Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive371

Attempted doxing issue

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

IP is using information not shared or found on the user's profile against the subject. Also see IP's message on subject's talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UST_%28company%29&diff=1284897722&oldid=1284752784 Zinnober9 (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I've done some cleanup, and left some warnings. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Another example of how OUTING rules allow people to get away with COI editing with impunity. This person has been open about their real life identity, but not open about their COI when editing the page about a company they are associated with, which for an admin seems extremely poor form. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

The connection to the company is disclosed, but not their position or some other details I removed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

You are correct that he did disclose the connection a decade ago, I stand corrected. Ideally there should be a connected contributor template on the talkpage which there is currently not. That said it still seems poor optics for a wiki admin to be editing the article of a company that they are an employee of, even if the edits aren't overtly promotional spam. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

There in fact appear to have been multiple people closely connected with the company editing the article. Not 'a' major contributor as the template says, but several. One has made the connection explicit on their user talk page, but others appear not to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Proposed arbitration motions regarding Tinucherian

The Arbitration Committee is considering motions to address WP:COI editing and WP:UPE by Tinucherian. The motions and discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Arbitration motions regarding Tinucherian. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Proposed arbitration motions regarding Tinucherian

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

J. K. Rowling under siege

Various article about Rowling's books and their derivatives are being supplied with less-than-WP:NPOV comments on the author's opinions regarding transgender issues. Special:PageHistory/Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone illustrates the issue. It looks like the attendees of some internet forum are going into the world, feeling righteous. More eyes are needed. Favonian (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

This is useful to track likely problems: Special:RecentChangesLinked/J. K. Rowling. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

That's a pretty widespread, organized spree. Maybe very liberal use of page protection for 3 days or so? Floquenbeam (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Agree with that approach and have applied it to the article mentioned above. Special:RecentChangesLinked/Template:Harry Potter has also served me well. Favonian (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I've added a few more three-day semi-protections. Knitsey is doing a lot of the vandal reversions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

You guys are on top of it; every time I check a Special:RecentChangesLinked, someone has just reverted the most recent vandalism. I'll still try to remember to check from time to time, on the many hands make light work theory. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I only realised after my revisions, that I probably should have left the reverts until they were blocked. I caused more clean up. I'm putting related articles on my watchlist now, such as Strike (TV series). Knitsey (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I suggest continuing as you had been, if you have the time and inclination. I’m using the signal of multiple reversions as an indication that protection may be needed. There’s some other related articles that had a single hit-and-run vandalism that I’ve ignored for now as an indication of less disruption thus less need for protection.

And your reversions keep the article in proper shape for those casual readers coming by to use the wiki.

thank you for your help! — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I can keep reverting. I've gone through just about everything Rowling related and waych listed it. I noticed a few had some reverted vandalism that happened once. Knitsey (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

organized spree? Nah, doubt it. She's just pissed off too many people at this point, especially with that recent picture of celebrating the latest anti-trans ruling with a cigar. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm with Floq on this one. Same "contributions", moving from east to west with the sun and alarm clocks. That's what internet fora are "good" for. Thank you all for your efficient response! Favonian (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm with Sarek here and would like to suggest that adding "anti-trans activist" when describing someone who is very clearly in fact an anti-trans activist is not "vandalism". I agree the information is likely WP:UNDUE on these pages but I feel like using the word "vandalism" here is a way of de-legitimizing these edits in ways that let admins deal with them with admin tools instead of letting them be resolved as a content dispute. Loki (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

very clearly is not a reliable source. If a person is called as such by and in reliable sources , then it can be treated as a content dispute. Otherwise, it's an extremely serious WP:BLP violation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

If you accept "gender-critical campaigner" as a synonym for "anti-trans activist", https://www.theguardian.com/books/2025/apr/18/jk-rowling-harry-potter-gender-critical-campaigner. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Those seem to be more or less synonymous. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

"Gender-critical" is what anti-trans activists (or let's be clear, transphobes) prefer to be known as, so they are indeed synonymous. You'll rarely find RS using the latter, however, as given some of these groups' willingness to claim that it's libellous in some way, it's easier to use the sanitised version. Black Kite (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, there you go, then. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

In addition to the source listed above, the inciting incident here is Rowling celebrating "TERF VE day", her words, and also saying explicitly that she'd donated to anti-trans activist group For Women Scotland. Loki (talk) 03:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, for posterity: USA Today says she has "anti-trans views" and MSNBC went even further and called her a "notorious transphobe" in article voice. (Yes, that's an article, not opinion. I've known this about Rowling for years and even I was surprised MSNBC was so blunt about it.) Loki (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan This specific spree seems to be coming from threads [1] 86.23.109.101 (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The top comment in that threads post is remarkably on point if in desperate need of copy editing "There are several problema with your edit. Even when she is, and also a piece of shit, by Wikipedia policies it is not relevant to the article, but you want it in the first page because of non enciclopedical reason. Also, your purpose is obviously not improving the page, but to make a statement, and you also invoqued users to edit the page. That's again policies as well. I really recommend you to read wikipedia policies, they are cristal clear and more or less objective." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

There is new stuff happening in that endless slug fest[2][3][4][5][6] so this editing may be related to contemporary events (it could also be related to a forum based clique, the two are not mutually exclusive) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)