Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

This good-faith editor, User:Kellycrak88, is creating a lot of articles, but seems to run into every possible issue, some of them again and again, including things like copyright violations, factual errors, NPOV issues, and problematic interactions with others[1][2]. The latest discussion I had with them was yesterday at User talk:Asilvering#Need Guidance on Bias and Admin Issues in Baronage Guidelines Discussion, ending with them promising improvement[3] after I asked "Please slow down, create less but better articles, based on better sources, and at the very least make sure that the claims in the article are correct." Since then, in the past 24 hours, they created 5 articles, with the same issues continuing.

First they created Baron of Abergeldie. 8 sources, the first two are Wikipedia articles, the fourth[4] and sixth[5] are "page not found / 404" errors: searching for Abergeldie on that fourth site yields no results at all. With also a Wordpress blog thrown into the mix[6], the sourcing of this article really isn't acceptable. The next creation, Baron of Arbroath, has one line about the current baron, and three sections about earlier history of the town of Arbroath unrelated to the Barony. It has nothing about the actual history of the barony.

Next, they created Baron of Ardgowan, a title first granted in 1404 apparently. Well, no, the castle was given in that year, but a few centuries later the family became baronets (not barons), and remain so to this day[7]. I can't find any evidence for a Baron of Ardgowan before the present one was granted the title somehow.

Because of the continued issues with reliable sourcing (including the repeated use of "accessed" sources which don't even work) and with fact-checking, it would be probably best if they would be required to create new articles through the WP:AfC process, without being allowed to create an article in the mainspace or move one to the mainspace. Fram (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baron of Abergeldie: I acknowledge that there were a couple of "page not found / 404" links, likely due to typos. These URLs have since been corrected and are now functional. The blog link (which was not immediately obvious to me that is was hosted on wordpress) has been replaced with credible sources, including The Times, The Guardian, The Evening Standard, The Telegraph, and Tatler, which quote the Baron Abergeldie or refer to the estate and castle. Additionally, I’ve included his title listed in Debrett's, alongside the other sources already cited, including his profile from Burke's Peerage.

Baron of Ardgowan: This title is verified in the Registry of Scottish Nobility and the Scottish Barony Register, which provide both the creation date and the current title holder. It is not uncommon for some baronets in Scotland who hold estates to also hold baronage titles (the King can confer multiple titles), as pre-2004 these were historically tied to land ownership (i.e. owning a castle). After 2004, such titles became personal, allowing them to be transferred to heirs or assignees. The Stewarts (of the scottish royal house) were somehow attached to the Hasburgs because Prof Stephen Kerr was gifted the Barony of Ardgowan as an award for helping the Habsburgs in their legal case against the Republic of Austria for stealing all their property and banishing them in 1919. So in this case, Prof. Stephen Kerr received the Barony of Ardgowan as an honour in 2004, and his title was recognised by the Lord Lyon King of Arms—the monarch's representative in Scotland.

Baron of Arbroath: Likewise the title and creation date is verified in Burke's Peerage, Debrett's, the Registry of Scottish Nobility, and the Scottish Barony Register.

I appreciate that you’ve highlighted these three articles. As with many newly created articles, there is always room for improvement. Historical information, especially regarding baronage titles, often exists in offline sources such as The Great Seal (Scotland's oldest national record) or crown charters, or books, making it more challenging to source fully online. Nevertheless, I believe the information provided thus far is credible and well-sourced enough to justify the creation of these pages, and hope others will help improve them further.

Addressing Fram’s behaviour: I’m glad you’ve brought these concerns to the attention of other administrators, as I would like to formally lodge a complaint against Fram for persistent harassment. Fram consistently targets my contributions, especially those related to baronage titles, with comments such as "meaningless titles", "spam", "non-notable title", "utterly non notable bought title of no value" and "completely unimportant." This behaviour reflects a personal bias, not only towards me but also towards the broader Baronage project and other editors involved. Fram's continued targeting feels like an attempt to stifle contributions on this topic, despite these titles being verifiable through credible sources.

I’ve created numerous pages on topics ranging from Irish history to Georgian architecture and biographies. Yet, it’s only my contributions related to baronage titles that face this level of scrutiny. This suggests a personal agenda against baronage titles, which Fram and some others view as "pretend titles."

Throughout this process, I’ve done my best to remain polite and open to feedback. I’ve learned from my mistakes and have received valuable guidance from experienced editors like @Asilvering whose mentorship has been instrumental in helping me navigate Wikipedia’s policies.

While I’ve had ongoing concerns about Fram’s behaviour, I would be open to returning to a more civil and constructive interaction if Fram is willing to do the same. If the community is considering restricting or blocking my account based on the ongoing harassment from Fram, I must express my frustration. It feels disheartening to be continuously berated for trying to contribute positively to the site. If this bullying behaviour continues unchecked, I may be forced to reconsider my participation on Wikipedia. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But you've mentioned two of the problem sources here again. The Registry of Scots Nobility is a self-published website by an anonymous author that sells barony-related merchandise. It therefore does not meet our policy at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Similarly, the Scottish Barony Register is a private for-profit company that charges up to £800 to "register" these titles, even though there is absolutely no legal requirement or even legal basis for doing so. It is a business that is trying to preserve the financial value of these products by selling its services as an unofficial market regulator. Consequently, I don't consider that to be a reliable source either. I think you need to restrict yourself to high-quality independent secondary sources. DrKay (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time, as far as I’m aware, that someone has suggested these sources are unreliable, so it’s not "again." Let’s look at both:

The Scottish Barony Register (SBR) was established in 2004 following the Abolition of Feudal Tenure (Scotland) Act 2000, specifically to provide an official record for the transfer of baronies, which were removed from the Land Register of Scotland. The present custodian is Alastair Shepherd, WS, a Writer to the Signet—one of the most senior legal professionals in Scotland and a former Ross Herald at the Court of the Lord Lyon. He has extensive expertise in heraldry and Scottish baronies. The SBR’s services are only available to Scottish solicitors, and they generally do not answer enquiries from the public or individuals. Scottish solicitors rely on the SBR for validation and the transfer of titles, and the Lord Lyon relies on the SBR (as the only register) when recognising baronial titles in letters patent. This gives the SBR a significant role in verifying crown charters and related historical documentation to confirm the rightful owner of a barony, despite being a private register. Let’s consider the facts from their website: [8] the 2023 annual report shows 4 new registrations and 5 assignations of existing titles, typically through inheritance. Total revenue was £5,200 for the year. Would you really consider that a money-spinner, besides covering the custodian's time?

As for the Registry of Scots Nobility (RSN), their website states that their committee requires a "Certificate from the Scottish Barony Register" or "evidence from the Lord Lyon" to verify new title holders. They provide a certificate verifying each baron signed by the Earl of Loudoun a senior Scottish peer (provided at no cost, so not exactly a money-spinner either). However, it appears the RSN primarily functions as a social organisation rather than a self-published website, hosting events for the Scottish nobility, including peers, baronets, and barons. The badges and regalia associated with this group are largely for ceremonial events and are provided "at cost," as stated on their website. Additionally, the custodian of the SBR gave a speech at the RSN’s event in 2023: [9] It has the credibility, but I’m unsure what your specific requirements or guidelines are for deeming sources unreliable. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To state that the Scottish Barony Register is a non-reliable source is absurd and shows a complete lack of understanding of the current legal situation of the Scottish Baronage. It is the sole source of reference for the Lord Lyon - one of the Great Officers of State in Scotland. See Lord Lyon's Menking note: "The Scottish Barony Register is the only register for the Lord Lyon to have reference to in these matters, albeit a non-statutory register. The present practice was established by previous Lord Lyons" and "I am content to follow this practice as long as the present Custodian is ‘a person of skill’".^[1].

The current Custodian of the Scottish Barony Register is Alistair Shepherd, one of Scotland's leading property lawyers and former partner at Coulters^[2].

I do not know the agenda of some of the editors and admins here, but portraying the SBR as an unreliable source is disruptive and damaging to Wikipedia. The same individuals have employed underhanded tactics in their handling of this entire matter, including repeatedly labelling my 20-year-old account as a single-purpose account. Different opinions must be accepted on Wikipedia and should be subject to open and honest discussions—not subjected to 'grey tactics' in an attempt to "win". Charliez (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth noting that it is factually incorrect to state that the Scottish Barony Register is a "for-profit company". The Memorandum of Association art. 6 states clearly that "no portion (of the income or property) shall be paid or transferred, directly or indirectly, by the way of dividend, bonus or otherwise howsoever by way of profit, to members of the company". It seems a better understanding of this subject should be sought by all parties to this discussion.^[3] Charliez (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already made clear my suspicion that your "20-year-old account", which only has 117 edits and mysteriously crops up at every opportunity to support Kellycrak88, is a [meat]puppet. Turning up at yet another page to promote the identical viewpoint, with similar idiom, phraseology and timing, does nothing to assuage that suspicion. DrKay (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could say the same thing about yourself @DrKay as you're always popping up supporting @Fram. Now you are, of course, entitled to your view, @DrKay, but respectfully, this is an unfounded allegation if you're implying I’m using multiple accounts or any other puppet claims (wikipedia:meatpuppet). Many editors share my views, just as others like yourself can oppose them. In fact the baronage guidelines were not proposed by me—the edit and Talk thread were started by @Daniel Plumber, which I and many others supported in the conversation thread. Let's try to find common ground without puppet allegations and contribute constructively moving forward together. Kellycrak88 (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really? This is your response? Even when your off-wiki co-ordination with these editors was exposed[10]? DrKay (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kellycrak88: If you're claiming that Fram and DrKay are meatpuppets (based on no evidence) I'm unsure whether that's simply casting aspersions or if WP:CIR is an issue here. Black Kite (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: I'm not throwing any derogatory words at anyone. I’m not looking for conflict. My aim is to contribute positively to Wikipedia and resolve any disputes constructively. Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have repeatedly tagged my account specifically as WP:SPA. I suggest you read up on the criteria for tagging accounts that way.[11] As to your puppet claims: I have supported Kellycrak88's viewpoints in maybe 2 or 3 discussions over the last few weeks. What motives you may have for claiming I support him at "every opportunity", I do not know, but it's disingenuous and I really think WP would be better served if you refrained from trying to "score points" in arguments that way. The thought that I set up an account 20 years ago in preparation for supporting Kellycrak88 today, is quite frankly laughable.

I have followed Kellycrak88's activities over the last few weeks because we clearly share some interests. He has been an extremely active editor in some very specific fields. Clearly, Fram seem to share the same interest - and, it would seem, so do you. I believe you will find that both Fram and yourself "mysteriously crop up" much more often than I in connection with Kellycrak88.

My comment on this thread, however, was specifically directed at your claim that SBR was an unreliable source. That is factually incorrect, and when you use such arguments to win a discussion, you are doing Wikipedia a disservice. The same applies when you attempt to discount my views by labelling me as a SPA or puppet. It's uncalled for and is damaging to the debates on Wikipedia.

Likewise, the claim that SBR is a for-profit entity is not true. WP would be better served if you were to withdraw those allegations even if it might prevent you from construing some "gotcha moment". If you have an issue with the quality of some of Kellycrak88's articles, WP was built specifically to handle this sort of concern. You needn't extend that discussion beyond those articles by attacking legitimate sources used on a number of different articles across WP. Charliez (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will not withdraw any part of my comments. Nor do I accept that any of them are "factually incorrect". DrKay (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is unfortunate as both these are matter of public record:

-You can verify that SBR is a not-for profit entity by looking up their records in Companies House.[12]

-You can verify that the Lord Lyon has said that SBR is a reliable source (in fact the only reliable source for baronies).[13]

Phil Bridger has a good point, though, when he says that SBR's records are not public. Quite frankly not sure how they have been referenced in the articles in question, but I know that SBR issues certificates to validate claims. Charliez (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. All my comments remain valid. DrKay (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points. The statement referred to by DrKay is very concerning. Wikipedia business should be conducted in public and on this site, with exceptions that only involve administrators and other similar functionaries. And our article on the Scottish Barony Register says it "is accessible exclusively to Scottish solicitors", meaning that it has not been published in such a way that it can be used as a source. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is running a WikiProject from a user sandbox even a thing? From what I see, WikiProjects should be in the project namespace and accessible to all, not hidden in a user sandbox with "official" participants having to email the founder to join the discussion channel. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting (page mover hat on) that I'm having to do a big amount of cleanup in Category:WikiProject Baronage of Scotland articles, with articles having been moved and changed in scope from the geographical area to the title without discussion (for instance, Torboll to Baron of Torboll (title extinct), or Scottish feudal barony of Kirkintilloch to Baron of Kirkintilloch (extinct title)), with the scope being changed under the name of "clean up" (diff 1, diff 2). And yes, that's a lot of WP:RMUM and a lot of superfluous disambiguators. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What cleanup? The reason for the geographic change is because since 2004 baronage titles became non-territorial personal titles no longer attached to the land. See the change in the law Scotland Act 2000 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2000/5/notes/division/1/3/6/11 the official explanatory notes. This has been welcomed by representative bodies for the Baronage of Scotland. Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for a start, titles shouldn't contain unnecessary disambiguators (see WP:TITLEDAB). Also, mass change at the level of tens of articles should be discussed on-wiki prior to being done. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There were discussions with other editors I recall on various Talk pages, and @Daniel Plumber pitched the idea of a WP:BARONAGE project with inspiration from the WP:Project_Clans_of_Scotland (especially as over 30 clan chiefs were barons). The idea was to gradually build a record of all Scottish barons, most dating back to the medieval period. It seemed appealing to me, as it’s a topic I’m deeply interested in, believing it would bring immense value to Wikipedia users with similar interests. Since this was created as a mock project in his sandbox, I didn’t see any harm in agreeing to collaborate, considering it both interesting and rewarding. If Daniel in his sandbox proposing to use a real-time chat is against Wikipedia rules, then I sincerely apologise. My mentor did advise me that the community might be skeptical of any off-wiki communication (for transparency read the convo here) therefore I have ensured my conversations are on-wiki to avoid any issues. Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can organize something as a "mock project" and still tag many mainspace pages as being part of it. Either it is official or it isn't. Also, were the conversations that decided on the mass page move on-wiki or off-wiki? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Plumber: can you please justify this in the context of Wikipedia's values of on-wiki collaboration and decision-making? You may wish to consider the principles listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones in this context. Daniel (talk) 04:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, I warned them about this on 26 August: [14]. If the off-wiki discussion has continued since then, I'd be quite concerned. -- asilvering (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of other issues surrounding the Baronage articles and project have been raised since, I'll mostly ignore these for now. Looking at the three recent articles I gave as examples above, they have all been edited by Kellycrak88 since to correct the issues. The results are that Baron of Abergeldie has now as its first source this Wordpress blog, and the corrected link to Spottinghistory.com[15] makes it clear that this is an unreliable source, as it is sourced to Wikipedia. The edit at Baron of Arbroath did nothing to solve the issue I raised, that it is 90% about other things already decribed at length at Arbroath and not directly related to the barony, one line about the current baron, and nothing about the history of the barony and the previous barons. And Baron of Ardgowan has been made worse, not better. The infobox now claims that the title was created in the 13th c., the text claims that it was created in the 15th century, the available evidence still suggests that these were baronets, not barons (no evidence of a baron before the current one has been unearthed). The arms in the infobox, File:Baron of Ardgowan.png, described in the text as "reflects the long-standing history of the Stewart family and their connection to the Scottish nobility", is the arms of the current baron, not a member of the Stewart family, and not related to their arms at all. The needed competency or care to create well-sourced, trustworthy articles about the actual subject seems to be missing. Fram (talk) 09:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, it's frustrating for me as it seems you haven’t read my earlier response. I’ve already acknowledged and addressed your points. As I stated above, yes the articles have been edited and improved, and certainly haven’t been made worse. It feels irrelevant what I say if you ignore my responses and double down on your arguments, which has been a running theme in our previous interactions.

Baron of Abergeldie: The page now has over 15 sources (including The Times, The Guardian, The Evening Standard, The Telegraph, and Tatler) repeated here again as you seem to overlook this in favour of repeating your previous arguments. If Spottinghistory.com is indeed an unreliable source for a history on the castle (which I wasn’t aware of), I have no problem removing it—there are plenty of other credible sources available.

Baron of Arbroath: Historically this title was territorial, attached to the land of Arbroath, a town with significant historical importance, such as its connection to the Declaration of Arbroath (signed by 40 barons) and the Battle of Arbroath. As I mentioned, these pages will be improved with more offline info from sources like the Great Seal, among others, this is a speciality of a professional historian to be honest, but I believe they are sufficiently well-sourced to start with, including some 6 credible sources currently listed for the title on the page. Your argument that 90% of the article is about the town doesn’t negate the territorial connection of the barony to Arbroath itself.

Baron of Ardgowan You claim the page has gotten worse, but I’ve double-checked the sources, which indicate the creation date as the 13th century—not a specific year. This is common with older titles, especially with medieval titles, where the earliest crown charter often refers to an even earlier creation charter that is lost. Baronage titles frequently don’t have a single creation date due to their antiquity, so the article isn’t “worse” because of this. You are correct in the body content it said 15th and was overlooked I've just now edited it from 15th to 13th.

Furthermore, you seem to ignore the fact that the crown can confer multiple titles. Baronetage titles outrank baronage titles. This would explain why the family primarily used the higher-ranking title. If you're suggesting the sources are inadequate—such as the RSN, which I’ve explained requires Lord Lyon evidence or an SBR certificate, and inclusion is verified with a signed certificate by the Earl of Loudoun, a senior Scottish peer—then I’m willing to spend some time going through the Great Seal (and brushing up on my Latin) to find the references you require. I’ll dedicate time this weekend to settle the matter.

Regarding the coat of arms, the title was in the Stewart family for 700 years before being transferred to the professor. It’s normal for the new baron’s arms to reflect features of the previous holders, in this case, the Stewarts.

As for the questions raised by Chaotic Enby and others, we should wait for Daniel Plumber to respond, as he is the founder of the project page. I’d also like to reiterate that I am making an effort to engage with you constructively. Kellycrak88 (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can rest my case, seeing what you just did at Baron of Ardgowan[16]: the article is now claiming that Robert III of Scotland (1337-1406) conferred a title to John Stewart (1364–1412), in the 13th century... You then claim above: "Baronetage titles outrank baronage titles." Really??? Not according to Order of precedence in Scotland or any other article we have on the subject, it seems. And then "It’s normal for the new baron’s arms to reflect features of the previous holders, in this case, the Stewarts." Please directly quote the source on this (you haven't given a page number and I can't access it anyway, I think), as this seems highly dubious when one compares the current arms, File:Baron of Ardgowan.png with what appear to be the Shaw-Stewart arms (no reliable source, but all sources I found agree that it is something like this or this, which has nothing in common with the current arms. Fram (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do rest your case! You seem determined to pick holes wherever possible.

Regarding the Order of precedence in Scotland link you sent. Baronets are ranked 12th in precedence, while Scottish barons are ranked 28th.

The Statutes of 1592 and the Baronetcy Warrants of King Charles I show the non-peerage Table of Precedence as: Baronets, Knights, Barons, Lairds, Esquire, and Gentlemen.

Baronial titles are typically used when a landed family does not hold a peerage title of higher rank, or if they have been created a knight of the realm or hold a baronetcy (a hereditary knighthood), which ranks higher than a knight or Scottish baron. This is why individuals who are knighted or hold a baronetcy are often referred to simply as "Sir John Smith" without any reference to the baronial title.

You are correct that the reigning monarch that granted the original title of baron needs reviewing. If the sentence about the arms is contentious, we can remove it and I will stand corrected. It doesn't take away the fact that my point is valid that arms often reflect features of the previous holders, I can find some examples if saying this is also contentious. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about Baronet being a higher rank than Baron in Scotland, weird. However, then why isn't the page at Baronet of Ardgowan instead of at Baron of Ardgowan? The former has been used for 300+ years (I can find no evidence, apart from the disputed Scottish Register, of a 13th c. creation; the 1402 event was just a land grant, the baronetcy seems to have been created in 1667), the latter is now created for someone completely unrelated to the history or genealogy of the family. The article, like most of your creations, doesn't correctly or adequately cover any of this (again, see e.g. the Baron of Arbroath article, which repeats the history of Arbroath which we already have at that page (and better), but doesn't tell us anything about the history of the barony and the barons). "It doesn't take away the fact that my point is valid that arms often reflect features of the previous holders, I can find some examples if saying this is also contentious." Which is completely irrelevant. The issue is that if you include this in an article as a claim about a specific coat of arms, it must be true for this coat of arms. No one is asking you for examples of other cases where that claim may be true, what would be the purpose? Fram (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the baronetcy does have a page: Shaw-Stewart baronets - again you're repeating arguments, I've already responded to all these points above and I will dedicated my weekend to find the source crown charters from the Great Seal as you're repeating that the registers are disputed and unreliable (which is quite ridiculous btw) Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kellycrak88, you were the one to do the mass page move. You shouldn't have to wait for the project founder to answer whether that was discussed on-wiki or off-wiki. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not here to care much about the minutiae of Scottish order of precedence. I do, however, care about the fact that there seems to be an entire WikiProject, with tagged articles and everything, hidden in a user sandbox, with most of the coordination seemingly happening off-wiki, resulting in mass undiscussed page moves against title guidelines. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As someone directly involved in these matters, I believe I have a say on this.

Regarding the WikiProject being housed in my userspace, here’s the relevant notice from Wikipedia on proposing new projects:

"In 2024, we are changing the proposal process to reduce the number of failed attempts at starting groups. While we restructure the pages, please do not propose any new groups. In the meantime, consider the two thousand existing projects or attempt to revive one of the many dormant WikiProjects. If your group cannot wait for the new process, please only create group pages in the userspace of one of your members.".

This is why the project exists in my userspace. It simulates a WikiProject, and once it is successfully proposed, the page will be moved to the mainspace.

I had a plan for a larger project focused on researching the baronage. While this could eventually lead to a formal WikiProject, it currently involves extensive research that cannot be published on Wikipedia. Therefore, keeping it sandboxed until I am ready to present something on Wikipedia seemed ideal.

We centered on a larger project, rather than individual articles. When specific Wikipedia articles needed revision, that was addressed on the project page, emerging organically during our discussions about the broader research. The off-wiki channel has been deleted like 2 weeks ago.

Regarding the "mass move page" initiative, I am not aware of any discussions taking place, either on-wiki or off-wiki. It appears that Kellycrak intends to make those pages resemble proper title pages. While I appreciate their good intentions, I believe this should be discussed first. Additionally, these pages should not be reverted to titles like "Scottish feudal barony of X", as feudal baronies, as a legal entity, have not existed since 2004.

Please feel free to "civilly" ask me any questions, as I am willing to put this to an end, now and forever. All sides have clearly tired of this. I believe this comment sufficiently addresses Daniel's question above. Daniel Plumber (talk) 12:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, keeping it sandboxed until I am ready to present something on Wikipedia seemed ideal.

Sorry, this was the part that was confusing me, I'm not sure to understand why it was on one side kept sandboxed, and on the other side was already tagging pages in mainspace.

Additionally, these pages should not be reverted to titles like "Scottish feudal barony of X", as feudal baronies, as a legal entity, have not existed since 2004.

It was reverted as an undiscussed page move (WP:RMUM), as the ones that were moved back were extinct historical baronies that had ceased to exist way prior to 2004, and were thus not affected by the change. More generally, I believe that the notability for most of them comes from the place itself (WP:NGEO), even if it ceased to exist as a legal entity (we do have pages on historical subdivisions), rather than the title itself. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fair point for extinct titles, extant is obviously different Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was intended to function de facto like an official WikiProject. Pardon my ignorance, but honestly, I am currently unaware of any guidelines or rules that forbid this. Daniel Plumber (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what's the problem with moving the project over to the mainspace? as we're discussing with administrators here, they probably have the power to do that? Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators have technical abilities, but not "powers" to do stuff beyond community consensus (except in straightforward cases). Here, the best bet would be to go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals and formally propose it. In fact, I would be very happy to see it become an official WikiProject, as I see that the group appears well-organized and it would be great to have it in a more visible place. Good luck with it! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, we're all here to learn! Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide recommends them to be in the project namespace, which would be a great thing for your project, seeing that it is already tagging articles and everything, and appears to have a core of well-motivated editors. If it's formally proposed, I'm pretty sure it could be an official WikiProject pretty easily! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll keep that in mind. By the way, may I ask if it is possible to start a new proposal yet? Daniel Plumber (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The order of precedence reference was in response to Fram, who incorrectly stated that barons rank higher than baronets. It's an easy mistake to make, but I wanted to clarify that it's actually the other way around. This is why the Baronets of Ardgowan, who also held a baronial title, didn’t use their baron title, and likely why it was eventually gifted to the professor. @Chaotic Enby I can’t answer questions about the project being in a user page or sandbox, or why mainspace pages are tagged to a sandbox, so we will need to wait for the project owner to clarify that. However, I can assure you that there were no off-wiki conversations, at least none involving me, about mass page moves. Daniel Plumber’s project page post appears to have been from a couple of weeks ago, while the handful of articles I moved was many months ago, with good intentions. It was not 100 articles without consultation or attempt to deliberately disrupt anything.

As I’ve mentioned above: "the reason for the geographic changes is because, since 2004, baronage titles became non-territorial personal titles, no longer attached to land, as per the Scotland Act 2000 (see the official explanatory notes here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2000/5/notes/division/1/3/6/11). This change has been welcomed by representative bodies for the Baronage of Scotland."

If there had been significant backlash from the community regarding this, it would have surfaced by now. On the contrary, other editors have positively encouraged my efforts to improve these pages, which contributed to the fruiting of the WP:BARONAGE project. Furthermore, I will also add that I am a relatively new editor and I am learning procedures and polices as I go, so a few months ago I was at a different level of Wikipedia procedure as an editor, and today, I certainly wouldn’t move multiple pages without wider consultation. That said, in retrospect, the move has ultimately improved Wikipedia by accurately reflecting this subject matter and widely welcomed. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "handful of articles" (more than 30, in fact) were not all "accurately reflecting this subject matter", as many of them were about titles that went extinct way before 2004 and were thus not affected by that law, on top of the moves adding unnecessary disambiguators (things like "(title extinct)" shouldn't be in page titles if there is no need to disambiguate with another identical title).
I am not sure to what extent they were "widely welcomed" (in fact, I haven't seen other editors comment on these page moves at all before today), but there isn't any expiration date for criticism of undiscussed mass page moves to "surface". Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as mentioned above I see your point regarding extinct feudal baronies, obviously different for extant - feudalism ended in 2004 in Scotland - when the dignity of these titles became protected in law as personal titles, non-territorial no longer attached to the land Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have some familiarity with the peerage and adjacent subjects and I have concerns. Inflated claims surrounding Scottish baronial titles, as they can be bought and sold, is not a new problem. Looking at Baron of Abergeldie, allegedly improved, the first paragraph cites Luxurious Magazine [17] for the claim that the title was created in 1482. Leaving aside whether that source is reliable and independent, it doesn't say that. It doesn't discuss the title at all. It does say that the estate was bestowed on the Gordon family in 1482. Mackensen (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baron of Abergeldie has been in the same family for 21 generations. The first holder was a Gordon and the current holder a Gordon. Please kindly check all the reference links provided there's over a dozen. I've previously had these discussions at length these families are not selling their heirlooms the full dialogue is here. Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd have a look through Baron of Abergeldie, being somewhat familiar with the concept of peerages.

• I've no idea what ref. #2 thinks it's citing, because it links only to a home page.
• I can find no mention of Abergeldie in regards to any namesake barony in ref. #3, only mentions of the Gordons of Abergeldie.
• Ref. #4 mentions "the Baron of Abergeldie, John Gordon"
• Ref. #5 mentions "Baron Abergeldie, John Gordon, 76"
• Ref. #6 does not mention the barony.
• Ref. #7 does not mention the barony.
• Ref. #9 Describes Abergeldie as a feudal barony. Looking at the list on the source, these appear to be purchased titles relating to land acquisition?
• Ref. #10 mentions "Baron Abergeldie, 76-year-old John Gordon".

I'm haven't read through this entire discussion, forgive my time constraints, but wish to make several points. Firstly Kellycrak88 is incorrect in saying baronetcies rank higher than baronies. They do not. This obviously differs as to whether one is discussing different peerages, or Scottish lordships which are not part of any peerage.

I usually find an easy way to discover whether a topic is real or notable is to search on Internet Archive. While this can be more troublesome for modern topics, it should not be difficult for a title allegedly created in 1482. Internet Archive provides one result for "Baron of Abergeldie" and one result for "Baron Abergeldie". The one available reliable source, this Burke's, says that John Howard Seton Gordon was recognised as feudal baron in 1965. It should not be difficult to find reliable, detailed, sourced about long-held baronies; that's why most of the articles have existed for over a decade.

I would like to see Kellycrak provide some reliable sources that discuss the barony of Abergeldie. Not the castle, not the Gordon family, nor the Setons, and not the lands. Please illustrate for us this barony, created in 1482 and handed down generation to generation, and its recording within the Scottish peerage. Because I can't tally what the article says and you claim, and what the sources say. Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe I certainly can -- here you go with full lineage listed in Burke's Peerage 107th Edition:

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 (note links expired in 24 hours)

I never said it was a Scottish peerage title, it's a Scottish baronage title, which does rank below a baronet. Pre-2004 they were often referred to as feudal barons. Since 2004 the law changed and ended feudalism so that is not the correct term today. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note my edit to my initial contribution; I realised after the fact that the concentration was not on peerages. My focus was on establishing sources, so I'm now more confused by the fact you clearly have access to at least one reliable source outlining at least the basics, but have chosen to instead fill out the article with blogs, old and unrelated newspaper reports, and tangential websites. Make use of sources like this and clarity will come along much sooner. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Pickersgill-Cunliffe, for your diligence and thoughtful comments. I truly appreciate your feedback. I’ve had previous run-ins with Fram, who won't accept Burke's Peerage as a valid source, so I’ve often felt the need to bolster pages with as many credible sources as possible to prove notability. Similarly, as mentioned further up in this thread, DrKay and Fram also dispute the reliability of the Scottish Barony Register and the Registry of Scottish Nobility, despite evidence provided by myself and others that supports their credibility. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me where I gave the impression that I "won't accept Burke's Peerage as a valid source". I don't claim that the information in there isn't reliable (like all source, it may contain errors, but in general it will be correct probably). Not everything included there may warrant a page (or even a mention) here, it's a lot of genealogy and often little else, but a fact or topic not being suitable for Wikipedia even when mentioned in Burke's doesn't mean that I won't accept it as a valid source. Fram (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I buy or borrow a copy of the Scottish Barony Register? If not (as stated by our article on it) it cannot be used as a source. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, I spent the weekend researching further.

Baron of Arbroath: This title was actually created as a free lordship, barony, and regality (granting the baron high powers, including the authority to impose the death sentence at will). It was created for James, Marquis of Hamilton, providing us with a definitive creation date and monarch [18]. There is also a lot of historical information that can be added.

Baron of Ardgowan: As suspected, I could not find the creation charter. However, this is not uncommon. Until the late 19th century, each new baron required a crown charter from the current monarch (as a feudal superiority) and not all of these are in the public domain. Typically, today's holder would possess the physical originals, which are authenticated by the custodian of the SBR. It is not unusual for some crown charters to be missing or unavailable in public sources. However, I did find a reference to the Barony of Ardgowan (confirming its existence) in the crown charter records of parliament in 1672, where it was assigned to the baronet family in question. Hopefully that's the matter settled. [19]

@Phil Bridger I can send you a copy if you would like. For full transparency, I was sent a copy of the SBR by someone who found my email on my user page. While I understand that only Scottish solicitors are meant to access it, some private individuals have copies. Reflecting on this, it may be a grey area for me to continue referencing it as a source. However, since the RSN requires an SBR certificate or evidence from the Lord Lyon, and considering it's high-standing, I still maintain that the RSN is a credible source and should not be regarded as a self-published website unworthy of citation. Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That an Ardgowan barony existed in 1672 is hardly evidence that it was created in the 13th century (and the article still has the above blatant anachronisms about date vs. monarch and so on). Fram (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://archive.org/details/burkeslandedgent0000unse_e7e1/page/1268/mode/2up?q=Ardgowan

Page 1268—Lineage—Among the archives of this ancient family, there are preserved three charters by ROBERT III to Sir JOHN STEWART, his illegitmate son, of the lands of Ardgowan, Blackhall and Auchingoun, in co. Renfrew, dated 1403, 1395 and 1390. These several lands have lineally descended in an uninterrupted course of male succession, from the said Sir John Stewart, to the present Baronet.

Page 1268—JAMES STEWART, of Ardgowan, obtained from JAMES V1 a charter, erecting his lands of Ardgowan, Blackhall and Auchingoun into a BARONY 1576.

I've found an earlier date than 1672, there is reference in this book to a 1575 crown charter erecting Ardgowan into a barony, however that is not to say the SBR custodian may have examined an earlier charter(s) provided by the holder for registration hence the 13th century claim. As we don't know for certain, I will update the creation date to 1575 with reference to this book, until someone comes forward with evidence of an earlier date. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sending me a copy doesn't publish the source. Publishing is necessary, but not sufficient, to make a source usable on Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

noted Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand that only Scottish solicitors are meant to access it, some private individuals have copies. Reflecting on this, it may be a grey area for me to continue referencing it as a source.

I don't think there's any grey area. A source that is not available to the public is not published, per WP:PUBLISHED, so cannot be used as a source. CodeTalker (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issues seem to persist. New creation Baron of Ardoch, has now 7 references. 2 and 7 are the same and go to a page which has nothing to do with Ardoch[20]. Presumably this was intended, but in neither instance does it verify any of the flowery text in the paragraphs it supposedly verifies. "He has been described by former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown as 'an inspiration and a visionary'." is taken literally from the source[21]. Which is still better than the next line, "Since assuming the title, he has maintained the estate's legacy and continues to oversee its cultural significance." which has two sources, neither of which support this vapid promo language. More copyvio? Sure, "one of Scotland's landed gentry, owning thousands of acres in his estates" comes straight from this source, not even given as an attribution. Similarly, the description "politician, a successful merchant and Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow" comes straight from here. And of course the anachronisms again, the infobox claims "creation date 1707" and "created by Robert III of Scotland" who died more than 300 years earlier. Fram (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For Canmore that's not the link, the link on the page: https://canmore.org.uk/site/45934/ardoch-house which for some reason is now redirecting to the wrong page, yes the correct link https://canmore.org.uk/site/104668/ardoch-house as you mentioned.

Regarding the Gordon Brown book reference quote it looks credible to me, especially considering there are dozens of other sources to choose from.

Google search "Gordon Brown an inspiration and a visionary Tommy MacKay" and browse through all the results, news articles include the Glasgow Times and book references -- I thought we already discussed less is more, if you want me to load up the article with countless references I can do that but there appears to be a difference of opinion on this. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The other notable Lairds, who are very notable individuals have full wikipedia pages they're very much established historical figures. So adding those descriptions for who they are does not seem ill founded:

• Robert Graham Of Gartmore, 15th Laird (1735–1797) politician, a successful merchant and Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow
• Robert Bontine Cunninghame Graham, 19th Laird president of the Scottish Labour Party; a founder of the National Party of Scotland in 1928; one of Scotland's landed gentry, owning thousands of acres in his estates
• Admiral Sir Angus Cunninghame Graham, 20th Laird (1893–1981)

I think you'll find that the information from Tommy Mackay's personal website comes straight from wikipedia. The two sentences you claim I've plagiarised "politician, a successful merchant and Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow" and "one of Scotland's landed gentry, owning thousands of acres in his estates" from Tommy Mackay's website are 12 words each which if that is a copyright violation from the man's personal website, then I will reorder those so they're entirely unique. You mention I don't reference note his website, but as personal web site connected to the subject my understand is that it's a conflict of interest so it's not referenced. However, I did include a link in the external links section as the website it's quite relevant and interesting for the subject matter.

Robert III of Scotland granted the lands in 1398 and later it was raised to a barony as explained in the lead I quote:

The lands of Ardoch trace back to 1398, when Robert III of Scotland granted the lands to Finlaw Buntyn, marking the beginning of the estate's long history. In 1707 the lands were erected into the Barony of Ardoch

Hence there are 21 Lairds of the estate that date back to 1398 even though it was only raised to a barony in 1707 the baron title doesn't appear to have been used (holding knighthoods or liberal politician reasons or tradition possibly) except for the current holder who was recognised by the Lord Lyon. I'll review the page again to ensure it's clear. Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As we are clearly talking past each other, I hope some others will chime in and explain to whoever needs explaining what they are doing or interpreting incorrectly. Fram (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we already discussed less is more, if you want me to load up the article with countless references I can do that but there appears to be a difference of opinion on this. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I am very confused by what you mean here. The issue is not that you need more sources for that sentence to be credible (in 99% of cases, you shouldn't need more than one source for a given claim), it's that you are literally copy-pasting it instead of writing it in your own words, which constitutes a copyright violation.

The other notable Lairds, who are very notable individuals have full wikipedia pages they're very much established historical figures. So adding those descriptions for who they are does not seem ill founded

Passing Wikipedia's "notability" criterion (which really just means there are enough secondary sources to write an encyclopedic article) doesn't automatically justify the use of flowery language to describe the individuals. We should strive to be objective, which means avoiding peacock words.

The two sentences you claim I've plagiarised [...] from Tommy Mackay's website are 12 words each which if that is a copyright violation from the man's personal website, then I will reorder those so they're entirely unique.

Yes, that's copyvio. Please reword them in your own words, avoiding close paraphrasing. If you have evidence that these sentences (not just the information, the specific wording) was copied from Wikipedia, then it isn't copyvio, but that evidence should be presented upfront. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kellycrak88, please explain how this source verifies "Over the centuries, Ardoch became a key estate in the region, serving as an important seat of power. Ardoch House was constructed on the estate in the late 18th century, replacing an earlier medieval structure used by the family from the 1300s." or "Ardoch House, built in the late 18th century, is the seat of the barony. This Georgian estate replaced an earlier medieval house and serves as a testament to the estate's long-standing heritage. The house is recognised for its historical value and stands as a key landmark in Dumbartonshire". Fram (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is just plain harassment Fram, don't you have anything better to be than focusing all your efforts and time on me?

The caput of the Barony of Ardoch is Ardoch House hence it's the seat of the barony.

The source from the Canmore website (the National Record of Scotland’s database for historical sites) says quite clearly that Ardoch House was built in the late 18th century on the site of a previous medieval structure. It says the estate was originally associated with the Buntein family replacing an older medieval tower and mansion used by the Buntine family, the original lairds of the estate, from the 1300s and the Georgian-era mansion replaced earlier fortifications. Click through on the page an read for yourself in the original Ordinance Survey index card on the Canmore website: https://canmore.org.uk/collection/2424345

Canmore also references Ardoch House in these books (among others): [22]

Coventry, M. (2008) Castles of the Clans: the strongholds and seats of 750 Scottish families and clans. Musselburgh. Page(s): 237 RCAHMS Shelf Number: F.5.21.COV

RCAHMS. (1978d) The archaeological sites and monuments of Dumbarton District, Clydebank District, Bearsden and Milngavie District, Strathclyde Region, The archaeological sites and monuments of Scotland series no 3. Edinburgh. Page(s): 16, no.91 RCAHMS Shelf Number: A.1.2.ARC(3)

Furthermore, the official website of Tommy MacKay, the current Baron of Ardoch, offers insight into the history of the estate. It outlines the evolution of the house and its role as the seat of the Barony of Ardoch, describing how the Georgian house replaced the earlier medieval residence. While this source cannot be cited directly in a Wikipedia article, it is a helpful corroborate reference for background research. More details can be found on the estate here: Tommy MacKay of Ardoch – History

@Chaotic Enby No, the issue if you read what Fram said is he's stating the Gordon Brown quote is not a credible source, there are dozens of sources available as I showed in the google search result above, I picked one and can also add the other twelve if needed (but other editors advised less is more). Nothing has been copyvio, everything written to best of my knowledge I've written uniquely for the page. Except for the two 12 word description sentences which Fram matched to the personal web site. So please kindly explain to me how would put into your own words (avoiding close paraphrasing!): "politician, a successful merchant and Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow" the second part of the sentence the words Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow that being the man's title is that copyvio in your opinion? It's also a majority of the words in the sentence. I've now changed it to "a politician, a prosperous merchant, and the Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow" but I would love to be shown how's it done. Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fram said "He has been described by former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown as 'an inspiration and a visionary'." is taken literally from the source[79]. (triple nested quotation!) The preceding sentence, Presumably this was intended, but in neither instance does it verify any of the flowery text in the paragraphs it supposedly verifies., clearly refers to a separate source linked in that very sentence. Again, no need to add other sources, the issue is the straight copy-paste.

Regarding the "how to put in my own words", I'd start by removing "successful" or "prosperous", as that doesn't add information about his role. Looking at his own article (which you can check, sources there might be useful here too, although some of it is unsourced) and other sources, "merchant" appears to be a euphemism for "slave owner and trader" (e.g. [23]), and he seems to be more known for his poetry than for his brief tenure as Lord Rector of that university. More generally, it is always best to look at multiple sources to see how to best describe an individual, rather than take the first description you find. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I did miss that sentence, then are quotes allowed on Wikipedia if there is an issue with copyvio? How would you rewrite the Gordon Brown quote? Also very fair pointers on looking for other angles of descriptor—thank you for the constructive feedback. Kellycrak88 (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes are allowed, provided they are explicitly attributed as quotes and not more than a few sentences long at most. They shouldn't be reworded. (Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text and WP:COPYQUOTE explain this better than me) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and to clarify, are you saying you would avoid referring to him as Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow for fear of copyvio? Kellycrak88 (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No? That wouldn't be copyvio (that's the title of the position itself), I am just saying that it isn't the best way to describe him as it doesn't seem to be what he is the most notable for. If I had to pick, I would describe him as "politician, poet, and slave plantation owner". Or, if we want to be more precise, "Jamaica slave holder, poet, and Member of Parliament for Stirlingshire". Or any of many similar wordings. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kellycrak88 claims, when challenged on his sourcing: The source from the Canmore website (the National Record of Scotland’s database for historical sites) says quite clearly that Ardoch House was built in the late 18th century on the site of a previous medieval structure. It says the estate was originally associated with the Buntein family replacing an older medieval tower and mansion used by the Buntine family, the original lairds of the estate, from the 1300s and the Georgian-era mansion replaced earlier fortifications. Click through on the page an read for yourself in the original Ordinance Survey index card on the Canmore website: https://canmore.org.uk/collection/2424345

Issues with this include:

• The source used in the article[24] is not the source they use here, they are just housed on the same website.
• The source used in the article is not even about the same "Ardoch House.
• The source they now use as justification[25] states: "Ardoch House (in ruins). In front of this farmhouse (Ardochmore) is situated the Old Mansion of Ardoch. it was built about the beginning of the 17th century". It also states that the mansion disappeared about 1874 and that no remains survive. It says nothing at all which matches what Kellycrak88 supposedly read on that page, apart from the connection with the Bunteins.

They clearly can't be trusted to read or present sources correctly. It seems highly irresponsible to let them continue editing in the mainspace. Fram (talk) 09:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fram - the updated source https://canmore.org.uk/site/104668/ardoch-house is your link you provided in your message above. Hence you provided a wrong link, and I made a mistake of not thoroughly checking your link past the title. I guess I assumed you always thoroughly check everything with a fine tooth comb considering your engagements with me.

https://canmore.org.uk/site/42373/ardoch-house this link is where I originally read some of the info. Also as mentioned above there are book references mentioned and Mackay's site for confirming the correct address for Ardoch House.

I feel your approach in these discussions has been less constructive and more focused on targeting my contributions (and others) specifically with an agenda attached to Baronage articles—where you've previously expressed personal bias. Your comments and reverts appear to be more about attempting to control others "a power trip" than providing users genuine feedback to learn from or improvements to the content. Other users in this thread and other discussions have also noted similar concerns.

Before this admin request of yours to restrict my account, you’ve consistently monitoring my contributions and reverted them, often adding comments that appear designed to disrupt rather than help improve the articles. Some of your points have been valid, while others, as I’ve addressed above, have not. Even when your feedback is accurate, the way you deliver it comes off as antagonistic, more in line with bullying than with constructive criticism. This kind of persistent interference feels like harassment, and I respectfully request that you stop.

If the administrators support this continued behaviour, I will have to reconsider my contributions to this community. My goal has always been to contribute positively and improve my work, and I’ve always welcomed constructive feedback, but it’s difficult to do so under constant scrutiny.

I urge the administrators to carefully consider the implications of enabling such targeted actions. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said "late 18th century". It says "beginning of the 17th century". That is totally different. The content is therefore not supported. Furthermore, there is no mention of the barony anywhere in the source. It therefore does not belong in the article on the barony. This is textbook original research and should be removed or sourced to reliable independent secondary sources that explicitly support the article content. DrKay (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you're correct on the date, however on the baron's web site the address (see footer) and his profile in Burke's Peerage the barony seat is Ardoch House, Cardross, Dumbartonshire G82 5EW -- which matches the Canmore source page location. Also a google map search does show a building at the post code. DrKay please free to update the page with dates or remove whatever you deem necessary thank you. Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your entire response here to DrKay's concern that you are offering "textbook original research" is to offer more original research. Grandpallama (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My goal has always been to contribute positively and improve my work, and I’ve always welcomed constructive feedback, but it’s difficult to do so under constant scrutiny. What is this nonsense? Multiple editors here have agreed there are concerns with your editing and handling of sourcing, and your response to the uncovering of these issues is that you should be allowed to edit without scrutiny? That's the sort of tendentious attitude that gets accounts sanctioned. Grandpallama (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I believe you've misunderstood my point. Please take a moment to read my full response for the whole context. My comment about scrutiny was specifically addressing the targeting by one user, Fram, over the past few months. To be very clear, I fully welcome having my contributions reviewed and impoved by other editors—that’s the essence of collaboration on Wikipedia. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not harassment to track a user's contributions for policy violations. You have repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to adhere to wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies, so it is not unreasonable to check your contributions for such problems. Just above here I again advised you to restrict yourself to reliable independent secondary sources that explicitly support the article content. Your response was to introduce a self-published website from someone with a conflict of interest and to link that to another source in a synthesis of published material. You have been repeatedly told by multiple users that this is not acceptable. DrKay (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fram’s interactions are certainly not all related to policy violations, as you're suggesting. I am not deliberately or repeatedly failing to adhere to Wikipedia’s verifiability and no original research policies, as you’ve accused. The baron’s personal website is not listed as a reference in the article, as I’ve already mentioned above, because as I said above that would be a conflict of interest. I brought it up here only to provide context for our conversation. Regarding the Canmore source, it does state that the mansion is demolished, which is why I checked the postcode in Google Maps to verify its actually there. Additionally, I’ve referred to reliable sources like Burke’s Peerage, which confirms Ardoch House as the barony seat. This isn’t about violating original research rules but rather addressing the proposal from Fram to restrict or shut down my account. That's what we're discussing.

That said, I’m feeling exhausted and will be stepping back from Wikipedia for a while. I trust you’ll make the decisions you believe are best. Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the above, showing the continuing issues with WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:COPYVIO even after multiple attempts to corret this behaviour, I propose to block User:Kellycrak88 from the mainspace to give them a chance to edit in sandboxes, draftspaces, or through edit requests on talk pages, where they can show that they can contribute while following these policies. Fram (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My closing statement: I understand the concerns raised, but I believe this proposal is disproportionate and serves to further Fram's ongoing agenda to control and restrict contributions, particularly related to the Baronage project, due to Fram's proven personal bias against these titles. Not only my account but also other editors in the Baronage project, as other editors above have noted. I have taken feedback very seriously and I'm committed to improving my knowledge and adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines. As a new editor, I acknowledge that I’ve made mistakes, but I have always been open to constructive feedback, learning, and improving with each edit.

Last week, I left an olive branch message on Fram’s Talk page as a gesture of goodwill, in the hope that we could move past the tension and engage constructively. Unfortunately, this effort has not lead to any change in approach, as they continue to attack me from every possible angle they can find, instead of engaging constructively with me directly, reinforcing my belief that this issue stems more from personal bias than content-related concerns.

Blocking my account from mainspace and limiting me to sandboxes, draftspaces, or edit requests would severely hinder my ability to contribute meaningfully and collaborate with the community. It would effectively disengage me from the community. It could also be perceived as enabling Fram’s attempts to shut down my account for reasons that extend beyond content-related concerns, and I believe the community should consider whether such actions are productive or fair.

I would instead appreciate the opportunity to continue working on articles under the guidance of experienced editors or my mentor, @Asilvering, who has been instrumental in helping me navigate Wikipedia’s policies. This approach would be far more constructive in helping me refine my editing practices and comply with all necessary standards.

To date, I’ve created around 20 pages and made substantial contributions to articles on Irish history, Georgian buildings, historical sites, biographies, and titles of nobility. I respectfully ask that administrators consider a more balanced and constructive approach that encourages growth and collaboration. Restricting my account, particularly when I’ve demonstrated a willingness to learn and improve, would not only hinder my efforts but also send a message that good-faith contributions are less valued than control over others.

I hope the administrators will take these points into careful consideration as they assess the situation. As mentioned in my last post, I am taking a break from wikipedia and but I do hope that I will be able to return as an editor on equal standing in the community.

Oppose - I humbly and respectfully request that the motion to block my account from the mainspace not be passed at this time. Instead, I ask that I be given the benefit of the doubt and a second chance to continue improving under guidance. I can assure the community that these issues will not happen again, but if concerns were to persist in the future, any editor is welcome to raise this issue again for further review. Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My involvement so far has mostly been restricted to answering Kellycrak88's direct questions, but I can of course get more directly involved with the content. @Kellycrak88, I would suggest that you voluntarily begin new articles in draftspace instead of mainspace while there are outstanding questions about your editing, as a show of good faith. -- asilvering (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering thank you for your thoughtful advice and offering to review my work. Congratulations on recently being voted in as an admin – there's no one more fitting for the role. While I don’t agree with Fram's proposal, I’m happy to start new articles in draftspace for review and input by you as a show of good faith and this will ensure I'm meeting all necessary standards. This will allow me to continue contributing productively and level up my editing, while addressing any concerns. As mentioned earlier, I’m stepping back from Wikipedia for a while, but when I return, I’ll be in touch with you. Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: There seem to be quite serious issues with WP:CIR here. Also, despite the advice given above re: WP:COPYVIO, I noticed that the user's article for Newhall House and Estate still consists primarily of direct lifts from other websites - an issue which the user would obviously have been aware of but made no attempt to resolve despite his various commitments above to learn, improve, address concerns, etc. etc. etc.

I'd also point out that the intention of the relevant project is apparently to produce 300-400 articles, as stated here [26]. Given the repeated issues mentioned above I'd suggest that that is an endeavour that this community would do well to prevent in some way. Or, at the very least, robust measures should be put in place to stop it from becoming a monumental timesink. Axad12 (talk) 10:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a subsidiary point here…

When new users arise and seem to have a primary interest in the large-scale creation of articles in relation to intangibles which are bought and sold (the mechanics of which they seem to be very well versed in), I begin to wonder if there is perhaps some element of conflict of interest involved.

Similarly, it must inevitably raise concerns when the project is apparently limited to vetted ‘official participants’ [27] and was set up with the intention that communication would be conducted off wiki. This is all the more the case when plausible concerns over sock or meat puppetry have been raised in relation to the participants [28] [29] by user:DrKay. The project talkpage discussions between the various participants look rather constructed to me [30], with various characteristics being shared between different users (starting sentences with lower case letters, use of hyphens, occasional failure to use full stops/periods), especially when different accounts respond shortly after the previous post.

Similarly COI concerns are bound to arise when a user has placed his email address on his talk page (presumably to allow non-Wikipedia account holders to also contact him off wiki) and has produced articles such as these [31] [32] [33].

I must admit I’m somewhat concerned about this project. I wonder if further investigation might be in order? Axad12 (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your subsidiary note. As discussed at length previously they can be bought and sold, but from my knowledge there is no market 1 or 2 or 0 sales per year, looking at the history of barons in sources like Burke’s peerage these families are not selling their heirlooms. I welcome an investigation as I can assure you as I’ve stated previously, and I reiterate I’m not involved in multiple accounts and I have zero conflict of interest. The articles you’ve quoted above are all well referenced, although I can improve upon knowing polices I now know. One is for a a very notable celebrity London nightclub owner who has been in the press every week, the other is a german baron the page is translated from the already existing german Wikipedia page and the other is a notable lord who has a plethora of press as a billionaire and was in a UK reality TV show for his flashy life. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the issues with your project, it seems to me that it has been created (and conducted) in such a way that it appears to be exceptionally dodgy. I make no apologies for pointing that out.

As for the articles you mention..

Your very poor record on sourcing stands for itself,

It would be interesting to see if the notability stands up,

It seems to me that there are blatant WP:PROMO elements in the articles, e.g. his venues cater to celebrities and royals, and he opened a new VIP spot, and The venue garnered attention for its friendly exclusive atmosphere, exotic cocktails, and royalty and the awards section in the Nick House article.

Meanwhile approximately half of the Sam Malin article consists of this jumble: He was supposedly an investor and president of Burke's Peerage in 2017 but there is no proof of directorship or ownership on Companies House, only Tatler press articles.[2][3] He also does not have a Burke's Peerage profile.[4]. Wikipedia reports facts supported by sources, not observations from your own research. Axad12 (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concerns and I welcome any investigation into the notability of the articles I’ve contributed to. Transparency is key on Wikipedia, and I am more than happy for the notability of these subjects to be evaluated. Everything I have done is open to review, and I will ensure that any necessary improvements are made in line with Wikipedia’s guidelines. Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "transparency is key" and everything "is open to review". Except, of course, when it is conducted off-wiki by a group of accounts who have been accused of being sock or meat puppets. When that happens things become rather opaque.

Interestingly, your response above scores a 95% likelihood of being AI generated at gptzero.me (it says "We are highly confident this text was AI generated"). Is that the key to many of the issues above?

I'd wondered how you'd intended to write 300-400 poorly sourced articles, but I suppose we now have the answer to that. Axad12 (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By comparison, most of your contributions to this thread score about 3%-5% likelihood of AI (except for the long "Closing Statement" above which also records a high score).

Let's be honest here, only an exceptionally bad faith editor would use AI to create a post saying that "transparency is key". Axad12 (talk) 14:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I’ve already stated I’m not part of any off-wiki conversations! It’s not me intending to write 300-400 articles it’s a group effort there are many committed editors in the project. What happened to assuming good faith?! Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are not "many committed editors in the project", what nonsense. At the moment there are just 4 participants listed on the project page (and whether they are all independent end users would seem to be a matter of some doubt). In your responses above you've done yourself no favours. Good faith is not extended to users who lie (as below), use AI to talk about 'transparency' and continually try to evade whatever point the previous post was raising. Axad12 (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not lied, and I’m not here to engage in confrontation. The project page is a sandbox on Plumber’s page and hasn’t even launched yet and doesn’t include many other involved editors. If you look at the Scottish clans project page it has many committed editors that have a shared interest in Scottish barons. You obviously have your motives to keep attacking me but I’m opting out now. Get outside, enjoy the sun, it’s a sunny weekend. It’s clear that we don’t see eye to eye on this matter, so I’ll step back from discussion this with you for now. All the best Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Maybe you could spend some time removing all the copyvio and promo text from your articles instead, along with all the non-WP:RS sources? Perhaps out in the garden if the sun is shining... Axad12 (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, you can't really "opt out" of other people discussing your contributions. Wikipedia is a collaborative endeavor, not some place where people can "agree to disagree" and stay in their corners.

And I don't think you can have a project that is "still a sandbox" and "hasn't even launched", but on the other side has already tagged tens of pages and is creating hundreds of new ones. On the one hand, you say that It’s not me intending to write 300-400 articles it’s a group effort there are many committed editors in the project, and on the other hand, that the project hasn’t even launched yet and doesn’t include many other involved editors. Either you have an actual project, or you have a sandbox, you can't have the benefits of both and the responsibilities of neither. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m out with friends at a garden party I said “for now” I can’t keep responding right now it’s rude to the people I’m with, but I had to jump in with today’s replies when I’m being called a liar and inaccurate statements are being made. I’m happy to reply again tomorrow or next week. As stated above, it’s not my project it’s Daniel Plumber, you need to address with him regarding making it an official project. He already stated Wikipedia is not allowing new projects at this time hence he started it in sandbox. Please chat with him. Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comments above, I would also support further investigation in the organization of the project, although I make no comment about the sockpuppetry claims. The project appears to only "simulate a WikiProject" by staying in a user sandbox instead of being publicly available, while at the same time is already tagging pages and coordinating large-scale article creation. If it is to be an active WikiProject, it should be in project space and have all the responsibilities of one, including full transparency and visibility in WikiProject listings. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed. I think clarification is urgently required on one point. The project was originally set up to be run using off-wiki communication. Kellycrak88 claims never to have been involved in any off-wiki communication, however...

a) he also claims to have been sent a document off-wiki (presumably from a project member rather than a random member of the general public).

b) he also claims that he made the page moves on this own say-so and has no idea if the matter was discussed off-wiki. So, either he was under the impression that presumably quite extensive discussion was taking place off-wiki, which he was not party to despite apparently being the most active member of the project, or he made significant project decisions without feeling the need to discuss with other project members. Are either of these scenarios plausible?

c) he also claims that the project intends to produce 300-400 articles and that most of those articles won't be created by him. That being the case, is it really feasible that he arrived at such an ambitious figure without discussion with other project members?

So, has there been off-wiki communication or not? And if not then how has the project been co-ordinated apart from the very meagre (and, by the looks of things, constructed) discussions on the talkpage, which only date from 19th August onwards? Also, if there has been no off-wiki communication, then how are we to interpret the events that have led to plausible accusations of sock puppetry / meat puppetry? Finally, are we really to believe that the two most active members of this project (Kellycrak88 & Daniel Plumber) have never been in any form of significant communication? Axad12 (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting talk page discussion here [34] between Kelly, D Plumber and apparently the holder of a title. Kellycrak88 directly states to the title holder I suggest we create a dedicated Earl of Wigtoun page (including the subsidiary Cumbernauld) which is separate from the peerage page. We need history of the title (probably already provided to you by BH), list of holders, family details, armorials etc. Lots of credible reference links will be needed for it to be approved by other editors. Feel free to email me, my email is on my page. Also, later Can you please send me history PDF for the barony you received from BH and I'll get started on the dedicated pages. Looks like blatant COI to me to be having a direct discussion with an individual about setting up a page for them.

Also, Kellycrak88 states I can no longer edit the peerage page as there are other editors that are against baronage titles claiming that holders are not notable and should not be on wikipedia, including some administrators, that refer to these titles as fakes and not real, etc. It is not good idea to edit peerage pages at all in my opinion. Dedicated baronage pages are needed. This presumably clarifies the purpose of setting up the new pages, to avoid scrutiny at existing pages. Similarly editing peerage pages is a receipt for disaster. Dedicated baronage pages needed with lots of credible references.

Not sure what this quote is supposed to mean: Just personal opinion - most articles died out early through the AfC (Articles for Creation) submission process, and a direct creation would likely be "raided" by Fram. I recall that somehow David Willien (IP address) was able to retain most of the information on the Earl of Erroll article - not sure though, haven't checked lately.

Two weeks earlier the holder of the title at the top of this post had been the subject of a discussion here [35] between Kelly, Plumber and Fram where it was decided that the holder should not be included in the currently existing article. See also, canvassing email from Plumber to Kelly to attend that discussion here [36], quote: I'm not good at arguing, so I'm here to ask you if you could do the job?.

Hopefully the notes above adequately clarify what is going on in this project. Axad12 (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Off-wiki evidence suggests that the named IP address user mentioned directly above appears to be another title holder. Axad12 (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S.: Off-wiki evidence suggests that the 'BH' (also referred to as 'Brian') in the talk thread may also be linked to Scottish barony matters. Axad12 (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is best for the off-wiki evidence (and conclusions drawn from it) to be emailed to ArbCom, rather than exposed here. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I don't think there is really any need for the off-wiki evidence. The talk page evidence above is surely sufficient to demonstrate the project's activities. What was going on in the off-wiki discussions, and why they felt it necessary to initially conduct communications off-wiki and exclude outsiders seems perfectly apparent, i.e. at a minimum, COI activity, attempts to circumvent standard scrutiny and procedures, and canvassing.

And that list excludes the various issues first raised by Fram, DrKay, etc. Axad12 (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, either way there's definitely a level of COI editing and canvassing. Creating new pages for the purpose of avoiding scrutiny at existing ones is also certainly problematic, especially if other users explicitly doubted the notability of these subjects. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to think that the issues here are rather beyond those that would be dealt with by the user voluntarily not installing new articles into mainspace. It would be far better if either (a) both Kelly and Plumber were given topic bans, or (b) if the project was disbanded and all future barony related activity had to be done under the auspices of an already established project where behavioural norms could be expected to be adhered to and other users within that project could oversee what was going on. E.g. no creation of new articles to avoid scrutiny at existing ones that fall under a different project. Axad12 (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is already the established Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage which has the whole United Kingdom and Ireland in scope, and already has detailed guidelines and objectives. The currently discussed project appears to duplicate part of it, and it could be good to consider a merge into WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage, possibly by making it a task force. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds logical. I wonder what would be required to shut down the current (unofficial?) project and merge it into that established project? We really can't have a situation where editors are permitted to set up a new project (and new articles) to avoid the scrutiny of the members of an existing project. That sort of endeavour needs to be stopped and dismantled. Axad12 (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does this now mean you’re finally conceding I’m not involved with multiple accounts??

Again, I reiterate: I’m not involved in any real-time private chats on WhatsApp or otherwise regarding Wikipedia.

Full transparency and I believe I explained this many times, I have received emails and direct messages. Did you know it’s possible to direct message any user on Wikipedia? Yes, random users do message or email me documents, including the SBR register or a barony PDF written by a professional historian or letters patent proof of barony owner etc. If that is a crime to receive mail then I must apologise but reading up on polices it doesn’t seem so! Btw Wikipedia:External_discussion Off site is not banned! Also fully transparency I do remember having 2 hour phone call because someone sent me their number and it was very pleasurable chat—and no I did not create a page for them! The phone call was with the Marquis of Huntly. I recall he was concerned about his privacy along with educating me on the subject.

When I first noticed Plumber’s edits, he was adding baronage titles to peerage pages, and I specifically said that wasn’t a good idea because it would cause issues for multiple reasons. I said dedicated baronage pages are needed. My intention was not to avoid scrutiny, as you’re suggesting. In fact, a new page gets reviewed several times even when posted to mainspace—far more scrutiny than a simple edit. (Baronage titles differ from peerage titles and it's a matter of record that people get confused when the same title is added on the same WP page).

I have never suggested excluding outsiders—and Plumber wasn’t implying that either.

And YES! I made the page moves without off-wiki discussions, and my recent batch of pages was entirely on my initiative. I know you find that hard to believe but it’s true!

There are some 400 baronage titles. That’s why I mentioned the figure 300-400 pages, and again, I didn’t discuss that figure with others.

It seems we’ve reached an impasse in this discussion. While I understand that you may have concerns, I protest against the assumptions being made about my character and intentions. I’ve tried to address each point in good faith, but I’m increasingly sensing that this is turning into an unproductive exchange.

I don’t care anymore, some users here have the sole obvious intention of creating speculative accusations and conspiracy theories to destroy my character, silence my account and suppress a genuine Wikipedia project. Kellycrak88 (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does this now mean you’re finally conceding I’m not involved with multiple accounts?? I don't remember ever claiming you had multiple accounts? My only concerns were about the organization of the WikiProject and possible off-wiki coordination.

If that is a crime to receive mail then I must apologise but reading up on polices it doesn’t seem so! Btw Wikipedia:External_discussion Off site is not banned! What you are linking is an essay, not a policy, but it does state:

As a note of caution, using external forums to make decisions about Wikipedia content is frowned upon (see the guidance Consensus-building pitfalls and errors). This is particularly true if discussion fails to take place on the wiki as well, to allow people to participate equally even if they were unaware of the off-wiki discussion.

I don’t care anymore, some users here have the sole obvious intention of creating speculative accusations and conspiracy theories to destroy my character, silence my account and suppress a genuine Wikipedia project. People are not here to get you or silence you or your project, only to have more clarity about something that appears to have been partly organized off-wiki. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your sentiments but In @Axad12’s response above they’re suggesting to you — that Kelly and Plumber are topic banned, and the project be disbanded. Kellycrak88 (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not “despite the advice given above”—I must protest! You’re referring to the very first article I published when I initially registered my account, about an Irish historic Georgian house. Of course, knowing what I know now, I can improve the article so that it meets standards and withstands scrutiny. I will also review all my work to ensure it adheres to Wikipedia’s guidelines. You forget that I’m a new user learning the ropes, and it’s concerning that you seem to share an agenda to suppress my account and prevent the publishing of articles on a subject matter that others in the community find valuable. That myself and many others contribute to.

If this motion is opposed, the end result will be that I will become the most policy- and guideline-adhering Wikipedian. I am now fully aware of the procedures, have the guidance of a mentor, and realise I’m under scrutiny and on a last chance to get things 100% correct before contributing further to Wikipedia. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I said was that you created an article which was primarily constructed from material lifted from elsewhere, and since then "Despite the advice [on COPYVIO] given above" you've "made no attempt to resolve [the issue on that article] despite [your] various commitments above to learn, improve, address concerns, etc. etc. etc."

I'm not sure what there is to protest about. What I said was manifestly true. Any suggestion to the contrary is a blatant lie.

As for your ridiculous claims that I "share an agenda to suppress [your] account", when will you stop making such nonsensical groundless accusations against editors who raise perfectly valid concerns? Axad12 (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was my very first article, you’re not acknowledging that fact and or the fact that since then my commitment to becoming a more competent editor. I welcome constructive feedback, but it feels like you’re not considering the progress I’ve made and the steps I’m taking. It’s important to give new editors the opportunity to learn and grow rather than simply dismissing them based on initial mistakes. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of repeating myself, I said that since you were told about COPYVIO you have done nothing to remove the extensive COPYVIO from that article. It doesn't matter whether it was your first article or your most recent article - either way you did nothing to resolve the issue.

This isn't about 'initial mistakes', it's something you didn't do in the last week.

I'm really not sure why you're continuing to argue this point. I suppose it's either WP:CIR or WP:IDHT. Axad12 (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve removed the copyvio and requested rev-del. We shouldn’t let known copyright violations persist. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There's obviously plenty of room for improvement as Kellycrak88 themself owns to, but that's an improvement already, so with a bit more due care and attention I think preventative sanctions can be avoided—and retaining a potentially useful editor is always a better result than throwing one out, unless absolutely unavoidable. SerialNumber54129 13:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, off-wiki coordination of an aspiring wiki project is the kind of thing that normally warrants an indef, but I think this gives the user the benefit of at least a bit of doubt. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s incredibly unfair how I’ve been treated throughout this process. I have zero conflict of interest, yet here I’ve been called a liar, accused of being a meat puppet, accused of operating multiple accounts, accused of masterminding off-wiki private chat channels and now facing claims of commercial incentives—all completely UNTRUE and without any proof! People here are going down rabbit holes of speculation concocting conspiracy wonderlands. I am 100% neutral with no connection to any page I’ve contributed to besides my willingness to contribute to subject matters which I'm knowledgeable about and enjoy. Trust is a two-way street, and at this stage, I feel very let down by the community. Given the way things have unfolded, I’m left questioning why I should continue participating in a community that seems to have disregarded that basic principle. Kellycrak88 (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You now say (above) that your intention was not to avoid scrutiny, as [I’m] suggesting, but you’ve already stated elsewhere [37] that you can no longer edit the peerage page as there are other editors that are against baronage titles claiming that holders are not notable and should not be on Wikipedia […] It is not a good idea to edit peerage pages at all in my opinion. Dedicated baronage pages are needed. So, your intention to avoid scrutiny was clear.

Creating a new page for a different group of people to scrutinise, rather than the group of people who you already know disagree with you, is still trying to avoid scrutiny. If, as you say, your intention is to learn and improve, why not just take the issue on board and stop trying to create new articles to avoid scrutiny at existing pages?

Also, you’re now saying (again above) that you did participate in off-wiki conversations and that that is allowed. But only a few days ago you were protesting, and not for the first time, I’m not part of any off-wiki conversations.

And you still claim to have zero conflict of interest even though the relevant talkpage conversation (link above) makes the COI quite clear.

So, the concept that you’ve been less than truthful is easily demonstrable, and sadly that makes it difficult to take some of your other comments at face value. This has a bearing on your claims to be learning and improving. Rather than accepting the legitimate policy issues that have been raised throughout this thread you routinely deny having done or said things that you can be shown to have done or said, and then you deny that you've done anything wrong and claim that all suggestions to the contrary are personally motivated conspiracy wonderlands. Unfortunately that is the opposite of learning and improving.

Also, most of the suggestions that you have listed above as all completely UNTRUE were clearly made about the project as a whole and not about you personally. However, the fact that you so readily conflate the two does little to remove the concerns. Axad12 (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve already addressed these points yesterday in the thread above, but now you’re rehashing them here. I’ve notice from your previous replies, you stick to your accusations without backing down when provided with facts, often warping things out of context. For instance, you didn’t acknowledge that the Irish Georgian house article you accused me of copyvio was my very first article (published 7 months ago). Then you shifted to arguing that I didn’t fix the article in the past week, despite me clearly stating in my closing statement that I’m stepping away for a bit.

Once again, creating new articles does not avoid scrutiny—mainspace articles undergo far more reviews than a simple edit to an existing page. If anyone wanted to avoid scrutiny, it would make more sense to make small edits to existing pages. However, I had multiple reasons for not editing peerage pages and for advising Plumber to stop. It causes confusion for users and make no logical sense, which could lead to confrontations with other editors. For example, Earl of Wigtown (peerage title) and Earl of Wigtoun (baronage title) are different.

I’ve now repeated 3-4 times in this thread that I’ve had no personal involvement in off-wiki conversations through private chat channels like WhatsApp or otherwise, as was proposed in Plumber's project sandbox talk page, which he deleted a few days later (possibly just testing). I’ve consistently clarified this. My involvement has been limited to responding to unsolicited emails or direct messages, which I’ve explained multiple times and doesn't break any rules. I have not participated in orchestrated off-wiki discussions or planning, and I stand by that.

I also maintain that I have zero conflict of interest. My involvement is purely as a contributor who enjoys learning and sharing information. I am neither personally nor professionally connected to baronage titles or the individuals involved (some barons have reached out to me, as you noted on the Talk page you linked to, with their letters patent and barony history, etc, but I have not found policies against this).

Despite this, you’re still accusing me of lying, and now suggesting that Kelly and Plumber be topic banned and the project disbanded(link). If that’s not disproportionate, I don’t know what is. It’s clear that the intention, formed from conspiracy theories, is to attack my character, silence my account, and suppress a legitimate Wikipedia project.

As I’ve already mentioned, it seems we’ve reached an impasse. I have made every effort to address these points in good faith and I respectfully ask for a clearer path forward rather than revisiting the same accusations repeatedly. Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my delayed response, I’ve been attending a garden party with His Grace the Lord Kitchener.

The only sense in which we’ve reached an impasse is that you stubbornly refuse to take advice on board.

If you continue to conspire to find ways to avoid proper scrutiny, and if you continue to conduct on and off wiki discussions with potential article subjects (thus creating conflict of interest), then inevitably it will be spotted by someone and you’ll end up back at ANI in the future. At that point you’ll receive far less latitude that you’ve experienced thus far.

The reason I’ve been trying to get you to recognise those issues was simply to help you to avoid that outcome and to encourage you to abide by community standards. I see that you can’t be talked around, but that is your problem rather than mine. Axad12 (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not stubbornly refusing to take advice on board, or avoid scrutiny—I am engaging with the feedback provided and improving where possible. If this motion is supported and my account is restricted, then you will have achieved your goal, and I won’t be returning. However, I still believe there’s a more constructive way forward than this approach. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was surprised to see a thread of more than 93,000 characters about an editor who needs improvement. I have admittedly not read the wall of text in detail but I have the broad strokes. In sympathy with Kellycrak88 because it is difficult to be the subject of negative discussion. I think Kellycrak88 should take the draft suggestion seriously. Lightburst (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Lightburst for your input and understanding. I agree with you, and as said above I am willing to accept the proposal from my mentor @Asilvering, that if I am not restricted, I will voluntarily start new articles in draftspace for their review. This will allow me to work under guidance and ensure I meet necessary standards. Alternatively, restricting my account or topic banning me (as discussed above) does not constructively serve Wikipedia users or send the right message, especially with opposing agendas already shown to be at play. I've already noticed that many editors, some newer than me, who previously voiced opinions of support on this subject have fallen silent, likely due to fears of continued accusations of meat puppetry etc (unfounded). Most people here do of course act in good-faith and I am hopefully that the wider Wikipedia community will not tolerate bias. Kellycrak88 (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@14.192.210.103 claimed that @Symphony Regalia was blocked on the Japanese wiki and other types of misbehaviour. The latter denies this. Talk:Samurai#c-14.192.210.103-20240902031700-Tinynanorobots-20240831145800

Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Symphony Regalia is indeed blocked on the Japanese Wikipedia; see ja:Wikipedia:投稿ブロック依頼/Symphony_Regaliaほか and jawiki block log. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 15:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, I was indeed blocked before. The false allegations are the misbehavior that said IP sock is implying/alleging, which are not true. Some details below[38]. Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is weird, given Dudhhr’s findings, but The Global Block Log and the Global Block List aren’t finding a thing for this username.

I’m curious as to what difference it makes? Different wikis, different rules. You can be blocked on one, but fine on another. If Symphony was that bad, an SRG would have been put in at Meta, for locks, when JAwiki put the block on.

Might I ask, Tiny, I can’t help but notice this and wanted to be sure it’s not at all related? You know, save anyone else from casting aspersions by assuming that there’s a connection. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 15:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The global block log and global block list are about global blocks. Misleading as the global block log description might read, the words blocked and unblocked still lead to the global blocking page on meta. – 2804:F1...10:1F3D (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The penny’s just dropped. That part of Meta is about blocks implemented to affect all Wikis, not a list of where local blocks have been applied. Alrighty, well, I’ve learned something here today.

Is Symphony a problem here, though? I stand by pointing out that JAWiki would have gone to SBG for locks, and Global Block would have an entry, if Symphony was that bad. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 06:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC) Nevermind, just read what was linked below, about Proxies, and the previous ANI report. Proven guilty. If a block goes ahead here, maybe we should pop to SBG, as it’s now cross-wiki. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 06:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I am slightly busy IRL, but these are indeed false allegations. I've provided some context below. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some, indeed. Let me give you a little advice, Symph: These coincidences are really lining up today. If you’re sure / convinced someone’s socking, SPI it. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 07:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sensing there is subtext, but I lack the contextual knowledge to read between the lines. Symphony Regalia is difficult to work with, but no one should face false accusations. I also think it is unhealthy for the community for such things to be unaddressed. My original plan was just to report it and let the admins figure out how to handle it. Now it seems that SR is accusing me of being in some sort of conspiracy, and I feel the need to address that. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it appears it is not a false accusation according to this report. Of course Symphony Regalia can clear this up by chiming in here. I'm guessing it is the same person, since they are also a frequent contributor to the English Yasuke talk page. And what about this IP, how would they know any of this background unless they too were editing in that same related area. It would be nice to hear from them as well, with whatever IP they are currently using. Since it seems like this IP has some experience editing WP, they should also be firmly reminded to comment on the content, not the contributor. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For disclosure, I was also the IP who blew the whistle on this previous incident, and no, I have no prior experience dealing with Wikipedia. I blew the whistle due to the fact that the JP wiki ended up being in the crossfire roughly a month after SR's initial edits on the EN side and it doesn't help that SR was denying allegations (socks and harassment) that were levied by JP users, which ultimately was true from the results of the report and the fact that SR didn't bother to defend themselves, further adds to this scrutiny. Furthermore, when called out for their misconduct, they do not attempt at addressing said misconduct, but would rather concoct unfounded allegations on their accusers, like so.

I'd like to know why SR is adamant in pushing their POV whereby it spills over to the JP side of things, to the point where socks are involved. At the same time, I do not think this user should be editing, especially with the events and misconduct leading up to the aforementioned site block on the JP side, as well as their past misconducts. 14.192.208.205 (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear the Japanese check user found something odd, but no definitive proof of sockpuppetry. An admin with the appropriate authority might want to look at their results. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there was a couple of admins involved over there at ja.wikipedia.org in that whole debacle, and it appears there was consensus to block all those accounts, not sure what we can do about it. The initial complaint here was about a possible false accusation, and it doesn't appear to be false. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the accusations of sock puppetry, here [39], one of the accused socks copies the message another user wrote [40] and makes it about them. Here on EN Wikipedia, SR does the same thing [41] [42]. Just wanted to note the behavioral similarities for whatever admin might investigate the sockpuppetry situation. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 08:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As noted below, Brocade River Poems is a directly involved editor. Symphony Regalia (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stating for the record that the accusations are also not false re: the statement that the user was blocked twice on the EN Wikipedia side of things. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive269#Symphony_Regalia. The user in question is subject to ArbCom Enforcement banning them from an entire topic, and was previously blocked for edit warring Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive404#User:Symphony_Regalia_reported_by_User:Dekimasu_(Result:_Blocked_31_hours) Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For everyone's context, Brocade River Poems is a directly involved editor[43]. The allegations are indeed false as I've explained in other comments. Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Directly involved" with what? I have no participation in the Japanese Wikipedia and I have no involvement with the 3PO that you and Tiny are looking into. My creating an RfC on Yasuke has nothing to do with this save for the fact that you were banned from editing the Japanese Wikipedia because of your behavior regarding Yasuke. Per WP:INVOLVED, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved, I am not an administrator, for starters, nor am I actively involved in this particular dispute between You, Tiny, and the IP. You are saying the allegations are indeed false but the statements that you have been blocked on the Japanese Wikipedia and have been blocked before on the English Wikipedia are demonstrably true. I fail to see how this has anything to do with what I posted. Being on the opposite side of an RfC from you doesn't negate my ability to provide easily verifiable evidence in regard to whether or not the accusation that you've been blocked is true. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are a directly involved editor in that you've attempted to overturn a RfC[44], on a topic where you and Tinynanorobots (and perhaps not coincidentally the sock IPs here) have all taken the same side dozens of times [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52][53] [54] [55], one that has been obviously opposed by me in that I gave a lengthy dissent[56]. The POV you and Tinynanorobots seem to push is that it should be represented as "debated" whether Yasuke was a samurai or not, and that CNN and other sources such as Time, BBC, and The Smithsonian are not reliable.

I am actually quite surprised you found this ANI thread by Tinynanorobots even before I did, considering no one notified you. You've even supported Tinynanorobots in his RSN thread to argue that CNN is not reliable[57], because it happens to contradict the POV you two share.

In fact you've even canvassed Tinynanorobots to edit the Samurai article[58], so a bit strange for you to say you're not involved in the 3PO.

It's quite clear that your participation here is because you think it will be helpful to you in any future content disputes. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact you've even canvassed Tinynanorobots to edit the Samurai article[151], so a bit strange for you to say you're not involved in the 3PO.

He posted a quote from a source on a different talk page and I told him it seemed helpful for Samurai. A comment I made which precedes your disagreement by a month. One of the difs you linked is me answering a question about citing articles, one dif is me explaining why I made an RfC, One dif is me commenting that one source is more useful than a trivial mention about wrestlers. So on and so forth. I fail to see how Tiny and Gitz arguing about sources has anything to do with me. Again, me being on the opposite side of an RfC as you does not negate the easily verifiable evidence that you have been blocked multiple times on the Japanese and English Wikipedia. Ergo, the accusations are not false. As for the claim You've even supported Tinynanorobots in his RSN thread to argue that CNN is not reliable, no? I suggested an RfC might be necessary to determine whether Thomas Lockley's book is a reliable source because the previous time it was brought to the RSN there is no clear answer to the question. I didn't mention CNN once. In fact, some other editor involved in the discussion suggested replacing the CNN Article with a citation from Lockley's book and my post is quite literally me explaining that local consensus seems to be against using Lockley's book. Oh yeah, real hard argument against CNN there. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how you attempt to justify it, it is abundantly clear that:

1. You are a directly involved editor.

2. You and the submitter Tinynanorobots have taken the same side dozens of times (shared by the sock IPs I mentioned below), and frequently push the same POV, which has been opposed to me.

3. You are here because I dissented in your attempt to overturn a RfC[59]. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I once again ask "involved in what?" Do you continue to fail to understand that WP:INVOLVED refers to closers and admins, not for posting evidence?
• It's almost like people develop consensus and engage on the Wiki Talk Page for the purpose of building a consensus that involves compromising rather than just randomly misciting policies. Secondly, Tinynanorobots is reporting the IP Poster for making false accusations against you and I am providing evidence that shows they are not false. That fundamentally makes us on opposing sides here.
• I am here because I saw the post of the accusations while reading Talk:Samurai and saw that Tiny said he was going to report it and I know for a fact you are under ArbCom sanctions and you have been blocked on both the Japanese and English Wikipedias. I frankly couldn't care less that you dissented on my RfC. You are a singular editor with a questionable history. Your accusation that I am here because it will be helpful to you in any future content disputes is a funny accusation. What future content disputes? I have no intention of engaging with you on anything relating to Yasuke or any other content going forward because it isn't worth the time and the energy, so unless you're going to be following me around Wikipedia wherever I go, I don't particularly see what possible content disputes we're going to get into.

I want to say for the record it's hilarious that you're all but accusing me of being involved in some grand conspiracy to push some POV about Yasuke against you, when not even a whole month ago I was accused of being involved in a conspiracy with you to push some POV, to the point that my page was vandalized.

The fact that both sides of this absurd Yasuke dispute apparently think I am working against them humors me so. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I want to add for the record that suggesting a reliable source that is published by an academic press would be helpful in improving an article that currently has a tag for This article needs additional citations for verification is a far cry from WP:CANVASSING. My participation in Talk:Samurai prior to that point involved two posts providing sources Special:Diff/1237546021 Special:Diff/1237534244. I informed Tiny that the source would be more useful at Samurai because the source was about samurai in general and did not involve Yasuke, and I knew that Samurai was looking for more sources. I find this accusation to be offensive, especially when you consider Tiny had already been involved in that discussion on Samurai before I even participated in it. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I admit, I was mad at this, until I start reading your evidence. I only read the first few, then I laughed. Those involve us disagreeing civilly or only partially. In one case, BRP answers my question. Also, do you not realize that I have agreed with you? I actually opposed the RfC, I just didn’t want it to create a new consensus that was stricter than it should be.

The canvassing accusation is too weak to brother defending against. In fact, I think the best evidence against you, is that you think your evidence is evidence. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a false allegation. This IP user (@14.192.210.103, @14.192.208.205, @14.192.213.32) is a sock and an involved editor using proxies to spread false information.

• 14.192.210.103 (talk · contribs · count)
  • High-risk proxy/VPN IP with a fraud score of 89/100.
  • Blacklisted in the Mail SPAM Block List database
• 14.192.208.205 (talk · contribs · count)
  • High-risk proxy/VPN IP with a fraud score of 90/100
  • Also blacklisted in the Mail SPAM Block List database
• 14.192.213.32 (talk · contribs · count)
  • High-risk proxy/VPN IP with a fraud score of 89/100
  • Blacklisted for mail spam the same as the above

Concerning Japanese Wikipedia I was indeed blocked, but it is was for political reasons and nothing that the IP user is claiming. A CheckUser was performed and the sock puppet allegations were not substantiated because they aren't true. I was blocked based on a comment request[60] where only 3 people gave input, but I believe that to be for reasons of offending Japanese sensibilities. On Japanese Wikipedia I have had a target on my back for a while for attempting to bring the Nanking Massacre article in line with the English counterpart (on Japanese Wikipedia the Nanking Massacre is named The Nanking Incident and many of the genocide allegations are scrubbed from the article).

None of this is relevant as I haven't edited on Japanese Wikipedia in a while. Symphony Regalia (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here, now I am involved directly in this dispute.

Regarding your statement I have had a target on my back for a while for attempting to bring the Nanking Massacre article in line with the English counterpart

• You were warned for arbitrarily changing the article title. [61]
• You were warned to stop vandalizing the article twice. [62] [63]
• You were warned to stop editing other user's comments. [64]

The user who initially posted about your arbitrary renaming wrote 記事名を変更する場合には必ず前もって「Wikipedia:ページの改名」に基づき改名の提案を行った上で合意を得るなどの手順を遵守してください telling you not to arbitrarily rename an article and to go through the proper renaming proposal procedure, to which you apparently tried to brute force the change. Moreover, the article contains a footnote that explains that there is a problem with the terminology massacre because it belittles all the rape, arson, and other crimes that happened. You repeatedly [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] edit warred even after being told you couldn't rename the article arbitrarily and that it required a proposal to do so. Likewise, evidence shows you did not even engage in talk page discussion about the subject [70].

You were blocked for one week on the Japanese Wiki [71] for forcing the name change here.

You were blocked for one week on the Japanese Wiki for removing other user's comments and falsely warning them on their talkpages in retaliation here [72], and regardless of the sockpuppet accusation which did not definitively close one way or the other, you were indefinitely blocked with a citation being that you were highly likely to be a sock puppet, but that also you had engaged in other conduct explained in an RfC [73] here. They say that they moved to have you banned based on the RfC and the CheckUser saying there was abnormal connectivity between the various alleged socks even though the CU could not definitively say they were the same person. The Request to Block you and those other accounts noted that you were blocked because even if you weren't a sock puppet, you were a user who drained the community by your conduct [74]. You were subject to a Request for Block process on the Japanese Wiki, and the statement that only three editors commented is pretty irrelevant when, from my reading, the RfB is a limited process whereby only experienced editors can vote and that the voting carries on until an Admin decides to close it. The rationale of the Admin who closed it was as follows (translated) (Action) All accounts subject to the request are blocked indefinitely. Some of the respondents have claimed that “guilty until proven innocent” is not correct, yet none of them have made any mention of the unnatural connectivity shown in the CU request, despite the fact that there are several votes citing it as a reason,(putting aside the validity of comparing the block to guilt or innocence in the first place), we have to conclude that they lack the will to prove their “innocence” in good faith. Thus, we have concluded that the comments made by the subject of the request are not convincing enough to overturn the vote.

Basically you were indefinitely blocked, along with all other suspected accounts, because you(all) failed to offer any defense or explanation regarding the irregular connectivity despite it being cited multiple times as the reason for wanting to block you. Because of this, the admin concluded that you were incapable or unwilling to prove your innocence in good faith and thus you were blocked. In fact, you provided no comment at all in your defense while three of the alleged socks simply said it wasn't fair without actually saying anything to disprove the charges. The vote ran from August 24th to August 31st with all 4 participants agreeing that the accounts should be blocked, with the admin closing the request on the 31st that there was not sufficient defense to overturn the vote.

In short, the community found you to be disruptive and blocked you.

Of the accusations levied upon you, the most incorrect is that you've only had a total of 5 blocks, you've had six. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And so... What's the exact issue here on enwiki that has to be resolved? – robertsky (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beats me. Tinynanorobots reported an IP User saying the IP accusations were false. Symphony Regalia contends the accusations are not false and gave the above explanation, most of which was simply not true, so I posted the evidence. If there's an issue to be resolved here, it's not one that I'm bringing up. Just because it's true that Symphony has been blocked before doesn't mean they've done anything warranting sanctions on EN Wikipedia as far as I am aware. I don't think lying about the circumstances of their ban on the Japanese Wiki is against any particular guideline, and if it is, I'm unaware of it. The issue is that they're saying the IP Editor is making false accusation, which isn't true, because the evidence supports the IP editor's accusations. That said, the fact that the IP Editor is apparently highly likely to be a proxy is probably worth some sort of investigation. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, it is the alleged misbehavior and implications being spread by the IP sock that are false. They are also not supported by the evidence.

If this person were being honest there would be no reason to use IP proxies. It is certainly someone trying to win a content dispute. Symphony Regalia (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here, now I am involved directly in this dispute.

You are indeed a directly involved editor and judging by the responses here, it is quite likely that these sock IPs (@14.192.210.103, @14.192.208.205, @14.192.213.32) belong to you.

• Why do you use a very similar writing style to the sock IPs? [75] [76]
• Why are you bludgeoning and using the same arguments as the sock IPs?[77] (including the linking of the same obscure diffs from years ago)
• Despite being a new user why are you intimately familiar with how Japanese Wikipedia works, like the sock IPs?
• How did you find this thread so quickly right after I dissented in your attempt to overturn an RfC[78], despite you receiving no notification of it?

You were warned for arbitrarily changing the article title. You were warned to stop vandalizing the article twice. You were warned to stop editing other user's comments.

No, I did not do those things. On Japanese Wikipedia warnings are frequently weaponized and abused by editors in content disputes, because Japanese Wikipedia has a provision that warnings cannot be removed from talk pages for any reason.

What I did was attempt to get the article renamed from Nanking Incident to Nanking Massacre, to bring it in line with the rest of the world. And I stand by that. Wikipedia should reflect reliable sources.

Touching the Nanking Massacre, by and large, was not received kindly. Many JA Wikipedia editors take it very personally. Something different between English Wikipedia and Japanese Wikipedia is that, unlike English Wikipedia which is significantly more demographically diverse spanning a large number of countries and a broader age range, editors on Japanese Wikipedia are overwhemingly of one demographic, in one timezone, and of one age group.

This leads to a situation where there is effectively dogma, and unsaid things you not allowed to do there.

Moreover, the article contains a footnote that explains that there is a problem with the terminology massacre because it belittles all the rape, arson, and other crimes that happened.

Indeed, and it is a very bizarre form of "victim blaming"-style mental gymnastics. I have no interest in yet another content dispute with you that you refuse to drop the stick on.

The Request to Block you and those other accounts noted that you were blocked because even if you weren't a sock puppet, you were a user who drained the community because by your conduct

This is categorically untrue as I was never a frequent editor on Japanese Wikipedia.

You were subject to a Request for Block process on the Japanese Wiki, and the statement that only three editors commented is pretty irrelevant when

It is indeed very relevant. Only three comments total is extremely weak form of consensus, particularly with how common canvassing is.

from my reading, the RfB is a limited process whereby only experienced editors can vote and that the voting carries on until an Admin decides to close it

This is false. The requirement to vote in a "block RfC" is overall very weak, essentially not much more than being auto-confirmed 依頼時点で編集50回以上、活動期間1か月以上の2点を満たしている、被依頼者でないログイン利用者 (50 edits and registered longer than a month). Not only that, but the requirements to just "comment" are effectively nothing, and those effectively serve as votes.

English Wikipedia outright abolished the use of RfCs for blocks.

we have to conclude that they lack the will to prove their “innocence” in good faith. Thus, we have concluded that the comments made by the subject of the request are not convincing enough to overturn the vote.

As mentioned by other editor, "guilty until proven innocent" is an absurd violation of fundamental Wikipedia policy. I cannot disprove something that doesn't apply to me to begin with.

It is a form of Devil's Proof. ("Probatio diabolica is a legal requirement to achieve an impossible proof. Where a legal system would appear to require an impossible proof, the remedies are reversing the burden of proof, or giving additional rights to the individual facing the probatio diabolica.")

Basically you were indefinitely blocked, along with all other suspected accounts, because you(all) failed to offer any defense or explanation

Multiple explanations were offered. Given that I hadn't even edited Japanese wikipedia in a while, I had no interest in participating in what was clearly a political ban. Blocks are also not supposed to be WP:PUNITIVE. Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, new conspiracy theories about my identity!

Why do you use a very similar writing style to the sock IPs? [168] [169]

Probably because it is an incredibly formal style of writing and I'm not inclined to write super informally on Wikipedia? Is the crime which you are accusing me of having a vocabulary or something? If you want to send me up to CheckUser, go for it. I have nothing to hide. I have disclosed that I once shared an IP Address with another user, and that I was once an IP Editor.

Why are you bludgeoning and using the same arguments as the sock IPs?[170] (including the linking of the same obscure diffs from years ago)

Bludgeoning what? Why do you routinely cite policies and guidelines that aren't even applicable to what you're talking about. WP:BLUDGEON In Wikipedia terms, bludgeoning is where someone attempts to force their point of view through a very high number of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. What viewpoint? What high number of comments? I have responded to your comments and made an additional comment saying that it is offensive to accuse me of WP:CANVASSING for suggesting that someone's reliable source would be better served in an article that is actually related to the source. Beyond that, I gave evidence that you were blocked on the EN Wiki before, and you decided to go on a whole spiel about how I'm WP:INVOLVED which, again, doesn't really seem to apply here??? You said I was involved, so I got involved and posted a response to your statement that you were essentially a victim of political persecution, and now that I have done so, you're calling the evidence "obscure diffs from years ago". The crux of your defense is that you're discriminated against because the Japanese editors want to whitewash genocide, when you were sanctioned for disruptive editing and trying to bruteforce the change you wanted. As for the same diffs, you do realize that anyone can go and check your edit history, right? That people don't have to just take it on face-value when you claim you're the victim of some grand persecution?? I cited the difs because they're relevant to why you were blocked on the Japanese Wikipedia.

Despite being a new user why are you intimately familiar with how Japanese Wikipedia works, like the sock IPs?

Because anyone with eyes who can read Japanese can go and read how the Request for Block process works? Links were provided to the RfC, the CheckUser Request, and the RfB. It might be shocking, I know, but I'm not going to just accept whatever people tell me without investigating it myself first. It isn't like this is some opaque occult practice. Everything is pretty transparent. That said, I didn't read the entire page, so I didn't know their idea of an experienced editor was 50 Edits and 1 month of account existence.

How did you find this thread so quickly right after I dissented in your attempt to overturn an RfC[171], despite you receiving no notification of it?

As I mentioned previously I saw the accusations on Talk:Samurai and I saw Tinynanorobot say he was going to post a complaint if they were false accusations. Again, I have eyes, that's how. Right after you dissented in my RfC? You dissented days ago. The diff you linked to is from the 5th, this is not right after you dissented. Just because you dissented days ago on an RfC doesn't make the evidence of you being blocked somehow irrelevant.

As to the rest of your comment, I'm not going to continue arguing beyond the point of noting that I cannot simultaneously be a nefarious expert of the Japanese Wikipedia while also being unaware of their policies. If the Japanese Wiki doesn't allow you to remove warnings, and your editing other user's comment warning is because of that, then mea culpa, but it's still against their policies. Just because you don't agree with their policies doesn't mean they cannot justifiably sanction you for violating them. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 03:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because it is an incredibly formal style of writing and I'm not inclined to write super informally on Wikipedia? Is the crime which you are accusing me of having a vocabulary or something?

Yes, but there's formal and then there's "you formal". You and the IP socks certainly have an oddly similar writing syle. [79][80]

WP:BLUDGEON In Wikipedia terms, bludgeoning is where someone attempts to force their point of view through a very high number of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own.

You've left more text on this page than anyone else despite it supposedly having nothing to do with you. Why is that? Pretty weird, huh? It's almost like you're directly involved not just because I recently dissented in your attempt to overturn a RfC[81], but also in other ways as well that are now coming to light.

you're calling the evidence "obscure diffs from years ago".

You used diffs[82] from 2018 (!) that were also used by the IP sock. Pretty strange coincidence if you ask me. You also cited the same diffs here[83] that the IP sock did in July[84] on a different IP in a thread that you weren't involved in.

Care to explain?

Because anyone with eyes who can read Japanese can go and read how the Request for Block process works?

You claim to be a new user with no experience with Japanese Wikipedia and yet the familiarity you are demonstrating with Japanese Wikipedia here isn't something one gets by simply ad-hoc checking one day. RfB doesn't even exist on English Wikipedia. On English Wikipedia, RfB is Requests for bureaucratship.

The IP sock itself attempted to claim in this very thread that they had no experience with Wikipedia (For disclosure, I was also the IP who blew the whistle on this previous incident, and no, I have no prior experience dealing with Wikipedia.) which is obviously false because there's no way they'd have such in-depth policy knowledge of Japanese (and English) Wikipedia, not to mention that they're on a blacklisted spammer IP.

This post in particular is familiar enough to your style of writing, word choice, and formatting (including your fondness for bold underlined text) to the extent that I'd have a pretty hard time believing anyone else wrote it.

Care to explain? Symphony Regalia (talk) 04:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there's formal and then there's "you formal". You and the IP socks certainly have an oddly similar writing syle. [173][174]

Either report me to SPI, or stop just making wild accusations. You'll find a lot of people in life bold and underline text. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 04:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I will dignify this one with a response because it demonstrates how continually absurd this is. You used diffs[176] from 2018 (!) that were also used by the IP sock. Pretty strange coincidence if you ask me. You also cited the same diffs here[177] that the IP sock did in July[178] on a different IP in a thread that you weren't involved in. Care to explain?

Yes, Symphony, why would I use a diff from 2018 that demonstrates what you were doing on 2018 while investigating your claim that you were blocked for political reasons, a block that happened in 2018? As for the second one, I was in that thread. [85]. As I have disclosed elsewhere, I was an IP Editor, and I made this account because I was tired of trying to relay sources through third parties. See, Special:Contributions/172.90.69.231. Either request an SPI investigation, or retract this slander. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 05:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of that precludes that the IP socks in question, which by strange coincidence write exactly like you, and have all of the same knowledge as you, and use the same diffs, are you[86].

Another interesting coincidence is that the day the IP sock reappeared again on a new IP again to post false information about me[87], was the day you started your RfC [88].

IP sock also noted: During the duration of both instances, this user made no attempt to defend or explain themselves[89]

Which is very similar to what you posted: because you(all) failed to offer any defense or explanation regarding the[90]

These coincidences are really lining up today. Symphony Regalia (talk) 05:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, here we go.

• Why are you bludgeoning and using the same arguments as the sock IPs?[117] (including the linking of the same obscure diffs from years ago) I linked every diff from the history of the Nanjing Massacre article on the Japanese Wikipedia that demonstrated your improper edits, which had been reverted for edit warring and demonstrated that you had tried to force the article rename. All of the diffs I used, I found by going through your edit history on the Japanese wiki as well as the history of your talkpage to demonstrate where you were warned and for what. Likewise, the subject of the alleged sock mimicking other users posts and turning it back on them was raised, which was something I had remembered seeing you had done on the EN Wikipedia back in July, so I made note of the similarities.
• How did I find the thread? I saw the accusation in Talk:Samurai when I replied to say that Daimyo were technically retainers.
• Why do I write similarly to the IP? I don't know? I write in a very formal manner most of the time. We don't even write all that similarly, when you get down to it. Yes, we both use bold and italics for emphasis sometimes, but I do not mass-link walls of text like the IP user does, it isn't friendly to those with visual impairments to do so. A majority of the time when I link something, I link a single word, or use [91] these funny little boxes. Per WP:SIM it is not uncommon for people to learn from the writing styles of others, or copy the techniques used by other editors often not known to the editor in question. Different users editing in a similar fashion may be reflective of what an editor learns simply from reading other articles.
• Why the same Difs? I linked every diff from the Nanjing Massacre article on the Japanese Wiki, that one of the diffs happened to be the same that the IP user used is sheer coincidence.
• Same Wording About Lack of Defending Themselves? Because the reason the admin gave in the close for the block is that the accused didn't bother to defend themselves.
• Why do I know about RfB I didn't until it was linked in the topic above, and once I went to the RfB page, I clicked the link at the top that took me to the main part that explained the rules for how RfB worked.
• Why do I intimately know the Japanese Wiki I don't. I just followed the links that were provided and examined the exchanges and the history myself.
• You've left more text on this page than anyone else despite it supposedly having nothing to do with you. Why is that? Pretty weird, huh? It's almost like I responded to your accusations that I was doing this, that, or the other thing and that resulted in more and more text from me. You're effectively baiting responses out of me and then using those responses as a 'Aha! Gotcha!'. Prior to you accusing me canvassing and calling me this, that, or the other thing my participation in this thread had been limited to posting links about your EN Wiki Blocks and also linking to the accused sock mimicking a message and you doing the same thing.
• You used diffs[122] from 2018 (!) that were also used by the IP sock. Pretty strange coincidence if you ask me. Once again, the block you received on the Japanese Wiki was in 2018, of course the diffs relating to the incident are also going to be from 2018. The dif in question is one with an attached message explaining that you were being reverted for trying to bruteforce the name change.
• on a different IP in a thread that you weren't involved in. Care to explain? Yes, as already noted, I was involved in that thread, had read that thread, and was aware that you had done the twisting the message around on someone else gimmick on the English Wikipedia.
• You claim to be a new user with no experience with Japanese Wikipedia and yet the familiarity you are demonstrating with Japanese Wikipedia here isn't something one gets by simply ad-hoc checking one day. RfB doesn't even exist on English Wikipedia. On English Wikipedia, RfB is Requests for bureaucratship.The IP sock itself attempted to claim in this very thread that they had no experience with Wikipedia As already explained, there was a link above posted to the RFB page. I have eyes, I can read Japanese to a reasonable degree. I clicked the link that took me from the RFB about you, to the RFB mainpage, and I briefly skimmed the top of the rules. I am in no way intimately familiar with Japanese wikipedia's policies or rules.
• This post is similar It really isn't, see above. I have never turned so many words into links, ever. Nor do I routinely properly link to the Japanese Wiki as they do "ja:弥助", The "similar word" choice that you are claiming seems to be very basic formal writing. I also generally don't make numbered lists, I tend to do bullet points. I also make frequent use of this thing and the IP editor doesn't ever seem to. See [92]
• None of that precludes that the IP socks in question, which by strange coincidence write exactly like you Except they don't except for the most superficial basis of "they bold and underline" and "they use formal writing". I generally don't @ people, I don't properly Ja:interwikilinkthing, I don't create mass walls of linked words, I use talkquote judiciously, I don't switch from "copypasted" to "copy-pasted" in the same paragraph, I never refer to people as "its". The IP Editor uses "copypasted", "copy-pasted", and "copy pasted" with no consistency. I do not believe I have ever typed netting you that x in any of my discussions in any context. The wording it would seems like you still have some lingering vendetta over being blocked is awkward, and while I do make spelling mistakes and typos from time to time, I do my best to go back and correct them when I notice them. "It would seems[sic] like you still have some lingering vendetta over being blocked" is a strange sentence construction to me, as a natural speaker and writer of English would prefer "It seems like you have a grudge over being blocked". Likewise, the IP Editor writes I find it very difficult that you would operate in good faith which is a malformed sentence. Moreover, despite your insistence that we write in the exact same style, you're forgetting one very important thing. I frequently use transition phrases due to my academic training. I consistently, and often, use phrases like "Moreover," "Likewise," "However," "Regardless," so on and so forth. When I actually examine my own writing and the IP Editor's writing, it becomes increasingly self-evident that our writing styles aren't really all that similar afterall.
• and have all of the same knowledge as you, and use the same diffs, Generally speaking, the evidence does not change from person to person whoever finds it. They also don't have all the same knowledge as me.
• Another interesting coincidence is that the day the IP sock reappeared again on a new IP again to post false information about me[127], was the day you started your RfC [128]. I didn't even know this existed, so. Not...really sure how I'm supposed to defend the existence of a post I didn't know existed.
• Which is very similar to what you posted: because you(all) failed to offer any defense or explanation regarding the... There really are only so many ways to word "the admin said you guys didn't bother defending yourselves", you know? The admin specifically said none of them have made any mention of the unnatural connectivity shown in the CU request, despite the fact that there are several votes citing it as a reason,(putting aside the validity of comparing the block to guilt or innocence in the first place), we have to conclude that they lack the will to prove their “innocence” in good faith, or paraphrased, "you(all) failed to offer any defense or explanation regarding the connectivity issue", which is the crux of why the blocks went through. Which by the by, if you can demonstrate the IP Editor using "crux" and "ipso facto", "vis-a-vis", and "by the by" frequently, I'd be really impressed.

Hopefully this addresses your concernes satisfactorily. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 14:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Involved comment. I was initially not going to participate in this discussion, dismissing it as a dumb complaint but in light of new evidence of behavioural problems from the japanese wiki, past behaviour and tendency to blame anyone but himself, including in this very section, even when uninvolved admins point out issues and sanction him, I think Symphony Regalia is definitely tipping toward chronic, intractable behaviour which requires admin intervention. I will be back with a formal complaint. Yvan Part (talk) 08:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Since Brocade River Poems beat you to propose a block, can you post anything to that subthread and not start yet another thread, or make a separate block proposal for the same editor. Nil Einne (talk) 09:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see the purpose for this main thread anymore. We've established that Symphony Regalia was blocked on the Japanese wikipedia which is probably all we need to know. The socking allegations are something which could be worth exploring here. The rest of the stuff seems best ignored. Different standards etc and the inability of many editors to even read the background info mean it's not helpful to relitigate whether a block on some other language Wikipedia was justified. Especially since ultimately even if a block here is proposed as happened below, said block is going to mean very little for whether we block here except perhaps for socking, and clearcut unacceptable behaviour (e.g. racism). Which also means that anyone talking about Symphony Regalia's Japanese block on any article talk page needs to stop right now. I mean discussing behavioural problems or alleged behavioural problems on article talk pages is generally not a good thing, but it's even more of a problem when it's about some other Wikipedia. Of course, the subthread on a block for Sympony Regalia can stay open as long as it needs to be. And if anyone wants to propose a block for any other editor involved in this, they should make a similar concrete proposal. Likewise socking allegations would be best handled at SPI. Nil Einne (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I still think this Yasuke has been a frequent flyer at ANI. Symphony Regalia below floated the idea of EC protection as a possibility if the problem persists. Another idea is to implement something like has been done for Talk:Nikola Tesla, addressing the much-debated question of his original birthplace and nationality. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to bring attention to the conduct of User:MPGuy2824. The user has been repeatedly engaging in behavior that appears to violate Wikipedia's policies, specifically [insert policy violation, e.g., "edit-warring" or "vandalism"].

Here are some examples of the behavior in question:

• Edit 1
• Edit 2

I’ve attempted to engage with the user on their talk page to resolve the issue, but the behavior continues. I would appreciate administrator assistance in addressing this matter.

Thank you. Tendythexangsw (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If GPT gives you editing notes (e.g. "insert policy violation") you should probably follow them, and insert the violation, before posting the thread to AN/I. Are you doing a bit or something?

You are also required to notify the party you're submitting a filing about, which you have not done. jp×g🗯️ 02:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tendythexangsw, your attempts to contact me were on the talk page of the relevant article/redirect, and not on my user talk page. This is one of my first edits to Wikipedia in more than 12 hours, so your charge of "the behavior continues" does not apply, since the aforementioned talk page messages are only about 3 hours old. I've have now replied to your message at Talk:Zamduar College. We can continue that conversation there, if you are willing. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...is this a joke? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User has been indeffed by Deepfriedokra. MiasmaEternal☎ 05:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What am I missing here? Is there a specific template for use with ChatGPT/another LLM that let's you (or in this case, the OP) generate invalid (but stylistically-correct-looking) Wikipedia complaints/arguments, by just plugging in the relevant policy? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ChatGPT#Applications and criticism Check Point Research and others noted that ChatGPT could write phishing emails and malware, People make scams and money stealing stuff with LLMs. Making templates to waste people’s time (that’s all they are, let’s be honest) really isn’t above users of this stuff. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 07:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's not the technical feasibility that is new information to me, so much as the implication created by those bracketed elements that either a) someone has trained an LLM specifically on Wikipedia discussions or b) one of the existing broad-utility models gained basic competence for generating such content from its default training set. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SnowRise do you actually use LLMs? I don't but I've heard enough that I'm not surprised they could do something like that with zero additional training especially since I'm certain most of them have been trained on pretty much all of Wikipedia including the ANs. As an example, here's what Bing's Copilot gave me for 'Make a template for filing complaints on the English Wikipedia'. This is what it gave me for 'Give me a template to file a complaint on the English wikipedia's administrative noticeboard'. And this is what it gave me for 'Give me a template to file a complaint at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents'. The style in all of these is different from what the OP used, but a different LLM (e.g. ChatGPT directly) might help with that. Or just better prompt engineering. Notably, it seems to like to give templates with those 'subheading:' things, perhaps telling it not to will make it more similar to the OPs, or just some other way of asking. As said, I don't use LLMs so I'm sure my prompt engineering is totally crap. Importantly though, all of them had the 'please fill in' sort of things. Perhaps just being more specific e.g. telling it who I wanted to complain about and what article would also help. Note there was additional text in most of them e.g. sure here's..... and other stuff e.g. telling me to remember to fill in the details or in one case giving a filled in example (although just userexample1, userexample2) although it did chose Climate Change as the example article, probably not the the best one anymore. Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I decided to try being more specific on who etc and asked 'Give me a template to file a complaint about [[User:Nil Einne]] regarding their editing at [[Malaysia]] on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents' on the default more balanced setting and this is what it gave me. I should mention all previous examples were also on this setting. On the more precise, it was this. Note as I understand the way most public LLMs work, asking the exact same prompt on the same setting probably won't give the exact same response, with the more precise setting I think probably resulting in more similar responses. Also I don't know the specifics about Bing Copilot. All of these were fresh questions rather than continuing from the old ones, but I didn't try to reset it in any way so I'm not sure if this was also an influence. Anyway again both are somewhat different in style from what the OP wrote above, but still you can see fair similarities. I didn't mention earlier, but I'm also fairly sure that none of the LLM providers consider using it for this sort of thing abuse or unwanted, so I doubt they've done anything to try and prevent it helping. You might get caught up in other filters of course, for example, I actually tried Donald Trump first instead of Malaysia and Bing Copilot refused to help because "I’m afraid talking about elections is out of bounds for me! What else is on your mind?". Nil Einne (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It occurred to me that perhaps one issue is talking about filing a complaint is very generic, so it could be affected by other places you may file a complaint. So instead I tried with the default balanced setting a IMO more Wikipedia focused 'Give me a template to alert administrators about [[User:Nil Einne]]'s problematic editing at [[Malaysia]] on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents' and it gave me [153]. It's clearly gone too far, since it's lost the template stuff, and also lost any wiki markup. But still, it's IMO easy to see how some sort of cross between this and what I was doing earlier would give something like what the OP posted. Nil Einne (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne: That's very edifying--thank you for your delving! I guess I shouldn't be surprised in the least if creating basically functional templates for various tasks on en.wikipedia is well within the wheelhouse of any number of LLMs. After all, few other projects/singular sources of material will have created as much fully-free and openly-available content for the developers of such models to hoover up and feed into their training sets.

Interestingly, even with the place-saver fields included, and the somewhat formulaic format, the one detail that most stood out to me as marking these templates as artificial constructs was the formalism of the tone. One very rarely sees "I respectfully request review of User:X's conduct on Article Y, in order to ensure compliance with all applicable guidelines and policies" and when you do, it rather tends to suggest a newer user, doesn't it? Whether that's because we are just being reasonably efficient and to the point in avoiding ancillary hedging language ("over egging the pudding", so to speak) or because we have lost all sense of social niceties is (I suppose) open to debate! All I know is that experience has left me with what I feel is a built-in skepticism of anyone who leans too fully into that kind of additional (ostensibly polite, but in practice often accompanying meritless complaints) colour commentary. And I couldn't tell you with confidence whether I think that impression is a good or a bad thing in general. But at least it's going to (for the immediate future anyway) be one more way to recognize possible LLM-assissted commentary. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or should I not have said all that publicly? Should we start to develop LLM-leaning WP:BEANS habits? Should we have an WP:AI DENY policy? :P SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LLM is just an essay right now, but... — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m… Going to put aside my original rant about how LLM usage should bring you close to a block pretty quick, and ask what the next step would be towards getting LLM into Policy. RFC? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 18:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely need a policy to address misuse. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EnglishDude98 (talk · contribs) has received multiple warnings from a few users regarding their conduct, including numerous messages from me regarding creating mainspace articles even though draft articles (in either draft or user space) already exist.

A few days ago they said they would stop doing this - today they have created Dylan Mitchell, even though Draft:Dylan Mitchell already exists. This is their second attempt at creating the article.

As a side note, lots of their articles appear to fail GNG.

Given they will continue to create duplicate and non-notable articles, I suggest a topic ban from article creation, broadly construed. GiantSnowman 20:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into their contribs a bit deeper while I have time, Joel McGregor is a duplicate of the topic recently deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel McGregor. GiantSnowman 20:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support - Unless there are enough sources available, they should not create an article. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. I think that yes, EnglishDude98 needs to stop making "duplicate" and non-notable articles. However, I'm not sure that the articles they are making are always clear cut CSD or PROD-able, some of them should go through AfD, as it's not black or white. I think they have potential to make valuable articles in the future. They have created some articles that are actually not that bad (see here). They just need to learn first what constitutes notability.
  If EnglishDude98 continues their disruptive habits from this point forward, ping me again and I will reconsider my position. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, to be fair, the recently created Connor McAvoy (footballer, born 2002) appears good. GiantSnowman 19:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Although @Paul Vaurie:, they are still trying to get non-notable articles into mainsapce generally, see Draft:Jack Henry-Francis which has rightfully been declined.

  Putting the draft duplication issues to side for a moment, EnglishDude98 shows a fundamental lack of understanding about notability, which combined with a clear ongoing desire to create articles, is disruptive. GiantSnowman 07:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This editor is now removing AFD tags from articles. Will anybody intervene to stop the disruption? Does nobody care? GiantSnowman 14:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support this is a pretty clear case of an editor practicing WP:TEND editing, stopping him from creating articles is a gentle way of handling this. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Despite numerous editors sending his articles to AFD - his talk page is now riddled with the notifications - EnglishDude98 (who I note has not commented here) continues to create impressive looking but ultimately non-notable articles. He is a time sink. He needs to be topic banned. GiantSnowman 18:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This editor either doesn't understand or doesn't care about GNG and their failure to search for existing drafts is troubling too. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 11:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might be related to/working with User:Das osmnezz? Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely, I think. GiantSnowman 17:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coalcity58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Landmark is a weird "selfhelp" group started by a guru called John Paul Rosenberg who now uses the name Werner Erhard. Nowadays they are mostly focused on making money but back in the day it was pretty cultish. Various RS and "not-so-R" S-es reported on that and negative information made its way into the Wikipedia article. A group consisting of a handful of meatpuppets and a dozen or two sockpuppets have been WP:GAMING the system by WP:CPUSHing and WP:TAGTEAMing for over 2 decades. A bunch of the socks got blocked but not all of them. There was an ARBCOM case back in the day but that didn't solve the problem.

Landmark has been called "Scientology-lite" and they use the same "Attack the Attacker" policy.

https://culteducation.com/group/1020-landmark-education/12303-landmark-education.html

The meat- and sockpuppets have been manipulating Wikipedia for more than 2 decades. They believe that they do not have to follow WP:COI when they refuse to admit that they have a conflict of interest.

Avatar317 has been improving the article. Coalcity58 is editwarring to right great wrongs.

1. diff1

1. diff2

1. diff3

The cult members often CPUSH and sealion and editwar and waste everyone's time because they cannot accept the fact that reliable sources have mentioned negative information about the cult.

The account is relatively new but the behaviour is certainly not. Polygnotus (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Coalcity58 ends up getting blocked, it's unlikely to stop the problems. I'm thinking some form of long term page protection might be needed here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. After a bunch of sockpuppets got blocked all these new accounts suddenly appeared who were repeating the same talking points and had the same habits and interests. So a block is a good idea, but we need more than that to stem the tide. Perhaps it needs to be declared a Contentious Topic again and we need admins to hand out topicbans like cookies. Or another Arbcom case? I don't really know how to deal with this kinda stuff. Polygnotus (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They will attack me for calling it a cult so I should add that the governments of France and Germany also called it that. Polygnotus (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruh, it isn't a cult

Whats up with the uncivil aspersions? Rim Related Jobs (talk) 04:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rim Related Jobs I'd like the sources for France and Germany labeling it a source, but all the same, based on what sources is it not a cult? —C.Fred (talk) 04:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred Check out their edit history. And Governmental_lists_of_cults_and_sects and [154]. But it appears to have been the German Senate for the state of Berlin, not the country as a whole. When one of them ends up at the noticeboards they often get WP:ANIFLU while other accounts start trolling and randomly throwing accusations around to distract and confuse onlookers. Polygnotus (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of them bruh Rim Related Jobs (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people respond to such obvious troll accounts? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 10:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the troll. Cullen328 (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! 100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think focusing energy on whether or not the group is a cult (I personally don't think so) is a distraction from the policy issues that seem like the impetus for bringing this case to ANI which is COI editing and, perhaps, disruptive editing. Let's focus less on the nature of the article and more on what is happening on the article and policy. If you want to take this back to ARBCOM, you better have pretty solid evidence to back your allegations and perhaps this discussion should be closed. If you just want clarification about the arbitration remedies, perhaps you could bring it to ARCA or AE. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Agreed. A better term would be what academics use, a New Religious Movement (NRM). See Talk:Landmark_Worldwide/to_do in the Sociology section. But if you say that they really go wild. They hate that term for some reason. I don't really want to take it to ARBCOM, because compiling evidence of longterm patterns of Tendentious editing is incredibly boring and a waste of my limited time on this planet. And I don't know which account belongs to who (I could probably figure out at least a couple of them but again that would be very boring). But I would not be surprised if it ended up there again (which would hopefully lead to stricter remedies than last time). "Discretionary sanctions" were rescinded, should I use ARCA to get them reinstated? I think discretionary sanctions were renamed to Contentious topics, is that correct? Even under DS or CT we would still need administrator(s) willing to jump into the fray and block (or at least topicban) the cultists. If DS/CT makes it easier for an admin to hand out topic bans then I will gladly request DS/CT. In the meantime can we get a 3rr block for Coalcity58? Polygnotus (talk) 07:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct: CTOP is essentially the rebranded Discretionary Sanctions, with a few procedural tweaks, and WP:ARCA is the right forum to propose changes to remedies. Regarding "new religious movement" as nomenclature, the reason you will see resistance to that term is that it has for most practical purposes become so widely associated as a synonym for "cult" that it has inherited most all of the semantic subtext and cultural implications of the latter. The terms are not exact synonyms as they are used in sources, but more generally and idiomatically, they are broadly regarded as very near terms. Basically if you call something a "new religious movement", you should be prepared for a given party to react in essential the same manner you would expect that person to react if you called the religion/institution a "cult". SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had never heard of the term NRM before stumbling upon the Landmark article. If my reading of the archives is correct, they consider(ed) the usage of the term NRM far more offensive than that of cult. Usage of the term NRM was the inciting incident of much of the drama. Polygnotus (talk) 05:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's two things going on there: 1) I think the term has recently developed some social cache among want would have traditionally been called the "anti-cult movement". In other words, the people it is applied to often perceive the term to be inaccurate and unfair in the same way they always felt "cult" was, with the added sense that they are being condescended to with academic idiolect. And 2) the question of whether to apply this label is often a threshold fight: members of a given movement often don't want it applied to their beliefs, while some editors (particularly, but not exclusively, those who make a habit out of contributing to articles in this general area) consider it to be the low hanging fruit of describing such a group. The difference in perspectives leads to a lot of slow, grinding arguments that are typically lost by the SPAs and aren't quickly forgotten by either side. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK so if I understand it correctly, topic bans can be given by the "community", Arbcom and WMF. Admins are only allowed to give topic bans if the article falls under CT.

Discretionary sanctions are currently rescinded

WP:AE is for enforcing active sanctions. WP:ARCA is for clarification and Amendment of currently open cases.

This means that the best course of action would be to start a new arbcom case, and ask them to reinstate the DS/CT designation so that administrators can give topic bans to the cultists.

Who is willing to do that? Polygnotus (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, Poly, I wouldn't hold your breath. This feels like you are trying to task someone with doing your homework (for a class you are voluntarily auditing, no less--to extend the metaphor). So far you are very much the only person in this thread who has advanced the notion that a new ARBCOM case is not only the way forward here, but indeed a necessity. If you feel that strongly about the matter, anyone is permitted to open a case request. But what seems to be the case here is that you want to pursue the biggest possible ask of the community: the largest, most involved, most severe process available to the project for addressing longterm abuse...while simultaneously not feeling it is important enough to actually present a case for it.

I mean, when you say "I don't really want to take it to ARBCOM, because compiling the evidence is incredibly boring and a waste of my limited time on this planet." and then immediately follow it up with "This means that the best course of action would be to start a new arbcom case. Who is willing to do this?", you do realize that you are implying something about the relative value of your time, compared to the person you expect to do all of the hard work after you've identified what you feel is a need? Or are you just the community "idea man" and the rest of us the grunts?

And look, I'm really not trying to be rude here: I just want to provide you with a sobering reminder that if you want exceptional action to be taken by the community, the burden is on you to demonstrate exceptional need. All you've presented in terms of concrete evidence of disruption in this thread so far is three diffs from an edit war you participated in. As Liz alluded, you are going to need a lot more than that if you want to open a case request (hell, you'll need much more than that for an ARCA motion).

Expecting another editor to emerge from the aether willing to fill in the gap between where you are now with an organized case and where you need to be in order to invoke such high level process is just not a realistic strategy. I mean, there's a lot of editors who seem to specialize in crossing keyboards with religious COI-SPAs these days, so maybe someone will eventually end up in your corner with similar perspectives and more willingness to do the work to build the case? Maybe? But if you want it to happen any time soon, my suggestion is you'd better roll up your sleeves. Though even then, I'd caution to have third parties look over the case before hand and make sure it worth pursuing to the end of the process, which can be a commitment. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Snow Rise: I meant Who is willing to do that? as in "oof no one wants to do that". I should've added an exasperated sigh sound effect because your comment misses the mark by a mile. your homework (for a class you are voluntarily auditing, no less--to extend the metaphor). no I am a volunteer here. I volunteered to help build an encyclopedia, not to be a detective who investigates the behaviour of dozens of accounts over the past 2 decades. the only person in this thread who has advanced the notion that a new ARBCOM case is not only the way forward here, but indeed a necessity. well I wasn't sure if the previous case, which is marked closed, can be reopened to add CT designation, or if we need a new one. Polygnotus (talk) 05:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see: I mistook your meaning for sincere, rather than sardonic/rhetorical. But I can see now that it actually makes more sense if said wryly! Please disregard my comments along those lines. To address your uncertainty about whether a new case is necessary, it is my understanding that you can request an amendment to any case which previously applied a remedy tied to a discrete topic area, in order to propose introducing, removing, or re-introducing a remedy targeted at that area--including a CTOP designation. At least, again, that's my personal understanding; while I've certainly read dozens of ARCAs over the years in connection to various cases, I have never filed one, nor seen this precise fact pattern (reintroducing the same basic restriction as a CTOP as previously existed under the DS schema). In short, you may want to wait for someone else to confirm that before acting, but I'm 95%+ certain you don't need a new case request. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That is great news. I probably should've been more clear, ANI is no place for rhetorical questions. Polygnotus (talk) 06:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say that? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:) Grandpallama (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of a drive by comment here but the editing is often like this when it comes to active "new religious movements", to the point where I'm surprised that "new religious movements" was never designated as a contentious topic; though I guess defining that would be half the problem. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just noticing this now after being away from Wikipedia for several days. Frankly, I find this action difficult to understand. I recently initiated a civil discussion on the talk page regarding the positioning of certain material in the article in question. In response to that, an edit was made without discussion, instead of engaging in conversation with myself and other editors. My interactions with this particular editor have been marked by uncivil responses on their part, including refusal to answer perfectly reasonable questions, and instead responding with what appears to be nonsense. Further, this person has accused me of a conflict of interest with no evidence whatsoever. Again, I am mystified.Coalcity58 (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really make sense to post false accusations when the talkpage is publicly available.

Here is everything I ever wrote to you:

We should follow WP:LEAD and add the criticism of it being a cult to the lead section. Also those articles you list are far from perfect. I will donate 100 USD to a charity of your choice if you send me a perfect Wikipedia article. To qualify it should at least do my taxes and some light chores around the house. Thank you. I hate unloading the dishwasher. A debate about content doesn't have to be "settled" to include or remove it. Due to its nature, much of the content on Wikipedia is constantly debated. But that doesn't mean we delete all the content that someone might disagree with or object to. See for example WP:NOTCENSORED. The beatings debates will continue until morale improves the heat death of the universe. Last time the wider community took a look at these articles a bunch of Landmark sock- and meatpuppets got banned. An RFC would not make sense, but I already predicted another ARBCOM case which might be a good idea. even when you feel you are righting great wrongs you can't just editwar to get your way. You will get blocked. What is your relationship with Landmark? Please respond here and in the COI section below. Thank you,

Also I haven't "accused" you of having a conflict of interest, I just posted the template that informs you about how the COI guideline works. Perhaps you are confused with another account? Polygnotus (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am baffled by the aggression shown towards me by polygnotus. If posting a COI template on my talk page is not "accusing" me of having one, what is it? Also, on another point, it is inaccurate to say that "Last time the wider community took a look at these articles a bunch of Landmark sock- and meatpuppets got banned." In fact, the last time the wider community looked at this article, no one was banned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark_Worldwide/Proposed_decision#Proposed_findings_of_factCoalcity58 (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, It doesn't really make sense to post false accusations when the talkpage is publicly available. Unless you are trying to build a false narrative because someone wanted you to stop editwarring of course. what is it The coi template is used to inform people of the coi guideline. Polygnotus (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilyes toon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continued to make many disruptive edits since April of this year[1] from a period of inactivity. They have repetitively added low-quality, copyrighted images to numerous articles[1][2][3][4][5] and unsourced content.[1][2][3] They often engage in edit warring whenever their edits get reverted, saying that their reverts are unexplained,[1] they're deteriorating the quality of the article,[1][2][3] and even engaging in vandalism.[1] Multiple editors have warned them about their behaviour but met with no response (see talk page). The user's disruptive edits have not only led them to get blocked from the article Egyptian mongoose,[1] but also earned them sitewide block,[1] both for one month. The worst part is that they continued their disruptive edits that got them in trouble earlier after their block expired.[1][2] This user is likely WP:NOTHERE given their multiple chances to change their disruptive behaviour and I believe they should be given an indefinite block. --_ZZ^Z'S 04:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the editor has now taken to logged-out socking [155] for hammering on their point - I hold it highly unlikely that there are multiple editors with the same rabid bee in their bonnet. @WereSpielChequers: you already had to do the honours on that previously [1], care for a repeat engagement? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Yeah, they're also WP:LOUTSOCKing based on evidence from Elmidae, but that's not the important park. I looked further and found out that they're currently blocked from commons for continuing to upload copyright violations. It was also changed to indef because they socked.[1] Further digging revealed that User:Asouum is one of their socks, the only one that has made an edit on this wiki. The only edit from that account was adding a copyrighted file, which was made on 26 August. Ilyes toon was site-wide blocked on 6 August 2024 for one month, meaning that they would be unblocked on 6 September 2024. Asouum edited while the block was active, which means that Ilyes toon attempted to evade their block. _ZZ^Z'S 14:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BING BING Hello? Now we've got plain waltzing back with the same disruptive edit that they were blocked for previously [1]. Can someone with the bit please be so good as to block (partial or not)? I am aware that this is not as entertaining as The Eeng Show #113, but some housekeeping here would be highly appreciated. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have evidence of socking, SPI is probably faster than waiting on ANI to take action. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This account was created less than 40 minutes ago and jumped right into vandalizing AFD pages. Account has removed AFD tags and closing AFD. Did the same here and here. Account is also creating draft pages for the articles listed in AFD nominations to resubmit for publishing if deleted. Page Vivek Verma was deleted per G5 and before too. I would not be surprised if this new account is a sock. RangersRus (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also Bukka914 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is clearly the same user making the same edits. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI this is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BuickCenturyDriver. C F A 💬 15:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CFA: What's your reasoning?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Well, there's only two AfD closer LTAs that I'm aware of, and BuickCenturyDriver is obviously this one. What confirmed it for me right away was their "no consensus" closes which is something only BuickCenturyDriver does. (e.g. see: [156][157][158][159][160], etc.). There's a bunch of other evidence too, like their username format (word then 3 numbers - e.g. Sarmy719, Coner720, Luvei721, Luvioe721, Zerby720, Scorpion126, Scoripon126, Hyperore512, Wrzzrobe512, Phazon720), impersonation (e.g. DanCharak, DatGoy, Zzeezou, HJ Hitchall, Eavonian), etc. They also edited my comment here ([161][162]) to change "BuickCenturyDriver" to something else which is essentially an admission in my opinion. C F A 💬 14:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, CFA, excellent job! --Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Moarnighar arrived very recently. They wrote "session" on the user page and started a spree of period changes that did not add value. As User:GreenC put it, these gave the appearance of "I was here", or "need a lot of edits to launder account". Additionally, Moarnighar has added personal information sourced from blogs, referenced as raw URLs and disguised as minor edits. Some of the edits have been reverted or commented on their talk page. In a concerning development, Moarnighar has now begun submitting baseless AfDs, unnecessarily draining community resources. Urgent admin intervention would be appreciated. The account exhibits classic sockpuppet behavior, yet to report there I believe I would need at least a hunch on the puppeteer. gidonb (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has a lot of problems and I'm surprised they are still at it. They consistently violate WP:PRESERVE (policy) deleting simple factual content that is easily sourced eg. "the author wrote a book titled..", deleting the sentence rather than adding a cite to the book. They mess with sentences and paragraphs, either combining them or splitting them illogically, there is no sense of reading comprehension, rather based on the visual impact. They create ill-advised AfDs. Overall it looks like a case of WP:COMPETENCY at best, or something else at worse. -- GreenC 19:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:GreenC, your impression that they were creating a pattern of edits to launder an account was most likely spot on, as they now seem to be cashing in on the built-up goodwill with destructive AfDs. Typically, such individuals sit alone in front of their screen, laughing at the time they've wasted for a value-driven community. gidonb (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They also seem to be editing as an IP now. I reverted them in Russ Baker, only for two different IPs to show up the next day and undo the revert. -- GreenC 17:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, this looks like a pretty clear case of WP:GAME, I would suggest an indef, and probably a CU for the IPs. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I encountered this user via their AfD on Pacific Cigarette Company which I personally consider to be baseless. Rainsage (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a chance this is an AfD racket focused on Africa. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd doubt it. I think they just browsed a list of companies such as Any.do, which has nothing to do with Africa whatsoever save for the huge stretch of hiring Mossad operatives. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems User:Spworld2 is incorregible. Because of too much influence of a COI (WP:COI), Spworld2 would be ready to get even an indefinite block. This is because EK Samastha and its followers are strong in claiming the legacy of the Samastha founded in 1926 that they conducted the centenary declaration conference (as per a source) or the inauguration conference in Bengaluru, which is outside Kerala, while EK Samastha's name includes "Kerala" and the full name means "All Kerala Ulama Organisation" as per the EK Samastha's website; after the promulgation conference by the faction of AP Samastha in Kasaragod. Spworld2 apparently and certainly belongs to a particular type of supporters of EK Samastha who are not ready to edit neutrally or edit as per the source. So an indefinite topic ban on both Samasthas and related topics, such as its subsidiaries, would be needed. I at least seek the intervention of admins to remove the unsourced content, especially the unsourced content in Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction). See also several disruptive and unhelpful edits by Spworld2 Neutralhappy (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spworld2 has been informed about this ongoing discussion on their talk page. Neutralhappy (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutralhappy, you need to provide convincing evidence in the form of diffs. You have not yet done so. Cullen328 (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, any editor can provide sources or tag with "citation needed" or if all else fails, remove implausible or false unsourced content. That does not require administrator's tools. Cullen328 (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs seem to be presented in this version of the filer's sandbox (linked in mobile view in the last sentence), with this post serving as a summary. Left guide (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I have provided convincing evidence in the form of diffs. Spworld2 would definitely need an indefinite topic ban on both Samasthas and the related topics, such as their subsidiaries. Neutralhappy (talk) 11:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remedies

• 1) Remove all mentions of the term "(AP Sunnis)" in bold in the article, except in the title, since it is not part of the name of the organisation of AP Sunnis.
• 2) Remove the statement that Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) is known as "Samastha (AP Faction)", because it is unsourced. Instead, say it is known as "Samastha" since the sources say so (1, 2, 3, 4).
• 3) How should we treat the time of formation, the founder, and the history until the so-called split of Samastha in 1989? Based on the source or by arbitrarily considering one of them or both of them as new organisations? Please help decide it.
  • I suggest the removal of the unsourced statements (including in the infobox) that the AP Samastha was founded in 1989 and that the founder of AP Samastha is Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar.
• 4) Remove the mention that Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar ever became the president of any Samastha, since no source supports it.
• 5) Remove the mention that headquarters of AP Samastha is Markazu Saqafathi Sunniyya, for two reasons: it is unsourced and it appears dubious since a post of a Facebook page, supporting the AP faction, says "Samastha Centre, Kozhikode-6" below "Samastha Kerala Jam-iyyathul Ulama".

If I remove the unsourced content, Spworld2 will add it again. So someone else need to intervene. Neutralhappy (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of unsourced content by Spworld2

• Spworld2 also added unsourced content (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) in the infobox that the formation of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) is in 1989 and its founder is Kanthapuram. The sources cited by Spworld2 to add 1989 as the year of formation or Kanthapuram as the founder in the infobox do not support the addition by Spworld2. These two (1, 2) are the sources Spworld2 used to add 1989 as the year of formation and Kanthapuram as the founder of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction), in the infobox. These two do not support Spworld2's claim. On the other hand, Spworld2 wants to add 1926 as the year of formation and Varakkal Mullakoya Thangal as the founder of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction) in the infobox of the article for Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction).
• Spworld2 again wrongfully changed the year of formation of AP Samastha without citing a source. The source given does not even mention "1986".
• Spworld2 wants to advance the position that the founder of AP Samastha is Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar, without citing a source.
• Spworld2 added the headquarters of AP Samastha as Markazu Saqafathi Sunniyya without citing a source, though this appears to be wrong since the place shown below "Samastha Kerala Jam-iyyathul Ulama" in a post of a Facebook page supporting the AP faction is "Samastha Center, Kozhikode-6".
• Spworld2 says Kanthapuram is the founding president of AP Samastha, which must be false, not only because there could not be a single source stating Kanthapuram ever was a president of any Samastha, either before the so-called split in Samastha in 1989 or after it; but also because at the time of the reorganisation of Samastha in 1989, Kanthapuram was made the general secretary and Ullal Thangal the president.

Removal of sourced content by Spworld2

• Spworld2 also removed content to advance the view of the people associated with EK Samastha by removing the sourced content.
• See also this sourced content removal by Spworld2.
• See this sourced content removal by Spworld2.
• Spworld2 removed the sourced content about the flag of Samastha, probably to suppress the AP faction version of the narrative about the flag.
• Spworld2 removed "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama" because Spworld2 hates AP Samastha being referred to as "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama", though the sources given against it refer to AP Samastha as "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama". See what the sources say also. Instead, Spworld2 replaced the term "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama" with "All India Sunni Jamiyyathul Ulama", another organisation of AP Sunnis.
• Soworld2 removed the sourced content, giving a false edit summary.

Unhelpful editing by Spworld2

• Both Samasthas are known as Samastha. But Spworld2 made this unhelpful edit, by changing also known as Samastha to also known as Samastha (AP Faction) even though there are numerous sources to support it and 5 sources are present in the article to support it. Note there is not a single source that says Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) is known as "Samastha (AP Faction)" or "Samastha (AP faction)". Spworld2 apparently and probably made this edit to get a positive result to the Spworld2's move request and thus get the page moved to "Samastha (AP Faction)".
• Spworld2 made this unhelpful edit by changing "Flag of EK Samastha" to "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama flag". In fact, it is the flag of EK Samastha only. This edit by Spworld2 would mislead readers that there is no difference of opinion regarding the flag used by both Samasthas. In fact, AP Samastha uses a different flag. This is especially problematic since both flags appear to be the same, though there are minor differences.
• Spworld2 removed "of EK Sunnis", which distinguishes the organisation, by this edit. In addition, Spworld2 removed the part that clarifies the misunderstanding that there are two Samasthas in the same edit.

Spworld2's character of not maintaining neutrality

• Spworld2 wanted to advance the view of the people associated with EK Samastha in the page Samastha, by removing the part "(EK faction)" given against Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction) in it.
• Spworld2 did not maintain neutrality and thus expressed having a COI (WP:CONFLICT) in the pages: Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction), Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction) and Samastha.

Unwanted placement of clarfy tag by Spworld2

• Though there is nothing unclear Spworld2 placed the clarify tags (1, 2), without giving a reason. Later, Spworld2 removed the content altogether just because Spworld2 hates AP Samastha and its success.

Repeated addition of EK Samastha's only position without citing source to support it, by Spworld2

• See: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Disruptive edits by Spworld2 even after getting warning

• Spworld2 added an unsourced content, even after getting a warning (see: 1, 2). The source says about the split of Samastha in 1989, not the formation of AP Samastha. Nor does the source say Kanthapuram is the founder of AP Samastha.

Links of previous discussions

• Talk:Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama#When was the formation of EK Samastha?
• Talk:Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP Sunnis)#Requested move 10 August 2024
• Talk:Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP Sunnis)#How to deal with the year of formation in pages for both AP and EK Samasthas
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) & Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction)
• Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) and Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction)

Neutralhappy (talk) 11:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see nothing here that belongs at WP:ANI. This discussion only seems to add one venue to the already too long list of venues where the content issue is being discussed. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I rather disagree with you since this WP:ANI is meant to deal with chronic, intractable behavioral problems, as this venue itself says:

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

I came here not mainly to discuss but to get an action taken against the bad faith, disruptive, and biased editor Spworld2, or mainly to get the unsourced content removed. Neutralhappy (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This board is for deciding whether an editor is "bad faith, disruptive, and biased". If you presuppose that, as you did in the original title of this section, then there is nothing to discuss. All I have found out here is that Sunni Muslims are just as factional as evangelical Christians or Trotskyites. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thanks for your reply. Have you found out that America is known as USA? If yes, should we avoid saying America is known as USA in the Wikipedia article on America, because some people hate to refer to America as USA? What is your answer? Whether it is yes or no, the same applies to both Samasthas, since both of them are known as "Samastha". Spworld2 hates to refer to AP Samastha as a Samastha, so Spworld2 replaced "known as Samastha" with "known as Samastha (AP Faction)",—which is similar to saying Taiwan is "known as China ([name of founder of Taiwan] Faction)",—without citing any source though the given sources against it refer to AP Samastha as "Samastha". If it is not a problem, the same should apply to EK Samastha, where Spworld2 had not applied the same, by replacing the term "known as Samastha" with "known as Samastha (EK faction)", because Spworld2 wants to project only EK Samastha is known as Samastha, obviously to advance the view of the EK faction (people affiliated with EK Samastha) that the only EK Samastha is the real continuation of the Samastha founded in 1926. If it is not a problem add "known as China ([name of founder of Taiwan] Faction), by replacing the "[name of founder of Taiwan]" with the founder's name in the article Taiwan. Likewise, add similar terms coined by Wikipedia editors in several other articles. Neutralhappy (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spworld2 removed the boldening of the term "EK Samastha" because Spworld2 wants only EK Samastha referred to as "Samastha" without qualification. Which Wikipedia guideline suggests mentioning alternative names of a subject without boldening it. Therefore, it is not only an act of disruptive editing but vandalism also. Neutralhappy (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit by Spworld2 changed "also known as Samastha" to "also known as Samastha (AP Faction)", the change this move request is seeking for, without any supporting citations, though the use of "Samastha" to refer to Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) was supported by 5 sources at the time of this change. Neutralhappy (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for Phil Bridger's comment, each sentence (specially shown) is rebutted as follows:

This board is for deciding whether an editor is "bad faith, disruptive, and biased".

I do not contest this, nor do I need to.

If you presuppose that, as you did in the original title of this section, then there is nothing to discuss.

A discussion can take place even if all sides has already taken opposing positions. Furthermore, this venue is to report "chronic intractable behavioural problems", which has to be ascertained before reporting on this venue.

All I have found out here is that Sunni Muslims are just as factional as evangelical Christians or Trotskyites.

All you have found may be the whole universe, but they may not be relevant here. Here, we need evidence such as, sources, and diffs. Neutralhappy (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutralhappy: Have you attempted to resolve this issue at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard? If not, I think that would be a logical next step for you and Spworld2 to resolve these disagreements. Left guide (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was busy and didn't see the discussion. There was no World War here to mention so much Removed some content that was not article related and misquoted and clearly explained it. Not much to discuss, apparently in this section Spworld2 (talk) 04:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Spworld2 is saying, "Removed some content that was not article related and misquoted and clearly explained it. Not much to discuss, apparently in this section" about the edits Spworld2 made on AP Samastha and EK Samastha, it is false, since they were neither misquoted nor unrelated. Neutralhappy (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fact

Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama is a Sunni Islamic organization established in 1926 in Kerala, India.

This makes it the largest legally functioning Sunni Islamic organization in India.

In 1989 (1986-1989 Time phase), due to a slight difference of opinion from this organization, under the leadership of Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar, he resigned (separated) from this organization and went and formed a new organization. It is known as AP Samastha, AP Sunni, Samastha (AP Faction) and Kanthapuram Faction[163][164][165] [166].

Established in 1926, the Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama organization is still functioning in India.

But this editor (@Neutralhappy) has the information and history of the organization founded in 1926 in the same way Wrote in the new organization adding unsourced information along with it.

This editor focuses only on this page and spends a lot of time on this, and it is discussed in many places to keep it alive. Writing in promotional style. It feels WP:COI Spworld2 (talk) 06:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are telling a lie that Kanthapuram resigned from Samastha. Moreover, the matter that the Kanthapuram faction created a new Samastha that has no legacy of the Samastha founded in 1926 is a POV pushing. In addition, AP Samastha has the same name, registration number, and flag Samastha had before the so-called split in 1989. Neutralhappy (talk) 06:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AP Samastha was formed between 1989 (1986-1989 Time phase)

When a new organization is formed it will have a year, it will have a cause/reason, it will have a founder,

the same description and the same year of formation should not be written the same in two articles.

In the absence of the above facts it is against policy to create the article as a new organization.

According to your arguments

If these two are same ??

Merge into Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (existing organization) article Spworld2 (talk) 06:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with sources cited by Spworld2

The following are the sources cited by Spworld2 here to say the AP faction formed a new Samastha that has no legacy of the Samastha founded in 1926. The first and the second sources do not say it at all, while the third and the fourth ones are the same source that says the AP faction created a new organisation after a split in Samastha. This is the fist time Spworld2 cited a source before me to claim the AP Samastha has no legacy of the Samastha founded in 1926. See what is the problem with them:

• 1) 1

This does not say the AP faction created a new Samastha.

• 2) 2

This also does not say the AP faction created a new Samastha.

• 3) 3

This source claims the AP faction created a new Samastha, without interviewing the witnesses or the leaders of either faction who have the most authoritative knowledge. This happens when they depend only on sources having a conflict of interest, without taking into account what the other side has to say, while this also makes the study not all dissimilar to conflict of interest sources and biased sources. The EK faction's main activity since the so-called split in Samastha, for about two decades, was to allege so many different frauds with the AP faction, particularly Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar. For that, the EK faction tried their level best to calim AP Samastha is a fake one. However, independent periodicals still continue refer to AP Samastha as "Samastha" without any qualification and as "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama" without any qualification. There are several sources that use the term "EK faction" and "AP faction" to distinguish both of them form the other, meaning generally independent sources tend to agree both Samasthas' claim of being the real Samastha.

• 4) 4

This source claims the AP faction created a new Samastha, without interviewing the witnesses or the leaders of either faction who have the most authoritative knowledge. This happens when they depend only on sources having a conflict of interest, without taking into account what the other side has to say, while this also makes the study not all dissimilar to conflict of interest sources and biased sources. The EK faction's main activity since the so-called split in Samastha, for about two decades, was to allege so many different frauds with the AP faction, particularly Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar. For that, the EK faction tried their level best to calim AP Samastha is a fake one. However, independent periodicals still continue refer to AP Samastha as "Samastha" without any qualification and as "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama" without any qualification. There are several sources that use the term "EK faction" and "AP faction" to distinguish both of them form the other, meaning generally independent sources tend to agree both Samasthas' claim of being the real Samastha. Neutralhappy (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest editing by Spworld2

* Spworld2 wanted to get the article Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP Sunnis) deleted, which at the time was Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (of AP Sunnis), probably because Spworld2 wanted to advance the view of people associated with EK Samastha that EK Samastha is the only and real Samastha.

* To advance the view of people of EK Samastha in wkivoice, Spworld2 removed a move request to rename and move Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction) and Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP Sunnis) to Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction) and Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) respectively.

* Spworld2, being failed to get the page for Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) deleted, began the attempt to move and rename the page as Samastha (AP Faction), probably because Spworld2 wanted to remove the full name of the organisation, which is often quoted by reliable sources, so that readers would think the only organisation with the full name "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama" is that of EK Sunnis. Earlier, Spworld2 tried to remove "Samastha" from the full name (1, 2, 3) so that readers would think Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) is not officially known by its full name "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama", or as just "Samastha".

* See also this removal, which was undone by an admin.

Pages created by Spworld2

* The pages created by Spworld2 show Spworld2 is closely associated with Indian Union Muslim League and EK Sunnis (people affiliated to EK Samastha), which the overwhelming majority of followers of EK Samastha support. Spworld2 created the article 100th Anniversary of Samastha Kerala for the promotion of the future event and EK Samastha's claim of the legacy of Samastha founded in 1926. Spworld2 also removed the notability tag added by someone else from the article 100th Anniversary of Samastha Kerala. Furthermore, Spworld2 created the article Majlis Al-Noor, which is about a program of EK Sunnis (people affiliated to EK Samastha). Interestingly, Spworld2 appears to have a close connection (maybe as a leader such as a local leader of any subsidiaries of EK Samastha) to the subject because Spworld2 has uploaded an image used in Majlis Al-Noor, which might only be uploaded by those who are close to the subject because of copyright. The flag of Haritha (organisation), which is associated with Indian Union Muslim League, has also been uploaded by Spworld2; that in turn shows Spworld2's closeness to the group or the faction, such as being a leader of this political party or being close to the leader of a subsidiary of EK Samastha. See Spworld2's complete list of uploads; which in turn shows probably Spworld2 has been to or lives near Puthanathani, a place in Malappuram district, in the two constituencies of which the Indian Muslim League fielded its candidates for the 2024 Lok Sabha election. Likewise, Spworld2 created articles on places and institutions in Malappuram district. The edit by Spworld2 shows, Spworld2 knows Malayalam, though the source does not support Spworld2's claims in the edit. Spworld2 edits are largely on articles related to Kerala politics or politics in which Indian Union Muslim League has an interest. The other articles Spworld2 created are related to GCC, where a large number of Malayalees work. So it is certain that Spworld2 has a close connection to at least the leaders such as the local leaders of the subsidiaries of EK Samastha. The following is a list of the articles Spworld2 created as of 13:34, 6 September 2024; and those that have association with Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) are shown in bold, and those with EK Sunnis or EK Samastha with an underline:

• • 1 Palakkad Industrial Smart City
  • 2 Chooralmala
  • 3 Hema Committee report
  • 4 Chelari Airport
  • 5 2024 Kolkata doctor rape and murder case · (Deleted) · (Recreated)
  • 6 2024 Vilangad (Kozhikode) landslide
  • 7 Mundakkai, Wayanad
  • 8 2024 Ankola (Karnataka) landslide
  • 9 A. P. Unnikrishnan
  • 10 Ashraf (social worker)
  • 11 UDSF
  • 12 Tahsin Jamshid
  • 13 Muwaileh Commercial
  • 14 Sharjah Industrial area
  • 15 Mufeeda Thesni
  • 16 Najma Thabsheera
  • 17 National Center for Meteorology (United Arab Emirates)
  • 18 2024 United Arab Emirates floods
  • 19 Athippatta Moideen Kutty Musliyar
  • 20 Ayisha Abdul Basith
  • 21 Death of Sidharthan
  • 22 Downtown Sharjah
  • 23 Punnathala
  • 24 GVHSS Kalpakanchery
  • 25 Vairankode Bhagavathy Temple
  • 26 Rolla Sharjah
  • 27 Al Heera Beach Sharjah
  • 28 Maleesha Kharwa · (Deleted) · (Recreated)
  • 29 Hamda Taryam Al Shamsi
  • 30 100th Anniversary of Samastha Kerala
  • 31 Dalit League
  • 32 Salva Marjan · (Deleted)
  • 33 Lotus Lake Wetland Thirunavaya Malappuram
  • 34 M. A. Mohammed Jamal
  • 35 Amala Shaji
  • 36 Muhammad Riswan · (Deleted)
  • 37 Shihab Thangal Hospital
  • 38 Death of Ariyil Shukoor
  • 39 Nava Kerala Sadas
  • 40 Kottakkal Municipality
  • 41 Majlis Al-Noor
  • 42 Chandy Oommen
  • 43 Shihab Thangal Charity Trust
  • 44 Firos (politician)
  • 45 Indo-Islamic Cultural Foundation
  • 46 Bafakhy Yatheemkhana
  • 47 Tanur Beach
  • 48 Padinjarekkara Beach
  • 49 Haritha (Organisation)
  • 50 Muslim Women's League
  • 51 Aria (Indian singer)

We can see the articles edited by Spworld2 here. Neutralhappy (talk) 08:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This source says most of those affiliated with EK Samastha are members of the IUML: "It is a known fact that most of the Samastha workers are members of the IUML and the party is confident that the issues with Samastha may not have any political fallouts." Neutralhappy (talk) 08:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what? S !! All this is created by me, what is the problem??

Write more articles on the subject of knowledge, and create related articles when writing an article. What's the problem with that? There is no interest in a war over an article, I don't like arguing a point and writing a lot of essays about it

Keep it simple Spworld2 (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing behaviour by Spworld2

Earlier, Spworld2 tried to get the article on Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) disappeared from Wikipedia. Now also, Spworld2 wants to get that aim fulfilled by proposing the merger, in a comment, (earlier also, Spworld2 had suggested the same merger, in a comment), of the article Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) with Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction). This seem like the typical behaviour of a paid editor having made an agreement to get the article on Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) disappeared, through the process such as deletion or merger, in whatever way possible, even at the risk of being banned or blocked, indefinitely. Alternatively, Spworld2 themself seems to be more interested to further the EK faction's view than being needed to be paid, just like those affiliated with EK Samastha. Neutralhappy (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not affiliated with any organization. I don't write for anyone's money, I write in my free time

All this is just your wrong feeling, Just your fake propaganda Otherwise only slander ,

The anger at what the COI told you is telling back to me

I know about the organizations in Kerala, I know about the political parties, I know about AP Samastha, of which you are the editor . Writing articles under the Kerala Wiki project.

When an article is written, its corresponding article is written, all according to policy Spworld2 (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lies and deception by Spworld2 to continue disruptive, bad faith, biased POV pushing

Spworld2, at 8:46 16 September 2024, (see also: 1, 2—in which User:Spworld2 is seen, 3—how it appears in Spworld2's user page), has admitted that Spworld2 is a supporter of the Indian Union Muslim League and that Spworld2 has Malayalam as the native language. The EK Sunni supporters of the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) would likely have more hatred towards the AP faction than the EK Sunnis who do not support the Indian Union Muslim League, since several leaders of the IUML are Mujahids. The biggest enemies of non-Sunnis, in Kerala, including Mujahids, in Kerala, is Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar, general secretary of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) and the AP faction Sunnis. But, just within 5 hours after the admission, Spworld2 lies that Spworld2 is not affiliated with any organisation. It is obvious Spworld2 is blatantly lying, like Spworld2's other lies, such as those seen in Spworld2's edit summaries in Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction), allegations against me, Neutalhappy, and the addition of the false, unsourced content. Spworld2 also lies that Spworld2 knows about Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction), because Spworld2 does not appear to know the headquarters of AP Samastha, and whether ever Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar became the president or the founding president of any Samastha. Spworld2 also lies that AP Samastha is known by the term, coined by Spworld2, "Samastha (AP Faction)". Actually, either Samastha is known as "Samastha", which Spworld2 replaced with "Samastha (AP Faction)", though there were 5 sources supporting the fact that AP Samastha is known as "Samastha". Spworld2 engaged in edit warring, disruptive editing, vandalism—(1: grammatical and spelling mistakes, 2: removed the boldening of the term "EK Samastha", violating the Wikipedia guideline to bolden it, because Spworld2 hates EK Samastha to be referred to as "EK Samastha"; in other places Spworld2 removed terms indicating the EK faction, such as "EK faction" altogether),— and bad faith editing (unhelpful editing) on the article Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction). Spworld2 also lies that Spworld2 is not interested in edit warring. But, had Spworld2 not interested in edit warring, I would not have reported about Spworld2 on WP:ANI, but just would have undone Spworld2's problematic edits. The edit history of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) proves the edit war conducted by Spworld2. So, kindly TOPIC BAN Spworld2 on both Samasthas and the related articles, since it is unavoidable. Neutralhappy (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keystone18 recently left a message on the talk page of EEng offering suggestions at User talk:EEng#Suggestions about your editing. These suggestions were polite, left in good faith, and by and large were good advice.

EEng responded. Highlights include:

• Ironic, isn't it, that they made that mess just 30 minutes before coming here to lecture me.
• No, that's just a delusion you have.
• Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.
• Yet in article after article you have mindlessly shoved all images to the right, and made them all the default size, turning them into a monotonous stack in which most images are far from their relevant text
• Again, you don't know what you're talking about
• This is the root of your problem. The idea that all pages must look the same is popular among editors who have no judgment of their own and find comfort in running around imposing their hallucinatory formatting and copywriting "rules" on articles about whose histories they know nothing, and about whose subjects they know nothing.
• Honestly, how can you possibly think that's OK? Because anything outside your tiny radius of experience is foreign matter that must be expelled? Shoot first, ask questions later? This truly epitomizes your bull-in-a-china-shop editing.
• You're a one-editor wrecking crew.
• Don't make me laugh.
• You think you're some kind of cleanup superhero when you're really an inexperienced, overconfident, careless editor who needs to slow their roll.

There were legitimate concerns about Keystone18's editing, particularly regarding the introduction of errors, lack of edit summaries, and misuse of minor edits. Understandably, Keystone18 did not respond to EEng's inappropriate comments. All of the comments above were merely in response to the advice; Keystone18 had done nothing to escalate the situation.

Even though Yngvadottir came in with a more reasonable tone, EEng escalated it even further when Keystone18 did not respond:

• First look at the ridiculous effect of putting all images to the right and making them all the same size
• but Keystone's too busy to actually look at what they do before rushing off to turn some other article into shit.
• A few random examples of other destruction they've wrought on various articles
• As you mentioned, even given their abysmal track record I have, until now, gone through every one of their edits looking for any nugget of a useful change amid all the fecal matter.
• Complete incompetence.
• Those friends are close to as incompetent as Keystone is. They've done similar things in other articles -- don't know what words mean, reverse the sense of the text, screw up the formatting, project their naive ideas into articles. It's the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Completely understandably, Keystone18 did not respond. Unsatisfied, EEng left a retaliatory warning on Keystone18's talk page at Special:Diff/1245755384. I believe that both editors are in the right here in that the other needs to correct their behavior. Both editors have had many chances over many years to do so. To avoid a pointless back and forth, I'm going to skip straight to proposing remedies so we can be done with this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The bile in EEng's response was unnecessary, but I don't agree that the original post was particularly worthwhile or constructive. I don't doubt it was in good faith, but its tone was frankly obnoxious at points: hat led you to think that was warranted? [...] Unless I am missing something, don't use it, and try to remove it from the edits you have already made isn't rhetorically negated just because they were indeed missing something that they could've made some effort to figure out first. It is not your role to add your commentary on the subject in edit notes, or even to issue emphatic edit notes saying what should or should not be done with edits. The site is guided by guidelines that make that unnecessary; similarly reads as both presumptive, unhelpful, and simply wrong. I don't think editors are beyond question for their experience or whatever, but some basic self-awareness about things other editors may or may not be privy to is also a factor for civility and constructive collaboration. Remsense ‥ 论 23:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Why does this warrant an ANI post? ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Several of Keystone18's edits indisputably were a "mess", and the passive-aggressive comments like "Do not project ownership over pages" aren't as conducive to collaboration as the author might imagine them to be. On the other hand, it is easy to see why an editor would disagree with the need for 39 separate comments saying "DO NOT "FIX" DIRECT QUOTES" in one paragraph at Statue of John Harvard. There might be a need for intervention here, but the talk-page comments aren't why. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keystone18 is warned that they must preview edits before publishing them and to correct any errors they introduce into an article.

• Support. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose what is this even. No. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - we already have a template for this, just place Template:Uw-preview on their talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keystone18 is indefinitely subject to a requirement that they use edit summaries in all of their edits. These edit summaries must be sufficient to explain the reason for the edit or the changes made. Keystone18 may not mark any edit as minor. Repeated use of the minor edit function or failure to use an edit summary may be sanctioned with a block until Keystone18 agrees to comply with the restriction. The edit summary and minor edit restrictions can be appealed to the community after one year since the restriction was imposed or the last enforcement action (whichever is later), and each year thereafter.

• Support. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I have been frequently frustrated by Keystone18's rapid-fire edits without edit summaries. Requiring edit summaries will not only make their edits easier to understand - it will force them to slow down and think about the edits. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - we have a template for this as well, Template:Uw-editsummary2. And edit summaries are not required anyway, but they are best practice. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I know it's an usual step to take, but this is an unusual case. Keystone has made over 100,000 edits in the past 2.5 years: 45k in 2022, 39k in 2023, over 31k so far this year [167]. Only half of those edits have edit summaries--that's 55k+ edits with no summaries [168]. They are going too fast and making too many edits, and the lack of edit summaries is likely because edit summaries would slow them down. They made 1,620 edits to Allentown, Pennsylvania; 1,342 edits to Lehigh Valley. What possible reason could there be for any editor to make more than a thousand edits to one article? And look at the edits, e.g. to Allentown, PA: [169]. Even when edit summaries are used, they're canned, like "further" and "minor copyediting." This sort of behavior absolutely blows up article histories--and floods watchlists. Requiring descriptive edit summaries would both solve the lack-of-edit-summary problem, and, I think, solve the too-many-edits problem. WP:HIGHSCORE editing is disruptive. Levivich (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  PS: 930 edits to talk pages. 110,000 edits to mainspace, less than 1,000 to talk space. Kinda tells you all you need to know right there. Levivich (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I agree with Levivich. C F A 💬 03:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keystone18 (talk · contribs) has been extensively rewriting articles. Partly this is because they evidently have firm preferences as to article layout; see their talk page and the note they dropped on EEng's talk page after, it seems, a series of conflicts on articles on EEng's watchlist. But they have been leaving some of these articles badly broken: for example this version of Memorial Hall (Harvard University) with formatting symbols and part of a caption left hanging in the text, article text incorporated into the quotebox, and a set of 4 images repeated. In good faith, I have tried to come up with an explanation for why an experienced editor—and member of the Guild of Copyeditors—would leave an article in such a degraded state. EEng has mined their edits for improvements that can be reinstated. But they appear oblivious. And their collegiality leaves a lot to be desired. Most of these edits have been marked minor and have no edit summaries, both of which are hallmarks of editors seeking to avoid scrutiny; they have declined to discuss their changes on article talk pages; after starting the section on EEng's talk page, they did not respond to frequent pings as I and EEng discussed their own editing; and when EEng went to their talk page, they deleted the section in favor of discussing on EEng's talk then returned with a response that accused EEng of "shifting blame" and characterized their "suggestions" (their quotation marks) as descriptions of problems that EEng must fix. Having opened themself up to examination of their edits by making unfriendly suggestions about EEng's style, Keystone18 is now refusing to discuss and instead attacking. They've revealed themself to be a problem editor. I don't know whether this is a recent development. I don't know whether they're going through a bad patch, working on a small-screened device, or simply overcome by loathing when they come across articles with a large number of images as well as a quote box. I don't know how many of the problems I found in the wording at History of Harvard University after a flurry of edits by Keystone18 and others, and even after some fixes by EEng, are down to Keystone18 not fully understanding, and how many were someone else's disimprovements. But they've been requiring quite a bit of clean-up after them, only a small portion of which can be attributed to legitimate disagreement over how articles should look on the page. So since we're here, Keystone18's behavior should be examined, including both their article work and their interactional style. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I too am very concerned about Keystone18's recent editing behavior. We need explanations. Cullen328 (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I had two very negative interactions with Keystone18 over image sizes and Commons category location in 2023. In both cases, they were making formatting changes that I feel made no sense, and their talk page replies were very strange interpretations of guidelines/policy. I don't think this problematic editing is a recent development; it's just another chapter of Keystone18 refusing to work nicely with other editors. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The pattern of dozens of small edits per page, with a high error rate, has gone on for some time. Another recent article edited, David Starr Jordan (this diff has all Keystone's edits with only one minor interleaving edit), has similar issues: there are now two separate sections titled "Personal life", and typos appear more than they are corrected (for example In 1875, while in Indianapolis, Jordan obtained a Doctor of Medicine degree from Indiana Medical College in 1875. or Indiana President President Michael McRobbie. This is an editor who needs to be more careful in their editing. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After reading through many more of Keystone18's edits, beyond the image-layout concerns and the pattern of a large number of small edits per article (with a high error-rate and minimal communication), the main thing I noticed was idiosyncratic views about how places are referred to. For example, changing "[[Brooklyn]], [[New York (state)|New York]]" to "[[Brooklyn]], New York City, U.S." in infoboxes. Walsh90210 (talk) 04:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Keystone18 is going to leave the "edit summary reminder" option on and will attempt to minimize fast minor edits, I don't think any other action is required at this time. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Three hours ago I was in the process of asking Tryptofish to have a quiet word with Keystone to help them see the light. But then thebiguglyalien took it upon himself to stir the shit-pot, and here we are.
  I've had to clean up so many of Keystone's messes that I can't remember them all, but here are talk-page threads I opened on four articles, listing the problems Keystone introduced (some of them, anyway -- no way to find them all since their diffs are often so scattershot you can't tell what they do e.g. [170]):

• [171]
• [172]
• [173]
• [174]

Keystone never responded to any of those threads, instead typically returning to whichever article and attempting to edit-war their changes back in -- their signature move being shoving all image to the right and making them all the same size, no matter how bizarre the results (see [175] -- and scroll to the bottom to see how Keystone also somehow managed to paste 1/3 of the article into a footnote, images and all). EEng 04:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This ended up here after I offered several suggestions/questions to EEng a few days ago on some of Eeng's editing trends. Two editors thanked me for my edits while also warning of EEng's aggressive guardianship of these pages. As one editor wrote: "Thanks to both of you for your hard work on the Harvard articles and attempts, though sometimes futile, to make them better. I see you both have encountered "the steward." I encountered them months ago on History and traditions of Harvard commencements. Finally made some progress but it took weeks. There are a handful of Harvard articles (it sort of seems like a random list) that they watch like a hawk, and any change they don't agree with, however minor, will almost invariably be walked backed. It leads to articles that, I agree with you, are formatted and written in a very bizarre and unconventional way, and certainly not an encyclopedic one." That was followed by EEng's very volatile responses, which I first saw today. At no point have I refused to collaborate with him on the article. Just the opposite. Collaboration was one of my suggestions in my short post to his page. I also asked about his consistent use of unattributed quotes, including in article ledes and as primary captions; his addition of personal commentary on the article's subject, which he adds as edit notes in text, which is confusing and sometimes presents spacing and editing problems; his routine use of the "shy" function to words, which I have not before seen and which makes page editing very difficult and also adds to spacing issues; his placement of images in various sizes all over the page (on the left, in the center, and on the right); my suggestion that he not project ownership (what he calls "guardianship)" over pages; and my suggestion that he work collaboratively with other editors.

The editing of these articles, including my bracket and other error, was complicated by these unusual formatting tactics, but let me focus on my own takeaways for improvement: 1.) I should use the preview option consistently; I likely would have caught the bracket error if I had; 2.) Cease editing on a small device as I have the past few weeks, which was likely part of the cause of the bracket error; in fact, I discovered another similar bracket error today in the Harvard template box, which I corrected and I believe was of my making recently; and 3.) Use much greater discretion (if used at all) with the minor edit option. Keystone18 (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keystone18, your explanation is inadequate. I have made about 100,000 smartphone edits without ever blaming a "small device" for my errors, which I do my best to correct promptly. I became a highly active administator on my phone and have written Good articles on my phone. Your editing is being discussed because you offered a harsh assessment of another editor's work and other editors took a look at your own work and discovered major problems. Please offer a more detailed response to the criticisms of your editing and a more robust assurance that the problems will not crop up again. Cullen328 (talk) 05:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When Keystone posted on my talk page five days ago, that was the first time they had given even the slightest hint of acknowledgment of my existence -- after ignoring for a week (as they continue to ignore) the several article discussion threads I'd opened (linked at the four bullets above) and my dozens of detailed edit summaries (e.g. [176]) explaining why I was forced to revert essentially every edit they'd made to numerous articles. What I'd like you, Cullen328, to get from Keystone is how they justify that behavior, for which editing on a phone is also not an excuse. EEng 05:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. No excuse for editing errors ever. My primary corrective step is to systematically begin using the preview function; 2. No excuse to mark an edit minor if it isn't, or might even be viewed that way. I am going to use great discretion with it; and 3. In the coming weeks, I will attempt to reach out to the handful of editors who posted here and attempt to forge consensus and resolve any legitimate lingering concerns. Keystone18 (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the minor edits, that sounds good. Most people won't complain about a minor edit popping up in their and watchlist, and if they do just link this thread. The "minor" checkbox isn't even available on some interfaces right now.[177] Watch out if you use a lot of scripts because some (like User:Mesidast/Tidy citations.js) have a "minor" setting that checks the box when they run. Also, if you want a reminder for edit summaries, you can tick the box at Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary) Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I activated that prompt option, which is a helpful reminder. Keystone18 (talk) 07:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Keystone18: He is being a "guardian" as he calls it because you have made hundreds or thousands of worthless pointless edits that are constantly filled with errors. (Not on just that page, but all over.) It doesn't have anything to do with the equipment you're using, and it's not a stray bracket here and there. EEng was probably wrong to be as sarcastic and harsh as he was, but behind his nasty tone he absolutely was telling the truth about the constant terrible quality of your editing. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keystone18, in your first response above, you wrote: I also asked about his consistent use of unattributed quotes, including in article ledes and as primary captions. Hmm? What do you mean? Could you link to a diff where you fix an unattributed quotation in an article that EEng has worked on? And I don't see a single mention of quotes in your post to EEng's talk page. The specifics are about shy and image placement. The only person I currently see on that talk page (EEng's done some archiving there recently) mentioning quotes lacking sources is Jjazz76 back in May, who states that EEng has ridiculed me for asking for sources for quotes. I lack the context for that statement, and I note that the previous August, EEng was referring to someone objecting to there being citations in the introduction at Phineas Gage—which were needed to reference quotations. So that's the opposite way around. Can you fill us in on what you were referring to, since you apparently intended to mention it to EEng but didn't? Yngvadottir (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the "context for that statement" you're looking for is this discussion [178], in which an editor insisted that his original research into Harvard's tax returns overrides multiple reliable sources from which I had directly quoted. That editor made themself look ridiculous all by themselves, no help from me needed.

If you will allow me, Yngvadottir, to redirect the focus however, I have asked Keystone several times now to explain why they refused to discuss their edits at the talk-page threads I opened on several articles [179][180][181][182]. That's the heart of this whole issue. Keystone's overestimation of their own skill wouldn't matter if they had been willing to discuss and learn, but they're not -- though they do put on a good show of it here at ANI. ("I will attempt to reach out to the handful of editors who posted here and attempt to forge consensus and resolve any legitimate lingering concerns" sounds like AI-generated bullshit, BTW.) So once again, Keystone18: what's your explanation for simply ignoring those discussions for up to ten days, while you kept doing the same mistaken things to those and other articles? EEng 11:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing complicated, EEng. I was not on from about September 10 until yesterday, and you reverted the edits anyway. If I revisit any of these pages, though, I'll be sure to raise my suggestions with you on the respective article talk page first. Keystone18 (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, content/editorial disputes about specific articles should be discussed on the article talkpages. EEng says they opened discussions on the article talkpages which you didn't contribute to. AusLondonder (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keystone18, either you think we're all dumb, or this is getting to be a WP:CIR case.

• The four discussions were opened on September 4, 7, 7, and 12. Between September 4 and 9 you made almost 1000 edits, including to some of those four articles [183], but ignored the discussions completely. You also ignored my extensive, careful edit summaries [184] reverting your edits; instead you just went back and started editwarring your changes in again.
• On September 9 you left your message on my talk page, outlining your ideas about editing and article formatting, which might charitably be labeled idiosyncratic. As soon as Yngvadottir responded to you, that evening, pointing out the many ways you'd been messing up article after article, you suddenly stopped editing.

Now, once again: explain your complete failure to discuss. EEng 16:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, EEng, by the time I saw your edit comments on the Widener Library and Memorial Hall (Harvard University) pages, you had already reverted my edits. I also did not respond to the very complimentary comments I received on my page about those very same edits from one of two different editors User talk:Keystone18#Widener Library, who praised my edits. Nor did I sign on for four or so days because, frankly, I wasn't feeling well. And nor did (or do) I really have the inclination to revisit these two pages as an active editor because I sense you do not have much interest in collaborative editing on them. I will, however, be sure to read them.

If I am wrong about that, however, and you want my response to your page comments, I am very willing to address them. You appear to have systematically reverted editors with similar concerns, however. My focus, here, is in not being defensive, but focusing on constructive steps that I can take that make sense and will likely eliminate errors and improve my contributions, including: 1.) I am going to begin using the preview option routinely; 2.) I am going to minimize greatly or entirely the use of the minor edit function; and 3.) I am going to reach out in the coming weeks to those who commented here. Keystone18 (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're either lying or we really are in a WP:Competence is required situation.

• Here's the history of Widener Library [185].
• As seen in that history, on September 4 you made a long series of edits that completely screwed up the article. That same day I reverted step by step, with an edit summary at each step explaining why your edits were destructive, and opened a talk page thread further explaining [186].
• As noted so many times, you just ignored all that. But nonetheless, on September 7 you returned to the article and started trying to editwar your changes in again.
• Meanwhile, you kept moving on to other articles making the same mistakes, I kept opening talk page threads explaining why what you're doing is destructive, and you kept ignoring it all and wrecking more articles; as with Widener Library, in some cases you returned to the same articles after being reverted, and tried to editwar your changes in again.

I repeat: you're either lying, or we're in a CIR situation, given that you're unable to recall or reconstruct your own actions sufficiently to answer for them. When that happens with a criminal defendant, they put you in a mental hospital until you regain sufficient competency to stand trial; in your case, the comparable action would be a block until you demonstrate that you can engage in basic ways with other editors, and take responsibility for your actions instead continuing this dazed-and-confused act.

But I didn't open this thread -- another editor made the decision to waste a huge amount of editor time by opening this thread when the matter was already being addressed with you privately. Right now other editors are deciding your immediate fate (above) but whatever happens this time, the moment you show signs of repeating your destructive behavior I'm going to move to have you blocked. EEng 05:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC). P.S. The praise you received is from editors with error rates similar to yours e.g. [187]. It's like a mutual-support network for mess-makers . I wouldn't crow about it if I were you.[reply]

Keystone18 appears to have been led astray by their friends. What I'm seeing is a failure to pay attention to objections to their edits (including failure to read the edit summaries on reverts, failure to discuss after being reverted, and simply ignoring pings; instead they edit war by simply reinstating their changes). In addition to a failure to be responsible for their own work: we all forget to preview occasionally, but leaving article after article broken is sloppiness that outweighs any improvements within the edits. Edit summaries are not mandatory, but they are expected, and communication is required. I looked for previous mentions of the lack of edit summaries on their talk page, and found only one (October 2, 2022). I found numerous editors querying their over-use of the "minor" flag, some of them templated, others not (February 19, 2022; May 11, 2022; October 12, 2022 and January 2, 2023). I was not impressed by their responses on either issue; they seemed to me to quibble over definitions rather than understanding that their usage was anomalous and not very collegial. For someone with such a pattern of unresponsiveness to go to another editor's talk page and "suggest" they edit collaboratively is galling. I'm sorry you have been ill, Keystone18, and I hope you are now feeling much better. But I for one don't want you to "reach out" to me personally. The community expects editors to be responsive and collegial and to consider the possibility they are wrong, or out of step with community norms. In addition to expecting editors to take reasonable care they are not leaving an article a mess.

Also, while I appreciate EEng's desire for focus, I believe you owe him an apology not only for misrepresenting the timeline of your edits, but also for the serious accusation you threw in when you finally responded, here on a noticeboard, that he habitually includes unattributed quotations. In addition to the untruth about your having raised this with EEng in your post on his talk page, you have failed to offer any support for that statement. So far as I can see there is none. The only source for it that I have been able to discern is your friend's statement on your talk page that EEng demands sources for quotes. Is it possible that you jumped to an insulting conclusion about EEng's editing from a misinterpretation of your friend's statement? Or have I missed where you got that from; perhaps it wasn't on-wiki? In any case, it's quite an insult to EEng's editing, and I'm calling you on it.

For anyone who wonders why I haven't opined in the sections above: Voting on remedies prior to exploration of the problem is putting the cart before the horse. I'd like to keep the emphasis on what's expected of editors, in hopes of Keystone18 understanding. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny, Yngvadottir... every time you ask Keystone18 to account for themselves, their WP:ANIFLU flares up. EEng 13:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't frequent ANI too much because I'm not here for drama and conflict. I think frankly some editors need to remember what we're here for. This whole thread is largely a waste of time. On the substance, all editors should use edit summaries and avoid multiple small edits in quick succession. I edit exclusively on mobile and that's not an excuse for poor editing. Finally, I've noticed twice recently the editor who began this thread insert themselves into disputes they had no involvement in. Why? AusLondonder (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mdj112233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has made numerous unsourced and unexplained edits (they appear to rarely if ever use edit summaries), has refused to explain themselves when asked (see their talkpage), including reinstating their edits when reverted without explanation (see the edit history of the Lancelet article for an example). @Ta-tea-two-te-to: also has had issues with this user. I think the best solution is to block them indefinitely from article space until they agree to communicate. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Qalandar303 was banned indefinitely (here) less than two years ago. Several IPs have been making the same edits to the same page over the last four days and just said, You have been reverted, and will continue to be so indefinitely. If you continue to misbehave, brow-beat and bully, rights are reserved to take furthermore action. [188]

Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, why does this belong at ANI, and not WP:RFPP like every other protection request? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 11:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because I don't do this very often. I'll take it over there, thanks. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the past week, Alon9393 has gone on a tear of !voting in AfDs and nominating articles for deletion. Despite multiple warnings from Liz (diff, diff), HopalongCasualty (diff) and Geschichte (diff) about their participation, Alon continues to participate in AfD discussions in a disruptive way. Alon has nominated multiple pages with no valid deletion rationale (diff, diff) When confronted, the response has been something that is either sarcasm or a complete WP:NOTGETTINGIT reaction (diff, diff) and shows either confusion or deliberate obstinacy about how to assess WP:PROMO (diff). Alon offers !votes not based on P&Gs and some are just plain non-sensical (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff). These votes are making it harder for closers to assess consensus. In addition to the disruptive AfD participation, we have personal insults against another editor (diff) and an accusation of the same editor misrepresenting his home country (diff). There may also be a WP:CIR issue here as the editor continues to fail (diff) to properly transclude nominations. For the ongoing disruptive AfD activity, even after warnings, and CIR problems, I wonder if a (temporary) topic ban from AfD would be appropriate. The personal insult (which has not been apologized for or otherwise addressed by Alon) is additional evidence this user may need to take a break. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indef due to WP:CIR issues. 202.47.50.250 (talk) 04:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• If the editor is causing mass disruption at AfDs but otherwise making constructive edits on mainspace articles (which seems to be the case from a cursory glance), then perhaps a partial block from Wikipedia namespace would stem the tide. Left guide (talk) 06:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• As explanation, but not excuse, for some of the appearance of CIR, they have made edits that indicate a possible language barrier and other personal situations that interfere with clear English communication. But I agree that here we only care about what happens here, not what causes it. DMacks (talk) 09:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]