Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1109

I posted a new article Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri (Advocate of the Holy Sepulchre)‎ on Wikipedia yesterday. It was immediately flagged for deletion. I contested it and contacted the reviewer Velella. It has now been removed by Justlettersandnumbers. What is going on? Dr. Grampinator (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Dr. Grampinator, I would have recommended asking Justlettersandnumbers. I see you have already asked at User talk:Justlettersandnumbers and they have responded there. TSventon (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I have received no notification of this discussion even though I am named. However, I have nothing to add.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

TSventon I am sorry that Justlettersandnumbers and Velella are so offended that I was trying to find out what you did to my article. Apparently, they had plenty of time to change things without explanation but no time to respond to my trying to understand what they have done. As you can imagine, when you spend a lot of time writing an article and have it summarily dismissed might cause a person to wonder why. Here are the facts:

I posted a new article yesterday fully sourced and independent of any article currently on Wikipedia. It was immediately flagged for deletion and yet did not appear on the AfD list. I followed the process to protest the deletion. The article was then deleted and the title was redirected to Godfrey of Bouillon which contains a one-paragraph discussion summarizing the article.

I have written hundreds of articles for Wikipedia and each has gone through a review process for consistency followed by technical assessment by users in the field. Please restore this article to where it was when first posted and allow the process to continue. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

It appears that

WP:DRAFTOBJECT, Velella should move the article back to mainspace. Issues with the title can be dealt with on the talk page. Schazjmd (talk)

22:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

For the record it did make sense at the time as the move to Draft was made after the first edit. There would appear to have been an edit conflict between my consideration and completing my edit and the considerable addition of material by the article's author. As the article stood, it was a short unsourced stub. I didn't delete it, nor did I propose it for deletion at that time, but the same article immediately re-appeared back in mainspace and I did ask that that be speedily deleted as an unneeded fork of Godfrey of Bouillon. I was content that the Draft could be worked on to provide clear water between the two articles.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted, it was moved to draft:

Draft:Advocatus_Sancti_Sepulchri_(Advocate_of_the_Holy_Sepulchre). It does appear to have been draftified quicker than the NPP guidance calls for. It can be moved back to mainspace to replace the current redirect to Godfrey of Bouillon. I'm not one to know how to properly do that, though. — rsjaffe 🗣️

22:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Here's the timeline of the article on 17 September:

It seems to me that Velella and Justlettersandnumbers acted in haste with incomplete information, and refused to even consider an explanation. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment It seems that this dispute is a content dispute (and thus outside the remit of ANI); is this notion correct? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

No, I really don't think this is a content dispute. This is not an area I edit in, or I'd attempt to re-mainspace the article myself. The primary rationale for moving it to draft space (that it was unreferenced) was invalid once the move had been made; Velella should have realized this was so after seeing the result of the edit conflict, apologized, and self-reverted. I agree the title is non-standard; moving the article to either Latin or English would have fixed that. Although much of the article does go over material covered at Godfrey of Bouillon and at King of Jerusalem (I would advocate cutting almost everything before "The title of Godfrey"), so far as I can see (for some reason I can no longer search pages on Wikipedia), the material about his various titles is not covered at Godfrey of Bouillon; it's briefly alluded to, and since the conversion of Dr. Grampinator's recreation to a redirect, that article contains a circular wikilink. The A10 speedy nomination also seems unjustified to me; the article does not substantively duplicate Godfrey of Bouillon, in my opinion, and if Velella thought it did, why draftify the original version rather than converting it into a redirect? I see Justlettersandnumbers agreed with me about the A10. People can differ on whether Godfrey's title deserves a whole article—as I say, I don't edit in this area—but it was draftified for what turned out to be an invalid reason after the move went through, then A10 was invalidly asserted, and those are missteps, the former of which is yet to be rectified. Whether the topic is independently notable should then be discussed in some talk space (as a proposed merge?), or if necessary at AfD. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Erm ... you're taking other editors to task for acting in haste, at the same time as you sending a shrill "Please respond to my query" post to Justlettersandnumbers, exactly nine minutes after your initial query (never mind kicking off this ANI complaint eight minutes afterwards)? Seriously? You are not new here, with over 13,000 edits and six years in. We are all volunteers here, and you have little excuse for being unaware of it. None of us are paid to sit at the keyboard, and none of us are required to provide you with <5 min response times to your inquiries. Whatever the rights or wrongs of your dispute, you need to seriously slow your roll. Ravenswing 09:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry if people thought I was shrill, but I posted a new article and it was immediately flagged for deletion. No discussion, nothing. I responded to the AfD message and then the article appeared to have been deleted. Again, no discussion. I've not had this experience where these actions were hurried without coordination. What actions, in your mind, should have I done and when? And the others? Dr. Grampinator (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You are absolutely well within your rights to have asked those editors for an explanation; no one's going to give you a hard time for that. And then you should have waited for an answer. As in waiting for a couple of days. If a couple days went by (and especially if the editors had made other intermediate edits without addressing your inquiry), that's when you send a follow up "Excuse me, but may I get an answer here?"

ANI, by contrast, is just about the last resort for this sort of thing. Did you see the blurb at the top of the page stating "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." (emphasis in the original) It is sure as hell not for situations where you didn't get an answer within eight minutes of asking. Ravenswing 00:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, I was under the impression that people mentioned on this board were supposed to be notified? Anyway, here's the reply I made to

For the record, as I understand it, the version Velella elected to draftify was this, and that doesn't in itself seem to have been anything but correct, even if the timing was unfortunate. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Except it was a few minutes after the first save. Secretlondon (talk) 11:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• 2806:109F:16:0:0:0:0:0/48 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2806:109F:13:0:0:0:0:0/48 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

The range Special:Contributions/2806:109F:13:B9D:0:0:0:0/64 was given a partial block from the article Ensemble cast for one week. The person behind the disruption couldn't wait a week, and started using a couple of other ranges, restoring the disputed material.[1]

This person has a long history of

To me, it looks like we should give up on partial blocks for this person and instead set up rangeblocks. We are long past good-faith editing. Binksternet (talk) 01:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Binksternet: I blocked the two /48 ranges above for a month. The /64 has not edited for a few days so I'll leave that. Let me know if it restarts. Next time, as well as the good outline presented above, please show at least two attempts to communicate with the person behind the IP. Johnuniq (talk) 09:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'll work on my communication skills. Thanks for the rangeblocks. Binksternet (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• 2603:6010:7706:1A00:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone in Cleveland has been using the IP range Special:Contributions/2603:6010:7706:1A00:0:0:0:0/64 to inflate the sales and chart successes of music articles. For instance, a Gold album was inflated to Platinum,[8] and unverifiable sales figures are frequently added.[9][10]

The person was given two Level 4 warnings a few days ago at User talk:2603:6010:7706:1A00:CC05:2F3B:1FB2:5649 but picked up again today at The Sound of Revenge. I think the /64 needs to be blocked. Binksternet (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• This is also block evasion; I've reblocked the /64 for 1 year.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I want to raise a complaint about a New Page reviewer who is jumping on people's work within a matter of seconds after they save their initial edit. I'm not going to identify the NPR yet, in case there's physically nothing you can do about them, but to keep a long story short, I started a page about a church, saved the initial edit with a clear edit summary, stating that I was still working on it while getting more information for it. I was in the middle of adding that information, and upon trying to save, was presented with an edit conflict, stating that someone else had edited the page; it'd been moved into draftspace, and left me in a position where I almost overwrote the reviewer concerned. I've since had the draft deleted (at my request, G7), because I simply can't be bothered to tell people what I'm trying to do, only for them to totally ignore it. Do I have any recourse to complain about the reviewer please? Note, that they have previously had pages unreviewed by other reviewers for similar things. Thanks! Dane|Geld 17:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:DRAFTOBJECT you could have the draft moved back to mainspace. Any admin will be able to restore the deleted content for you. You can also place the {{In use}} template at the top of the page you are working on. Any editor patrolling the page should give you time to complete your expansion. Polyamorph (talk

) 17:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, DaneGeld. You have access to your own sandbox space as well as draft space to develop content that is not yet ready for the encyclopedia. Please do not place unreferenced stubs into the main space of the encyclopedia. I see nothing wrong with the NPP reviewer draftifying your unreferenced stub. Cullen328 (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I understand I have access to my own sandbox; the reason for getting the stub in place so quickly, was that I'd updated the template for the diocese in which the church is situated, and did not want to leave that template with a red link in it. I think they could have given me another few moments to finish what I was doing, before taking their tools to it. I kept a copy of the source code, and will add references to it, per Polyamorph, and then tag it with an in use. I'm not leaving that template with a missing article in it. Dane|Geld 18:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I consider an unreferenced two sentence stub that makes no claim of notability to be a bigger problem than a red link. Best practice is to gather and format references sufficient to show notability first, and then write the article by summarizing what those references say about the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Just don't update templates or put other links in mainspace until AFTER the article itself is ready to be there. You are working out of order, and there was nothing wrong with moving an article not ready to be in mainspace over to Draft. The reviewer was following standard NPR procedures. MB 18:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, MB. The reviewer did not follow best practice for draftifying the stub, which states that it may be moved if: the topic has some potential merit, and the article does not meet the required standard, and there is no evidence of active improvement, and the article does not contain copyright violations, or when the author clearly has a conflict of interest (per WP:COIEDIT). I never even got to the third stage, "there is no evidence of active improvement", because the article wasn't there long enough for me to improve! I was doing it when the reviewer moved it. I'd only created the page barely 3 minutes earlier, and I understand that ALL of the first 4 rules that I quoted, must occur, for the article to be draftified. There's a lot of things I am, a robot isn't one of them! Dane|Geld 18:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

While draftifying the stub so quickly may not be "best practice", neither is creating an article directly in mainspace. Best practice is to create it elsewhere and move it to mainspace later. Even if your intent is to create a stub so that other can expand it, there is no reason not to first develop it enough so that there is no risk of deletion. MB 21:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• The NP reviewer did their job. It was an unsourced stub. It's better to start an article with at least one or two sources, or it will get pushed into draft space, where it belongs. It was you that requested a speedy delete, not the reviewer. Why you requested a speedy delete of your own article, I have no idea. You could have simply fleshed it out then moved it back. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I requested the G7 on my article because it seemed futile to continue it there and then, if it was just going to get hammered. I'd made my intentions clear in the edit summary that I was still working on it, and the reviewer simply just "nope"'d it out of there and dumped it. Do they actually read edit summaries, or are they just interested in getting 1-up on someone else? I left the CSD template with this rationale: "Can't be arsed. Give people a chance before you smack their work." That's just how I felt. Dane|Geld 08:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• FWIW, I created a blank article. It was deleted before I could flesh it out. Exasperating. At least now we draftify instead. What was said above is true. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah. Myself, I've always felt the tendency of the overanxious (whether it be NP reviewers or people aiming to be the fastest CSDers in the West) to pounce on new articles within seconds is totally obnoxious, and that they show a marked disinclination to work from the back of the list. But they're not contravening policy to do so. Ravenswing 18:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  If I may pitch in - a few days back I posted a fairly developed article (not a stub) about a recently deceased legal philosopher of some prominence, a man widely considered an authority on the subject in his home country, published in several languages by reputable editorial houses (including by OUP in English), who received several awards, etc. I did not properly source it because I was simply too tired to go on, so I sent it to mainspace with edit commentary to the effect that I would be adding all the sources first thing the next day, under the hope that the fact that it was a relatively developed article on fairly notable individual (a quick Google search would probably bring up several hits) would work in my favour. Of course, by the time I woke up the article had been draftified, which I found quite irksome (and I was not as kind to the NPR as I could/should have), particularly since before sending my own article to mainspace I had spent several hours that day improving another, one that had remained unsourced and an orphan since 2012!

  Needless to say, I am responsible for sending an unsourced article to mainspace, and as you mention the reviewer did not break any rules. However, I find that over-eagerness to be counter-productive, especially when there's no harm in waiting for a day or two when there's still stuff from ancient times that needs to be dealt with. Ostalgia (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe that should become policy then, Ravenswing. It's disheartening to be in the middle of doing something constructive to bring your article to standard, to have some nobody in the middle of nowhere, who can't see what you're doing, shoot first and then tell you they've done it, rather than talking to you first. It makes you feel like it's really not worth it. Dane|Geld 18:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• I agree that the reviewer moved too fast to draftify here. Unless there is something obviously harmful in an article, there's no reason to not wait several minutes (I will usually avoid drastic action until hours or days have passed). The advice given by other editors about how to avoid unwanted draftification are nevertheless valid as a way to reduce friction between editors and editing processes. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• I think part of the issue is that NPPer's are a bit overwhelmed with the sheer volume of new articles. I create articles, some of them are stubs. Don't think I've ever created an article without at least one reference which shows that it meets notability criteria. That being said, I don't think any action needs to be taken here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• I have notified Bruxton, the reviewer in question, about this discussion. If this were a broader conversation about draftification that was taking place at another venue, it would be fine, but DaneGeld is specifically asking about "recourse to complain about the reviewer" and discussing Bruxton's past NPP reviews. It's odd to have the subject of an ANI discussion be so easily identifiable without them being notified at all about it, and I don't think it's really fair to start a "complaint" thread in which someone's edits are criticized without letting them know about it and giving them the opportunity to respond. DanCherek (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn't identify the reviewer because I wanted originally to know if anything could be done about what they'd done, Dan. I guess now you've id'd them, it's obvious that they need informing. They were only identifiable because you went looking for who they were. Dane|Geld 19:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

It was obvious from the very first post, where you said that they are "jumping on people's work" and pointed out that "they have previously had pages unreviewed by other reviewers". I happen to agree with Rosguill above that the draftification, two minutes after the page was created, was hasty, but that doesn't mean that Bruxton shouldn't get a chance to respond to these statements. Practically every ANI discussion is started by an editor who is wondering if something can be done about what another editor has done. DanCherek (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Understood, Dan. I guess I should have flagged him from the start. I pinged him from his note on my talk page, but when I looked at his contribs after he didn't respond, he'd stopped editing 2 minutes after moving my article into draft. As it is, it's going to take a little more time to get the bits together now, because I can't remember the pages I got the info from now; I closed them when Bruxton moved my article, and didn't bookmark them! Guess it's going to be in my sandbox for a while, although I may go back and visit the church again on Tuesday before I go back home, they have some information about the construction of the church there. Might be wise to get an appointment with the Priest too. I'm sure they'd be happy to help with the building of a WP article! Dane|Geld 19:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

You can't reference the priest, of course. Secretlondon (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Benefit of clergy, is that? EEng 19:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh crud. I forgot about that. That's original research, isn't it? Bum. Looks like I'm gonna have to do some reading through Newmarket's history. This might take longer than I thought. Still, for a properly referenced, creditable article, it's got to be worth it, right?! Dane|Geld 20:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

You can use what the priest tells you as clues pointing to other sources, though. And maybe the priest has clippings. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Official guidance for NPPs doing front of queue reviewing is to wait 15 minutes.
  WT:NPPR and gotten the same answer with less of a high stakes atmosphere. I oppose any sanction for the reviewer, I'm sure we can just ask them to be more careful about this in the future. Anyway, hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk
  ) 21:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• What is so wrong about creating articles at AfC – that is the proper venue, as is SANDBOX. Why attempt to create in mainspace when you are not ready? Atsme 💬 📧 21:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  Draftspace is a safe place to work on articles that are not yet suitable for Wikipedia. What's wrong with an article going to draft? If an article is in a fragmentary state, it's less likely to get negative attention or actions while in draft, which gives you some time to spiff it up without being bothered too much. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  I ask myself this question at least 2 or 3 times a week. I wish we could send more articles to draft so editors could better access resources and learn some best practices before we have cases like this spring up. There is nothing wrong with starting an article in draft and this should be encouraged. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 23:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  Mm, here's my answer to that. There's only one article I've ever worked on in draftspace, and that's because that I had doubts I could prove the subject's notability. Every other single article I've created, I've had zero doubts on that score. I'm nearly eighteen years away from being a Wikinewbie, and I don't expect to have an article I'm starting taken to CSD because I answered the telephone or put my wife's dinner in the oven (or, like Ostalgia, it strikes me that it's long past midnight, and I can always finish up in the morning) before putting in the citations. Except that it's happened all the same on a couple of occasions, and both from overzealous idjits jumping on the front end of the New Pages list, both within a minute, and no doubt thinking that people handed out barnstars for the most article creations shot down.

  New page patrol is important. I've put in stints on it myself. But if there are patrollers working from the front of the queue instead of properly from the back (yes, I get it, articles at the back of the queue you actually have to put in a little work to verify, instead of just hitting the button, shouting "Gotcha, ya bastid!" and pouncing on the next new page, elapsed time four seconds), and they're ignoring the 15+ minute rule, then at the very least there needs to be a heavy

  trout slap, with the expectation that a repeat performance will result in the right being pulled. Ravenswing

  23:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ravenswing - First, you're autopatrolled, so you'd never appear on the NPP queue. Second, as editors with more expertise than I have already said, 2 minutes is way too quick to draftify. However, I don't think it's a "do it again and got shot in the head" offense. Over the past 3 weeks, I've put about 100 articles off to the side which had major problems, but I felt were too new to take action on. And I would go back to them either much later that day, or the next. Out of all those articles, many of them which had been tagged for issues, do you know how many were improved? Zero. The reviewer needs to have a word or two said to them, and if it becomes an issue over several weeks or months, then action can be taken. I think we both see the issue pretty much in the same light, it's just the degree of severity on which we differ. And I also agree that most NPPer's should be focusing on the back of the queue. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Dr_vulpes, Onel5969 and other NPPers: When draft space was first introduced, I saw it that way: a place to build up an article before mainspacing, especially useful for those working with bad connections or little bits of time. But it's become a place for NPPers and other patrollers to sling articles, and there's a protocol/policy chokepoint with how to get the article from there to mainspace once it's ready; does one need to submit it via AfC (whose standards have become quite high in practice, quite apart from the length of time waiting for a review) or can one simply move it back? I have the impression that some of the people who move articles to draft believe that means the article requires AfC submission. I've improved several draftified articles written by others, usually by editors who have since been blocked so they can't fix the articles themselves, and have had some miserable experiences trying to get them reviewed and passed, exacerbated by the fact I really don't want to get the credit template if they are passed, because they were originally someone else's draft. I've recently given up and just mainspaced them myself. And I'm one of very few people working on draftified articles. The way draft space is currently widely regarded, draftification is not a neutral act, it has a very high percentage chance of resulting in the article being deleted 6 months later. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

O yeah I feel you, I had one guy get upset saying that by sending their article to draft I was ensuring a bot would delete it. During AfDs I try to send articles to draft that clearly need some love or the support of resources that aren't online, it's only happened once which is too bad as the draft process has a lot of potential. I've even offered to personally review the drafts AfC when it's ready but that doesn't even encourage them. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir, Drafts do not have to be submitted to AFC. That is recommended for an inexperienced user so they can get feedback and be given a chance to improve the article further. The "problem" NPPers have with editors bypassing AFC is primarily with articles that haven't been improved at all and are just put back in mainspace in the exact same state they were before being Draftified, sometimes under a different title, usually by someone desperate to get their article on some NN subject published. MB 08:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@MB: Thanks for that feedback. I'm not sure those who draftify articles would agree, but if I've indeed been worrying unnecessarily, that would explain why I haven't got into trouble for giving up on AfC and just mainspacing. The thing is, it can be harder to clear AfC than AfD. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi... as MB said, draftified articles do not have to go through AfC. But many do. If the editor who created the article (or other interested party) reaches out to me, and they have improved the article, I'll do the actual AfC review myself. One other thing, when you do submit someone else's work on AfC, you have the option as submitting as yourself, or as the article's creator, so that would alleviate the problem of you getting the credit template. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@DaneGeld, just out of curiosity was there a reason you were unable to just move the page back to mainspace with your edits? Like, it just feels like I'm missing something here. I promise I"m not trying to be a jerk or rude, just trying to get all my ducks in a row here. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dr_vulpes - I didn't move it back into mainspace, because it would have overwritten someone with a granted right that I don't have and didn't understand. I didn't want to create the impression of my forcing it back into mainspace. As Ravenswing hints at above, some NPPers are clearly not following established guidelines, and it needs to be a given for them, that they patrol from the back of the NPP queue, not the front. This has been a very disheartening process for me. It's no wonder some users are scared to edit here because of the bureaucracy that goes with it. It's like having snipers on the rooftops. Dane|Geld 10:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

So let me make sure I'm getting this correctly. You published an article to mainspace that was not finished. It was sent to draft. The reviewer made a mistake and should have waited ~12 additional minutes. There were options available to you to address this problem. You could have sent it back to mainspace with corrections, reached out the the reviewer in question on their talk page, or gone through the dispute resolution process. Instead you deleted the article in question and we are now talking about it here. Maybe going forward if this happens again you could try some of the previously mentioned remedies. We all make mistakes and that's ok this is a collaborative project afterall. Something something assume good faith something something. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Per Dennis Brown and Deepfriedokra. I'd be glad if my article was draftified if I released an unsourced stub into Wikipedia mainspace. To work on an article we have the sandbox, userspace or draft space. Unsourced stubs are not good for Wikipedias reputation as an encyclopedia.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with creating an article and developing it in mainspace. No patroller should be draftifying within minutes of creation. If they're going to work from the front of the queue (despite best practice being to work from the back of the queue) then they need to exercise some restraint, per the NPP instructions that they should be following. Polyamorph (talk) 06:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Point of view, one can assume good faith or complain. I assume good faith. And that the wikipedia guidelines enable or even defend the release of unsourced stubs into mainspace, I'd see as not helpful for the project. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Draftifying content within minutes of creation, while it is still being developed, is not helpful to the project either as it demoralises constructive editors. No one is suggesting leaving unsourced stubs in mainspace, just don't draftify them within a few minutes of creation - they will remain in the NPP queue. Polyamorph (talk) 06:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

In which case you should also assume good faith on the part of article creators, should you not? But that being said, perhaps you would answer whether or not you think that defying the guidance of Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Care to draftify an article within seconds of its creation -- a time frame in which no human being could possible make an adequate assessment of its notability or sourceability -- is either acceptable practice or one which we ought to encourage? Ravenswing 08:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Of course, I assume good faith on both sides and also after reading Wikipedia New Page patrol#care. The reviewer didn't tag the article nor nominate it for deletion but moved it to draft space where the editor could expand the article in peace. The draftify template is worded in a welcoming constructive way. DaneGeld is not a new editor but on wikipedia since 2016 and has created several articles already. That he chose to delete the article, is not the reviewers fault.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Who said it WAS the reviewer's fault, Paradise Chronicle? I certainly didn't. I chose to do it because of what the reviewer did, it didn't seem worth making the article if it was just going to get hit by an overzealous "idjit" as Ravenswing eloquently puts it. I don't see the point of leaving edit summaries that the editors don't read, in favour of adding another mark to their score sheet. Dane|Geld 14:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You could have assumed good faith and seen it as a sign on how efficient and constructive the Wikipedia process can deal with unsourced short stubs. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• Suggestion - I think an admin needs to close this thread with a note that the NPP reviewer has learned to wait until a new article has been in mainspace for at least a week a day or two so the new article creator can tidy-up a bit. At the same time, the article creator (who is not autopatrolled, yet) has learned that we have both the {{in use}} and {{under construction}} templates when creating in mainspace, and better yet, one's Sandbox as it keeps the new article out of the NPP queue, which is already quite frightening because of the backlog. I think that is a fair compromise, and it's easy peasy. Atsme 💬 📧 17:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)^{strike and update 11:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)}

  I think that would be fair, @Atsme:, once the New Page Reviewer comes here and acknowledges the problem. They were alerted by DanCherek yesterday, and have still not made an appearance to say anything at all. I accept what I've been told, I'm just waiting for an acknowledgement from the reviewer, of the same. Dane|Geld 18:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  Let's be careful that the close summarizes consensus. I don't see consensus for a week. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  A week is too long. If it takes you a week to improve an article to the point that it belongs in the main space, then it should have been in the draft space to begin with. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  Agree this thread has made a mountain out of a molehill. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  As I said, I agree, but I would still like the NPR in question to acknowledge that they screwed up. It's all very well for Atsme to say "the NPP reviewer has learned to wait", but I have seen no evidence of that. The editor has been pinged concerning this thread and hasn't even bothered to show up, I replied to his message on my talk page last night, and he's still not replied there. Something tells me he's avoiding this thread. Dane|Geld 21:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  FWIW, while an appropriate apology would wrap this up quite nicely, ANI is not in the business of extracting apologies from editors by force. Given that it's been established that the editor's actions are not a major violation of editing standards, unless they establish a pattern of rapid-fire draftifying articles going forward, they are in fact entitled to avoid this thread if they so choose. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  @DaneGeld I would highly recommend you check out this essay on being high maintenance as well as review the civility policies. Your tone and attitude are bordering on bullying which wouldn't be acceptable. Sometimes it's hard to see context when working through issues here it's why we all assume good faith and understand mistakes happen. We also all have things to do in life other than wikipedia. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 23:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  I would personally disagree with the requirement about having to wait a week- the NPP queue is huge as is and having to wait a week for what is likely DRAFTIFYable as-is is just going to make things exponentially worse. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 03:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I personally don't see how it's helpful (in terms of actually reducing the backlog) to hack away at the low hanging fruit at the front, instead of actually tackling the queue from the back. Time to close this discussion though. Polyamorph (talk) 05:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• I have been disappointed to see that Bruxton ignored this AN/I. Several people have noted that by reviewing an article within minutes of its creation, they were not following NPP guidelines; and it was almost inevitable that they would thus run into someone who adds the references after laying down the prose. It isn't wise, but it's common. People work in different ways; as I type, there's a section below about another article that was created as a lead paragraph only, and then a second edit a couple of minutes later added a ton of prose and many references. Unfortunately, DaneGeld didn't appreciate not receiving even a response from Bruxton—and I agree, they had reason to expect an apology—and then being told they were being high-maintenance. I do not know whether Our Lady Immaculate and St Etheldreda's Church, Newmarket is notable; the fact they alluded to having had many tabs open to reference it suggests it is. I can't judge whether what they saved asserted notability, because in the heat of the moment, they had the draft deleted. Assertions of notability are also susceptible to individual judgement; some may regard any sufficiently old church as automatically notable, others many require it to be at least Grade II listed. But I would hope we could all agree as project participants that we need editors who are willing to write new articles, and also that having one's new article summarily draftified within minutes of first saving it, then being told one is being high maintenance by caring about it and by expecting at least the courtesy of a response from the reviewer who erred by doing so (there is general agreement here that it was an error), is hurtful. This is referred to as a "drama board" and worse, but one person's "drama" is another's thing they care about. After receiving no response from the reviewer, Bruxton, DaneGeld brought this here as a query, trying to understand. They deliberately didn't personalise it by naming the reviewer. They listened to advice and said they would recreate the article with the references (in their eagerness, they forgot that asking the priest for information would be OR). They said they would be satisfied with an apology. But after being told off for making a fuss, they have now retired. That leaves us down one willing article writer as well as one potentially useful article. I appreciate that NPPers volunteer to stick their faces in front of a fire hose. I appreciate that Dr_vulpes meant well. I appreciate that Bruxton probably has nothing against churches. Maybe they usually follow the rules and don't jump the gun by reviewing brand-new articles, and this was just a one-time mistake. But I don't know, because they don't appear to have responded in any way to DaneGeld or this AN/I. This has not done the encyclopaedia any good, and I think we let DaneGeld down badly. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems Nitin Malik Nitinmlk is created to troll me and to disrupt this project. I have cleaned up a lot of

Nitin Malik Nitinmlk indefinitely blocked by Bbb23 for impersonation. May still be worth a look by a CU. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Edits are a mixed bag of good, 'meh', and terrible. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to Bbb23 for acting so quickly. BTW, from the editing pattern, the timing of account creation, and even one of their peculiar habits, the impersonator seems like a sock of Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala. As there is an anon suspect as well, I emailed the SPI to

WP:OUTING can be avoided. - NitinMlk (talk

) 20:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I was reverting some of their edits, as they were causing categories to empty out and be tagged for CSD C1 deletion, and noticed that blocked editor User:Tushir Jat made some similar edits. Both accounts are blocked now but I think it might be worth a CU check for sockpuppets interested in editing articles about Jat people.

Think there might be a connection to this SPI case? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Nitin Malik Nitinmlk (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is  Confirmed to the Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala group. Did not check Tushir Jat, they appear to have a different POV from the Jhala group. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to Bbb23, Liz, GeneralNotability, & Mako001. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

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

This case is still very unresolved, and is a obvious case of a user violating multiple guidelines. Can someone please take a look at it? [11]. You might also want to see this recent thread [12] --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

User Iampharzad continued the edit war and removed reliable sources from the article

WP:RS/N is unacceptable.--KoizumiBS (talk

) 13:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred: You are more familiar than I . Recommendations? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

This is the reason. It is by no means clear that the Hazaras spoke Mongolian until the 19th century. Either Turkic or non-Persian. About the Hazaras, said In this reliable source, which is based on genetic research, it is very clearly said that the Hazaras are close to the people of Central Asia and are more related to the Turkic peoples than to the Mongols and the people of East Asia.--Iampharzad (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Iampharzad: What about the other sources that have been presented that stated that they did speak Mongolian? You deleted either one or two reliable sources published after the date of the source you cite. Your actions could easily be interpreted as cherry-picking to favour a particular point of view. —C.Fred (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Respected @C.Fred: Most of those sources are from the books of old authors, contemporary historians do not agree with them very much. For example, this genetic research taken from Hazara people is the best evidence to reject them. Thanks--Iampharzad (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Iampharzad: You'll need to demonstrate that the newer sources are solely relying on old data, and the way to do that is through dialogue (and providing additional sources to support your claim, as necessary) at the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Further, this talk page message and others raise substantial doubt on whether Iampharzad is editing in good faith. Since Afghanistan is involved, this is, broadly construed, an area subject to discretionary sanctions. —C.Fred (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred: What about this editing in good faith--Iampharzad (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Iampharzad: I don't see anything bad faith there, especially since it's just repeating what you said at the article talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

So this is nothing strange or bad. This is not bad behavior at all. Thanks--Iampharzad (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Iampharzad: No. That's what you said at the article talk (which I already said raised red flags) and the same text you put on his user talk page. I am saying HistoryofIran was entirely in order to remove that from their talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Skimming through, I see a content dispute. Considering the persistence of the problem, and what looks like bludgeoning and incivility on the part of Iampharzad, Ima

WP:partial block from Hazaras. I see CFred is engaged in discussion, so I will wait a bit. This will be a regular admin action appealable w/o the Sturm und Drang of formal sanctions. Any other admin may do as they feel fit. Life's too short for all this fussing and fighting. -- Deepfriedokra (talk

) 17:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Per the exchange above, Iampharzad is on a trajectory for a sanction of some flavour, whether it's a partial block, site block, or topic ban. —C.Fred (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Start with least restrictive and work our way up. Take a minute to fill out the paperwork -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. partial block Hazaras. regular admin action -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra:/anyone else: Iampharzad has thrice attempted to get HistoryofIran to proxy edit for them at Hazaras (diffs: 1, 2, 3), despite being told not to post at HOI's page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

...and now the forth attempt [13]. This is really bizarre. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Make that five [14]. In the edit summary of t he diff, he is literally asking why I am deleting his comments.

WP:CIR anyone? --HistoryofIran (talk

) 21:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

And now they've breached 3RR with their 5th such edit. Has this ever happened before? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The comment must be answered on Talk page, but it was deleted several times.--Iampharzad (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I left a comment on the user page to write a solution to the problem somehow, but they delete my comment.--Iampharzad (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Can you explain why you are removing my comment from your Talk page. [15] or [16]--Iampharzad (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Was "don't write in my talk page" and the multiple reverts by various users not explanation enough? You are literally trying to harrass me into answering you, if not doing your bid. You have now attempted to add the message a whooping 9(!) times in my talk page. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Indef block Iampharzad. Edit warring on HistoryofIran's talk page, trying to evade a block, WP:CIR. Looks pretty clear to me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

You see, I left a message, but disrespectfully deleted my comment without a reply. Please see [17]--Iampharzad (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• I've extended the block site wide due to continued disruption.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  @

  WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE with editing Wikipedia. Welp, I guess this is the result of me 1) not taking heed and 2) going least restrictive. Thanks, ponyo for cleaning up my mess. -- Deepfriedokra (talk

  ) 22:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The Number Line (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Doesn't appear to be a new user, see their first edit and please block them. Nythar^T.C 22:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Definitely has the whiff of an LTA, but more immediately actionable is the fact that they're evading a block placed earlier today.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

My heroes have always been cowboys -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if a neutral third-party were to give this dispute a look. Thank you! Nerd271 (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

This kind of escalation is in clear bad faith, an attempt at a “win by superior bureaucracy” because you (Nerd271) have no interest in arguing the merits of your case. This discussion has only been at the page in question for a trivially short time, no other editors have even had a chance to see it, and Administrators have no context or special interest/expertise in this topic. You should instead ping Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics where other editors with interest and past participation in this topic are likely to see. –jacobolus (t) 19:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Having seen this from the article page, this seems to be primarily a content issue, although surprisingly heated. Dispute resolution should happen on

WP:DRN may be helpful. Ovinus (talk

) 19:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

jacobolus has opened a discussion at WP:MATH; I think it would be good if both parties disengaged until other editors had a chance to weigh in. (Surely this is not an urgent question.) --JBL (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

My apologies if this belongs on one of the noticeboard categories above. An editor, Why? I Ask (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Why%3F_I_Ask), recently nominated a set of pages for deletion (List of compositions for viola A to B and other letters of the alphabet); please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_compositions_for_viola:_A_to_B. This was closed as Keep, and the closing editor started a review of the close that endorsed the decision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2022_September_1. The nominator still went ahead and merged the existing pages (effectively deleting the existing content) while the review was underway. As part of that DRV discussion, one of the admins asked the nominator to "Please take the opportunity to restore the article to the post-close status yourself, now that you have been notified your actions were at best premature." Two editors also posted to the nominator's talk page asking them to restore the article; all of these requests have been refused. The nominator has also made it clear through multiple outlets that they care only about their opinions related to this matter. I am not an experienced enough editor to revert the changes myself and was directed to this outlet by an admin for help in getting these pages restored to their original state.Dbynog (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)dbynog

I'm not going to revert my edits because there's no reason to (yet). There are some editors that like my changes and some that don't. That's why I've already started an RfC based on that particular admin's recommendations at

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Music to gauge consensus. If it seems there's consensus against me, then I'll change it back. Why? I Ask (talk

) 21:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• Revert If keeping the A-B viola list as a separate article was endorsed twice in a row, consensus to do anything else should be confirmed before performing the controversial merge in the first place. Since the contested merge defies the previously settled consensus at DRV, it should be reverted until a new consensus is reached. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  It wasn't endorsed twice in a row; read the deletion discussion or deletion review. It was closed as a keep, but many commented that they felt it was a notable topic with a bad presentation. The deletion review just argued whether or not the closing admin's decision to close it based on the feedback was right. There was no consensus to keep the page as it was. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  You were advised that your editing actions were inappropriate. This is the logical consequence of your

  WP:IDHT response. Jclemens (talk

  ) 03:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  Tell me how they were inappropriate. Tell me how they were not a good faith improvement. I don't see you offering to discuss my actual changes anywhere, just the nature of how I enacted them. You quite literally said it yourself "[i]t's too long and comprehensive" is an inherent admission that, if consensus permitted, the list could be trimmed to notable entries, and thus, deletion is not the only option. I quite literally did just that. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  No, you quite literally didn't. I have zero relation to this topic, but it caught my eye and I read both this post and the original discussion. I got the very distinct impression that your approach is "my way or the highway". And now you're trying to justify your most recent actions by pointing to someone's suggestion of trimming the page. It's like beheading someone and saying "but it was you who suggested the haircut!" If you were truly interested in improving the article you could've tried to consensually determine what was worth keeping and what was not (which is what was actually suggested) Good faith or not, you're coming across as uninterested in (or incapable of) collaborative work when you're not calling the shots. Your complete refusal to accept you could be in the wrong or to assume any sort of responsibility for your actions only buttress that interpretation, and I would be quite shocked if this doesn't end in some sort of restriction to your ability to edit. Ostalgia (talk) 09:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  You know what? Fine. I'll revert the pages, and keep my version as an overview article as Gerda suggested (repertoire and lists are different). I don't care enough about this particular article anymore. And besides, the RfC I started looks like most of them will end up being deleted or trimmed anyway. If there's issues about my conduct, I admit there are some ways I wish I could have done better. (But in my opinion, it's better to be BOLD and apologize later). However, the fact that no one has discussed my actual changes in a policy based-sense is frustrating. That's why I have continuously doubled down. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  Your RfC is not neutrally worded and hence invalid; I'm disappointed that no one else seems to have notified you of this sooner. It will have to be closed and restarted neutrally if you want it to be considered normative. Jclemens (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  I mean, I asked in an edit summary if was neutral enough, and no one seemed to have an issue with it. If you have an idea of how to neutrally word it, then go ahead. But it also seems unnecessarily bureaucratic. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that your preamble to that discussion is far from neutral. Why not just ask the question, without pre-empting it by laying out your experience with this topic?

  Phil Bridger (talk

  ) 17:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  In the future, I'll be more careful to neutrally word the RfC, but at this point, it really does not matter. I doubt anyone's opinions in the discussion were swayed by my comments, and to start it over seems pointless. Requests for comment should be about discussion and gauging consensus. Not continuously pointing out technicalities that have no affect on the former. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  The fact that you think it doesn't matter... doesn't matter. The RfC is invalid, and if you want to get a valid one, you have to start over and follow the

  WP:DE territory, and I would much rather see you participate appropriately than be sanctioned for not getting it. Jclemens (talk

  ) 21:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think there's anything written that says if an RfC doesn't have a neutrally worded statement, then all of the discussion is thrown out automatically. Nothing I did precluded a chance for consensus to form. And at this point, restarting a week-long RfC because the preamble to a statement was not neutral serves nobody but people obsessed with "the rules" (and other editors agree). I will, of course, work to make any RfC I start neutral in the future, but I have to ask why you care so much about this one in a discussion you still have refused to actually participate in? Why? I Ask (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  This discussion has been open for a couple of days, and NOT ONE user has seen fit to weigh in and support your perspective, while the original requestor, myself, and three others have politely told you that you're wrong. If you want to blame someone for a week's worth of work being thrown out, that would be you, who failed to read the rules and use a neutral opening statement. While many people would undoubtedly contribute the exact same thing to a new RfC, there's simply no way for you to rehabilitate one that's inherently flawed--this is not a new thing, it's happened plenty of times before, and is probably the most common problem I've seen with RfCs.

  I haven't "refused to actually participate in" anything. I don't care that much about classical music, have no strong opinion on the topic, and so my participation is unneeded and irrelevant; your

  WP:FAIT behavior while a DRV was ongoing brought your user conduct to my attention, and I happened to note that it made its way here. This is forum to discuss user conduct issues, including yours. Again, I'm happy this discussion is focused on educating you that the way you're going about trying to impose your will on Wikipedia isn't how we do things around here, rather than undoing any disruptive editing. Your end goal might indeed be the best overall for Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of classical music... but your attempts to bludgeon the system to achieve that result are not compatible with collegial editing. Jclemens (talk

  ) 00:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  And I reverted my edits, did I not? However, I only initially did my edits to begin with because there was weak consensus to trim the pages down. I'm also not a fan of your accusation of

  WP:FAIT

  . It was not difficult to reverse at all nor did I justify my edits based on the fact of the supposed difficulty. I justified based on the fact that there were editors calling for it to be trimmed (and I can quote them or ask them if needed).

  However, for you to complain about my RfC (as opposed to me not reverting the viola page) is an entirely different matter and belongs either on my talk page or at the actual RfC. But I fail to see your logic. If everyone would just undoubtedly contribute the exact same things to the RfC, then what the heck is the point of starting a new one? Policies and guidelines are great... However needlessly pointing to one and saying "see!" when they ignore the principle of consensus building is not. I could have had my preamble to the statement directly below it, people would see the exact same thing, and it would have been peachy keen. But only because it's placed above the question and listed options does it now invalidate a couple weeks worth of discussion. Also, your last point: your end goal might be the best overall for Wikipedia.... Have you learned nothing from

  WP:IAR. I feel like if you say something along those lines, then I'm forced to cite that pillar. Why? I Ask (talk

  ) 00:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

On 1 February 2020‎ @Randykitty posted[18] a COI warning on User talk:Embocomm. That did trigger some updates to the page User:Embocomm, adding a further item to the COI declarations, but it did not halt the COI edits: since that date, User:Embocomm has made 58 edits just to the article about itself European Molecular Biology Organization, plus other edits to conflicted pages.

I became aware of this today, when @Embocomm posted on my talk page, at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Wikipedia_entry_on_Fiona_Watt. That discussion was not encouraging, which is why I escalate this to ANI.

As I noted on my talk page, continuing to push the line like this after so many years is the sort of conduct which I associate with dodgy startup companies engaged in marketing, not an international scientific association. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

PS I have added COI tags to several articles edited by this account: Fiona Watt, The EMBO Journal, Life Science Alliance and European Molecular Biology Organization. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you object to the substance of any of their edits? --100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

They have made many edits, this one for example [19]] is primary sourced promotion. Theroadislong (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Changing "travel grants" to "lecture, travel and childcare grants" does not strike me as particularly promotional. The very heavy reliance on primary sources is a problem for

WP:DUE (and perhaps notability), though -- I've nuked the section. 100.36.106.199 (talk

) 15:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion on BHG's talkpage reflects well on the user, FWIW. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how editing in breach of COI policy for 14 years is in any way at all a good reflection on any user, let alone someone employed by an organisation of scholars. I would expect that any such employee should have been more than capable of reading and understanding COI policy.

So I'd say that this reflects badly on them and on their employer. But other editors apply lower standards. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• Noting for the record they have been reported to
  WP:UAA by Theroadislong. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L}
  ) — 14:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  I have softblocked this role account. Cullen328 (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Admins, the IP 95.141.17.30 has been abusing his/her/their talk page by posting legal threats after being blocked for the very same reason....and blanking the page every time editors reply. He/she/they claims that WMF is bound by UK law, and based on his rhetorics, I do think that his/her/their talk page privileges be revoked. InvadingInvader (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I would also additionally like to note that the user has used personal attacks against me; in Revision 1111630895, they asked me to remove what they thought of as libelous information and called me a "a holier than thou, basement dwelling, know it all". InvadingInvader (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• Page blanked. TPA revoked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)