Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1092

This has been addressed numerous times, but the articles in question were mostly plot summary cited by

WP:V without saying anything new should be wacked in the head with a sausage :/ Darkknight2149

08:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I linked to

Fram (talk

) 09:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Until this and this, I hadn't seen that part because of Onel5969 edit warring on so many articles. There's a reason it didn't get restored with the other two (because that already-short article would become a stub). That being said, Onel5969 should have removed the original research specifically, instead of blanking multiple whole articles and refusing attempts at discussion. Darkknight2149 — Preceding undated comment added 10:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter how bad the articles were, because

WP:ATD-R is one of my biggest pet peeves is that it happened to an article I wrote once, and when I finally convinced the user to bring the article to AfD, the result was a unanimous keep. So we don't make exceptions for when a user really truly believes that they are right, we require them to get consensus no matter how bad the article may seem to them. This is completely normal for a contested PROD, so why would a contested BLAR be any different? Mlb96 (talk

) 18:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you,
  Tin Heng Estate, Tin Ching Estate, Shun On Estate, and Lai Yiu Estate. I discussed this with Onel5969, noting that blanking-and-redirecting the articles a second time violates the deletion policy. I asked Onel5969 to self-revert their edits but they have not done so. They said, "Actually it's not a violation". When I followed up asking why it is not a violation, they did not respond. I would like Onel5969 to stop blanking-and-redirecting articles after being reverted. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Redirection does not make an exception for allowing re-blankings for articles that are poorly sourced or have original research. If editors would like there to be exceptions, they should amend the deletion policy. In any case, the articles about the Hong Kong public housing estates were well-sourced. Cunard (talk
  ) 09:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

It appears that those articles about public housing estates are also sourced entirely to primary sources, which means that Onel's actions here are also attempts to bring the articles in compliance with core policy. To do it twice on four articles doesn't appear to be out of line, particularly when the objection is as obscure as "Redirect not obvious". BilledMammal (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Redirection does not have an exemption that allows editors to blank-and-redirect a second time Hong Kong public housing estate articles that are sourced to government sources. Cunard (talk) 10:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Edit warring does not have an exemption putting the creation of redirects under 0RR; four singular reverts is consistent with seeking a consensus through editing, and not an issue worth discussing on ANI, particularly when those reverts were attempts to bring articles into compliance with core policy. BilledMammal (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? Are you saying that reverting four times while refusing to discuss isn't an edit war? That's the very definition of an edit war. And while

WP:ATD-R actually does. You're avoiding the subject with all these arguments about the quality of the articles. The fact is that Onel violated policy, engaged in an edit war, and then attacked the individual who tried to point it out. And this isn't an isolated incident; judging by Onel's talk page, this is a pattern which they have refused to address. It is appalling to me that so many users are defending Onel's behavior. Mlb96 (talk

) 18:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I should have been clearer. Four different articles, with one revert each - I believe this is appropriate as an attempt to obtain consensus by editing, and certainly not worth bringing to ANI. BilledMammal (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with you if not for the fact that Onel appears to have reinstated the challenged redirects multiple times and acted rude and condescending when informed that they shouldn't do that. It is not unreasonable to request that Onel no longer do this and to apologize for the rudeness.

WP:ATD-R, and while it may not have been worth bringing to ANI by itself, it does establish a pattern in combination with the instances the OP brought up. Mlb96 (talk

) 18:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

IMO part of the problem is you're using terms in inaccurate ways. There's no 0RR for all redirections,

WP:BRD. Yet no one will suggest this means we actually have 0RR or 1RR or imposed BRD or whatever. So all ATD-R is really saying we handle it like we do with most disputes. For a variety of reasons in most cases we have a hard limit of 3 reverts in 24 hours but also forbid edit warring in general. If someone makes a change and it's disputed, generally they need to try an address the objections and so modify their changes (which probabyl isn't possible with a redirect) or discuss and try to achieve consensus. Note I specifically didn't say "start", since a lot of the time the person who disputed ideally should have started the discussion anyway. But while these are what happen in an ideal situation we recognise that it can get complicated and so explicitly do not block editors just because they don't follow the process although may block them depending on precisely what they did, how many times they did it etc. If it's a back and forth between two editors especially if it's on multiple articles and there's no bright line broken by either, both editors may very well find themselves blocked. Nil Einne (talk

) 07:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• This seems to be a content dispute between people who think every patch of land that ever had a house on it needs an article, and those who think street directories and real estate brochures based on primary sources should be deprecated. IMO Onel is correct on the policy question and, although some of his language has been less than optimal, I think getting exasperated is a natural response to endless meddlesome obstructionism. Reyk _YO! 22:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• This is the correct take from this. For example, let's look at some of the articles that DarkKnight2149 repeatedly edit-warred to restore. I've only picked two, but there are more - this one, edit-warring to restore an article with nothing but primary sources, but wait ... this one, edit-warring to restore a version with no sources whatsoever. As User:Cullen328 said above, "An article about a topic with a plot sourced only to some random Wikipedia editor's plot summary is a piece of crap that really ought to be removed from the encyclopedia post haste.". Meanwhile, this is relevant. Black Kite (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Boomerang

I came close to bringing this to ANI myself after

Onel5969 raised the subject at NPP in a neutral tone and with a link to the discussion[109]. This seems to be an

If 3 experienced editors told you that you were wrong, most people would either look again at what they thought, or even if they still thought they were right, would accept consensus. Not so with the OP, who simply dismisses this as tag-teaming.

The OP has made much of a 'template war' at

I could bring up a lot more but I'm sure everybody else is as bored of this as I am. I am offended that my integrity has been brought into doubt when trying to give an opinion of policy as an uninvolved editor at that time.

Whilst I'd hoped the matter would die a death, it's clear that isn't going to happen. What's happened has happened and I'm not sure that everybody's time is well spent dissecting the details. Suffice to say people in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones. Moving forward, something needs be done to stop the vendetta by Darkknight2149 against Onel5969. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John B123 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Response: John B123 got a few things wrong I would like to address.

as in Darkknight2149's last reinstatements of the articles they had added sources, obviously trying to conform with

WP:SOURCE

.

I thought that the whole issue would die a death naturally

So did I, until Onel5969 continued the same behaviour elsewhere ([112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117]). I didn't want to have to file this report.

The OPs justification of

WP:BURDEN

, then he should have removed the specific bits of original research instead of continuing to blank the whole page.

Onel5969 raised the subject at NPP in a neutral tone and with a link to the discussion[118]. This seems to be an

vote-stacking

.

When myself and Buidhe posted our views we were accused of not actually read through the exchange above or clicked through the diffs

This wasn't an accusation, I suggested that the two of you may not have read through everything. The reason for this is that, after Onel continued filibustering by simply repeating the same point over and over (without responding to anything I was saying), you and Buidhe replied the next day simply to repeat his one already-addressed point ([121], [122]). Other editors above have noted this: "Reading through the talk page discussion at Talk:Yoichi Asakawa, it does feel like everyone is completely ignoring what the OP is saying" and I myself pointed this out to you several times at

WP:NPPR. See also: [123], [124]

(which you didn't reply to).

would accept consensus

Wikipedia is not a vote. Two editors repeating a pre-addressed point without responding to anything isn't a consensus. Onel5969 was also advised by other editors to stop edit warring and discuss here, to open an AFD here, and his template warring at Kayako Saeki was reverted here

.

Not so with the OP, who simply dismisses this as

WP:NPPR

was "neutral" is even more evidence of that. The User Interaction tool also revealed that you are a frequent collaborator of Onel5969's, which normally wouldn't mean anything by itself. But coupled with everything else.

Meanwhile, this is relevant.

Based on the canvassing, tag-teaming, you and Buidhe being part of Onel's user group at

WP:NPPR, and your responses at Talk:Yoichi Asakawa

, I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect that stealth-canvassing may have taken place. However, I'm not going to outright claim that without proof. You mistake a question for an accusation.

I could bring up a lot more but I'm sure everybody else is as bored of this as I am.

If you are looking for a boomerang sanction, I would recommend doing that. Darkknight2149 00:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: I note you haven't responded about your claim that the IP who originally redirected the articles is the same person as Onel. Please share you evidence to substantiate your claim. --John B123 (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I will say this now: redirection is NOT directly comparable to deletion, both of the complainants seem to be justifying everything on the basis that his redirection represents summary deletion. It doesn't. All the info is still there in the redirect history for anyone to find and build on. The correct response is to find sources for unsourced articles, and rebuild the article, not to revert the redirect and just claim that an article sourced purely to primary sources is A-OK, then try to Wikilawyer your way out of restoring an article that clearly fails what Wikipedia is not.

Do I think Onel could have been a bit more circumspect in his edits? Perhaps. Do I think he is the one causing the disruption here? No. At worst I'd give Onel a slap on the wrist for not communicating more clearly why he has done what he has done (in the case of the Hong Kong articles anyway). As for @

or here

) 01:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

if you think someone is a disruptive editor in one area, they're likely going to be disruptive editors in other areas. Many times I have encountered vandalism, checked the user's contribution's history, and found far more to revert. Not saying they wouldn't be hounding if they stalked Onel's contributions and mass-reverted a bunch of them, but sanctioning someone for merely saying that they're going to watch someone's contribs for disruption doesn't seem like a good interpretation of

WP:HOUNDING. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to

|Chess}} on reply) 02:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@

or here

) 11:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, you would support a boomerang sanction because I:

• Removed a question from my talk page and answered it in an edit summary.
• Said I would keep a cursory glance on Onel5969 to make sure he doesn't engage in this behaviour again elsewhere (which he immediately did: [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131]).
• "Wiki-lawyered" by citing policies correctly.
• "Stonewalled" by addressing all of Onel5969's points, even as he kept repeating the same thing over and over no matter what (without responding to anything I said). Something that others here have also pointed out.
• "Edit warred" by attempting talk page discussion multiple times.
• Simply complained and made threats instead of... Taking the matter to
  WP:ANI
  ?

With all due respect, your reasoning is odd and the things you are saying don't reflect how policy works. For instance, how am I "lawyering" these policies? By following them literally and complying with the spirit of the deletion process and dispute resolution?

Per

WP:ATD-R

:

A page can be

Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion.^[1]

Per WP:Dispute resolution:

When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to

edit war

.

Per

WP:ATD

:

If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.

topic-banned

editors who have serially created biased articles.

Per WP:Edit warring:

An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit war. Edit warring is unconstructive, creates animosity between editors, makes consensus harder to reach, and causes confusion for readers. Users who engage in edit warring risk being blocked or even banned. An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense.

Pertinent

Per

WP:PRIMARY

:

A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

The policy

WP:3RRNO are also relevant. Darkknight2149

06:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere point on deletion is a good one and one I was thinking from early on in this thread. We do not treat turning an article the same as deletion because they are not the same. Deletion prevents anyone except admins from seeing the history or restoring the same version. (If you have a copy of the article before deletion you can technically restore the article but unless you're the only substantive contributor doing so would be a

WP:PROD is a one time thing and completely overriden by objection (including future objection) or previous deletion discussion, it's a lot more complicated for redirections. For example, if an editor turns an article into a redirect, someone objects and then no one bothers to do anything further then 15 years later with the article still in a sorry state and perhaps whatever changes in notability 15 and some new editor turns it into a redirect, merges with proper attribution and adds new content into the target, the editor is unlikely to have done anything wrong, indeed people will probably be thanking them. (The earlier editor or some other editor could still object and it will need to be discussed but if the editor takes part in the discussion and doesn't edit war, anyone who complains about their behaviour is going to get short shrift even if they find 100 times it happened.) If an editor prods an article and someone objects, 15 years later someone prods it again any admin should reject the prod and if they don't people will (generally) rightfully say they shouldn't have done that even if most agree we shouldn't have an article. If someone find an admin did it 100 times, again we may be considering an arbcom case or at least a strong reminder to the admin.

Likewise if an article is delete under PROD, 15 years later someone asks for it to be undeleted, this will generally happen and if someone wants to delete the article they will have to take it to AfD (I'm assuming in all cases there's no CSD) and non consensus means we keep the article. By comparison if someone turns an article into a redirect and 15 years later someone overturns it, the status quo ante is likely to be considered the redirect and so a no consensus outcome is generally going to mean we keep the redirect etc.

You can come up with many other ways deletion and turning an article into a redirect are different, suffice to say if you treat them same you're distracting from possible real issues with what an editor did.

Nil Einne (talk

) 06:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Please see the policies quoted above, which are pretty clear about reinstating disputed redirects. Darkknight2149 06:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:PROD explicitly says that a PROD is a one time thing so implicitly makes it clear this is not possible with a PROD, and so if an article has been prodded (or discussed for deletion), you cannot PROD it again and no admin should honour such a request. You just need technical experience to know that as a non admin, I cannot see Nitharwal or Daisuke Nakamaki but unless they were actually deleted, I can see everything Onel5969 has turned into a redirect regardless of the current state. Note I never disputed that an editor should generally discuss before restoring redirects, simply that it's not the same as deletion, and any such comparisons are rightfully criticised as inaccurate. Nil Einne (talk

) 07:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@

or here

) 10:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Negative.

WP:ATD-R makes it clear that the onus is on the person who redirected the article to gain consensus, instead of edit warring to restore the redirect. Nothing about that is ambiguous. Darkknight2149

11:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

See the long comment by @

or here

) 12:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support some form of boomerang or sanction, e.g. a ban on reverting a redirect without providing a good secondary source. Their attempts to justify their reinstatements of unsourced plot summary only articles (often tagged as unsourced for years) are completely unconvincing and go against the basic elements of what enwiki articles should be. Going on an on about "but it's a disputed redirect" completely ignores "why" it has been turned into a redirect and why reinstating such articles is very poor practice. If someone was creating such articles now, they would end up with a topic ban (after enough discussions of course), no matter how much they wikilawyered. So why would it be more acceptable if someone is reinstating such articles even though issues with them have tagged for years? It seems that no discussion here can convince the editor that these articles are not welcome, so some other approach to make this clear may be needed.
  Fram (talk
  ) 08:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

There's a lot of soapboxing in this thread about how policies should work and the way things should be. However, if we're going by actual policy, then Onel5969 was unambiguously in the wrong. Citing policies correctly isn't "Wiki-lawyering", regardless of how much you disagree with the content. "It seems that no discussion here can convince the editor that these articles are not welcome" So far, nobody has argued that all-plot articles are "welcome" or acceptable in their current state. The concern is that Onel needed to open an

WP:AFD and gain consensus, instead of unilaterally redirecting an article and edit warring to keep it there (even after attempts at talk page discussion). I hope the closing administrator keeps actual policy in mind when closing this thread, because I have a feeling it's going to have to go to ArbCom next. Darkknight2149

09:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I did cite policy in my first comment here,

Fram (talk

) 09:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Per

WP:V anyway. Onel5969 should have removed the original research instead of repeatedly blanking the page. My primary concern was reverting the redirects and restoring the articles themselves, not restoring the few claims in each one that weren't backed by primary source. Darkknight2149

10:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I have just reread

Fram (talk

) 10:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

(

WP:ICANTHEARYOU at Talk:Yoichi Asakawa, because I responded to and addressed everything that was said there. Even though all of my points were ignored (mostly by Onel himself, who was the only person to consistently respond there). You are arguably engaging in ICANTHEARYOU right now, because you are ignoring the overwhelming number of policies

that have been presented to you and are (almost self-admittedly) cherry-picking.

• WP:HANDLE
  make it clear that if editing can be done to improve a page, editing should be done instead of scrapping it.
• WP:ATD-R
  makes it clear that once a redirect has been disputed, you need to gain consensus instead of repeatedly restoring the redirect.
• WP:DR
  makes it clear that you don't delete salvageable content just to get rid of some original research.
• WP:DELREASON
  gives a list of deletion criteria, and there is an entire deletion process and a dispute resolution process that you are overlooking.

Flaws in articles that can be solved through rewrites (such as being

WP:BURDEN. As I said before, "Per every [policy], this isn't a reason to repeatedly restore a redirect after it has been disputed. What it does warrant is a rewrite, templating, or (in this case) even an WP:AFD. These are the policies I was adhering to in my interactions with Onel5969." Darkknight2149

11:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Per the above (and the repeated "per every policy", even though this has been shown again and again to be false), and per the very similar reply to Insertcleverphrasehere below, I rest my case.

Fram (talk

) 11:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The only policies you have named are

WP:V

, both of which have been addressed many times by now. Do I need to list some of them again for you?

Darkknight2149 12:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Fine... I'll be explicit about your points.

Per ATD-R: I've explained ATD-R repeatedly, he explained in his edit summary of the revert, he didn't re-revert, there is no edit war (3RR).

Per DR: an explanation in an edit summary may be sufficient, provided there is room, again, he didn't start an edit war, he reverted once. As per deleting salvageable text, other policies say that it is fine to delete unsourced material, so this is just advice that may apply.

Per ATD: Does not apply, redirection is not deletion, the content still exists in the edit history. In any case it says that it "may" be reduced to a stub, or may be sent to AFD, not that it has to be. Discussion via an edit summary may have been sufficient if you hadn't been such an obstructionist, in which case it would have saved a whole lot of his time (and other editor's time; AfD is a phenomenal waste of man-hours when overused, ANI moreso).

Per WP:Edit warring: There is no edit warring. He did 1RR, not 3RR. Does not apply.

Per WP:PRIMARY: May, not should and certainly not "a whole article based on". In fact you specifically cite the passage from

WP:OR

in your next paragraph that makes this explicit.

You seem to justify your actions of restoring improper content with procedural nitpicking. I would define this as disruptive editing, and, to a lesser extent, wikilawyering. —

or here

) 12:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

And restoring the article, which violates

or here

) 11:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:ATD-R

, no matter how you interpret that policy.

And by the way, obtaining consensus to redirect an article is a permissible use of AfD, so AfD would be an appropriate venue for the discussion. Mlb96 (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that simply repeating X and Y at each other would not be productive. Onel is a prolific editor, that deals with massive numbers of articles. Doing a single revert with an edit summary explaining why restoring the material was improper is a short cut intended to save time. I'll agree that it isn't best practice, and I've said previously that Onel could have communicated better (particularly with the Hong Kong articles, he and others actually had a very long discussion with Darkknight, he just didn't want to listen). As others have said though, ATD-R has never been interpreted as 0RR; it's main point is that you must try to gain consensus. On the other hand, what DarkKnight has done (restoring unreferenced material repeatedly and without justification other than "Because I can") is ridiculous and disruptive. —

or here

) 14:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:NOT

.

We don't AfD topics that are likely notable, but we also don't keep around articles that are written and sourced so poorly that they violate Wikipedia's core policies. Redirect was a correct action here, though

or here

) 11:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Per

WP:V. Darkknight2149

11:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. Even if, for the sake of argument, I agreed that procedurally the correct action is stubification, how does this justify your reversion? On procedural grounds alone? Because you can? That's disruptive editing.

On a side note: whether stubification is the best option is actually something I've seen heavily debated at NPP in cases like this, as a redirect can often be more useful since it leads back to a main article where better quality info about the subject already exists (is it better to have a one line stub, or is it better to link to the main article where a paragraph already exists about the character and the reader can find more related info about the series?). —

or here

) 12:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, any editor can contest a redirect. Darkknight2149 12:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with @

or here

) 12:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)