feedback from more experienced users. That's why I gave the proposal a weak support above, because I don't think a warning would have any effect and we'd be back here in a couple months. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Would also support a restriction short of a full ban on NACs. I don't have an issue with implementing reasonable alternatives to deletion like merge or redirect but close calls or potentially controversial decisions should be left to administrators. That has been the community consensus for many years and if Superastig can't abide by that, they shouldn't be closing AfDs at all. The odd mistake or lapse of judgement would be perfectly acceptable but there appears to be a pattern of overstepping the bounds here and not even coming to explain yourself when your actions are questioned at a noticeboard is poor form. If you're not willing to account for your action, you shouldn't be surprised to find your privilege to perform it revoked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Involved

    • Support indefinite topic ban as proposer. I participated in two of the DRVs (January 2022 and June 2022, recommending overturn for both) and commented on the June AfD after it was relisted. I also approached Superastig about closes I found questionable at User talk:Superastig/Archive 6#AfD intersection with SBKSPP (June 2022, permalink), disengaging after three comments. Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban per my analysis below. Even when just looking at closes made in the past month, there's a clear pattern of supervoting and other questionable closes, combined with unsatisfactory engagement with concerns raised by other editors when brought to DRV. Given the high proportion of problematic closes in the last month, my guess is that a significant chunk of their yet-unchallenged closes leave something to be desired as well. I don't think that the oppose argument that Superastig is right 39/40 times holds water; my assessment of their last month in closes is that out of 15, 5 were clearly wrong, 6 were defensible outcomes but did not reflect the balance of the discussion, and the remaining 4 were trivial, unanimous cases. signed, Rosguill talk 16:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per arguments of Levivich and Red-tailed Hawk. As an editor who occasionally asks advice from him after warning me once, I suggest he should slow down in closing AfDs coz I feel that sometimes he acts like an admin-level closer when it comes to closing them and he should focus on the ones with easier outcomes. On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with most of his closures IMV, I'd question only a couple of them in fact. 268 of his other closures are correct. So it'll be unfair if he'll be TBANned indefinitely (or temporarily) just because of the 7 challenged closures that are overturned/relisted. Especially that he sometimes votes in AfDs. SBKSPP (talk) 06:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


    Discussion

    • While I've contested Superastig's closes and think that a tban is a plausible outcome here, especially since there's the ignoring of consensus-backed advice, but don't we need to do a bit more digging through the discussions that haven't been challenged before calling for a tban? signed, Rosguill talk 07:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok, so looking through their most recent closes (list goes back to mid-January 2023), I do think we have a problem here, with a lot of dubious borderline closes that read like WP:SUPERVOTEs.
      This is not a good track record, there's a clear tendency to close as redirect over delete even when numerically deletion is favored, without clear justification based on the weight of arguments. Both the empirical record above, and Superastig's own comments at User_talk:Superastig/Archive_6#AfD_intersection_with_SBKSPP, suggest that Superastig is disproportionately weighting !votes made by SBKSPP. There's also several examples of inappropriately closing discussions as keep or no consensus when the balance of arguments (and evidence of socking) should have given them pause. Their AfD match rate when voting is also relatively weak (66.7%, with no mitigating circumstances that I'm aware of). If this was the first time that issues were being raised I'd consider arguing that a warning to stick to the unanimous calls would be sufficient, but given that this behavior is taking place after being repeatedly told at DRV to back off from close-call or contentious closures, and is coupled with an unwillingness to engage constructively with discussions about their closes, I think a tban from closing discussions is warranted. signed, Rosguill talk 16:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Rosguill: What are your thoughts about this argument Astig makes in that SBKSPP discussion from last summer you linked to: It's not much of a big deal if the outcome of a certain discussion was redirect after only one redirect vote over a handful of delete votes since the consensus is clearly against having an article and a redirect is their typical ATD ... I don't like the idea of getting them closed as delete and redirect because no one can add some content from their history in which they believe are useful to the respective target articles. I follow ATD and PRESERVE, which are both policies, before closing their respective discussions as redirect? Or to put it more broadly: what's wrong with weighing votes against ATD/PRESERVE? (I have not yet looked at the more-recent AFDs you linked to, but will do so.) Levivich (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Levivich, assuming I'm correctly interpreting your broad question as "what's wrong with weighting votes in favor of ATD" I think that the it's a clear case of a type of close that a non-admin should stay away from because their decision will be biased by not having access to the delete button. From the set above, while some of the "List of songs..." examples are cases where ATD is arguably the policy-correct outcome (if not the actual balance of discussion), others, like List of Urdu songs recorded by Runa Laila, are not--no such list exists at the target, and the ensuing redirect is unhelpful (not to mention circular). If Superastig was including thoughtful closes and engaging with discussion when challenged, or if the problem closes were exclusively limited to "closing 'redirect' when the discussion says 'delete' but the redirect is helpful", I'd be more amenable to their continued activity in the area, but given that they have essentially been unacountable to the community's concerns at DRV thus far, and that issues seem to extend to improperly assessing no consensus outcomes I don't see the benefit in their continuing to close discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 16:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The benefit I see in their continuing to close discussions is the 300+ good closures/relists per year we get. I'm perfectly willing to "sacrifice" 7 DRVs to get 300 good closes. In other words, if the cost of 300 closures is the time spent on 7 DRVs, that's worth it. (And I don't agree that there were, in fact, 7 bad closes among the DRVs listed in the OP.)
      I've looked at the list of recent closures, and here is my take on them (out of order):
      I'm not seeing a problem here. 15 closes and the only problem I have is the five "list of songs..." didn't need to be redirected, but it's not worth having them stop. Having them stop closing would be a significant net loss to the project, because we'd lose the good closes. Levivich (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think your reading of Badnaseeb and its DRV is rather odd. The issue there was that keep votes were not properly discounted--i.e. that they should have weighted differently there. There's a similar issue at Fatih Mehmet Gul, where keep !votes should have been discounted due to LTA status and non-engagement with discussion, but were not. Finally, regarding 21 High Street Doha, I think that the balance of discussion at the time of their original close was significantly different from the final close (compare: Original close, final close). signed, Rosguill talk 17:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      On Fatih Mehmet Gul, correct me if I'm misreading it, but those accounts weren't blocked until after the AFD closed (closure 1/15, blocks 1/17 and 1/19). Discounting votes due to non-engagement in discussion? Show me an AFD where that happened :-P
      On 21 High Street Doha, the numerical !vote count changed, but the balance of arguments are the same, as is the applicability of ATD to that entry. I mean, the fact that after more attention, more people voted "redirect" confirms that "redirect" was the proper application of global consensus to this title. (I do not consider "merge" and "redirect" as being qualitatively different.)
      On Badnaseeb, I agree with you that Astig should have discounted votes instead of going the "no consensus" route and closed it as a "redirect", as it was ultimately closed by an admin... but I can forgive Astig for not doing that, given that this close was made on the heels of the 21 High Street Doha DRV. I don't agree with TBANing him for making this mistake. When I count the closes that I actually think are in error, I'm looking at 3 or 4 over the course of a year (including Badnaseeb)... a 98% or 99% match rate is really, really good for NACing AFDs, IMO. Levivich (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      For 21 High Street Doha, the correct call at the time of Superastig's close was to relist. There had been no prior relists and consensus was unclear. If the balance of discussion had been the same after 2, or even 1 relist, Superastig's close would have been defensible. For Fatih Mehmet Gul, the correct call would have been to recognize that this is a close and convoluted discussion with SPAs involved and to not NAC it. signed, Rosguill talk 17:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I would not relist this AFD. It was unanimous that we should not have an article at that title; the only question was whether to delete outright or redirect; WP:ATD says redirect (as a matter of policy!). I mean it's the same situation as Badnaseeb; in both cases, redirect is the right close per ATD. I mostly disagree with the notion that when Astig correctly weighed votes at 21 High Street, that was overturned, and then when he didn't weigh votes at Badnaseeb, that was also overturned, and we're going to TBAN him for this. My view is that 21 High St should not have been overturned, and if it wasn't, Astig would have weighed Badnaseeb correctly, and that wouldn't be overturned, either. Levivich (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Finally, regarding the calculus of I'm perfectly willing to "sacrifice" 7 DRVs to get 300 good closes--I think that misrepresents the content and quality of the good closes. A good NAC close is an obvious close, which by definition do not take long to perform. Even with an overabundance of caution, closing such a discussion should take no more than 2 minutes. A DRV, meanwhile, is going to take 5-30 minutes of time for each participant in the discussion, plus additional time in closing. So, my math is that on the good side we've saved 10 hours of work, whereas on the bad side we've cost the community 17.5 hours of work, and that's before factoring in discussions such as this one and the further examination of other closes they've done. signed, Rosguill talk 17:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I strongly disagree that closing such a discussion should take no more than 2 minutes. One must read the discussion in order to determine if it is in fact controversial or noncontroversial. That takes longer than two minutes. I'd estimate NACing an AFD to take 10-30 minutes per AFD. It's true that a DRV is the same 10-30 minutes, but per participant, so you have a multiplication effect. Taking the lower bound of 10 minutes and using some round estimates to make the math easier: 10 minutes x 300 closes = 3,000 labor-minutes. 10 minutes x 7 DRVs x 10 participants per DRV = 700 labor-minutes. I admit this is some fuzzy math, but I think it illustrates the point. Levivich (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think we may have a different bar for the level of obviousness expected from a NAC. I think that, particularly in the case of an editor who has been repeatedly warned at DRV to stay away from contentious or close calls, the only closes that should be performed are ones where the discussion is essentially unanimous, where an uninvolved closer is a formality. signed, Rosguill talk 17:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that's exactly right. To me, "obvious" doesn't mean "unanimous", and it doesn't mean "requires no weighing of votes", it means "the outcome is obvious to any experienced editor", even if that obvious outcome requires weighing votes. For example, I think it's OK for for a NAC to discount "IAR keep" votes, or to discount blocked sock votes, or to apply ATD. Levivich (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      By the way, looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatih Mehmet Gul at the time of closure (before the socks were blocked), would a "no consensus" closure have been wrong? This is unrelated to the question of re-opening it now that they are known to be socks. Animal lover |666| 18:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that at the time of the close it was on the borderline between deletion and no consensus, with an even vote count but a balance of discussion favoring delete. But bringing it back to the question of whether NAC is appropriate, I think it's worthwhile to discourage NACs in such situations, not just because of WP:RELISTBIAS but also to save the non-admin's time--it's not saving the project time to have non-admins pore over discussions for a good 10-30 min only to come to the conclusion that delete is the correct outcome, in which case there's nothing they can do and the time has been wasted. This issue could be avoided if we adopted a convention to allow NACs to recommend deletion closes, which apparently is already sort of the practice at CfD where deletion first requires a lot of non-delete-button-related cleanup signed, Rosguill talk 18:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Hm, I don't think that's quite the point of contention between our understandings. I agree that it's fine for an NAC to discount "IAR keep" votes, or to discount blocked sock votes, or to apply ATD (and that failure to do so may itself be a problem!), but that the resulting consensus arrived at should not be ambiguous or leave room for interpretation. NACs should not be closing discussions as no consensus when there is a plausible interpretation of the balance of debate favoring deletion, even if an admin coming in and closing it as no consensus would be defensible. signed, Rosguill talk 19:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with Levivich's analysis. I also see nothing wrong with the closures presented, including the redirects since ATD is key. One of the !voters in the list of songs states that he's "not opposed for a redirect". Besides, a redirect doesn't hurt at all. SBKSPP (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Deletion policy as written does not require editors or closers to consider ATDs or to implement them against consensus to delete. The redirects were both pointless and lacking in any P&G support, and as closers are expected to evaluate the legitimacy of AfD participants as well as their arguments' validity none of the BADNACs noted by Rosguill above can even be justified as the type of "redirect-as-compromise" close that might be acceptable from e.g. a 5d-1r-2k !vote landscape. Every single keep !vote in those AfDs should have been ignored even in the absence of blatant socking. See my !vote above. JoelleJay (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frankly I'm surprised that someone who I have down as "most uncooperative AfD behavior ever encountered" should now be in the habit of closing them. The second half of any of their !votes used to be, literally, "that's my opinion, I'm not ever going to change it, so don't bother responding, kthnxbye". Not having visited many non-STEM AfDs recently, I possibly have missed a complete heel-face turn there, but chances are that someone with that approach to deletion discussions should not be closing even uncontroversial AfDs. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't do numbered !votes for ban proposals, or at least shouldn't, so I have combined the support/oppose/neutral sections above. @Levivich and Animal lover 666: This has involved slight refactoring of your comments; feel free to modify further as you see fit. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 08:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      For the record, I imitated the formatting of a community ban proposal that was on AN when I started drafting. I just realized that the Support, Oppose, and Neutral subsections match WP:Requests for adminship. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a quick comment, IMO we should consider a DRV overturn as at least effectively 2 errors. I haven't looked into the details for these DRVs but I assume the normal procedure was followed for them all and the editors concerned first approached Superastig explaining their concerns but this wasn't enough to convince Superastig to do something (probably overturn their close and leave it for someone else). For this reason, simple raw counts of their 'error rate' is IMO somewhat flawed for something like this. Indeed IMO I would consider failing to properly take on board concerns about your close especially as an NAC and where there's been a consensus you have had problems before, as something which should count for more than "2 errors" if you wanted to put it into raw numbers. As I haven't looked into the details, as there is mentioned of January, it's possible that Superastig wasn't able to take on board the DRV feedback for all challenges as some were partly simultaneously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nil Einne (talk • contribs) 11:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I skimmed through the notification diffs from the table: my count is seven after discussion and three with no prior message. Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm still undecided, as I've had both good and bad interactions with SuperAstig. They make plenty of good closes, but this was definitely an example of a bad close and a negative interaction with him when I asked about it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noting that Superastig has responded to this AN thread here by describing it as "outright ridiculous" and complaining that editors "seem to get triggered" by his "really well-thought" closures. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Pretty similar to my DIF directly above. It's starting to move the needle for me... Sergecross73 msg me 00:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Same here, it seems to be moving into WP:IDHT territory. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP keeps making malformed AFD of page, in order to replace page with 'rejected' draft

    There's too many diffs to show, but User:122.53.47.47 keeps nominating List of longest-reigning monarchs with (what appears to be) a malformed nomination, in the hopes of replacing it with a rejected draft. This might be a WP:CIR issue. GoodDay (talk) 06:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    don's it a 'rejected' draft 122.53.47.47 (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP has been temporarily blocked for disruptive edits. Looks like they're now trying to create another draft list article on their user talk page. WaggersTALK 14:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Undoubtedly BFDIFan707 whose latest socks have thing for largest X. @HJ Mitchell FYI. Not sure 31 hours will be enough unfortunately. Star Mississippi 18:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, the IPs latest edits have made things seem less about their competency & more about their possible deliberate disruption. I too, now suspect socking via editing signed out -- GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They appear to have a friend at 122.2.121.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Mayhaps a checkuser or someone better at ranges will wander by Star Mississippi 23:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also IP 112.206.195.194. GoodDay (talk) 03:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely need someone better with range block than I to sort this out. Star Mississippi 14:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These IPs can't meaningfully be range blocked. Whack a mole is called for. IznoPublic (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Izno Star Mississippi 17:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Reiner Gavriel

    Reiner Gavriel destroys 3 authorative sources here and replaces them with 1 non-authorative source: [1][2]. If something doesn't fit his narrative, he calls it biased and not neutral: [3]. If you check Durdzuks, Ingush people, Vyappiy, you will see that he has a pattern. It's good to mention that the person seems to not like people of Ingush origin as to why would he want to add Phallic statue image to Ingush people article, his 2 colleges even said that it's unnecessary. Insulted me here by saying that I have "shown over and over again that my sources are either simply bad or straight up non-existing": [4]. Hopefully the adminstrators will resolve this issue and bring back the authorative sources and stop Reiner from vandalising them. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 07:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • You provoke him, write against the Chechens. Add sources with completely different information. Товболатов (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    None of those "3 authorative sources" were "destroyed". In fact you are the only one who had removed one source, which I simply readded to the article. It's outrageous of you to accuse me of "not like people of Ingush origin" and then claim I have insulted you for pointing out that several articles of yours were deleted for shockingly bad sources and that you have lied about sources before, as you can see here. Regarding the Phallic statue, it is part of the Ingush history and played a big part of local pagan cults. I have tried finding a middleground with you but you were not willing to work on it, preferring removing it because "writing this in this article is an insult not only for me, but for many Muslims!". Anything you don't like should be removed, anything you like, even if the source is exceptionally bad, should be added. That is simply not how Wikipedia works. As I can see you have been blocked from the Russian Wikipedia for doing this. I sincerely recommend staying neutral and realistic. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • You removed the 3 authorative sources and replaced them with 1 non-authorative source here:[5][6]. Denying the reality isn't helping you at all, you removed following text: sfn|Крупнов|1971|p=37sfn|Волкова|1973|p=153sfn|Жданов|2005|p=71. I was banned in Russian Wikipedia 2 months ago because I was unexperienced user and did some mistakes, but this shouldn't matter as I have changed and now only edit everything neutrally and with using authorative sources which you usually like to destroy. I always edit the page neutrally, however you vandalise the articles associated with Ingush and revert my edits calling it biased, despise me sciting authorative sources or you just call it "vandalism" when it's not. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Again, none of those "3 authorative sources" were removed, they were moved because I replaced "Ingush society" with "Chechen and Ingush society", which it is, no matter what your personal opinion is. There are Vyappiy Chechens. You can't deny that, it's a fact. You are nowhere close to being "neutral", it was pointed out several times in articles you have created and were rightfully deleted. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reiner Gavriel first of all as you know Ingush and Chechen sources on the matter of ethnicity aren't authorative and aren't neutral, they are interested parties. Not only your single source wasn't reliable, but it didn't even back up your claims — Nataev simply claimed the society as whole Chechen and he also claimed Kostoevs (which is ridiculous). I have told you so many times but it seems that you're not understanding: Chechen Fyappins are offspring of Ingush Fyappin taip Torshkhoy that migrated to Aukh and the Chechen Fyappins are very small minority compared to the Fyappin society in Ingushetia that is Ingush. There's nothing hard to comprehend. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Товболатов I didn't provoke anyone. Reiner removes 3 authorative sources and adds 1 not authorative source as a replacement, reverts edits and calls everything "vandalism" and "biased narration". He puts images of Phallic statues in Ingush people, is this normal to you? It's clear that his intentions are bad and he wants to make fun of the Ingush. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is a related dispute to the one opened at the section on Таллархо above. There have been extensive attempts to resolve through discussion on relevant article talk pages, but the involved editors are at an impasse as far as the use and admissibility of sources related to the crux of the content dispute, and rather than escalating to an appropriate dispute resolution process the conflict has devolved into edit warring across multiple articles to a degree of intensity that makes it difficult to tell if anyone is in the right at a glance. Таллархо crossed the line by making ethnonationalist personal attacks so that was a good block, but I'm concerned that WikiEditor is now trying to win the dispute as a whole through ANI. I'm going to try to dig around more and possibly impose page protection on some of the affected pages, but would appreciate more independent eyes on this. signed, Rosguill talk 18:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok, I unfortunately need to step away from this for some time due to other appointments I have today. I will note that I came within a hair of blocking WikiEditor for personal attacks against Reiner Gavriel and the general pattern of disruptive editing across multiple articles (which appears to be continued from ru.wiki, where they were blocked for falsifying information), but was not able to research the dispute to a degree where I would feel comfortable following through. Elements giving me pause are that while I do speak Russian, I'm not familiar enough with the relevant scholarship to be able to identify at a glance who is correct about claims of removing "authoritative" sources, and that there may be some validity to the accusation that Reiner Gavriel is placing undue weight on the prominence of the phallic cult among Ingush peoples, as I can find relatively few results concerning that topic when I search for it in English on Google Scholar. signed, Rosguill talk 18:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • May I please know where did I try to "personally attack Reiner"? I didn't personally attack him, and I always try to be as professional as possible without any insults. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Rhetoric like destroys 3 authorative sources, accusing them of vandalism, and accusing them of harboring anti-Ingush sentiments without providing clear supporting evidence are all forms of personal attacks. Accusing Reiner of filing frivolous sockpuppet reports and calling it It's one of his favorite things to do when opponent is winning in the argument is further a personal attack in the absence of evidence to back that assertion up. And this is just a list of examples taken from this specific discussion section at ANI. signed, Rosguill talk 19:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rosguill, I never accuse anyone without showing proof — Reiner really did remove 3 authorative sources and I backed it up twice with these 2 links: [7][8]. Reiner reverts my edits in Bats people and destroys Volkova's sources which are authorative too and adds in between the referenced text his own opinion which wasn't mentioned in the sources: [9][10]. I don't know how me saying that Reiner removed 3 authorative sources was considered personal attack but Товболатов clearly implying that I wasn't properly raised and bringing up my parents wasn't even looked at: [11]... Товболатов also insulted Ingush people in Russian Wikipedia and it amasses me that no admins warned him for such words:

    , note that the text was in Russian but I translated it to make it easier for people who don't speak Russian. Because of the request ([15]) of admin Rosguill, I won't enter a discussion for a while until the admins assess the situation. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello Rosguill, you should see that while we were discussing with Reiner in Vyappiy, he tried to immediately get me and another user Muqale blocked with false accusations: [16], but this case was quickly closed and his attempt to get me blocked for false reasons failed. It's one of his favorite things to do when opponent is winning in the argument. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Rosguill Hello, WikiEditor1234567123 tries to send all participants to the block with such requests. This is not the first time he changes accounts often. There is an experienced participant here who is well acquainted with this situation for more than a year. He is a Russian-speaking administrator Ymblanter, he can give you advice in this situation. There are a lot of articles on Ingush topics hoax WikiEditor1234567123 knowing that the sources here are not particularly checked, it expands these articles and creates legends. People who understand this begin to roll him back, he accordingly starts a war. Several times I found one information in the sources, and WikiEditor1234567123 writes something completely different. There were two of his articles, they were deleted; in general, it was written that the Ingush defeated three empires. From his first edits, he made a war here with other participants.--Товболатов (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Look at these articles there at the very beginning that he created. Even the administrator was surprised by Ymblanter.

    1. .List of wars involving Ingushetia # Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wars involving Ingushetia
    2. .Nazran conflict. # Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazran conflict (2nd nomination)

    When he realized that the article would be deleted, he began to quickly correct the information there. But still, the article looked very fantastic.--Товболатов (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Товболатов The admins found nothing on me in your investigation, I didn't abuse multiple accounts, so what's the point in still spreading this false accusation? In Nazran raid I was warned and since then stopped editing that page, accepting the "result". About the two articles, I made mistake making them and I greatly apologize for that however they were deleted and it's been month, no need to bring up the past. If you check my recent created articles (16 articles), they are all well made with authorative sources and neutral point. Why not talk about the fact that you tried to make Ингуши в Турции deleted but this was denied, here: [17]? Why not talk about the fact that in Russian Wikipedia, you insulted Ingush, here:[18][19][20]. You try to send all your opponents into block by accusing them of sockpuppetry which can be seen here: [21][22]. Most of the stuff that you accuse me of are false and I would appreciate if you wouldn't make such big accusations, thanks. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Tell us how many of your articles were sent to drafts after suspicions about the administrators' fake.--Товболатов (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Only two of your articles have passed the test, the rest weigh at the Unknown. No need to brag.--Товболатов (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, you yourself confessed two months have passed and you continue the war. I can't believe you.--Товболатов (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Товболатов EXCUSE ME, where did I insult your parents and why mention my parents!!? Where did I insult you? I wasn't raised either to make false accusations of people and attribute such things to them, this is unacceptable! I never insult someone's parents as this goes against any kind of norms. As I have mentioned many many times the admins found NO CONNECTIONS with other accounts that you said I have connections. I was proven innocent and this should be the end of that. Why are you deliberately trying to attribute such things to me? Rosguill is this normal? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          The accusation by Товболатов regarding insults towards one's parents should be struck unless it can be supported by evidence. signed, Rosguill talk 21:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Rosguill this isn't the first time that Товболатов has made false accusations about me, he tries to take me down by making such accusations, however that one is just unacceptable! Not only he attributed such thing to me but also brought my parents into this matter and implied that I was raised wrongly! This is clear as day personal insult! WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, I’ll take a picture about my parents, but explain where and when I insulted you? this is another participant in the Russian Wikipedia, we will take off a simple dispute over the article. you don't participate at all. He wrote to me and I wrote to him. This is all without proof that I insulted you. WikiEditor1234567123 . Rosguill is this normal?? without proof. If I insulted someone, the Russian administrators blocked me long ago like you WikiEditor1234567123.--Товболатов (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
              I think it's pretty clear that WikiEditor is interpreting the statement you made, and then removed in this edit, as an insult directed at their parents. You have removed the statement (striking would have been preferable), so that is now largely moot. signed, Rosguill talk 22:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • Rosguill, first he made that wild accusation and brought my parents and insulted me and my parents by implying that I was raised wrong. Then he removed his statement as you too saw here: [23] and then tried to make a fool out of me. It should be clear that he's just making as much accusations as possible about me to take me down, he and his colleague were trying to do that by saying that I do Sockpuppetry however the admins found nothing on me and proved that I'm innocent. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Rosguill this is not the first time he is trying to distract everyone here from the topic, to mislead other participants. How he misleads readers WikiEditor1234567123 he again tries to avoid responsibility as he did last time. You can fall under his influence, be careful. I already see that you wanted to block him now you have changed your mind. I would not believe him yes he writes well here. But as soon as he returns to satatya, he will immediately start a war.--Товболатов (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    WikiEditor1234567123 Why do you say that I offended you this account Anceran in Russian Wikipedia is yours??--Товболатов (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Rosguill There is a link where an Ingush participant insults my parents. I can provide.--Товболатов (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • How is that "Ingush participant" connected with me in any way? The admins have proven that I have no connections so please refrain from those accusations. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Товболатов, if that insult is unrelated to WikiEditor then there's no need to bring it up here. My sense is that both of you are trigger happy to find offense at each other right now, and that everyone would benefit from taking a step back and seeking uninvolved input on the content disputes, without continuing to edit war. signed, Rosguill talk 22:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know, the previous administrator told me if this member continues to break the rules or make wars, then I can apply here.Товболатов (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I meant my comment more in the sense that all parties to this dispute have clearly already provided the relevant evidence for others to look through, and that further back-and-forth between you at this noticeboard two is unlikely to help your case here. Evaluating the evidence will take time because of how long this conflict has been going on for, the less-than-stellar behavior on display from both sides, and the relative obscurity of the subject matter. signed, Rosguill talk 22:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps it was him before that a member with this similar name Ghalghai'Wiki'Editor wrote to me and insulted me from this account Roberson4096. Here is insult can you check if he is or not.--Товболатов (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Ghalghai'Wiki'Editor that's him for sure @Bbb23: Hello! The accounts Ghalghai'Wiki'Editor and Niyskho belong to Kist-Dzurdzuk, who is blocked on ruwiki. I understand --Товболатов (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • My assessment at this time is that we're only going to be able to get to the bottom of this once we have a community assessment of the sources that Reiner Gavriel and WikiEditor have been fighting over, and I think the best method to do that is to have a moderated discussion related to the spelling of Fyappiy vs. Vyappiy (or other spellings) at WP:DRN, to pick one dispute that cuts to the core of the issues between this group of editors and which seems like it should be relatively easy to identify a correct solution for. There's been back and forth personal attacks, but a lot of the diffs raised in this discussion are from ru.wiki, relatively old, and in the context of heated disputes with other editors uninvolved here, so I'm disinclined to sanction on the basis of them. I note as well that the SPI request linking WikiEditor to an LTA was closed with the conclusion that they are not the same person. If Reiner Gavriel, WikiEditor1234567123, Товболатов, and any other editors party to this dispute (Muqale?) agree, I'm willing to moderate the proposed discussion at DRN. signed, Rosguill talk 19:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rosguill Sure, I will agree to discuss about Fyappiy, however it's not just about the correct spelling, it's also about the ethnic belonging of Fyappiy. It's good to mention that in this dispute Товболатов wasn't involved with the page Fyappiy and didn't have disputes with us in that article so I think he's not needed in the discussion. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rosguill thank you for your attention to this topic. Recently, when making requests, members who write on Chechen topics are blocked, and WikiEditor1234567123 is left to be edited. I hope after your intervention this issue will be considered neutral and not one-sided.--Товболатов (talk) 08:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hello Rosguill, I've noticed that I was tagged by you in this discussion. I myself am an ethnic Ingush, and just recently started creating articles and ofcourse have a separate interest in articles regarding my nation, and was suprised to see that there even was an edit war going on regarding the Fyappiy considering their obvious ethnic belonging to the Ingush. I've entered the discussion in the Fyappiy talkpage and was immediately falsely accused of being a sockpuppet by Reiner Gavriel. I prefer not to engage in edit wars when the other side does not seek consensus or decide their version is the only correct one, so I left the discussion. When I recently noticed another strange statement in the Durdzuks article, I removed a falsified statement. See here. And Reiner Gavriel, seemingly monitoring my edits I suppose, immediately reverted it, in bully-like manor, so I invited him to seek consensus and asked him to provide evidence for his edit here. After failing to back up his statement with evidence (source material). He altered the statement, again with his own version of the truth, just like his previous statement, which he defended for a long time. I've personally not come across Товболатов, and am unaware of his connection to some of these nationalist edits. The reason why I assume this is nationalist editing is because both Reiner Gavriel and Товболатов seem to be mostly creating and editing Chechen-related articles, which means they have a bias in this matter. I would advice to keep in mind that Ingush-Chechen relations are not the smoothest. See here and here. Renaming and turning Ingush clans and families into Chechen (like the Fyappiy article) is a way of eventually claiming the territory of the lands these families live on. A form of propaganda. This is why this situation needs special attention. I am willing to discuss this matter further if it requires further attention by Wikipedia administrators. Thank you for your attention to this matter.--Muqale (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So I'm still waiting for Reiner Gavriel's response here because DRN is an optional, opt-in process, but I wanted to note in response to Muqale and Товболатов's comments that the reason I suggested the Fyappiy/Vyappiy dispute was because it involves the use of sources that seem central to the broader dispute, and because English Wikipedia's article-naming guidelines are relatively straightforward and thus makes good and bad behavior more obvious than for say, a discussion about the relative WP:DUE-ness of a potentially-controversial claim. I also didn't want to exclude anyone who may have been party to the dispute, hence including Muqale and Товболатов--if either of you are not interested in participating that is OK and we can proceed without you (assuming that Reiner and WikiEditor are still on board). signed, Rosguill talk 20:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello Rosguill. It's been now more than 3 days and Reiner, instead of replying here about a discussion at DRN, keeps on editing the page Fyappiy, here he removed according to him unrelated information to the article (the information was about the history and anthropology of Fyappiy which are very important) and added once again non-authorative source alongside the 3 authorative sources which claim Fyappiy being only Ingush. Here in Bats people, he once again removed authorative source from Volkova, famous Soviet-Russian caucasologist and historian and added his own text which isn't even supported by the authorative sources I put in the first place. I don't know how to deal with this, if a person doesn't wanna engage in discussion at DRN and keeps on removing referenced text and authorative sources. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    DRN is optional, generally participating in discussions and consensus building is not optional. It looks like "Vyappiy" is the original spelling on Wikipedia, so from a procedural standpoint it should remain at that title until a consensus to change it is reached. You should start a discussion on the talk page to propose a change if you disagree with the current title. If the discussion stalls, you can seek uninvolved input at WP:ORN or WP:NPOVN. If editors continue to edit war after discussion on the talk page has begun, that would be a clear violation of editing policy and can be reported to WP:AN3. signed, Rosguill talk 15:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Chapmansh

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

    Shira Klein is Chapmansh. Chapmansh published this yesterday promoting the narrative of a sitebanned harasser. Chapmansh smears several Wikipedians, in their item that is part of a wider mud smearing campaign. The item was at the very least ghost written by an indef banned manipulator and harasser, who tried outing people, harassing their families, etc. Chapmansh needs to be banned per NPA, Wikipedia:Casting aspersions, etc. Jamarast (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I wonder what the enforceability of NPA and ASPERSIONS - both internal guidelines - is on this kind of offwiki activity. Probably between zero and nil. (Also, FWIW, the editor is a WikiEd instructor, and I don't think they have ever interacted onwiki with any of the editors they named in the journal essay.) W. Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/c) 11:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't an issue of NPA and ASPERSIONS. It's an issue of WP:OUTTING: attempted outing is sufficient grounds for an immediate block. Volunteer Marek 12:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would note that if this does indeed fall under ASPERSIONS, so does the claim that The item was at the very least ghost written by you-know-who. W. Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/c) 11:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fascinating. It's essentially a really long talk page rant with outing, published as a peer-reviewed research article in a reputable journal. I think the next edition of the Signpost just got booked solid. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elmidae Precisely 🙂, that’s what it is. A really long talk page rant with outing, published as a peer-reviewed research article in a reputable journal. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I'm not necessarily saying their narrative is wrong - frankly I have no idea what y'all are doing in that area - but I have never seen that combination of scholarship and individually-targeted message board excavation before. Not sure this blurring of the boundaries of "research article" and "someone on the internet is wrong" is a good idea. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elmidae: Don't think of it as an "insider" of Wikipedia, but as an outsider: to outsiders, the inner workings of Wikipedia are almost completely opaque, but their results are highly visible, and not always agreeable. If you're an older academic in this field - and of those there are many - then you're more used to archives than emails, and this "excavation" into the bowels of Wikipedia is as a good a guide as you'll ever get into a completely novel way of creating and disseminating knowledge. It may be boring for you or me, but for an "outsider" it's essential reading. François Robere (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Leaving aside the specifics of that content area, I will say that from my experience in other content areas the general narrative over how our consensus mechanisms can and are manipulated by editors who wish to push a certain point of view through distorted selection and quoting of sources, and that our systems for handling this sort of behaviour (ANI, AE, ArbCom) are broadly not capable of responding to it, is true.
    The problem is that untangling this mess of selective source selection aligned to a specific point of view requires some pretty in-depth knowledge of the content area. However by the time that an editor or admin has that knowledge, and is trying to take action against one or more of the disruptive editors, they are seen as being involved at best and making attempts to remove opponents at worst.
    While I don't want to diminish the concerns Marek is expressing over potentially being outed, I feel like this broader problem of subtle manipulations of consensus needs to be discussed and addressed somewhere. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe at WP:NPOVN? Levivich (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NPOVN might be able to handle specific cases and could lead to an article or set of articles fixed, but that sort of noticeboard isn't a venue to deal with either editorial behavioural issues, or how our policies and guidelines are being subverted in a manner that they by design cannot handle. Is there much point in fixing articles while not addressing the circumstances that allowed them to become broken in the first place? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Judging by Talk:Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust#Concerns have been raised about this article, I fear you're right. Levivich (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, while I'm not familiar enough with the source materials to determine who is selectively using sources to further a specific point of view, I can say I've seen that exact type of discussion in content areas. Unfortunately by the time any editor, much less an admin or arbitrator has became informed enough in that content to make that determination accurately and take action against it, they will be seen and cast by those misusing the sources as biased and involved against them.
    Given that this is an issue of subversion of our policies and guidelines, I wonder if Village Pump (policy) would be the right venue to at least get the ball rolling? Specifics for fixing the problem would probably have to be discussed on the relevant policy or guideline talk pages, but the generalities of identifying which PAGs are being subverted and how could be done there. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I've seen it, too, and I agree with your analysis. VPP seems as good a place as any; I think the generalities include "is there a problem?" and "what is the problem, exactly?" I know what I think about it, I know what I read in the paper, but I don't know what the community consensus is at this point. Levivich (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll try to draft up something general for VPP then to get that conversation started. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now live at VPP. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just how many places is this discussion being repeated on Wikipedia? If the article in question does involve outing editors then we shouldn't really be discussing it at all in public but passing it on to Arbcom and to T&S.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nigel Ish Voice of reason award. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So, I will be blunt: if this really is about defamation/privacy issues and not about keeping the shitstorm going, then why not, immediately after the OP posted on AN about the matter, just tell others something to the effect of: "This article may involve defamation and/or outing of some editors (do not specify) and is being resolved according to procedures laid out for harassment, defamation and linking to it. Administrators are asked to enforce sanctions against any users discussing my IRL identity that have not been posted anytime on Wikipedia with all tools at their disposal as they see appropriate"? This gag order is appropriate until these issues are resolved, is in accordance with the policies and guidelines for such alleged behaviour, and can help resolve any differences with the authors of the paper.
    For now, what I see is that the person who appears to be in most need of assistance doesn't look like wanting any and instead publicly airs their grievances which, in this case, should not be done in public for reasons that person himself became aware of, the hard way. (Yes, asking to suppress 13-year-old information that bothered no one before this publication is ridiculous, and even I believe it is too late, as in "people outside WP took notice" and we can't help it, it is never late to do the thing I proposed and limit the discussion for so long as is needed for competent people to either suppress that information or decide that there was no violation). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Admittedly I was the among the first to ask ArbCom to ban users (in particular, one of the users implicated in the cited paper) who were circumventing NPA by posting accusations of proxying/meatpuppetry on Wikipediocracy under the same nick they use on WP instead of actually saying that on WP, and this during an active ArbCom case. But the proposed ban will do more harm than good.

    1. NPA refers to attacks made on Wikipedia - even if we can qualify them as personal attacks, these were off-wiki. To be fair, enforcement should be equal, so if that didn't provoke a ban, this shouldn't either.
    2. ASPERSIONS concerns claims that are unsubstantiated and cast people in negative light (defamation). At the very least the authors substantiate their position. There are problems with this paper (like downplaying the problems Icewhiz caused or Grabowski not being a totally impartial observer of the situation, given his prior Disputes with Piotrus) but ASPERSIONS is not that.
    3. The item was at the very least ghost written by [Icewhiz] this is an aspersion against Chapmansh, please substantiate. "It's obvious" arguments are not good enough. Nobody really has even got evidence of them contacting Icewhiz to begin with.
    4. Chapmansh did not edit in the area of concern (or really engage with any of the editors on-wiki), so the ban is pointless. The way to prevent these concerns are either addressing the authors, or publishing rebuttals in the press, or suing for libel.
    5. As for OUTING, I would advise all these who think they were outed to not post about this publicly (it only makes the outers confirm they were right). For the same reason, I will refrain from telling in public if the information posted in the article was public knowledge or not to consider this an OUTING violation. This must be addressed privately with admins and/or T&S.
    In short, this request is pointless and is on shaky ground policy-wise. I think no one should opine on the OUTING allegation in public. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "all these who think they were outed to not post about this publicly (it only makes the outers confirm they were right)" - I am not clear on what your logic is here - are you saying that by publicly pointing out the WP:OUTTING the outers can feel successful in their harassment? That's a judgement call best left to the target of the outing, no? Volunteer Marek 14:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the instructions for posting on AN say this: Oversight and revision-deletion:
    If the issue or concern involves a privacy-related matter, or involves any potential libel or defamation, do not post it here (emphasis on original). At least the OP did not say "OUTING" (he only said as much as that the piece is defamatory), but you shouldn't have publicly confirmed or alleged that. READ THE WARNING POPUPS BEFORE POSTING (too late at this stage, though). Just tell these guys what you believe had not been public knowledge but was disclosed. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Full disclosure: I was interviewed for this piece even though I'm not credited (some are here). I provided links to the Jan Żaryn discussion but I was not consulted on the final version of that part of the text. My opinions did not become part of the final version of the text. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OUTING is a shield against harassment, not against scrutiny (see WP:HA#NOT). Shira Klein and Jan Grabowski aren't some Wikipedians taking their on-Wiki grievances off-Wiki, but serious scholars engaged in a serious, peer-reviewed study (for which I was also interviewed). The paper is now out; accepting the suggestion by Jamarast (talk · contribs) would be seen not as protecting anyone's identity, but as vindictive muzzling of scholarship. François Robere (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, a caveat to WP:OUTING is if "[the] person has voluntarily posted their own information... on Wikipedia". Since the editor supposedly "outed" by the paper has used their real name on Wikipedia in the past, this doesn't seem like a violation. François Robere (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chapmansh: is indeed "some Wikipedian" which means that our policy apply to them as much as to anyone else. This includes outing, especially when it's done in what appears to be a gratuitous and vindictive manner. And this is a clear cut violation which at the end of the day is no different than when User:Icewhiz began posting private information of Wikipedia users on twitter, including info on how to harass their children and employers. Indeed, the wording in the article is verbatim taken from Icewhiz's doxxing. Oh and recall that this is an area under Discretionary Sanctions, which Chapmansh (who has been on Wikipedia for more than ten years so cannot plead ignorance in this respect) is well aware of since their article references these very same Discretionary Sanctions. Volunteer Marek 14:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    One cannot be outed after editing here for years under their real name, voluntarily disclosing their identity on their own userpage, and then (publicly) renaming their account after being sanctioned by arbcom. Out of respect I won't drop diffs but it's all on-wiki and public and has been for over 10 years. After being sanctioned in a topic area, one cannot use a rename to hide the history while continuing to be disruptive in that same topic area. Levivich (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    First, this is not true. WP:OUTTING says:
    Personal information includes real-life name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph, whether such information is accurate or not.
    Posting personal information EVEN IF someone has edited under their real name is still WP:OUTTING.
    Second, unless you're referring to Piotrus nobody mentioned in that article "edited Wikipedia for years under their real name" nor did they "disclose their identity on their own userpage" as far as I'm aware. The only thing that has happened is that some people were doxxed previously, also with the intent of harassment and this has been used to identify them and, well, doxx them again.
    On a related note, since both you and Francois Robere took part in the process of creating this article I would appreciate it if you didn't comment on this issue since you were, however indirectly, involved in this WP:OUTTING. This particularly applicable due to the fact that your comments appear to be written in "I know something I know something but I won't tell" insinuations and possibly interpreted as prodding others to search further. Also, please remind me, have you been asked to refrain from such activity previously?
    Finally, trying to excuse doxxing and outing by claiming that someone is "continuing to be disruptive" not only violates WP:ASPERSIONS (if you wish to file a report about any disruptive activity in the topic area, you know where to do it) but is also, well, quite disturbing since it's basically saying "they were doxxed but they deserved it!". Other users have tried similar excuses in the past and as we all know, ended up being site banned. Volunteer Marek 15:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just checked the paper and the three times they mention an editor's real name, the footnote at the end of the sentence links to a diff in which the editor self-disclosed on-wiki. (Are you seriously denying editing under your real name for years, until your first arbcom TBAN? If you want, I can post those diffs on-wiki?) Being interviewed by a researcher doesn't constitute taking part in writing the paper and certainly not outing. Levivich (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I am denying it since it's not true. I've never edited under my real name. I would ask you to prove otherwise (you can't) but then I will be falling prey to your little game where I inadvertently give you permission to doxx me (even if partially). It is likewise still false that I "voluntarily disclosed my real name on my user page". You really need to quit it with these half-insinuations wink wink bread crumbs you're dropping for people when you know very well that your claims are simply false. Like quit it yesterday.
    And you weren't just interviewed for the article, you were quoted, glowingly in it. And then there's the mutual history here which we all know too well.
    For the purposes of THIS violation here by Klein, WP:OUTTING also applies to the doxxing of a person's employer, job occupation, address, title, etc. She clearly did that. And there's absolutely no way you can try and stretch the truth, despite your heroic efforts, and pretend that I ever disclosed any of that on Wiki or anywhere else.
    Seriously, strike your comment and go elsewhere before you get yourself in trouble. Volunteer Marek 16:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to strike my comment, I'm going to substantiate it. As far as I know, you started editing in 2006 as User:Radeksz, until 2009 when you were TBANed as part of WP:EEML. This is the diff from EEML cited in the paper. Here is where you disclosed your occupation. After EEML, in 2010, you changed your username to Volunteer Marek. This is all public, on-wiki, by your choice. The only item is not on-wiki is "employer", but given that you've disclosed (1) real name and (2) occupation, and only went pseudonymous after being sanctioned in this topic area (but returned to this topic area, where you were sanctioned again by Arbcom 10 years later), I don't think that constitutes "outing" or "doxing", and none of it is on-wiki anyway. Levivich (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And that old username is NOT "my real name" which is why, surprise surprise, it's different than the name that Chapmansh doxxed in her article. And if you're going to be doxxing me now too - you are very clearly aware that I was subjected to extreme harassment from Icewhiz yet you happily do it here anyway - then please at least acknowledge that I never posted it on my user page, that I never posted my occupation or job title or address anywhere on Wiki, that I've made repeated requests for others (including you) not to link to sensitive information in this wink-wink-here-is-some-bread-crumbs-guys kind of way you're doing right now and that the diff in question was made after my personal information was posted on an external hate/harassment site. Oh, and guess what, the link in the paper? It doesn't work. You yourself had to manually change the http address to make it work here. It extremely disturbing how blasé and coy you are being about doxxing other users although I'll let others draw any conclusions from that.
    It is also messed up how you set up this little WP:GAME where you put me in a position where I have to discuss my personal info and how it got doxxed which then gives you an opportunity to engage in doxxing myself. Didn't I just say "I would ask you to prove otherwise (you can't) but then I will be falling prey to your little game where I inadvertently give you permission to doxx me (even if partially).". I. Just. Asked. You. Not. To. Do. This. And then you cheerily went ahead and did it anyway. Volunteer Marek 17:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I told you like three hours ago to stop discussing potential libel and harassment in public communications and manage it behind the scenes. What part of the bolded/underlined text was unclear to you?
    If you now have to explain now how a character string in the article is different that that from the diff, it's because you didn't (want to) contact oversight and other organs. I can't help you at this stage, you could have stopped. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) (Levivich changed their comment) No, it's again, completely false that "The only item is not on-wiki is "employer"" - even though just that would violate WP:OUTTING. I've never disclosed my title or occupation. "None of it is on wiki anyway" is also a completely spurious excuse as you are very well aware. You remember Icewhiz? That guy? I'm sure you do. I think you and him maybe participated in some same discussions or something. Anyway, he also posted private info on various editors and "None of it was on wiki anyway" and guess what? Got indef banned.
    (and no I went pseudonymous after severe harassment started, which you also know very well). Volunteer Marek 17:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know anything about severe harassment pre-2010, that was years before I started editing. I know about the Icewhiz Twitter account from 2019 or whenever it was, although I never actually read any of that harassment, I heard about it on-wiki when Icewhiz was banned. You're the one who posted your real name on-wiki, you can't now just claim that didn't happen. Levivich (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Ha, selective quotation is truly an art form, isn't it. The article accuses me of dismissing a complaint at ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1070) because it "require[d] way too much digging"--conveniently leaving out that I said "too much digging for an incident" (yes, italics mine) and that thus ANI was not the right place for the very complicated complaint. In a later comment in the same thread, also referenced in the article, I suggested arbitration, AN, and SPI. User:Chapmansh, really? Drmies (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hm, I am surprised to find myself cited in this Journal of Holocaust Research article, from an AE request I acted on years ago. Prima vista, I don't see anything actionable with respect to Chapmansh in this article. It is offwiki conduct, and it appears at first glance to be bona fide historiographical research (even if with a very peculiar focus and expressing a point of view about whose merits I have no opinion). And Jamarast does not cite any specific passages from the article and does not explain how specifically they violate Wikipedia conduct policies. If any action is required, in my view, it would be against Jamarast, for casting aspersions against a fellow editor in good standing by associating them, without evidence, with a ban-evading sockpuppeteer. (By way of a disclaimer, I was contacted by e-mail by Chapmansh in 2022 and asked to be interviewed for what I assume would become this article. I declined.) Sandstein 16:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandstein, I agree with you. I think we need to set aside the Icewhiz business here because that's not what it's about. It's distasteful that he gets so much airtime in that article but that's not relevant for us as admins/editors; "ghost-written" is just really beyond the pale, and all of us who have published in academic journals should take offense here. Jamarast, are you now rethinking the charges you made, and how serious they are? I hope so. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How about "co-written"?[24] François Robere (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has two authors listed. Is either of them Icewhiz? If neither of them are Icewhiz than it cannot reasonably be considered "co-written". Nil Einne (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Drmies the issue with Chapmansh article is not "personal attacks" or "aspersions" - she can do that all she wants in her own publication - rather it is her doxxing personal information (not just real names either). That is a clear breach of WP:OUTTING. She basically had a choice - write the article which doxxed private info and give up her Wikipedia account, or write an article which did not doxx private info and keep her Wikipedia account. She very clearly made a choice. Note she's been here for more than ten years, she's aware of discretionary sanctions in the area, she has no excuse for not knowing the policy, and WP:OUTTING very clearly says that this kind of behavior is "is sufficient grounds for an immediate block". Volunteer Marek 16:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Volunteer Marek, the diff in the article is correct, unfortunately. Linking that, or continuing with the eternal looping back to the Arb case from 2009, I consider that to be a form of harassment when it happens on-wiki, and as you know I have acted against it on a number of occasions. But this is not on-wiki and while I find many aspects of the article deplorable (and I believe you are also selectively quoted, and misquoted, on at least one occasion--the RSN discussion), that is really not something that I can easily categorize as doxxing. Perhaps ArbCom should have a chat about that. Whether other editors in that article are doxxed, I don't know that, not having read the whole thing. I agree that the reliance on Icewhiz is--well I struggle to find a word for it, "deplorable" doesn't come close, I'm going to bite my tongue here, but again, that's not something we can do much about. After reading parts of the article I find it difficult to consider the co-author to be a colleague here on this project, but that's another matter. I do find it interesting that Sandstein and others were asked for their opinion, but I wasn't; it really hurts my feelings, since I thought I was a player. Sorry, I do not want to make light of how you and others are portrayed here. I think you are portrayed at least partially incorrectly and I'm sorry for that. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: The diff in the article (and btw, yes I have tried to get it oversighted but apparently it's "too old" and oversighting it would screw up too much history) is irrelevant. The problem is with Chapmansh ALSO posting my place of employment, my occupation and my job title. None of these things were EVER disclosed on Wiki. And ALL of these things are EXPLICITLY mentioned in WP:OUTTING as a form of doxxing and/or harassment. Volunteer Marek 18:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fairly sure you're mistaken. It would likely be serious academic misconduct to publish as you own work something which was mostly written by an undisclosed party. Nil Einne (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Nil Einne, I'm sorry, how does this respond to my comment? My comment is about WP:OUTTING not "something which was mostly written by an undisclosed party". Volunteer Marek 17:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm saying you cannot gloss over the ghost-written accusation by claiming she can do what she wants. While she can, accusing her of doing so and publishing something "ghost-written" is a very serious claim and if this accusation lacks evidence then it is way more serious than anything else in this thread or in that article. So so far, the only person who has come close to earning a site ban is Jamarast. And maybe you if Icewhiz is not one of either named authors since you also said "co-written". Nil Einne (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The authors interviewed Icewhiz for the article and quote him a bunch. I did not say he was a co-author or that he "ghost wrote" it or that it was "something which was mostly written by an undisclosed party" (those are your own words there guy). If you, or FR, misunderstood my comment, I'm sorry but, well, you misunderstood my comment. Regardless, it is extremely disappointing that you think that WP:OUTTING Wikipedia editors info is not a serious offense. What ever happened to protecting Wikipedians from harassment? Or is that "so three years ago"? Volunteer Marek 17:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not say he was a co-author? "It's very obvious from that text that it was co-written by Icewhiz", "The impression that this article was co-written by him or under his direction is unavoidable.". Levivich (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) You clearly said that it was co-written by them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Chapmansh smears several Wikipedians, in their item that is part of a wider mud smearing campaign." is this statement about a living person's offwiki academic publishing supported by reliable sources? NPA, Wikipedia:Casting aspersions, etc indeed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Close this - This forum is unsuited to deal with an academic journal article where Wiki-users wish to raise alleged behavior claims against the author -- if anywhere, it's either an Arbcom issue or a trust and safety issue, given matters of alleged defamation, and alleged private information. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Give Jamarast time to respond, depending on what they have to say a boomerang may be in order. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there is no reason, either to desire more claims about whatever off-wiki stuff, or lay a trap, here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Lay a trap? ASW, AGF. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Trap. There are two things to do, here, if the user has already done enough to be blocked, block them, and, we should close the present public forum. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Jamarast has been blocked by Moneytrees: Obvious Burner account-- "new" account getting into controversial area, following around an "enemy" in the area. If they would like to respond, probably should do so with their real account (if they are a sock puppet). – robertsky (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    While I'm not going to say we should never sanction someone for their oversite behaviour including offsite outing e.g. in cases where an editor is outing editors to intimidate them or at least it's having that effect, or saying stuff which calls their editing into question (as has happened quite a few times before); for good reason we should rarely do so. I consider it ridiculous as it completely goes against the spirit of our outing policy the suggestion that the same standards should apply to off-wiki activity as on-wiki activity. Or that someone chosing to edit under their real name or in a way that can be linked to an identity off-site means anything they do off-wiki that affects us is somehow treated the same as on-wiki activity.

    To give an example, if someone with a blatant COI edits under their real name or even a pseudonym, for good reason we cannot talk about stuff easily found via a simple Google search here on wikipedia e.g. if an editor is the marketing manager at company X, we cannot generally mention it here if they haven't linked to the info. But we should not be sanctioning editors if they chose to challenge such people on Twitter or a blog or whatever (e.g. tweets 'The marketing manager of company X keeps removing criticial info from X's wikipedia article) just because they happened to have linked their identities here at some point. At most, we may forbid them from linking to their blog or Twitter or whatever, even general links. And of course they shouldn't be even hinting about something they published offsite which violates outing here.

    Let's also consider how this even arises. It looks like in this particular case the editor was interviewing editors here so basically had to disclose their identity. But for the vast majority of cases, there's nothing stopping the same thing from happening without such a linkage which is the only thing which allows us to consider action. (Unless someone is going to seriously consider we should start banning everyone for outing even if we have no idea if they have ever edited and what their account name is if they have.) While many editors chose to have separate identities for various reasons, effectively what this is encouraging is for all editors to ensure a complete wall between their identities which IMO is not helpful to wikipedia.

    Thinking further, taken at face value, the suggestion we should treat such things the same would mean if a journalist/whatever talks to an editor and they mention some detail about another editor which they found from a Google search e.g. that editor A is the marketing manager for company X and and the journalist researches themselves and writes about it and happens to mention this named editor's role, this editor should be site banned? Yet if the journalist doesn't mention this editor's role or at least doesn't give the account name (perhaps because the editor was aware of this ridiculous interpretation of outing and so asked the journalist not to name them) this is better?

    In cases where the editor has not linked to the published material even indirectly, as others have pointed out, there's an obvious contradiction too. How can we say we should always sanction an editor for something they published off-wiki in a way that can be linked to them via information they have published on-wiki but where they themselves have not linked even indirectly to the offending material; yet claim to protect this editor from outing via editors inappropriately linking stuff they have not linked themselves? To give a simple example, if someone edits under their real name and has a Twitter account also under their real name but has not linked the two on-wiki (no matter if they have off-wiki), for good reasons it's generally outing to link stuff that Twitter has said to the Wikipedia account here. Yet editors are suggesting if such a person tweets about a COI editor's activities and mentions stuff not disclosed on-wiki we should automatically siteban them over something we can't even link to to protect the editor tweeting? Yeah, nah.

    Nil Einne (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked Jamarast as an obvious burner account. I have no comments on anything else here. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    " I consider it ridiculous as it completely goes against the spirit of our outing policy the suggestion that the same standards should apply to off-wiki activity as on-wiki activity." You know, for a second there I thought you were an admin and the first thought that popped into my head after reading that comment was "oh my god, are we really trusting someone who thinks that doxxing is no big deal with admin tools". But then I checked. Ok. Anyway, no that's not how it works. Icewhiz, was banned for posting personal information off-wiki. Numerous other editors were banned for posting personal information off wiki. What you are basically saying is that I could, if I wanted to, go to, I dunno, Wikipediocracy and post all the personal information I have about you, or Levivich, or whoever there, including their place of employment, title, occupation, real name, etc etc, and even do it in the context where the subject is already being extensively harassed, and...... apparently, according to you, that would be just fine. It wouldn't and I sincerely hope and pray 100% that we NEVER end up interpreting our WP:OUTTING policy in such a ridiculous, callous and yes, cruel, way.
    Look. It's actually very straight forward. Do we have a WP:OUTTING policy? Yes. Does this policy have an exemption for "people with PhD"? No. Does it require that the doxxing must happen on Wikipedia itself? No. There's a list of editors a mile long who got indef'd because they posted private info off wiki. Does it apply to all Wikipedians? Yes. If there is some exemption *in the policy* I'm missing, please enlighten me. Otherwise there's nothing to discuss here and these continued attempts at derailing the issue are tiresome. Policy was violated. Policy says "outing is sufficient grounds for an immediate block". That's it. Right there. I have no idea what the relevance of your convoluted hypothetical imaginary scenarios is to any of this.
    (ec - response to alteration in comment) No, the editor was not interviewing any editors whom they doxxed, nor did they "had to" disclose anyone's identity, "basically" or otherwise. In fact, the article mentions a good number of other editors, including those who were interviewed, without mentioning a single bit of their personal info. It just doxxes others. Volunteer Marek 18:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You outed yourself. All of this anger seems misplaced. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my god. Why do I have to keep explaining this. No. No I didn't. Even if I did post my real name ONCE... FIFTEEN years ago, AFTER getting doxxed by someone else(and using that is a huge stretch), I never posted my employer nor my job nor my title nor my occupation. ALL of this is "personal information", explicitly listed in WP:OUTTING which, as a Wikipedia user, you are NOT ALLOWED to post. On wiki or off. Because that does constitute WP:HARASSMENT. Personal info. Posting it? Outing. Never posted it myself. Very simple. Volunteer Marek 18:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which part of the following are you having trouble reading? Personal information includes real-life name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph, whether such information is accurate or not. Please stop pretending that this wasn't doxxing. Volunteer Marek 18:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not so sure WP:OWH agrees with that. Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Off-wiki attacks also doesn't appear to agree with you. This wasn't an attack it was a peer reviewed academic paper. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, yes OWH does. You just have to click... your own link [25]. And of course As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. [26]. I don't know why you're linking to "no personal attack". One. More. Time. The issue isn't "personal attacks". The issue is WP:OUTTING. This was outting.
    Honestly... I'm having a real difficult time with this conversation with you for the basic reason that I will say "XYZ" and then you pop up and say "you said ABC" and I say "no, I said XYZ, here's my exact words" and you pop up and say "you said ABC" and I say "no, I said XYZ, here is a direct quote" and you pop up and say "ABC ABC ABC" and... it's just extremely weird how you do that. And on top of that you like post a link and say "this say LMNOP" and I look at it and notice it actually says "QRS" and point it out and then you're like "this says LMNOP" and I'm like "listen, I can read, it says QRS" and you're like "LMNOP LMNOP LMNOP" and... it's extremely weird how you do that. Volunteer Marek 19:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "off-wiki harassment" in that section is pretty clearly linked to Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Off-wiki attacks. It doesn't link to Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment, are you saying that everyone linking the article is linking to external harassment? Because that is a very serious charge to lay. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, you're really exhausting my energy with this ABC LMNOP stuff again. Yes, technically linking to that article off wiki, if done gratuitously can be a form of harassment. Basically, after this little bout of drama subsidies, yes, if someone does it that will be an issue to be raised. Volunteer Marek 19:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're the one who walked away from a conversation after it was pointed out to you that you did say ABC and the diffs were presented by Levivich [27]. You can't argue with the diffs. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, this discussion appears to be deliberately enervating. Volunteer Marek 20:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody forced you to cast aspersion or make claims about living people without a WP:RS. Nobody forced you to edit Holocaust related articles either, take a little bit of personal responsibility for the situation we're all in now. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Deliberately Stochastically. Enervating. Volunteer Marek 20:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahem... WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:AGF. It may be enervating for you but "Deliberately" is too far, that's a personal attack. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm inclined to agree with VM on this, although on different grounds. Yes, WP:OUTING says unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia, but WP:COMMONSENSE also applies. That diff shared by Levivich dates back to 2009. Things are forgotten over time. As a reader, I was surprised to read that paragraph on VM because it is completely gratuitous and non-academic. Why did they even think that VM's uncivility (which is truly astounding) is relevant to the reader? They are clearly speaking as Wikipedians to Wikipedians: they are not addressing Holocaust scholars. The same goes for the way they talk about User:Xx236. If the right-wing Polish nationalists who are hijacking Wikipedia were all well mannered intellectuals, what difference would it make to the topic of the article? All this really seems personal to me and closely related to intra-wiki dynamics between the authors and their sources, on the one hand, and the group of editors involved, on the other. This off-wiki behaviour might be some kind of harassment and it should fall within the scope of administrative action. IMHO at least a formal warning should be considered. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The only thing is Gitz that there are no right-wing Polish nationalists who hijacked Wikipedia.🙂 That nonsense narrative was invented by now globally banned Icewhiz (back in the spotlight yet again 🤦🏻‍♀️) - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and yes, something needs to be done regarding the WP:OUTTING by an active user Chapmansh, absolutely. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Indeed. Icewhiz made that claim during the ArbCom two years ago, and tatkk was one of the reasons for his ArbCom topic ban (see FoF 5, 9...). But you can't kill a good conspiracy theory, they sell well. And, let's face it, there is a grain of truth under every such myth. The essay names close to 10 editors as part of the "nationalist clique falsyfing history" or whatever. I doubt there is any evidence of anyone falsyfing history (or to use the term from the essay, "Intentional Distortion") in all this mess. The usual confusion of unintentional error vs purposeful hoax applies, and proving intention, beyond reasonable doubt, is next to imposssible, (see also the Warsaw concentraction camp discussions from ~2 years ago about whether the word hoax is appopriate or not). However, I'd not be surprised if someone named in the essay might be proud to declare themself a "right-wing Polish nationalist". Shrug. We have people on Wikipedia representing all manners of POV. Some folks may find certain POVs distateseful, but that does not give them an excuse to engage in personal attacks or slander. Folks would well remember that Icewhiz's global ban wasn't for POV pushing (that was covered by the topic ban he got), it was for his declared attempt to "win" this content dispute by "destroying the reputation of his opponents", and harassing them so they'd retire. He succeeded driving some editors away (User:Poeticbent - see essays on his page, and User:MyMoloboaccount - see this diff and just look at his final edit summaries). This is the most scary mindset out there, IMHO, and I wrote about it years ago. What we should be discussing is how to prevent editors in good standing from having to suffer from such harassment, on and off wiki. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This conversation is pretty astounding to me. For one, why do we care its the same narrative as a user we banned? Are we really so full of ourselves that we've decided we're the arbiters of academic topics? That we are the ones who get to say what's appropriate to research? Or that we want a mulligan on our license, designed specifically so that others can reuse the content for any purpose so long as they comply with that license? WP:OUTTING and 'doxxing' isn't a crime and is an expected and normal part of scholarship in many fields. Knowing who someone is puts things in proper context for her audience. This wasn't an attempt to move an on-wiki fight to another venue ala wikipediaocracy. Near as I can tell this involves zero on wiki disruption that would bring our policies in to play. An academic is doing their job and publishing on something they saw and experienced. We don't like it. So what? Maybe its a bad paper. Maybe its a good paper. We can all decide how we feel about that personally but the only thing that really matters is how other academics in that field feel about it. But I'm not at all comfortable even warning a user because we feel the things they do off wikipedia in their day job as an academic isn't appropriate. --(loopback) ping/whereis 09:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    "WP:OUTTING and 'doxxing' isn't a crime" this is an extremely disturbing comment. Regardless of whether this is a crime or not, it's 100% against Wikipedia policy and grounds for an indefinite block. In fact, this whole particular drama started with one user (Icewhiz) deciding to doxx and out multiple Wikipedia users for revenge after they got topic banned which HAS indeed led to harassment, death threats and such. "is an expected and normal part of scholarship in many field" This too is absolutely false and ignorant. Rather than doxxing people (to do them harm? Wth are you talking about?) being an "expected part of scholarship" (I'm sorry this claim is just absurd) there are institutional rules, IRB boards and codes of conduct that scholars are expected to follow, particularly in anything that involves human subjects and can result in real world harm. Whether these were observed in this particular instance or not is not up to Wikipedia to decide (however, applying our WP:OUTTING policy is) but the idea that "doxxing is expected part of scholarship" is absolutely, completely, totally wrong. Volunteer Marek 14:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think it's disturbing, I'd respectfully submit to you that I'm a guy who had his face and location splashed all over Daniel Brandt's little hitlist of editors back in the day, so I'm well aware of what is and isn't ok. I'm far more concerned that we think its appropriate to enact retribution because we don't like the content someone published in an academic journal. Complain to the journal if you want, but I'm not at all comfortable saying because of published academic work we're going to take revenge here. That's completely incompatible with the ethos we have here. Or at least the ethos I have here. --(loopback) ping/whereis 14:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't "retribution". Do we have a policy on WP:OUTTING? Yes. Did this Wikipedia user, Chapmansh, violate this policy? Yes. Now if you want to talk "retribution" and "revenge" then consider the role of Icewhiz in this sorry saga and the harassment he's inflicted upon multiple editors over the years. I would like to believe that part of our ethos is "protecting our users from harassment". Volunteer Marek 19:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It certainly appears to be retribution for things published in this paper. Is there anything besides this paper that Chapmansh has done to merit contemplation of some sort of sanction? You're again referring to Icewhiz. Is Icewhiz an author of this paper? Because if not then I'm again reiterating that this wasn't someone moving an on-wiki dispute off wiki, it was an academic publishing an article in a seemingly well respected journal about a topic they felt of academic interest. My opinion isn't worth much, but for what it is, I wouldn't be able to countenance any sort of punishment. But I'm just one person. --(loopback) ping/whereis 21:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to briefly clarify my position in case of any misunderstanding: IMO the paper is entirely appropriate, is interesting and useful, and we should take on board most of its criticism; we should definitely be allowed to use it as an RS. But that page on VM mentioning his name and profession is an attack on the serenity and independence of editing here, which is the purpose of WP:HERASS, WP:CIV and WP:NPA to proect. It's an ugly misstep, which should not go unnoticed. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the papers discussion including "strong" language seems to have everything to do with problems related to both internet civility and particular problems of CIV on Wikipedia. Its point does not seem that unusual or mysterious, nor irrelevant to a reader reading about Wikipedia, ie. that such use of language might drive others away from a content area, at least according to some, and that the driving away of others might affect Wikipedia content. An academic discussing online interactions and using Wikipedia diffs, might well think it relevant to detail what was said by whom, as would a reader about Wikipedia, to investigate the language's purported effects, including what may be effects on content. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, potentially, but that is not the problem with the paper that we are discussing here. Volunteer Marek 19:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But it is the "problem" Gitz alluded to above. Gitz question was "Why did they even think that VM's uncivility (which is truly astounding) is relevant to the reader?" Gitz could not, it seems, understand, "why". Given the context in the article, I responded why it is likely, the 'who' and 'what was diffed', is relevant to the reader of this study on the workings of Wikipedia. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that the real villain of this story has not been named yet. The Journal of Holocaust Research published an article that looks nothing like an academic article and very much like an extended rant. Shame on them. Zerotalk 01:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    In fairness, if we're going to shame The Journal of Holocaust Research, who called this paper a "must read", we should probably also shame University of Ottawa [28], Chapman University [29], Ynet [30], Haaretz [31], and Gazeta Wyborcza [32], none of whom saw what you see. Levivich (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Newspapers covering flawed but inteestingly framed research is nothing new, and yes, they do deserve to share the shame if they fail at their own fact checking. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Universities advertising their own faculty's publications and newspapers reporting on controversies are both entirely irrelevant to the question. I have read hundreds of journal articles on Holocaust-related subjects and none of them were remotely like this. This is not "research" as the word is commonly understood. Zerotalk 03:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How many of those hundreds of journal articles on Holocaust-related subjects were about disinformation on Wikipedia? Do you know of another study that analyzes disinformation on Wikipedia like this? The only thing I've ever read that is like this--an analysis of the methods of disinformation on Wikipedia (not just the result)--is File:Croatian WP Disinformation Assessment - Final Report EN.pdf. Levivich (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have seen several similar articles on a variety of fought-over topics. They were on activist blogs, which is where this one would feel right at home. Zerotalk 05:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Long-term pattern of hounding and disruptive editing by User:The Banner

    This December 2022 issue, relating to a long-term pattern of disruptive editing, came to my attention while following up on my 2023-01-28 notice of a FAR needed for Minneapolis, an FA I have followed intermittently since 2007.

    History

    The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has two topic bans in place: a 2020-11-12 two-way interaction ban and a ban from nominating articles at AFD (more on that below).

    Previous ANIs (there are more—I stopped looking after these):

    Relevance to AFD and notability: 2022-10-31 banned from nominating articles at AFD by Vanamonde93 per this ANI discussion of hounding and improper use of AFD. The comments from other editors about competence merit a thorough read and reveal issues directly relevant to The Banner's December 2022 activity:

    1. Fram raises hounding,
    2. GiantSnowman raises the “clearly notable” aspect of The Banner’s AFDs
    3. Several editors in that discussion point out the articles AFD’d are highly notable.
    4. Star Mississippi mentions that The Banner has learnt nothing from this discussion or is being deliberately obstructive
    5. Drmies says this is a good time to take those concerns seriously
    6. Levivich says indef would be better
    7. A unanimous topic ban from nominating articles AFD is enacted
    which brings up to The Banner's related activity at Minneapolis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    December 2022

    See these sources for the Owamni restaurant and their dates:

    1. The New Yorker, feature, 2022-09-19
    2. BBC, feature, 2022-09-28
    3. PBS, feature 2022-05-05
    4. NPR, feature, 2022-10-24
    5. The New York Times 2021 restaurant list “50 places we’re most excited about right now”
    6. NBC News 2022-11-24

    In this 2022-12-16 discussion, SusanLesch proposed an image of the Owamni for the Minneapolis article which was created by Another Believer and which SusanLesch had previously edited on December 15, 2022.

    Considering everything pointed to The Banner over years of discussions about AFD, notability and hounding (including a topic ban for same), following SusanLesch to this article to place not just the notability, but three gratuitous tags, suggests that stronger action is needed. The appearance is that, since The Banner can no longer AFD, they hoped that the notability tags would achieve the same end. This seems to be a continuation of hounding problems, and skirting of the AFD topic ban, while ignoring how clearly notable the article subject is, along with gratuitous tagging just to round out the civility, hounding and competence issues.

    This editing is disruptive, has been going on for years, and comes in particular at a time when SusanLesch has been diligently laboring away at the lengthy lists I park on talk of things that need to be corrected to maintain FA status. It appears to me that Levivich had it right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion of Long-term pattern of ... User:The Banner

    Thanks @SandyGeorgia. While I haven't interacted with The Banner since the fall AfD referenced above, I recall thinking and possibly commenting in the thread that the ban was going to be a bandaid, and the problematic conduct would just move elsewhere since, as quoted above, he hadn't learned or enjoyed obstruction. Star Mississippi 14:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are other pieces I have to add, but I ran out of time and have to get out the door for an app't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:The Banner--why did you make this edit? An experienced editor knows that this is exactly the kind of thing that should be able to stand with primary sourcing; it's a relevant comment in the context of the origin of the things they serve, and it's properly ascribed and gives motive for the restaurant's choices. I'm not putting this here to convince you, because I think you know this, and I know this isn't a revert of SusanLesch; I'm commenting on it because it is not a good edit and it seems to indicate a refusal to drop a stick that you picked up with this edit, an edit that I don't really understand: there were no weasel words ("decolonized menu" is NOT weasel words), there was no dispute (you posted on the talk page much later), and there was reliable sourcing for a nationally recognized award. While I believe that Another Believer's write-up of restaurants is sometimes problematic, and that I had a minor disagreement (if that) with SusanLesch (see Talk:Minneapolis/Archive_9), what I see in the history of Owamni--how is that not you following them, and then continuing on the talk page in that fashion? I have been your friend, colleague, and sometime defender for a decade or more and what I see on that talk page saddens me. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    iPad editing from car hotspot, Drmies, there is more ... keep looking, The Banner just keeps gutting reliably sourced and relevant info (as if a restaurant's architecture is irrelevant ?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had to ask The Banner to please leave me alone recently. The hounding, the retaliatory tagging, the repeated removal of sourced content, the combative talk pages discussions, actively interfering with my Good article nominations, etc, got to be too much. I do not want to interact with this editor and I do not want them interacting with me. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Talk:Bailey's Taproom/GA1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, see the bottom of the review. Talk:Bluehour#Notability_/_Advertising is another example of interference, yet I was still able to get the article promoted to Good status. I could share more examples. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have never (to my memory) had any significant interaction with The Banner, but my assessment of these diffs provided by several different users above is not a good look on them. The repeated refusal to elaborate on things when asked is to me very unacceptable. If you tag an article, you'd better be darned sure to identify examples of problematic text. If they believed it was "the whole article", then it would be trivial to find a representative passage. Their refusal to do so means either a WP:CIR problem, or they are just being obstinate and disruptive. Either way, this is a symptom of a problem that has spread much farther than AFD. At minimum, I would expect to extend the topic ban to cover all discussions of notability, tone, npov, etc. But really, a full cban may be in order. Not going the be the first to propose something, but yeah, something needs to be done. This kind of behavior is an issue. --Jayron32 19:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like The Banner. I think he often makes sense. But "refusal to get the point" when consensus goes against him is a long-running theme. It's basically what I indef'd him for way back in 2014 after a one-week block didn't get the point across. Following "enemies" around is clearly not appropriate or acceptable; nor is peppering people trying to improve the encyclopaedia with problems then refusing to engage in discussion to resolve them. Noting, though, that he hasn't edited for week so there's no need to rush this discussion to a conclusion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have belatedly realized that The Banner is also over at the discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Minneapolis, where (if I had read thoroughly yesterday, I could have avoided doing all the homework of digging up the background in this dispute) they have been ascribing motives to SusanLesch's appropriate use of DR. I have also just launched an RFC to hopefully get the trainwreck that has been occurring at Minneapolis for over two years under control, so a Featured article review can focus on content. As I have taken a position in that RFC, I am no longer neutral in the image matter. But with a past topic ban, two current topic bans, problems in interaction with now three editors (past two-way ban, AnotherBeliever and SusanLesch), and with CIR issues apparent in both restaurants and Minnesota, potential t-bans, Levivich again seems right and there's nowhere else to go with this extensive conduct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      What action are you proposing that the community takes? Shouldn't this be at ANI? GiantSnowman 21:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It was my impression that something that happened in December, and does not require an immediate decision, does not belong at the Incident noticeboard. I don't know whether this should be a site ban, indef, or topic ban, but if a topic ban, it's got to cover two editors, and several broad topics, so that doesn't appear to be the way to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Tangential discussion collapsed.
    • If I may comment about the photo of Owamni, there were a few discussions about photos of that restaurant, and few editors agreed that it should be included in the article. One discussion is at Talk:Minneapolis/Archive 9#RfC: photo in the Cuisine section. I'm not commenting on the behavior of The Banner; just contributing information to assist in your decision. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The Banner's behavioral issues being discussed here are unrelated to the image questions raised at the NPOV noticeboard (which is about your insertion of what most editors agree is a POV image), rather stalking/hounding, improper tagging related to their unique views on notability, and then obfuscation and stonewalling on talk--all amounting to disruption after already having multiple administrative actions and sanctions in that very area. You're "not commenting on the behavior of The Banner", yet this thread is about the behavior of The Banner, and their opinions on or previous discussions of a photo of the Owamni are unrelated to the problematic behavior discussed so far in this thread.
      I mentioned the other thread above for transparency when I belatedly saw that The Banner (an editor I had never before crossed paths with and whose name did not register with me) was also in that thread, because all the work I did to understand the background based on following through on what was at Talk:Minneapolis had already been done by SusanLesch at the NPOV noticeboard discussion about the Owamni, which I would have realized if I had read through it all before doing the work for this thread. (That is, I could have saved myself a few hours.)
      If there is a behavioral issue related to that photo discussion, it is separate and would be that you also followed SusanLesch to the Owamni talk page discussion to misinterpret her posts there, and then following on the NPOV noticeboard discussion, also stalked me to Tourette syndrome to make another ill-informed image edit which does not conform with MOS. Those matters of your behavior, however, are current and would belong at ANI, and not in this thread. Please don't create strawmen in this discussion (the sprawling problems at Minneapolis have seen enough of that already); it doesn't seem wise to provide further indications that David Fuchs' suggestions of a ban for you need followup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I did not come here to comment on the behavior of The Banner, who genuinely has a lengthy rap sheet. I commented above because a significant piece of exculpatory information was inadvertently left out of your lengthy comment, which more-or-less implies that Owamni is the best thing to hit Minneapolis since the invention of the lake freighter, and only an idiot (or in this case, a disruptive editor) would fail to see that. In fact, there were several discussions about Owamni at Talk:Minneapolis and at dispute resolution, particularly this discussion which specifically addressed Owamni, and the discussions supported removing the puffery. Even at the current RFC there is lukewarm support for the Owamni photo.
    There is no doubt may people feel Owamni is a great restaurant, and you have advocated many times for this establishment, but there seems to be a consensus that the Minneapolis article needs more encyclopedic content, and less boosterism. I am disappointed you see my efforts to improve that article as disruptive, and that you have advocated for a topic ban to silence me. It's also important to remember that a consensus of editors overwhelmingly decided that magazine and newspaper "best of" rankings--such as the ones listed above, and the ones you stuffed onto the photo caption at the current RFC--are unencyclopedic cruft that have no place on US city articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And here we have a good example of the sprawl at Talk:Minneapolis, which besides misrepresenting my broad suggestion for "whatever [is] supported by sources" in a suggestion for an image captionh, refusal to get the point-- that the image discussion may have brought The Banner's attention to Owamni, but is unrelated to the notability and hounding problem for which The Banner was previously sanctioned. And unrelated to the gratuitous tagging and refusal to discuss on talk. This thing speaks for itself. Perhaps there is a need for a separate ANI here, but moving forums at this point makes little sense. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me see if I have this straight. You want me site banned because I would not "get the point" at two-month-long discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Minneapolis that a picture of a burger restaurant was biased. Then when I suggest that an admin close the discussion, you instead start an RFC where you ask the community if that very same "biased" photo should be added to the article. You do realize an editor has already voted to keep that photo? Should they be site banned too, because they obviously didn't get your point either. This defies logic.
    SandyGeorgia, I have worked very hard to improve that article, and remove the truckload of puffery so it sounded more like a quality article and less like tourist brochure. At each step I have been blocked ostensibly by one editor, and again and again at various dispute resolutions I have nearly always been agreed with. Please stop trying to intimidate me, and let's try to work together and act collegially to improve that article. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have pointed out to you multiple times in multiple discussions (eg here) that User talk:SandyGeorgia is that-a-way. This discussion is not about a page ban for you (if I thought that the best course to follow at this juncture, I would have already launched that discussion at ANI), and it is not about The Banner's image preference. It's about what The Banner did to two other editors and an article after he had a difference over an image at a different article. If you feel intimidated, feel free to discuss that on my talk, where we will explore everything that has occurred at Minneapolis con calma. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This rapidly sprawling discussion has nothing to do with the original complaint and The Banner has not edited in a week. Perhaps it's time to close this thread? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps hat the off-topic Magnolia677 discussion instead ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Jayron32 above suggested a cban might be in order, but did not want to launch the proposal. GiantSnowman asked for my suggestion, which I hesitate to add, as I'm not an admin and don't feel qualified to say what precisely the proposal should be for this case (indeff, cban, or some very lengthy list of tbans and ibans for The Banner) and having never heard of this editor before, I don't know what other factors might be considered.
    Without a proposal, I don't think it helpful to allow Magnolia677 to derail the real discussion here; they're already edit warring over at the NPOV RFC,[34][35] which is a separate matter; also derailing the discussion here should not be rewarded. It's making it easy to see why Minneapolis had become the most fraught FAR pre-FAR I've ever encountered, and it's clearly not because of SusanLesch.
    As a non-admin, if I must put up a proposal for The Banner, it would probably be a tban along the lines mentioned by Jayron32, as well as all-things Minnesota, as they have followed Minnesota editors to pages and targeted them, as well as a iban from anything Another Believer or SusanLesch work on ... well, the tban and iban possibilities go on, so maybe indeff instead. I don't see the reasoning for a cban (which I believe is better for situations where there is socking etc), but not an admin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's still the issue that The Banner hasn't edited since the 4th so very likely doesn't even know this discussion is happening. Personally, I feel he should have a right of reply before we start seriously considering sanctions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree, and thought that your original suggestion ("there's no need to rush this discussion to a conclusion") was reasonable and the way to go. Meanwhile, we had an entire tangent here muddying the water, and shouldn't let that be cause for closing this thread. So I again suggest hatting the tangent, and waiting for The Banner to show up. I don't know that editor, but an examination of their contribs seems to suggest that an absence this long is unusual. We shouldn't reward the issue often seen in arb cases, where editors stop editing to escape sanctions, so if The Banner doesn't show up in a reasonable amount of time, we might proceed to whatever sanctions are supported by consensus anyway. That is, however the arbs usually handle those situations where the subject stops editing mid-case ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not close the thread altogether because of a tangent. Issues with The Banner still need to be discussed, IMO. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you have your scratch codes?

    If you've enabled two-factor authentication on your account, you've hopefully got a copy of your scratch codes somewhere safe — now would be a great time to double-check you know where they are (and that they are securely stored). If you've lost them, you can generate a new batch. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 01:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    If anyone is worried about losing their scratch codes, I'd be happy to hold on to them for you, and I offer very reasonable retrieval fees. Levivich (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    hmmmmm
    Should we be expecting that we will need to use them soon? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, let's hope not...! It was just on my mind while looking over Help:Two-factor authentication — if the unexpected reminder stops one person from getting locked out of their account, it'll be worth it — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 01:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry, I got mine tattooed so I never lose track. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I find that it's easier to avoid two-factor authentication and use my username as my password so I can't forget it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    🤔 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry, I put a 1 and a @ at the end, so it's secure. Capital letter, lower case letter, number, and special character. That's the rule, right? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just use the same combination as my luggage. 12345. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I use something I'm never going to forget. Jenny, I got your number... --(loopback) ping/whereis 08:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheresNoTime Does that mean you no longer need valid scratch codes to disable 2FA? Guettarda (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose I would just RTFM and learn that. Guettarda (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Useful information. I'd misplaced my scratchcode list and just regenerated and stored in my password management solution. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, last time I changed my cell phone (last year), whereas I had all the scratch codes, I was still logged in, and the easiest solution I found was to disable 2FA and immediately enable it back with a new device (scratch codes not needed). This of course only worked because I was logged in.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Depending on what app you're using for TOTP generation, transferring to a new phone can be trivial or almost impossible. Google Authenticator is really horrible for both transferring to a new phone, and exporting the secrets should you wish to transfer to another app solution entirely. Other solutions like Authy or 1Password have really good device transfer mechanisms. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My choice of authentication app is FreeOTP, but also use LastPass Authenticator and Microsoft Authenticator. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Meta-Battle for Dream Island

    Several of the deletion discussions currently in progress at Miscellany for Deletion are attempts to create Battle for Dream Island via various forms of gaming the system. Battle for Dream Island has been repeatedly created and deleted in article space and draft space and salted:

    An entry has been made at DEEPER, Deletion Review Perennial Requests. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Perennial_requests#Battle_for_Dream_Island. So the ultras who are fans of BFDI are now trying various ways to sneak in their articles.

    See also:

    The current deletion discussions include:

    The nominated pages include:

    This is a conduct issue as well as a content issue, and MFD is a content forum. However, I have reviewed the histories of the pages that are currently nominated for deletion, and they are largely the work of unregistered editors and sockpuppets, so there is no obvious conduct remedy. Perhaps the only administrative action that is in order is vigilance. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Closed and SALTed all but the sandbox as that one didn't seem to need seasoning. One day they'll get bored. Maybe.
    Star Mississippi 17:48, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also noting Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Battle for Dream Island, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?prefix=Draft%3ABattle+for+dream+island&title=Special%3AUndelete&fuzzy=1. I added a couple of title blacklist entries. MER-C 18:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Bradford blocked for sockpuppetry

    Hi all - notifying the community that I have just indefinitely blocked User:Bradford for sockpuppetry. Details are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bradford. Posting here as a courtesy, since they have been around for over ten years and have racked up nearly 60,000 edits. Girth Summit (blether) 13:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It is always sad to see a long-time editor who succumbs to sockpuppetry when they feel under pressure after years of valued contributions. I hope they will consider the standard offer later this year and pledge to sock no more. Thank you for your work on this, Girth Summit....since last fall, we've been running into a lot of sockpuppetry in AFD-land but it is typically from newer editors. Liz Read! Talk! 19:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I need to do more work on this to be confident Liz, but my suspicion is that this is a case of someone who put a lot of effort into uncontroversial editing in order to camouflage their UPE activity. Or maybe it's someone who started out with good intentions, and then succumbed to temptation once their Autopatrolled flag was granted. I'm not sure yet, but I don't think this was a simple case of a good faith editor getting frustrated with their creations being nominated for deletion. Girth Summit (blether) 19:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He seems to have been subsequently locked as compromised. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    disruptive user

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/50.47.169.71 88.5.75.2 (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the note. They have been warned and if they continue vandalising, they will be blocked. Anarchyte (talk) 09:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Anonymous user making low-quality unexplained edits to corporate pages over the course of years

    (Continued from the previous discussion due to regular IP changes making previous blocks ineffective)

    Known IP addresses:

    Possible IP addresses:

    Ranges to watch:

    Targeted pages:

    Discussion:

    This anonymous user (whose IP address often changes) has been making strange formatting edits to a variety of corporate pages for nearly a year. The edits aren't *quite* vandalism, but they're very bizarre, often turning reasonably spaced paragraphs into large text walls, removing tags, or needlessly changing the wording of headings. They've been reverted a number of times by other users and now myself, but they continue to make the edits while refusing to use edit summaries, the article talk pages, or their own talk page.

    I'd like to request a block of their known IP addresses (possibly a range block) and semi-protection of their most frequently targeted pages, especially Scholastic Corporation and Best Buy. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 09:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Need help from someone who can see deleted history

    I'm trying to fix some old GA subpage discrepancies, and need a hand at Talk:Fishbowl Inventory. The talk page was created (as far as I have permissions to see) in 2017, per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fishbowl_Inventory&action=history, but the GA review page was created in 2013. An old revision of the WP:GAN page shows that the article was nominated before the review started, so there must have been a talk page at that time. Can someone clarify what happened here? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Mike, I've undeleted the history for you. I'm not sure how much of it is relevant but none of it is harmful. You might need to revert the page back to an old version or pick through old diffs to find what you need but it's all there now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks; much appreciated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Similarly I think there must be deleted history at Talk:Get Enough that contains GA nomination information from 2016; can someone undelete or let me know the nomination details? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    There's nothing there. The three deleted are "Haro.Arrau moved page Talk:Get Enough to Talk:Get Enough (Ivy song): Get Enough disambiguation (see Get Enough (Paul McCartney song)" and two bot edits. Could it have been lost in the page moves? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved from Talk:Get Enough/GA1 to Talk:Get Enough (Ivy song)/GA1 DatGuyTalkContribs 15:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    And also at Talk:Giinagay Way. In that case the article was deleted, and later recreated. Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but in those case where a review such as a GA or FA has taken place, wouldn't it make more sense to keep the talk page? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Undeleted that one. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, both! Still working my way alphabetically through a list of discrepancies so there may be more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mike Christie-- still red after all these years. But I may be repeating myself :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be one of the easiest RfAs in Wikipedia history! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    <blushes> If someone waved a magic wand and gave me the tools I wouldn't ask for them to be removed, but this is really the first time I've ever felt the need. And RfA seems like a stressful thing to go through for something I don't really need. And I've next to no experience at things like AfD or vandal fighting. If I find I keep needing the tools I might change my mind. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So when people ask you ridiculous questions about things you never intend to use the tools for, you say, "I don't know, don't pretend to know, and will never use the tools in that area anyway, so am not going to waste everyone's time on the answer". We trust you or we don't. Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Another request: Talk:Viewtiful Joe/GA1 is a 2009 GA, but the histories of Talk:Viewtiful Joe and Viewtiful Joe only go back to 2020, so I am guessing there was a deleted version of the page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like the article was moved and another article written at the original title but the GA review was left behind. I've moved it to Talk:Viewtiful Joe (video game)/GA1. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks; I think that's the last one, for now at least. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:بلاد ما وراء النهر

    OP blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    بلاد ما وراء النهر (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) A user who hasn't been active in about a year suddenly started talking about "puppets". In addition, the user continues to cancel my edits ([36]), I asked him the reason, he only called me a "puppet" and oppressed the history of Kyrgyzstan (saying that there were no Kyrgyz in the 1920s [37]). It also massively removes information from articles dedicated to Kyrgyzstan ([38]). Foggy kub (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Just popped in to say that this user is under an SPI. I'm reverting his edits because they're unsubstantiated and potentially outright fabrications. All of his edits will have to carefully scrutinized sooner or later. Cheers! بلاد ما وراء النهر (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • By undoing edits, you are also removing verified and authoritative information. For example, why did you remove the flag of the 1916 uprising? Until the result is issued, you are not allowed to undo my edits (the user canceled my edit and added a fake flag of the Kazakh Khanate [39]). Foggy kub (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        As I explained in my edit summary, I simply restored the version before you started editing as the article. I'll take the time to closely review all of your contributions. What do you mean "you're not allowed to undo"? Are you an arbcom member or a sysop or something? بلاد ما وراء النهر (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Draft:Girl in the Basement

    Would someone mind emailing me the contents of this draft that was procedurally deleted by G13? I'm thinking I might try to resurrect it and use it for the basis of my first real article creation. I stumbled upon this film by chance while scrolling social media, and having now looked into the background of the film and the actual case it's based on, I'm rather quite intrigued. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I've userfied the content for you at User:Taking Out The Trash/Girl in the Basement. Attribution and all that, ya know. Plus it's easier than copying all the code into an email when you're just going to bring it right back here anyway. ;-) Katietalk 01:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User "General Ization" out of control

    See his recent edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.22.180 (talk) 05:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • I would suggest you leave this alone 172.58.22.180. You suggested something bogus on Talk:Eviction , got reverted, then you were rude to General Izatio, and got threatened in return. I suggest you stop aggravating a issue you started off and be constructive. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Umm you're defending him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.22.180 (talk) 06:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked the IP for personal attacks for 48h Ymblanter (talk) 06:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1139303036"