Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

---

I noticed this Turkish-language Reddit link.[1]. It seems a massive off-wiki campaign has been initiated by Turkish-language speakers to create more disruption in the cesspool known as WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS. As the posts/comments were in Turkish, they were translated using Google tranlate:

• "The first spark was ignited in order to correct and organize the unfounded claims we have seen on Wikipedia recently. r/turkviki was established. Let's get organized from there."[2]
• "Friends, this subreddit was founded on the termination of unfounded claims made on Wikipedia. Our aim is to put an end to the unfounded allegations made on Wikipedia, the propaganda activities targeting our country and nation, to express the truth and correct the mistakes."[3]
• "we need a larger audience, salaried employees of wikipedia, and I don't know how effective we can be against the current Turkish hatred"[4]
• "Turkish Wikipedia Community Discord server. Friends, I left the link below if you would like to join the works that started before us."[5]
• "Friends, let's start with the liberation war first and let there be a spark of salvation for us from the lies in Wikipedia."[6]
• "First of all, we must explain why this claim [Armenian genocide] is not true. For example, instead of the 1.5 million people they said, there were actually 1.1 million Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire. There is no article about genocide against Armenians in the Treaty of Mudros Sevres or Lausanne. Until 1948, the United Nations and the League of Nations before it never defined a crime called genocide, and if you eat pizza and eat pizza in the future is a war crime, they cannot hold you guilty for what you did in the past. You can write that the deportation was carried out by the Union and Terraki and that the remaining Unionists completely severed their ties with the party at the Sivas congress, and the Parliament was against what the Committee of Union and Terraki did. In addition, we must reveal the evils committed by Armenians in the public opinion, instead of the crimes they have committed, the terrorist attacks of ASALA in Europe will be the best examples."[7]
• "Ottoman archives of the period are available on this site: Devletarsivleri.gov.tr (<cant post the entire link due to blockquote error>) It is enough for someone to translate it into Turkish for us to understand. then we edit the page on the wiki."[8]
• "The first thing that needs to be changed is the name. Then we will add the villages and towns burned by the Armenians. The number of people killed by Armenians is not specified. We should add them too. Let's diversify the missing parts as comments. Good luck with."[9]
• "A patrol is here! hello, i am zemxer from turkish wikipedia. As I'm on patrol on Turkish Wikipedia, I try to help new users as much as possible. You know, there is an approval system for the contributions made in Turkish Wikipedia, and I am one of the patrol friends who approve these contributions. I can help users and groups who want to contribute to Wikipedia and who want to make these contributions in an impartial framework. good wikis"[10]

So this group of people 1) clearly state their intention to spread Turkish government propaganda at Eng.Wikipedia disproven by the rest of the world 2) They receive support from users at the Turkish Wikipedia. Posting it here at AN as suggested by several administrators. You might be interested in this: @Rosguill: @Buidhe: @Bbb23: @Seraphimblade: @Black Kite: @Deepfriedokra: @Johnuniq: @HistoryofIran: @Dennis Brown: @Drmies: @El C: @Khirurg: @Kansas Bear: @Cplakidas: ‎- LouisAragon (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Noting this is still ongoing, see Vahakn Dadrian and its abuse log. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 15:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Same here Second Perso-Turkic War, where a stream of new accounts are making nationalistic edits. I am also still occasionally reporting new socks, just see the now larger SPI archive of one the discord members for example (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beyoglou/Archive). --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

When looking at the members of their discord, I noticed a person named "Berk". He has a portrait of Ulugh Beg as his discord profile picture, the very same added by one of our own Wikipedians, BerkBerk68, here [11]. In other words, they must be the same person. BerkBerk seems to have a prominent role there, as he has published the rules of the discord. This is not the first time user:BerkBerk has participated in off-wiki canvassing through Discord, see for example these two posts back in July 2021, where user:BerkBerk tried to recruit an admin to his "14 people" discord, which was apparently focused on editing the Syrian Civil War and 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War. [12]-[13]- LouisAragon (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Note the date 27-06-2022 at Discord:[14] Seems there's a triad involving editors at the Turkish wiki, off-wiki people, and editors at Eng.Wiki. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

@LouisAragon, this report may have all kinds of merit, but doesn't the "The discord server" bit inch into WP:OUTING? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Berk#2835 is me, and that community has permission from authorities of Turkish Wikipedia, and it is not interested in English Wikipedia editing. Many experienced/authorized Turkish-language editors are in that group, furthermore I am not the owner of that server. I undertake all the mistakes done by me at "discord" one year ago. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 13:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Why am I not surprised to see you engaging in this kind of stuff again. Not interested in English Wikipedia editing? What is this you have written under Planlama ("Planning") then? Google Translate "Users will be divided into 2 main sectors as English and Turkish Writers. It is obligatory to make a total of 100 edits, 60 from one sector and 40 from another sector, on behalf of users who want to participate in both. When the new week is started, the number of edits between sectors (60-40) may change." I did write a similar report about BerkBerk to ArbCom sometime ago, though I am still awaiting an update. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I invite administrators to the discord server to prove that there is not any single edit provoked by me in english wikipedia, everything asked will be translated by me, and for any kind of distrust, access to server logs (+ProBot for deleted messages) will be given. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 13:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

The discord link here just got deleted [15] (including the user who posted it) and the discord is now gone. Something you and co. trying to hide? Fortunately I took pictures of BerkBerk's "Planning" list before hand. Would it violate WP:OUTING to post it here? --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

that text is not written by me, the person who writed it wanted me to post it (I understand the reason now), the planning list is already posted and I have opposed the things going on reddit on that server aswell. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 13:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Kutlug Şad — 13.10.2022 O zaman r/Turkviki başlı başına canlı kuklacılık ("Then r/Turkviki is completely meatpuppet") Berk (me) — 13.10.2022 Öyle zaten ("it is, already") Kutlug Şad also posts a screenshot showing him posting a nationalistic comment, calling reddit users to the discord and asks me about it, I told him "don't". BerkBerk⁶⁸ 13:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

again, all logs and messages will be opened for Administrators. I have never motivated anyone to make any edits on English Wikipedia on that server. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 13:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

So.. you wrote for the sake of someone else? Honestly, your excuses bore me. Prepare to make more, as this is not even scrapping the barrel. As I said, I also have that huge ArbCom report of you. Not to mention you have been called out for nationalistic editing or similiar by other users than me. Let's not forget my previous ANI report of you either. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have found messages of the owner sending me the text in order to publish it on server at 27.06.2022. since "discord screenshots" can't be used here, I will post it when its necessary. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 16:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I strongly urge you (both) to only send any personal data like that to ArbCom — posting screenshots/text or anything that someone could argue is personal data will, at the very least, cause drama. The back and forth here is unlikely to resolve the issue, given that it appears to depend on this private evidence. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 17:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

its not just me, but also another experienced editor pings 2 other editors including me, asking if that would be "meatpuppet". and I respond: "it would absolutely be called that because it is". messages at 13.10.2022 proves that I am blaming that subreddit. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 13:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

@HistoryofIran Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 169#Discord logs Posting discord logs on wiki is oversightable. Email them to arbcom. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I see. The issue is that it (respectfully) takes too long if I message ArbCom. They still haven't updated me regarding the ArbCom report of Berkberk, which I sent two months ago. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

@HistoryofIran: If you believe there's action that ArbCom can take, I'd suggest starting a case request — just ensure you keep the right side of WP:OUTING etc, and (re-)email the committee the private evidence — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 18:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Based on the evidence already provided in this thread regarding how this Discord group has been advertised and coordinated on Reddit, specifically taking issue with content on en.wiki, I don't buy the claim that this is unrelated to en.wiki editing. Frankly, the rhetoric surrounding this group online is WP:RGW and vitriolic enough that I would have serious concerns about them even operating as a group on tr.wiki; there may be a case for starting a discussion on Metawiki. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

  You are openly invited to the aforementioned group to see the proofs of my opposition on the subreddit. messages there are clearly showing that individuals wanted to support the subreddit and to invite reddit users while experienced editors including me opposed that. it would also prove the fact that I have never encouraged/supported anyone to edit on english wikipedia. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 18:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Could you more clearly explain what the purpose of this Discord group is? Setting aside your specific participation, what is the purpose of the group, and why has it been promoted on reddit forums in the highly combative manner detailed by LouisAragon in the first part of this discussion? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

  The fact that both the Discord and Reddit sub-forum are now private makes BerkBerk's claim even less believable. I also still have that screenshot of his "Planning" message if an admin is interested. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Actually, according to this post from 9 days ago, the privating the subreddit was something planned in advance, so. That's on me. ~Styyx^Talk? 23:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Ah, glad to see. Some users think that I am managing a whole reddit group despite I have opposed that group days ago. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 15:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

  promotions were made by different users and multiple experienced users including me thought that it would be meatpuppetry and opposed that (as it could be seen on the server messages including the meatpuppet expression). The general thought of the community is that Turkish community on Wikipedia have been regressed a lot due to the disgusting decision of Turkish government on blocking Wikipedia, and therefore source interpretation has changed a lot, which I totally agree with that. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 15:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Turkish community on Wikipedia have been regressed a lot due to the disgusting decision of Turkish government on blocking Wikipedia, and therefore source interpretation has changed a lot, which I totally agree with that, this does not allay concerns that the discord is operating as a POV-pushing platform. Additionally, your position in this thread is that there is a subset of people involved with the discord that have been publicizing it improperly, against your advice and against the intent of the server in the first place, would be a lot more convincing if you identified the black-hat editors misusing the discord so that we could investigate and address their malfeasance. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

  ofcourse, the user that I have warned about this situation is Kutlug Şad as I explained above. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 16:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

There's some POV editing happening right now at Karapapakhs, who were renamed to "Karapapakhs Turks" by some IPs and a new account. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Have seen a large increase in dubious editing on Turkic history-related articles recently. I asked for a sockpuppet investigation into one because I thought edits were too similar. However, accounts coordinating off-wiki could very possibly be another solution. ~~ AirshipJ29 (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Two brand new users are currently engaging in POV editing at Seljuk Empire, attempting to remove 7k sourced information through edit warring. This is not good. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Aaand r/Turkviki has been made private by its moderators. ~Styyx^Talk? 17:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
• My screenshot of BerkBerk's "Planning" comment also shows a certain user (who has the role of "Yönetici", meaning "Executive"), that is User:Beyoglou. A notorious xenophobic pan-nationalist and sock (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beyoglou/Archive), whom BerkBerk has claimed that he has "no relation to" [16] and has tried to defend [17]. Yet they are in the same discord, curious. Not to mention some of Beyoglou's socks have come to the aid of BerkBerk several times. Again, I have all kinds of proof to back this up, but WP:OUTING is not making this easy. I would prefer to send this to an admin who would be willing to make a quick judgement of this, rather than ArbCom. Though if I have no choice, I will send it to the latter. This connects rather too well with my current ArbCom report of BerkBerk. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Individual administrators aren't allowed to act on non-public evidence. It has to be ArbCom for something like this. – Joe (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks, I have sent it all to ArbCom and asked them about an update regarding my other report. However, I do think some sort of action or actions needs to be taken here, as this is very concerning. We can't just sit idle. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

• I've gone ahead and blocked BerkBerk68. If y'all have a clue as to other editors I should block based on this matter, ping me. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Was that an action based on private evidence (as you mention on the user's talk page) provided to ArbCom? If so, we can assume this was a block made in your capacity as an arbitrator (given that you wouldn't have access to that private evidence were you not one), and not a "standard functionary" — correct? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 20:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

  @TheresNoTime Ya know, that is a good question. I'm not 100% sure of that answer? I don't think it can be a block in my capacity as an Arb, because individual Arbs can't place blocks. An ArbCom block is by its nature a block by the committee and we only place them after a vote. So I think it must be a block in my capacity as an individual func. I asked that question of another Arb before I blocked, since I too wondered that, and they were also of the opinion that I could use the info ArbCom had been emailed to make an individual block. We do that from time to time with other matters: we get emailed something that really doesn't need the whole committee to waste its time on it, so one of us will just do it as an individual admin action. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

  An individual admin action based on private evidence that no other admin/functionary (other than those on the committee) can verify/review? Doesn't that sound incredibly close to a recent discussion.. perhaps the community needs to be consulted on if they're happy for these actions to take place. I'm certainly not, and would expect our arbs to use a bit of common sense. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

  I read that RfC as saying that individual admins couldn't make those blocks, but individual CU/OS could, or of course ArbCom. So unless I've misinterpreted that RfC, I don't see how taking the action as an individual CU is an issue? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

  I thought the whole point with allowing that was private evidence was available for review by those with relevant access (i.e., all functionaries can review the private evidence which led to an action being taken)? Seeing as all functionaries are unable to review this evidence, and this wasn't an action by an arbitrator, all I can see is that you've decided to make a block based off of this thread. Perhaps that's warranted, I don't particularly care, but I definitely do care about ArbCom making somewhat secret decisions but enacting them in their private capacity. Whom do we hold accountable, the committee or the arb? How can we review an unblock request in this case? Do we contact the committee, or you? Why didn't ArbCom forward this evidence to the checkuser list when it decided it as an entity didn't want to do anything with it? These are worrying questions, and the community deserves transparency in how often this happens. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

While I see your concern, I'm not sure it's a major issue. Let's say that someone emails ArbCom an UpWork profile and says "so and so is a paid editor." Technically it's private evidence. But it would not be worth the time of the committee for all 15 members to deliberate and vote on blocking an obvious paid editor. So an individual Arb can just block said obvious paid editor without needing to make it an ArbCom block. It would be no different if say someone had emailed just me, and not ArbCom. In either case, the block I make is as an individual CU. The appeal is not difficult: the CU looking into unblocking just emails the blocking CU (pretty standard procedure) and asks what the basis for the block was. The blocking CU sends over the UpWork profile, and all is well. This case here is but a variation on that theme. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I disagree, so have opened a dedicated thread below. Thanks. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks, CaptainEek. I will soon make a (probably unpopular) proposal here on how we can deal with this massive off-Wiki campaign, I would appreciate to hear what you all think of it. We shouldn't take this matter lightly one bit imo. Before the Reddit got private, there were like 400 members. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
• :"I believe this all goes back to the current massive off-wiki campaign aimed at disrupting Wikipedia, which Beyoglou plays a leading part in."

  There is a massive witchhunt going against a lot of person has nothing to do with our so called "massive discord group". I don't even know any of the banned user excluding my sockpuppet "Crasyy". But as I said they try to accuse all vandals and newcomers on Turkish-topics of being meat puppet and related to our "pan-nationalist" group and block them. It's a concerning situation when it comes to newcomer users who try to edit Turkey related topics. when some of the users that making witch hunt against us notice these newcomers, will try to ban them with accusation of relating to us. Is creating Wikipedia-related community and editing Wikipedia illegal according to policies? Absouletly not. But when it comes to some idiotic teenagers in reddit that has nothing related to us, they made our discord group "Pan-Nationalistic", "Xenophobic". 95.70.214.41 (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC) Reply

  For example under this comment a user named "Nyhtar" says "They are even disrupting article not related to WP:KURDS". A random vandal changes "Russian" with Kurdish and accused to be in one of these groups.

  @TheresNoTime:

  @CaptainEek: and other users who involved. 95.70.214.41 (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:BeyoglouReply

(Writing so thread doesn't get archived tomorrow). --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ditto. --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:04, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Proposal: WP:ARBECR (which includes a 500edits/30days restriction) over WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS articles.

As LouisAragon rightly put it, the WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS is a cesspool, and it's not going to get better anytime soon, especially with these massive off-wiki campaigns. In my 10 years on this site, the vast majority of IPs and brand new users in this area have been WP:NOTHERE, often ending up getting indeffed for pov editing and/or egregious attacks. It's also too easy for these troublemakers to sock nowadays, it's almost laughable. For example, see this long SPI archive [18] of the notorious sock Aydın memmedov2000, which doesn't even show all of their socks, there are even more of this person here [19]. Sadly that's just one of many cases. It would alleviate so much time and stress on Wikipedia if we implemented at least some sort of restriction in this area. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I concur with HistoryofIran that there are too many LTAs in WP:AA2 (I can't speak for WP:KURDS) and that something needs to be done to address this. Aside from the LTA HistoryofIran mentioned above, there are 2 additional LTAs (1 & 2) whose socks I must report at least once or twice each month. It's extremely rare for a new account or IP in AA2 to make a helpful edit; instead, 99% of the time, they only do so to vandalise or promote a POV. I think the requirement of 500 edits and 30 days (which could possibly be lowered to 200-300 edits and 15 days) is a good idea to address this problem, so I support it. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 10:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Support Yes, for both. There's so much disruption in these areas, I'm surprised we don't already have a good enough restriction on them. Nythar (💬-🎃) 22:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Take a look at this edit I reverted just now. They're even disrupting article not related to WP:KURDS. Let's at least ECP articles directly related to that topic area. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 22:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Support applying WP:ARBECR to AA2 and KURDS. Levivich (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Support something needs to be done concerning the flood of IPs and sockpuppets. The AA2 area is continuously being disrupted by the socks of Aydın memmedov2000, Beyoglou, Steverci. And a listing of disruption for the last 3 yrs: 2022 disruption 2021 disruption, 2020 disruption. I think this says it all. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

  If anyone needs further evidence, check out the 8 9 10 reverts by an IP at the Orontid dynasty. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Support Clearly something needs to be done here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Support Surely something must need to be done about this disruption. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 22:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Support Very sensible proposal to reduce the disruption. Khirurg (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Support Long, long overdue. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Support the disruption is only ever going to grow, and it's already at unsustainable levels. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Support Even though this won't stop them, it will certainly hinder their disruptive activity. Demetrios1993 (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Support Clearly there is almost no good activity by IPs and plenty of autoconfirmed socks. This is probably the most effective remedy. ‡ The Night Watch ω (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
• @HistoryofIran: I have no opinion on the proposal but would suggest replacing "500edits/30days restriction" with "extended-confirmed restriction" – WP:ECR was carefully drafted specifically to address the nuances of applying a topic-wide 500/30 restriction. Best KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

  I see, so it's more or less the same as my proposal, but also takes cares of other details related to it. Thanks, I have slightly reworded my proposal. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Support, this is a good idea considering what I've seen when patrolling vandalism. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Support, Disruptive IPs and socks are becoming a big nuisance for the AA2 area, with experienced editors spending significant time protecting the articles from the never-ending flow of IPs, socks, and new accounts, when they could be spending it more efficiently. Yes, it will affect new editors who have good intentions, however, I believe it is better for them if they do not begin their editing in intense editing areas such as AA2. So, I fully support proposed initiative. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 06:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Support, but only for ethnic or political topics in this area. Under the current scope of AA2, an article about an Armenian railroad would be covered by the sanctions, but ECP would be counterproductive unless the railroad has a significant role in an ethnic conflict, or a non-ECP user has repeatedly added ethnic fanaticism to the article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Support per constant disruption/vandalism by IPs on AA2 topic area. – Olympian ^loquere 06:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Query I'm not against applying WP:ARBECR, but it seems to me this is an ArbCom-level restriction that needs to be applied, not one that we can do via WP:AN based on its phrasing. I support its implementation, but there appear to be some bureaucratic hurdles we should clarify. Buffs (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Wikipedia:General sanctions#Community sanctions says the community can impose any general sanctions it wants, and can (and has) made its general sanctions identical in substance to sanctions imposed under ArbCom's procedures. That's if it wishes to, of course; the community is "not bound by Arbitration Committee procedures and guidelines" when imposing these general sanctions. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

• This overwhelming support surely is more than enough for the WP:ARBECR to be implemented? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Only if you're brave enough for the WP:ARCA template, which no one is. Otherwise, it'll probably have to be set up (i.e. split) into something like WP:ARBEE → WP:GS/RUSUKR. HTH. El_C 23:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

  @El C: I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand. Are there even more steps required to go through with this? Weren't we only supposed to vote for it? --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

  @El C: I understood this proposal to be for establishing ECR as a community-imposed general sanction. That would not require ArbCom action, if I'm understanding correctly. @HistoryofIran: I recommend posting at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

  I'm not sure why you'd think that, Kevin, when the proposal plainly says: WP:ARBECR [...] over WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS. Now, asking the Committee at ARCA to consider doing that, as is the intent here, ought to be relatively straight forward when such overwhelming consensus has been gathered. Had I not been so lazy (I mean, the ARCA template isn't that hard) and likewise anyone else bothering, RUSUKR probably would have passed by motion as +ARBEE. The overall trend has been to streamline (subsume), like with WP:GS/COVID19 → WP:ARBCOVID; WP:GS/IPAK → WP:ARBPAK; WP:GS/IRANPOL → WP:ARBIRP; and so on.

  To me, personally, it's more or less all the same (even when inelegant), but beyond that, I think it would make sense to have something along the line of clerks assisting users, who, like in this instance, were able to accomplish community consensus for their proposal to add/adjust an existing ArbCom sanctions regimes. To help them file the paperwork, as it were. Because the less of an access ceiling, the better, I'm sure you'd agree. And all of this as we are in flux. El_C 01:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

  The confusion about this proposal may be my fault. Before my comment here, the proposal was for "500edits/30days restriction over" the articles. I suggested changing it to WP:ECR, which describes more nuances and implementing rules. My thought was that the community would implement the restriction itself, not that it would ask ArbCom to do so. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Sorry, I'm not following. What I quoted (the proposal: WP:ARBECR [...] over WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS) was from Nov 1; your comment to whch you link is from Nov 11. The two Arbcom sanctions regimes mentioned in the proposal, WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS, are ones that many of the users supporting the proposal are already accustomed to (to whichever extent). What would be the benefit of adding a third sanctions regime, except this time making it WP:GS instead of WP:ACDS? Would it not make more sense to just amend AA2/KURDS, instead of overcomplicating everything with a new log, new alerts and page notices, new thing to remember? Thwink about it! El_C 16:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Sorry guys, but I am even more lost now. Is there a tutorial somewhere for dummies that I can follow? I wanna proceed as soon as possible, especially since the numbers of socks are slowly ramping up. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

  That's exactly what I've been trying to work towards in my comments above (and elsewhere), HistoryofIran. I wish Kevin would have addressed my point about this access ceiling. Oh well, maybe next time. El_C 23:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

  El C, the original proposal was for a 500 edits/30 days restriction, as seen in this diff provided by Kevin. This was overwritten later, following Kevin's comment. Can we please get the administrative and bureaucratic eccentricities out of the way, and have some sort of action on the problem? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

  I'm not preventing you from doing anything, least of all read what I had written. El_C 13:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Support because of constant sockpuppeting. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose even though I know that this isn't going to have an effect. When I created what would become ECP in 2015, it was meant to be a last-ditch creative effort to stop the highest-level of disruption on the project. I feel that this proposal rolls it out to a far too broad array of articles while lesser remedies have yet to be tried. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose per Guerillero and my comments at WP:ARCA. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Support. Nominator has given definitive proof that too many IPs and accounts have disrupted Kurdish-related articles for many years. Some personal experience at Southern Kurdish. ~~lol1VNIO⁠🎌 (I made a mistake? talk to me) 07:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Potential oppose, potential support - I am reticent to support an automatic major restriction on such a scale as the entire (amended as of 2013) AA2 scope. I'm aware, of course, of the gaming risk, but I don't think we'd ever endorse such an action were there (say) a dispute nexus between the US and UK. I would support this restriction on the conflict between the two countries (broadly construed, by all means), but opppose a restriction on the individual countries and their topics. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose applying restrictions on the entire AA2 scope, per statistics below. Undecided on narrower restrictions, and restrictions on WP:KURDS. BilledMammal (talk) 02:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose general ECP. When we're ECPing an area, we should be doing so only if it is a narrowly-tailored way to prevent future disruption. The arguments above note that the locus of the disruption is threefold: the first is that there are a number of disruptive IPs, the second is that there is general problems newer editors and the third is that there is socking going on. For the first issue, semi-protection would solve this quite easily; we don't need ECP to protect a topic area from disruptive IP editors. For the second, if the concern is new (canvassed) editors, then ECP isn't required to weed them out; semi-protection would likely serve as enough of a barrier to disruption that people would not be able to enter the topic spontaneously and begin to disrupt articles. For the third case, I do not see substantial evidence that long-term persistent sockmasters are deterred by ECP requirements; IceWhiz, NoCal100, and יניב הורון all still sock in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict area, and frankly I don't see why this is going to be different. That being said, semi-protection would well-address most forms of disruption in this area, and I might be able to get behind a 1-year semi-protection in the area. To paraphrase El_C's close of this 2021 discussion, I'm not seeing the reasons for why ECP should supersede a testing-the-waters semi-protection in this topic area, especially when the majority of the complaints are about IP editors doing the disruption. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Oppose I can see the merits of both arguments. I think semi-protection is likely the better option; if the socks are that determined, they'll simply stick around for the 30 days/500 edit requirements before starting again. Semi-protection works best in my mind and tends to prevent these "hit and run" vandalism efforts where they only change a few words here and there rather than substantially blanking/re-writing sections in an article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Support – I trust the rationale and evidence provided by numerous experienced editors in these topic areas. Aza24 (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Support Eurasian and Turkic-related topics have long been subjected to disruption by IPs and new users, often socks or meat puppets with agendas. This will help prevent that.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

  subjected to disruption by IPs and new users then so would semi-protection? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Neutral - As stated here on ARCA, I'd rather have a general sanction for all of Turkey. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Comment for Kurds - I would have been supportive of the proposal if it was done back in 2019-2021 when the disruption was constant at WP:Kurds. However, there hasn't been much disruption in recent months from my observation, only isolated incidents. Semsûrî (talk) 13:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Support Armenia/Azerbaijan for a limited time and Kurds for a more extended period of time. I agree with the reasons presented by other editors and support a time-limited ECP period. My preferred ECP range is a bit broader than Nosebagbear's idea: Sanction the conflict related pages and try to stay away from more cultural or non-conflict related stuff, but also ECP the main country articles since we're probably gonna get some trolls who edit something along the lines of "Armenia is a d*ck country" or fulfilling Godwin's law when it comes to Erdogan and the Kurds after being autoconfirmed. The stats below show that for me, we have too many Non EC but AC editors vandalizing...ideally we should see around 17-ish% for all categories for only semi. Since the Kurds are likely to be a much more prolonged issue given the additional involvement that particular conflict has within the Syrian Civil War, I support longer sanctions for that field, but given that Armenia and Azerbaijan (as of writing) are not as active in their fighting or anger at least right now, I'm more inclined to cut that ECP short a bit earlier. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Support but the Greece and Cyprus topic areas should be monitored included too. There was a recent disruption in these topic areas, where Turkish agenda accounts editwarred at Aegean dispute and Cyprus–Turkey maritime zones dispute, resulting to their indefinite blocks. This happens at a time when there are a growing number of international media [20][21][22][23][24] reporting that the ruling nationalist government of Turkey is actively adopting an extremely hostile rhetoric against these neighboring countries.

Considering that the common people in Turkey are lacking an unhindered access to third-party independent media and more calm voices (all the media in the country are either under intense pressure or the control of the government [25]), it is inevitable for Wikipedia to see a surge in WP:MEATPUPPETRY incidents in topic areas related to Turkey, not only about its Eastern and South Eastern fronts (Armenians and Kurds respectively) but also its South Western and Western fronts (Cuprus and Greece), since it is a well-established fact that politics can drive people into WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS and WP:PROMO when they deem that the Project's neutral viewpoint differs noticeably from the nationalist narrative promoted by their government. Edit: the admin EvergreenFir's proposal for a general sanction for all of Turkey should be considered as more effective than my own idea about monitoring. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 01:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Might as well do myself, or it probably just won't happen. I requested ArbCom to amend WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS by motion per the #Proposal. See: WP:ARCA#Long title. El_C 22:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I've listed this at WP:CENT in case that helps move things forward. Levivich (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I've requested a closure of this thread to the community discussion in my capacity as an individual editor. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:17, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

IP editors were reverted:

• 65% of the time on articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan
• 44% of the time on articles related to Armenia or Azerbaijan
• 57% of the time on articles related to Kurds
• 40% of the time on articles related to American politics
• 28% of the time on all articles

Non-AC editors were reverted

• 64% of the time on articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan
• 49% of the time on articles related to Armenia or Azerbaijan
• 63% of the time on articles related to Kurds
• 53% of the time on articles related to American politics
• 37% of the time on all articles

Non-EC editors were reverted

• 47% of the time on articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan
• 33% of the time on articles related to Armenia or Azerbaijan
• 42% of the time on articles related to Kurds
• 27% of the time on articles related to American politics
• 17% of the time on all articles

Non-EC but AC editors were reverted

• 44% of the time on articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan
• 30% of the time on articles related to Armenia or Azerbaijan
• 38% of the time on articles related to Kurds
• 23% of the time on articles related to American politics
• 13% of the time on all articles

All editors were reverted

• 23% of the time on articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan
• 15% of the time on articles related to Armenia or Azerbaijan
• 26% of the time on articles related to Kurds
• 14% of the time on articles related to American politics
• 10% of the time on all articles

Articles were determined by looking at articles within the scope of the relevant wikiprojects; WP:WikiProject Armenia, WP:WikiProject Azerbaijan, and WP:WikiProject Kurdistan. BilledMammal (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

This is useful. Can you clarify if "non-EC" editors includes IP/non-confirmed editors? If so, can you give statistics for non-EC editors who are autoconfirmed?

For comparion, could we get the revert rate in non-ECR hot-bed topics like American Politics?

Did you do this programmatically or did you select a sample of articles? (Enterprisey out of interest, could your revert script from WP:RESPONDER-RFC be used for this kind of analysis?) ProcSock (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

"non-EC" editors include non-confirmed editors, but not IP editors. I've added the requested statistics, as well as few others. I've also attempted to include the revert rate in AP2, but I'm not certain I have properly identified the area; I used Category:American_politics_task_force_articles and it includes articles on American politics not covered by AP2 (the AP2 template is only used on a ~200 articles, so isn't useful here).

I did this with Quarry; see Edit count Armenia or Azerbaijan articles, Edit count American politics articles, Edit count Kurdistan articles, Edit count Armenia and Azerbaijan articles, and Reversions by editor. Reversion by editor only looks at November 2022; the rest look at all of 2022. They also don't account for the increase in edit count since making the relevant edits; if an editor has EC now, it assumes they had it when they made the edit. BilledMammal (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Today we have been witnessing some Turkish POV disruption by pro-Turkish IPs and WP:SPA in a number of articles of the Greece / Cyprus topic area, particularly: Aegean dispute, Cyprus–Turkey maritime zones dispute and this AN discussion here was brought to my attention now, and I felt it might be helpful to inform you, albeit I am not 100% certain if the disruption in the Greece/Cyprus topic areas relates (or if it relates at all) to the disruption you have been witnessing in Armenia/Azerbaijan/Kurds topic areas by pro-Turkish IPs/SPA accounts. Well, due to today's disruption, one of the two articles had to be locked today by admins, [26] while the other article's disruption ended up at the ANI: [27]. If you believe they are related, then I would welcome any feedback. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Update: Turns out that the account I pointed to, above, is simply another WP:SOCK account and today it got blocked infinitely by the admins [28]. This comes shortly after another Turkish POV-pushing sock account causing the same kind of disruption at Aegean dispute too being blocked [29] for disruption across the Kurds topic area (they edited the Aegean dispute around the same time as the present discussion here at the AN was going on). I'm leaving this as a note here since it definitely relates to the large number of Turkish POV-pushing accounts affecting the stability of Wikipedia, across multiple topic areas. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Meh. I’ve got a good part of the Cyprus-related controversial articles on my watchlist (as I’m essentially the only Cypriot extended-confirmed regular I guess?) and I’m yet to see a general trend for POV pushing out of the ordinary. Turkish invasion of Cyprus, for example, is an old favourite of the POV-pushers but is yet to see any unusual activity. Believe me when I say that if the Turkish trolls decide to come for Wikipedia’s Cyprus articles in an organised fashion, we’ll know by that article. An examination of the history of Cyprus–Turkey maritime zones dispute shows some disruption by a sock in the past few days but likewise pro-Greek POV-pushing earlier in the year. I’d say that the general trend is that the level of disruption in the Cyprus topic area is improving, definitely it’s nowhere as bad as I remember it a decade ago. If there are issues, they are with specific articles, and topic area-wide restrictions would clearly be disproportionate and counterproductive. I would vehemently oppose ECR restrictions, and in particular a 500/30 restriction. I suspect this applies to the overall Greek/Turkish topic area. —GGT (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

---

Please say Kalogeropoulos to block the user Gamwthnmanasou in el.wikipedia. --2A02:85F:F584:9554:5CA9:9623:8222:9FBC (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

You'll have to talk at the people at el.wikipedia about that. --Golbez (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Neutral comment (this is Greek for 'goddamn it' for those trying to figure it out; no account on en.wiki at this time) Nate • (chatter) 22:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

If this user creates an account on this wiki, such an account can be dealt with by this Wikipedia's administrators. His account on Greek Wikipedia must be dealt with there. I don't know any Greek, but based on the interwiki of this page I would ask at el:Βικιπαίδεια:Σημειωματάριο διαχειριστών. Animal lover |666| 11:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'd just like to point out that the name is more vulgar than that; it's Greeklish: Gamwthnmanasou->Gamw thn mana sou->γαμώ την μάνα σου="I'm fucking your mom." It can be used as a generic expletive but the literal meaning is just as common. Winthrop23 (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

No one here said the username is okay. We said there's nothing that English Wikipedia can do to users on Greek Wikipedia. It's the admins there you need to talk to. Animal lover |666| 16:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

---

Editors verbally abusing other editors after they have made what they consider to be a considered, productive and rational contribution. Calling such a contribution a "talk page rant" is pejorative. Page : Sponsianus, Edit History Advancingreturns (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Could you supply a diff for that? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sponsianus&diff=prev&oldid=1129919795

And this editor carries the status of "Veteran Editor III" Advancingreturns (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

"Talk page rant" is not a policy violation. It is a criticism of your style of communicating. Cullen328 (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

It is abusive. It contravenes both the letter and spirit of Civility. I do not rant. I write considered, informed and rational contributions. Rant is derogatory. Advancingreturns (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

It seems like you want us to do something, but none of us responding to you think it's abusive. So your options are to either keep complaining until you find someone who agrees with you, or just let it go and get back to work. But I agree with Cullen - it's not abusive. If you think it's abusive and no one else does, that seems like a valuable opportunity for introspection. --Golbez (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Where I come the word "rant" doesn't necessarily carry the negative connotation that it seems to for you. I can't say that I disagree with the use of that word in this case. It's not a personal criticism that is actionable here. Cullen328 is correct. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please include me among those who do not think there is anything for us to do here. Be mindful, however, that you are currently engaged in an edit war and that's blockable. Please follow WP:DISPUTE. Salvio 21:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

You should consider writing shorter posts on Talk:Sponsianus. Mackensen (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

OP partial blocked. 331dot (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

---

Since Salvio pblocked OP, they have become increasingly uncivil, describing users who disagree with them as a "cabal", "abusive characters who are on an online power trip in order to placate their low self-esteem and inferiority complex", and "abusers". Can we extend the pblock to cover talk:Sponsianus, please? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

(And, on a point of order, do I need to notify Advancingreturns about this proposal or are they considered aware of this discussion as they initially opened it?) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

LOL. No need to notify me. I've seen it. None of these are "uncivil". You only have to look at some of the replies to my contributions on the talk page to see why I have used these terms : "ranter" (which is offensive to many regardless of what others assert), "walls of meaningless text", "poor English" (a total falsification, I am a published author), etc. And by the way, who is this "they"? Personally, I find your 'request' for me to be blocked from the talk page somewhat creepy (as in obsequious). Pass me the sick bag. Don't worry. I won't be bothering you again. I can see that there is no defence to being mobbed by a cohort of editors all with Latin usernames. Like a Budgerigar in a tree full of sparrows. 'Consensus', by the way, does not necessarily mean 'correct' or 'logical'. History itself is the main witness to that. Consensus can often mean abject ignorance and stupidity. Wikipedia is the dictatorship of the consensus regardless. Advancingreturns (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Advancingreturns, you are recapitulating unpersuasive arguments that experienced editors have heard hundreds of times over many years. The fact of the matter is that WP:CONSENSUS is the decision making technique that has allowed Wikipedia to be a top ten website worldwide for many years, and #1 by far in originally written educational content. Feel free to mock us and deride our editorial processes as you wish. Feel free to contribute instead to a website ranked #742,863. But if you want to contribute to this website, you need to adjust your attitude toward collaboration instead of confrontation with your fellow editors. Cullen328 (talk) 08:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

As for your unsubstantiated claim of being a "published author", that is the weakest possible Argument from authority that I can possibly imagine. Even if we knew what they were, we do not care in any way, shape or form about whatever works you may or not have had published. In the 21st century, publication is a matter of a mouse click. Cullen328 (talk) 08:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Not only that, but being a published author doesn't mean that you'd never make a language error. I mean, there are plenty of major authors with dyslexia (John Irving springs to mind), and even an author who has complete command of the language will still need an editor or at the very least a proof reader. That being said, it would maybe have been less of a provocation if Caeciliusinhorto had simply pointed out the fact that "claim of" is unidiomatic, or even skipped that argument entirely, focusing on the more relevant semantic difference between "claim" and "evidence". None of this is an excuse for AR's personal attacks, though. --bonadea contributions talk 10:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

LOL. They are my arguments whether you like them or not and I will assert them. I see that 'thought control' is part of the work of Admins on this site. You have not addressed my complaints with balance, proportion and all due impartiality. I am labelled an 'edit warrior' for reverting what I consider to be incorrect but the cohort of editors with Latin usernames on the page in question can be 'edit warriors' without any consequence from the likes of you people. The page does not have a neutral POV. It is the 'baby' of a group of editors who *want to believe* that Sponsianus was a real historical figure. You only have to look at their own talk and user pages to see that. Some are even supposing that Sponsianus was the possible victim of Damnatio Memoriae (again without any evidence) or that there were writers in Antiquity which referred to him but their writings have been lost. A spurious way of proceeding and a way of proceeding which informs their editing of the page in question. I am a published author and my English has enabled me to write a 500 page book on politics, economics and history. You may wish to question or doubt that as you wish. My book was published by a well known publisher. I mentioned it to give an indication that my English is not as poor as one editor may wish to assert. I have never met such a smug group of people as yourselves online. The self-satisfaction and conceit is absolutely breathtaking. You have no reserve, no respect, no humility, no consideration for anybody else's work except your own. Pure arrogance. Patronising and patriarchal beyond measure. Telling people to "change their attitude", good grief, how patronising is that? It reminds me of my schooldays when I was 'carpeted' by the Headteacher. What you call 'Consensus' effectively becomes a form of online bullying for those who refuse to fall in line with it. And that is part of the flaw in Wikipedia as evidenced by the content of many of its pages. Consensus does not necessarily mean 'correct', 'logical', 'reasonable' and precluding the existence of cabals and cliques in their construction of their pages. As Admins, you seem to completely ignore the real possibility of the latter. But then again, you are a clique yourselves so that is understandable. Advancingreturns (talk) 11:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think we need to extend the block sitewide and TPA revoke, the user is obviously not interested in collaborating, continuing to double down on his continued attacks on other editors. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

LOL. This BBC piece explains why many do not wish to be part of Wikipedia and why many newcomers do not stick around. You lot are the worst club of control freaks I have encountered online. You leave no room for dissent whatsoever. It is truly dictatorial. Do as you wish. You behave like a malevolent online ruling class which accepts no opposition or conflict. Who on earth wants to work in such an atmosphere? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28426674 Advancingreturns (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

And try addressing what I have written in my post rather than behaving like a robotic functionary without any human engagement with other people's work. "Alienating" is the word. It is like trying to communicate with a soulless machine. Advancingreturns (talk) 12:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

You lot, control freaks etc. see what I mean, I am an uninvolved editor and you're first response to an uninvolved editors response is to immediately jump into personal attacks, cabal accusations and incivility. Thereby solidifying the need for block extending and TPA revoke. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

As this user has now moved on to outright vandalism, Favonian has extended the block indefinitely and site-wide. I'll revoke TPA as suggested by Lavalizard101 if there's any further inappropriateness on their talk page. --Yamla (talk) 12:36, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

TPA revoked by Yamla not even five minutes later for continuing the blanking on their talk page. What even was the goal with the blanking, that just led to him being indef blocked. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

---

I recently imposed a 1 hour block on User:Moops. They have been putting Happy New Years banners on hundreds (maybe thousands) of user talk pages at a high rate. As fast as 4 or 5 per minute. I'm assuming they're using some sort of bot or at least some semi-automated process like AWB. Blocking them seemed like the most expeditious way to stop the disruption. If anybody thinks my block was unsound, let me know and/or just go ahead and unblock them. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Endorsed Reasonable action. I'll just copy and paste what I left on Moops' talk page: Endorsing RoySmith's action. I generally expect people doing this (leaving seasons' greetings and such) to have some form of relation or correspondence established with the users they are leaving notices for. Simply hitting every user in the top 1000 is disruptive. -- ferret (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Though I agree a warning first would have been better. -- ferret (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  TY for that. That is ALL that I would have needed! — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 18:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

It looks like you already offered on their talk page to unblock them if they agreed to stop, which they have, so I suggest you lift the block. Why did you not message the user and ask them to stop rather than going straight for a block? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I went to a block first becaused of the high rate of speed this was happening. I see that they've offered to stop, but they followed that up with Also, I would like to continue sending these happy new years banners, if only for the rest of today, so unclear what their intentions really are. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Not an admin, but, despite the 'rate of speed' I still think you could have asked Moops to stop before blocking. Looking at their list of contributions, they stopped in between posting (admittedly a lot of) New Years banners, in order to respond to thank you messsages and/or New Years greetings they were receiving in return. Moops pointed out that having a block in their otherwise non-existent block log was stressful to them. They should have had the chance to respond to and reflect on a warning of some kind. (I'm of two minds whether the mass-posting of New Years banners was disruptive or not; a number of recipients did seem to appreciate this cup of kindness, yet). ---Sluzzelin talk 17:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely agree with Sluzzelin that a talk page message should have been your first port of call despite the speed of editing. I don't agree with indiscriminately spamming the top x number of editors with seasonal messages, but let's be honest, the amount of "disruption" caused by that (which could have been avoided with a simple talk page message / warning) is not in proportion to the level of upset you have caused now with a completely unnecessary block. The user has made it quite clear on their talk page that they are willing to stop if necessary for an unblock, which is the terms that you proposed. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Endorse for the reasons outlined on Moops's talk page. A short block was reasonable to get across the seriousness of the situation and halt the disruption given the scale and speed of the edits. There was no bad faith on Moops's part, just a bad idea with good intent. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  By the way, I do see the argument being made against the block. I agree that a block of any significant duration (even 12 or 24 hours) would have been a massive overreaction but a very short block was reasonable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Again, a warning would have been sufficient. Entirely and wholly would have abided by that. I am not here to be disruptive and not one single person had complained prior to me sending a 'Happy New Years' to RoySmith. Hopefully this can be a learning experience for us all. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 18:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  the seriousness of the situation 😂  Tewdar  18:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  I still don't think Moops realises they were doing anything wrong, despite mass spamming people. Secretlondon (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Yeah, all my bleddy relatives were mass spamming me with Christmas cards again this year. Very wrong indeed. 🙄  Tewdar  18:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  I am asking the community here at large Secretlondon, and I am not about to restart anything without a clear "go-ahead" to proceed. I respect warnings just as much as blocks, and would have just liked to have seen a warning prior to being outright blocked, as that is now FOREVER in my "block log"... :( — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 19:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Mmmm...oops. Should have asked them to stop before blocking. What was the harm to the encyclopedia that would have come from the delay? Five or ten more Happy New Years postings? It's not like a mainspace vandalism spree, it's not like they're sending death threats out. Just talk to the editor first, before you press the button. I sympathize with the complaint that you messed up a clean block log for not a very good reason. Levivich (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
• I strongly disagree with the block. In my view the New Year's greetings did not warrant blocking at all, as I don't believe they were in any way disruptive, and certainly not without a warning. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose Block - I agree the welcomes were excessive, but it was premature to escalate to a block, especially over something that was only vaguely irritating and wasn't particularly damaging anything. Sergecross73 msg me 18:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose block. Discussing the matter with Moops should have been the first step. Cullen328 (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

• It looks fairly draconian to block without discussion under these circumstances... Salvio 18:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  TY. I think it would have been nice to have simply received a warning at the worst first. I would have respected it, just as I HAVE stopped now until I can get clear 'go-ahead' that I could proceed WITHOUT RISK of being blocked AGAIN! :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 19:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose block - 4 or 5 a minute could easily be achieved manually. Opening a few dozen tabs then new topic, ctrl-v, enter, ctrl-tab, repeat could do a dozen a minute. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  That is precisely correct. I am not a technical person and have no idea how to create or use a bot. :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 18:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  And your many tabs option is new to me as well, but I'd be careful not to start up with that or anything similar unless I know with certainty that I am not going to get blocked for sending more 'Happy New Year' greetings! — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 19:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose block - you could have asked them to stop first. Black Kite (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Please unblock so they can send me a Happy New Year message. ☹️  Tewdar  18:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  You got yours coming! :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 18:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks Moops, Happy New Year! 😁👍  Tewdar  18:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose block - A classic case of WP:AGF not being extended to long time regular editors. Discussion should have come first. It is a warped idea where a New Years Greeting is considered "disruptive" editing. Yes, it may have been a case of WP:EDITCOUNTITIS but where is the harm to the project. MarnetteD|Talk 18:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
• It's essential we stop editors being nice to too many other editors. If we let Moops get away with wishing lots of us a Happy New Year, whatever next? Editors saying "well done" when someone reverts vandalism? People offering to help fix reference errors? An atmosphere of mutual support and respect? Wikipedia's core value of being a bunch of miserable cunts will be eroded, perhaps irreversibly. DuncanHill (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • You are spot on DuncanHill It is a thin edge of the wedge on a slippery slope situation that would inevitably lead to the awarding of barnstars - shudder. MarnetteD|Talk 18:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  :)

  — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 18:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  For the first time ever, this year I had the temerity to send out so-called "New Year's Greetings and good wishes" to certain editors, some of whom I do not know well. I had no idea what an egregious faux-pas I was committing, and the risk I was running. Next year I shall revert to grumpy silence, to better fit the holiday spirit on these boards. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

• I'll come down on the side of there should have been a warning before the block. I also think that we, as a project, are not very good at dealing with editors who mean well, but who make large numbers of repetitive edits at a high speed. I have no idea whether this is the case here, but I think that often these are editors who are on the autism spectrum, and who are very good at editing quickly (and often are very helpful in doing so). I don't have a solution to offer, other than WP:AGF, in both directions. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Warning before the block? Definitely. But making assumptions about the possible neurodivergence of other editors? Swing and a miss. GiantSnowman 19:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  No. That was accurate actually. :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 19:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Which is possibly why it is so, SO distressing to me that I have this block on my 'block log' now too....... I really work hard to just do right, and it is most distressing to me that this admin couldn't have just warned me first. I would have then stopped, discussed, and only resumed upon hearing that it would be okay to do so. Asbergers by the way. So not as bad as it could be I gather, and they no longer call it that any more. I gather it is just blended into the larger 'spectrum'. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 19:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  GiantSnowman, you seem to have missed where I said "I have no idea whether this is the case here". Moops, feel free to take a look at my own block log. I know exactly how you feel right now, from personal experience, but I can promise you, from personal experience, that this is very much recoverable. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  I sure hope so. I mainly hope it does not interfere with an outstanding request that I have in for 'New Pages Reviewer' rights. I have participated in many AfD's, and feel that I am a good candidate to earn that perm, but a single block can throw you back MONTHS I have seen with other editors applications sometimes....... :( — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 19:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  I totally sympathize with your misgivings about the newly-splotched clean sheet, and for that reason alone, blocks should never be handed out lightly. There is another way of seeing it though. Having a block, in this case, means you showed initiative without first having checked out all the rules and policies and then playing it safe. I still have a clean block log, but that just makes me a boring goody two shoes; your reputation, on the other hand, has become more colorful and wilder. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Perhaps more to the point, it can indicate that one has gained empathy for what other editors who have been blocked feel like. If that empathy is used well, it can be evidence of being trustworthy. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  I can only hope that you are right in that reasoning. Makes sense to me, but I do not know if everyone will see it that way, namely everyone with the power to grant rights/perms etc. TY again... :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 19:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Haha, I suppose that is a nice and positive 'spin' on the situation. It is still mostly distressing to me, as I always was very proud of that 'reputation' of being 'block-free', but alas, it is a scar that is apparently irreversible... :-/ — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 19:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  For what it's worth: [43]. I encourage other editors to consider following my lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  That was incredibly kind of you. I do hope it is taken into consideration. TY very, very kindly. :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 19:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Comment - I didn't feel disrupted, by Moops' HAPPY NEW YEAR message. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  TY GoodDay, I am glad that I was able to spread some joy while I was before that I was blocked! I do hope to be able to continue sending some of these at least throughout the rest of this first week of the new year, but I will NOT do so unless I can get RoySmith to agree that it is not disruptive and that I will not be blocked again. Once I have that assurance, I will continue, through January 5th or 6th, and then I would be done for my greetings for 2023. That is my stated plan, and I would not proceed without the blessing of the community. :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 19:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Then let the record show, despite my stated being 'of two minds' above (probably playing it safe, as per above too) that I have looked at the reactions by recipients of your cups of kindness, and have come to the conclusion that it was not disruptive, and that you should be allowed to continue. Floquenbeam makes a good point regarding User:MediaWiki message delivery who notifies everyone without being kind. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  I appreciate that. I'd love to continue, at least for a short while. This isn't a life long pursuit, its just the new year and I was feeling happy and wanted to share that with the most productive editors that I could find! :-D — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 19:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Didn't look like an unauthorised bot, so should not have been blocked without prior warning and explanation. I'm not actually sure what the blockworthy offence was here. —Kusma (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Personally, per NYB, I don't really think the banners were "disruptive" in any way. However, for some reason - possibly a world-wide deficit of peace on earth and goodwill towards man now that the holidays are over - there seems to be a consensus here that it was mildly disruptive. (Apparently, while it is vital to spam every talk page once a year about ArbCom elections, it is disruptive to once a year let people know they're valued). While I'm sad that there's an apparent consensus that something needed to be done, I'm glad that at least there's also a consensus that the instablock was an over-reaction. I'm going to offer Moops the option of an additional 1-second block to point to this consensus that the block was unnecessary, if he wants. Though if it was me, I wouldn't take that option, at least we can make it available. As someone who's been away from WP for a few weeks, I have to admit seeing this block at the top of my watchlist when I opened WP back up makes me slightly sad, and slightly less interested in keeping the WP tab open. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Floquenbeam, if it were possible to remove the block from my block log, that is something that I would be very interested in. However an additional 1-second block does not seem to have value to me. Instead I wish that when unblocked, the original admin that blocked me would have mentioned the block as unnecessary. That would have perhaps have been of more value, but I do not know. I'll need to defer to the expertise of editors like yourself and other more senior editors. Part of my effort was intended to try and get to know some of the most productive editors of all time better, and spread joy to them, and in turn learn from them. I think the biggest issue was that I did this TOO QUICKLY, and thus appeared to look like a bot to RoySmith. I WOULD like to continue though, if approved by Roy and others, since I think 99.99% of people that received this greeting did NOT view it as disruptive, but were actually mostly glad and thanked me in various ways for thinking of them. :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 19:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  My advice would be to limit it to users you actually know. That way, there would be a rationale for who gets the messages, and that puts it more in keeping with the cultural norms around here and makes it less likely that you would annoy anyone. As for revising block logs, that's been discussed many times before, and it's just not going to happen. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Ugh, would be good if they eventually fell off too. Like after 3 years of no block activity, it automatically is deleted from your history. It feels like I am an 'felon' now with a 'permanent record', and even if it was for a mostly harmless 'offense'—or none at all depending on whom you ask above—it is still in my 'permanent record'... :(

  Thanks for everyone helping to cheer me up regarding this. It sure ruined my day in an awful way for a bit. I care way too much about this encyclopedia I guess, and I was just super excited for what we can build together in 2023. :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 19:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oppose block. As an editor since 2005, and a former administrator, I would like to state that while I do find the practice of sending such greetings to several thousand editors with whom one has not previously interacted to be rather remarkable, and while I'm assuming that RoySmith was acting in good faith at the time, I don't think Moops should've been blocked for these, at least not without a warning, even if RoySmith thought at the time that Moops was using a bot. Thank you again for trying to spread some cheer, Moops. Have a safe and productive New Year. :-) Nightscream (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much. I am without a doubt a bit of an odd duck, and can edit very, very fast... that said, I have no technical expertise of which to speak of and cannot use a bot even if I tried. I'd like to continue to spread joy with these messages if possible, but I'd like for RoySmith to state that he would not block me if I were to continue first, that way I do not incur TWO BLOCKS in a short period of time. I am distressed enough about ONE! :( — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 19:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

My dear Moops, we are all odd ducks, each of us in our own way ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

TY very much again for the reassurance and kind words. Feel free to chime in on the Teahouse discussion I started around next steps. I'd love to be able to resume what I started, but I will NOT do so until there is consensus on that approval being granted—that way I am not blocked a SECOND time. I will abstain from sending 'Happy New Years' greetings until that is given, or if it is not clear that I can proceed, then I will simply leave the remainder of my list un-greeted for the New Year, sadly. :( — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 21:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Oh dear, what a terrible block. Is this what Wikipedia administration has come to? Clamping down on people trying to spread a bit of good cheer at the end of a truly shitty year, without even a word of attempted discussion first, and spoiling an otherwise clean block log? Moops, you have done absolutely nothing wrong, and I thank you for the bit of New Year kindness you showed me. The block is a disgrace, but nobody worth any respect will hold it against you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Your words are incredibly kind, and much appreciated. 2022 was indeed very shitty for me as well, as I had some personal trauma that I had to get past in a BIG way. That said, was delighted to have found in February of 2022 this great outlet of editing the encyclopedia and helping as best I could in what have been, until now, considered non-disruptive ways. Had I been warned too, I would have stopped sending these 'Happy New Year' greetings right away, but I was not. Is that standard practice? — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 21:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  No, it most definitely is not supposed to be standard practice! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  OK. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 21:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Bad block Per Nickscream and Zebedee. It's a shame that a clean block record has now been tarnished when RoySmith could have just sent Moops a message. Labelling it "disruption" is a bit tenuous. — Czello 21:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  I do not want to now be accused of WP:CANVASSING, but I will just let everyone know that I am looking to now form consensus on whether or not I can continue over here at the Teahouse. Please contribute your voice. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 21:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  To be clear. I also exercise caution as to whom I send a 'Happy New Year' too, and it is not simply 'everyone', but rather those editors that I deemed were most productive over these past years, and many of them by the rank of their edit counts. Though if an editor was 'retired', blocked, or otherwise inactive, they would likely not receive a 'Happy New Year' from me. My intention was, and is not, in any way, meant to be "disruptive editing" and I am still greatly distressed over having my perfect no-block record now tarnished with a dirty looking block as a result.

  I'd love to finish sending these to my list of some of the most productive editors if at all possible, I had not had even a single editor complain, until RoySmith, at which point it was too late. Since RoySmith did not warn me and simply reflexively blocked my account for an hour (though he promptly realized where the will of the community was and then unblocked me within minutes of having been blocked). TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 21:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  I've already said both here and at the Teahouse that I recommend against sending the messages to everyone who meets some criterion based upon edit counts, and instead focus on editors where you've had a personal (on-wiki) interaction. I know that one editor whose talk page is on my watchlist reverted the message, so there were at least a few editors who didn't want the messages. That's not at all in the same category as disruption, but it's a good reason to use some restraint. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

• I want to make one other observation, lest this discussion go too far the other way. I do think that RoySmith was correct to initiate a block review here, implicitly recognizing that it might have been a mistake. We can be understanding, in both directions. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose block, this block was a huge overreaction, IMO, especially when it was issued without any warning. Huldra (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC) PS: And a Happy New Year to all of you, too 😊Reply
• Agree that action was needed but a warning with a requirement for a quick response should have been step 1. But thanks for doing what you thought was correct and needed and asking for a review of it. North8000 (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
• It doesn't seem that Moops was doing anything that was actually disruptive, so I'd say no action of any kind was warranted. That said, Roy is a good admin who deserves some credit for bringing this here, so let's not pile on him too harshly. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply