Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1102

From last IP Range

Since this other IP editor asked this question relating to this, would you take a look at this edit? Here it is:[[1]] Also, you should take at look at 205.155.237.189, 2600:1011:B00F:D1:4858:819E:FF80:90F2, 104.243.113.132, 24.234.55.138, and 172.85.211.18. Also, did you review edits of 204.129.232.191? They asked many unhelpful and disruptive questions and posts unrelated to the improvements of the talk page, such as What if 2020 was a person? and What if 2020 came to your house?. They even cause disruption to the Wikipedia articles by making bad edit requests. What do you think of them? I know that they were blocked earlier for disruptive editing. I would like to thank for the admin and bureaucrats for reviewing their edits. --2601:205:C001:EA0:1823:FE7C:343F:65B4 (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a well known individual. Report them to WP:AIV if they cause further disruption. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes this person's trolling forced Talk:2022 to be protected for a few days. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 21:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Personal attack by Semsûrî

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.

---

The User Semsûrî who have already started an Editwar in the page Melek Taûs to push his POV calls me a troll in the edit summary.(see here the diff link) Dortana (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:No personal attacks Dortana (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I mentioned your behavior to an admin just moments ago.[2] You are a NOTHERE editor for me. You keep removing well-sourced information and then complain about an edit war. Also, you have received six warnings from me in less than a month. Don't complain when I call you a troll then. Semsûrî (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

This is not a reason to attack other editors and call them a troll. I have just changed the page back to the revision before the Editwar that you have started took place. You have only pushed your POV there. Dortana (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The edit war is taking place because YOU keep removing well-sourced information. Read Wikipedia:IJDLI which I have urged you to do before. I'm not going to entertain this nonsense anylonger. Semsûrî (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

This is what I mean by trolling.[3] You dislike the well-sourced content for whatever reason and thus put in some templates. It screams NOTHERE. Semsûrî (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

You shouldn't insult other users just because they don't endorse your POV. Dortana (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

At both: Please stop edit-warring and talk this through in the talk page. Semsûrî, please assume good faith. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll, and you may not assume that they are unless you have really strong evidence. Disagreements happen. Use the talk page a bit more, explain why you want to insert or retain that material, discuss the reliability of your source, due weight... but please remain civil. Incivility can(and eventually will) get you blocked and hurts your credibility.Lurking shadow (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Lurking shadow Good faith is difficult to maintain by now as I know how Dortana behaves Even when they do use the talkpage its mostly with nonsensical explanations[4] If I never get a meaningful answer and they keep reverting, what more can I do? I stand by my NOTHERE and IJDLI. In regards to my bad faith and my evidence, I have this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ezidishingali but sadly a stale investigation. I'm impatiently and frustratingly waiting for an admin to take the case. Until then I guess I have to deal with this annoyance. Semsûrî (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Semsûrî, I am an administrator and you have been edit warring, which is a blockable offense. You are warned to stop. Dortana, you have been edit warring, which is a blockable offense. You are warned to stop. Semsûrî, you have been engaging in personal attacks, which is also a blockable offense. Calling a good faith editor a "troll" over a content dispute is not appropriate, so stop it. This is a content dispute, which should be resolved through discussion on the article talk page rather than through edit warring. Various forms of dispute resolution are available. Use them and work to build a consensus. Cullen328 (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: The talkpage has been used but as always I only receive non-sensical explanations[5] like "Kurdistan is very confusing and misleading for readers". What am I suppose to do with that? So its okay to keep removing academic references on baseless claims? Semsûrî (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

No, of course not. But there was an argument, that you are not following WP:NPOV. Give an overview about sourcing in the topic to disprove(or not) the claim.Lurking shadow (talk) 09:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I merely added non-controversial content explicitly stated in the (academic) references. They should explain what's so POV about that. Semsûrî (talk) 09:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Dortana has now been blocked for sockpuppetry. Semsûrî (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

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.

Bad Faith Reverts by User:Citobun

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.

---

I would like to preface this notice by stating that I am new to Wikipedia. I ask for understanding in case any action is not in line with common practice.

• Citobun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Airport Authority Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Lee government (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Marine Department (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This notice relates edits made to three articles on 22 June 2022 as listed above. The edits were reverted by Citobun a few hours after the edits in quick succession over a period of no more then three minutes.

Citobun provided the below rationale for the reverts:

1. Airport Authority Hong Kong (diff)

"Original wording was more direct and is reflective of what's in the cited source"

2. Lee government‎ (diff)

"The kind of wording you're adding to various articles is indirect and unclear"

3. Marine Department (diff)

"Poorly written and indirect"

Upon reviewing the rationale for the reverts, it would seem that Citobun has not taken the proper time to review the content in the edits.

In general, each edit was composed of more then just copy-editing elements and included the addition of both new links and references. In some cases, more accurate content was added to improve information on the entities referred to in the article.

However, of greater concern is the unfounded nature of the rationale themselves. For each edit, I have aimed to copy-edit the text, making improvements to the grammar, wording and flow. This is especially apparent in "Marine Department" where the edited section was mostly unreadable to a normal person, whereas "Airport Authority Hong Kong" was moderately hard to read. I have also made wording amendments to use more natural terms in accordance with WP:NOPV.

Taking the above into account, it seems that Citobun's rationale for the reversions were entirely unjustified, and reflects almost the complete opposite of the actual reality. From a brief look at Citobun's edit history, it seems that a past tendency to make problematic reverts is also present.

While I have reinstated the articles and posted a informal warning on Citobun's talk page, I felt that taking the step of posting this notice was warranted, taking into account the egregiousness of the above actions, the blanket reversion of edits with multiple elements, and Citobun's history.

Carter00000 (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Carter00000. Accusing another editor of bad faith is a very serious charge that requires solid evidence. You have presented no such evidence. Please read Assume good faith, which is an important behavioral guideline. This is a routine content dispute that should be resolved on the article talk pages per WP:BRD. You made some bold edits, you were reverted, and now it is time to engage in discussion with the editor who reverted you. This noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. Cullen328 (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Carter00000, when you informed the other editor, you mentioned the wrong noticeboard. I have corrected that. Cullen328 (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Cullen328 for your correction and information, and noted that the notice used was incorrect. Carter00000 (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Cullen328 for your comments. However, after reviewing you comments, I would like to raise my objection with your comments.

I would like to reiterate my accusation that Citobun acted in bad faith when reverting my previous edits. Citobun's rationale for the reversions were entirely unjustified, and reflects almost the complete opposite of the actual reality.

Given that you have issued a warning to me, stating that my accusation of Citobun acting in bad faith is baseless, and have further precluded the administrator noticeboard's role to adjudicate, I will assume that you have taken the time to carefully review the background of each of the three reverts in question in coming to this conclusion.

For the sake of simplicity, I have selected one revert to highlight. I draw you attention to the page Marine Department (Hong Kong). Citobun's reason for the revert was "Poorly written and indirect". Given your warning, I can only assume that you believed that this reason was appropriate in the context of the revert. @Cullen328 I would like you to provide an explanation of your rationale for your conclusion, and why you felt that such a comment was appropriate and reflective of the reality of the subject matter.

Below is the original text prior to my edit. I would like to reiterate my view that this version of the article has significant issues with the quality of the prose. I draw your attention to the last sections, where the wording is almost incomprehensible.

On 19 April 2013, Lamma Island Accident Investigation Board submitted a 238-page report about the 2012 Lamma Island ferry collision to the Hong Kong Government. On 30 April 2013, the chief executive, Leung Chun Ying, announced the report of Lamma Island accident and noted that the report detailed analyze the causes of the collision, the reason of why the vessel sank quickly and serious injuries; Also Marine Department has a series of problem of regulating vessels, he said that government will take it seriously this year, they will draw a lesson and make improvements. He said that he has instructed the Transport and Housing Bureau and the Marine Department to adopt the contents of the report, and full implementation, in order to improve maritime safety in Hong Kong. If the incident involves officials of human error and misconduct, the Hong Kong government will strictly deal with it, including disciplinary hearings  On the same day, Secretary for Transport and Housing Anthony announced the establishment of the Marine Department, reform Steering Committee, chaired by him, the leadership of two members, and later announced that appointees were former Ombudsman Alice Tai and Arts Development Advisory Committee Koo, respectively term two years. He said the Hong Kong government will learn a lesson, pay special attention to the report loopholes and deficiencies relating to the Marine Department system; committee will be a comprehensive review of the system of the Marine Department, including management, licensing regulatory, enforcement and inspections and other matters, and launched reform program and timetable. In addition, he said that it has obtained the consent of CSB, to send them a Grade B officer to become the Deputy Director of Marine, and assisted by an assist Director of Marine Department dealing with the maritime affairs reformation, an additional two Assistant Director of Marine will help them. The Marine Department will invite international experts to give advice to strengthen its reform efforts. Director of Marine Liaohan Bo said the Marine Department will cooperate a fully reforms, including the establishment of the Executive Team to co-ordinate inspection Affairs. Committee Secretary for Transport and Housing Anthony leadership will supervise the Director of Marine comprehensive examination and a thorough reform of the Marine Department, and to develop a timetable to implement the reform program.

May 21, 2013, reform of the Steering Committee held its first meeting of the Marine Department, to determine the terms of reference of the committee, including three points: first review the regulation of passenger safety and inspection aspects of Hong Kong vessel, the elaboration of a detailed reform plan, implement and monitor programs; second is review of Marine Department and reorganization of operations management processes, operating procedures and oversight structure, in order to strengthen internal control department governance; finally to formulate strategies to solve the case of shortage of personnel departments, and developing training programs. Thereafter, the Commission will hold a meeting once every two weeks. Reform of Marine Affairs Steering Committee is divided into two phases; the first phase of the Marine Department will inspect the various departments to understand processes and procedures in the hope within 4–6 months to improve existing procedures and practices to submit proposals, and be implemented, which then deep reform of the Marine Department to conduct a review.

Below is my edited text:

In 2012, the 2012 Lamma Island ferry collision occurred. On 19 April 2013, Lamma Island Accident Investigation Board submitted a report on the 2012 Lamma Island ferry collision to the Hong Kong Government. On 30 April 2013, the chief executive, Leung Chun Ying, announced the findings  and the Government's intention to make improvements to the Department. On the same day, Secretary for Transport and Housing Anthony Cheung announced the establishment of the Marine Department reform Steering Committee, chaired by himself, along with two other appointees. The appointees were former Ombudsman Alice Tai and Arts Development Advisory Committee Koo. The Marine Department also invited international experts to give advice. Director of Marine Liaohan Bo said the Marine Department would establish an Executive Team to co-ordinate inspection Affairs. Committee Secretary for Transport and Housing Anthony Chueng would supervise the examination and reform of the Marine Department, and develop a timetable to implement the reform program.

On 21 May, 2013, the Steering Committee held its first meeting to determine the terms of reference of the committee. Three main aims were provided: (1) To review the regulation of passenger safety and inspection aspects of Hong Kong vessels, elaboration of a detailed reform plan, and implementation and monitoring of programs; (2) To review and reorganize the operations management processes, procedures and oversight structure, to strengthen internal controls; (3) To formulate strategies to alleviate shortages of personnel and develop training programs. Thereafter, the Commission held a meeting once every two weeks. The reform program was divided into two phases; in the first phase, the Marine Department inspected various departments to understand the processes and procedures, aiming to provide suggestions for the improvement of existing procedures and practices 4–6 months, leading to the second phase where the reform of the Marine Department would be undertaken. Carter00000 (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I've got to say, from a glance at the diffs presented, Carter00000's edits did look like improvements to me, both in terms of NPOV phrasing, and in terms of general quality of prose. I'd be interested to hear Citobun's rationale for reverting all these. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Girth Summit for your support. I myself would also like to find out more about Citobun's rationale for reverting my edits. I have invited him to provide more information or highlight specific sections of concern on all three reverts and his talk page after the reversions, but have not received any responses so far. Carter00000 (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

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.

Funny but extreme legal threat

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.

---

[6] Read the link given in that post, laugh out loud, and then revoke talk page access I guess. Fram (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

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.

Likely disruptive IP range

2604:B000:B127:FEE1:85FC:CF8F:54B5:8E05 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is on the same /64 as the 2604:B000:B127:FEE1:900D:69C6:CD05:586 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), recently given a one-year block for personal attacks. Both have, on their talk pages, asserted that Wikimedia is "A NONEXISTENT!" [sic] and consistently insert their replies to warnings above the boilerplate "shared IP advice". That all-caps paragraph in general, though tamer than what I've seen from the already-blocked IP, certainly doesn't look like the statements of anyone here for constructive editing, either. Under these circumstances, any block — whether a rangeblock or more direct — would probably be best served with their talk page access being taken away. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

More IPs on this /64, 2604:b000:b127:fee1:65eb:bdd:eb0c:f25f (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 2604:b000:b127:fee1:3d82:2502:83d9:93fe (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), have been making similar all-caps demands calling for Wikipedia and the rest of Wikimedia to be shut down (and the first of those involved editing someone's talk page archive…), something the already-blocked IP has called for as well. I suspect all this might also be evading a block on 70.45.219.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which has the same ISP as the /64 and would respond to their blocks with similar "SHUT DOWN WIKIPEDIA!" demands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked the /64 for a couple of weeks.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing disruption from an IP range

• 2001:FB1:156:19B5:A9FC:A0E8:7B6E:B140 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2001:FB1:156:19B5:701B:3F11:F8FB:B9EC (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2001:FB1:156:19B5:CE8:93FC:E81E:CB61 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2001:FB1:156:19B5:B8D5:ECF:C52D:F16C (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

An IP hopping over a range in Thailand has been making repeated disruptive postings, all of which are basically identical to this: [7] and this: [8]. Many of the postings are on User talk:Doc James, but others have been on various article talk pages. There are no constructive edits from these accounts. I don't know much about IP ranges, but I hope that an admin with experience in rangeblocks can put a stop to this. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

That's one /64 range. Also 2001:fb1:156:19b5:90a:97a:79d9:4756 from the 16th. Block it. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Going back, on the 24th of May it was 2001:fb1:155:d92:b6e6:2aff:fe8a:2b1e which is a different /64. And on the 9th of June it was 2001:fb1:155:7aaf:b6e6:2aff:fe8a:2b1e --StellarNerd (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

2001:FB1:140:0:0:0:0:0/42 covers it. Or part of it. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, I've blocked 2001:FB1:156:19B5::/64, which covers Tryptofish's report, to be going on with. I can't, or daren't, handle /42:s. Bishonen | tålk 21:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC).

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

As IP ranges go, that /42 range isn't super-active - there would be some collateral, but not a huge amount. Tryptofish, if you notice this continuing after this current block, give me a shout and I'll see if I can figure out a block that would do the trick. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Will do. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: 2001:FB1:154:3115:8851:B080:AF69:2EAB, with gloating over getting past the block. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I see that Blablubbs has gone ahead and blocked the /44 range for a month. Let us know if they keep at it and we can look at widening, extending, etc. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 19:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping @Girth Summit, I didn't realise there was an ANI thread about this. As far as I can tell, the /44 catches the same number of recent bad edits as the /42, but with a little less collateral. I think it's fairly likely that this will need tweaking at some point (since there indeed seem to be some edits from a couple months ago that are contained in the /42 but not the /44), but I'm hoping this will do the trick for the time being. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes please. I've cleaned Doc James' page too often in the last couple of days. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 23:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, late to this party and I was commenting on Trypto's post only, as incompetence led me to believe that all this good work hadn't been done yet. Sigh. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 23:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

HumanxAnthro and music charts

User:HumanxAnthro has been adding Finland chart data from this book to song articles, and discussion is currently ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts#Finland's_chart. The issue is that while some data (specifically the second column) may be reliable and a good source for peaks, most of the book is not and there is no consensus for its implementation. Since 1995, Finland's main chart is The Official Finnish Charts. HumanxAnthro believes it is not enough to include peaks from this chart alone, and peaks in the first column from the hittialistalla chart in Rumbassa magazine are more accurate because they are multi-metric (incorporate sales + airplay). However, there is clear evidence that the official chart which has been used is multi-metric. On the January 29, 2000, issue (page 20) of Music & Media magazine, the source for The Official Finnish Charts was "YLE 2 Radiomafia/IFPI". This indicates that both radio airplay and sales are being used to compile the chart. Moreover, on the YLE 2 Radiomafia website the chart formula is clearly provided: "Singles chart is based on weekly sales and playlists from four national radio stations." Despite this, HumanxAnthro has been adding data from the Rumbassa chart and others with no consensus for it. Not only having they been adding it, but they are removing peaks from The Official Finnish Charts. Upon evidence that some positions in this book are from WP:SINGLEVENDORS, which goes against WikiProject consensus, HumanxAnthro has not reversed their edits.

While there are often disagreements among WikiProject users, I have always found there to be a sense of civility and mutual respect. HumanxAnthro has disrupted this atmosphere with hostility and personal attacks, for example calling User:Ss112 "elitist", and basically admitting they don't care about consensus: "You users have vague, not-based-in-any-guidelines and against-Wikipedian-principles standards for chart inclusion, so I'm not gonna even bother to have these discussions. You frankly should be topicbanned, for the good of the website, from leading chart inclusions if this is how you all think. I'll edit however fast I want to edit, and add whatever edits need to be made regardless". They have been warned on their talk page to slow down with the contentious edits multiple times, including by an administrator, but less than 24 hours ago have continued adding chart peaks for which there is no consensus for inclusion. Heartfox (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Can I ask you something? Was that Official chart from radiomafia existent and published in the 1990s? User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 20:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, fine, you all WP:WIN. I'm staying out of charts from now on because apparently anyone will dismiss my contentions on the talk page as a "personal attack" no matter much not-personal-attack rationales I give. I'm out of the charts, I'll work on not chart-related stuff. Happy? Just, let's stop this here before this gets any worse. User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 20:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, Ss112 does have WP:OWNERSHIP over nearly all of the discography articles that list charts in the table, so the "elitist" label was not meant to be an insult. He's admitted on my talk page (Diff and Diff) that he has a watchlist of nearly every discography article and reverts any users' edits the instance he notices them. User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 20:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a miss characterisation of @Ss112: who yes does work on a lot of popular music topics but nowhere has Ss112 said they have every discography page on wikipedia or that all edits everyone does are reverted. Fairness where it is due - lets not mischaracterise the fact that HumanXAnthro has made a huge number of changes which are not supported by existing practice, with little or no attempt to discuss or engage with other project editors instead swamping discussions with reasons why the rest of us misunderstand their point of view. Tagging Ss112 in case they want to comment too - its unfair to mention them and not give them opportunity to chip in. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I've linked the diffs if people want to figure out for themselves whether what I said was a fair characterization. User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 20:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, you're giving a skewed picture of the book's reliability. Only very recent entries in that book below 20 have Spotify positions listed, a small chunk of the book, and that's only one SIGNLEVENDOR chart, not "some" single vendors. User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 20:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Chipping in my two pennies, consensus isn't built by ram-raiding through changes and making humungous amounts of edits that aren't inline with project guidance and existing consensus at WP:RECORDCHARTS. Multiple editors asked HumanXAnthro to stop and engage in discussion or an RFC first. Some of my questions of HumanXAnthro were met with comments like "and it would only not indicate that to a moron", as well as me being asked to "stop controlling how they edit" when I politely asked that they may wish to consider changing their signature as it does not match their username and emojis don't display properly on mobiles. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I've done what you've recommended nearly everytime, including here, and clearly everything I'm saying is being viewed as a "personal attack" as a result. Can we just end the discussion and have me topicbanned me from WP Talk:RECORDCHARTS if it makes you all feel any better? User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 20:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't notice the change in signature. Thanks for doing that. It wasn't an attack just a genuine request to prevent confusion about who is editing and to enable others to find your talkpage/username quicker. Regarding everything about "what we've recommended" we all pointed you in the direction of WP:BRD - you were bold, you were reverted, multiple people asked you to stop and refer to the charts guide and then asked to start an RFC. You chose not to do this and only changed your signature after failing to assume good faith, deleting the message from the talkpage and then accusing me of trying to control what you edit. Mass changes outside of established practice should always be discussed and consensus sought rather than mass changes which are time consuming to undo. In the face of opposition, did it not occur to take a breather and start a forum RFC or ask other uninvolved editors. I'm sorry to hear you think you need to be TopicBanned to make us feel better - from my side that's not going to help. If someone wants to contribute to the project and add missing charts that's always welcome but surely you stop and wait for a discussion to conclude before going ahead and making mass edits? ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

That "moron" comment is not a personal attack against you. It's a way of stating something is so obvious that somebody with WP:COMMONSENSE could not not notice something. Stating that something isn't true to widely-understood standards of truth is not an insult or a personal attack. A bad choice of words, I'll retrospectively say, but not an insult. And it's not hostile to call out when things are not based in guidelines and claim they should be expected standards of argumentation from administrators and established users. User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 20:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I accept you weren't intending to insult. Its difficult to engage in conversation with someone though when they use such language and all the while you're continuing to make edits not supported by the project or other editors. That's not in the spirit of consensus or community ownership. It screams "I'm right and I'll do what I want regardless of what others say or how many people object. I know better...". ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• I was separately asked to weigh in on this situation. My two cents was that HumanxAnthro should want to cut this out right away, because they're concurrently very visibly frustrated and also completely failing to persuade anyone in these disputes. My approach was to wait and start intervening if things escalated any further, but I certainly wouldn't oppose any more pro-active approaches. I recommend disengaging immediately adding a more constructive means of editing Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 21:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  I've declared that I'm staying away from anything chart-related. Now. Staying away, not even thinking about it. User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 21:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  I think that's a good idea. If you stick with that stance, then I'd say we're all set here. Sergecross73 msg me 21:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Questionable conduct between two users

This conversation indicates that one or both users might intend to tag-team/canvass together – in particular, note the "rope" comment. 96.76.220.221 (talk) 10:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

That looks like standard practice for WP:DUCKs, and appears that they are waiting for an abundance of evidence before opening a WP:SPI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I see no issue with this, they appear to be discussing and monitoring a potential sock puppet. — Czello 11:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry short on time this week.....evidence is there just need to compile will do so this weekend. In the mean time have asked for "Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent sockpuppetry" for United States. Moxy- 11:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, re: the "rope" comment, it's in reference to WP:ROPE. Nothing malicious, simply illustrating that the sock puppet they're discussing is likely to expose themselves further. — Czello 12:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked EstWhenever as a sock of Mrbeastmodeallday.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• You think the IP here could be related? They have knowledge of WP:ANI with no previous edits. It just sounds like WP:BEANS. – The Grid (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  Was going to do a report with IPs and any other accounts...check user was my intent. That said wonderfull to see others helping out with this as its pretty clear by page edit history we have an ongoing problem. I do think that if the page was "Temporary extended confirmed protection" it would be less of a time sink for us at the article. But that would have the affect of 500 edits to other pages we may have to deal with. Thank you all. Moxy- 16:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Moxy I believe there is some IP hopping going on at Talk:United States. Three different IPs are removing your comments, and they all have very similar edit summaries. I think we have a problem on our hands. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  Correct they said they would do this. The talk page did have some protection...but that expired days ago. Not sure why this sinkhole isn't being recognized. Moxy- 02:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE but also Redacted?

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.

---

I initially encountered Alubone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) back in March where they introduced deliberate factual errors into some professional wrestling articles. I warned the user, where they said they were predicting the results of a future match. I informed them of WP:CRYSTAL, and their response was Whatever as long as I am in Wikipedia I am predicting😏😈😈😈. I ignored it and moved on. Now they've done a similar thing again. Once more I've warned them -- but then I noticed their user page, where they identify themselves as (Redacted).

I'm unsure what the next steps should be. On the one hand this user has been given a welcome note at the top of their talk page and later was invited to the Teahouse back in August. But on the other hand, to put it bluntly, this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. I feel a bit guilty doing the whole vandal warning thing to a (Redacted), but I don't think a (Redacted) is really able to contribute to the project. Should this user be given additional guidance, something like WP:MENTOR? Previous welcomes don't seem to have worked. — Czello 16:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Alubone. Cullen328 (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

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.

Negligent Adjudication by Administrator (User:Cullen328)

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.

---

• Cullen328 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Citobun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Girth Summit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Airport Authority Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Lee government (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Marine Department (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This notice relates to an adjudication made by an Administrator relating to a Administrators Noticeboard (Incidents) notice (Bad Faith Reverts by User:Citobun). While the original notice is still open, I have opened this new notice to specifically address the Administrators actions, which is a separate matter.

On 23 June 2022, I posted a notice on the Administrators Noticeboard (Incidents). The notice related to reverts of my edits made by User:Citobun which I believed had been made in bad faith. For each revert, the rationale for the reversions were entirely unjustified, reflecting an almost complete opposite of the actual reality. I have since re-instated the edits.

Less than 20 minutes after the notice was posted, an Administrator User:Cullen328 responded to the notice. Cullen328 did not attempt to find out more information or initiate a discussion with myself or the other parties involved, proceeding directly to issuing an adjudication. Cullen328 opined that an accusation of bad faith was a serious matter, going on to say that I had accused Citobun without reasonable evidence. Cullen328 further opined that I had breeched Wikpedia's policy of assuming the good faith of fellow editors, and precluded the usage of the Administrators Noticeboard to resolve the dispute.

The original comment by Cullen328 is included below.

Accusing another editor of bad faith is a very serious charge that requires solid evidence. You have presented no such evidence. Please read Assume good faith, which is an important behavioral guideline. This is a routine content dispute that should be resolved on the article talk pages per WP:BRD. You made some bold edits, you were reverted, and now it is time to engage in discussion with the editor who reverted you. This noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. 

Upon reviewing the rationale of Cullen328 for the adjudication, it would seem that Cullen328 has issued the adjudication in error. The adjudication fails to take into account that Citobun's rationale for the reversions were entirely unjustified, reflecting the opposite of the actual reality. This is readily apparent from just a cursory study of the diffs, and any reasonable person would come to the conclusion that Citobun's rationale for the reversions were unfounded. Consequently, it is unlikely that the reversions were made in good faith, precluding the use of normal content dispute methods. A second Administrator User:Girth Summit has expressed his support for my notice.

While I have responded to the adjudication in question, I felt that taking the further step of posting this notice was warranted. Taking into account that Cullen328 is an Administrator which comes with significant responsibilities requiring sound judgment, I believe that Cullen328 actions is of notable concern. The above issue was elementary, which should have been easily distinguishable as problematic by even a person unfamiliar with Wikipedia. Taking this into account, this calls into question Cullen328's judgment as an Administrator and ability to clearly and diligently assess disputes in his role.

ANI and administrators do not adjudicate content. Cullen328 is correct to point that out. Hatting content litigation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To provide a example of the nature of the reverts, I would like to highlight the revert of "Marine Department (Hong Kong)". Citobun's reason for the revert was "Poorly written and indirect". Below is the original text prior to my edit. This version of the article has significant issues with the quality of the prose. I draw your attention to the last sections, where the wording is almost incomprehensible. My edit aimed to copy-edit the prose to a more readable state. On 19 April 2013, Lamma Island Accident Investigation Board submitted a 238-page report about the 2012 Lamma Island ferry collision to the Hong Kong Government. On 30 April 2013, the chief executive, Leung Chun Ying, announced the report of Lamma Island accident and noted that the report detailed analyze the causes of the collision, the reason of why the vessel sank quickly and serious injuries; Also Marine Department has a series of problem of regulating vessels, he said that government will take it seriously this year, they will draw a lesson and make improvements. He said that he has instructed the Transport and Housing Bureau and the Marine Department to adopt the contents of the report, and full implementation, in order to improve maritime safety in Hong Kong. If the incident involves officials of human error and misconduct, the Hong Kong government will strictly deal with it, including disciplinary hearings  On the same day, Secretary for Transport and Housing Anthony announced the establishment of the Marine Department, reform Steering Committee, chaired by him, the leadership of two members, and later announced that appointees were former Ombudsman Alice Tai and Arts Development Advisory Committee Koo, respectively term two years. He said the Hong Kong government will learn a lesson, pay special attention to the report loopholes and deficiencies relating to the Marine Department system; committee will be a comprehensive review of the system of the Marine Department, including management, licensing regulatory, enforcement and inspections and other matters, and launched reform program and timetable. In addition, he said that it has obtained the consent of CSB, to send them a Grade B officer to become the Deputy Director of Marine, and assisted by an assist Director of Marine Department dealing with the maritime affairs reformation, an additional two Assistant Director of Marine will help them. The Marine Department will invite international experts to give advice to strengthen its reform efforts. Director of Marine Liaohan Bo said the Marine Department will cooperate a fully reforms, including the establishment of the Executive Team to co-ordinate inspection Affairs. Committee Secretary for Transport and Housing Anthony leadership will supervise the Director of Marine comprehensive examination and a thorough reform of the Marine Department, and to develop a timetable to implement the reform program. May 21, 2013, reform of the Steering Committee held its first meeting of the Marine Department, to determine the terms of reference of the committee, including three points: first review the regulation of passenger safety and inspection aspects of Hong Kong vessel, the elaboration of a detailed reform plan, implement and monitor programs; second is review of Marine Department and reorganization of operations management processes, operating procedures and oversight structure, in order to strengthen internal control department governance; finally to formulate strategies to solve the case of shortage of personnel departments, and developing training programs. Thereafter, the Commission will hold a meeting once every two weeks. Reform of Marine Affairs Steering Committee is divided into two phases; the first phase of the Marine Department will inspect the various departments to understand processes and procedures in the hope within 4–6 months to improve existing procedures and practices to submit proposals, and be implemented, which then deep reform of the Marine Department to conduct a review. Below is my edited text: In 2012, the 2012 Lamma Island ferry collision occurred. On 19 April 2013, Lamma Island Accident Investigation Board submitted a report on the 2012 Lamma Island ferry collision to the Hong Kong Government. On 30 April 2013, the chief executive, Leung Chun Ying, announced the findings  and the Government's intention to make improvements to the Department. On the same day, Secretary for Transport and Housing Anthony Cheung announced the establishment of the Marine Department reform Steering Committee, chaired by himself, along with two other appointees. The appointees were former Ombudsman Alice Tai and Arts Development Advisory Committee Koo. The Marine Department also invited international experts to give advice. Director of Marine Liaohan Bo said the Marine Department would establish an Executive Team to co-ordinate inspection Affairs. Committee Secretary for Transport and Housing Anthony Chueng would supervise the examination and reform of the Marine Department, and develop a timetable to implement the reform program. On 21 May, 2013, the Steering Committee held its first meeting to determine the terms of reference of the committee. Three main aims were provided: (1) To review the regulation of passenger safety and inspection aspects of Hong Kong vessels, elaboration of a detailed reform plan, and implementation and monitoring of programs; (2) To review and reorganize the operations management processes, procedures and oversight structure, to strengthen internal controls; (3) To formulate strategies to alleviate shortages of personnel and develop training programs. Thereafter, the Commission held a meeting once every two weeks. The reform program was divided into two phases; in the first phase, the Marine Department inspected various departments to understand the processes and procedures, aiming to provide suggestions for the improvement of existing procedures and practices 4–6 months, leading to the second phase where the reform of the Marine Department would be undertaken.

Carter00000 (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Your complaint would probably go further (if there's any merit) if you would be more concise and not paste giant walls of text, so I suggest you remove this entirely as it appears baseless or at minimum, BRIEFLY outline the issues. PS: This isn't a court room, so the legalese is only likely to piss people off. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I adjudicated nothing and expressed no opinion on the content dispute because this noticeboard does not deal with content disputes. I explained the importance of assuming good faith, and explained the BRD process. Now, Carter00000 returns to assume bad faith of me for trying to explain how things work, and is seemingly trying to force those of us who participate at this noticeboard to decide the content dispute. Cullen328 (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd say a speedy close and perhaps a block for the filer is appropriate, then. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Definitely tl;dr and WP:BOOMERANG situation. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• I was pinged above, but have no intention of reading through all that. I did opine in the earlier report that the changes I looked at seemed like improvements, and that I would like to hear an explanation for the reverts (since the edit summaries used in the reverts were quite vague). However, to say that Cullen was negligent in making the comment he made is ridiculous - the OP appears not to understand what this board is for, or what the role of the administrator is here. I suggest this be closed post-haste. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I've hatted the content dispute digression, and Carter00000 is warned for personal attacks and for fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of this board and the roles of administrators. Acroterion (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

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.

Help with editor not here and using two accounts

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.

---

Need some help with User:Fckylbrls who also is User:Dr.Veterinary.Hun Editor Interaction Analyser. i,e 1 and 2. They are simply WP:NOTHERE. Have tried to talk with both accounts to no avail. Main problem today is at Hungary where they are adding info about the press. They are pasting in goverment position on the media dispite the fact the country has a problem source...let alone spaming all media sites in this overview summary article. SOCK BAN or NOT HERE BAN?Moxy- 13:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Socks blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Moxy- 13:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)\

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.

Kishtwari

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.

---

Long term campaign, apparently by a single editor using mostly IP accounts, to revise content without sources. See edit history and page protection in the recent past. I've requested resumption of protection, as well as a block of the registered account. Whether further measures are necessary I leave to administrative discretion. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:8AC6 (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• Page semi-protected for two weeks. Katie^talk 15:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

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.

Multiple accounts at Draft:Chobblesome

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.

---

• Draft:Chobblesome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft:Chobblesome is about a recent neologism coined by a YouTuber, which is tagged for speedy deletion per G3. Several users and IPs have appeared to edit only this draft or its talk page; in chronological order:

• WikiPoisi (talk · contribs): Initial creator of the draft.
• TobiasfromtheUK (talk · contribs)
• Dorchadais (talk · contribs)
• ChuffedtoBits9 (talk · contribs): Submitted the draft and created the talk page.
• PewGod (talk · contribs): Only user to edit the article after the CSD tag, first to contest the CSD, and created a now deleted sandbox about the same topic as the draft.
• 82.154.127.143 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): Geolocates to Lisbon, Portugal, with ISP PT Comunicacoes.
• 2600:1008:b160:547d:3180:c5c0:8590:f46a (talk · contribs · WHOIS): A Verizon IP that does not appear to geolocate to a specific location in the United States.

All three comments at the talk page are malformed, with the reason for contesting the draft placed after the signature instead of replacing the filler text. I have opened an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WikiPoisi about the six accounts listed above. I am not sure which of the involved users should be notified of this ANI, or if I should add the IP users to the SPI with no checkuser request. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The draft was just deleted by Orangemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Thisisonlysoicanmakechobblesomeaword (talk · contribs) recreated the draft, and has been added to the SPI. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Chobblesome was clearly a hoax, and has been protected from recreation on those grounds by User:Liz. I would block all the above accounts for vandalism under WP:MADEUP and not bother with the SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

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.

Sockpuppets

I feel User:The admans refuse to ban me and User:Wei49eb are sockpuppets, each claiming a sister or brother used their account. Both have account creation blocked, so are they using different IPs? Nythar (talk) 08:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think these are related. The first is clearly a troll, WP:DFTT, WP:RBI. —Kusma (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious even without sockpuppetry confirmation that they're trolls who are not here, but in the future, please consider WP:SPI for any sockpuppetry concerns, not WP:ANI. It probably means little too, but make sure to notify any users who you file an ANI report on next time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 11:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Uncommunicative editor, disruptive editing

• MaximoredelValle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have implored this editor to read multiple notices on their talkpage regarding disruptive editing [9][10][11]. In the final warning I mentioned WP:DISRUPT and taking up their actions up at a noticeboard. They persist in adding formatting contrary to Manual of Style and un-reverting their edits like this and this. They have never replied on their own talkpage and rarely use edit summaries; I'm not even sure they are an English speaker. Help requested here. By the way their editing is all or nearly all in the single topic of beauty pageants, which is covered by Wikipedia:General sanctions/Beauty pageants. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

To help the user find their talkpage, I have blocked them, with a link to the page in the block log. Communication is required. Bishonen | tålk 19:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC).

And I've reblocked as a sock; one of our beauty pageant frequent flyers.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Ahem. An aviation passenger is a flier. A flyer is e.g. an advertising handbill. You can thank me later. EEng 20:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, given the abject promotoin, the sock is a combination of both.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Not if you are British. DeCausa (talk) 07:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick work everyone. "Beauty pageant frequent flyers" brought a much needed smile to my face. I suspect this is not the only sock right now -- a number of pageant articles recently lit up with similar editing. See my edit history. There's a parallel discussion at User talk:Bbb23#It's beauty pageant sock season again that is probably relevant to this discussion, too. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Uncommunicative pageant editor #2

• Satur3435 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I feel sheepish to bring up another one so soon but its kind of the same thing all over again. They are reverting my edits, don’t use their talkpage, and don’t leave edit summaries. Notified for second time here, continued disruption here (just one example). ☆ Bri (talk) 04:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

So, I've done the exact same kind of block again, and also feel sheepish. Ponyo may have a sockblock up her sleeve. Bishonen | tålk 07:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC).

Not this time. They are, however, CU-blocked on Commons.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

User: Instantwatym

Hi, I wanted to ask for assistance with the singer Chris Brown's page. I believe that the edits on his page are violating MOS:LS & WP:NPOV. To be specific the edits made by user user:Instantwatym. The lead section does fit the four paragraph guidelines but those paragraphs are EXTREMELY lengthy. The lead is full of trivia, like radio records that the artist has broken etc that should be restricted to his legacy section or on the song's lead page. Also he’s being dubbed as "the King of R&B" "by several" in his lead when the citation provided only states that radio personality Ebro Darden and his fans have called him such. Which is not enough for someone's lead on Wikipedia. Anyone’s fans could give an artist an honorific nickname. I’ve tried to give a more neutral edit that was shorter and less biased without removing too much of the information provided and it keeps getting reverted by this editor. I also want to add that several editors have complained about this on the talk page. And I also want to make note of a mention in the lead that states that Billboard has called him "one of the most influential and successful R&b acts". That is completely false, the citation states that he "become one of the biggest names in R&B and pop" in the past nine years. Kanyfug (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a discussion about the lead on the article's talk page (only about the phrase "King of R&B"). You should start there. Schazjmd (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

That is what I was referring to, sorry if I didn’t clarify that. The conversation here talk:Chris_Brown#The_King_of_R&B? is where several editors have complained about the "King of R&b" title. Also as I stated before Billboard magazine's words were twisted to fit the editor’s narrative. Nowhere in the Billboard article is that stated, and it says "according to Billboard". Kanyfug (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Kanyfug, my point is that you and Instantwatym don't seem to agree on what should be in the lead, but the two of you haven't discussed it on the talk page. (Battling edit summaries is not a productive approach.) You really should try that first. If the two of you are unable to reach an agreement, then there are dispute resolution avenues you can use to resolve the content dispute. Schazjmd (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm open to engaging in dialogue and resolution as per BRD. I felt you were bold in your edit and its fine to be bold but if someone feels that bold edits were not constructive they are allowed to revert them and that alone does not constitute edit warring. Rather than engaging in dialogue with me on my talk page or the article's take page you created an ANI notice over 1 revert on 1 article. Nevetheless I will address the points you brought up. The length of the lead is appropriate given the length of the rest of the Wikipedia article. Lengthy leads can also seen on articles for artists such as Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley who have a long article and need a longer lead to provide a summar on their respective careers. The title "King of R&B" is honorific title similar to the title "King of Pop" for Michael Jackson or "King of Rock & Roll" for Elvis Presley. These are not official titles for anyone but are included as honorific titles for different artists in different genres. They are bestowed on artists by their industry peers and I can see that on your talk page someone already provided you various references for the honorfic title for this artist that are not limited to a statement from a radio host. You ignored that before creating this notice. Furthermore aside from the radio records and the other claims you are disputed were not added to the article by me. I only agree with the inclusion of this content as good lead for the artist. The radio records can be rearraged. I already removed one from the lead before you created this notice. I can also include a better references for the one of the most influential r&b singers. As you can see on the talk page of that article there is already a proposition for a legacy section which states his influence. Lastly the point about being one of the most successful r&b acts doesn't even need a reference as there's referenced content in the lead that cites him as of the best selling artist of all time, one of the most decorated Billboard artists and r&b artist in history and the 3rd most successfull billboard artist of the decade for the 2010s. It's a prelude to cited and verified information to come in the same section. Thanks. Instantwatym (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I've pinged you both to Talk:Chris Brown, which is where this discussion should be taking place. Schazjmd (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Chobblesome vandalism

There's actually been a discussion here recently about this, but it concerns a single draft. Now it seems to have reached mainspace. Chobblesome seems to be a recent trend of vandalism going on. From what I can tell, the page was created on the NL Wikipedia and deleted, and it looks like this has gone a bit viral and people are trying to do the same on the English Wikipedia. I've found some pages and diffs that relate to this vandalism: Chobblesome, Draft:Chobblesome, [12]. Is it possible to add this word to filter 614? Mori Calliope fan talk 17:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I've deleted and salted the main article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be a mid-adolescent phase where there's a compulsion to create new words, that is probably the original source of language. We used to see this a lot more before edit filters and draftspace were implemented. There is probably a linguistics/psychology dissertation to be written about this. Acroterion (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

It's also from a video from last week, it'll likely die off in the next few weeks entirely. Canterbury Tail talk 22:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Meg Ryan

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.

---

We need the whole package for violently misogynistic edits--user blocks, page protection and rev/deletion. 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:8AC6 (talk) 05:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

done. Page orotected by Ks0stm. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

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.

Repeated copyright violation

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.

---

Toonarmy7891 is repeatedly adding copyrighted images to articles after being told to stop. – ².O.^Boxing 10:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Unless this is the editor's real identity, I'm inclined to call bullshit on this explanation (they're claiming image number 5). – ².O.^Boxing 10:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Unlikely in my view to be honest. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 10:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@Iggy the Swan, @Squared.Circle.Boxing I don't even know what "in my personal gallery" means. A set of pictures that they collected? That doesn't mean they own the copyright. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 05:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• They've uploaded a whole pile of copyright violations to Commons (they've now been nuked). Together with the edit-warring, not to mention [13] and [14], that's a fairly straightforwrd decision. Indeffed. Black Kite (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)\

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.

Sickdearkorat removing CSD G12 tag

• Sickdearkorat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fakhroddin Modarres (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I tagged Fakhroddin Modarres, a recently created article, for speedy deletion because it was copied entirely from [15] (link to Earwig tool for the current version). User:Sickdearkorat, the article's creator, has removed the CSD tag three times without rectifying the copyright issues and without responding to my messages on their talk page asking them not to remove CSD tags from articles they've created. As of right now, the page is still a copyright violation but I am asking an administrator to delete it since Sickdearkorat keeps removing the standard tag. DanCherek (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sickdearkorat: You are not post to Remove CSD G12 tags from Fakhroddin Modarres because it is a copyright Violation, and Fakhroddin Modarres will be deleted by an admin because it is a copyright violation. Chip3004 (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

{{db-g12}} says not to remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. Maybe we should place more emphasis on that sentence? weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 04:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Let's make it red. And bold. And in a 48-point blackletter font. And blink. Or we could just accept that it's being deliberately ignored. I've speedied the article and blocked. —Cryptic 04:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Editor Gatitoar12

• Gatitoar12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sarah-Nicole Robles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can somebody please have a word with editor Gatitoar12. The editor is reverting articles that were redirected after Afd discussion. He had a final warning for other stuff. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 05:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. You should have a gentle word with this new user, instead of weighing straight in at ANI. 86.4.34.187 (talk) 07:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

  The user carried on with this behaviour well after User:Sergecross73 did have a word on the user talk page. In many circumstances such bold editing is good, as long as you accept with good grace that the edit may be reverted per WP:BRD, but it is inappropriate when a consensus has already been reached on the article talk page or at WP:AFD. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

  (Notified through my watchlist) If I remember correctly, I had first declined an AIV report about the user because messages such as Sergecross73's one had not been written back then. As that has now been attempted unsuccessfully, I have blocked the user. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

  Good block. I was going to do the same had I caught them doing that. (Last I checked they hadn't edited since my warning.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• The editor also always (with 1 exception) marks their edits as minor. Gusfriend (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Multiple IP user: Consistently removing the passive against advice in the Manual of Style.

Some relevant synonyms of the user:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/131.203.251.134 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/210.48.190.95 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/210.48.190.88 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/223.26.27.203 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/131.203.30.137

This user has a particular dislike of the passive voice and the use of the verb to be in general, and frequently removes them in ways which damage the prose of articles.

1. It was brought to their attention on their talk page that the passive voice is acceptable in wikipedia, to which they replied by arguing the MoS justified their actions in removing the passive wherever possible.
2. This led user:WhatamIdoing to start a discussion at MoS talkpage, which resulted in the removal from the MoS of any language which could be misinterpreted as saying that the passive was not acceptable in wikipedia.
3. The IP user recently posted on that thread somewhat opaquely, implying that despite the change in the MoS, they would continue to edit in the same way.
4. Following this, they made at least two edits replacing the passive against the MoS:

• The first replaced the impersonal "...the topsoil was then typically removed" with "...people then typically removed the topsoil".
• The second replaced "It was first recorded as being cultivated by the ancient Greeks for medicinal purposes." with " The first historical records of its cultivation for medicinal purposes involved the ancient Greeks."

The user appears unable to understand what the users at MoS are asking them to do, in which case WP:CIR is relevant. If they do understand but are ignoring the consensus, then WP:NOTHERE is relevant. I would ask for some action to be taken to stop the user editing in this way. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• Also reported last February at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive341#Advice about an IP user. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• (after edit conflict) There is no diktat against using the passive voice, which is part of the English language, on Wikipedia. The only advice is to avoid using it when saying something in the active is stylistically better. Matters of style are often not clear-cut, so any particular case should be subject to consensus rather than one user's dislike of the passive. Maybe (and I stress "maybe" - I don't know what the editors there think of this) such a campaign would be better suited to the Simple English Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Will no one rid us of this useless IDHT style warrior? In pursuit of his obsession he's changed The word tapu can be interpreted as to One can interpret the word tapu as and these areas were often surrounded by a protective fence to protective fencing often surrounded such areas. Complete waste of everyone's time. He needs another hobby. EEng 18:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
  • You mean, another hobby is what he needs. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm tempted to add "another hobby is needed by him", but that actually would be wrong.Boynamedsue (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

This is the type of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Errant too. EEng 20:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Uranus. Atsme 💬 📧 00:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• FWIW, the changes mostly seem value-neutral to me; the MOS doesn't call for them but also doesn't forbid them. If I saw one of these changes in my watchlist I would just sigh heavily and move on, because people are always making changes I find vaguely disagreeable or pointless, but that's the wiki way. I can kind of see the point as to WP:NOTHERE, specifically Little or no interest in working collaboratively, but I don't see any accusations that the user has engaged in the kind of actively disruptive conduct that that section seems to target. -- Visviva (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  If I saw one of these changes in my watchlist – Yeah, but what if you saw a flood of them? These kinds of obsessive-compulsive campaigns -- flitting from article to article to remake everything according to what WP:MISSSNODGRASS taught him in the seventh grade -- are decided net negatives, and disruptive wastes of everyone's time. Look at the amount of time spent by multiple editors, over at MOS, trying to get him to understand that he shouldn't be doing this dumbfuckery. EEng 19:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Replacing a passive ("x is done") with a construction saying "people do x" is unencyclopaedic prose, and adds nothing, as both phrases mean the same and the former is the option most users of standard English would choose in a formal context. The introduction of the random verb "involves" is introducing ambiguity for the sake of avoiding the passive, as detailed by the ip user below. These are both examples where the writing is damaged. The user ALSO does this wherever they can when both versions are equal, but there are dozens of examples up to now where the prose is worsened. I'm only adding these two in particular because they happened after the consensus was clear. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

There's only two choices. Deal with the individual 'now', or deal with the individual later. My advice, deal with'em 'now'. Be it per WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE, the lad must be escorted off the project. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• This change for one is definitely for the worse. "It was first recorded as being cultivated by the ancient Greeks for medicinal purposes" is perfectly clear. "The first historical records of its cultivation for medicinal purposes involved the ancient Greeks" is unclear; how did the records "involve" the ancient Greeks? Were they in favour of cultivation, or against it, or were they mentioned just in passing? This kind of wooly phrasing is not an improvement, and is just for the sake of "removing the passive voice at all costs". -- 2001:16B8:149D:6000:9484:A5D5:8B37:8141 (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  It's not a good change, but the original is also rather clunky and suboptimal. There has to be a crisper and more informative way to write this. Of course, figuring out how to rewrite it tends to require some topic knowledge, which I think is what is tripping up the contributor here. What are these mysterious "historical records" anyway? Maybe "Ancient Greek historian X reported that people in Y used it for medicinal purposes." Rare is the sentence on Wikipedia that couldn't benefit from some tuning. If the irritation spurred by these changes leads to some work towards language that improves on both the original and the anon's modifications, that seems like it would be beneficial to the project. From that standpoint I don't see this as radically different from people parachuting into an article to add citation-needed or clarification tags, even when no citation or clarification is particularly necessary in context. That is, it's mostly an annoyance and sometimes downright wrong, but occasionally it may spur positive change. -- Visviva (talk) 03:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  If the irritation spurred by these changes leads to some work towards language that improves on both the original and the anon's modifications, that seems like it would be beneficial – That's a great idea! Making an article worse is a great way to get other editors off their asses and improve it. We should have whole teams of editors making articles worse! EEng 03:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  I mean, the community is cheering on such an editor on WT:V right now, but I digress. The anon has scraped off a little bit of cobwebs and mildew from this article (by adding a source and correcting the factual statement in the article to match the source), and I noticed a duplicate ref that annoyed me so I scraped off a little bit more. That's definitely an improvement for an article that has been languishing without any substantive edits since at least 2015. -- Visviva (talk) 04:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  Update on my above comment: Looking more closely at the diff, I don't think the anon's changes are being characterized accurately. Yes, the passive voice is being replaced, but in the same edit the contributor is adding much-needed references to several statements. In addition, the change to the "involved" language is actually supported by the quote in the citation provided (in a sentence that was formerly uncited). The quote says that the tansy was being cultivated and that ancient Greeks used it for medicinal purposes, but not that the ancient Greeks were the ones cultivating it. I think the anon is actually making a significantly positive contribution in this case. -- Visviva (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, but that's silly. the first historical records involved the ancient Greeks – You must be kidding. EEng 03:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is any way to paint the introduction of ambiguity in the word "involved" as a positive change, but I have no problem with their occasional adding of references. They also occasionally add dates and some of their proofreading is ok. I am a little more suspicious of the way they fiddle with the format of references, it seems a little pointless but there may be good reasons for it. Boynamedsue (talk) 04:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's great phrasing, but I am saying that it is correct for the source given, and the previous phrasing was not. The source (which the anon helpfully quoted, a rare and very beneficial practice) says that The first historical records of common tansy cultivation are from the ancient Greeks who used it for a variety of ailments. It says the ancient Greeks used it, and it says that they recorded its cultivation, but it does not say that they were the ones cultivating it. Hopefully a better source will be added, since this one isn't great. But until it is added, what we say in the article should reflect the source we have. Had the anon not changed the language, the cite would not have supported the sentence. -- Visviva (talk) 04:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I take a backseat to no one on careful use of sources, but V does not require us to abandon our common sense. By your reasoning, if a source says "The first indication that Disease X had spread to the US came in 1992 when a man sought treatment at a San Francisco emergency room", we're not allowed to say, "The first known US case of Disease X was seen in a San Francisco emergency room in 1992" because, ya know, maybe the guy went in for a sprained ankle and happened to "indicate", along the way, that his Aunt Sally had a case of Disease X. It's silly. EEng 05:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I think you are giving the user too much credit there, I'd be surprised if they looked at the source. The reason the editor chose the word "involved" there is specifically to avoid using the verb "to be", they hate any structure containing it. If there had been an edit which introduced a sentence, with an edit summary stating the same as you, I would have considered it nitpicky but I wouldn't have worried unduly. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

They literally added the quote from the source, you can see it right there in the diff that you provided. (And I checked it against the citation, it is an accurate quote, and it isn't present anywhere in the previous version of the page, so they definitely checked the source.) (Actually they added the quote twice, which I've fixed with a named ref, but if inexpert citation practice was a bannable offense very few of us would be here.) I'm not sure where the hostility to this user is coming from, but it seems to be based on something other than the diffs provided. -- Visviva (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I take the bit about not looking at the source back. The difs provided are just the two most recent of dozens, perhaps hundreds of edits which reduce the quality of wikipedia. This user actually had the MoS changed specifically for them, but is still making the same errors. A little frustration is, I think, understandable. -Boynamedsue (talk) 05:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• The changes are generally for the worse, and more to the point it's anti-consensus behavior. We just had a big discussion about why this kind of "death to passive voice" prescriptivist activism behavior is misguided.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

fAgree, I do. Solve this problem, we must. Herostratus (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is a problem that would be advisable to have solved. Such unhelpful Wikipedia editing that is contrary to consensus advice sometimes results in accounts or IP addresses being blocked. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• Why is the anon user so unwilling to properly engage? Most of their changes degrade the text. Please stop this behaviour. Tony (talk) 00:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• Would it not be possible to topic ban the editor from making grammatical changes? I mean AFAIK the editor is sincere (altho he might not be). 100 years people ago were brought up to avoid the passive altogether, and remember in those days grammar teaching was entirely prescriptive. Even 50 years there was still a rear-guard action being fought for that notion -- Strunk & White, maybe the last gasp of strict anti-passivism, was published only 60 years ago. There are probably a few cases where this is still passed down parent to child even into this century probably. We do not want to throw people overboard if it is avoidable? This is why I suggest maybe a topic ban, perhaps he can find other useful things to do here? Herostratus (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  I definitely don't think a topic ban on "grammatical changes" would be in any way ambiguous, or lead to endless hairsplitting, or anything like that. Clear and well defined. Surgical. EEng 02:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

In principle I agree with such a topic ban, but the amount of effort they put into wikilawyering over this suggests it will lead to more trouble. They seem to enjoy arguing with us far more than editing. Unless they appear here and indicate some understanding of what we want them to stop doing, I feel your reasonable suggestion will be unfeasible.Boynamedsue (talk) 04:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

If you thought my comment was serious then you might want to take your irony detector in for recalibration. EEng 15:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• I do not see any consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Wikilawyering_over_passive_voice that the active voice is bad or that the passive voice should never be replaced, such that the anon's edits would be "anti-consensus". The consensus that emerged from that discussion -- indeed, the only topic on the table at all -- was to eliminate language that might be construed to encourage edits like the ones the anon has engaged in. But there are lots of acceptable editing behaviors that we don't encourage. That there was a consensus not to encourage a particular kind of editing does not make such editing "against consensus". -- Visviva (talk) 05:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, nobody here is arguing that the active voice is bad, or that replacing the passive is always incorrect. We argue that the way the anon user is doing this is not appropriate and that they should stop it.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  Exactly. Look, I happen to think the word accolades (as in List of accolades received by Gravity (film)) sounds idiotic. But I don't go around changing it to awards and recognition everywhere just to scratch my obsessive itch. EEng 05:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  ^{Only on Uranus. Atsme 💬 📧 00:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)}

• There's no clear, bright-line rule about this issue. The MOS just has some waffle buried in one of its many footnotes. That was changed recently but is still not crisp or clear cut. So, this is just a matter of prose style and taste and so de gustibus non est disputandum applies. There are lots of gnomes who make gratuitous copy-edits of this sort and that's inevitable, given the open nature of Wikipedia. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance". Andrew🐉(talk) 11:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  Someone heedlessly going around making edits others have to fix needs to stop or be stopped. Whether MOS has anything to say about the specific thing being done is irrelevant, as is Thomas Jefferson.

  It's unfortunate this thread was opened as "IP removing the passive against advice in the Manual of Style", because that's a red herring; it should have been entitled "IP making a lot of poor changes others have to revert all the time". EEng 15:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

What is this? Where am I? What hell-hole have I wandered into? Is this part of Musk's simulation? Get me outta here. Carlstak (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• I left the IP a message at User talk:131.203.251.134#Warning. If the problem continues, please post in that section with a diff of the edit and {{ping|Johnuniq}}. Johnuniq (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: That didn't take long > dif --Boynamedsue (talk) 07:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

And another here. --Boynamedsue (talk) 08:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I had assumed each IP had been notified about this discussion. That had not happened. I have just put a warning on each of the following talk pages and will act on any future edits from these IPs.

• 131.203.251.134 (talk · contribs)
• 131.203.30.137 (talk · contribs)
• 210.48.190.88 (talk · contribs)
• 210.48.190.95 (talk · contribs)
• 223.26.27.203 (talk · contribs)

Johnuniq (talk) 09:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh, in that case I suppose we should wait a couple days before taking action, in case defendant promises to cooperate. Unlikely, and in that case, probably just throwing the editor overboard is justified. (I think a topic ban, either like "no edits primarily just for grammar changes" or "no grammar chances of exiting material at all" could be enforced easily enough.) He hasn't been taken to ANI before, usually you give them one chance to turn it around IF they come here and convincingly promise to be good. That doesn't seem likely here and so we can go right to plan b I guess.

(As to the principle, even leaving aside that a lot of this editor's contributions make the text worse, I usually roll back wording changes that are not an improvement, even if they aren't worse either, on that grounds that it's roiling the text to no gain, substituting your personal preference for the personal preference of the person who did the actual work of researching and writing the material, and per BRD take it talk and convince us of the merits (if possible, which it generally isn't). I don't know of any rule that indicates you can't or shouldn't do that, and if there was, I'd ignore it.) Herostratus (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I think you are probably right in terms of natural justice. I don't have a problem in principle with a topic ban like that, I'm just not convinced it will work. --Boynamedsue (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

An urgent report about a user:折毛's hoaxes

Hello English Wikipedia sysops, I am sorry to write this report in such a hasty way. During the inspection on Chinese wiki, we found that a user 折毛 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has written a lot of false information, and most of his references are fictitious. The local discussion is on [here]. After a cross-wiki check, we found similar problems with her contributions to the English wiki, with the following specific articles --PAVLOV (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

with the following specific articles. What articles?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Siege_of_Borovsk, False Dmitry I#Death and Vasili IV of Russia#Life PAVLOV (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Siege_of_Borovsk, couldn't be found on any search engine.

Due to the absence of the corresponding text and the user's previous contribution was a mixture of genuine and fake content, such as hoaxes and original research. We have to request the community to help with the verification process and ask for help from Russian-speaking users and who are familiar with Russian History. Thanks again! PAVLOV (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy @葉又嘉, Antigng, Outlookxp, 如沐西风, and Ericliu1912: those who found 折毛's hoaxes on Chinese Wikipedia. PAVLOV (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Siege of Borovsk is a pretty blatant hoax. Someone who was supposed to be killed during that siege wasn't even born, and there were no people of that name being princes during that time. It isn't even a well-crafted hoax and I am astonished that it passed draft review.Lurking shadow (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

There is ru:Волконский, Михаил Константинович Хромой, who according to the article died in the year and place mentioned. 82.132.185.134 (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

That was the name in the article, but a link to Mikhail Volkonsky was added by the reviewer in a "cleanup" edit and the Russian name was removed by another editor. 82.132.185.134 (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I have presumptively removed the content added by 折毛 to the other two articles, since they were specifically named by PAVLOV and could not access the book sources directly. WikiProject Russia has been notified of this discussion because most of 折毛's edits are about Russian history. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Another affected article: Chinese Wikipedia article zh:远东华人强制流配 is created by 折毛, it also passed the FAC on Chinese Wikipedia in 2021. The article was translated into English as Deportation of Chinese in the Soviet Union. Now our community found this articles contains many fictitious information, many informain in this article was not mentioned by the sources it cites (see discussion on Chinese Wikipedia). Since the English article is translated from the Chinese article, the English article may also have this problem, I wish the English community to help with the verification, Thanks a lot! (I am not good at English, I feel sorry if my words are difficult to understand) BlackShadowG (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@BlackShadowG Hi, sorry for the interruption. Have you found any other articles be translated from Chinese Wikipedia with hoaxes into here? PAVLOV (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I haven't found it yet, and it takes time to check because there are so many affected Chinese articles. BlackShadowG (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

A summary of the project to remove hoaxes has been created at Wikipedia:Fabricated Articles and Hoaxes of Ancient Russia in 2022 by Beta Lohman (talk · contribs), but the grammar is poor and requires copyediting. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to create such a summary page in this wiki, as this incident has much less influence here. --№.N (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I see the merit of this page. It allows quick sharing of findings without opening a case each time there's a positive hit. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

A comment from Borovsk (where I live each summer). While I cannot see the contents of the deleted Siege_of_Borovsk, the episode is classroom stuff here. Like all classroom stuff it's more mythology than facts, and there are too many voids in the story that are eagerly filled by the "patriots" and armchair "historians". The undisputed facts are:

1. In June 1610, after the Battle of Klushino, the joint force of Jan Piotr Sapieha and False Dmitry II marched towards Moscow via Medyn and Borovsk;
2. Borovsk, a run-down wooden stockade, could not stand an assault, so local governor Mikhail Volkonsky retreated 3 kilometers west to the fortified Pafnutyev-Borovksy Monastery;
3. Volkonsky's force repelled the initial Polish assault;
4. On July 15, 1610 (Gregorian calendar) the Poles breached into the monastery walls. Volkonsky was killed in action.

That's it. All other details, including the treason among Russians, the incompetent actions of Volkonsky, and the number of casualties (4 thousands in Polish records) are disputed and cannot be taken for certain. Retired electrician (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Kainedamo and Gamergate

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.

---

Kainedamo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly not here to contribute to article editing, but rather to argue the very old and very tired "it was just about ethics" side. They are not an WP:ECP-qualifying editor, thus are limited to the tslk page and not Gamergate (harassment campaign) itself.

Selections -

• User_talk:Kainedamo#In_which_I_try_to_reason_with_wikipedia_janitors_about_GamerGate.
• Obsession with Zoe Quinn's Kickstarter details [16].
• Arguing about the latest right-wing subreddits that have been banned [17].
• "To quote the sealion, in order to defeat me you'd have to show which of my positions are wrong."
• "It is about ethics"
• Both points you made were just intellectual cowardice

And on and on and on. Honestly, just browse through the combative bludgeoning in Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)#Studies_regarding_attitudes_of_GamerGate_supporters, Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)#172_is_spurious,_unscientific_nonsense_and_should_be_removed, Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)#chopping_discussion:_glasgow_and_peckford to get the full picture. ValarianB (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I find it very odd the account doesn't have any edits at all for 10 YEARS then goes to one of the most tenacious subjects that we have. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Are people allowed to disagree with the current narrative of the GamerGate page? Nobody's ever debunked the Leigh Alexander/Sunset ethics controversy, which people can read about complete with details and evidence, over at deepfreeze.it, under the article Unfair Advantage. I'm very satisfied that at the very least this is the appearance of a journalist using journalist connections to unethically boost a game she was paid to work on, with no disclosures from those connections. While there are many other examples of games journalists behaving unethically, I focus on this one because it's particularly key. Leigh Alexander is referred to multiple times across the references. I see comments like "GamerGate lost the ethics argument". It isn't true. It's simply the case that these kinds of ethics transgressions are not covered or acknowledged by the typical sources the editors like.

I have ideas for suggestions using "reliable sources" that are more in keeping with how you guys do things.

Am I allowed to say it's about ethics in the Talk page? Kainedamo (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

"Arguing about the latest right-wing subreddits that have been banned [190]."

That's a complete misrepresentation of that argument. The discussion was about a source that examined KiA, which is neither right wing nor banned. I was pointing out the massive, gaping holes in the reasoning of the source which claimed evidence that KiA is Right Wing Extremist. I pointed out, for example, that the section on 'free speech is hate speech' from that essay is begging the question. Standing up for free speech is a liberal principle. Why would the presumption be that it's a RWE talking point? Applying Occam's Razor would suggest it's safer to assume an innocent motive over RWE, when people are talking about supporting free speech. Then some wiki editor argued with me and gloated about subbreddits being banned and how "KiA is next". Kainedamo (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I also gathered from that discussion that the guy I was arguing with is completely incapable of distinguishing a sincere support of free speech as a principle, and Right Wing Extremism. Kainedamo (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Kainedamo is here to argue that Gamergate is right and to post negative stuff about Zoe Quinn. They have expressly refused to work within the way we do things. They are unquestionably not here to build an encylopedia. This sort of behavior is exactly why we have discretionary sanctions for this topic area. Please apply them. MrOllie (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

'post negative stuff about Zoe Quinn.'

And that is forbidden? Kainedamo (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I am intensely critical of GG (and not always in agreement with those who were targeted by the waves of harassment), but I will say that Kaindemo's topic seems to of elicited a lot of responses, which would move it beyond the realm of simple trolling. But sh*t such as refuting "anti racist is code for anti white" is dangerously close to being a WP:NONAZI issue. Kainedamo, you may not like it, but that statement is irrefutably a neo-nazi or white supremacist dog-whistle. And my spouse being referred to a "chink" over and over again by an irate co-worker is not free speech - we call that "hate speech".--SinoDevonian (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the source provided context for the quote "anti-racism means anti-white". Context matters. There's a school of thought in current day identity ideology that says it isn't enough to not be racist, one must be anti-racist. Which sounds good on paper, but when applied by 'progressive' hyprocrites and bullies, who believe racism is everywhere, who are themselves racist against white people, it can be twisted emotional manipulation. So, I say without the context it was said in, we can't really make judgements about "anti-racism means anti-white" in itself. For more information go to New Discourses, Social Justice Encyclopedia, antiracism. Kainedamo (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Kainedamo, it might be worthwhile to peruse WP:BLP. Negative information is of course allowed, but should be backed up by reliable sources. While there is more flexibility on the talk page than the article, BLP policy applies there as well. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't quite get the wikipedia formatting correct, but is this better? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)#New_section_suggestion:_Johnny_Depp/Amber_Heard_Trial Kainedamo (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

You forgot to sign, but generally speaking, yes, that is a cogent suggestion that follows Wikipedia guidelines (to my mind, at least). Dumuzid (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Above, I see comments like "GamerGate lost the ethics argument". It isn't true. It's simply the case that these kinds of ethics transgressions are not covered or acknowledged by the typical sources the editors like.. This is really no different than an editor (and there have been a handful come and invariably go) going to 2021 United States Capitol attack and vociferously arguing that the election was stolen from Donald Trump. ValarianB (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Not really. More people should learn and understand Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor doesn't always apply, but it is often useful as a tool to cut through extraordinary claims. "Video games journalists were/are unethical" is a rather mundane claim, nothing like claiming a Presidential election was stolen. These are worlds apart in terms of assumptions. Kainedamo (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

ANI is not a forum for your views on article content. The article title is a disambiguation made necessary by the existence of Gamergate (ant), in case you were not aware. You are free to suggest alternatives in the appropriate venues
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User 'The Hand That Feeds You' is consistently antagonistic. He accuses me of defending 'far right bigotry' when I talked about freedom of speech being a liberal principle, he brags about subbreddits being banned which has nothing to do with anything, he threatens to ban me. His responses never address my points. Kainedamo (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC) I've always found the media narrative against gamers to be extraordinarily dehumanizing, going all the way back to the Jack Thompson era of media moral panic. On August 28th, 2014 there were at least ten articles from games journalists and academics declaring 'gamers don't have to be your audience, gamers are over', with even more articles in the days that followed. Full of nasty generalizations. "Young men queuing with plush mushroom hats and backpacks and jutting promo poster rolls. Queuing passionately for hours, at events around the world, to see the things that marketers want them to see. To find out whether they should buy things or not. They don’t know how to dress or behave. Television cameras pan across these listless queues, and often catch the expressions of people who don’t quite know why they themselves are standing there." Negative stereotypes of men with autism. Despite Alexander's claim to support inclusion, the 'gamers are over' articles were not inclusive. "These obtuse shitslingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers -- they are not my audience. They don’t have to be yours. There is no ‘side’ to be on, there is no ‘debate’ to be had." Ugly personal attacks, and intellectual cowardice. 'No debate to be had'? The Sunset controversy says otherwise (as just one example). These articles asserted all sorts of nonsense about swathes of people, projecting as though they have crystal balls and can read minds, blaming the culture and community of gaming for all sorts of horrible things instead of blaming the actions of a relative handful of individuals. Negative descriptors followed by 'male', 'white', like in Arthur Chu's article. It was a sign of this emerging 'progressive' bully ideology, based on identity, and full of gaslighting and projection when anybody pushes back. The narrative that had quickly formed by the journalists in August, 2014 has never really been seriously questioned or examined, except by a handful of journalists and researchers like Cathy Young or Brad Glasgow. Here's some food for thought. Neither the wikipedia page on Nazis, or the wikipedia page on Islamic State, are as negatively worded as the GamerGate page. The nazism page isn't titled Nazis (holocaust), the Islamic State page isn't titled Islamic State (terrorists), but the GamerGate page is titled GamerGate (harassment campaign). It's so over the top. Let's compare opening sentences. Nazism - Nazism (/ˈnɑːtsiɪzəm, ˈnæt-/ NA(H)T-see-iz-əm), the common name in English for National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus, German: [natsi̯oˈnaːlzotsi̯aˌlɪsmʊs] (listen)), is the ideology and practices associated with Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party in Nazi Germany. Islamic State - An Islamic state is a state that has a form of government based on Islamic law (sharia). As a term, it has been used to describe various historical polities and theories of governance in the Islamic world. GamerGate - Gamergate was a misogynistic online harassment campaign and a right-wing backlash against feminism, diversity, and progressivism in video game culture. Dudes, why are the pages for Nazism and Islamic State more neutrally worded than the page on GamerGate? Misogyny word count. Nazism page - 0. Islamic State page - 1, at the side under ideology, not in a sentence. GamerGate page - 10 times in the article itself, more in the titles of references. I believe it's far more likely that journalists are engaging in hysteria, moral panic, exaggeration, sweeping generalizations, myth making, demonization, even chasing clicks and social clout off the back of the topic. I don't think it's particularly likely that, somehow, gaming culture, gamers, or GamerGate, are more uniquely sexist than other segments of modern civilization. The data (as in, hard data like Christopher Ferguson's work, or various other studies like Sexist Games=Sexist Gamers? A Longitudinal Study on the Relationship Between Video Game Use and Sexist Attitudes), shows no real evidence that video games influence negative beliefs or behaviours. Claiming some variation like "reinforce" is the same claim. Claiming it's the culture, or the community of gamers that is the problem, just moves the claim back a step and adds a whole other layer of assumptions. Journalists and academics that behave more like activists, have behaved incredibly irresponsibly, constantly pushing a cruel lie that misogyny and hatred are these every day things that permeate even hobbyist communities, when I have every reason to believe instead that the gaming community is inclusive, and never needed these journos to be so. The journos can't force the community to agree with Anita Sarkeesian, and so critics of Anita Sarkeesian are sexist. At every point, their arguments require assuming the absolute worst about other people's beliefs and motivations, and applying these assumptions to, essentially, swathes of total strangers, and any push back is framed as harassment. Why is the wikipedia page on GamerGate like this? Why does every sentence drip with this desperate need that there can be no room for doubt - this group of people who used hashtag GamerGate, are a hate campaign of misogynists who are racists and they send every threat you can imagine and they don't love their children like we proper good people do. It's like the page itself is one big virtue signal. It reads like war time propaganda against an enemy nation. When data indicates GamerGate supporters were hugely diverse and came from many countries. The narrow POV of San Francisco style identity politics really does not fit most of these people. I think - I hope - if the future does lean towards progress and knowledge - one day, people will be embarrassed that they justified such ugliness for the sake of a convenient boogeyman that absolutely anything can be projected onto. Kainedamo (talk) 22:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I've hatted the above section, which appears to be an attempt to bludgeon the discussion in a new venue. Acroterion (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

And that's Kaindamo's entire MO: repeatedly bludgeon the discussion with GG-positive talking points, declare that RS are hypocritical 'progressive' that engages in moral judgements based on race and generally speculating that known far-right catchprhrases can be excused with context that would show a more liberal principled intent.

This user is also a self-professed Reddit /r/KotakuInAction poster who came here just to defend that sub's reputation. For reference, KIA is a hotbed of GamerGate conspiracy-mongering.

They have also declared that they do not believe in our RS policies, and that their own judgement matters more: I'm not really interested that there's 'numerous sources' when the reasoning is bad. It's hysteria.

This user is only here to promote a pro-GG viewpoint, and is not here to improve the encyclopedia in a manner conforming with our policies. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Tell me again how standing for freedom of speech is far right bigotry. Kainedamo (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, please, I am begging a single one of you to show the actual context these phrases were used.

You guys are like, "clown world? I have heard enough!! Right Wing Extremism!!" Kainedamo (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Am I wrong when I say that the GamerGate page is more negatively worded than the pages on Nazism and Islamic State?

Could it be possible that your own biases are colouring how you see this issue? Kainedamo (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

We're trying to tell you this, especially, is not the place to have that debate. Dumuzid (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Then where would be? Kainedamo (talk) 23:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

How is it that you editors can claim completely innocous phrases, totally removed from the context they were used in, are "known far-right catchphrases"? Obviously your own biases are present.

You make it seem like I'm ruining your parade by questioning these assumptions. Kainedamo (talk) 23:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, you're not ruining my parade, at least, but this place exists to build an encyclopedia based on reliable sources. To the extent you want to debate the issues or point out what you see as inconsistencies based on your own reasoning, you're treating the place like a forum. There are other sites for that. Dumuzid (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Other sites aren't the first google result. This page is ran by people with obvious biases. "Known far-right catchprhases", I call that begging the question. Kainedamo (talk) 23:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Essentially I'm supposed to believe people are into evil ideology if they use some clown-related terminology or imagery, or if they say they support free speech, or if they use terminology that I know for a fact has been used to stand up to 'progressive' bullies.

You guys have every opportunity to show it's me that's wrong, by backing it up with context. Kainedamo (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

See? This is exactly what I mean. We are not here for "debate me, bro." Dumuzid (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

But your editors can declare what is and isn't far right bigotry, no matter how questionable that is.

You're here with a brush, questioning whether or not the barn is large enough for your broad strokes. Maybe you need a barge. Kainedamo (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Explain to me how it's reasonable for an editor to declare that phrases I have every reason to believe are innocent, are examples of "known far-right catchphrases", and why I'm not allowed to disagree. Kainedamo (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Editors can't do that, reliable sources can. That is what you apparently fail to grasp. Dumuzid (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you believe there's a lack of sources that argue for freedom of speech as a principle? Is this a reliable source, or is it far right bigotry? https://nypost.com/2018/08/03/how-liberals-turned-against-free-speech/ Kainedamo (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with the conduct complained of (in fact it's rather an example), and the article has nothing to do with Gamergate, so it's not even tangentially related to the article at issue. You like to argue your points! That's all well and good. It's just not what Wikipedia is for. Also, I would invite you to look at WP:NEWSORG and this discussion. Dumuzid (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The french version of the GG page isn't perfect but is still far superior. They have a section on the Gamers are Over articles, they actually acknowledge the ethics issues. Kainedamo (talk) 23:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Note to all, particularly any admins, the WP:GENSEX discretionary sanctions still apply to GamerGate per For the avoidance of doubt, GamerGate is considered a gender-related dispute or controversy for the purposes of this remedy. and that Kainedamo was made aware of this in August 2021. As such sanction notices are valid for a year from delivery, using them is an available option for administrators if it is felt as though it meets that criteria. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I read WP:GENSEX, I read the comments from that August 2021 link, and I'm still not sure what all this means. Which is probably my fault. In plain english, what are you talking about? Kainedamo (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

GamerGate is subject to discretionary sanctions, due to it being part of a contentious topic area. As such editors are expected to follow a more stringent set of expectations on among other things behavioural conduct and decorum. Any editor who does not follow that set of expectations can be subject to sanctions, including topic banning, page banning, or account blocking. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Is it a stringent set of expectations to accuse people of far right bigotry because somebody said standing for free speech is a dogwhistle? The mirror gazes back, my dear wiki editors. It's coming across like you're banning me for calling out editor bias. Kainedamo (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

What's being moderated and maintained on the GG page is not a free speech issue (eg not censorship). I still have my own reservations on how the GG page is written in tone and clearly passionate language but to counter that, we are not going to include disproven claims from the other side. Masem (t) 00:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

For the record, Bbb23 indef blocked Kainedamo per WP:NOTHERE. Kainedamo was then further warned for pasting copyrighted material into their unblock request. Bizarrely, they also used part of their unblock to compare Wikipedians to a thought-controlling AI from Metal Gear Solid 2. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

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.

WP:NOTHERE by 2A02:A458:447B:1:0:0:0:0/64

2A02:A458:447B:1:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP is clearly not WP:NOTHERE, and shows a bothersome sign of anti-Iranian behaviour, something that has been rampant in Wikipedia this month, and frankly, not dealt with well enough. Imagine doing this kind of stuff in 2022.

5 June 2022 Removed dozens of WP:RS that mentioned the word "Turko-Persian", with the edit summary "Stop inserting that Iranian nationalist content, stop claiming that heritage like that."

6 November 2021 - Removed sourced mention of "Persianized"

26 May 2022 Replaced sourced mention of "Persian" with "Arabic"

5 June 2022 Replaced sourced mention of "Turco-Persian" with "Turkish"

6 June 2022 Removed sourced mention of "Iranian"

6 June 2022 Removed sourced mention of "Persian"

You are an Iranian nationalist who is concerned with inserting a Persian claim all over the space. Everything under the sun becomes Persian. I've seen it all. It's not healthy, HistoryofIran. One (Iranian) historian does not set aside the multitude of sources that make no reference to a Persian link. It's one of those subjects. Iranians will make a big deal of it, trying to lay claim on anything they can.

...overly enthusiastic Iranian contributors have edited the page a month ago to suit their nationalist feelings. / And you people being outraged at me. Where were you when the Iranian contributor changed the page a month ago to have it claim a Middle Persian origin? You weren't outraged when he just flat-out inserted this nationalist claim.

You don't have pure motives. Why did you edit this page to say that the Quranic term is of Middle Persian origin? You wanted to achieve something right? You have your source or two, and you come in and just own and claim that term for your nationality, but you don't care about what the mainstream of historians say about the term. You are well aware that the vast majority of historians make no mention of a Middle Persian origin of the Quranic term. But you don't care, you've claimed the page for your own. And I'm not anti-Iranian, I just don't like when nationalist tendencies are pushed here. I just edited the page of the Samanids to call them 'Arab-Persian', just to make a point, including references, and you immediately came in and removed that. You like to insert all these claims because it suits your sense of nationalism, but when I go an call the Samanids 'Arab-Persian' you immediately object and have that content removed.

"Stop inserting this Iranian nationalist stuff."

This is not the first time I have reported this IP at ANI, but nothing was done here [18]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Should be blocked for their unfounded and racist comments alone, this is a no-brainer. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the diffs, its clear that this disruptive IP hopper is obsessively trying to force other users into kow-tow by focussing on their supposed ethnic background. Simultanteously, they are desperately trying to discredit books written by highly regarded academic publishers simply because they do not like it. Looking at the words they use, it is clear that they are here to pursue IRL-related grievances. As they clearly haven't understood since last time, I suggest a lengthy range block this time. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The ban-evasion by IP-hopping seems to violate rules even by itself. --Qahramani44 (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Can someone review this IP range's edits[19][20] on Farang and other articles? I saw he mentioned Farang[21] on Talk:Rûm and then he edited that article. Seems like a nationalistic crusade against any mention of Iranian/Persian on English Wikipedia. I don't think this case is random stuff. The IP range could be a blocked user/sockmaster who uses anonymous editing for block evasion. --Mann Mann (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive POV-pushing in Marcos articles

For several weeks, there has been a slow edit war in several articles with language such as "She is the adopted daughter of the late former Philippine president, Ferdinand Marcos and former first lady Imelda Marcos." changed to "She is the adopted daughter of the late former Philippine president, dictator, and kleptocrat Ferdinand Marcos and former first lady and graft convicted Imelda Marcos."

This is not impartial and these "descriptors" are clearly non-neutral and don't belong in tangentially related articles, even if sourced. This has happened in Imee Marcos, Irene Marcos, Aimee Marcos, Bongbong Marcos, Sandro Marcos, Ilocos Norte, Matthew Manotoc, and possibly others. These changes have been removed multiple times, and re-inserted with edit summaries including "revert vandalism" and "revert whitewashing". There are multiple auto-confirmed accounts involved.

With multiple articles and multiple editors, what is the best way to deal with this. MB 01:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @MB: Link some diffs and/or talk page discussions pertaining to this behavior. Are there any specific users that seem to be causing recurring disruption? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

A few of these articles were brought up at WP:NPOV/N, see specifically Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 96#Dictator and kleptocrat ? and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 96#Bongbong Marcos lead. At least in considering the Bongbong lede, it was determined to be coatracking to name-drop the terms that are associated with the parents. This is not saying the terms can be appropriate to include related to their parents elsewhere in the body, but they should be shown the relevance and not just "name dropped". --Masem (t) 02:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

MB, please list the editors involved. Cullen328 (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Just looking at Sandro Marcos, it started with this edit by Siuhl10 who added first added "kleptocrat" and "convicted criminal".

Then Firekiino added "dictator" here, and reverted removal of these terms five times:

• restore June 8 (no edit summary)
• restore June 19 (Reverted descriptor removal)
• restore June 20 (→‎Early life and education: Readded descriptors. The said descriptors are used in all other articles of related indiciduals. Thus i see no reason not to include them.)
• restore June 22 (no edit summary)
• restore June 22 (no edit summary)

It would take quite a bit of time to do this for all the articles. In glancing at the others, I know that Firekiino is involved in all the articles I listed above. I do believe there is at least one more editor who has made similar reverts. MB 02:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I just checked my watchlist and found that RPC7778 just put this language back in Irene Marcos and Aimee Marcos but self reverted a few minutes later. MB 03:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello! It was not my intention to start an edit war. I was reverting what I thought was vandalism due to the removal of terms without clear consensus on their respective talk pages. As far as I can tell, the descriptors, specifically those used in the Bongbong Marcos and Imee Marcos articles have been present for some time now. For Bongbong, the earliest usage of some of these descriptors date back as far as 2019 here. For Imee Marcos I found that the descriptors were added as far back as 2019 as well. Although I believe the term kleptocrat was added much later.

Over the pass few years these terms have been added, removed and re-added numerous times now especially by unregistered IP users or newly created accounts. The Philippines has also had its national elections recently and these pages seemed to be repeatedly targeted generally by new unconfirmed accounts and unregistered IP users. Which is why I was especially vigilant towards these pages. While my edits do not contain edit summaries I have tried to request sources from users who removed said descriptors to explain their removal.

Regarding the descriptors being against WP:NPOV,I checked their respective talk pages, and the impression I got was to keep these terms in the article. Most of the discussions held specifically on Bongbong's talk page seemed to be about the usage of the said descriptors. With the general conclusion of those discussion being to retain their use. With most dissenting opinions lacking the sources to back up their arguments and using arguments along the lines of "No. marcos was a great president" and such. Some examples can be found [1] [2], [3].

I might also add that the talk page of Bongbong Marcos also mentions in its FAQ that any removal of the descriptors should at least be discussed first in the talk page.

Might I also add that some well known dictators' relatives are described "as relatives of the dictator x" in their intros. Some examples being most of Mussolini's listed relatives (Edda Mussolini,Vittorio Mussolini, Bruno Mussolini,Romano Mussolini) and even Hitler's parents (Father,Mother). I believe even Hitler's birthplace is described as the "birthplace of Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler" [4].

tldr; I do not believe adding these descriptors breaks WP:NPOV as these are well established to be facts and not a point of opinion by the consensus of editors on the respective talk pages. Firekiino (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Dictator is a very subjective term, therefore you should not be restoring it. >>> Extorc.talk 12:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Extorc: If you think that the term dictator shouldn't be restored, then the term should be changed from the pages of relatives of Hitler and Mussolini as well. RPC7778 (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

See links to discussions at NPOV/N. "Dictator" can be a subjective term and should not be assigned by WP editors just because they think it fits. But as long as there is clear expert backing (in this case, those in pol-sci circles) that have determined the term is appropriate, then we can use it, though there is still a COATRACK issue to bring up the "sins of the parent" on the children/related people. --Masem (t) 13:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I would just like to weigh in that Ferdinand Marcos was a dictator and kleptocrat are established neutral objective historical facts, supported by all of all of the authorities on the subject: Historians, Political Scientists, Economists and Journalists. (edit: copy pasting citations for kleptocrat. Can put citations for Marcos=dictator here, but am too tired right now.) These are just a drop in the bucket of reliable sources that back these up. There was no consensus at the NPOV Noticeboard that these terms were not neutral. -Object404 (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@MB: I reverted my edits because I saw your complaint. I still believe that the said descriptors are well-established facts that have been referenced by several credible sources and are neutral. I do not see why there is a need to omit them. If ever the descriptors needed to be modified or removed (from the articles of Ferdinand Marcos' relatives), at least retain the term dictator when referring to the former president. This is based on the examples made by Firekiino when describing Mussolini, based from the articles of his relatives. RPC7778 (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@RPC7778: See WP:POINT. If you think that Mussolini or Hitler article is causing problem then go fix it instead of using these articles as example to cause problems elsewhere. >>> Extorc.talk 14:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Masem, The discussion here has ended. It looks like bringing this here has had an affect, all of the above articles appear stable for now. Going forward, should there be an Edit Notice on these articles? MB 01:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Certainly on the talk pages to point to establishing discussions on this topic. --Masem (t) 17:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Coop Users on Wiggle pages

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.

---

ok this is my first time Reporting Someone, Please forgive me if I make some Mistakes, ok So there are Coop socks vandalizing The Wiggles, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Coop2006 , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Coop40493 , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Coop6666 they Keep Editing The Wiggles and Phillip Wilcher‎ Saying Wilcher is going to return to the Wiggles, I think the IP Addresses should be Checked for Sock Puppet Thank you! Jena (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• In their defense, there was a "Rach" too. I should get paid per block. Drmies (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I wish they would always make it so easy. Canterbury Tail talk 23:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Me too, CT. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy I did it right!!! cool! thank you guys! Jena (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Ps Please Close this Jena (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

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.

Ancient Macedonian language

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.

---

The first paragraph of the article mentions things that are different from what the reference is saying. I'm trying to summarize what the reference is saying and they don't let me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelenHIL (talk • contribs) 20:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC) HelenHIL (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @HelenHIL: Please discuss this issue at the talk page, not ANI. It is a content dispute, and the other users do not like what you wrote because they do not perceive it as suitable for the lead. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

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.

Sockpuppets at Steve Harrington

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.

---

Someone please protect Steve Harrington. High number of apparent sockpuppets adding nearly the same unsourced thing again and again. Nythar (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Nythar: Protected for a week. In the future WP:RFPP is the best place for these requests :) Sam Walton (talk) 08:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Thanks! As for WP:RFPP, someone did, but it was taking too long. Nythar (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

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.

20SS00 categorizing by cause of death

User:20SS00 has recently created over 200 categories to classify biographical articles by cause of death and, particulary, by cause of death by location. I'm not the first to find that these are not generally defining categories, WP:CATDEF, and I just filed one collection of them to be considered for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 20#Cardiac arrest deaths. It seems I'm not the first to bring this concern to the 20SS00's attention:

• The user was asked in April not to create such categories because they aren't defining.
• At least two categories have been submitted for speedy deletion under WP:CSD G4, indicating (I think) that the user would have been notified on bringing the category up for creation that it had been previously deleted. One of them is Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Thailand; see the user notification for one of them.

I'm posting this here out of concern that these are indeed undesirable categories and that the user may continue to create large numbers of them. Examples of earlier deletion discussions of such categories, suggesting that my concern about the inappropriateness of these categories is legitimate, include Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 12#Deaths from cardiovascular disease and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 15#Cardiovascular disease deaths. Largoplazo (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• I share Largoplazo's concerns. 20SS00 did not respond to my suggestion on their talk page that they stop creating such categories, which had previously been deleted by consensus, and went on to create more today. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I share these concerns. 20SS00 has committed a further infraction my mis-spelling infarction for the whole new hierarchy Category:Deaths by myocardial infraction. I propose to tag all these for speedy deletion. – Fayenatic London 09:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't usually LOL in serious discussions, but I'm going to LOL. LOL. Largoplazo (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Category:Myocardial infraction deaths in Connecticut [22] -- Really, how stupid can you get? But honestly, why are will still bothering with categories at all? They're never even 20% complete and correct -- you always get some error-prone subset of what you want. I don't think I've ever found them useful, period. EEng 17:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  I'm with @EEng this is patently fucking ridiculous and unencyclopedic. I'd suggest topic banning this person from categories but at that point, they may as well just be outright blocked. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  It's actually worse than it seems at first blush: infarction is misspelled. EEng 18:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  This also appears to be a problem cross-wiki as well. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to block 20SS00

I started cleaning up their mess only to realize they haven't bothered to address any of these concerns or respond here despite editing since this was filed and they were notified, so I'd suggest a block indefinitely from mainspace or outright until they can demonstrate an understanding of these concerns and commit to not doing this. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support ban on any category related editing. To include creating them or any adding, deleting, or recategorizing involving mainspace articles....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• I've partially blocked 20SS00 from both category and article space pending their participation here. They have been dismissive of the concerns raised and have continued editing without addressing this thread.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support ban on any category related editing. In April I removed his addition of the category "Stroke-related deaths in Arizona" from Lillian Moller Gilbreth. On his talk page I warned him not to do this and explained defining and non-defining categories, specifically mentioning the Gilbreth article. Today he added the category back after stating yesterday on Fayenatic london's talk page that The fact that it’s considered "non-defining" is purely based off of opinion. The editor seems to be unable to abide by editing guidelines such as WP:CATDEFINING or to follow consensus in this matter. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Obviously I support my own proposal but I think it's probably worth noting for anyone on the fence, beyond the silly category disruption, this user just simply appears to be unable to adequately collaborate based on the fact that they have over 30,000 edits and less than 0.1%, a whopping 34 total, of those edits are to talk pages (user talk, article talk or any others) which indicates to me that they absolutely do not understand that communication is a requirement here. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support a global ban from categories given the evidence provided. This is outrageous. – The Grid (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  Unfortunately we can't have a global ban enacted via discussion here, though it would be nice. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  Even if it was just for categories? It's just the powers are really for the English Wikipedia? – The Grid (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support block from categories at the least Given unresponsiveness, would support ban from en Wikipedia and even, if indicated, global block to stop damage elsewhere. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support Per the above, but it could be a moot point with them p-blocked now - unless they care to respond here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

There are multiple sockpuppets on this page 1, part of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ezidishingali. Nythar (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Handled by Materialscientist. The topic of Yazidis / Kurds has suffered badly from sockpuppetry via use of VPNs in the past few days. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Venkat TL mass page moves

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.

---

Since the last topic ban from DYK on 5 May, [23], Venkat TL has been doing mass page moves despite a couple of warnings to stop it. The first warning was mild and another warning was final. However, none of these warnings helped Venkat TL to stop.

In just 1 month, Venkat TL has made over 16,000 such page moves that are nothing but WP:DE because his page moves have no basis other than a "proposed" convention over which multiple editors have disagreed with Venkat TL.[24]

The participants of the last ANI thread assumed that this user's disruption won't stop with just a topic ban from DYK.[25] I agree they were correct. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• There are only 4000 constituencies as per State legislative assemblies of India#Current State Legislative Assemblies, and I have only moved some, So this guy is making up stories by claiming 16000 pages were moved. --Venkat TL (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
• Context thread: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indian_politics#Constituency_titles
• This was debated for 7 months at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles.
• Another 4 months of debate occurred at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indian_politics#Constituency_titles
• This proposal came out after above debates and discussions at WikiProject India and WikiProject Indian politics. Please refer to the Proposal thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics#Proposal_:_Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_Indian_constituencies
• The proposal was advertised as advised by the the debate participants of that time at WP:Noticeboard for India#Assembly_constituencies_article_title, |WP:Noticeboard for India# Proposal : Wikipedia:Naming conventions Indian constituencies. Along with Wikiproject talk pages of all Indian states and major cities, like WikiProject Delhi#Proposal : Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_Indian_constituencies [26] [27] and so on.
• A previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles where this discussion had occurred in past was also notified duly. At that time 'all places where I could think of, and others could think of, were notified.
• After 2 months of voting on the proposal there was a Consensus with 7 supports and one oppose. After the discussion had petered out with clear consensus, The proposal was implemented accordingly. --Venkat TL (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

But still none of this fulfilled the actual requirement you were told about some 11 days ago[28] which you recognized[29] but you are still continuing your page moves without fulfilling the requirement. Srijanx22 (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• On different occasions, by different editors, Venkat TL was reminded that propsal is not formally closed, and it is not a policy yet. They were also asked to stop moving pages. They should have stopped. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
• Further context: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal for new article title naming convention - RfC or local consensus, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 189#Wikipedia:Naming Conventions, and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Indian constituencies) — especially the two RMs. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
  • After your !Vote I, put the implementation on hold, stopped moving new pages and focused on fixing the disambiguation pages. There was no votes in those threads for another 10 days, so I re-started the moves yesterday.
  • I also noticed that you were admin shopping 12 days ago and have older axes to grind. Venkat TL (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

    @Venkat TL no votes doesn't mean it is ok to just go ahead and do whatever you think it is ok. let someone close the discussions and move on from there. You were jumping the gun. – robertsky (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

    Look, the proposal had been open for 2 months and had clear consensus, which is why I proceeded. In my opinion 2 months is a good long time for an open discussion to judge the consensus. that said, I have no problem to wait for another 2 months. I will not make any more moves. Venkat TL (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Venkat TL: you still havent answered why you started moving pages again. You were very well aware that the proposal was contested. There is difference between not badgering, and going unresponsive/avoiding scrutiny. It is looking like you are doing the latter. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  My openening comment in that thread was "Hi. If there is an RfC regarding a policy change, and it is tainted, what will be the appropriate venue to ask for a procedural close? Given the editor who started it is retired. AN, or ANRFC? —usernamekiran (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC) I was asking for next appropriate step. That is not admin shopping at all. I didn't even mention you, or the RfC. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• Venkat TL Can you explain the moves from, for example, Chittorgarh (Lok Sabha constituency) to Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituency. Because the former looks natural to me. If you can supply reliable sources that show that the latter is the well known form, then everything is OK. If you can't, then we have a major problem. Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• Black Kite, you are asking to discuss content dispute here. It would be off topic, but since you have asked, here you go. Please look at the quotes below from reliable sources. Please refer to the explanation of WP:NATURAL that I have made on the proposal page (link). These quotes below show how the constituency is commonly referred to in mainstream reliable sources.

• If a Rajput candidate is fielded in the adjoining Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituency, chances are a Brahmin would be fielded here and vice-versa. Mar 17, Geetha Sunil Pillai / TNN /. "Rajsamand seat too complicated for caste equations | Jaipur News - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 23 May 2022.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

• Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituency comprises of following Vidhan Sabha (legislative assembly) segments. "Chittorgarh Lok Sabha Constituency, Rajasthan: Current MP, Candidates, Polling Date and Election Results". Newsd.in. Retrieved 23 May 2022.

• Ladpura and Ramganj Mandi Assembly seats were added from Chittorgarh Lok Sabha seat in 2008. "Lok Sabha Election 2019, Rajasthan profile: With BJP having all seats, Congress faces tough fight ahead; Bikaner, Dausa key seats-Politics News , Firstpost". Firstpost. 4 April 2019. Retrieved 23 May 2022.

• Vallabhnagar and Mavli Assembly seats were moved to Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituencyin 2008. "Lok Sabha Election 2019, Phase 4 today: State-wise guide to constituencies going to polls and election schedule-Politics News , Firstpost". Firstpost. 29 April 2019. Retrieved 23 May 2022.

Venkat TL (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• Black Kite I may have not pinged correctly in my reply. Venkat TL (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
• Chittorgarh is the name of a geographical entity (a settlement). "Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituency" is the name of the entity related to elections. The border of the geographical entity is never the same as the Lok Sabha constituency, though they may have some overlap. The bit "Lok Sabha constituency" is not just an attribute, it is an essential part of the name. When you just say "Place" for example Chittorgarh, it will be understood as the geographical entity (city), Never as constituency unless you mention it clearly. One has to mandatorily state the full name Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituency if they are talking about the constituency. The examples from the reliable sources above show this. Wikipedia disambiguation guideline WP:NATURAL says According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary... Natural disambiguation: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title...Comma-separated disambiguation. With place names, if the disambiguating term is a higher-level administrative division, it is often separated using a comma instead of parentheses. The suffix "Lok Sabha constituency" or "Assembly constituency" serve as WP:NATURAL disambiguation from the city name, so they do not need to be inside brackets. The parenthesis also add an overhead of extra work to add the piped links whenever using the constituency name in prose. The piping issue due to disambiguation bracket is huge. there are close to 4120 Indian assembly constituencies and 545 Lok Sabha constituencies. Each of them gets linked on an average 100 times on Wikipedia. That is 5,00,000 unnecessary piped links. This is exponential damage and waste of efforts which can be saved by dropping the unnecessary bracket. I face this issue everyday while working on constituency and biography articles. Venkat TL (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

erm... So you decided to move thousands of pages while multiple editors had asked you to stop it — because you found the current naming system a little out of your comfort zone during article editing, while knowing it (the moves) will mean editing around 500,000 links? Actually, it is your page moves that are "exponential damage and waste of efforts". This is nothing but WT:DYK incident all over again: proposing changes to policy because you dont like it, not listening to other editors, casting aspersions, battleground behaviour, and now moving thousands of pages even when told to stop. Thats nothing but disruptive behaviour. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

That's my take too. This is simple disruption and unless I see a genuine reason for editing 500,000 links here apart from WP:ILIKEIT, I don't see any other option here but to prevent Venkat TL from causing any more damage. Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I think they have already moved almost all the pages of that field. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Other than wikipedia and its mirrors, very few sources use brackets (I chose a constituency that has received more coverage). I haven't gone through every category in Category:Constituencies_by_country, but even on Wikipedia, a lot of constituency articles do not use brackets (see for eg, US, Mexico, France, Australia, Srilanka, Philippines) Hemantha (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hemantha: Hello. "appropriate title" is not the main point here. The proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics/Archive 4#Proposal : Wikipedia:Naming conventions Indian constituencies was disputed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Indian constituencies)#Proposal state, Venkat TL was aware of that (they participated in the latter discussion), later DaxServer expressed their concerns about the process of the proposal at Proposal for new article title naming convention - RfC or local consensus|village pump - policy. In that discussion there were only four participants including Venkat TL, and three of them were in favour of a fresh RfC. Venkat TL was reminded a few times that the "proposal" was not formally closed yet, a fresh RfC was required, and the proposal wa not accepted/converted as policy yet. Still, Venkat TL performed mass moves, which were being discussed/disputed, that is simply put - not listening to fellow editors (WP:IDHT?), and disruptive. For someone who quotes/brings up policies, guidelines, and essays so often, saying "I did it because there was no participation in a long time" is not acceptable. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes I think enforcing edits without consensus, ignoring warnings, doing mass moves while ignoring complaints on talk page and denying any wrongdoing even after the complaint here is disruptive and does not guarantee any assurance since enough damage has been already done. Srijanx22 (talk) 04:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I see Venkat TL was provided with page mover user right on 15 April 2022 by Swarm. I think this user right should be removed because of the abuse documented in this report. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

accountability/communication is a very important thing on wikipedia. Not responding here even after a ping shows lack of it. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• Hm, as best as I can tell, per WP:RFCEND Venkat should have formally closed the discussion, but involved users are explicitly allowed to implement a clear consensus themselves in an RfC. I do think that this was the case here. So I don't see the discussion not being closed to be an issue. That leaves the matter of whether the proposal was sufficiently exposed to the community, per WP:AT and WP:PROPOSAL. While the proposal was not advertised at village pump, it was extensively advertised to the community, and that's a pretty strong consideration as well. Mass changes are almost always contentious to some extent, and it's good to have community oversight in these situations. But I do find Venkat's defense here reasonable. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with you on the first part. But when the proposal was disputed, and there were suggestions for starting a fresh RfC, at that time Venkat TL should have listned to fellow editors, and should have stopped moving pages. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  It all boils down to whether the objections were legitimate in the first place, i.e. whether the fact that this wasn't posted to village pump is enough to consider the discussion illegitimate, in spite of extensive community notification efforts. I would say the letter of the law was violated, but the spirit of the law was satisfied. Is that enough? According to WP:NOTBUREAU, WP:5P5, and WP:IAR...yes, actually. This is a complicated situation, Venkat failed to follow the proper procedure of advertising the RfC, he failed to close the RfC and initiated an involved mass move (which, again, is allowed, but a bad look altogether), then didn't stop when objections were raised. On my first reading, I was on the same page as the other outraged admins. I considered immediately revoking PM, even procedurally prior to looking into it, and then I strongly considered blocking. However, after actually vetting Venkat's argument against policy requirements as objectively as possible, everything seems to check out. Venkat TL should implement the formal close since he's already de facto formalized it, but his doing so, in my reading, was allowed.

  I'm not saying the dispute should be considered resolved. Let me be clear, there is never anything preventing you from immediately starting your own RfC with whatever proposal you want, you can do it right now. If a new RfC is needed, then hold a new RfC, and make sure the proper procedures are followed to avoid future drama. The naming dispute clearly is just as alive as ever and I doubt we're going to solve that here. But this is just my response to a ping with a request that Vinkat's PM user rights be revoked. In response to that request, I conclude there is no violation. But this is a community noticeboard, anyone is free to disagree with me. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with you on the first part. What I am saying is they should have stopped when multiple editors had asked them to, no matter the reason. As they said above themselves, they stopped for a while, and then resumed it. And then there is their overall attitude. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  a closure is requested. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• @Venkat TL: there was nothing sneaky with my edit, stop accusing other editors. You were asked a few questions here, and you were also pinged, yet you didn't respond. But you saw my "sneaky" edit. Would you kindly respond to the questions posed here? —usernamekiran (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• Venkat TL is now engaging in the same obfuscation at 2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy where he is being a lone edit warrior, retaining his POV but opposing the content he does not like.[30] He happens to be throwing a bad argument and then throwing it over and over even after getting rebuked. This has happened multiple times on this particular subject. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

  These things bear no relation to one another. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• Bump. Levivich 15:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• I can't comment on the procedural element to this, and not following procedure is not great, but (thinking WP:NOTBURO) isn't Venkat 100% right on the actual naming - the use of the brackets just doesn't seem to have any grounding in actual practical usage, and the available sources, short of circular linking back to Wikipedia, appear to entirely validate these page moves. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Iskandar323: Hi. Like I have mentioned in my previous comments in this thread, it is not about the accuracy of article titles. It is about going against consensus. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see Venkat clearly going against consensus, only the requests to stop/wait. The RFC, though unclosed, was firmly in support of the changes. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  yes. But there were at least at least five editors who objected to the moves/RfC. Under such circumstances Venkat TL should have stopped. When the proposal itself was disputed, the firm support to that proposal becomes disputed/immaterial as well. Venkat TL should have stopped. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  There is no point saying he should have stopped more than 20 days after the fact. Swarm, a veteran perm admin did not find any sanction worthy violation in Venkat TL's actions. Venkat TL is a highly productive editor who has done a lot of good improving Wikipedia's content related to India. I recommend closing this thread as no action necessary. 2409:4071:D0A:78D1:0:0:43C8:108 (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  Every ANI thread is created after the incident. This one was created soon after the incident. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

  bump —usernamekiran (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  bump —usernamekiran (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  I have closed the RFC in favour of the proposal. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

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.

Post-close discussion

• The RfC, and this ANI thread was closed improperly, a related discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Improper acceptance of a new proposal as policy. —usernamekiran (talk) 06:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
• Everyone should be reminded: there was never an RFC. People keep saying "RFC" but it was never an RFC. It was just a WikiProject talk page discussion. Based on that discussion, 16,000 pages were moved. When folks objected, saying "hey we need a real RFC to change the policy before we move 16,000 pages", those objections were ignored (worse, some suggested those suggestions were wikilawyering or otherwise disruptive... but it's not disruptive to follow global consensus, such as WP:AT and WP:PGCHANGE). That's why this ANI thread is here, and why I and others having been "bumping" it. We can't have 16,000 pages moved based on mere local consensus, over objection. At this point in time an RFC tag has now been applied to the content discussion, which remains open, and the RFC has now been advertised at the appropriate places. If the RFC comes back ratifying the change, then all's well that ends well, but if not, 16,000 pages will need to be moved back. The big bottom line here is: don't move 16,000 pages without an RFC!. Venkat TL, can you please acknowledge that you won't do this again? Then we can (really) close this. @Mellohi!: can you please unclose this or update your closing statement to be accurate? Thanks to both, Levivich^[block] 17:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Levivich Won't do what? I believe I have already said everything there was to say, Please check my comments. Venkat TL (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Venkat TL: Won't move 16,000 articles without an RFC. Levivich^[block] 17:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  WP:FAIT 100% applies here. If there was no clear RFC, then the onus on justifying all the moves -- and undoing them -- if they were found to be a problem, which seems to be the case. If there is a discussion that consensus suggests that >100 pages would be affected in a partially irreversible way, there really should be an RFC to determine the process (including grandfathering or sunsetting that may be needed) of how to do that. --Masem (t) 17:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Masem Please check the Special:Diff/1089420021. At the time of the move, the Move discussion had been open for 2 months, had 7 supports (including me) and 0 oppose. Which is why 3 editors (including me implemented the proposal). All the brouhaha was done later to grind axes. Venkat TL (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  But it had no formal close (and now reopen)? And with less than a dozen editors participating, that's still not showing wide consensus that would give reason to make mass moves. FAIT still applies. --Masem (t) 17:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) @Levivich I have already said that in my reply to Robertsky at 5:53 pm, 23 May 2022 (diff) please check. Morevoer, Dont take their claim on their face value. They have not given any evidence that I have moved 16K pages. I have not moved 16000 pages, folks above have misrepresented 16000 number of edits as 16000 pages. Pages is not the same as edits so please correct your comment. I dont know why 1 page moves shows up as 4 edits but it does. 1 page move shows up as 4 edits and also invovles 2 post move clean up edits, if you do the Maths the actual moves were ~3k. Venkat TL (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Venkat TL: OK, it wasn't 16,000 pages. I have no idea how many it was exactly, but do you deny that it was a lot of pages? Because move logs are public, and I can see that you moved a lot of pages on May 23, and I don't know if it's 16,000, but it's a lot. Thousands, for sure.

  Your comment that you linked to does not address the concerns. You say there that you waited 2 months and are willing to wait longer. It's not about how long you waited. Frankly, at this point in time, I do not believe you understand what the problem is. It's not about how long you waited!

  I will say this again, with bold and all caps: Don't move [16,000 or howevermany] pages WITHOUT AN RFC. Do understand the problem is that it wasn't an WP:RFC, it didn't have the {{rfc}} template, it wasn't advertised at the required locations, it didn't follow WP:CONSENSUS and WP:PGCHANGE and WP:AT and other policies. Again: it's not about how long the discussion is open, it's not about how many supports or opposes there were, it's about how widely it's advertised. It's about local consensus versus global consensus. You acted with local consensus when you needed global consensus. Please tell me you get this, and that you will not mass-move pages without global consensus which requires a properly-advertised RFC. Levivich^[block] 17:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Levivich: Yeah, there is Venkat TL's comment in the above thread, After your !Vote I, put the implementation on hold, stopped moving new pages and focused on fixing the disambiguation pages. There was no votes in those threads for another 10 days, so I re-started the moves yesterday. [...] Venkat TL (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC) I am not sure what they are learning from this discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Levivich Please strike 16,000 in your comments above, as it is false and misleading by an order of magnitude. Those 3k pages were not moved unilaterally, but only after community consensus at WP:INDIA and Politics task force, 'after' an overwhelming consensus of 7 support vs 0 oppose. No one in that discussion (including me) was aware that in order to write a WP:Naming Convention one would need to do a RFC 'despite' the wikiproject community consensus. DaxServer who had participated in the discussions realized the rfc requirement a week 'after' the moves were made. Yes I got it. And I have since then not made any such moves nor do I plan to do any such moves WITHOUT AN RFC CLOSURE. A properly advertised RFC has already been initiated. Venkat TL (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  Great, thanks! :-) But it's "without an RFC", not "without RFC closure".

  The closing statement right now says "Since this entire thread revolves around Venkat mass moving without formally closing the RFC first, the issue at hand appears to be resolved", but that's just not right.

  It's not about whether the thread was closed or not; WP:RFCEND specifically says "If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable", and a unanimous discussion is one that is not contentious and the consensus is obvious.

  It's also not about an involved editor closing a thread; WP:RFCEND #5 explicitly allows an involved editor to close an RFC if the outcome is clear, and a unanimous outcome is a clear outcome.

  The problem, rather, was about not having the right level of consensus (WP:CONLEVEL) to change a naming convention page (and to implement that change).

  Sorry to hammer away at this, but I think it's important that this ends with the right result, or we will all be led astray: formal closes aren't required, involved closes are fine, but conlevel must be followed. Levivich^[block] 17:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC

Updated my comment to say "Without an RFC". Now your turn to strike "16000 pages", it is false and is bothering me. Thanks.Venkat TL (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

You can even look at the total number of constituencies in India, (Hint : They are much less than 5k), Find exact number at State_legislative_assemblies_of_India#Current_State_Legislative_Assemblies. So even in someone's crazy and wildest dreams it is not possible for me to move 16K pages. The number has been deliberately pumped up to cause an outrage. Devious. Venkat TL (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll fix the closing statement, but the closure itself stands. I do not think this specific dispute needs admin intervention. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Take my word for it. It's best to have an uninvolved editor (preferably an administrator) to formally close, any RFC. It's also preferable to formally open an RFC, too. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Wrglahl LCD söz

• Wrglahl LCD söz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I think this user has severe CIR issues. They speak in broken english, post incomprehensible things on talk pages, and have no idea how to properly format a reference and often do not add references at all. They have already received numerous warnings on their talk page for their incompetent editing. I have asked them repeatedly to give a page number for their citations, but they just ignore me and continue to edit war in their reference unaltered with the exact same edit summaries as if I don't even exist. I am at my wits end with them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Here is an edit where they inexplicably remove 5,000 byes of references and text with the nondescriptive edit summary an information. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I have pblocked the editor from article space for 48 hours. Let's see if that gets their attention. Oz\^InterAct 15:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Syrriana

Syrriana has been warned five times (including three final warnings) at their talk page about adding unsourced content to articles, since their 25 May block for the same thing. But the user is still at it: [31], [32]. Storchy (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Storchy in the two diffs you listed, those infobox entries dont normally include refs alongside, since the article body generally contains those refs. @Syrriana I have explained you to add reference, please remember to add refs in the article while editing. Venkat TL (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, if the article body contained referenced text about the change in role, I'd have left it alone. Storchy (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Those two diffs were just the latest; their contributions to article text are also entirely unsourced. Here's another one from today: [33]. In all cases, it's a matter of posting up the day's political news as quickly as possible, always unsourced. Storchy (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes @Storchy, I know, half of the Sourcing related notices have been posted by me. @Syrriana are trying to help by giving quick updates, but end up making unsourced WP:BLP edits most of the times. Syrriana, please understand that making edits on articles about living persons without a reference is basically not allowed. Is this due to laziness or you need technical help? Please respond. Wikipedia:VisualEditor is very straight forward, which you can enable and use to quickly add reference. Venkat TL (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Korean Nationalist NOTHERE

User:GoldenTaurus is a WP:NOTHERE account. Nationalistic WP:POVPUSH on various historical articles related to Korea and Korean territory.

Recent history shows deletion of warnings for edit warring and disruptive editing citing WP:VD, WP:HA, and WP:POVPUSH in his edit summaries: [34], [35], [36]. Deletion of Chinese polity in the successor box for Goguryeo. Deletion of Classical Chinese as a literary language in Goguryeo using WP:FRINGE reasoning: Classical Chinese is not language. Deletion of map of Chinese successor polity claiming vandalism and povpush. No effort to engage in talk resolution except a short one sentence comment, "Tang did not succeed Goguryeo." Despite being pinged prior, he only responded after he was reverted and asked to explain his reasoning. On Four Commanderies of Han, he reverted to a prior version with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH after a protracted edit war starting in August 2021: [37]. No reason was given in the edit summary.

Prior history is also suspect. Made similar edits to now blocked User:Traineek (another Korean NOTHERE account) at Four Commanderies of Han in August 2021. This was reported as possible sockpuppeting by User:Esiymbro. Another user, User:MarcofuUSA, created two days after Traineek's ban, who edited the same page immediately prior to GoldenTaurus was also accused of being a sockpuppet of Traineek. A later talk discussion between me and GT revealed that GoldenTaurus and MarcofuUSA are the same person, but GT never mentioned this in the one comment they made on their sockpuppet report, which was a general denial of ultranationalism.

The edit war on Four Commanderies of Han ended with GT's content staying until 18 March 2022 when Esiymbro removed parts of GT's content for WP:OR. GT noticed on 10 April and restarted the edit war. It subsided again once it became clear this time that GT could not provide sources which supported his additions at the talk page for Lelang Commandery, which he had also added the same content to. As of today, MarcofuUSA/GoldenTaurus has made 10 reverts at Four Commanderies of Han over several months to restore the same material over multiple users: [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]. At Lelang Commandery, they have made the same reversions four times: [48], [49], [50], [51]. Qiushufang (talk) 09:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Compare Traineek and GoldenTaurus' recent edits: [52], [53], / [54], [55], [56]. Qiushufang (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

User:BNParibasguy also participated in the edit war reverting in favor of GoldenTaurus' version with no reason given. Didn't think much of it at first, but they have not responded to the talk discussion either and instead requested a page lock. Looking at their edit history, their very first action as an account was to revert an IP edit in a talk discussion involving MarcofuUSA with the reason: Undid - edit spamming and ad hominem attack using anonymous ID. It seems likely that this not a user new to wikipedia editing and their topics of interest are also similar to GoldenTaurus. I don't know if there's a possibility that they're a sock or meat puppet, but this seems highly coincidental. Qiushufang (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:CIR block needed

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.

---

User:N1TH Music has created too many problematic articles and redirects, and shows no signs of improvements. Past articles include the endless List of Comunal Documents of Santa Margherita Ligure (and its AFD, or others deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loch Urigull or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Underground Driving Motor 3701. I was looking through his other creations, after I noticed that too many of his articles still had such issues. I nominated a few for deletion already and tagged others as having major problems, e.g. Trudlerbaach, about a small brook which is filled to the brim with badly written original research: "The source is elevated at around 305 metres (1,001 ft) as opposed the Syre which it joins to having an elevation of 283 metres (928 ft). In addition the Syre flows 1.3 kilometres (0.81 mi) from its source to where it meets with the Trudlerbaach while the Trudlerbaach itself flows 2.6 km (1.6 mi) so it is believed by some that the source of the Trudlerbaach is in fact the source of the Syre." is sourced to... Google Maps[57].

Then followed yesterday Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abellio, Ellesmere Port, with their very worrying explanations for why they created it (they found it on a Wikipedia list, and basically made up everything around it based on poor reading of maps).

I hoped that tagging, redirection, deletion discussions... would be sufficient, but after their latest comment, I think it is utterly hopeless, and letting them contribute further will not improve Wikipedia, as they have no idea or care about even the basics of reliable sourcing.

Today, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackslough Wood, they want to keep because of this. Hopeless. Fram (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

That's not why I wish to keep this, I was just stating why I though there was a building there, earlier I though there was something else N1TH Music (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I feel the need to make it clear that I am very much aware of my mistakes but I've read the notability guidelines and I'm certain some things which supposedly aren't notable enough are. But I digress and I apologise for my faulty work. I'm sure I can improve because I've certainly made good articles in the past. Loch Hope, Loch Rimsdale, Loch Nan Clar. I think my problem was trying to take the topics which I believed were just about notable but the very least so and thrusting myself into the deep end trying to work there. If I write about something more notable, I will and have done a better job. Look at Abbas Combe. Also I admit that I can do much better work than what I have done previously, please give me a little more time. I have started working more seriously since what happened with Santa Margherita Ligure but Fram keeps uncovering stuff from the beginning of this year. N1TH Music (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Earlier ANI thread on the same issue. [58] AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump I think I have made improvements with referencing but the problem was as I said myself I was taking not notable enough topics. If they were written perfectly, they would be accepted but it was simply setting myself up for a fall. I have shown improvements since then when I made Loch Rimsdale or Loch Hope. Even Abbas Combe or Loch Brora both quite recent were at least ok. I realised folllowing my mistake in Santa Margherita Ligure where I wasn't exactly sure as to how the copyright regulations worked that I needed to work better. Hence why now I've been working on drafts and broader topics and larger article. E.g Geography of Santa Margherita Ligure where work has been gradual. Also Draft:Combino (Pasta) was something I initially wanted to put on the main space but in the end I knew well it wasn't good enough and I needed time. Also Blackslough Wood and Aaron's hill were from March, I think I've changed my editing style since may, to work harder. So what I wrote before then is less important. I stand by that work because I still believe that both those article Just about clear being notable I know they have some big issues. But I'm already taking steps in the right direction I think. Recently I've also been editing more by going on Special:Short Pages and Special:New Pages and redirecting unsourced and too short articles. N1TH Music (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Abellio, Ellesmere Port was created yesterday... Fram (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fram I've explained my mistake to that, I have thought for the longest time, that that list was an official list, which was different. You are right I should have looked into it to realised Abellio didn't belong there. I have already apologised I do not stand by that. Same with the original Loch Urigull. N1TH Music (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure you want to use Geography of Santa Margherita Ligure as an example of good work. All you're doing is creating unsourced cruft, because believe it or not, we do have higher standards to writing an article than simply proving something exists and google maps isn't exactly a beacon of journalistic excellence or relevant to an encyclopedia. In fact, that article is a prime example of why you should be manispace banned/blocked - it's a hot mess and needs to be nuked from orbit. All you've done is create content based on your own observations as opposed to summarizing what reliable sources say, and that is called original research. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean, it's not original reasearch, if it was oposed to something, I'd change it. Also no it's not a very good example of my good work it's just an example that I understand notability. Some might say that is overdetailed slightly but it's not done most sections aren't done. It's C class now it'll be worthy of B at least once finished. Also there are many sources N1TH Music (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

For example, you say "xyz is the tallest mountain" yet none of the sources state that. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I say Monte Portofino is the tallest in the commune and I cite Openstreetmap, Peakvisor and I think somewhere else all of which gave me simple statistics. I assumed Peakvisor is a valid source, no? Also if references are bare, I could find more because everything I wrote is correct. N1TH Music (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The fact that you do not understand that this is precisely what I was referring to is the exact problem. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Then what are you referring to. I'll fix it I haven't looked at that part of the article for a while, it's old I'd write better now I'm telling you N1TH Music (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Given you are asking for specific advise, I would suggest that if you want to improve that article, you remove any content cited to google maps, peakvisor, OpenStreetMap, and any other non-text source. In addition, remove any content cited to clearly unreliable text sources, such as Tripadvisor. I would then advise sticking only to reliable text sources for any future edits and page creations. CMD (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Wait Peakvisor is an unreliable source? N1TH Music (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

It appears to be a website for a phone app. Why would that be a reliable source? CMD (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Abbas Combe is definitely a settlement, I improved the article stating that it still exists. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I think a ban from mainspace page creation could be an alternative, but looking at the history of Don't Believe the Truth Tour makes me think that might be too generous. —Kusma (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Kusma Well Don't Believe the Truth Tour remained on the mainspace for years and I thought those references were ok, didn't look like a wiki of sorts to me. Other than that a ban form mainspace page creation seems fair and I would be willing to accept that so long as there was a way it could be reverted in future If I can prove change N1TH Music (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

It is in the reference title that setlist.fm is a wiki, and the other source reveals after one click that they take their content from setlist.fm. Perhaps you should improve your critical reading skills before you continue attempting to write an encyclopaedia. —Kusma (talk) 12:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abellio, Ellesmere Port is really concerning. This is an article which is effectively completely made up, as the settlement doesn't exist. Yes, it had an erroneous entry in Wikipedia itself, but Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for anything, and certainly wasn't in this case. Black Kite (talk) 12:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I thought that list was a special page at the time. I never tried to edit is and it looked different format-wise so I assumed everything there was perfect and verified and I apologise for that. N1TH Music (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

For some reason, they continue to provide evidence of the massive WP:CIR issues during this very discussion: at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackslough Wood, they defend one of the two articles up for deletion with "I think I got more eveidence as This states what language the "people" of Aaron's hill talk in which implies it is or up until recently was populated." Please keep them away from the mainspace or from Wikipedia in general. Fram (talk) 12:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

There certainly seem to be severe competence issues. See e.g. their recent addition to the Non-government reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article: Russian Youtuber "Life of Boris" has hinted at being against the invasion however has not publicly spoken against it. He has stated that he is safe and that "things are bad, but could be a lot worse." [59] There are too many things wrong with that edit to even contemplate... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Alright I'll take some time off editing to learn in better detail what I'm doing but you don't need to block me. N1TH Music (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

You've been editing for two years. That is more than enough time to learn simple things such as "don't use Wikipedia as a source", especially after numerous warnings and deletion nominations [60]. I think some sort of sanction is warranted, and I'm not sure if a partial block from mainspace would be sufficient - there is a history of copyright issues, which are still a problem in draftspace, and some AfC reviewers do not do their due diligence and accept anything that superficially looks notable (e.g. a geographic location) without checking to see if the sources support the content - this is a concern given the large number of GEOLAND articles that they have created with faulty or misleading sourcing. Spicy (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Spicy That's not quite it, I understand my misleading sourcing and I have truly learnt my mistake but at first nobody pointed out that what I was doing wrong was wrong. Most of the problems listed here I have already learnt my mistake from within the last few days I've been overconfident in my definition of notability. At first much of my articles got "reviewed" so I assumed everything was good. That hapenned after Aaron's Hill, Somerset and with my edits of Contern. So I was confident in making Backslough wood and expanding Santa Margherita Ligure. Nobody ever told me to stop until now. I made some slips ups which had been noticed before a few days ago and I have fixed that and also I only really started editing a year ago and even then it was simple articles where I just googled the topic and wrote about it. Recently I picked up tasks where I don't have that many sources and many. My copyright violations hapenned with one article and I have already expressed why I mistakenly thought that they weren't actually copyright at first. Most of my new edits have been nothing but good contributions. N1TH Music (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Spicy Also I know very well that Wikipedia isn't a source just I thought that was a well maintained page and the existence of one obvious red link to a settlement in gazetteer of place names, with coordinates and an OS grid references on what I initially thought was a page with limited access was strong enough evidence to so little as the settlement existing. N1TH Music (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

N1TH Music, I think you'll need to convince people that you are actually capable of learning. Which you won't do by making posts like your last one above. [61] You seem to have no understanding of basic Wikipedia concepts, like notability and how to assess sources for reliability. You habitually use maps and other sources for original research. You add badly-sourced and off-topic trivia to articles. Why should we assume that you are capable of learning now, given that you said much the same thing in the previous ANI thread, to no obvious effect? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I think there is an effect, but I believe I may have become overconfident in my ability and in my knowledge of what counts as Notable. I think it is the Dunning-Kruger effect and now I've learnt what's wrong with much of what I did. How about I create an article now and I'll show you all I can make a competent well made article. N1TH Music (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

You say you have "learnt what's wrong with much of what I did". How about demonstrating what you have learned, by taking a look at the "Life of Boris" edit of yours I linked above, and then explaining what you think it was that led me to describe it as having "too many things wrong with that edit to even contemplate". AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fram well it does say that, and I didn't hold it infront of you as huge evidence I just said multiple webpages such as Ordnace Survey, Streetmap and that all are worded to believe that Aaron's hill is a human settlement, which they are. I see that is might not be inhabited but what I had read from lead me to believe it was. N1TH Music (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't claim that it didn't say that, I just believe anyone who is capable of editing here, anyone who truly believes they have learned from past mistakes and has improved their referencing shouldn't look at that page and believe for one second that it is a reliable source or that there has even been one second of human intervention while making that page. The same site creates e.g. also a page for Abellio[62], you know, the "place" you created as well and will be deleted at AfD. Hey, they also speak English there! And the nearest train station is only, er, "2931.3 Miles" away, oops. Still better than for Aaron's Hill, where the nearest train station is "2870 Miles" away. Their script page generator seems to have some flaw. You claim Openstreetmap as a good source, yet e.g. Blackslough Wood was added to it by a user accidentally the same day you created the article for it here[63]. It's a wiki, and you are using what is likely your own addtion to a map as a source for your own article. Fram (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Relevant xkcd — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

1. Fram I know it's not a good source and I agree with you now, I understand I'm not dumb I've learnt my mistake. Also no that wasn't me it was somebody I knew who when I was talking about Aaron's hill saw that there was no Anecdote for Blackslough wood while there was one on the OS maps. I didn't need that as a source also Notes mean nothing, if I really wanted to, I'd make a Node not a note.

Also at this point I agree that the article isn't very good I always did, I just thought it would need a few edits to just about be passableN1TH Music (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

To All of you who have taken part in this discussion. I have seen all your points and am actually surprised of the magnitude of my errors which have come about from various reasons. However I am certain now that if you do not block me, nothing of the sorts will happen again. I know for sure all of my mistakes as all of you were kind enough to explain in detail. I have just made Loch Naver to show that I am in fact capable of creating a conpetently made article. However I need to note it still isn't as good as I could make it, I just wanted to prove that I can make a real article with sources besides maps and I did there so please all tell me if I would be able to continue if I made more like that. I regardless of what happens will take a break from Wikipedia and when I return I will create much less but I must make it clear that all the problems came about as I was trying to make articles of super obscure topics which lead to me being bored which meant I'd work less efficiently and would make more mistakes. I also kept only finding poor references because the topics were non-notable. I have reread the Notabilty guide and am certain I can work well. Even Loch Naver although quite a barebones article I'm sure has few mistakes, good information and isn't overdetailed and has reliable secondary sources, I'm sure you all will agree. Anyway I'm fine with a mainspace creation ban and I believe that's fair however and outright mainspace editing ban i believe isn't because especially recently I've been making some good small contributions. From there I can prove that I can be a good, valued editor that will improve wikipedia. Again I apologise for my numerous and constant screw ups, but if I just don't make obscure or overdetailed things I'll be fine, especially since I don't even enjoy writing that kind of article. N1TH Music (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

And now Loch Naver is up for deletion. Is this being done because I wrote it? There's 50 references 30 of which have nothing to do with openstreetmap or Google maps or anything like that. N1TH Music (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I nominated it. I do New Page Patrol and came across it as it was just created. As per my comment below, I found this ANI thread afterwards (after notifying you of the AfD and then seeing the link to this ANI thread. Singularity42 (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment. I came across Loch Naver which was created two minutes prior to the OP's last comment above, which I have nominated for AfD. I saw this ANI thread after I tagged it for AfD. Singularity42 (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Loch Naver is not a good example of competent article creation. Most of the article is not about the loch itself but a list of the hills and rivers in its vicinity, based on WP:OR interpretation of maps. I checked this source, which is used to support the statement that Fishing is very common not only in Loch Naver but also in the River Naver, as it is a top place to catch trout. The Stathnaver area is often referred to as one of the best areas for fishing in the country. Besides not being a reliable source, it doesn't say anything of the sort. Spicy (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

If N1TH Music wants to have any future on Wikipedia, they need to stop making articles on non-notable Lochs and villages which may or may not exist. You don't make an article and then look for sources. If you get an article idea, you look for the sources which show GNG is met first and then if and only if you find such sources, you create the article. The level of WP:REFBOMBING in Loch Naver is appalling and makes me doubt your competence to edit here. About the only way you can survive this thread and continue to edit here is to agree to stop creating new articles, and demonstrate you are learning by improving existing articles. And this is me giving you a lot of rope and assuming good faith. N1TH Music did create Wester Pipe Railway at the suggestion of another editor, and did a fairly good job for a newer editor. That's what keeps me from calling for your head on a platter right now like other editors are. I think there's still some chance you can be a productive editor. But, if you truly can't comprehend the concept of notability, maybe Wikipedia isn't right for you. There's plenty of Fandom sites which would accept the sort of articles you're writing, but they don't belong on Wikipedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I understand that, but Loch Naver is similar to say Loch Urigill which has been here for a year so what made Loch urigill stay is Loch naver must go. Other than that I'm going to stop doing much editing for the forseeable future regardless of what happenes. I need a fresh start. N1TH Music (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I didn't come across Loch Urigill. The article I cam across during NPP was Loch Naver which is the one I nominated for deletion. If someone else wants to deal with the other article (or any other article) so be it. Singularity42 (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

No, you need to commit to editing in a collaborative, appropriate way. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Your statement that there are "50 references 30 of which have nothing to do with openstreetmap or Google maps or anything like that" immediately begs the question of what those other 20 sources are doing. I will repeat the advice I gave above, as it seems to have been ignored in the writing of the Loch Naver article. Do not touch any map source, or in general a source which is not reliable prose, for any reason. I will add here that this includes sources which are just really poor lists of statistics. If you implement this very simple rule, you'll probably find things go much easier, and maybe you won't find yourself writing overdetailed articles you don't enjoy. CMD (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I thought a verified map citing a place is at the very minimum evidence that the place exists but nothing more, no? N1TH Music (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

A place name on a map isn't evidence for anything, beyond the fact that someone has put a name on a map. Since it uses community-generated content, OpenstreetMap isn't WP:RS. Google Maps are marginally better, but should never be cited to prove the 'existence' of something - there is far too much erroneous data to rely on in the absence of corroborating sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

See, for example, Argleton. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I've heard of Argleton that's why I made sure to find at least 2 sources per peak. Because despite the issue of map copying I thought you could be quite confident that if 2 map sites say something exists, it exists. Also I cited often Francis Firth, which deals with Old historic maps which are less likely to have mistakes and if they did have trap streets they would have been notices and fixed after literal decades. So that's why with Loch Naver, I knew the sources weren't so good so I sought to deal with that through sheer numbers. I understand now that 1 reliable source is better than 5 mediocre ones. N1TH Music (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I have offered to help N1TH Music with finding reliable sources and checking references for any future articles they might want to create or edits they might want to make - if they take me up on the offer I believe we could work well together and improve enWiki rather than create any more articles that go straight to AfD. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that someone with less than 100 edits to Wikipedia should be offering assistance in this particular situation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Despite the many statements about getting the message, improving, being more careful, ... we have had over the weekend this reinsertion of their preferred version, which includes among many poor sources like review pages from Tripadvisor even the use of Wikipedia itself as a source (not to mention the many other issues with that section, from lots of WP:OR to bizarre descriptions): sadly they were unable to find this in their own edit[64]; This expansion of an article, stating that "Éitermillen is elevated 265.35 metres above sea level " which is sourced to this map which a) doesn't mention Éitermillen and b) gives "Élévation 263.72 m"; did an incorrect draftification[65]; started giving advice to other editors[66], with claims like "Listen, everything must be sources. Even if you write London is in England, you need a source."... How much longer will we let them continue? Fram (talk) 10:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fram the last one this: "Listen, everything must be sources. Even if you write London is in England, you need a source." was a typo I meant to write "Listen, everything must be sourced. Even if you write London is in England, you need a source." Saying that you must use a source which surely you can agree with? N1TH Music (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fram also concerning Eitermilen. The "Map" I sited is quite official. When I spoke to a local asking about this kind of stuff they said "Use Geoportail" to find information on settlements it's all historical and it's got everything. It looks quite official so I thought it's not just a map. Also I searched in Eitermillen into the search bar in this site and that's where it brought me. N1TH Music (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support indef or alternatively indeffed from article creation based on CIR Here we are at ANI, where N1TH is doing wall-of-text rebuttal (not necessarily proof of CIR problems, but a common indicator of CIR problems nonetheless) and in classic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT says above Loch Naver is similar to say Loch Urigill which has been here for a year so what made Loch urigill stay is Loch naver must go. This is a sign they either have ignored or just don't understand WP:NOTABILITY so either way, they'd likely be happier doing something else, or at a minimum being restricted to improving already-existing articles, instead of creating more articles.....ones that again might become headaches for the rest of us. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  Yes I am ok not creating for a while, I'm fine with simple editing in fact that's what I plan to do regardless so that I can obtain time to learn and fill many holes in my knowledge. N1TH Music (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support restrictions. I advised above not using map sources twice to avoid difficulty. Nonetheless, map sources were used again after each time, and now both of these instances have been raised here and seem problematic. Examples have been provided above of the creation of places that do not exist, and that seems likely to continue occurring if no restrictions are put in place. CMD (talk) 08:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Chipmunkdavis I don't plan to write more articles about places for a while. And especially not about obscure ones where maps are the only available "sources" if you can even call them that. I in fact plan to stop citing maps, and clarify beforehand that a place actually exists before writing a single character on an article. Besides I don't plan to be creating anything new until at least August. However I am aware that some restrictions probably should be put into place anyways and I shan't complain because I understand it is deserved, N1TH Music (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Why are we still allowing them to edit? This is from today: they even claim to have looked at the history ("In the history I can see some information but it’s all just a mess really and doesn’t belong on Wikipedia.") even though the last version before yesterday's vandalism looked like this and made it clear that the economic crisis lead to a government crisis. I reverted the prod, but please, make them stop. Fram (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support Indef per WP:CIR. Their editing here seems to be almost entirely a time sink. Their actions since the opening of this discussion shows that they do not understand policy or what is problematic about their contributions. We cannot have editors writing articles full of fake and incorrect information because they do not know how to use sources properly. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked as NOTHERE/CIR reasons. They really need to stop and listen to what everyone here has been trying to tell them. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Good block. I've been politely explaining the same issues (check the page history before doing something) and "prod must be substituted" on their and my talk page more than once in the last few days, and it did not help. Competence is required indeed. —Kusma (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

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.

Continued misconduct of Venkat TL

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.

---

This thread was started under the above thread "Venkat TL mass page moves" but has been moved to bottom by another editor.[67] >>> Extorc.talk 17:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The above thread has certainly failed to solve the bigger problem with Venkat TL's disruption in this area.

Starting with February 2022, when he was edit warring,[68] and not giving up his imaginary concept of "Neo-Nazism in India" (see AfD) and I had to file a WP:AE report to deal with the disruption. The admins expected that Venkat TL would not cause disruption after the report. After the report closed with a reminder,[69] the episode of problematic conduct continued to the extent that Venkat TL was topic banned from DYK on May 2022 as already noted above.[70]

Now, just today, what I am seeing he is continuing with his uncollaborative approach towards other editors and engaging in edit warring. From today:-

• Reverting edit(s) by Dympies (talk) to rev. 1094846872 by Venkat TL: Totally due and relevant quote from a minister was removed just because the editor did not like what was said. This is reliably sourced, Discuss on the talk page. (RW 16.1)[71]
• Undid revision 1094886299 by Dympies (talk) Totally due and relevant quote from a minister was removed just because the editor did not like what was said. This is reliably sourced, Discuss on the talk page.[72]
• Not sufficient reason to censor content, discuss on talk. Add Thackeray[73]
• "just because you dont like what he said, does not make it undue"[74]
• "Totally due and relevant quote from a minister was removed just because the editor did not like what was said. This is reliably sourced, if you want to discuss copy edits or rephrasing without changing the meaning of the word, I am all ears. This user is here for redaction without sufficient reasons. Follow WP:DR."[75] (came after request to stop assuming bad faith)
• "Why do you wish to make this page a one sided BJP POV?"[76]

Other users are clearly following WP:BRD while Venkat TL is responding with edit warring and incivility. He is now tag bombing this article,[77] and falsely accusing editors of complying with "Pro BJP and Anti-Shiv Sena, anti MVA Godi media bias".[78]

The above is from today alone. False accusation of "whitewashing and censorship",[79] "whitewashing content",[80] and that others are out to "revert me and then they will file some kind of case somewhere against me"[81] have been rampant from this user throughout this month. The WP:BLUDGEONING attitude and failure to WP:LISTEN to others can be also seen on a very recent AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punjab Assembly Committee on Local Bodies.

I believe that this long-term uncollaborative approach and disruptive editing will only waste time of the community and it warrants a topic ban from ARBIPA. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it is very difficult to deal with Venkat TL on articles. Ping Abecedare for review. >>> Extorc.talk 17:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• (Difficult to deal with?) For the record, I never had any interaction or dispute with Abhishek0831996 yet this is his second frivolous Administrator complaint against me. From 200 AfDs that I have participated in, this guy (on mobile) recycles a 4 month old AfD that he had already once posted at his 4 month old ARE (on mobile) and failed to get support for his allegations. On the 2nd AfD he listed above not sure what policy crime he is trying to imply. In that AfD I had replied to Visviva, @Visviva: did you feel offended by my AfD response? This guy above is calling my reply to you 'a failure to listen', (whatever that means). The rest of his diffs above are WP:CONTENTDISPUTE currently being discussed on the article talk page, and not to be discussed in an ANI thread. Please post on WP:DRN where I can respond to these diffs. The linked article had multiple issues which is why yesterday I had posted on India Noticeboard to inform other editors of the wikiproject India. Regarding this complaint, it is very obvious to me that this is an attempt to use content dispute to grind their axes. There is a proverb: Throw enough dirt and some will stick, Abhishek083199 seem to believe that if he keeps filing pumped up charges, something will eventually stick, his recent comments and actions only proves this. That is all I have to say in my defence here. Venkat TL (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

  • DRN does not handle a dispute that is also pending here at WP:ANI until the WP:ANI dispute is closed somehow. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• My only interactions with Venkat TL have been on a handful of AFDs, but for whatever its worth, I have not had any issues with him and have seen no particular problems. The arguments he made on the above-linked AFD were a bit heated, but in my opinion they were cogent and persuasive -- indeed, I was persuaded by them. (I have some opinions on the general state of discourse on AFD, but that's a whole different matter.) -- Visviva (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
• I agree with Extorc. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
• Venkat TL have been casting aspersions whenever they get an opportunity. The most recent ones are on their talkpage, special:diff/1094906699, where they said (for no reason) that me and DaxServer have axe to grind. Later, at village pump, they said There was nothing improper in the close. If it is not obvious from the opening statement yet, please be aware that User:Usernamekiran holds a massive grudge against me, in past he had been stalking me and Admin @Abecedare: had clearly asked Usernamekiran to avoid me, yet he continues to hound me and grind his axe, looking for possible opportunities. He went admin shopping and then on ANI where he failed to convince the admins and kept bumping the thread every other day for a month. Now that the thread is closed, he continues to wikilawyer at other noticeboards with intentions to spite others. Venkat TL (talk) 08:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC) diff. It looks like they comment in these ways in an attempt to besmirch reputation of the editors they dont agree with. Even though I am neither stalking, nor hounding them, they keep on accusing me of that. I had also explained to them that it is not admin shopping if I hadn't even mentioned the discussion I was asking advice about. And all this happened while Venkat TL were pretending to be retired. Their behaviour of casting aspersions, and battleground mentality is visible in the comments of this thread as well. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
• (responding to ping) While some of the issues raised in the original complaint are stale or, IMO, not that big of a deal, I am concerned about Venkat TL's repeated assumption of bad-faith and battleground attitude; for example, most recently at Talk:2022 Maharashtra political crisis (e.g., [82], [83], [84]) especially since it recapitulates the issues brought up at the Feb 2022 AE. Pinging @RegentsPark, Stifle, and Seraphimblade: for input on whether the conduct is sanction-worthy; personally I don't believe it merits a topic-ban but I would like to at least see some efforts by VenkatTL to acknowledge and heed the feedback. Abecedare (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  Hi @Abecedare, I dont know if you checked the multiple refs, but did you at least check the veracity of the concerns about the content that I had raised in the diffs you showed. I believe this is crucial before making conclusions about conduct of the users involved in this controversial article. These 3 RS provide a good overview of the event, please check these short articles about the topic BBC BBC, SG 10 facts and then compare the state of the old version of Wikipedia article, at the time when those talk page comments were made. This will give you a complete picture of the context of the talk page discussion and then you can then properly judge if the concerns of neutrality that had I raised were appropriate or not. The Wikipedia article of that time was only showing one sided version of the events and the other sides version even though covered by the RS was completely overlooked in the Wikipedia page. Venkat TL (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Venkat TL: Kindly prove how I am stalking/hounding you, or apologise for the false accusations and dont ever make baseless accusations against me. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Venkat TL: I am not commenting on any of the changes you proposed to the Maharashtra crisis article or even to tagging the page as POV; all that can be settled through talkpage discussion and/or dispute resolution. My only objection is to your accusing the other editors of POV etc, which just raises the temperature of the discussion and makes it harder to reach consensus. If you have concerns about other editor's conduct use one of the admin boards or admin talkpages to raise them and, as RP said, "comment on content not on the user" on article talk-pages. Abecedare (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  Because the original report has so many exaggerations and even outright lies (falsely accusing editors of complying with "Pro BJP and Anti-Shiv Sena, anti MVA Godi media bias" isn't borne out by the diff produced), it is helpful for onlookers like me to know exactly what diffs you mean, when you say accusing the other editors of POV.

  The issue about editor POV is that, in the current Indian political context, bias of most of the editors is generally quite visibly on display. For example, one of the editors arguing against Venkat in the Maharashtra crisis talk page was informally warned at AE recently and his pro-BJP bias was discussed. It was even concluded there that having a bias wasn't a big deal. Another editor there had recently gone on a spree to remove any references on en-wiki to an upcoming Muslim-run news website, based on nothing but his opinion. And these other editors have also posted their share of conduct comments. These - an undue cry of bad faith, how can you so blatantly misrepresent diff, This is clear disruptive editing, You are being unnecessarily difficult here. diff - had already raised the temperature before Venkat's allegedly "non-collaborative" diffs presented above.

  After the DYK issue, Venkat has indeed moderated his responses and nothing shows this better than the fact that the filer here, who specialises in patrolling + SPI/ANI reports and has very little content contribution, had to resort to such weak and exaggerated claims. Hemantha (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Calling this sensible report "outright lies" is WP:NPA and misrepresenting yourself as "onlookers like me" when you are deeply involved in these feuds[85][86] only speaks of your deception and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Instead of poisoning the well you need to find something else to do. >>> Extorc.talk 10:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for so succinctly demonstrating what I was trying to explain. Hemantha (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• @Abecedare: My first reaction is that all this is probably just a lot of heat in a controversial topic and a "comment on content not on the user" style warning may suffice. But, if this is a consistent pattern (i.e., evidenced in other articles), then a sanction may be necessary. More immediately concerning, is the accusation against usernamekiran. Accusations of stalking and hounding should not be lightly made and definitely not without also providing evidence, which I don't see provided? --RegentsPark (comment) 23:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  @RegentsPark: I believe I am aware of the background of the stalking allegation: see this ANI report for what I believe was the original negative interaction between the two editors, and the follow-up on my talkpage. I haven't scrutinized the editing history of either of the editors in the following 3+ months to know if usernamekiran has been deliberately following Venkat TL or just running into them as a matter of course since then (both are prolific contributors in the IPA area). Abecedare (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Abecedare and RegentsPark: Hello. My overall activity on enwiki itself has been extremely low in last few weeks/months. Since the first incident with Venkat TL, and discussion on my talkpage (involving Abecedare) I have tried to avoid to interact with Venkat TL. The only interaction comes from the naming convention proposal, and I haven't interacted there personally either. My involvement in regards to that proposal was nothing personal, and purely about the proposal itself. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  Without combing through your contributions, just from what I know, you've elided

  • your extensive contribution to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Venkat TL mass page moves, where you argued at length to multiple editors about his behavior and bumped the thread a number of times to keep it from archiving.
  • name drops of Venkat at high visibility forums like VPP, in terms that can hardly be described as non-personal
  • vote against him in an AfD of one of his articles

  Hemantha (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Hemantha: that is about naming convention proposal. That talkpage is on my watchlist since before Venkat TL created their account. I saw the proposal, I deemed it to be flawed, I was under impression Venkat TL had retired. I commented on that proposal, rest is impersonal follow-up unlike I also noticed that you were admin shopping (diff-link) 12 days ago and have older axes (diff-link) to grind. Venkat TL (talk) 11:13 pm, 23 May 2022. In that thread, Venkat TL made accusations against me, and stopped responding to valid questions. I would have done the same no matter who was the subject of the thread. I dont see what is problem with VP thread. I thought VPP was the appropriate venue for that discussion. I pinged Venkat TL, and User:Mellohi! out of formality. There was no name calling, I described everything in factual, formal, and neutral language. But even then Venkat TL accused me of wikilawyering, stalking, and hounding. Regarding the AfD, I was not aware that Venkat TL had created it. I was on mobile at that time. I saw the nomination, went through the article, went through Venkat TL's comment but failed to see their signature, did some thinking, and commented. It was only after saving my edit that I realised it was created by Venkat TL. I did not name call or hounded/stalked Venkat TL. They have no right to say so without evidence. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  I thought that in the original Anupamaa issue, Venkat went overboard and have even told him so (somewhat indirectly but still). I'd even say that some amount of resentment would be justified in your case. But I suggest that the gracious thing to do is to drop the stick, which will free you from having to make convoluted explanations like the above. It's hard to believe you stumbled across that afd, given that you aren't an afd regular (19 afds since the beginning of this year). It's also hard to reconcile your unstinting focus for the past two months on the naming proposal with the fact that you have little or no focus on Indian elections/politics and the fact that you have raised not a single substantial point other than bureaucratic ones about it. The ANI thread on moves was as much about the proposal as this thread is about 2022 Maharashtra political crisis. Hemantha (talk) 10:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  you are getting off topic. I moved on long time ago — soon as it happened. No matter who had started that naming discussion, I would have done what I have done. While we are discussing here, Venkat TL is again running away from the discussion, making edits elsewhere. They still need to provide evidence of me stalking/hounding them. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  No, Usernamekiran never moved on, Since he has repeatedly harangued me for the evidence please see below.

  Usernamekiran's stalking

  • After Usernamekiran's disruption at Talk:Anupamaa was reverted, Next day you
  • followed me to Arunachalesvara_Temple to revert me.
  • Usernamekiran then reached Pegasus Project revelations in India and made revert of my edit.
  • I asked Usernamekiran to stop following me. Abecedare also advised on Usernamekiran's talkpage to keep distance
  • Usernamekiran returned a month later to Arunachalesvara_Temple to revert me
  • Last week Usernamekiran was voting merge on AfD on article I created.
  • Usernamekiran's Edit history of WP namespace shows that since March Usernamekiran has been bludgeoning every thread on different WP namespaces created by others or Usernamekiran. [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] where he keeps grinding his axe, never admitting his past involvement and seeking sanctions.
  • On the DYK related thread about me Usernamekiran made 12 comments despite his past involved history. And kept bumping the thread repeatedly disrupting archive bot
  • Commenting on different noticeboards about page move [92] [93] [94]
  • The ANI thread on Page moves deserves a special mention, because Usernamekiran made 20 comments in 1 thread, where he would login to Wikipedia only to comment every third day for a period of one month, to defeat the bot archiving parameter of 3 days. Participating in a discussion 'as an involved user' is one thing but bludgeoning the thread by making as many as 20 comments is obsession. Venkat TL (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Not seeing anything actionable here; Abecedare however is at risk of WP:OUCH. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  I think you mean Abhishek0831996, and I'll support. At a minimum, his serial filing of superficial and exaggerated ANI/AE reports should not be indulged any more. Hemantha (talk) 10:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I was going to avoid this thread just like I have avoided every other report concerning Venkat TL since February, because Venkat has in the past made allegations (though unfounded) against me of hounding. However,After Hemantha's notice for this ANI on my talk page [95], I feel compelled to comment.

This is just the latest in a long list of articles where Venkat has, through stonewalling and through battleground behaviour, ground constructive edits to a halt. Some of the articles I can remember have been listed, though if I look into it probably more will be there.

• [96][97] Repeatedly calling a recently deceased political activist a "terrorist" despite being asked to desist from doing so. It took an ANI complaint to make him stop that time as well.[98] Instead of accepting his mistake he instead focused on telling me that my "sole purpose" is to "file false cases against" against him. We can see that he is making similar false claims against UsernameKiran now.
• Even after his claims of non-notability were amply rejected on Talk:Nupur Sharma (politician)#Notability, he was still repeating the same arguments again [99] [100] in an AFD for a related article. See WP:IDHT.
• On 2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy he made 4 reverts concerning the same content in just 14 hours this month.[101][102][103][104] On 2022 Maharashtra political crisis, he is still edit warring to retain his spurious tags[105][106] even after being told by every other editor to keep them out.[107]

It has become obvious now that Venkat TL is clearly treating Wikipedia as a political WP:BATTLEGROUND. Another admin Cullen328 on DYK topic ban thread last month had said that "Venkat TL is warned that taking this type of behavior to other areas of the encyclopedia is likely to lead to an indefinite sitewide block".[108] Venkat TL was supposed to be more careful since it was merely last month that he got topic banned from DYK and was just subjected to a huge ANI thread this month but he has proven in this thread as well that he would hate to reform. His conduct warrants a topic ban at least from Indian politics if not ARBIPA as a whole. How does that sound RegentsPark, Abecedare? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Lot of garden variety of WP:CONTENTDISPUTE is being thrown in this thread in the form of Diff in desperate attempts to over exaggerate and pass off these content disputes as Policy violations when they are not. I will ask the readers to independently verify these diffs and claims of policy violation and not take these claims on their face value.

• CapnJackSp has once again copy posted his comments, that he had posted in the previous AE case, Since I have already responded to these diffs in past case, I wont recycle my past replies for it.
• In his second line he said "claims of non-notability were amply rejected on Talk:Nupur Sharma (politician)#Notability". On that talk page I had expressed my opinion on the lack of notability of the subject, another user replied to me expressing disagreement with me. I disagree but I move on. This was a garden variety of dispute on notability that did not reach an AfD yet. There has been no AfD yet to decide the notability of Nupur Sharma (politician). The notability is neither approved nor rejected. So my opinion on notability is as good as any other editors of the page. I am not sure what rejection CapnJackSp is claiming about. In the Related AfD of a different article when a suitable merge target was being discussed, I opposed the merge to "Nupur Sharma (politician)" as I noted that I consider the merge target as not notable. CapnJackSp may believe they are notable, this is a content dispute and a difference of opinion he has with me. How CapnJackSp is citing this as a policy violation on ANI, and then seeking sanction for it, is beyond my understanding. Perhaps another example of pumped up charges of this thread.
• The third line with the set of diffs, is another garden variety of content dispute. Firstly the diffs show different content each time and I was the one who started multiple talk page discussion threads to resolve the different associated content disputes, while User:REDISCOVERBHARAT and LearnIndology, were continually edit warring to add the lines without getting consensus first to add it. (CapnJackSp was reverting on another dispute) CapnJackSp LearnIndology, had to be reminded by @TrangaBellam: that the WP:ONUS of getting consensus for content to be added was onCapnJackSp LearnIndology and REDISCOVERBHARAT. So in the third set of diffs if there is anyone violating Wiki policies it is CapnJackSp LearnIndology and REDISCOVERBHARAT. After relevant talk page discussion, there was a consensus to not include the content on Dutch Politician, and it was not added. Please refer to Talk:2022_BJP_Muhammad_remarks_controversy/Archive_1#Opinion_of_Dutch_politician for the consensus discussion for this removal. 2 other threads related to the diffs of this content dispute are Talk:2022_BJP_Muhammad_remarks_controversy/Archive_1#Addition_of_unreliable_sources and Talk:2022_BJP_Muhammad_remarks_controversy/Archive_1#Qatari_Minister. As you can see in these threads, I have followed WP:DR and successfully created consensus for removal/edits that CapnJackSp wanted to make. This should have been used as an example of showing how Dispute resolution is achieved on a controversial article, but CapnJackSp instead has used the same set of diffs as examples to seek for sanctions and "Massive Topic ban" because he had content dispute with me over these diffs. Venkat TL (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

While the entire three paras show Venkat is not taking responsibility of his actions, I'll keep it short, because while the first two are misrepresentations, (3) is a blatant misrepresentation. He links a comment by Trangabellam, which was made to some random editor, not me. Venkat then accuses me of edit warring to introduce the Dutch lawmaker's comment - but included no diffs, because it never happened. I would like the admins to check the history of the page - the falsification will be easily exposed.

This sort of misrepresentation and bad faith editing is exactly why people seek sanctions for Venkat TL but he does not understand this. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I corrected my comment above, that the reverts of Dutch Politician was made be REDISCOVERBHARAT. CapnJackSp did not make those reverts although CapnJackSp was also a participant in that content dispute, discussed and resolved on Talk:2022_BJP_Muhammad_remarks_controversy/Archive_1#Opinion_of_Dutch_politician. I note that on the same day, CapnJackSp had also been edit warring and made 3 reverts on 11 June Special:Diff/1092605187/1092605720, Special:Diff/1092606725/1092607117, Special:Diff/1092607682/1092607964. Venkat TL (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• I've looked over this rather confusing discussion and I really don't see any actionable issues here. There are, however, a few helpful suggestions I think worth making and I'm noting them below in the form of mild warnings.

1. Abhishek0831996 is urged not to reopen closed discussions in where they have no apparent interest. Apparent, because there have been previous negative interactions between Abhishek0831996 and VenkatTL but I had to go as far back as February to find them.
2. Venkat TL is warned that they should comment on content and not on users. In a tenure of less than one year, Venkat TL's contributions show that they are a dedicated content editor. But, they may not be aware that many a prolific and useful content editor has ended up banned precisely because they were unable to resist commenting on editors and I urge them to take this warning seriously.
3. usernamekiran is warned that they need to be careful not to give the appearance of stalking and hounding. To be clear, the evidence for stalking is uncertain at best (mainly because usernamekiran is an editor with a wide range of interests). But appearances are important and there is not always the need to comment on incidents that involve Venkat TL nor is it necessary to edit the same articles.
4. CapnJackSp is, somewhat similarly, warned that they don't need to show up and repeat the same diffs and accusations at every report that involvesmultiple reports that involve VenkatTL.

--RegentsPark (comment) 16:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

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.

A somewhat puzzling topic

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.

---

• FrB.TG (talk · contribs)

This editor / user along with two or more of their friends try to take over articles. On top of that they seek to draw other users into a debate, argument, conflict, or such and get them into a difficulty with 3RR or other reverting.

There is no recourse other than going to ANI or almost canvassing for admins to stop the problems. Said users ignore their talk pages, often pay no attention to efforts to get a consensus through talk pages on a page, etc.

These users evidently aren't going to go anywhere. Must we leave 2 or 3 dozen "pop culture" articles to their usurpation? No good options here.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Diffs please. And you will have to name (and inform) these supposed 'friends' if you expect anything to be done about them here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I'm surprised that the penny hasn't dropped yet, but the reason that multiple editors are reverting you is because you're wrong. And I'm surprised that when you're told by experienced editors that you're wrong, it hasn't occurred to you that perhaps that's the problem. The fact that you added material to a BLP which was based on two sources which were no good (one unreliable per RSP and the other one didn't back up the text), and then you put them straight back [109] or when you edit-war with multiple people to make a change that is pointless [110], I too am unsurprised that more than one person reverts your edits. Black Kite (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The user did it again. Sigh! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

That's not what happened. It's common now for users to look for "better" references and delete old ones. That's not always a good thing. Sometimes it's as simple to add a reference leaving the old one. Czello causes problems and is instigating here. They frustrated and drove off a longtime harried editor. Also Black Kite I never claimed to be perfect but there is a cabal on here. They have taken over (hold hostage even) something like 25 pages now. You can't edit on some very known actors and performers pages because it will be removed.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

That's exactly what happened, actually. If you're adding material with two references, and neither is actually usable - as was the case here - then not only should you delete them and find better ones, but you must do so - and if you can't find usable ones then the material cannot stay in a BLP. If you don't understand that, then you probably shouldn't be editing biographies at all. Black Kite (talk) 13:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with what you said but I am bringing up a very large topic. You seem to not see it which is like not seeing a barn and finding a microbe. Do you get that dozens of articles are being taken over? I can prove it.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

By all means. Diffs please, as has already been asked for. Oz\^InterAct 13:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we need diffs here. As I said, I looked at two articles where your changes were not an improvement, so I've now looked at a third where I see things like this, which is just introducing a grammatical error. So if we could have a list of those articles where your contributions are positive but other editors are removing them for no reason, that would be very useful. Black Kite (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Note their response after I explained their errors and punctuation mistakes (which I also did here and got a similar response). FrB.TG (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I mean without spending 630 hours on this I would show you articles including Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Emma Stone, Tom Cruise, Michael Jackson, Anne Hathaway, Nicki Minaj, Taylor Swift, Oscar Isaac, Taron Egerton, Pablo Schreiber, Mariah Carey, even Madelaine Petsch (sort of obscure).

I may be able to show diffs. I guess the point is editors spend enough time adding and "improving" articles; they won't allow errors (factual or otherwise) to be remedied.

I am not against having quotations in articles; they're interesting and add substance, also flavor. A problem becomes articles are almost movie review style pieces and stuffed with quotes. I guess there are other errors I haven't mentioned too.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The largest problem is the quest to make an article good, featured, today's feature... They overdo things. There's nothing wrong with great journalism.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, I really tried to fix the Pablo Schreiber one, same for Taron Egerton.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Would that be the Pablo Schreiber where you edit-warred to reintroduce errors, even after the other editor had pointed out why your edits were not an improvement [111]? Whilst I do think you're acting in good faith, there actually doesn't appear to be any conspiracy or clique here, just lots of different editors on lots of different pages reverting some of your edits (not all of them) because they are problematic. Black Kite (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Also on the Scarlet Johansson page I removed a reference which was questioned. The user was correct about the Glamour ref not mentioning the divorce.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

OP has also been unhelpful in his comments to AndyTheGrump. After Andy removed a thread that OP made on his talk page, he chose to create a new thread where he called Andy two-sided and unhelful. OP also seems to want to pick a fight with a user who closed a duplicate report at WP:AN. I think @Pictureperfect2 needs to perhaps take a breather and return without the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. — Czello 12:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

They way any editor can avoid difficulty with 3RR is simple, just don't keep reverting. No matter how sure you are right, unless it's urgent and you're sure it's something covered by WP:3RRNO like a clear cut BLP violation the moment it's clear there is dispute, open a talk page discussion rather than reverting. If you're right it hopefully won't take long to establish that. And as Wikipedia is a collaborative project, any editor who us willing to discuss disputes is at the wrong place. Also WP:NYPOST is a generally unreliable so should almost never be used. All editors should be aiming to replace it where it occurs and should almost never add new instances of it. Nil Einne (talk) 13:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

At least two editors just ignore talk pages, both the topic page and their own talk pg.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

This coming from an editor who has deleted almost every single attempt by other editors to engage with them on their talk pages, completely dismissing their concerns? Canterbury Tail talk 16:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Now they used their talk page via their unblock request. Very ironic. --MuZemike 02:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Pictureperfect2: if you open a discussion on the article talk page and establish consensus for your changes among those who do participate, then it's irrelevant. Once you have consensus, if any editor keeps reverting while still refusing to take part in the discussion you can ask for them to be blocked. Still no need to violate 3RR. If you can establish a pattern where you try to make edits which are reverted and there's an easy consensus for your edits on the article talk page which is reverted by editor A and editor A never even participates, we can reasonably consider sanction on editor A, but not now. In all your edits here, the only article talk pages you've participated in not counting any where you only did so in the past day or so (which isn't enough time to be certain other editors are not going to come), seem to be Talk:Oscar Isaac, Talk:Madelaine Petsch, Talk:Sig Hansen, Talk:Nicki Minaj. I'm ignoring any comments you only left on user talk pages since ultimately the article talk page is the place to establish consensus so while direct communication can sometimes be useful especially with new editors, unless you opened a discussion on an article talk page you can't say you've properly tried to discussion. And well there's also Talk:Taron Egerton, but I'm excluding that as your sole contribution was a highly flawed suggestion not based on BLP policy. (I have not looked at your contributions to other article talk pages, just happened to notice this since it was a single edit which was reverted so I was wondering why.) This is way fewer than the number of articles you're going to edit, therefore it's impossible for you to know that any editor is not going to participate in a discussion on the article talk page. And further, your own track record on discussing disputes on the article talk page is terrible, even if we put aside your responses here on when editors have tried to talk to you on your talk page. So at best, it's a case of pot, kettle, black. Nil Einne (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Short Boomerang Block per WP:BOOMERANG and WP:TENDENTIOUS; The OP was asked for diffs (Andy @11:01 June 28, above). Instead, the OP added cast another diff-free aspersion[112] and made a WP:VAGUEWAVE You seem to not see it which is like not seeing a barn and finding a microbe. Do you get that dozens of articles are being taken over? I can prove it.[113] The OP was again asked for diffs (by Oz @13:09 and Black Kite @13:12, June 28, above). Instead the OP came back saying I mean without spending 630 hours on this I would show you articles including.... and then rattled off a long list of article titles. The OP is not taking feedback on content, and the OP is not taking feedback on process. If their feedback immunity persists, a longer block based on WP:CIR would seem appropriate. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Given their history of dismissing my concerns for their comma-removing spree ([114] [115]) where I always have to justify the status quo instead of them, I'm not surprised with their responses here. FrB.TG (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Gotta say, I'm a real fan of this one. If this isn't indicative of their attitude, I don't know what is. And here is another classic. I think that an outright block of Pictureperfect2 for pure Wp:CIR, not WP:AGF, WP:OWN and just pure time wasting is probably in order. Canterbury Tail talk 16:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Indef'd for CIR, NOTHERE, general time wasting, take your pick. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Oooh, can I gamble it all for the washer and dryer where the lovely Smithers is standing...?! There was this report at the EW board too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

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.

Multiple sockpuppets

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.

---

User:No Bad Man, User:Mr. Sharkpants, User:Dr. Greeny Platypus are sockpuppets; same edit summaries in Mass (2021 film)'s revision history. Nythar (talk) 00:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I came here instead of WP:SPI because it takes a bit long there. Nythar (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Page protected. I'll block the accounts too. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

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.

User:Mussme adding inappropriate external links without discussion

Mussme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user has repeatedly added external links to many articles, all from an online library from the University of Virginia. While the site appears to have an appropriate CC-BY 4.0 International License, at the top of each addition (see article history of their contribs), they all contain the clause: 'Transcription, correction, editorial commentary, and markup by Students and Staff of Marymount University.' This seems to be an inappropriate external link, per WP:ELNEVER, as it may add external commentary. Additionally this is a duplication of what Project Gutenberg has, which is a fair use transcription of non-copyrighted works.
I've asked twice on their talk page to explain how this is appropriate. They've continued to add the links, which I see as disruptive. Additional eyes on these links is requested. Thanks! Jip Orlando (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree with OP Those links tend to show unverifiable research/commentary by folks at that one college, and so they should be deleted per WP:LINKSTOAVOID (see #2). If the editor won't stop littering like this, a block for WP:Disruptive editing is in order. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC) PS as the Mussme's contribs consist exclusively of spamming this site in external link sections, they are obviously a single purpose account that is WP:NOTHERE to generate content. So maybe just indef them until they decide they want to do that? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

It's linkspamming pure and simple. Canterbury Tail talk 15:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I have indef'ed them for pure link spam. If they wish to recant their ways, they are free to appeal the block with a good explanation. Oz\^InterAct 15:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

"recant their ways" ... what are we, the Spanish Inquisition? :-D Levivich^[block] 17:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I like the word, what can I say. :> Oz\^InterAct 20:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• I think referring to their additions as litter and linkspam is a little harsh. I can see why they might think these links might be appropriate; they're not, but it's easy to see how someone without a clear understanding of our policies might not understand that. EEng 16:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

If they engage in any discussion, I'll gladly agree with you, and if asked I will help them learn their way around. But so far it looks like a driveby activity to me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• To me this looks like a student whose job or internship at UVA library includes making their stuff more easily accessible online or something. This person probably doesn't even know they have a talk page. They've never edited any talk page. I'm guessing this is 100% well-intentioned, just the product of their supervisor not really understanding how WP works. Pinging Ian (Wiki Ed) in case they have input, but anyone know how to ping GLAM? valereee (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah but they're also edit warring to keep the links in. (example) I can understand someone not understanding that these links aren't appropriate per our PAGs, but I don't understand someone thinking it's OK to repeatedly re-add them when they've been removed. I don't really believe there are any American university students (or people under 25) in 2022 who do not know what edit warring on Wikipedia is, but maybe I'm being naïve about that. In other words, I think this person knows, or should know, what they're doing is wrong. Levivich^[block] 16:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  They've made 34 edits. They could literally think they aren't saving correctly. :D valereee (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  I've emailed them and given them the link to their user talk. valereee (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  Now that I look again, they're all manual reverts, not using the "undo" button, so yeah... you're right, that could be it :-) (Also, all edits are using visual editor, another sign of unfamiliarity.) I don't really understand how people (on desktop) miss the notices at the top of the page about new user talk page messages, but the block notice certainly doesn't tell them what's wrong. I'm glad you emailed them; thanks. Levivich^[block] 16:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Valereee I don't know anything about this project - my recommendation would have been to email them. The project itself looks like a duplicate of Wikisource, without the aid of an edit button to fix errors. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Recent influx of problematic articles on Arabian language novels

The last few weeks, we have seen a large influx of new articles on Arabian language novels. Most of them seem to be notable, so should normally be welcomed, but the creations, even though done by different editors, have serious issues which have seen many of them draftified or speedy deleted already (including very poor translations leading to unintelligible prose and factual errors). This seems to be related to a #KMUOS project or drive from the University of Sharjah[116]. Other editors who have dealt with this include User:Moonswimmer, User:Praxidicae, User:Timtrent, User:Doug Weller, User:RandomCanadian, and User:Liz. This is a recurring problem, see also Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard/Archive_21#Project_#KMUOS which indicates that it was run in February 2021 and again in November 2021, with the same issues. See Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard#Resurrected_from_the_archives_(#KMUOS) for a short recent discussion. Many of the articles are unattributed, copyright violating translations from Arabic sources, so at worst a mass deletion may be necessary, apart from some method to deal with the editors and the project as a whole. Examples:

• User talk:Reyami.Alsalman, an endless list of deletions and draftifications, with zero posts to article or user talk by the editor involved
• User talk:Farah Afana, again a long list of issues with articles, and again not a single edit to talk or user talk
• User talk:Shahdmurshed, same story, same complete lack of interaction
• User talk:Hanan Wadi, same, but 1 user talk message[117]
• User talk:Aisha abdulsamad, same, no talk page posts
• User talk:Fatimah Al Ani, same
• User talk:Sanabaghhh, same

The creation, and recreation, of this many problematic articles is seriously taxing New Page Patrol (and other processes). All help is appreciated. Fram (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

If it really is a case of a lecturer instructing their students to do this, then sanctioning the individual editors (students) involved presumably won't help much; next term or year there will be a new cohort. And if (per Timtrent's earlier comments) contact with the lecturer has been attempted but they're not responding, then is it possible to prevent new article creation from the university's IP range, at least temporarily just to get their attention? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

- @DoubleGrazing, @Fram I tried reaching out to the putative instructor by email and was totally ignored.

We have several options:

• Sanction the students - fruitless and likely to hurt us, not the student
• Getting WMF to contact the university and tame this instructor - my favourite, but will they, and how do we initiate that?
• Treat each article on its merits and delete - solves the short term issue, but takes work and is a dostracton
• Block the university - Will only work if they receive a targeted message requiring the errant instructor to get in real contact.

I suppose there are other routes. What I am not in favour of is any special treatment of the students nor their articles. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The problem VAST. I just looked at one editor's contributions. I was tempted to AfD, but, but but..... So many 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Who was it that you reached out to? Was it the one Dana Khalil mentioned here, or someone else? It's odd, because in theory, the brief says all the right things! Iskandar323 (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

One, perhaps more, of

Prof. Sane Yagi (most likely)

Dr. Najib Jarad

Ms. Dana Khalil

Ms. Serine Brahim

No response at all 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

They should be blocked as they come, just as we do with problematic contest editors. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Considering that User:Aisha abdulsamad alone has created 3 more articles since they were notified of this discussion, I agree. No use in letting them continue if they don't communicate at the very least. Fram (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Preventative blocks, followed by article inspection do, now, seem to be the right way to proceed 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocking will also at least bring to their attention that something is wrong and may lead to them or their instructor communicating with the rest of the community. I'm doing some NPP today, but I'm skipping these article (a few more of which have been created since the article creators were notified of this ANI thread). Singularity42 (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

If they're not responding to any talk page comments or this thread in a timely manner, I don't see an issue with blocking them all as a preventative measure. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

This raises a couple of general questions. Do such drives ever produce positive results? If so, do they constitute a net positive or negative to Wikipedia? Wouldn't we do better to disband the WMF department that encourages educational projects and spend the money on more important things like making the mobile interface work for editing? I know that these questions are not directly linked to the problem here but they need to be asked. I still, after many years of saying such things, think that the WMF would get more bang for the buck by employing a few highly-skilled and highly-paid technicians than these armies of unskilled "outreach" workers. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger I fear this project is outside the WikiEd remit, so is an instructor doing their (very poor) best. Surely a discussion about extending WikiEd might bear better fruit, but elsewhere and away from the problem this instructor is causing their students.

I feel sorry for the poor students. But not sorry enough to object to blocking them and deleting the unattributed translations which must thus be copyvios. Or, I suppose, attributing them and keeping or deleting in their merits 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I have not considered the copyvio issue. I don't read Arabic, so I rely on machine translation (I know, I know) to get a feel for what the sources say. In an article I just looked at, Embrace on Brooklyn Bridge, I even have a concern that that isn't the English title of the book—or at least, it's only the editor's original research of what the translated title should be.

I do have sympathy for the students, but when I've crossed paths with education-related projects and student editors in the past, sometimes the only way to get the instructor's attention is when they have students coming back to the instructor complaining that their articles are being deleted or their accounts are being blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Given the similarity of this and this, and the fact that the articles all seem to the same odd table at the end, I'm wondering bifn they have been pointed to arabicfiction.org and told to translate it. Can a translation be so bad and to avoid copyright infringement? - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

A retired IP lawyer writes: A colleague once remarked that the great principle of copyright law is, "Go and write your own". A dreadful translation still violates that principle - it's freeloading on someone else's work. Narky Blert (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I have been draftifying these articles as I see them show up in the edit filter log, I feel like it would probably be best to draftify most if not all of them, see if they have merit, and then clean up the translation as fit, but that is certainly a lot of work to do so. I'm not even sure these articles have a place on English Wikipedia, but that's my own opinion. ~XyNq^t_c 19:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that if there aren’t copyright violations, draftification provides a safe place to save and fix those articles worth saving. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

...but most are copyright violations, so draftifying is not the solution (though better than nothing of course). Preventing the creation of new articles would be nice though. Fram (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe then just a block from Article space so they could still use Talk pages and Draft space would be a good solution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Yep. Or as a wider fix, block the university's entire IP range from mainspace, with AO off and ACB enabled. Obviously, this would need a CU to determine the IP range, but if as suspected they're all coming from a named university that IP range is unlikely to be private information anyway. Black Kite (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Draftifying just means they'll go through AfC and be accepted by reviewers who are unfamiliar with this problem, though, right? I've accepted at least one of them (but this one was a translation from ar-wiki as far as I can tell). I share @C.Fred's concern about the titles though (in my case, why not The Sail and The Storm instead of Sail and Storm?). It never occurred to me to check if the editor had ever edited a Talk page - so much the fool me, I guess. Unless there are some Arabic-speaking Wikipedia editors handy to rope into dealing with this, I think blocking (in the hopes of getting the attention of the professors) is probably a good call. -- asilvering (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I've left an alert at WT:AFC which others may wish to embellish or correct. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• I have blocked User:Aisha abdulsamad, User:Reyami.Alsalman and User:Sanabaghhh from mainspace as they were still creating articles after being notified. Will look at the others later. Black Kite (talk) 05:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  Good and pragmatic call. To get the attention further I have suggested Draft:Death bed number 12 for CSD as a copyvio referencing this discussion.

  However, doing this individually to each such suspected copyvio seems arduous. I believe admins have tools to perform certain actions on user edits en masse. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 05:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  Distressing case; if only the instructor(s) would have the decency to respond. Meanwhile, we are forced to punish their students and destroy their well intentioned work. I had a look at Draft:Death bed number 12 and looking at our article on the author, Ghassan Kanafani, and searching on the urls of 2 references the editor removed led me to conclude the draft is a translation of موت سرير رقم 12 on Arabic Wikipedia (we translate the title as "A Death in Bed No. 12"). Pretty obviously notable, and I'm not sure an unattributed translation from another language Wikipedia is speediable, especially since the editor may have intended the first edit summary, "translate from arabic to English", to mean just that? But the translation obviously needs clean-up (and no, I can't read Arabic), and if I'm right it's a good illustration of how formats and expectations differ between versions of Wikipedia. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, this is why I've moved the articles of the pblocked editors to Draft: space, so they can continue to work on them. But we simply can't have them bombarding us with dozens of articles ranging from tolerable to utterly non-notable. Black Kite (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• Hanan Wadi (talk · contribs) is still going on with creating articles after the notice. ~Styyx^Talk? 19:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  And very close to getting blocked for copyright violations. —C.Fred (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• CU comment I've just taken a look at the first two accounts listed above. They all geolocate to the same city, but they are both jumping around multiple different ranges - preventing just those two accounts from editing would require eight different wide range blocks. In other words, anything less than drastic and wide-ranging action is not going to be effective if we go off the IPs they're editing from. If we want to address this, we're going to have to go at it from the 'block the accounts to get their attention' angle. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Girth Summit Grateful for the news, challenging though it is. I've not been around for a good few hours. At what point do we move from individual administrator action to a consensus set of account blocks to block to get attention?

  Do "we" then mass draftily the creations by these editors? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  There isn't a set formula for this type of thing. All administrators have a mandate to use their discretion to block accounts that are causing disruption. If one is going to block lots of accounts over the same issue, I'm sure that a consensus here that it's a good idea would make one feel more confident, but it isn't a requirement that we have a !vote, or even a discussion. Similarly, any experienced editor can draftify multiple dodgy new articles in the same way they can draftify a single new article - you don't need a formal consensus for that until someone challenges you. Given that these accounts have been uncommunicative, a challenge might be seen as a good thing - we want them to engage in communication, one way or another, so that we can discuss it with them. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Girth Summit Were I an admin I would now be considering preventative blocks from Article space of 100% of the students in order to prompt that conversation. By 'considering' I mean 'implementing'. (I am not, and do not wish to be, so cannot do so) I would then undertake the labour to draftily on the basis that doing so does no harm. AFC reviewers are alerted to the block by the AFC Helper script, and I have alerted at WT:AFC to seek to avoid a reviewer accepting without considering this discussion

  I am glad that a formal consensus with !vote does not need to be built. It appears that we have an informal consensus of "Something must be done" to work with. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, I know you're not an admin - I was just trying to answer the question as you posed it. I'm not going to take any action here myself - I'm too busy trying to figure out who's who in an SPI case at the moment to look at this, and once that's finished I'm going to bed. I hope that somebody else, who has looked in more detail at the articles in question, will decide on the best action to take. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  Hello all I am late seeing this discussion. I reviewed the article June Rain for NPP, and I also worked to improve the article. The article was started by an editor who is being discussed in this thread. Today, I saw that an editor in this discussion sent the article to draft. I moved it back to main space. I read the above thread and I know that there is serious issue that you all are working out. I thank you for ensuring that there is less rubbish in the encyclopedia: I do not believe that applies to this article. Bruxton (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  I advocate indefinitely blocking all the student editors from mainspace, with a message on all their talk pages that communication is required and that their instructor(s) also need to communicate with us. It's become apparent to me at least that some have been attempting to give attribution when translating from Arabic Wikipedia, through the creation edit summary "translating from arabic to English", but because that doesn't say what was being translated from, it doesn't satisfy the requirement and is not being understood as an attempt at attribution. Other students are translating from other sources and violating copyright in so doing. And all that I have seen are producing poor translatese; note the sentence The events of this novel revolve around the June rain, which was based on bullets and sectarian strife that characterized the civilian war that happened in northern Lebanon in June Rain even after it's been worked over by experienced English-speaking editors. That's so unclear, it has to be based on translation. These belong in draft space except where copyvio is obvious and not copyvio from Arabic Wikipedia with an attempted attribution statement (I put a comment on Draft talk:Death bed number 12 in hopes of staving off deletion on those grounds, but Primefac deleted it nonetheless). In mainspace, they fall into the category of machine translations that we do not tolerate and cannot tolerate. If they're in draft space, someone with dual language competency has the option of improving them (although the rules on re-mainspacing outside the AfC process are murky at best). As with any other bad translation—or copyvio—it's not a matter of notability, it's a matter of not imposing an urgent task on a limited number of competent editors. However, what has instead started to happen here is that we're not being fair to these students. We're draftifying and sometimes deleting some of their work, and have blocked some of them from mainspace, but we're enabling at least one of them who has not attempted attribution or responded to our concerns in any other way to get what they want and need for the course, one or more articles in mainspace. P-blocking is a tool that we haven't had until recently and that's well suited to this situation. Please apply it across the board; and for fairness and because it's still dubious, re-draftify June Rain. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir:I removed the sentence that you called out - it may have been the only one that was not edited. It belongs in main space in my opinion. I am afraid this article just got caught up in this vortex. Bruxton (talk) 02:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Action briefing

We have talked a great deal. We have suggested actions, some of which are being taken by some of those who have the rights to do so. Might we be briefed, please, on what actions under way to seek to curb this issue and bring the instructor(s) walking happily towards us in a collegial manner? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• I don't know who the instructor is, so I think we're still case-by-case with the users. I've been monitoring Hanan Wadi and, after the last message I left them, am ready to partial-block them from article space if they create another poor article in mainspace. —C.Fred (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
  • C.Fred, I just blocked Hanan Wadi from Article and Draft space, cause they just wouldn't stop. God knows we need an article Sugar Street (Mahfouz novel), but Draft:Sugar Street (Novl) isn't it--and they did that after your final warning. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Fresh off an EW block, resuming EW

Fresh off @Acroterion:'s 48 hour block for edit warring on Medieval technology, Mpaniello resumed the edit war, just removing the piped alias. While that's their 6th revert, it's not within 24 hours so I didn't take this to WP:AN3. Toddst1 (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

It's time for Mpaniello to have a month's long vacation. Block wise. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Page fully protected for 3 days in lieu of several blocks of several editors who are all edit warring. While Mpaniello's edit warring was the most egregious, they were not edit warring in a vacuum. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Unusual Voting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sopnendu Mohanty

This IP Address has voted 'Delete' and that is the only contribution of this IP Address.

Because of the above when I tag, NO SPAM, @John Yunshire:, has removed the tag, stating that is disruptive but along with my remark on the IP Address. I reinstated the tag that I will notify at ANI of the removal.

There is another User voted 'Delete' who has hardly any edits and returned after 9 months and after the AfD was initiated only. I notified of his SPA nature but he removed and I reinstated that I will notify at ANI if it is removed without explanation.

A while ago, @John Yunshire:, has reverted my remarks of this SPA and then again removed the NO SPAM tag and asked me to go to ANI.

This is very unfair, I am reinstating back. If I am wrong any Admin can revert it.Eesan1969 (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

[non-admin/previously IP editor] IP addresses change all the time, unless they is any other reason to suspect the IP the fact that it has never editted before means nothing. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I note that you didn't raise your concerns about their editing on the talk page of John Yunshire or the talk page for the AfD discussion and you forgot to inform them of this thread (which I have just done for you). Gusfriend (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought pinging is enough.Eesan1969 (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I believe the IP-in-question, has been blocked. GoodDay (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Singapore FinTech Festival

The above festival was initiated by the subject under deletion discussion; it is the world's largest FinTech festival and visited by world leaders across the world. Recently a large sunk of content was removed without any reason after the Afd was initiated by @Justanothersgwikieditor: who voted 'Delete' at Afd and the nominator @Scope creep: now comments, "...organising a festival or a conference is not a big deal..."

Please note @Justanothersgwikieditor: and the other editor @Robertsky: who is actitively partcipating in the deletion discussion are Singaporean Wikipedia Editors and there was a petition on the subject on COI after he assumed adviser position in his native state in India.Eesan1969 (talk) 11:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Eesan1969 : The previous issue was already resolved with the IP editor being blocked for usage via VPN proxy. The provided diff is my merging of one to three liner sub sections into a general history section. This is a very common merging of short sub sections to a bigger sub section. The deleted section is literally a WP:QUOTEFARM (while it is not a policy or guidelines, quotes are usually typically limited to a few for an article) with a total of 5 quotes for year 2020, two quotes for year 2018 and one for year 2021. All in all, this is a content dispute that should be first handled at the article's talkpage and not ANI. If you are intending to haul me to ANI, you are supposed to leave a message on my talkpage as already advised by Gusfriend. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 11:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I was mentioned here for some reason. I was planning to send this to Afd this weekend. I saw it mentioned at coin last week or the week before and sent the other article that was associated with it, to Afd at the time: Sopnendu Mohanty, but never got around to this. There has been some off-wiki canvassing on the Afd, although I don't have any direct evidence to back that up. The whole time the Afd has has been running, Eesan1969 has been WP:BLUDGEONing folk since the get go and has a bit of battleground behaviour going as well. The article Singapore FinTech Festival is one of the least encyclopedic articles I've seen this month. It is full of puff, link spam , has a non-standard layout, has tone issues and an excessive quotes section that don't look like quotes. The article looks like a brochure article and is designed to promote. Why its like that I do not know. The edits to update Singapore FinTech Festival look perfectly decent, but there has been no attempt to achieve consensus by discussion on talk page by Eesan1969. scope_creep^Talk 12:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Justanothersgwikieditor:, @Scope creep: Sorry that I haven't notified into your talk page of this ANI discussion, but only pinged.

Any Admin or a neutral editor knows which side the canvassing is going on.

Ignoring WP:BEFORE just going to AfD straightaway will alarm every other editors who are here on Wikipedia for years.

If Justanothersgwikieditor might have cleaned up well before the Afd, I might have not contested him....even I might be wrong out of enthusiasm ....but the timing is wrong after his 'Delete' vote.

Anyway something is wrong here, please check the subjects page history, an IP Address is vandalising the page constantly. So how can someone assume this is a proper AfD discussion, someone or a few have deep hateness towards the subject, and professionalism and ethics can't be expected under this nature... that's why I have brought this issue at ANI.Eesan1969 (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

(Note: Though I mentioned 'Singaporean Wikipedia Editors', I am not biased towards any ethnic communities in Singapore...one of my relatives was a close colleague of Lee Kuan Yew and played a major role in independent Singapore....and I have declared my real world identity when I gave permission to this image.)Eesan1969 (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I think Eesan1969 is extruding a copious amount WP:NOTHERE. He cast asperasions of/at editors at the AfD for Sopnendu Mohanty, and had been gently reminded not to do so and assume good faith by me. Despite that they continued to do so at this venue, after when the original thread is largely resolved with the IP address being blocked as for being a VPN node, this time for bringing in JASWE's editing behaviour at Singapore FinTech Festival, which was wholly unrelated to the IP address and other 'suspicious' vote at the afd.

I should also say that they disregarded Gusfriend's earlier (just a day or less!) notice to them that they should leave notices on the talk page of editors they deemed involved promptly, and had to be called out by JASWE for it again. I should note that I was aware of the ping here earlier when I was out and about exercising, but I chose not to engage until now, when I am done doing the post workout ritual of cleansing myself the dirt and sweat. ... I digressed.

Back for SFF, they chose not to assume good faith, and wham, I get mentioned under the SFF heading even when I didn't even touch the SFF article in any manner? What's this for? Calling me out so that I don't vote for deletion in any possible AfD for the SFF article, out of what? Fear of getting dragged back to ANI again?

On AGF, they are not doing so as well, for linking an off-wiki Change.org petition about a conflict of interest made apparent by the subject being appointed into his current role at MAS, and calling out me and JASWE as Singaporean Wikipedia Editors. I am proud to be called that, but I am miffed at the way it is being used. The petition (which I did not read before this, but now have. I had read the links they had linked though) as mentioned, do not and should not affect the AfD since (my rationale, which I didn't state earlier): 1. it was not used in the article as a source; 2, change.org can be considered as WP:SPS, and the links he linked in the AfD and here are of poor quality sources, thus the petition won't have been a factor in (at least) my decision in casting my vote and reasons for casting it. The petition, if I may, seemed to be written by disgruntled Singaporeans, which I clearly am no part of.

By bundling me and JASWE with the petition, I am taking that they are insinuating that both of us are casting delete votes because we are disgruntled Singaporeans who want Sopnendu Mohanty no amount of publicity on Wikipedia. This is far from the truth. Both me and JASWE have good intentions to see Singapore related articles to thrive on Wikipedia as much as possible. For those who aren't in the know about Singapore editing community, Singapore had an active editing community in the 2000s, in part due to an earlier education outreach Wikipedia had, but it mostly faltered since. JASWE, at least for the time I have been actively editing here since 2019, have been gnoming, improving current articles as much as possible, bringing many of them up to the current MOS and notability standards. I too, help in that. Additionally, I am an AfC and NPP reviewer, in part to hasten the process of bringing up notable drafts and articles into the mainspace and allow search engines to search them (within reasonable limits). My crowning achievement, if I may: maintaining the Index of Singapore-related articles. I brought it up to date and have been keeping it current, in part to help fight vandalism on Singapore related articles, and in part to give exposure to Singapore-related articles that would have been buried and languished under the millions articles here.

Casting delete votes is never a easy decision. In addition to WP:BEFORE, I will also see if it is possible to reform the article to something that's passable for the notability test. Sometimes... it would be too successful. All these take time and effort, which may seem trivial to others, given the short duration of time between launching the AfD, and the casting of the vote. Nonetheless, one has to recognise that most editors here strives to be as impartial and neutral as possible.

Back to AGF issue, what's with the canvassing accusation? As far as I know, JASWE and Scope Creep work independently. For that matter of fact, I work independently of them as well. Both of them are fine members of the community here, and have been contributing positively in the areas they have been contributing for a long time.

On this note, I take this as an non-apology. I cannot see this in any other way unless he comes out to say that the insinuation is wrong, and he meant something else.. whatever it is. Also, I have a particularly high bar on respecting other editors for disclosing oneself on Wikipedia, publicly. I don't encourage anyone to do so, but I have my own reasons for doing so. (Another topic for another time.)

All in all, I feel that Easan1969 should disengage from here, and from the AfD, away from thinking (and assuming/writing) the worst of other editors, lest WP:BOOMERANG hits them back. As for the SFF article, it is a content dispute, for now. Take it to the article's talk page and trash it out between you and JAWSE, and get consensus among those involved, maybe Scope Creep even. I do think JASWE's edit makes the article less promotional, less puffy, and more likely to survive a possible afd. That being said, it is without looking at the sources yet. – robertsky (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Robertsky: Sorry that I have pinged you though I later notified in your talk page.

JASWE is a good editor but the timing(after the Delete vote at AfD) of the pruning at the SFF article confused me.

I might have not come here at ANI if there were no IP and SPA voting at AfD and the follow up vandalism on the subject's page.

Thanks for your statement on the petition, though I am not an Indian nationality.Eesan1969 (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Eesan1969 yes you did notified me, hours after and at the time which I wasn't active on Wikipedia, which is why I didn't continue to harp on it further than saying JASWE had to remind you again.

I can understand the timing may confuse you, but admittedly, it can actually be easier to deal with articles written by the same editor, or articles of similar topics at the same time. Not sure about JASWE, but personally, it is like reading a series of books, i.e. LOTR, Harry Potter, Games of Thrones, or the legacy Star Wars novels by written different authors etc, consecutively. He could have done worse by just simply bringing the SFF article to AfD, but he chose to improve on it in his own way.

The only wrongs I saw on the AfD and the article was the VPN IP address and vandalism by another IP address. As for the SPA accusation, it may not be so. For all we may know, they may have been editing while logged out all these while for reasons known only to them, and only to log back in to register their votes and rationale. There's no policy against that for as long as they don't engage in IP sockpuppetery. In any case, the closing editor/admin should and will take into account of the arguments, not the vote tally, per point 2 of WP:CLOSEAFD.

As for the statement on the petition... Did I ever say that you are of Indian nationality? 🤷🏻 I don't assume other editor's ethnicity. For all I know, you could be a COI or UPE editor, but since you had said on COI/N earlier that you weren't, I am taking that as it is. – robertsky (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Please note that I had done a brief reply in the early part of this subsection. My edit at Singapore Fintech Festival here clearly indicated that the edit was to merges one liners into History, remove all the quotes which are common copyedit to merge 1 to 3 liners into a paragraph, similar to WP:PARAGRAPH and also as mentioned above, removing WP:QUOTEFARM. John Yunshire had subsequently reverted Eesan1969's revert stating that my edit summary was clear. Eesan1969 however claimed otherwise, Reverted a large sunk of content without valid reason / explanation and mentioned at ANI.

Again Eesan1969 mentioned Recently a large sunk of content was removed without any reason after the Afd was initiated by @Justanothersgwikieditor: who voted 'Delete' at Afd and the nominator @Scope creep: now comments, "...organising a festival or a conference is not a big deal...", the AFD was not initiated by me but Eesan1969 later said did say scope creep was the nominator. There is quite a fair bit of confusion here. I voted delete with clear reasonings. Also the AFD is about Sopnendu Mohanty and the article that I edited was Singapore Fintech Festival. While they were related in terms of Mohanty being the organiser of the festival, it is common for editors to read and clean up surrounding articles over a subject matter when editors click on wikilinks and fix articles. Also, I had it found familiar as I did review it previously, see here and here, interacted with Kwansss who was editing the article at that time and I decided to clean up the article finally (similar to what I did at Shangri-La Dialogue recently).

The initial ANI report by Eesan1969 was about the AFD for Sopnendu Mohanty with no mention of the festival, Eesan1969 later added a subsection in the report about the festival and said that he reverted my edits and said it was mentioned in ANI which is an untruth (The ANI was about the AFD) and unrelated and there was no message informing the three of us about the ANI report. Even if an article is being mentioned in ANI or any noticeboard, editors would have no idea it is being mentioned here unless otherwise informed. Eesan1969 had twice failed to inform editors about an ANI report, which needed to be prompted by another editor and me again (after I noticed the ping) to do so.

The edits were done by me and Eesan1969 chose to pull scope creep (nominator of the AFD for Mohanty) and robertsky (voted delete in the AFD and followed up with Eesan1969) into this subsection of an ANI report. This is quite a baffling action by Eesan1969.

As noted by robertsky, Eesan1969 has cast aspersions on other editors on the AFD and even on this report and is simply WP:NOTHERE. Also, even if the timing confused Eesan1969 and Eesan1969 claimed JAWSE is a good editor and I might have not come here at ANI, Eesan1969 had not retracted this ANI. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 03:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

217.149.161.160

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.

---

Special:Contributions/217.149.161.160 is an IP editor that has been leaving some nice messages of encouragement on my user talk page (exhibit 1, exhibit 2, exhibit 3). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

IP blocked for 1 month. Oz\^InterAct 15:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I think talk page access needs to be revoked [118] [119]. ComplexRational (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I have revoked talk page access. Cullen328 (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

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.

Harassment at talk page by anon IP

this edit by anon IP is in Portuguese. It uses slurs and ableist words, also threatens to find my physical address — Tazuco 19:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Tazuco I have blocked the ip and revision deleted the edit. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Behavior of User:Tsikhotskyi19

Not sure what triggered this personal attack from Tsikhotskyi19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), but I don't particularly appreciate it. Could someone warn them, please? Thank you.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Done. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Braehead Park; Joe Rutherford

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.

---

After the inevitable user block, we'll need rev/deletion of the racist/homophobic drivel. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I would have been happy to do it, but another administrator has already blocked, and revision deleted the grossly offensive edits. Thanks for pointing out these problems. Cullen328 (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

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.

WP:BLP violations at John Corbett

Apparently a Canadian pollster with the same name posted a racist tweet, and now the actor's bio is being vandalized. Maybe page protection is warranted, but definitely rev/deletion of the offending edits. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:8AC6 (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected, and revdeletions done. Thanks. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Inappropriate content has also been posted to the article talk page. It's too bad he shares his name with someone who made offensive comments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both. The problem, of course, isn't that the names are the same. It's that folks either can't or choose not to read things through. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:NLT violation at Damian Barr

2A00:23C7:E912:601:E9E3:C23B:EE:77C8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has made a legal threat in an edit summary here. They also made a blatant legal threat here, but reverted. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked by Canterbury Tail. DOLT-wise, everything seems verifiable to reliable sources, although as a matter of WP:DUE perhaps someone with a Times subscription would like to check whether that Bindel quote deserves the space it gets? Normally we're not in the business of "See what people said on Twitter about this" coverage, but maybe her take was a big deal. In a similar vein I've pared back the stuff about the Savoy (which was also WP:CLOSEPARA, although not, I think, to a revdellable extent). Yes, I know, that's all content, but legal threat situations tend to blur the line between conduct and content. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I looked over it before the block and it all seemed perfectly covered even by reputable sources. And it seems the IP is not connected to the subject so it’s a pure bravado claim. Canterbury Tail talk 15:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty strict, BLP-wise, and from my review there was nothing that I thought needed immediate removal, and certainly nothing meeting the threshold of WP:DOLT. The content stuff could definitely have been tightened up though, and thanks for taking a whack at it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Excessive vandalism at Monkeypox-related articles

Requesting some administrative attention on Monkeypox-related articles following a spree of replacing Monkeypox with racial slurs. See Special:Contribs/Jekdifj, Special:Contribs/2601:40:3:21F4:79E8:40AE:6CC4:E61D, Special:Contribs/2601:40:1:111:14DC:15FE:BA9E:252D, Special:Contribs/2601:40:1:474:E889:35DA:36CE:FF7, Special:Contribs/2601:40:1:F08:E88B:2852:5EA:D3A8, Special:Contribs/2601:40:1:FE5:B88C:52A6:955C:4B6, Special:Contribs/73.81.154.47 and possibly more if I dive into page histories. They're all blocked now (some due to range blocks) but the vandalism still continues. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) (Redacted) seems to be a racist term that is circulating on far-right social media outlets. I'm not going to provide any example links, but the vandalized Wikipedia articles appear in search engine results (e.g. DuckDuckGo, at time of writing, returned 2022 monkeypox outbreak in the Netherlands with the slur as the first result for (Redacted)), and no news search engine results mention the slur. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

You won't provide the links but will post the slur for all to see on a page with 8500+ watchers? I've redacted the offending words from your message above and will take a look to at possible rangeblocks/protections. Perhaps an edit filter?-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I see that a number of admins have protected some discrete /64 ranges, but it's Materielscientist's block of the /48 that will likely be the most effective. I've semi-protected the target articles but it's likely an edit filter set to disallow that will be most effective. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a good solution to me. Are there any recent cases of Wikipedia editors using racist terms for COVID-19 or other diseases? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The details are too sensitive to be made public, so I have emailed the edit filter managers about this ANI. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I've added the offending word(s) to Special:AbuseFilter/260. If this doesn't help please let me know. Sam Walton (talk) 08:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: See Special:Diff/1095617901. The vandal has started inserting it in all caps. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 11:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@CX Zoom: All caps wasn't quite the issue, but given the added complexity of how they're attempting to circumvent this I've started up a new filter at Special:AbuseFilter/1209. Leaving it log only for a while until we get some hits. Sam Walton (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

We got some confirmed hits so I'm moving to disallow. Sam Walton (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

During an discussion at the wikipedia-en-revdel IRC, several admins noticed that the behavioral evidence of some of the IPs — in particular, their edits at List of One Piece characters and List of economic expansions in the United States — suggest that they are the same person as Jekdifj (talk · contribs), who is themselves a confirmed sock of Weeebatowj (talk · contribs). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Sahil193319

Sahil193319, blocked twice previously for disruptive editing, has been repeatedly warned at their talk page about adding unsourced content to articles, but is still at it: [120], [121]. There is significant overlap between their unsourced edits and those of User:Syrriana listed above. Storchy (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Could I get some admin help on this please? Sahil193319 is still repeatedly adding long lists of unsourced claims to BLP articles, especially infoboxes, and I don't want to breach WP:3RR reverting them: [122], [123]. Thanks. Storchy (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Vehbikerem2010

Vehbikerem2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This new user was brought to AN/I earlier this month due to uncooperative and disruptive editing. Behavior has not improved since.

They started out with this outburst in response to a level-1 warning.

Most of the disruption by this user involves misusing infobox fields, replacing images with lower-quality ones, and flooding articles with superfluous images. Another user attempted multiple times to engage with them on the first point, to no avail: [124].

I gave the user a final warning on the 24th. The infobox disruption and image disruption continue. The user is clearly unwilling or unable to heed the concerns with their editing. They have also begun trying to write articles, but the prose is barely comprehensible.

In the previous AN/I discussion, another editor suggested an indefinite block with a return contingent on completing some sort of editing training. I think that's overly optimistic, but worth a try - in any case, this user is not a net positive to the project with their current behavior.

(As an aside, there is some resemblance between this user and an LTA sockpuppeteer - Zerolandteam385 - but some telltales aren't there.) --Sable232 (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Pictures of cars. Why do they seem to spark off so many conflicts? It's very difficult, if not impossible, to train a bull in a china shop, so I would agree that it's overly optimistic, especially since it's not our job to replicate what parents or guardians should do in the first few years of life. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I wish I knew - seems like people are more possessive when it comes to pictures.

Nevertheless, the user read and deleted the AN/I notice from their talk page and continued on with disruptive editing, so I doubt they are interested in improving the quality of their contributions. --Sable232 (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Racial bias at Talk:List of best-selling albums

• Talk:List of best-selling albums#Question
• Markus WikiEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Apoxyomenus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Harout72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These comments concern me, all of which are from the article talk page thread linked above, except the last one:

• Markus June 14: It seems common among artists of this genre (black music, R&B, Hip Hop) to inflate sales enough to value the artists and place them above other artists, especially white ones.
• Markus June 15: No, I'm not saying that there aren't fans of white artists who want to inflate their idols' sales around here. But most of the cases I see and also the ones I've had problems with are artists of this genre.
• Apoxy June 17: Certainly, artists related to urban music have IPs or other editors increasing the sales with the next available higher sales. That's not racial issues, but a true fact. See Janet Jackson history.
• Apoxy June 20: He doesn't said, black people, and as far I can see, genres related to the scope of urban music which it reads different. Definitely, if you start watching massive other titles, that perception will change.
• Harout June 17: I think Markus clarified what he was saying very well.
• Harout June 24 (at a recent ANI thread that tangentially mentioned this): As for Markus, he clarified in that thread what he was saying, he was clearly speaking about a group of people editing a certain genre.

"Black music" and "urban music" are both associated with people of color (POC). Maybe it's just me, but it does not sit well that editors are saying that POC musicians inflate their sales more than white musicians, or that editors who edit POC musicians' articles inflate their sales more than editors who edit white musicians' articles. Racial bias should not be tolerated, whether directed towards POC musicians or towards editors who edit articles about them. I'm also concerned that this was raised at ANI and not really dealt with, but I think it may have been lost in the noise of the larger thread. Levivich^[block] 06:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, the first comment ("It seems common among artists of this genre (black music, R&B, Hip Hop) to inflate sales") is completely out of order, I can see no evidence of this whatsoever. Of course, sales inflation is a common thing (especially with the recent trend in streaming manipulation) and much of this does indeed go on in popular genres, but linking it to race is clearly not tenable. As to the second part, yes we do have a number of editors whose raison d'etre here is to make their favourite artists' pages as positive as possible, and that does include sales inflation, but I whilst two of the most obvious ones are Michael Jackson and Nicki Minaj, it has also occurred at the articles of white artists as well. Going from "there are editors who inflate the sales of their favourite artists" to "most of these articles are R&B/rap/hiphop etc." is far too much of a stretch and it doesn't sit well. Black Kite (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
• There is a persistent LTA dedicated to inflating Matt Goss's sales figures; I'm pretty sure Goss is white. This is a general problem with articles about popular musicians - I see no reason to think that it is in any way linked to race, as these comments seem to suggest. This is indeed troubling. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

(1) Too much was said there, that it was forgotten add this diff in the summary above. At any rate, I equally assumed good faith in what Markus said (and let me put a broader context below), while maybe I failed a bit or much in generalizing too. At most, there exist a possible boomerang of interchangeable things in various of these similar discussions (both sides), and perhaps this context can shows that there is no a bias related to a race, album (Thriller) or an artist (in spirit of TruthGuardian's ANI claims: "I now suspect there could potentially be racial bias against black artist, music, and editors of color").

(2) As a music editor, of course I have noticed Markus' contributions as both of us follow several music-related articles, regardless artist, genre, language, race and a large etc, as well as participations in Wikiprojects of music over a decade. Naturally, the List of best-selling albums has been a must. However, it brought to my attention that the same RfC's nominator proposed to increase (reasonable) sales almost 1 year ago, and months later proposed "doubling" its sales.

(3.1) In this journey, some involved user accounts in both sides have seen a tag of calling "fan" of an artist like to blur views or for assumptions of inflate/deflate sales; it can be seen on archives such as Janet Jackson talk page, or at the List of best-selling music artists (Archive 41, 42 or 44 etc).

(3.2) However, I feel contrary to Levivich's counter-suggestion at the previous ANI thread, as the nature of "appeal to the stick" of supporter users was notorious in many ways (at least to me). E,g The 100 million was pretty much regarded as the only "truth" from their side, and it can be attached also to the activity of supporter users: mostly involved in highly pro-MJ edits (WP:POV) and SPA-oriented style.

(3.3) Strikes me, as the charges against a bias (to race or an artist), goes to be ironic, when editors like Markus, have provided to be collaborative instead, positively adding in these matters of sales for the cited artist/album: example 1, example 2 or example 3; also "correcting" the "other side" that was supposed to be "positive" example 4. In my case, I also contributed to add sales by countries in the cited album: example 1, example 2 or example 3, and overall for his entire career: example 4, example 5, example 6 or example 7 or contrary with the artist-most associated to: example 1 or example 2. But as one goes against these views, usually "you're" many things.

(3.4) As a corollary, this is one of my reasons I've advised to the grouping (notoriously there are various with same interest) focus their energies in finding sales in other countries, instead largely discuss other figure that is also backed by reliable sources (and then pretty much oriented to the visible math), as well find related-reports to support their assumptions. Instead, that could be a more-positive way to support changes.

(3.5) Myself, I never said anything about black people but more-oriented genre (genres can be performed by every human. Isn't Adele a soul performer?). And as far as my perspective and background can say, it is like saying artists-related to classical/pop music titles have seen an increase of vandalized sales changes. Or Latin/Brazilian/French related pages and so on. It was largely generalized, but also depends on what perspective you see, as well if you follow or not, just a couple of article or even, an specific artist. Wikipedia is big as a whole, and this include the world of music-related articles. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 11:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

For anyone reading through this and having the same fundamental questions I did, I opened a couple sections on the article talk page: If claimed sales are so unreliable and vary so much, why are we using them? and Methodology?. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry for for my speech, but when I meant black music I was talking about the musical genre, here in Brazil when people talk about black music they talk about North American's creations: rap, hip hop, R&B, etc... and I had problems with some Wikipedia's user who edit these styles: on Aaliyah's page, on Janet Jackson's (a fan even made a YouTube post attacking me), among others. I never had problems with racial issues, in fact I edit the pages of Janet, Michael Jackson, among others because I like these artists too. I didn't mean to offend anyone's ethnicity/skin color, I should have been more specific and not use "black music". I'm sorry.--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Might I suggest rewording your statement here. This is basically the equivalent of "but I have black friends." PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Of course, no problem, my bad. My apologies have to do with my mistake in the sentence in which I put "black music". I apologize, I should have restricted myself to specific styles instead of using "black music" because it had a double meaning. If I suffer any retaliation I will understand.--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Here there has been apologies from the user Markus WikiEditor, and that constitutes a very good action. But apart from that, I want to say several things that have to do with a situation that has been going on for a long time. There is something that is negatively affecting the atmosphere of debate on Wikipedia regarding these articles. And it is that users are too often being labeled as fans of a specific music artist, mainly by the side that opposes any increase in these artists' claimed sales. They can be Black artists or White artists. I don't like to categorize artists according to their physical qualities. One music artist with whom this situation has happened is Michael Jackson. There are people who, apparently, consider that if a user has a big part of his contributions about a specific subject (a specific artist (Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley, Madonna), a music genre, Black music, Country music...) it means that he is a fan (and/or a hater) of something or someone. Can't it just be that he/she is interested in contributing to the encyclopedic coverage of that subject?

Even if a user is actually a fan of an artist, it does not mean that his/her contributions are always biased. For example, all the contributions I've checked in Madonna-related articles made by the user MadonnaFan (whose username makes it clear who he/she is a fan of) have seemed correct and objective to me. I said it before in another discussion, there are users who systematically label others as Michael Jackson fans to discredit the points of view that they don't support. One example: User A is Catholic. If User A say that he consider the Catholic Church as the most important and relevant in history among all the Christian churches... Is someone going to tell User A that he can't discuss about it because he is Catholic? How can we know if other users are fans of other artists? or haters? I think that personal attacks and labeling should be stopped, and the focus should be on the matter at hand.

Finally I want to say that, while there may be Jackson fans on Wikipedia (as there may be fans of other artists, and as there may be haters), one shouldn't think that any change that apparently seems like a more positive treatment is automatically a pro-MJ biased contribution. To date I have found an anti-MJ biased encyclopedic coverage in quite a few Jackson-related articles. For example, the footnote about his total claimed sales in the Michael Jackson article included, until not too long ago, a statement about an alleged official denial by the IFPI of the 750M total claimed sales figure. The IFPI never made that statement. The one who disputed the 750M figure was The Wall Street Journal, and that article labeled the 750M figure as inflated only if it referred to albums instead of units. However, that incorrect information remained on Wikipedia for years (and was also translated to Wikipedias in other languages). In that same WSJ article Jackson was also described as "second only to the Beatles" in terms of total sales. Why was so much importance given to that article? And if it was a correct decision, why wasn't it also included in the Presley's article when referring to his highest claimed sales figures?? In The Beatles article the 1 billion claimed sales figure is included in a footnote, in Presley's case it is included in the main text of the article (not in a footnote), and in Jackson's article it does not appear at all. Who then has an undervaluing and who has an overvaluing encyclopedic coverage? For that reason I understand that there are users who think that there may be a systematic racial discrimination, intentional or unintentional, or perhaps an appearance-based discrimination in Jackson's case, or of any other kind. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and there should be objectivity and equality of treatment. Even Charles Manson's music should have an objective (neither undervaluing nor overvaluing) encyclopedic coverage. Salvabl (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I concur with many thoughts. But as long I can remember the same treatment has been applied to any album/artist from the "opposite votes" of the RfC. The above list, is just a couple examples with the artists and its related-problem, at least from the users accused here (me or Markus). And the list outside with others individuals goes and goes over more than a decade. I can pretty much resume, the problem with MJ has been the woozle effect. It has been problematic as with him, third-party sources are telling us about an inflation on his overall sales or with Thriller (the album/RfC that started all); so aren't a thing of playing with original research with Wikipedia's users, or a bias or if someone is hater or not. That's the "other truth", and adding that this "true" is also backed by reliable sources as well, which encompasses the current figure.

With the other associated artists in this topic (aside are other scenarios), I'm also in general not sure why were re-inserted or remained the fact of 1B in both Beatles and Presley biographies, but at least were lowered at the best-selling artists. Regardless WSJ mentioned the cases of the Beatles, ABBA among others (all of them have matched sales at the least), the case with MJ was in-depth covered. There was actually two pieces from WSJ; one from the print column (full access) and a blog-opinion; the latter may be valid per WP:RSPSS guidelines. Further adding, there exists more third-party sources talking about the issue related to his sales, like The New Yorker. At the end, sources remarked the problems with circular reporting (Wikipedia was a help in this according to these articles). Regarding the IFPI statement as I can be noticed, was condensed/simplified, and perhaps would it be better with a quote attribution, like the source cited: "When we were asked how many albums Michael Jackson sold, we were as embarrassed as anybody, says Adrian Strain, a spokesman for the the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry". Or perhaps not, but brings a general picture from an authority person about his sales (described as inflated as a whole).

As I maintain, there is not MJ-bias. And same treatment is applied to every title/individual as long is humanly possibly; humanly because it's impossible to keep an eye on everything or every-single-case. This could affect your health even, in focus only with something so problematic and dealing with other users, either new or with tenier in Wikipedia. Also because WP:ONUS/WP:BURDEN in our side. And when it comes to sales, is hard to find another matching figure and to the extend, MJ's sales case has been more mainstreamed than other assumedly titles proved with that background. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Mandomanny313

• Mandomanny313 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Mandomanny313 has a talk page full of warnings. He's recently been on a spree of adding unsourced content. For example: adding unsourced genres, saying a film got "generally negative reviews" when a reliable source says it got "mixed reviews", and demanding that other editors "do not edit" his unsourced claims. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Explaining the "do not edit" thing: I was going to add a source after my initial edit, which I did. I didn't mean that nobody should edit. Also I apologize for the reviews mixup. I have bettered my editing from when I first started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandomanny313 (talk • contribs) .

Mandomanny313, a couple of words of advice. Firstly, cite sources in the same edit as adding content, especially when an edit concerns a living person. Then there is no need for such a "do no edit" comment that could reasonably be interpreted as being longer-term than you intended. Secondly, if you have to ask others not to edit temporarily (meaning minutes rather than hours) then use the {{inuse}} template. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

To add on to this, there's no need to rush when updating information in an article. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 07:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Mandomanny313 (talk) 07:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

NOTHERE editor MegaMack02

Could someone look at this edit from MegaMack02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) relating apparently to this Commons block? Notifying editors next ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Adding this edit from slightly before. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

A few copy/pastes of the same angry message 1, 2, 3, 4. #1 is in response to a copyright CSD. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Deleting angry message now MegaMack02 (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

As a summary of the misbehaviour that precipitated this section (thank you for raising it, Sandy): I am a Commons administrator. MegaMack02 was blocked on the Commons (not by me) for vandalism 27 June 2022. I reviewed and declined a unblock request as failing to meet our unblocking criteria 28 June 2022. Today (30 June 2022), MegaMack02 removed the declined request (not allowed on the Commons until the block has expired), and posted a new unblock request that also failed to address our criteria. As MegaMack02 had also been making nonsense talk page edits, I removed talk page access for the duration of the block (which, being a 3-day block, was due to expire in mere hours). As a response, MegaMack02 came here to my en.wiki talk page requesting to be blocked indefinitely and saying "Get a life sucker". I honored their request. They then responded here with "F**k you and your stupid **s life". This is, of course, problematic on its own and a continuation of the attacks and insults referenced above; it should also be noted, particularly for assessment of NOTHERE, that MegaMack02 has contributed significant amounts of plagiarised/copyrighted content (the same issue as on the Commons) that has been rev-deleted as such (see Draft:Ecosse Heretic history) and, despite related warnings, has nevertheless continued. For example: MegaMack02 added "to bear all of the cutting-edge marque’s expertise in the design of innovative, limited bikes"; Topspeed.com says "to bear all of the cutting-edge marque’s expertise in the design of innovative, limited bikes". It would seem action is needed. Эlcobbola _talk 02:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Elcobbola: - "I honored their request" - nice! I hope you made the most of it. And yes, not much purpose keeping MegaMack02 around. Not that it matters much, they'll just be back as an ip in any case.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I had a bit of a run-in with MegaMack02 a couple of days ago, as seen in PhantomTech's first post. MegaMack02 cooled down and apologised, and if that had been an one-time thing it wouldn't really have been a problem. I can understand someone flying off the handle in the heat of the moment. But they did the exact same thing today, cursing Elcobbola roundly and then apologising in an unblock request – two days after they cursed me roundly and then apologised. And a few days earlier (they only registered a week ago!) they had posted a personal attack on an IP's talk page and made this rather rude edit summary.

So there is 1) the attacks; 2) the copyright violations; 3) the addition of unsourced content despite multiple attempts to explain (24 Jun, 27 Jun, 29 Jun, and various people on MegaMack02's user talk page), and 4) some UPE vibes: "This is crucial" (and evasive non-answers as to why), and over at Commons, "I was in a severe rush to finish my pages before my deadline". MegaMack02 might be incapable of understanding things like verifiability and copyright, they might be ignoring them, they might have a very short temper, they might be doing it for the lulz, they might be an undeclared paid editor, but whatever the reason, they don't seem to be able to edit collaboratively, at least at this time. I see their unblock request has been declined now. Cross-wiki disruption – should they get a global lock? --bonadea contributions talk 09:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Hajar2022 and copyright violations

• Hajar2022 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user does not have a lot of edits yet but all of the mainspace ones so far have been substantial copyright violations, from Britannica or elsewhere. They either haven't seen the copyvio warnings on their talk page or haven't acknowledged them, and continued today with a +4.4k addition of copyvio to Cairo. I think a block would be helpful for preventing future instances of copyright violations and for hopefully getting them to see and respond to these concerns. DanCherek (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Well, they definitely saw this report... DanCherek (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  You beat me to the revert. I think an indef until they show some understanding of copyright is in order, and if the behavior continues after an unblock, they should be immediately indeffed. No reason to waste other editors' time checking all of their work and fixing the copyvio issues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Hajar2022 has just posted on my talk page (User talk:DanCherek#Block) saying that they are editing as part of a weekly school assignment. I'm hoping that they have gotten the message. DanCherek (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

School assignments and editathons should be banned, they cause so many issues. Canterbury Tail talk 13:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Our Lady of Medjugorje - unarchived as it needs closing

• Our Lady of Medjugorje (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Red Rose 13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Governor Sheng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Red Rose 13 started editing Our Lady of Medjugorje back in 2019. The reason for they starting editing here is my effort to rearrange the article, apparently without prior discussion. So I agreed to discuss the whole issue with them and thought there's a possibility for us to make this article a GA [125]. I was wrong.

At first, they doubted me misusing sources when I would translate them from Croatian (Talk:Our Lady of Medjugorje/Archive 2#Google Translating to English?), but when it turned out my translations were authentic, they continued doing that for which they accused me - Using google translator to translate from Croatian In regards to your concern about translating. I have been using Google Translate or Bing Translate to be able to read this pdf. If you want feel free to double-check me."; they using google or bing is way older than that, but this is one of the comments they mention that). So we went through that charade where I spent hours re-translating, inviting other Croatian-speaking editors to check me, only to see that Red Rose 13 has been using google as a translator (nota bene I'm not using google translate, I'm a native speaker and well versed in English).

The initial issue was - as I said - me rearranging the article, ie doing major changes, without prior discussion. Nota bene, when I first started editing the article, most editors were quite disinterested in that subject, so I felt there was not much to discuss (boy I was wrong). Because, then, this hell broke loose. Red Rose 13 rearranged the whole article without any discussion, especially when they noticed I'm not around.

So, I was inactive from 9 October 2021 to 9 January 2022 [126]. Let's look at the history of Our Lady of Medjugorje in that period [127]. Article totally rearranged without any discussion.

Maybe the best description of their editing here is this.

Not only that but Red Rose 13 edits the articles exclusively I'm involved with. These are limited to: Our Lady of Medjugorje, Jozo Zovko, Pavol Hnilica, Frane Franić, Tomislav Vlašić, Pavao Žanić.

That in itself might not be problematic if it didn't involve malicious editing.

Namely, both of us were recently blocked for 24hrs for edit warring. After the block ended Red Rose started bullying and malicious editing.

This, this, this and this are the examples in only last two days.

Ever since the block ended I noticed this passive-aggressive stance from them with comments "let's work as a team", and then they went on to rampage to call me out to fix some shit at Romanis Pontificibus, an article I made 1 edit in total back in 2020, and to fix some refs I haven't even added on other articles Talk:Catholic Church response to the Medjugorje apparitions#Reference Issues; reverted my edit because she thought it was "my mistake"; changed the meaning of the sentence I added, misusing the source (visible at the Our Lady of Medjugorje talk page), and what not.

Now, parce mihi Domine quia Dalmata sum, I did this.

My opinion is that Red Rose somehow tried to "press" me with these ref fixes because they saw this discussion on the talk page. And then they joined in with comments like: "Governor Sheng. You have had enough time to see these comments. Please correct your errors."; "Governor Sheng. You just did massive edits on Our Lady of Medjugorje with some source called Gontermann 2021 and you used the short form reference and did not add any cites for this link. It needs to be fixed immediately."; "Do you plan on fixing it within 24 hours?". These aren't "friendly" questions, but imposing ultimatums.

We've been quarreling over Our Lady of Medjugorje for three, and it exploded on other pages I edit as well. Red Rose 13's talk page is filled with complaints from other editors [128], so I know I'm not crazy here. User:Manannan67 has also been editing Our Lady of Medjugorje and has encountered similar issues with this editor. --Governor Sheng (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I was in the middle of preparing a post for ANI about this situation, but Governor Sheng has beaten me to it. So here is my take/history.

I would like to ask for the eyes and opinions of more administrators on the editing at Our Lady of Medjugorje and related articles, and in particular the tendentious behaviour of User:Red Rose 13 and User:Governor Sheng. There has been a very long, 3 year history of conflict between these two editors including in December 2020 a declined request for arbitration. [129]]; in Dec 2020 Third opinion request, which I answered.[130]; in April 2021 DRN: [131][132]; February 2022 I fully protected for edit warring [133] and warned them ; two days ago, I blocked both of them for days of edit warring. Now they are immediately back at it again the tendentious editing, including reverting, insulting and accusations against each other.

A quick look at the main article will show a bloated, virtually incomprehensible article which is the result of the editing of these two editors. Other editors (including myself) are quickly exhausted and give up. Dispute resolution has gone nowhere, multiple times.

In case it helps, here is my understanding of the topic. In the 1980s some teenagers claimed that they received and in some cases are still receiving messages from the Virgin Mary. The Catholic Church is divided in its response. Some are convinced, but some local bishops/clerics, were cautious/unconvinced, particularly when "Mary" came out against them in an ongoing internal local church dispute (the bishops vs local Franciscans). The place has become an massive pilgrimage site, and lots of money and power/prestige are at play.

As noted above, I first became involved via a third opinion request in December 2020. My experience is that many disputes can be resolved by using the best possible sources, so I spent several months attempting to coach them about how identify good quality, independent secondary sources and to make an outline.[134] I even attempted to model how to source and write one of the sections of the article, but I soon realized that there was little hope that either of them would take up the mantle and actually write a neutral well-sourced article.

From my observation:

• User:Red Rose 13 would like to include as much positive information and endless detail about the alleged apparitions and the 'seers'. They have had problems with plagiarism, use of poor sources, synthesis.[135][136] they edit war [137][138]and posts walls of text to talk page [139] They are pointy, following Governor Sheng to articles to post complaints [140][141]. In my view, Governor Sheng's concerns about possible harassment are legitimate.
• In contrast, User:Governor Sheng would like to reduce the fancruft bloat (understandable) but replace it with inappropriate negative/skeptical detail from the bishops’ perspective. They are frequently rude/dismissive/uncollegial. [142][143][144] They edit war.[145][146][147] However, to my mind, what is most impeding progress on the article is that the sources used for this are primary, involved sources written and published by the clerics/dioceses directly involved in the dispute e.g. Ratko Perić;Pavao Žanić;Dražen Kutleša) and Nicolas Bulat. When evaluating the sources, I recommended that these primary, non-independent sources only be used with extreme caution, particularly as living persons are involved. Governor Sheng has repeatedly tried get other answers at RSN [148][149][150], and despite never getting a clear green light, to this day continues to pronounce that the sources are fine to use.[151] [152] A quick look at the reference list of the Our Lady of Medjugorje shows just how frequently they are used. In contrast, he has tried to get other secondary sources dismissed because they are "biased" (in the opposite direction, of course).[153]. I should mention that there are many independent high quality secondary sources that could be used to write the article in the level of detail needed for an encyclopedia article.

On a positive note, on my talkpage yesterday, Governor Sheng accepted fault in editwarring, and wondered if they should both be blocked for a month.[154] I won't go that far, but I do think perhaps if they were both topic banned for 3-6 months of so, it would give a chance to other editors to clean up the article in relative peace. Your thoughts on this or any other solutions? Slp1 (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I was preparing a response explaining the problems I see with Governor Shengs references when you posted Slp1. I think your idea to topic ban us would be a relief. (Would that include the OLM and its related pages? If you go to bottom of page and click on OLM, it shows all the related pages) And if you were to oversee the page as editors clean it up, would allow me to let go. Also btw I am not "following" GSheng to post about the references on the OLM related pages. I have been watching all the OLM pages for a very long time and do edit on most of them as well. They are all interconnected and not owned by GSheng. Also a reference problem was being discussed on his talk page which gave me concern and I thought it was important to look at all the OLM pages to see if there were problems there to. I thought I was being helpful to list the problems that needed fixing and leave it on the talk page rather than take it to his personal talk page. I was not being malicious. I am just so burned out that I am beyond frustration. It has affected my personal life with the stress. Also I find positive posts from secondary sources to counteract/balance out the large amount of negativity using primary sources that is on the page. Perhaps I over did it. Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

It is important to point out that the article by Mato Zovkic is also a primary source because he was appointed to Zanics commission as noted in his article. Translated from page 77 in the last part of the first paragraph. "Furthermore, I was not very interested in Medugorje until the Bishop of Mostar, Pavao Žanic, appointed me a member of the Episcopal Commission for Research of Events in the Parish of Medugorje." [[155]]Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Lots of discussion on the article's talk page but unproductive. It's kind of like a pendulum: one perceives the other going in one direction so goes a bit further in the other to counterbalance, which results in the first going further yet in the first direction to counterbalance etc etc etc. I think Slp1's idea to pban both from the article for awhile to give other editors space to work on it would be the best solution for the article. Schazjmd (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I can completely see how this happens. Wikipedia attracts/has an institutional bias in favour of scepticism. You can't fight them all, sometimes you need to put yourself first and withdraw. Secretlondon (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I haven't looked at all the ins and outs of this particular article, but must say that scepticism (towards anything, including claimed visionaries and the established church) is a lack of bias, and part of a neutral point of view. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I don't think the skepticism/faith balance of the article is the real problem here: the actual issue is the longterm breaching of multiple policies, including NPOV. Many editors with a point of view can and do edit without problem as their edits reflect "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." And that has not been happening. Slp1 (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

And again... [156]. This kind of behaviour shouldn't be welcomed on Wikipedia. As I said these kind of requests from Red Rose 13 are malicious. So, I noticed everytime Red Rose 13 goes around, maliciously editing here and there, they complain how "they're stressed". This kind of hypocritical behaviour was explained earlier - they call me to work as a team, then afterward call me out on so many articles to do some fixes (the articles I barely edited), giving ultimatums and requests. This was a subject of previous discussions here, where they talk how they're "becoming a nervous wreck and I don't think editing on Wikipedia should cause so much stress.", to which another editor responded with: "Other comments: Red Rose, you do not have the competence to judge who is or is not capable of reading, writing, speaking, or translating from Croatian. English sources are preferred, not mandatory. I am incensed by your attempts to portray Sheng as a danger to you. If anything, they've been unnecessarily patient with your insulting conduct.". I'm just saying - there's a very, very long history of them "chasing" after me, and then portraying themselves as some kind of victim of harassment. I intended to stay away from this discussion, and let others conclude what they can (I could have been subjective and accuse someone too harshly), but this just doesn't stop, even after reporting the incident(s). --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I have been editing sporadically in this general area since about 2014 and made Catholic Church response to the Medjugorje apparitions "easier to read", according to its Talk page. (I'm not sure it still is.) much of this could be trimmed, as it's already covered there, as well as under Herzegovina Affair. I have not done so, as I am not particularly interested in engaging in endless, pointless debate.

I have had little direct contact with Governor Shang, probably (because I am not conversant in Croatian), but I have on a number of occasions simply walked away from the article currently under discussion for extended periods of time due to difficulty in editing with Red Rose 13. While she frequently quotes wiki guidelines, I find her application of same woefully subjective. Apparently if a known publisher decides he can sell a book about Medjugorge, that makes it RS regardless of the author's qualifications. Kengor is a political hack with no apparent experience in the Balkan political scene. (Next, I expect to see that the moon landing was done on blue screen.) Continued to push Mart Bax as RS even after being referred to Bax's article where he is discredited. A litany of hearsay, and in some instances suspect, "private" endorsements by JPII which cannot be verified, but have been contradicted. Red Rose 13 focuses on the visionaries and the alleged apparitions with little or no interest in context or ramifications. If a source supports her views, it's RS.

An inability to grasp the influence of Croat nationalism in either the timing of the apparitions, nor the funds generated from the pilgrims and directed through the Hercegovačka banka to the ultra-nationalist HDZ. ("I am wondering if a couple of sentences couldn't be put in the Political section under Background and then link to the Medjugorje page for the bulk of the information? We are trying to keep the page organized and streamlined."[!]) If anyone thinks Vatican oversight is only to do with "pastoral concerns", I have a bridge in Brooklyn in which you might be interested. I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone at SFOR dropped a hint.

It's an interesting and nuanced subject. I listed a half-dozen fine sources but to no avail, The article at present is a waste. Like so many others I just can't be bothered and leave. Manannan67 (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not comfortable bashing fellow editors but I do need to say something in my defense. Fyi... GSheng is referring to his edits on the Jozo Zovko page where he edit bombed Sullivans(secondary source) citations with a citation needed tags. I spent many months looking at every single edit and every single source to check for distortions in editing. I found many with Governor Sheng and a couple with Manannan 67 and when I found them I would correct it and then either leave what happened in the edit comments or mentioned on the talk page. They would either leave out critical information from the source or not reflect what was in the source and write their own bias. This just happened with GSheng as you can see on the talk page. In regards to our discussion about Max, I took Manannan67 objections and found a link that supported what Manannan 67 was alluding to and I removed the reference. He forgot to tell you that. I completely support reliable secondary sources even when I don't like what it is saying. I don't know what he is talking about that he presented many sources but to no avail. GSheng actually reverted one of Manannan67 edits thinking it was mine and ridiculed his source. Also I use a primary source for basic information like OConnell because she had basic information about the seers that others did not have. I never removed a post using a secondary book source from this page. Just because I ask a question about what someone is posting, doesn't mean I am trying to block it from the page. The rest of Manannan67's judgements are so off base, I don't feel a need to respond. If an editor is upset because I post something positive on the page using a reliable source, to me that just shows their bias. Thanks for listening. I am looking forward to the page being trimmed way back and will watch in delight.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I got dragged into this and was asked to look into this here, and in short my response was basically for Red Rose to go edit other articles for a while, and if that failed, an interaction ban. See here for that. The very next non-user talk page edit was right back where we started so clearly I wasn't listened to at all, so at the least an interaction ban would be needed, which would in effect be a topic ban on this article because I can see no solution where one user edits the article and the other does not given the history here. As an aside, I don't know the source material well enough to determine which user is "correct" on what sources or viewpoints should be used, and honestly I don't care, I'm just looking at the user conduct itself. Wizardman 14:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Wizardman for your input but I do need to communicate a couple of things since you are completely new to the problem. I have been actively editing on this page and other related pages for 2 + years and editing Wikipedia for 10 years. The recent edits you saw on this page was a recent flurry of activity by GS after our edit block was lifted. So your statement "where one user edits the article and the other does not given the history here" is completely incorrect. Go further back in the history of editing. After his flurry of edits it is hard for me as an editor to correct the page because I can't revert his edits that are a problem and it is impossible to discuss every single edit with him. I experience him as an edit bully who doesn't want to work as team and insists on using primary sources for controversial edits and refuses to remove it. In fact he refuses to admit that 4 of his sources are primary sources.[[157]] In fact I had to put a tag (secondary source needed) after a few of his primary sources that he was using for a controversial post. He then attacks the reliable secondary source with tag bombing of citation needed [[158]] Jozo Zovko page and reverting edits that use this source as well. Also I did listen to you I was cleaning up one last bit that needed to be exposed. I am hoping that Slp1 puts both GS and myself in a subject matter ban for at the very least 3 months and hopefully longer. I am exhausted. Here is a sampling of documentation of Governor Shengs edit bullying from a variety of OLM related pages. Remember it is just a sampling:

False accusation and uncivil communication bullying

• Accusing me of malicious editing when from the concern of errors in references found and discussed on his talk page with 2 other concerned editors, [[159]] I thought I should review all the OLM connected articles listed at the bottom of OLM page. Many of those pages I have been editing since Feb, March or April 2021- Jozo Zovko, Tomislav Vlašić, Frane Franić, Pavol Hnilica, Pavao Žanić, Catholic Church response to the Medjugorje apparitions(editing since Nov 2020). Out of courtesy I brought the problems I discovered and left them at the page and did not take them to his personal talk page. I did make a couple of errors and I apologize for that but it did not come from malicious intent.
• Right below this post, Governor Sheng again calling me borderline hypocritical.
• Right in his opening statement he calls me passive aggressive
• Here "What the f is wrong with you? " [[160]] Scroll down almost to the bottom.
• Here inappropriate words: "I pooped vs. it was pooped in my toiled during my pontificate" [[161]]
• Here he is accusing me of removing a sentence that had a secondary source using the word malicious - "*Someone* made a little mess... :) Who is it I wonder... Deleting properly referenced sentence... hmmm. Very malicious editing" [[162]]. All he had to do was read the paragraph and see the sentence. You can see it about halfway down. This is on a OLM related page.
  
• User Rotten Rose deleted the source in her rampage [[163]] Just look to the left and you will see Manannan67 did it legitimately. Not only did he falsely accuse me but called me Rotten Rose.
  
• Two more: [[164]] and [[[[165]] For F's Sake]]

Disruptive Editing/Deletes secondary sources and post:

• Deleted a photograph of a statue of the Gospa instead of moving it, saying sandwiched [[166]]
• Here he is deleting sections of this page including two secondary sources one of them being the author Klimek.[[167]]
• Another one [[168]]
  
• Disruptive editing - Here he is rearranging and deleting properly sourced information from the section without a discussion and at the same time adds a new reference with no cite. [[1] Also when making the edit he gives no comment and claims it is a minor edit. At the same time there is a discussion on his talk page about the cite missing on his references on many other pages reported by two other editors as well as myself. [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Governor_Sheng#Short_form_references] I took this new non working reference to the talk page to ask about it. His response: “…there was no intention on my side to keep the non-referenced inserts I added.” The question is why disrupt Wikipedia and rearrange and delete words and then revert it? [[169]]

Self started edit warring [[170]] and [[171]] and [[172]] and [[173]] Calling primary sources secondary sources

• [[174]]
  

Adding references without the cite to many pages

• Talk going on at his talk page. [[175]]

Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

References

No. 271 is me reverting myself, so the comment for F's sake was implied for myself. :) Rotten rose is german for red rose? Maybe I'm wrong. Other than that, finding an example of a year-old edit warring... I don't know why is that even relevant anymore. As for "spamming" "secondary sources", you did that before I have to Kutleša's books, didn't you? ([176]; even though there was an ongoing discussion about this exact subject; when both of us were just out of 24hrs "jail" for edit warring, this was a clear provocation). Like the other user said, "borderline hypocritical". It is my legitimate right as an editor to question sources. --Governor Sheng (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE: [177] Really? During an ongoing discussion where I clearly stated my disagreement, and after both of us were just unblocked? Governor Sheng (talk) 00:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• Not again!?! I will comment within 12 hours. This was a long unsuccessful moderated discussion at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

There is history at [[178]] and at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/OLM . I will review the history and comment on it within 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Some Thoughts from a Former Neutral Party

I will try to comment on my involvement with this controversy, without having read any of the recent history except to observe that there was edit-warring. This was one of those cases where the disputants both wanted me to read the history of lengthy talk page exchanges, and I repeatedly told them to be civil and concise. What has changed in the past one-and-one-half years is that they are much more openly uncivil.

I first became aware of this dispute on 2 December 2020, when User:Governor Sheng filed a Request for Arbitration. It was a good-faith erroneous request, because they were not really requesting a quasi-judicial process, but help. The statement by User:Red Rose 13 is a good summary of what they wanted at the time: "We desperately need an unbiased, expert editor to guide us." I later came to understand the significance of that request. I said at the time that this was a content dispute with no conduct issues. At the time, it was. I said that they should request a Third Opinion, and maybe use one or more Requests for Comments. ArbCom rightly declined the case as not requiring arbitration. It appears that they then did request a Third Opinion, and that User:Slp1 answered, and worked with them at length, for which thanks are due. They then requested mediation at DRN, and I spent a month trying to mediate. The mediation was largely about Pavol Hnilica, a bishop who was involved in the controversy about the reported visions, and also about Our Lady of Medjugorje (OLM). It was excessively difficult to get either or both of them to identify specific article content questions to be resolved by RFC or specific sources about which the reliability could be evaluated at RSN. One of them, Red Rose 13, continued to insist that sources had to be either in English or translated into English. They never did answer my question of why they were asking to ignore Wikipedia policy on sources. After about a month, they said that what they really needed was an expert editor to guide them in rewriting the OLM article, and the articles on some of the clergy. I concluded that they had the idea that Wikipedia has a reserve pool of editors who are identified and rated as experts who are available for assignment to assist in rewriting articles. I was not prepared to work with them in rewriting the article to their satisfaction, and ended the mediation. They said that they would try to work on improving the article. Based on what Slp1 and other editors have now said, it appears that they have been worsening the articles by quarreling.

It now appears that they have been arguing for another year. They are no longer being civil, because Governor Sheng has said that Red Rose 13's edits are malicious.

At this point, my opinion is that whatever sanctions are imposed should be for at least a year. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

At the very least, agree with the above. Wizardman 00:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I do need to make a correction Robert. I never recall ever "asking to ignore Wikipedia policy on sources." In fact if you read Slp1's section above there is a link (#37 - then scroll down to Ogledalo pravde) where I am analyzing a book in great detail providing links to all the Wiki Policies. Thank you. Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Red Rose 13 - It is true that you never explicitly asked me to ignore the Wikipedia policy on sources. But you did repeatedly argue that we could only use English-language sources or sources for which there was an English translation. When it was pointed out that Wikipedia policy allows non-English sources, you ignored this policy statement, and continued to insist that only English-language sources could be used. I asked why you were asking to ignore the policy that allows non-English sources, and you didn't answer, but said that only English sources should be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I remember eventually realizing that there was a policy which allowed non-English sources on Wikipedia. I apologize for not communicating that to you at the time. We were communicating about so many things. Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Partial Block

• Our Lady of Medjugorje (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Pavol Hnilica (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Governor Sheng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Red Rose 13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In the absence of any other proposal, but since something should be done, I will propose that both editors be partially blocked from Our Lady of Medjugorje (OLM) and Pavol Hnilica for six months, and topic-banned from all topics related to the Catholic Church in Croatia and Herzegovina, broadly construed. I suggested above that there be sanctions for a year, but am offering a shorter version to see if the community will agree to and act on something. Something needs to be done. This has gone on too long. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I oppose such a block because my area of editing is mainly the Church in Croatia and Herzegovina. I don't see how blocking me on writing about the church events from the 18th century could be constructive. Such a block would effectively only affect me, which is not justified. Governor Sheng (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support as long as the topic-ban also includes all the pages related to Our Lady of Medjugorje that are listed at the very bottom of the page - not all were in the Croatia and Herzegovina area. I am requesting and hopeful that @Slp1: will agree to oversee these pages. Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Partially support but only the topic ban regarding OLM, Hnilica and connected subjects, excluding broader ecclesiastical topics in Croatia or Bosnia and Herzegovina. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support, but based on Governor Sheng's comment, I would be fine with the topic ban being for the Catholic Church in Croatia and Herzegovina post 1970. One other idea, It is unusual for both editors in these situations to accept restrictions so willingly. Would you both be willing to promise not to edit any of the articles/talkpages about Catholic Church in Croatia and Herzegovina post 1975 for 6 months. ie make a voluntary restriction and topic ban yourselves? It would be a serious commitment and breaching your promise would have serious consequences, but if you can make that promise and stick to it, it would be much better for your reputation as editors.Slp1 (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  I could agree with that. Governor Sheng (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Question will the related pages of Our Lady of Medjugorje be included? Some of these are not in Croatia and Herzegovina diocese: Catholic Church response to the Medjugorje apparitions, Pavao Žanić, Ratko Perić, Petar Palić, Jozo Zovko, Slavko Barbarić, Tomislav Vlašić, René Laurentin, Frane Franić, Pavol Hnilica, Herzegovina Affair, Romanis Pontificibus, Catholic charismatic renewal, and Medjugorje International Youth Festival. (Listed at the very bottom of the OLM page) Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

All of these should be included; and anything related to the Catholic Church in Croatia and Herzegovina post 1975. Manannan67 (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I can oblige myself not to edit articles related to the Catholic Church in Croatia and Herzegovina post 1975 or articles related to the Medjugorje phenomenon. As Slp1 (talk · contribs) said, avoiding "official" block may be the best solution, since Red Rose 13 (talk · contribs) and I have voluntarily agreed to abstain from editing the said articles, to preserve our reputation as editors. The risk of sanction for breaking this obligation is in itself a good and efficient corrective measure for both of us I believe. Governor Sheng (talk) 09:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Slp1: Would it be possible to reword your proposal to include the 14 pages related to OLM page that are listed at the very bottom of the OLM page and listed above? Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I am glad that this might work for you both. It certainly would be best for you if it works out. I want to be very clear that you would both be promising not to edit anything to do with Our Lady of Medjugorje and the Catholic Church in Croatia and Herzegovina after 1970, broadly construed. It is not a good idea to name some articles: the onus is on you to understand that anything related to either topic is off limits for 6 months. That means no edits to any articles or talkpages even faintly related to the topic, no posts to noticeboards about the topic, no asking other people to intervene or take a look at edits, no emailing others. Nothing. Take the pages off your watchlists and forget about the whole area. You are also strongly recommended to promise to avoid each other on Wikipedia: do not to follow each others edits, do not follow each other to other articles and topics, do not comment or make complaints about the other. Again nothing. Slp1 (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• I agree. I assume the time frame would be 6/23 - 12/23/22.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Slp1: I do need to say that the reason I can easily let go is because I completely trust you and if you are overseeing all these pages all will go well.Red Rose 13 (talk) 10:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Red Rose 13, you've made variations on this comment several times, but I have not addressed it, but I will now. I may or may not follow or engage in those articles, but I will not be overseeing them in any formal way. Robert McClenon noted that you seemed to hope that "expert" editors would write/rewrite the article, and this seems to be part of the same mistaken impression. Editors and administrators will self-select to improve (we hope) the articles. There is no hierarchy or ownership of articles.Slp1 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• So, we have an agreement then - no editing of the said articles till 23 December 2022. Governor Sheng (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

How about January 7th 2023? I am sure you would both like to get through Christmas etc without worrying about what would happen if you both start engaging again?Slp1 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

7 January is good for me. Governor Sheng (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• Other editors and administrators, do you agree with this voluntary topic ban and interaction ban? Is it adequate? I have never before been engaged in brokering one, so ideas and advice about what has been missed (or if it is worth trying) would be gratefully received.Slp1 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Interaction Ban

• Governor Sheng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Red Rose 13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Just like Slp1, I find it very strange that the two editors who started this quarrel are both agreeing to be topic-banned. I still think that they don't understand that there is no guarantee that neutral expert editors (who have been appointed by the Editorial Board as traveling experts) will rewrite the articles, and so no guarantee that they will be better in January 2023. I think that part of the problem is that each editor insists on cleaning up behind the other editor, so that each of them would prefer to have the other one excluded. I had avoided proposing an interaction ban as the first remedy because interaction bans provide a first-mover advantage. Now that they are agreeing to be banned from the articles mainly in contention, I think that we should avoid allowing them to spread their apparent antagonism for each other to elsewhere in the encyclopedia. So I will propose that, in addition to the topic ban, the two editors be subject to an interaction ban for twelve months. Each of them should find a topic area to edit, and can edit it without interaction with the other editor.

I am aware that this is an unusual remedy, but this is an unusual case. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
• Unnecessary We are already agreeing to not engage as you can see above. I have no desire to engage or interact with Governor Sheng anywhere on Wikipedia. And the reason I am agreeing to a topic ban is that I am completely exhausted and secondly, now that many people see the problems on that page I have hope that it will be improved. But you are right, who knows what will happen. The future will take care of itself.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral. Whatever you decide. Considering that our antagonism stems from Our Lady of Medjugorje and related pages, I this the self-imposed topic ban is good enough, though, if admins think the antagonism might spill over to the other articles, I have no objection to the interaction ban. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support. The first proposal is mostly useless without this one, since I don't have confidence that this won't spill over to other topic areas even if they both follow the topic ban perfectly. Wizardman 21:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support. I think it is a good idea to officialize this, unfortunately.~~~~ Slp1 (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Robert question: I think I understand the proposal. We are topic banned and interaction banned for one year. Is that true? Or is it, topic banned for 6 months and an interaction ban for one year. I see what you mean about first-mover advantage. I just read about WP:IBAN and it said that editors can edit on the same page but have absolutely no interaction with each other, so first mover might not apply. I just need clarification. Red Rose 13 (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: @Slp1: @Governor Sheng: Robert, since you have not responded, I am assuming that you are placing a topic ban and interaction ban on us both for one year ending on June 30, 2023. Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

IP editor in 2402:8100:2000::/35 range tied to sockmaster Qaumrambista

Since an indef was made permanent on sockmaster Qaumrambista last week, an IP editor in the same range (2402:8100:2000::/35) and the account യോഹന്നാൻ have made edits to a number of articles relating to Indian Christianity. The character of the edits and IP range involved made me suspect sockpuppetry. I am aware of the shared nature of the range, but the overlap in pages edited and sources inserted raised suspicion. Following edit warring by the IP on the article List of major archbishops of the Syro-Malabar Church, I filed an AN/EW report resulting in a semi-protection of the page. The IP has since continued edit warring with multiple edits on articles including Synod of Diamper and India (East Syriac ecclesiastical province). Once more instances of overlap between the sockmaster and this IP editor became evident, I filed a sockpuppet report that returned a possible to possilikely following a check user. The IP editor has also made uncivil remarks, including intentionally misspelling names of religions (even after being asked then warned to stop that). Editor repeatedly disengaged from requests for discussion on Talk:Syro-Malabar Church and resumed edit warring despite warnings from myself and an admin, resulting in the page being protected.

When I initially brought the original sockmaster to ANI a couple months ago on issues of incivility, POV, and edit warring, the behavior was not met with any sort of serious action (besides talk page reminders of the discretionary sanctions involving articles related to India and Pakistan). It took a month for the SPI team to recognize and respond to just one of the editor's abusive behaviors. The AN/EW team, while effective for single-article issues, can only play whack-a-mole with such disruptive editors. I am here because I have been targeted by this editor with uncivil comments and WP:HOUNDING for three months now and this project really is not that fun when your watchlist is populated with targeted edit summaries and unexplained reversions.

I have two requests: extended page protections on the articles mentioned above and prohibition of that IP range from editing these articles. The latter request should be considered with caution because, even though that range is already subject to specific blocks, the range includes a significant proportion of the people who might want to edit pages on this topic. Further diffs, details, and other material may be provided upon request. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I am the admin who semi-protected Syro-Malabar Church. The IP user had contacted me on my talk page. I pointed out my concerns that they were a long-term abuser who had caused an IP range to be partially blocked—which, curiously, led to the next contact coming from an IP4 address outside the /35 range. The IP asked why I was removing good content; I explained at that point that I was not editing in regards to their content, but their conduct, and I would not take responsibility for the content by letting it stand. I feel that behavioural signs point to this being either Qaum or another LTA, so semi-protection is in order. I've only hit the one article where I saw an issue last night my time, and I welcome other administrators' eyes looking into this. —C.Fred (talk) 13:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Requesting further action as the IP has continued edit warring my despite request for discussion on a talk page, as well as escalating the POV language of their edits. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: I just semiprotected that article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Thank you! If IP wants to discuss on the talk pages, I am willing to engage (even if that's not standard protocol). ~ 01:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Requesting a semiprotection for the article India (East Syriac ecclesiastical province) too. Same IP series is continuously reverting the edits supported with genuine references. --John C. (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Johnchacks: Also semiprotected. —C.Fred (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Thank you. --John C. (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Issues involving Thundercloss

There is an editor who has persisted in re-reverting 2022 Laguna Woods shooting. In short they made contentious changes [179]. After being challenged, they kept restoring their edit [180] [181] [182]. Their edit summaries accuse another editor of edit warring, without basis in my view. I have nudged them [183] to look at WP:BRD. On top of other issues, they recently restored incorrect charge counts and other information about the defendant [184]. Thundercloss have used some unjustified words such as bootlicking [185], disinformation [186], and appear to have had an editing dispute in the past that also began with deletions. It might be helpful for them to be made more aware of their contentious editing and incivility. Vacosea (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

the claim that I made contentious changes does not appear to me to make sense because (from my point of view and as I have made clear many times in my edit summaries) I am restoring the article to its state prior to the persistent edit warring by another user. I would also point out that prior to the filer’s involvement on the talk page, I had been extensively discussing the edits themselves which have been the source of the alleged contention. The claim that I restored incorrect charge counts and other information is certainly nonsense because it is information that can be found in the multiple independent sources which they are cited to. And I would point out that the prior dispute which I was involved in has been successfully resolved, in large part because I was consciously and continuously incorporating the suggestions made by the opposing interlocutor on the discussion page into the edits I was making on the main article. This was the same strategy I tried to use to break the deadlock on this discussion page, but the complainant didn’t even pretend to pay attention to my compromise efforts as evidenced by the wholesale, totalizing reverts of my edits they have been making Thundercloss (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The article has only existed for 1.5 months so realistically there's no version that is truly a stable version. Besides that, by definition if you're continually being reverted by another editor editing in good faith, there seems to be something contentious about both your edits even where you are reverting to a stable version. Discussing the dispute is good, edit warring is not and this applies to everyone involved. Nil Einne (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Hold on, in reality they were the one making totalizing reverts, practically restoring 100% their own edits [187] [188] [189], whereas mine allowed changes [190] or added to their older version [191]. Ask JArthur1984 whether Thundercloss' past "strategy" is as claimed, but as far as I can see, they don't understand that BRD means discuss before re-revert, not re-revert then discuss. They unfoundedly accuse others of what they themselves commit. Their eager reverting has brought back inaccurate information about the case. At least a month ago [192], the manifesto date was corrected from mailed one day prior to received one day after the shooting. It is now back thanks to Thundercloss. In California, enhancements are not separate charges but added on [193] [194]. What is telling is that the source already says "amended ... to add a hate crime enhancement" [195], but Thundercloss seems much happier with upping the charge count than exercising due care [196]. Vacosea (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Even if you were right about these two revisions, it still doesn’t address the elephant in the room which are the totalizing revisions you made on other parts of the article where you either removed entire chunks of properly sources and summarized information or restored entire chunks of poorly sourced and summarized information in the same way the other edit warring user did. Your story is making less and less sense the more and more your complaint develops. Thundercloss (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

On my prior issues with this user's categorical deletions, I think Talk:Michelle_Bachelet pretty much speaks for itself. That's the best place to look, instead of how anyone characterizes it.

To me, the key part of Nil Einne's comment is continual reversions by another editor "editing in good faith."

To me, good faith means a user should be able to respond to specific questions about why they made categorical deletions, and offer a specific rationale. For example, I was accused of "cherry-picking" a few times, but although I asked the user what I was "cherry-picking" I never got a response. Same when I was accused of offering a "tendentious" view. Good faith means being able to explain the principles behind an edit, particularly a mass deletion or reversion. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong but WP:BRD is an essay. It doesn't literally mean you have to follow the BRD cycle. The point is that editors should follow the talking and editing policy. I think a discussion is being had on the talk page and that's good. Both editors believe their version is the stable version based on their perspective of what is factual in the sources. I can see where a consensus can be had but it doesn't appear there is one at the moment. Like @Nil Einne, I see how both edited versions are contentious. I also think all editors involved are acting in what they view as "good faith". Rather than arguing that neither side is following BRD to the letter, try reading over the actual policy and even looking at WP:BRB. There may be a different solution found there. What is not the solution is continuing the edit warring either way. Disruption whether done with good intentions or not is still disruption. Admins may have a different view but I don't see anything urgent, chronic or intractable about one side over the other at this point. --ARoseWolf 15:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC) --edited 16:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Nil Einne meant both Thundercloss edits. I wish them the best but it's difficult when mistakes fixed, not just by me but other editors as well, come back to life after a month or so. While everyone else during discussion leaves the article alone or incorporates changes, Thundercloss must have their version exactly at all times no matter what. I shall hope that they at least learn from this. Vacosea (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

You are correct. I read @Nil Einne's comment incorrectly. I struck that comment as it was not their expressed view. --ARoseWolf 16:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Since Thundercloss' involvement, the article has been pushed back and stalled for weeks. Not only have old contents been put under new debates, but absurdly, the very fact that Thundercloss initiated extensive deletions is being denied and turned around as accusation against others at Recent rewrites. After I corrected a date that they had repeatedly and erroneously restored, all a good faith editor had to do was to leave it alone, following the source which clearly says "the World Journal said late Wednesday" and "arrived at the paper’s office late Monday" [197]. But unbelievably yet predictably, Thundercloss had to remove the date of arrival and change the paper's statement to Monday (one day after). They call this "more accurately reflect what’s in the sources" [198]. It is as if I'm engaging with someone who insists on a different reality. This has progressed from contentious editing to tendentious even disruptive editing. Vacosea (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I will add this to my comment. WP:Good faith doesn't state that a person need be particularly eloquent in their explanation of their edits, though, when conflict arises an editor is instructed to try as best as they can (emphasis my own) to explain their edits and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict. Editors are also encouraged to assume good faith, even when their own good faith is questioned. --ARoseWolf 16:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

CCING @Vacosea, @ARoseWolf, and @Nil Einne

@Thundercloss has unfortunately responded to the above discussion with retaliation by opening an issue below on the notice board. ("JArthur1984 at Michelle Bachelet").

This retaliation is regrettable, and I ask admin to please step in. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

JArthur's edit was nowhere close to being "disruptive", "illicit", or "egregiousness" as claimed by Thundercloss. They don't seem to understand good faith or aware of its absence from some of their own actions. They appear to be learning the wrong lesson from this. Vacosea (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Thundercloss: since the below discussion is (IMO correctly) closed I'll leave this here. If you were learning the "rules" you should know you should not be editing warring period rather than simply refraining from edit warring while there is an ANI thread about you. Editors who think they can escape sanction simply by being on good behaviour when there is a thread about them generally quickly learn they are wrong. Unlike many editors who make it to ANI, you seem to at least do an okay job at discussing disputes on article talk pages. However you still need to learn to concentrate on reaching consensus rather than worrying so much about getting you way for the few days or whatever before consensus is reached. Who cares if the article is the WP:WRONGVERSION for a few days especially when as in both these cases, the particular page is not reaching abnormally high attention at the moment? Isn't it much more important you get it right in the long term? That requires consensus not dumb edit warring. Nil Einne (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

JArthur1984 at Michelle Bachelet

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.

---

The user has persistently and disruptive restored illicit content to the article, the latest example being this edit [199]. I was very tempted to revert the changes given the egregiousness of the transgression but decided against doing that in light of the ongoing ANI case against me. Background information for this case can be found on the Bachelet talk page (under the “Repeated Deletions in UN Human Rights High Commissioner Section” section) Thundercloss (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a retaliatory complaint by Thundercloss. An editor named Vacosea opened a topic above called "Issues Involving Thundercloss." Thundercloss tried to defend themselves by citing the prior interaction between Thundercloss and me as shown on Talk:Michelle_Bachelet. Vacosea tagged me and suggested to the admin involved in that dispute, "Ask JArthur1984 whether Thundercloss' past "strategy" is as claimed, but as far as I can see, they don't understand that BRD means discuss before re-revert, not re-revert then discuss." I related my own experience with Thundercloss, and shortly thereafter Thundercloss made this complaint.

I am correct about the issues at the Michelle Bachelet page. There is no "illicit" content. The consensus on the page (and under the policies) are that the primary source I have cited is appropriate. Although I have been respectful of his edits, Thundercloss has made many mass deletions and reversions to eliminate any quotations from Bachelet's own statement. Thundercloss refused to engage in good faith dialogue, instead repeating themes like "cherry picking" and accusing me of being "tendentious" without explaining the basis for his claims. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

there is no “retaliation.” If I wanted to file a retaliatory complaint I would be filing a complaint against Vacosea, not you. This complaint was filed due to your persistent and disruptive edit warring on the Bachelet article. As the talk page discussion makes clear, the issue isn’t about sourcing it is about weight (as in wp:weight). your misrepresentation of the problem is yet another example of how you dont even pretend to pay attention to what is going on Thundercloss (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

No merit to this claim, imo. It seems purely retaliatory. I am curious about why the OP thinks the content is illicit but I encourage them to engage that on the article talk page. Again, I see nothing chronic or intractable here other than perhaps the OP's WP:IDHT tendencies. --ARoseWolf 18:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

there is no retaliation. If I wanted to file a retaliatory complaint I would be filing a complaint against Vacosea, not JArthur1984. I filed this claim because they unilaterally decided to restore disputed content as explicated on the discussion page and because I wanted to demonstrate I was learning the rules by not further edit warring while an ANI case against me is pending Thundercloss (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

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.

Disruption and Edit warring by new account

New account Agney Mendon has been disrupting article Kundapur, removing citations [200], [201] and information supported by them. Even after warning on user's talk page [202], continued to remove citations and information on the article and replacing them with unsourced, and poor writeup, further committing edit warring. [203], [204], [205], [206], [207]. An administrative action needs to he taken to stop disruption by this user. MehmoodS (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

MehmoodS In the future, please report edit warring to the edit warring noticeboard, or general disruption to WP:AIV.331dot (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the report, MehmoodS. It's not easy to find one's way around Wikipedia's noticeboards. I have blocked Agney Mendon indefinitely from Kundapur, and pointed out that they can still edit the talkpage. Bishonen | tålk 21:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC).

TPA revocation request for User:Prokeypc

Thought I could just do this at AIV, but because the user is already blocked the bot at AIV won't let me :(. Anyway, this is a blocked user where the username is a company name, and prior to their block they were spamming their userspace and user talk page with copyvios from their company's website about their products. Although blocked, still spamming their talk page: [208]. Thanks. Singularity42 (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I think we should. Maybe salt the user page as well? (Non-administrator comment) weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 18:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, they're blocked so they can't recreate their user page anyway. That's why they have now resorted to spamming their own user talk page. Singularity42 (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh. They're posting spam on their talk page because it's the only page they can edit? weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 18:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes. This is a situation of a blocked user where I am requesting their talk page access be revoked. They were spamming on both their user page and user talk page. They were blocked for this on June 27th, which means they now only have the ability to edit their talk page. Their response is to continue to spam on their talk page. Singularity42 (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

It looks like Orangemike revoked talk page access. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I rev-del'ed some claimed MS serial numbers or similar license-code violations from their usertalk. DMacks (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Munir1999 not responding to copyvio warnings

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.

---

• Munir1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Every contribution from Munir1999, who has stated on their user page that they are editing for a class, has been a substantial addition of a copyright violation to the lead of a relatively high-profile article. They were warned about copyright violations on their talk page on May 17, then again on May 28, then by me on June 3, and then another time by an administrator on June 5, but have not acknowledged any of these messages. I suspect they are in the same class as Hajar2022 (see my report above), but anyway, I am reporting here because they just added copyvio to another four articles today. DanCherek (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@DanCherek I've revision deleted the recent copyright violations. I'm going to wait to see if they respond in any way, but will block if they do not. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

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.

Behaviour of User:Sabbatino

Again, this user sabotages the figures, presented in a page made by professional map makers and official statistical data presenters, who use EXCEPTIONALLY official data (this is always presented under every their map and figure), removes explanation on 3,7 mio. figure (which is, if one looks at it – obviously made up, claiming, that all the people in Lithuania are Lithuanians, as per census of 2011, but also only those, born in Lithuania, but living abroad are "Lithuanians", which ignore actual census results of these countries, e.g. Poland, Belarus, Russia, etc.; for example, there was massive repatriation of Poles from Lithuanian SSR in the 1940s and 1950s and this "3,7 mio" counts all these persons, born in Lithuania as "Lithuanians"). So he deletes this explanation, again attacks mapijoziai page as "garbage" with no reason for it whatsoever. Also, he just removed an info, that a specifically Lithuanian religion, called Romuva, is getting omore popular, what really belongs to the article. This person does this again and again and belittles other participants and added sources. Is it normal for Wikipedia to not try to make articles better, more understandable for everyone, but to delete notes with explanation and any data that one "does not like"?

Everyone can see clearly, that under every figure there is an official source, from where it was got. But this user just keeps misbehave, deleting this data. 78.56.247.147 (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

That is not an reliable Source Per WP:RS Chip3004 (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

How is it not reliable, when it uses exceptionally only data from official government agencies as department of Statistics of Lithuania, Ministries, et. al.? Are Wiki maps, for example, reliable source, then? These are created by the users of Wikipedia, but based on some official data. This map is based on Zigmas Zinkevičius work, but it should be considered as unreliable, because it was prepared not by Zinkevičius himself, but by a Wikipedia user? I strongly believe, that the same is true to this data of mapijoziai as they only make maps and present statistics from official sources. Sadly, the inscription to the their page is lost, maybe saved somewhere is Wayback machine and only the map itself is , but this does not mean it is so-called "garbage" or not reliable. Figure of "3,7 mio" is truly unreliable if you inspect it closely, where everyone born in Lithuania are automatically called "Lithuanians", but Lithuanians, born abroad are excluded, etc. 78.56.247.147 (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Your message is confusing, I think you may have missed at least one "not" there. But maps created by Wikipedia (or other Wikimedia projects) editors, as with all user generated content are most definitely not reliable sources. Even if the creator is a subject matter expert, it's questionable if it should be considered a reliable source if the source of the map is a wikimedia project. If the map creator self hosts the map on their on website then if they are subject matter expert it could come under WP:SPS. To be clear, that means that yes, this map File:Lithuanian language in the 16th century.png is not a reliable source. The original data the map came from (be it another map or whatever), may or may not be a reliable source, the data would need to be created by some party with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. If the source data is reliable you can cite the source data. But you can't cite the map anymore than you can cite another Wikipedia article. Frankly you've been told this enough that if you still don't understand, I'm not sure should still be editing. Nil Einne (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Also Back on June 20th and on June 11th You were edit war as well, and you violated three revert Rule on both days. Chip3004 (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Because deleting this data with an exclamation/remark "stop putting garbage" is a legit revert? Haw is it so-called "garbage" and chasing a user by reverting every one's contribution to the project (sourced material and important info) – a good will of cooperation? 78.56.247.147 (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Was you information reliably sourced? You claim it is, but you also seem very confused about our sourcing standards since you keep claiming user generated content is a reliable source when the source data is (possibly) reliable but this is most definitely not the case. Frankly, as long as you keep using non reliable sources, it's not surprising if someone is going to accidentally remove content you add even in those odd cases where you do reliably source it. Just to repeat one last time, user generated content is not reliable. It does not matter how great the source data for the user generated content it, it's not reliable, period. Go to the original data (if it is reliable) or find a different source or stop adding content if you lack a reliable source. This means if mapijoziai is user generated content, then it is not reliable. Please stop using it. If you continue to use mapijoziai as a source (and it is user generated content) then you are likely to be blocked. If the source data for mapijoziai is reliable, you may be able to use the source data where appropriate. However you still cannot use mapijoziai itself if it's user generated content. Nil Einne (talk) 04:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Chip3004, I appreciate your vandalism efforts but I'd just like to ask if you understand the conventions around capital letters in English? X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 05:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Behavior of Sly Catalyst (NOTHERE, vandalism)

• Sly Catalyst (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

This user has contributed in blanking articles (1, 2) and vandalism (1, 2) for a rather contentious article area (Philippine politics). In addition, they created this attack page (now deleted) against another editor. Edit summaries and talk page replies also seem rather uncivil. The problematic edits span a few weeks. I understand that they may be frustrated but Wikipedia is not the place for petty squabble. Given their problematic edits, a temporary block might be in order for this user (despite their somewhat constructive work on Philippine high schools). Chlod (say hi!) 04:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

User has been blocked by Canterbury Tail for 24 hours due to violations of BLP policy. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 10:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Technoblade severe image vandalism

Multiple users are spamming penises and goatse images on the Technoblade article which is currently very high traffic due to recent death. ECP needed urgently. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

This has now been implemented, thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Bunch of ancient accounts there messing around, obviously compromised. Widr (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Odd Behavior and possibly impersonating

Banglahindu account was created on 15:04, 13 June 2022 [209], but the user claims that he is back after many years. [210]. 

Odd Behavior 1 - On talk page of article Shivaji, Bangahindu replies to a user with these comments [211] on 00:33, 1 July 2022. The comment is copied from what I replied to another user on 18:13, 10 June 2022 [212]. Why copy? Possibly impersonating?

Odd Behavior 2 - Banglahindu sent a note about unconstructive editing to IP 122.163.186.131 on 03:46, 1 July 2022 [213] for article Battle of Purandar. What is odd here is that, this IP made the last edit on 19:54, 3 June 2022 [214] which I reverted on 19:56, 3 June 2022 [215] and since then other editors have made changes to the article but Banglahindu specifically uses this IP 122.163.186.131 to send a note. Why? Banglahindu himself just joined WP on 13 June. So what is he trying to portray here?

Odd Behavior 3 - Possibly following my edits as user Banglahindu made edits to articles that I recently made updates to such as Keshav Sthapit, Sikhism, Battle of Bhangani.

Little while back, one of the blocked user rejoined WP with a user name similar to mine, causing disruption and even going as far as directing their user page to mine. User was blocked for impersonation [216]. So I want to make sure this isn't a same situation. Maybe I am over thinking but what do you think from these behaviors? Or maybe Banglahindu can explain his actions. MehmoodS (talk) 11:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• As expected, Banglahindu has been indefinitely blocked for being a sockpuppet account of Nenetarun [217].MehmoodS (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

IP hopper back to vandalism after block expired

• 2601:C6:C580:6B20:895B:1CAF:7E5F:742 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2601:C6:C580:6B20:B028:EFB8:F80B:2A2B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I was told to post here after providing the info at WP:AIV. IP range to check is 2601:C6:C580:6B20:0:0:0:0/64, they are evading block and been blocked previously. Their vandalism continued once the month block was over. - WP:NOTHERE – The Grid (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Tagging Rschen7754 as you performed the initial IP range block in May (sorry, I probably should have messaged you from the start). – The Grid (talk) 13:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Reblocked for 3 months. --Rschen7754 18:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Possible COI on Marlo Anderson

I have a suspicion that User:SommerLarson, who included this in their user page (note the use of "National Day Calendar") may be close to the subject of the article Marlo Anderson, perhaps wp:COI editing. (Please also note Marlo Anderson is the founder of National Day Calendar.) Nythar (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

They also uploaded the image used in the article as their own work. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Ignoring the obvious COI...WHEW that article is a hot freakin mess. And I quote: During this time, the two were curious about what was going to happen with all the memories on video tapes PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Look at how many edits were done by UPE sockpuppets and other now-blocked UPEs. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

User:AlsoWukai

User:AlsoWukai is engaging in disruptive editing, which often includes incivility. I raised this at the Edit warring section of ANI, but have been informed that is not the proper forum, so I am bringing it here. AlsoWukai was recently edit warring at the Katzenberger Trial article to maintain their preferred wording; myself and two other editors reverted their edits, yet they continued to revert back. The article was then temporarily protected, but it continued afterwards. I raised the issue at AlsoWukai's talk page here and at the article's talk page. Thankfully, they appear to have ceased edit warring at that article.

There has also been similar recent behaviour by this editor at [218], see [219] and [220].

However, AlsoWukai appears to have started reverting my edits with no reason given. The one thing both these reverted edits (below) have in common is that they were both undoing small wording changes I made to the articles the day before. It feels as if they are doing this merely to provoke me into starting another edit war. See [221] and [222]

Previously, I raised this editor's behaviour at their talk page here, and at ANI here - in fact I note that the outcome of the ANI case I filed was "FINAL WARNING" for AlsoWukai. There are several examples of warnings at their Usertalk page for edit warring since that warning. Their language in the edit summaries is also contentious: "smh" (shaking my head), referring to me as a "troll" etc.

AlsoWukai's general attitude is that they are right, to the exclusion of others, which is not constructive for building an encyclopaedia. User:Futurix pointed out in the Katzenberger Trial talk page that AlsoWukai seems to be replacing "however" with "but" in their other edits. There is no mention of preference at WP:MOS, but most articles appear to use "however" rather than "but" to start sentences. My edits have simply been to comply with what I perceive to be the norm at WP. I would be grateful if any administrators could help with this please, as I do not wish to spend my time on AlsoWukai's edit wars.--TrottieTrue (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

User:AlsoWukai seems to be reverting a number of articles with no justification other than they want their version to be published. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and no user has ownership of an article. However, the general consensus seems to be that the use of "however" is preferable over "but". There is no merit in edit warning over minor changes or using contentious language towards other users. Denham331 (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I can only concur with this - starting an edit war because of a personal preference over a word with the only justification of "because I said so" isn't great. This particular article was written this way 10 years ago, survived many edits, and now suddenly it has to comply with a made up rule by a single user. Futurix (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely Certainly

Absolutely Certainly (talk · contribs · count) Not here. POV pushing. Seems trollish. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

The editor seems to be on a crusade to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS about the Bible being a made up story, when the article he's focused on (Ark of the Covenant) does not present the Bible as factual, it only cites references of the Ark of the Covenant in the Bible. He's taken offense to the fact that the article cites the Bible as a source for things contained within the Bible, and also does not seem to understand that we can say "The Bible says X" in an article and it's a perfectly valid factual statement. Despite his insistence on the use of logic, he doesn't seem to be willing to accept that logic. He's also developing a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and trying to play "debate me" about things that have nothing to do with the content being disputed.- Aoidh (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

A crusade. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 00:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

If not trolling, certainly not understanding the purpose of talk page discussions mixed with a bit of WP:CIR in regards to communication. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I was hesitant to invoke WP:CIR but it certainly does seem like either that or just willful stubbornness/ignorance. - Aoidh (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Looks like Cullen328 blocked them for 30 days. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

What happened to the thanks links on the block logs? - FlightTime (open channel) 01:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I've never seen a thank link for that. I'll thank on the block notice on the talk page, but only for obvious vandals. I personal feel it's in bad taste to thank for a block unless the editor was acting in unambiguous bad faith. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Only in bad taste to post a thanx publicly, hence the thank link. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I blocked Absolutely Certainly for a month but that does not mean that I believe that the Ark of the Covenant actually existed. I do not know one way or another, but I do know tendentious editing when I see it. Even the username is an indication of a dogmatic approach that may well be incompatible with a collabortative editing project. Time will tell. Cullen328 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, that's why I came here. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

It definitely exists, I saw it in a documentary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

As have I, featuring noted expert Dr. Henry Jones, Jr.! Dumuzid (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Please, not the place for this discussion. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

You're right, it belongs in a museum. - Aoidh (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Continuing personal attacks and edit warring from WilliamJE

User:WilliamJE was just blocked for edit warring. But that's the tip of the iceberg. This is on top of such personal attacks as :

• "To thick skulled IP editor. Your reference does not corroborate what it is on."
• Oh there is this shit of yours I had to clean up
• After his block writing "Serious you fail reading comprehension.... And as always the incompetent or clueless administrators, punish the editors who take this shit out of the article... Now prove to me you can read what I just wrote."

WilliamJE was blocked in October 2017 (one week for harassment), May 2018 (31 hours for edit warring), August 2019 (48 hours for personal attacks), November 2019 (48 hours for edit warring) and May 2020 (two weeks!!! for edit warring), with an indefinite IBAN in April 2021. The current block for yet another 3RR violation is for 24 hours.

The edit warring is chronic and hasn't gone away. The personal attacks continue on a regular basis and keep on escalating, usually in response to suggestions that editing issues need to be addressed. Alansohn (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I still wish WilliamJE would fix the way he signature appears on his posts. It's quite (likely deliberate) confusing. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Here's another edit caption typical of how WilliamJE addresses those with which they have a disagreement... [223]"Moronic IP editor showing their total ignorance when it comes to categorizing. See this you idiot before you threaten someone with a block- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1087#Problems_with_an_editor_removing_placeholder_categories" Jacona (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Not only being uncivil and edit warring, but also either incompetence or trolling (can't tell which):

• Here's the last 10 edits to the page prior to full protection.
• An IP adds "Flight 250", and it's reverted by someone else as "unsourced" (which is true, it was unsourced). The IP re-adds "Flight "250" with a source: the source is an article by United Press International and it does say "flight WT-250".
• William reverts with edit summary "IC says no such thing". Assuming "IC" is "incline cite", it clearly says "flight WT-250". IP reinstates it, and William reverts it, for multiple rounds.
• The IP posts on the talk page (with all-caps bold "read the source", etc.); William's only response is the "thick-skulled IP editor" remark quoted above.
• Mifter fully protects the article and blocks William for 24 hours, and provides a second source corroborating the flight number, to boot
• William's next edit is the "Mifter Serious you fail reading comprehension" one quoted above, but look at the rest of it: it's arguing about the number of dead, which isn't at all what the edit was about; the edit said nothing about the number of dead, it was the flight number, 250, which was in the source. Did William think "250" was the number of dead? And he's saying other people fail at reading comprehension?

This is another one of those, either it's WP:CIR because he doesn't understand that the edit was properly sourced, or it's just bad-faith trolling, and it's hard to tell the difference. What I do know is that Mifter has spent a lot of time trying to patiently explain William's error to him, while receiving nothing but insult and abuse from William. That is something the rest of us should not tolerate: Mifter's time is too valuable to be spent dealing with this. William hasn't edited since making that comment at Mifter, but if there were to be one more instance of incivility or edit warring, I would support a siteban, because this has been going on for years now. This should be the last time. Levivich^[block] 20:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

WilliamJE has made considerable contributions to the project and a site ban would be a loss for our readers. Notwithstanding, WP:CIVIL is a core tenant of Wikipedia and WilliamJE's pattern of personal attacks leaves the community with a difficult choice. I support a WP:Civility restriction, but oppose a community imposed site ban. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 22:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with User:BillHPike, WilliamJE is a valued editor, especially in a number of WikiProjects, although his abrasive style and tendency to revert without reading the refs added are a detraction. As noted, an indef block or ban would be a net loss for Wikikpedia as, in balance, his contributions are helpful to the project. If he can improve his civility that would be helpful, though. - Ahunt (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

This is something I'll never understand. No editor is so valuable and important that people need to continually suffer their personal attacks. As Alanshon points out, WilliamJE's been blocked for this time after time after time, and it hasn't sunk in that the behavior is wrong. Civility restrictions have largely went the way of the dodo for a reason, they don't work and are too hard to enforce. I'd support a site ban for one year as a sort of last chance block, and if it continues after, a full block. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 23:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

One less jerk on this project would be a net gain not a net loss. If you're uncivil and edit war for years, I don't care if you write better than Shakespeare, get the eff out. It kills recruitment; it's why we don't have enough editors. That IP is less likely to continue editing because of this (nevermind register an account). Support civility restriction or siteban, either way is fine with me. Levivich^[block] 23:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree with this general take. Climbing the WP:REICHSTAG still counts if you do it slowly and deliberately. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Seeing a WP:CIVIL failure (see [224]) in responding to an administrator block notice is very disappointing. I also agree about their signature (and was going to write that anyway) when I saw that their talk page has a notice at the top saying I'm aware that my signature is confusing, and I don't care. I like it. which concerns me as it seems to present a long standing editor that is not concerned about confusing others because they like it which goes against the collegiality embedded in WP:PILLARS and all the good stuff that flows from there. I would certainly support a civility restriction and suggest that changing their signature and removing the associated notice from their talk page would be an excellent way for them to show that they intend to be less confrontational in the future. Gusfriend (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment There has already been a lengthy and inconclusive discussion on the signature in question, details can be found here. There was a suggest that it could be change in some minor ways, but that it would not be enforced with a block if it wasn't change. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The reminder about the unconventional signage, is to point out a possible symptom of the editor-in-question's behaviour towards others. GoodDay (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I have been aware of this editor's disruptive behavior for quite some time and took a much deeper look in recent hours. I recognize that several editors are of the opinion that WilliamJE makes some useful contributions to the encyclopedia. However, the editor's propensity for personal attacks, harassment and edit warring is corrosive to a collaborative editing environment. Plus, their refusal to consider changing their signature which many editors consider disruptive is an aggravating factor. Accordingly, I have indefinitely blocked WilliamJE. Indefinite does not mean infinite. If WilliamJE agrees to an indefinite 1RR restriction, and makes an irrevocable, rock solid personal commitment to refraining from personal attacks and harassment, and agrees to change their signature to something uncontroversial, I will not oppose an unblock. Those are my minimum conditions. Cullen328 (talk) 05:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I agree that this is necessary at this point. Many editors are occasionally snarky or sarcastic, but persistent unprovoked outright personal attacks cannot continue indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 07:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I fully support this move. While in theory, WilliamJE's contributions are useful, the damage they have done to the project is much harder to measure. They can choose to be collaborative and continue, but if they choose continue with the "up yours" WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, I believe the damage far outweighs the good. Jacona (talk) 12:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Supporting this action. Gusfriend (talk) 12:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I really don't give a shit if someone solves Fermat's Last Theorem as a result of their work on Wikipedia; if they resort to repeated personal attacks and have been repeatedly warned for it, then yes, a block is absolutely warranted. This is not 2010 anymore. WaltCip-(talk) 16:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Long overdue. He's a good content creator but a net negative as far as collaboration and has been for a long time now. Star Mississippi 02:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! But given that there is long history to the behavior, he has surely been warned of this consequence before, right? Like a very clear "Hey, if you do this again we will impose indefinite blocks/sanctions." warning; not just intermittent admin-enforced two day vacations. I think everyone deserves a fair warning first. It's not really his fault if the inaction of people meant to enforce policy fairly and appropriately was the reason he felt assured in continuing his behaviors. I mention this because what I've learned in my own incident post on this page is that appropriate admin action (including issuing proper warnings like the above) towards long-standing editors seems to be just something that isn't done. A de-facto unspoken unwritten rule of law (at least until a big enough cabal of other long-standing users finally rally against him and decide to go straight for excommunication). 50.45.170.185 (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:MEATBOT and Guarapiranga

Guarapiranga restored a massive list of nearly every victim of 9/11 (2,944 people!) to List of victims of the September 11 attacks without any prior consensus, following that they created several hundred redirects on June 21 (in just a few hours, no less) I lost count after 900+, which were promptly fixed by a bot and then undone by Guarapiranga, causing them to have 509 edits from 23:11-23:54 today. This is an insane amount of edits for a non-bot (and non-approved, non-consensus based creation fiasco, imo.) I don't know that I can even take several hundred redirects to RFD without breaking the script, so I'm bringing it here. I tried to ask Guarapiranga about it but their response was rather lackluster. I'm at a loss for what to do - I don't see how having what will eventually be 2,944 redirects is useful to anyone and there doesn't seem to be a precedent for it, given other similar level terrorist attacks do not have redirects of every victim. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

And to put this in more perspective, when they created the redirects, they had more than 1000+ creations in less than 60 minutes. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm also asking for a quick block of the creator in mainspace, at minimum now, to prevent further disruption until this can be sorted out. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

On one hand, this is clearly a WP:MEATBOT and WP:FAIT issue. On the other hand, my experience at AfD and RfD regarding non-notable early Olympians suggests that current policy tolerates these redirects, to the point of sometimes creating disambiguation pages when there are multiple articles mentioning different non-notable individuals by the same name. I'm not certain what is to be done here without a broader discussions of when redirects and disambiguation pages are appropriate, although the temporary mainspace block proposed by PRAXIDICAE may be appropriate to prevent further MEATBOT and FAIT issues in the short term. BilledMammal (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Honestly the merits of the redirects at this point are the least of my concern. This editor made over 1000+ edits in 60 minutes - and that's without looking at previous hours (I just took the 11th hour on June 21 to get some stats.) That's insanely disruptive, especially when combined with their current attitude. I think a mainspace block is absolutely necessary right now so we can actually figure this out. Regarding the merits of the redirects, while I won't go fully into it, it appears they created this with some sort of script in order to avoid draftification and/or deletion of the above referenced article they created, which is definitely contrary to policy. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not clear to me whether Praxidicae is raising the issue bc of the "massive list", bc of the redirects, bc of the semi-automated editing or bc it's about 9/11 and not other "similar level terrorist attacks." She seems upset about a lot of things at once. In any case, for background, those interested in this may find this particular edit being discussed at:

• Talk:List of victims of the September 11 attacks#Redirects to this list
• User talk:Onetwothreeip#List of victims of the September 11 attacks
• User talk:Guarapiranga#List of victims of the September 11 attacks

  — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Stop attributing emotion to me that doesn't exist and focus on the argument. And the argument is that all of the above are extremely problematic and you do not seem to understand this. PRAXIDICAE🌈 01:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• That wasn't the response I was hoping we'd get from Guarapiranga. The two talk page threads linked above show that Guarapiranga was well aware of the issues ("it turned out a bit of a mess as I started to bump into parsoid's time constraints"). As for what to do? 1) Return List of victims of the September 11 attacks back to a redirect to Casualties of the September 11 attacks; the expansion was reverted, and per WP:BRD, whether we have a list at all (instead of the current prose redirect target) should gain consensus before we decide to do that. 2) Delete all these redirects. 3) Warn Guarapiranga to observe WP:MEATBOT and WP:FAIT in the future. I think the first step should be a warning, not a block. Levivich^[block] 01:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  What was the response you were "hoping to get", Levivich? Yes, I was "aware of the issue" (not "issues"), and it arose, as you correctly quoted me, when I endeavoured to expand the simple to the detailed list, not when I replaced the redirect by the simple list, or bc the list is "massive", bc of the semi-automated edits, bc it's about 9/11 and not other "similar level terrorist attacks," or bc of the redirects. The issue with the redirects only came up when Onetwothreeip moved the article to draftspace, rather than simply reverting it to the last stable version, which is what I should've done when the editor starting faultering on me, instead of endeavouring to fix it online, perhaps bc s/he did not mean to convey that the article should not be expanded (s/he said he'd done this for now as the latest versions of my draft are extremely large (over 700,000 bytes) and would need improvement before it can be in article space). Having fixed the improvement issues with the detailed list, I restored it to the article, and started fixing the redirects, which had been corrupted by the draftification. I stopped when Praxidicae took issue with the cleanup for all the aforementioned motives. — Guarapiranga ☎ 02:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  The issue with the redirects isn't just your "fixes" it's the fact that you created over 600+ of them in a single hour period without any discussion or consensus and no bot flags. PRAXIDICAE🌈 02:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  If there indeed is an issue with creating redirects semi-automatically, I'm happy to oblige, Praxidicae, but AFAIK, as I've pointed it to you on my talk page, WP:MASSCREATION excplicitly applies to all "content pages", broadly meaning pages designed to be viewed by readers through the mainspace, including articles, most visible categories, files hosted on Wikipedia, mainspace editnotices, and portals, not redirects (which were explicitly excluded in the original discussion referred to in the policy). Your reponse to my quoting policy was:

  You had over 1000 creations in mainspace, with absolutely no consensus to do so in less than 60 minutes. Do you not see how this is a problem? In any case, I'm done discussing it here, you can do it at ANI.

  ... not any other policy ref, or problem with my understanding of it. All you did was express outrage (am I really attributing emotion to you, or are you quite clearly expressing it?), say you were "done discussing it," and tell me to "do it at ANI." So here we are.— Guarapiranga ☎ 03:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  As there is currently a New Pages Patrol backlog of over 13,000 creating over 2900+ redirects in a short period without prior discussion at the AfC or NPP project talk does not seem to be taking the additional workload it would apply to others into account. Gusfriend (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  I hope they are not indexed, because they're all people's names. It might affect Google search results. Levivich^[block] 04:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  Plus making it just that little bit more effort to create a page for someone notable of the same name in the future. Gusfriend (talk) 04:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  I fear that any living person who shares a name with any of those victims will instantly become known for sharing a name with a victim, if these redirects hit google. Levivich^[block] 04:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  Is this really Wikipedia's problem to solve? Individuals have the exact same name as another has been known since the era of yellowbooks. Non-serious User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 01:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

  You are confusing a "problem to solve" with a problem we create. We sell our data to Google, and when we create 3,000 mainspace pages with titles that are common names like this, we affect the Google search results for those names, and that affects everyone who has those names. The number of affected people would be some multiple of 3,000. And we associate all those people with 9/11 for what reason? So that we can have 3,000 redirects to a list of victims of 9/11? If this sounds like a good idea for WP:BOLD editing to you, I don't know what to say other than I hope you don't edit BLPs. Levivich^[block] 05:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think we should take the NPP backlog into consideration when deciding whether articles or redirects are valid or appropriate to create. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  I totally agree about not taking the backlog into account when it is a low level of redirects but when there is such a large number in a very short period I would certainly feel uncomfortable creating them without reaching out to the NPP team first if only so that they had some context when they say them come in. Gusfriend (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Hey man im josh, @Gusfriend, users can be whitelisted so their redirects are.automatically patrolled, and it's.fairly easy to do with a script. ― Qwerfjkltalk 06:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  To add onto what Qwerfjkl said, admin's on the NPP team can add users to the autopatrol list. For non-admin adds, users can apply or be nominated at the talk page here. DannyS712's bot, DannyS712 bot III runs every 15 minutes, marking pages created by users on that list as patrolled. In my opinion this makes the number of redirects created not an issue. If getting added to the list needed to be expedited they could also reach out to Rosguill, provided they had a good history of creating redirects, or wanted to explain the intention or plan. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  The response I was hoping for was that you understood you shouldn't have reinstated your reverted bold edits without consensus, per WP:BRD, and should not have created 2,900+ redirects without seeking consensus first. Levivich^[block] 03:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  Since I have commented at the related AfD, I am involved and cannot take action as an admistrator. Since I cannot act, I recommend that an uninvolved administrator take whatever action is necessary to stop this disruption. Cullen328 (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  You would have seen in the threads I linked above that the issue raised by Liz, Cameron Dewe and Epicgenius were against the list's draftification, not against the list itself, Levivich. None of them raised any issue about the list being "massive", being about 9/11, or having redirects created semiautomatically. Those are issues Praxidicae—and apparently now you too—are now raising. If there is an issue, sure, let's deal with it, but:

  1. Please don't say I ignored anyone's concerns; and
  2. I'm yet to see a ref to any WP:POLICY I've broken (where's that "Google search results" part, for instance?). — Guarapiranga ☎ 04:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, I was surprised to see the draft list returned to mainspace on the rationale that draftifying the list broke the thousands of redirects. Levivich^[block] 04:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  You know, I'm going to say more @Guarapiranga. First, I didn't say you ignored anyone's concerns. Second, don't give me this bullshit about "policy" vs. guideline vs. just common f'ing sense. You created redirects in the names of almost three thousand people and directed them to a list of 9/11 victims. If you create a redirect, "John Doe" and target it to "List of 9/11 victims", when people Google "John Doe", it's gonna come up with information saying John Doe died in 9/11. Do you not see how that's at least potentially something we should discuss before we do this to almost three thousand names? It's fucking common sense, OK? Stop arguing with us and realize what you're playing with here is serious shit that affects living people. Thank God you're not autopatrolled! Levivich^[block] 04:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  1. Be WP:CIVIL.
  2. Stop arguing?? Am I not being asked to explain myself here?
  3. The list wasn't returned to mainspace on the rationale that draftifying the list broke the thousands of redirects; I returned it bc I fixed the problems that led Onetwothreeip to draftify it in the 1st place (which had nothing to do with the redirects whatsoever; those only became an issue after Onetwothreeip draftified the article instead of reverting it).
  4. You say you didn't say I ignored anyone's concerns, yet you said I was well aware of the issues, and reinstated my reverted bold edits without consensus. You're contradicting yourself (on top of completely misrepresenting the facts).
  5. If you create a redirect, "John Doe" and target it to "List of 9/11 victims", when people Google "John Doe", it's gonna come up with information saying John Doe died in 9/11.
     1. It's gonna come up with information saying a John Doe died in 9/11.
     2. What's the problem with that?
  6. Do you not see how that's at least potentially something we should discuss before we do this to almost three thousand names?
     That's not WP:EDIT. Editors are encouraged to WP:BE BOLD, and WP:MASSCREATE applies to content pages, not redirects.

    — Guarapiranga ☎ 05:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think one should tell others to be civil exactly one edit after casting aspersions on the motivations of another editor. - Aoidh (talk) 06:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  Of course mainspace redirects are content pages. Redirects are pages - there'd be no need to distinguish pages and articles otherwise - and they're in the main content mainspace. Wikipedia:Content, for all that it's tagged as an essay and you were just about to wikilawyer about that, too, spells it out rather succinctly, with the same definition used everywhere else. That explicit exception in WP:MASSCREATE for "redirects from systematic names" doesn't mean what you think it means. —Cryptic 06:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  Levivich, this is not the place for nonsensical moralizing. How accurately non-notable individuals are presented on Google searches is... well, Google's problem, not Wikipedia's, because they're so non-notable they don't have any coverage. And for real, the WP:COMMONSENSE rationale, really? The one conservatives and right-wingers when they use everytime, cause empirical evidence never backs up what they say? User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 01:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

  ANI is absolutely the place for nonsensical moralizing. Is this your first time here? Levivich^[block] 01:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

  Levivich, I renew my proposal that we get married. EEng 03:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

  Will the Supreme Court still let us? Levivich^[block] 05:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

On a related note, what is the process to request bulk deletion of the redirects? Gusfriend (talk) 05:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Probably Wikipedia:Bot requests but you may need to show consensus first, I'm not sure how the potential issue of these being people's names might affect things. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 06:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

No need for a bot, Special:Nuke/Guarapiranga will let any admin who's not on his way to bed deal with it. —Cryptic 06:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

But what if I want to delete the Main Page? :) Jokes aside, thanks for that I didn't know about it until now :) PHANTOMTECH (talk) 06:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Guarapiranga did not create the main page, so no issue there. I have deleted the A-Z creations of redirects. So the R of BRD has happened. Discussion can continue. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

No worries, Graeme. I'd still like to understand what was wrong with them (before they were mangled by the draftification). Levivich was concerned they might affect Google search results, but why is that a problem (and not a good thing)? Gusfriend said they were a burden to the NPP backlog, but Hey man im josh, who reviewed most of them (as did DannyS712), said this shouldn't be a factor in deciding whether articles or redirects are valid or appropriate to create. Cryptic says redirects are content pages, but the discussion linked in WP:MASSCREATE explains that they added the qualifier content to pages precisely to make redirects the exception to the rule. He says explicit exception in WP:MASSCREATE for "redirects from systematic names" doesn't mean what I think it means, but doesn't offer any clarification either. — Guarapiranga ☎ 22:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Basically I am acting on behalf of those discussions above. I notice that no one supported the creation of all those redirects. Since it would be too hard to do an RFD, the complaint about indexing ( suppose WP:UNDUE would apply), and WP:MEATBOT applies. Perhaps the exclusion of redirects from should be removed. But I think this needs its own discussion. Bot like editing could result in a block. but I do not think that is appropriate, as that has stopped, and you are talking. Any very fast rate mass-editing is likely to stir up controversy, so should be supported by a discussion prior. Slow mass editing is usually not a problem, as people can object before too much has happened. Wikipedia:Bot policy applies if you are using an automated tool, whatever you are altering or creating on Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, @Graeme. I don't see any restrictions in WP:MEATBOT though (which, admittedly, I only became aware through this incident), other than an advice:

Editors who choose to use semi-automated tools to assist their editing should be aware that processes which operate at higher speeds, with a higher volume of edits, or with less human involvement are more likely to be treated as bots.

It does say that if there is any doubt, the editor should make a bot approval request, and in such cases, the Bot Approvals Group will determine whether the full approval process and a separate bot account are necessary. Had I been aware of WP:MEATBOT prior to creating the redirects, I don't think I'd still be requesting approval, as I don't think a separate bot account would've been necessary for it. Now, all this relates to WP:BOTPOL; I'd still like to understand what was wrong with the redirects themselves. How does WP:UNDUE apply? AFAIK, WP:UNDUE is about striking a balance of POVs across sources, when they differ, that is proportionate to their reliability, not about redirects. Is it? — Guarapiranga ☎ 23:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The UNDUE nature of the redirects, is that out of all the people with those names, the most important are those that are 9/11 victims. A separate discussion should take place about that in a more appropriate place, rather than here though. There has also been discussion whether it is appropriate to list victims of death causing events, and the outcome was on a case by case basis. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Graeme, I really don't understand that UNDUE argument.

1. WP:UNDUE clearly states its requirement is to:

   fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

   I don't see anything there about redirects causing undue weight to different people (or things) with the same name, do you?
2. Isn't that easily resolved with a dab page?

Now you bring up yet another discussion whether it is appropriate to list victims of death causing events, and the target keeps moving. — Guarapiranga ☎ 02:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Not started by me: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the September 11 attacks. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Right. That's a whole other discussion, no? I'm still trying to understand what is the incident being reported here... With such a variety of claims and accusations, from the redirects to the semi-automated editing to alleged undue weight and bias, with little to no ground in actual policy, and lastly but not leastly the attempted character assassination below, I'm befudlled at what the point of this whole topic really is. — Guarapiranga ☎ 05:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

If you cannot see your problem, you are at risk of getting into trouble again. You must not do rapid mass editing without getting approval first. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok. So the problem is not the redirects, Google search results, UNDUE, NOTMEMORIAL, or any other of the allegations above? Understood. Then perhaps WP:MASSCREATE should be made clearer that of course mainspace redirects are content pages, as Cryptic says (in spite of what the policy's linked discussion says), bc my understanding was the same as Qwerfjkl's when I asked about it on JWB's talk page. In fact, given the profusion of allegations that have now turned out blanks, it's still unclear to me whether I did indeed misunderstand the policy, or whether this is all an outburst of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, demanding prior approvals where none are policy required. — Guarapiranga ☎ 22:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm seeing a concerning pattern:

• G's account was created in March 2019 and started editing regularly in May 2019 (first 500 edits). Within their first 25 or so edits are talk page edits like their first one ("...Are you crazy?? I'll return you the same amount of time you gave my contribution to respond before undoing this vandalism (WP:DONTREVERT). "), this one accusing an editor of bias ("If you have a horse in this race, refrain from negatively campaigning against other candidates from the SAME party."), and doubling down ("And you say you don't have a horse in this race?! I find that very hard to believe.")
• June 2019 edit warring with combative edit summaries (accusing editors who revert of WP:DISRUPT) on multiple pages: bold, 2, 3, 4; another article: bold, 2, 3, first talk page comment on that article: "If you don't like the way I configured the map, why don't you get off your high horse of "not good enough", and help improve it? Move things forward, not backwards."
• First edit-warring warning in June 2019; G's response: "Did I start the war? No, I didn't."
• Second edit warring warning is the next section on that page, in October 2019. They file an ANEW report: "It is clear he has a POV on this topic, and that he is determined to impose it on Wikipedia by whatever means." (the page was protected)
• December 2019, they're blocked for a week with TPA revoked
• G made less than 20 edits over 14 months between Dec 2019 and April 2021, when they returned to active editing (xtools)
• A few months later, August 2021: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1074#Disruptive editing by User:Guarapiranga
• On August 3, G makes this edit, same tone as their 2019 edits, and took another effective break. On August 18, they archived some thread on their user talk page [225].
• G made <75 edits for six months between Sep 2021 and May 2022, when they again return to active editing (see xtools linked above).
• And here we are at ANI again a month later in June 2022.

This editing pattern is not sustainable. Levivich^[block] 03:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• I agree. They don't have a great attitude for a collaborative environment and every time they return to sustained editing they run into problems. They probably should have been indeffed in December 2019 (as the blocking administrator said at the time) and the discussion above is just more evidence of a time-sink WP:IDHT attitude. I would be minded to indef here and would welcome feedback. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  +1, warnings and time limited blocks have already been tried, and this is too broad for a tban. Levivich^[block] 15:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree that it is not sustainable. Gusfriend (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• My thoughts:
  Firstly, mass editing on its own is not necessarily disruptive. The rate limit is 90 edits per minute, so theoretically the maximum pages you could create in an hour is 5400, over 5 times as much as 1000 (not that I endorse high volume editing, but it could have been much worse). I agree with G's comment above that WP:MASSCREATION does not apply to redirects - redirects can be mainspace pages, but they aren't content pages, and the policy could certainly be clearer. The only valid problem I can see is the fact that a lot of pages for people's names have been created, of which some probably would be better served with a dab page. This discussion might have gone better, and not escalated, if G had started a discussion first about these redirects - that would probably be good future advice; that being said, I don't think this justifies a block. If the pages don't already exist, then the chances are they're not going to be dabs in the future, and redirects can always be turned into disambiguation pages (in my opinion, for what that counts). The main problem here (in addition to the only problem above) is not being WP:CIVIL. My own viewpoint may be somewhat biased - I've mass created redirects in the past, such as here. ― Qwerfjkltalk 15:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• There's far more aggressive language from you just a few comments above than what you've been able sleuth out of 3 years of my editing history, Levivich. You're grasping. — Guarapiranga ☎ 23:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Guarapiranga, Which parts of Levivich's posting are aggressive? I appreciate it does not make your editing history look good, so this would be a good moment to explain which parts are misleading or inaccurate. Black Kite (talk) 07:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  You know, I'm going to say more @Guarapiranga. First, I didn't say you ignored anyone's concerns. Second, don't give me this bullshit about "policy" vs. guideline vs. just common f'ing sense. You created redirects in the names of almost three thousand people and directed them to a list of 9/11 victims. If you create a redirect, "John Doe" and target it to "List of 9/11 victims", when people Google "John Doe", it's gonna come up with information saying John Doe died in 9/11. Do you not see how that's at least potentially something we should discuss before we do this to almost three thousand names? It's fucking common sense, OK? Stop arguing with us and realize what you're playing with here is serious shit that affects living people. Thank God you're not autopatrolled!

  At best, this is a simple case of disagreement over WP:MASSCREATE's scope (especifically, whether or not redirects classify as content pages, which could've been dealt with at the proper forum), as other allegations (of UNDUE, NOTMEMORIAL and Google search results) seem to have pitted out without basis on policy; at worst, it's unnecessary WP:HOUNDING, WP:HARASSMENT and lynching. — Guarapiranga ☎ 08:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed sanctions

• Support INDEF - It's high time that WP:MEATBOT was given teeth. Especially when the behaviour is paired with WP:MASSCREATE it is the most disruptive behaviour possible on this website, since creating such articles is the work of a minute or less each, whilst deleting them is often the work of a week+. It can result in thousands of man-hours of editor time being thrown away trying to clear up the mess created by others. We saw this in the Carlossuarez46 case. We saw this in the Ruigeroeland case. We're seeing this in the Lugnuts case. Clearly warnings have already been made and the subject of them did not listen. This community needs to protect itself against and stop these time-sinks. FOARP (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
  • @FOARP, I don't want to be too argumentative, but it is the most disruptive behaviour possible on this website seems unnecessary, and deleting them is often the work of a week+ seems wrong; apparently "any admin who's not on his way to bed [can] deal with it". This doesn't exactly seem like thousands of man-hours of editor time. Please try to check your statements before posting them. Thank you. ― Qwerfjkltalk 16:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Qwerfjkl - I stand by my statement. Anyone can just go and look at the massive task created by, for example, Ruigeroeland for his clean-up team, and Carlossuarez46 for the California GEOstubs clean-up team, can see the issues that it has created for them. Thousands of hours is an entirely reasonable statement for the impact of abuse of WP:MEATBOT/WP:MASSCREATE given that the two teams above have been operational for years and their tasks are still not yet quite finished. The seven-day period needed for deletion of an article via AFD is of course well-known. FOARP (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@FOARP, thank you for clarifying your points above. ― Qwerfjkltalk 19:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Clearly warnings have already been made and the subject of them did not listen.

Not true, FOARP. Clearly, you didn't read when I said it above that I only became aware of WP:MEATBOT through this incident, or when Graeme Bartlett also said above that while bot like editing could result in a block, he does not think that is appropriate, as that has stopped, and I am talking (though I've also been told by some people here to shut up, stop arguing, and 'get the point', with no recourse to explaining myself, in a clear attempt to Kafkatrap me). If you want WP:MEATBOT to be given teeth, the place to do it is in policy pages, not here at AN/I, with a showtrial. — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support indef per FOARP - reading their latest responses and complete lack of understanding of how disruptive their rate of editing is and was leads me to believe that we're going to wind up exactly in this situation again if action isn't taken, combine that with their combativeness and it's a recipe for disaster. At minimum, a mainspace block and outright ban from creating redirects and any automated or semi-automated editing should be prohibited, either by edit restriction or block. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• In case I didn't make it clear above, I oppose a block (though not necessarily some other sanction of some sort). I don't believe a high edit rate is necessarily disruptive. ― Qwerfjkltalk 19:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as the redirects themselves are not in the scope of WP:MASSCREATE and they've been all nuked anyway. Obviously, if a similar incident happened from the same editor at a point in the future, that would require a further discussion. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose an indef block as the redirects no longer exist and the article is at AfD meaning that things are under control. Having said that I find myself agreeing with Praxidicae above about their understanding and responses and would not be surprised to see them return here in future. Gusfriend (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC) 02:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

  Whilst I do not wish to support an indef block I withdraw my opposition due to their use of the word showtrial to describe a discussion of sanctions at ANI. Gusfriend (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

  I used the term, in its strictest sense, of using my sanctioning as both an impressive example and a warning to other would-be dissidents or transgressors,^[226] specifically to describe FOARP's rationale for it to give teeth to WP:MEATBOT,^[2] not the discussion in general, Gusfriend. — Guarapiranga ☎ 07:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. Although I understand the MEATBOT concerns, everything else here is total nonsense. Who cares in what time patterns a user edits, and what does it mean for it to be "sustainable"? WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, people. User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 01:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose although there may be a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, a block could be used to stop disruption, but disruptive activity has ceased. So no need. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive POV-pushing IP

I have edited the pages Tunisian people and Tunisian Arabic to add sources to the unsourced areas, however the IP address 2603:7080:301:A358:8580:23C0:B5B9:90EC/2603:7080:301:A358:3427:8DD7:1CB4:CA2F kept reverting my edits without explaining and deleting the sources I added. The IP even accused me of making political edits and an ideological stance in the edit summaries. I also warned the IP on their talk page to stop edit warring [227] but they ignored it and broke the three-revert rule on both pages. Reporting this situation to the edit warring noticeboard only led to one of those pages getting semi-protected, ignoring the addition of my sourced edits. 86.129.184.51 (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP. You made changes that were reverted, what you should have done at that point is try to get the other IP to discuss the changes on the articles ntalk page (per WP:BRD). You have instead edit warred to get the changes to stick, the other IP is equally guilty of edit warring the other way. Tunisian Arabic has now been locked due to this, and neither of you will be able to edit it for awhile. The same will likely happen to Tunisian people if you continue. I suggest taking the time to start a conversation on the articles talk pages, try to find out why you were reverted and if you can persuade the other IP that you changes are right. Hopefully the two of you can come to a compromise. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit summary need redaction (RD2, RD3)

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.

---

An admin needs to redact the edits of the last two IPs on Yazidism.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yazidism&action=history] Thanks. Semsûrî (talk) 13:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

There's also some vulgar comments here[228]. Semsûrî (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

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.

Anyone know how this IP is able to edit so quickly?

2A02:C7D:F01A:2400:1567:8923:5076:6600 (talk · contribs) Doug Weller talk 11:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I've done that before a number of times and I've never used any tools for anything, ever. I just set up all the tabs then click submit from one to the next really fast. (Note: /64) El_C 12:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

3-4 edits per minute of the same type? I see nothing untoward about that, unless I'm missing something. Mackensen (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks folks. I guess that's sufficient. Doug Weller talk 13:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Adderall helps too. :) NebulaOblongata (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Field's mall shooting

Page protection and possible rev deletion needed at Field's mall shooting. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Page protection put in place by Sdrqaz. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Longterm disruption by multiple IP ranges at Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic

Aside from the obvious band aid of locking the article, the issues are how far back the disruption goes, and how deep a reversion is called for. Hoping wiser heads than mine can ascertain the answers. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Ollieinc, you've tried admirably to keep up with this. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Bookspamming

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.

---

I've deleted several edits by Vedantabooks2022 (talk · contribs), issued a COI warning to no apparent effect, and reported to AIV. User is adding references only to books published by the Vedanta Society of St. Louis. Requesting more eyes. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked by Widr. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

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.

Another CIR/IDHT editor - AmericanEditor350

While I do think this editor means well, their edits are ultimately disruptive and, well, pointless for lack of a better word and they seem to be unwilling to listen to reasoning from multiple experienced editors (Theroadislong, Curbon7, Rubbish computer, Velella etc...) They have created a handful of articles about x people in y place that are poorly sourced, unsourced or otherwise just a single factoid that can easily be covered in Immigration to/of XYZ country, if at all. Not to mention, in many cases, their content is outright incorrect, where they've done terrible original research and cited numbers that simply don't exist. I have repeatedly asked them to stop creating these, as have others and all of them are currently at AFD, overwhelmingly slated for deletion and other users make a relevant point, this opens up a precedent for silly things like Minnesotans in Iowa, etc...

• Malians in Sweden
• Kenyans in Norway
• Cameroonians in Norway
• Senegalese people in Norway
• Zimbabweans in Italy
• Sierra Leoneans in Italy
• Cameroonians in Italy
• Senegalese people in Sweden
• Guineans in Italy
• Beninese people in Italy
• Guineans in Sweden
• Kenyans in Italy
• (This isn't including any in draft space)

So here I am, after discussing with the user followed by their complete lack of understanding of norms here asking for a p-block from mainspace or an editing restriction prohibiting them from editing or creating such articles as they cannot be trusted to do so within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia and are at best misrepresenting what sources actually say, if they exist at all.

I also recognize that I haven't been quite as diplomatic as the other editors who've tried to help them but it doesn't appear sugar coating things, breaking them down or being direct gets through. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

As an example of some poorly sourced crufty factoids: According to the 2016 census, there are 7,240 Guineans who live in Canada. 3,785 of those people are men, while 3,455 of them are women. Most Guineans are Muslim. Most Guineans in Canada live in Quebec (5,255) and Ontario (1,105). which I can't for the life of me figure out what it's supposed to be sourced to. from this PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I got the population information off of some website. And I know that Most of Guinea’s population is Muslim, so it would make sense to write that Most Guineans are Muslim AmericanEditor350 (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

This doesn't even begin to address the substance or merits of my complaint, like the rest of your "explanations." PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Warned. AmericanEditor350, attributing your claim to some website (sounds mysterious!) is basically meaningless. You need to adhere to the reliable soruces guideline (WP:RS), an essential pillar of the verifiability policy (WP:V), as well as avoid doing your own original research (WP:OR) or otherwise synthesis (WP:SYNTH). Thank you. El_C 17:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this user would benefit greatly from a WP:Mentorship. Curbon7 (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree given their inclination to ignore all other advice and do as they please anyway. They can have a mentorship simultaneously with a ban from mainpace/article creation of this nature. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Someone else may remember this, but I'm pretty sure we've had an editor previously who has created lots of articles like this. My memory isn't good enough to remember who, though. Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

A few days ago I found a similar created article that was g5'd, but I can't remember what it was and I remember digging into a comparison and it didn't connect (as in, the dots didn't connect between the two accounts for me to pursue an SPI)

With that being said, there are many AFDs that have been used in the past to delete nearly identical articles, so there's a precedent already. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah, yes @Black Kite this was the relevant article that was deleted by way of AFD precedent, which I should have just used to tag the rest instead of wasting all of our time at AFD. And this one which you closed. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, yes, Prax! Your suggestion is music to my ears! Atsme 💬 📧 18:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

hey, I mean if you wanna tag 'em... PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I honestly do need some mentorship, honestly. Am I am absolutely truly sorry if I have been disrupting Wikipedia. I should have token the advice. I do need some help creating articles. I never wanted to disrupt Wikipedia at all, or violate any guidelines. User:Praxidicae, User:Curbon7, User:Theroadislong, User:Rubbish computer, User:Velella, I just want to apologize to you all for not taking advice in the first place. I got all of this information off of websites that mention Statistics, such as Statistics Sweden, Statistics Norway, ISTAT, etc. I came here to Wikipedia with the intent to edit and create pages on diasporas. I never wanted to violate any Wikipedia guidelines, ever. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

As Praxidicae says, and as I have noted on AE350's user talk page, most of the information they added to the articles they created can not be found in the websites they used as sources – it's original research at best, and partially incorrect or misleading guesswork. Unfortunately, after their 24-h block expired, AE350 immediately made new disruptive unsourced edits of the same kind, [229][230]. I support a p-block from mainspace to limit the time sink for other editors. --bonadea contributions talk 11:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi AmericanEditor350, my offer for mentorship still stands. I would take a break from creating new articles for the time being, as a start. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 19:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

And I’ll be taking a break from creating articles for the time being. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

AmericanEditor350, please stop spamming user talk pages with the same question, as you've done here, here, here and elsewhere. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a social media site. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry don't forget this, this and this among others. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not spamming. I'm only asking that question once, and that's it. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

What relevance does this line of questioning have to editing an encyclopedia? Do you plan to use their answers as sources? PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

No. I’m just asking these questions out of curiosity, Praxidicae. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's a misuse of user talk pages and is unwelcomed. Listen, AmericanEditor350, not to be harsh, but if you can't focus on what this project is about—writing an encyclopedia (WP:ENC)—then maybe it'd be best that you find another avenues for this sort of thing, like a message board, a blog, and so on. El_C 23:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I won’t ask these question on User pages again. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• And in case we needed more evidence that AE350's word cannot be trusted, they've continued to undo constructive edits after adequate explanation as to why.[231][232] PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours: User_talk:AmericanEditor350#Block. El_C 01:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

is this just a temp measure based on the edit warring or as the outcome here? PRAXIDICAE🌈 01:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. El_C 01:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@El C: ah, understood. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 05:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

User JamesJohn82 has resumed self-promotion after one week block

User:JamesJohn82 was blocked by User:RegentsPark for self-promotion for promoting jagatgururampalji.org. He apologised but has since returned to adding references to that website. The discussion was carried out on this page but unfortunetly, I can't figure out how to restore it properly. Kenm v2 (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1101 § User:JamesJohn82 giving me warnings for fixing his edits - 174.21.23.32 (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) with the IP above. Thank you, IP. This discussion? It doesn't have to be restored; readers are encouraged to just follow the link. Note my own comment right at the end, saying that if JamesJohn82 continues their egregious sourcing errors after RegentsPark's block expires, an indefinite block might be appropriate. It may be a little too soon for that right now, however, since I can only see one reference JJ82 has made to their own site after the block and the apology, here. It's one too many, though. I have blocked for two weeks. Bishonen | tålk 14:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC).

Esetok

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

Can someone explain to Esetok that we don't make personal attacks and aspersions towards other users just because they don't agree with us?

dear false historian of Iran, I've deleted false information without sources

You are false "historian", reverting edits and adding fake information in articles.

This is nothing new, back in January 2021 he was already unpleasant to discuss with [233]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• User HistoryofIran adding false information to articles (fake names, ignoring all sources - Iranica/Encyclopaedia of Islam/etc.) and reverting edits. Just read talk pages: Talk:Bindu of Bukhara, Talk:Rashid al-Din Vatvat. Nothing to say more. --Esetok (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Esetok: So, you concede that your conduct is unacceptable? And you understand that if you do it again, you are likely to be blocked? —C.Fred (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Dear C.Fred, if the English Wikipedia continues to contain false information and no one is allowed to remove it without the permission of this person (HistoryofIran), then please block me for as long as you see fit. I will find it more useful to contribute to those Wikipedias where it is allowed to remove fake information from hoaxers (I have already explained why this information is unreliable and provided links to sources). Thanks. --Esetok (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• I would have to agree with C. Fred. Any more personal attacks or accusations(like the one above) from Esetok, should result in them receiving a block.--Kansas Bear (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Esetok, the issue here is not the content dispute. Rather, it is your pattern of insulting other editors. If you stop that misbehavior, it then becomes possible to discuss the content in a collaborative way. So, will you stop the insults? Cullen328 (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Now indefinitely blocked by Bbb23. Cullen328 (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Pro-Kremlin talking points by IP

I'll start by saying I'm not actually sure if I'm justified in opening this report as no rules have been explicitly broken.

24.42.166.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is an WP:SPA, almost all of whose contributions have been promoting pro-Kremlin propaganda at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War and Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. They seem to have a clear agenda and I don't find that any of their contributions have been constructive or even made in good faith. The IP has suggested renaming the Russo-Ukranian war "USA's proxy war with Russia"[234] or "US/NATO Proxy war with Russia", [235] they've said that it's "false" to say "Russia launched a full-scale invasion",[236] and they've made a series of posts talking about "Western propaganda" that I can't link to as they were RevDel'd. Almost every one of their contributions can be described as tendentious.

Again, I was hesitant to open this report as there is no strict rule-breaking. At the same time, we're not dumb and it seems very clear this user isn't here to construct a neutral encyclopedia and instead wants to troll talk pages with ridiculous pro-Russian propaganda. Other users have also expressed frustration with this IP, including @Slatersteven,[237] @Acroterion,[238] and @Lute88.[239] As full disclosure I'll say I've removed one of the IP's comments (which they reverted) and hatted a bad-faith discussion. — Czello 13:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I would rather have waited as they are a new account, but right now I am getting strong wp:nothere vibes. Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

It is likely a user that has already been blocked. Good riddance.--Aristophile (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I recognize this person from Wikiquote (style, IP range, etc.) where his IP and sockpuppet army (example) have been banned for exactly this behavior. I strongly recommend shutting him down every time you see him. Everything this person does is tendentious, and pushes the idea that the US is behind everything evil that is happening in the world, etc. etc. Absolutely WP:NOTHERE and a colossal waste of time. Antandrus (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

With that, block em. Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I had no idea this user was active on Wikiquote. Thank you. — Czello 14:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

That explains why they sought to transplant quotefarms into WP, which I had to revdel as copyvios. Probably worth looking for other cross-wiki abuse.Acroterion (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Oooh boy. Yes. Have a look at this WQ noticeboard section about the problem. We never did finish that cleanup, but it would be good to obliterate any copyvios here, of course. Antandrus (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Antandrus There are a some unblocked accounts on this wiki, including Will-SeymoreIII which has edited recently. Perhaps they should also be blocked? Girth Summit _(blether) 15:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Wow. This person has been mighty active. Where are we policy-wise on this? I've just issued a 3-month block on the IP. It's absolutely certain that is the same person. What do you all think? Will look for other socks presently (a CU wouldn't hurt, if any are watching). Antandrus (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I've found three so far:

• GaneshaSis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Libraryclerk0191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WeNotMeC020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm going to shut them down as abusing multiple accounts. Antandrus (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Range block in order? Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I've seen three ranges on WQ so far - will have to dig a bit to find them. Any CUs watching? Antandrus (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm a CU. I have taken a look, but am limited by policy in what I can say with regards to making connections between accounts and CUs. The Will-SeymoreIII account was editing out of an IP that did a lot of logged out editing; there weren't any other accounts on that IP. WeNotMeC020 edited out of a completely different IP, which does have an unused account on it (possibly a sleeper), but I'm not confident enough to block without more evidence. There's no other activity on that IP. The other accounts mentioned are long-since stale. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok -- no worries -- I will try to dig them out using non-CU methods. I have some offline-life kinds of things going on so may not be right away. Antandrus (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Found one more - Om777om (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - and also found one IP (131.) which has no edits here. I remember another but can't seem to find it at the moment. Antandrus (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Found the third one - (24.214.) no edits on enwiki. Antandrus (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Avica1998

Special:Contributions/Avica1998 has been running riot over Taylor Lorenz with little but a hand wave at talk page consensus.

• I lost count of their reverts but they've blown past 4RR in the past 24 hours.
• Despite warnings, they continue to label the good-faith edits of other Wikipedians as vandalism (eg. [240], [241]).
• They are massively overtagging the article. For example, this version of the article has ten of their tags in a four-sentence section.
• Collaborating with this user is challenging or impossible. In this series of talk page comments, I responded to just one of their failed verification tags with a request for clarification and got stonewalled.

I haven't yet reviewed their contributions in other areas, but I'd like to see at least a temporary page block, as some more talk page consensus-building would help. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

one or more editors have laid claim to this article and refuse to allow inlines pointing out the deficiencies as set forth in the history section by multiple users. Avica1998 (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

That is an unfair assessment of what is happening, Avica1998. Avica1998 has been warned multiple times of edit warring, mis-labeling edits as vandalism, and failing to engage in meaningful discussion to build consensensus. Seems to want to just steamroll to get their way. I, and others, have tried ot make reasonable edits and comments, to no avail. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

In taking a look, I would agree that the editing by Avica1998 is disruptive to the article and disrespectful to the editing community at large. Particularly concerning is the massive reverts that falsely accuse other editors of vandalism and otherwise misrepresent the contributions of others or materials being altered. I think a temporary block of all editing privileges and a permanent article block is warranted as there appears to be an editing bias at work here which prevents neutral editing on this subject. 4meter4 (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

The only block needed here is a WP:BOOMERANG for you. Blocks are not given punitively for bad edits made in good faith, and you should know that. Metallic Lord (talk) 05:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Just noting that this is this editor's second edit ever, and their first edit is related to the same article that is being discussed directly one section below this one. Nothing suspicious here! Sergecross73 msg me 05:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:AGF, plus the litany of essays about new users not needing to be novice. And even assuming bad faith, maybe I'm Joe jobbing on behalf of Avicii. Or paid by a shadowy government organization to add minor errors to the source of truth future ai will use to train itself, leaving a few glitches for the future resistance movements to fight back against a robotic menace. Sus. Also, maybe I vented. Metallic Lord (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Someone else has now blocked this editor for socking, so please disregard. Sergecross73 msg me 13:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Reversions involving removal of [non-primary source needed]. Currently applicable to:

use of Substack as reference in "Early life and education" section. "Substack articles are self-published blogs (WP:BLPSPS)." Endwise (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

court documents used as reference in "2021 lawsuit" subsection. "you can't use primary court case documents in a BLP (WP:BLPPRIMARY)..."Endwise (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)"|date=June 2022}} Avica1998 (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Plagiarism, 2021 lawsuit section. see talk page Avica1998 (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Why is the article selectively choosing from the subject's prior media experience, why is that experience not chronological and why does the last 11 months of that experience take up three quarters of the article? Avica1998 (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Avica1998: You’ve continued to add back your edits despite several users asking you to take the issues to the talk page first for consensus and despite the ongoing discussion here on ANI. Please refrain from editing the Taylor Lorenz article until these discussions have concluded. X-Editor (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

there will never be a consensus on this page as long as there is selective editing taking place butadmin convo is concluded Avica1998 (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I will refrain until convo is concluded. There will never be a consensus on that article due to the history. See talk page and view history. requires admin eyes on. Avica1998 (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Why are the editors selectively choosing from the subject's prior media experience, why is that experience not chronological and why does the last 11 months of that experience take up three quarters of the article? Avica1998 (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

On the talk page this editor is claiming that because certain sources require a subscription to access the contents of the article are unverifiable. I explained WP:SOURCEACCESS to them, in response they stated that the subscription login page does not contain the quote from the source, so the quote is therefore unverifiable. As I see it there are two possibilities here:

1. Avica1998 is deliberately timewasting with ridiculous arguments to try to get their way, and accordingly need a block for disruptive editing.
2. Avica1998 is legitimately unable to understand "you need to pay for and login to this website to access it", in which case they need a block for Lacking the competence to edit here.

In either case I do not think it a good use of the communities time to allow them to continue editing. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Example from the article's talk page:

@Avica1998 tags citations behind paywall precluding verification of peacock prose used in quote

@192.76.8.85 gets abusive, cites WP:SOURCEACCESS

@Sideswipe9th agrees w/ @192.76.8.85 re WP:SOURCEACCESS but demonstrates solution to precluding verification

someone edits the quote to fix the problem

still does not address the concerns shared by 128.235.13.0 talk at 20:45, 27 June 2022‎‎ Avica1998 (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taylor_Lorenz#Use_of_Primary_Sources as illustrative of the scope of the problem Avica1998 (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

In addition to persistent CIR problems around tagging, some of the preceding comment is untrue. IP 192 was not abusive in explaining SOURCEACCESS (tho gave a sharp warning when the explanation was ignored) and no one changed the quote—the sentence remains the same as it was before Avica began making hundreds of edits to this entry on June 21: "Fortune stated that she has "cemented herself as a peerless authority" whose name became "synonymous with youth culture online" during her time with The Daily Beast and The Atlantic.” (June 20 rev.) I am concerned for the level of disruption whatever the reason for it. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Avica1998 has edited problematically on Tim Pool as well. In this series of edits, they added enough promotional material in favor of Pool and enough negative material about his critics that another editor reverted it on suspicion of paid editing. The edits included an untrue and unsourced description of the Election Integrity Partnership as partisan and addition of negative material about Taylor Lorenz cited to sources which don't mention Pool at all. And one of the sources was an opinion piece, making these edits hypocritical, as they add an opinion tag to a straight news piece from The Independent, along with some fake failed verification tags. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Examine for bias (from the article talk page, references removed):

Lorenz worked for the Daily Mail from 2011-2014. After a short stint writing for the The Daily Dot in 2014,she was a technology reporter for Business Insider from 2014-2017. In 2017 she wrote briefly for The Hill’s blog section, and was assaulted by a counter-protesterin Charlottesville, Virginia. From 2019-2022 she was a technology reporter for the The New York Times, during which time she was made a Visiting Fellow at Harvard University’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society by the Nieman Foundation for Journalism. She likewise signed a contract with publisher Simon & Schuster for a book titled Extremely Online: Gen Z, the Rise of Influencers, and the Creation of a New American Dream and was sued for defamation resultant from one of her articles. The book has yet to be published and the lawsuit is ongoing. Avica1998 (talk) 03:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Avica1998:: this is not the place for content discussion/disputes. If you think there is bias, bring it up on the relevant talk page. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Avica1998: I'm confused by you response. Can you clarify you now understand that you should not tag content as failed verification just because the reliable source is behind and paywall and you do not have access; and you should also generally not remove it either? If you wish to verify content behind a paywall yourself, there are various ways you can try and obtained access as outlined to you, and if for some reason you have strong reasons to doubt something and you cannot view the source, it's generally acceptable to tag it with {{verificationneeded}}. But I can't see any situation where it makes sense to tag something as {{failedverification}} if the problem is that you were not able to obtain access because the source is behind a paywall. To be clear, whatever other problems may or may not have existed with the content in question, this does not make it okay for you to have tagged something as failed verification because you the source was behind a paywall. Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

See article talk page and "Excessive Citations", Plagiarism and the plagiarized content removed from the article and that may help you understand when plagiarized content is hidden behind a cited paywall source. Avica1998 (talk) 04:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• I took Taylor Lorenz off my watchlist because Avica1998 was too frustrating to deal with. Steamrolling an entire article when you're too new to Wikipedia to understand how everything works, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines etc., is bad enough on its own, but just reverting the article back to your preferred versions whenever multiple other editors take issues with your edits is incredibly, incredibly disruptive. I don't really have the patience to continue dealing with this time sink, so I'll leave my comments at that. Endwise (talk) 06:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Their continued refusal to engage in any meaningful discussion is increasingly frustrating. Latest at Talk:Taylor_Lorenz#Selective_biography. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• There is, and has been since this section was created, ample evidence for the inevitable outcome of this. Why do we keep getting into such long discussions with trolls rather than blocking them as soon as it is clear that they are trolls? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Persistent WP:NAT behavior that has escalated to WP:NPA - User:Botushali

Botushali has been warned by multiple editors for nationalist POV pushing behavior for many months. Their recent violation of WP:NPA in the course of their actions has triggered this notice. In November 2021, Botushali was warned by other editors for edit warring in the context of nationalist POV pushing.[242] In February 2022, Botushali was warned for disruptive edits across four pages in the context of nationalist POV pushing.[243] In June 2022, Botushali was reminded of the discretionary sanctions at hand for disruptive editing in the area of Balkan/Eastern European articles, an area Botushali dedicates 100% of their efforts to.[244]. Examples of Botushali's behavior includes use of extreme emotive language across talk pages and edits [245][246][247]. Botushali in recent times has had a fixation with the demographic history of Kosovo. Botushali has removed text that referenced Serbs living in the region in the Middle Ages on the basis that the Ottoman census at the time didn't mention ethnicity.[248][249][250][251] Botushali unsurprisingly added text that references to a historical presence of Albaniains in Kosovo during the Middle Ages, using references from the Ottoman census which they themselves claimed didn't list ethnicity.[252] [253][254]. Such one-sided edits create significant disruption and in defense of similar content, Botushali called another Wikipedia editors actions in removing such content as "pathetic" and that of "stupidity".[255] A sanction is requested in order to curtail this ongoing behavior. ElderZamzam (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Being interested in a subject doesn't make editing about it nationalist POV pushing. I am interested in Albanian history, but I'm interested in writing about it from a perspective which agrees with academic consensus. I don't see the language I have used in the selected examples as "extreme emotive" but ElderZamzam is free to report it on AE if he considers it a problem. In regards to the content itself, ElderZamzam says that I removed content about Serbs because "Ottoman defters don't mention ethnicity" but added content about Albanians even though in my previous argument I stated that they don't mention ethnicity. Like many problems here, this has to do with a misunderstanding of what has been written; ElderZamzam says that I added text that references to a historical presence of Albanians in Kosovo during the Middle Ages, using references from the Ottoman census which they themselves claimed didn't list ethnicity However, this is not the case [256] I cited the defter information but didn't connect it directly to Albanian ethnicity - rather, I connected it to Albanian anthroponymy in a linguistic sense because the defters themselves don't mention ethnicity. The problem isn't that I used the same argument for opposite reasons, but that ElderZamzam has to understand the difference between language and ethnicity. If I say that most people in a village have Albanian names, I'm not saying that they were Albanians in an ethnic sense. It's likely a rational conclusion, but it's not something which I've written because the source doesn't go that far. Furthermore, on the pages of Prizren and Novo Brdo, I have added sources on the prevalence of Slavic toponomy; you can distinguish between Slavic and Albanian anthroponomy based on the names of household heads present in the defters, but you cannot distinguish between a Serb and a Bulgarian since they both have Slavic anthroponomy and therefore those sources that claim "Serb" ethnicity of inhabitants with Slavic names are invalid.

[257] In this case I did use the term "pathetic" and I did so because truly it got to a point where a source was being removed and called "extremist" without any WP:RSN about it whatsoever. If everybody removed sources they consider "extremist", then Wikipedia wouldn't be able to function. There is a process which wasn't followed and nobody even justified any such edit on the TP Talk:Novi Pazar. This is why I reverted and used this term, which I wouldn't normally use on Wikipedia and don't intend to use in the future. The source was being called "extremist" because it allegedly mentioned Albanian presence in a village near a city in today's southern Serbia. Why would the mentioning of other ethnicities in modern Balkan nation-states which were once like most of the Balkans, multi-ethnic and multi-confessional, be extremist in itself? For this simple observation, ElderZamzam considers my stance to be "nationalist POV-pushing". Additionally, labelling a publishing house as an extremist organisation is simply out of order; extremist organisations commit acts of terror and violence amongst other such things, they do not publish books.

I am interested in Albanian history but I am interested in writing about it accurately. I checked to see what the "extremist" source writes but it doesn't mention the information. Content which was added, removed, added (by me procedurally as there was no RS reason to remove it), removed and added again by many users wasn't mentioned in the source. So I removed it myself [258]. I did so because I'm interested in writing valid articles and this isn't nationalist POV pushing, which is a comment on the reasons behind my edits and is in fact a form of WP:ASPERSION. I am open to any questions which any admins consider reasonable. Botushali (talk) 03:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS? Really? You mean like "...utterly pathetic. Stop the stupidity, it's just annoying? I believe you owe me an apology. Btw I have seen editors banned at AE for a lot less. Just saying. Khirurg (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

You called a Publishing House an "extremist organisation" - that's absolutely ridiculous. As I mentioned previously, extremist organisations commit acts of terror and violence, not publish books. As far as I'm concerned, the tone I have used with you is the same tone you have previously used with me, which has been condescending and patronising:

• Vjosa TP - "Desperation much?... You are new around here, so try to learn something instead of dishing out "advice" to users with vastly more experience than you. ... No, you can't because it's a bunch of nonsense."
• Kitsos Tzavelas edit history, 18th November 2021 - "We've been over this at Souliotes, no way." You used a similar Nope. on Markos Botsaris' edit history. Very dismissive, unamicable attitude.
• Illyrians TP - "Try again. ... Read my comment above and stop pretending you didn't hear that..."
• Illyrians TP - "You can ping each other and agree with each other all you want, it doesn't change anything..."

I do not see an amicable tone here, Khirurg? I believe an apology from you is in order. Let's not forget this same supercilious, dismissive tone is used by you against several other Wikipedia editors - I can show you many, many examples if you like. It's not a very nice way to interact with your fellow editors... Botushali (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

So instead of apologizing, doubling down and going on the offensive using anything you can dig up eh ("Nope"? Really?) That's ok. But be aware if this goes to AE, your record will come under intense scrutiny, and going on the offensive will not going to work there. Khirurg (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Southwestmetal

User:Southwestmetal has been edit warring on Sonic Frontiers and the accompanying image ([259] [260] [261] [262] [263]; see also image history). User has not provided any reason to change the image, has already been warned, and has refused to engage with other users (even when I started a talk page discussion myself). -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I've placed a final warning on their talk page. Also, @Cyberlink420: you engaged in substantial edit warring on File:Sonic Frontiers gameplay screenshot.png, a mess I had to clean up by deleting a dozen previous versions of the image. This should have gone to WP:AN/EW long before this. In the future, if you find yourself in this situation, please do so. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for that. Will make sure to be more careful going forward. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

A minute after I placed the final warning on their talk page, they continued the edit war. I've blocked them for 31 hours. They're appealing their block, but given their unwilling to recognize their error, it's not likely the block appeal will succeed. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay. If the ban expires and they immediately get back to it, I'll take things straight to AN/EW next time. Thanks much for your help, and apologies for the trouble. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Once the block expires, if they continue the edit war I will block them for a considerably longer period of time. If they do, please do not continue to revert them. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Earlier I noticed that this user installed Twinkle on their very first edit, uses the wrong name in their signature, and tried to game 3RR 30 edits into their career, which seemed rather precocious to me. I was going to ask if anyone wanted to play "guess the sockmaster" but apparently there's this now. —{Canucklehead} 05:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I've just blocked User:Metallic Lord as a suspected sockpuppet of Southwestmetal. WP:QUACK. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Given the CU findings and the actions of Metallic Lord since their indef, I've opened an SPI case for all of these accounts. —{Canucklehead} 22:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

6 reverts, all separate edits

I have spent a lot of time and effort improving a page over three days and essentially all of it has been reverted by User:SPECIFICO. This occurred at Trump Tower wiretapping allegations which is admittedly a touchy article but I have shown much willingness to discuss any issues on the talk page in order to get consensus. User:SPECIFICO, on the other hand, has been very unresponsive on the talk page, only posting twice asking what I'm "trying to achieve"? I'm trying to improve the page, which would seem to go without saying. This has occurred by the same user on the same page in 2017. And while those two users have seemed to mend bridges, the repeated occurrences are concerning and frustrating to relatively new users as myself. As far as I am aware, we should "revert only when necessary" (WP:BADREVERT) and prioritize making further edits to the page. The reverts in question are here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. I'm not saying all of my edits need to stay. Fully admit that they were WP:BOLD. But reverts then not trying to resolve them is unsustainable. Nweil (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

ANI should just ignore the first two diffs (identified in the OP as revert 1 and 2), made prior to Nwel's comment of 18:12 UTC June 29 2022, because at the article talk, this user got feedback from a third party (User:TheTimesAreAChanging) and agreed to re-submit their desired changes taking the third-party's input into account.[264]. Until this report I did not know that article existed, and I have not yet looked at the other four diffs, but the first two (at least) should be considered moot. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO routinely removes negative information about centrist Dems and adds supporting material, while doing the opposite for their opponents, regardless of policy. Recently, he is asking editors to read a book by someone who has been noted for Islamophobia and fake news on the Southern Poverty Law Center Hatewatch site.[265] TFD (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

You could be right, but that DIFF does not demonstrate what you claim. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

It does. The editor is willing to recommend a book, even though he knows it is not reliable. TFD (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I also recommend editors watch Fox News, NewsMax, etc. I don't recommend they cite them as sources for article text. But since the subject's come up, I would say Bolton is more credible than the Intercept on some things, not on others. Go figure. Please don't misgender me. SPECIFICO talk 22:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Casting of ass

Persians

Been a while since I trotted this one out -EEng
...... shouldn't this just be a single pic of cat asses? -NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)
Would you settle for a cat-ass-trophy [266]? -EEng

You'll need to provide more diffs and explain how they establish your claim, because the diff you gave merely has the editor saying "deny" via wikilink to WP:DENY. I have an open mind, even when my friends screw up, but I have no idea what aspersion you are trying to cast, much less the evidence on which it is based. Feel free to explain.... but please assume I'm stupid and walk me through it point by point. No hurry. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO's original comment was, "You might look in some of the books that were published in the second half of his presidency -- by Phil Rucker, Woodward, Mary Pence, John Bolton, and others."[267]

This was in reply to, "You mentioned the idea of writing "a few sentences on the overwhelming mainstream reporting and analysis of Trump's use of various weak prevarications and deflections to chum up his base and right-wing media supporters ... without having to go into the details of what he said or to omit all or part of what he said each and every time." Do you have any suggestions on what that might look like and what sources we could use? That sounds much more encyclopedic than just cherrypicking several things he has said."[268]

So it seems that SPECIFICO has no concern about the veracity of sources, just what they say. They ask us to accept sources provided they support their political view, which happens to align closely with the Democratic Party establishment. Hence the comment, "I would say Bolton is more credible than the Intercept on some things." Hence they reject the assessment of the Intercept as generally reliable at perennial sources, and reject their statement that Bolton's Gatestone Institute, which routinely published false stories and conspiracy theories about Muslims, is a "fake news" site. Furthermore, it does not affect them that the SPLC specifically lists their article on a page they devote to what they interpret as Islamophobia and hate speech by Bolton.

SPECIFICO, your user page says, "This user prefers to be referred to by whatever gender pronoun makes you feel comfortable." When you post that and complain about misgendering, it seems that you are merely trying to score points. TFD (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

A good reason to suggest anyone read anything is (A) to learn what it says and (B) think critically about it. If you didn't like Specifico's reading suggestions, where exactly did you calmly suggest others? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I really can't imagine editing American politics articles without reading the works by and about its major figures. That was how I learned that Bolton is not part of the "Democratic Party establishment" SPECIFICO talk 02:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I would not suggest that someone use a book, written by someone accused in reliable sources as heading a fake news website, as a source for any article.

I also know that Bolton is not a Democrat, which is clear from his positions on Islam and many other topics. SPECIFICO is also aware of that, but suggests we read him because of his claims against Trump. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, the saying goes. But that does not justify using unreliable sources.

I have not read anything by Bolton, precisely because I have no confidence in his writing. However, I have seen him many times on television, beginning with his false claims about Iraq in the run up to the invasion.

TFD (talk) 03:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

You seem to make very broad inferences from very little data. This is rarely a good idea. Especially when there's little feedback that could correct a 49% error rate. The milennials would say you are Fooled by Randomness. I haven't read it, however, because some of what he said on TV is incorrect. This is not really the proper venue for your comments, so feel free to try your luck in user space. SPECIFICO talk 19:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

OK well this got off track. FWIW, I'm just going to keep improving this article. Any recommendations to stave off further reverts? Nweil (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

IP - Racist Edit Summaries at Jeffrey Sachs

• 49.228.111.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IP has made two edits at Jeffrey Sachs with racist/problematic edit summaries [269] [270]. This is on the back of similar edits from another IP yesterday (175.203.204.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). Might need temporary protection of that page. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP, and revdelled one of the edit summaries; not sure the second one warrants it, no objection to someone else revdelling it if they see fit. I've also protected the page for a couple of days. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 07:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

personal insults when discussing a wiki page

User https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Newimpartial responded with insult to logical, source-filled comentaries : If you are using your own, apparently limited, literacy in 21st-century English as a basis to argue that the singular they is confusing and should be avoided - well, I'm afraid you're going to need a more convincing argument. The idea that this article, and others using the singular they, are misusing the pronouns is fairly WP:EXTRAORDINARY in 2022 and would require something more than an editor's strongly held personal opinion / private language to back it up. on the page Demi Lovato.

I wish we could have calm discussions without having to bring out personnal insults in an effort to make a point when one has run out of arguments. Editor is invalidating my comentaries based on a red herring falacy tactic. I am indeed a native french-speaker, but I have always gone to english schools and university. I think my english skills are at least the same level as most americans, and this insult hurts deeply. Especially when I brought concrete examples from both wikipedia articles AND guidelines to make the article better. This is just a personnal attack that has no place here, and I feel deeply insulted. I have gone to an english university, but my efforts have been cast aside based on 'my limited literacy' ? Emli89 (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Emli89 made an argument based on the premise that using the singular they in the article in question - reflecting the BLP subject's genderqueer identity and pronoun preference - was misusing the pronouns. In fact, the editor intervened at some length to defend this position, interpreting phrases with which most native English speakers would have no difficulty as though they were ambiguous.

As I have argued elsewhere, this is not Simple English Wikipedia, and it is more appropriate to provide appropriate scaffolding for readers when needed than to allow the requirements of less-fluent English speakers to override accuracy and policy compliance in Enwiki articles.

As far as my phrase in question, my argument was that no editor should be making that kind of argument from personal experience, and that it was particularly unwise to so so in a situation where their examples would not be persuasive to a person more familiar with contemporary English. I made no personal insult, nor were my comments anything other than calm. Unnecessarily wordy perhaps, but not emotional. Newimpartial (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Emli89 pointed to a couple of ambiguous sentences, in a discussion that noted that the BLP uses both "they" and "she" pronouns while the article continues to use "they". Wikipedia isn't meant to be read only by native English speakers. One can disagree with a specific proposal, but it doesn't justify insulting someone's language competency for bringing up a reasonable concern.

Newimpartial seems to have a pattern of this; they also recently attacked Jdbrook here, saying, Do not bring your own WP:FRINGE perspective into this, please while reinserting a medical claim cited to a non-WP:MEDRS. That was part of Newimpartial edit warring against 3 different editors, [271][272][273][274] making 4 reverts in a little over 31 hours (compare WP:3RR: Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior.) Crossroads ^-talk- 20:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, this isn't the first time you have intervened on a dramaboard to say, essentially, how about this unrelated thing Newimpartial did. One might think you were trying to remove an opponent from the topic area, or something.

As far as Stella O'Malley is concerned, the relevant issues - and consensus on the underlying matter of the dispute, as set out in the MEDRS - are clearly presented here; why you would revert this sourced material twice without even answering my question on Talk about the grounds for your objection - well, it doesn't really lend credibility to your intervention here IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about removal from the topic. Stopping the personal attacks and the edit warring against multiple editors is my concern. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads your own recent edit history is quite aggressive:

• June 4: Claiming stable text from a date shortly before a disruptive editor was topic banned did not exist and was WP:FAITACCOMPLI as though this were the status quo is what is WP:GAMING
• June 10: Calling out a single editor by name, in this case Newimpartial in a discussion about suitability of a set of older studies, despite as WhatamIdoing succinctly pointed out such objections on suitability are beyond those of a single editor
• June 10: Slightly later in the same discussion, calling out a single editor by name, in this case again it was Newimpartial, claiming WP:POINTy disruption for removing text that there was consensus to remove, and for which WhatamIdoing was writing up a recommendation to remove
• June 13: Threatening one or more users with a trip to WP:AE

You also have a recent history of edit warring:

• June 1: Removing text, that had previously been stable prior to a disruptive editor's edits, claiming "the distant past does not matter", while picking an arbitrary date in the middle of the disruptive editor's disruption
• June 8: Starting an edit war with aggressive edit summaries against consensus
• June 30: Starting an edit war over a fringe opinion within medical sources, then continuing the edit war while saying "Mind the 3RR." to the editor they are warring against (Newimpartial)

Based on this month alone, I would argue that you have a particularly acrimonious and antagonistic attitude to Newimpartial. As such I'm not really sure you want to be casting any stones here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Not the same thing. The June 1 and 4 stuff was opposed by multiple editors besides myself and the editor who much later was topic banned for separate edits (and especially because of their behavior at AE). The first June 10 edit was literally a reply to Newimpartial. The second June 10 edit occurred before any consensus for removal existed and is self-explanatory. The June 13 edit was because of an attempt to replace medical secondary source material with primary sources and other editors supported my edit in the history. For the June 8 and 30 edits, what you call me "starting" an edit war is just my first edit in each case. And both times other editors supported those edits, either at the time (for June 30) or later (for June 8, which ended up removed. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Crossroads. Let's take the June 13 diff as an example [275] - partly because, unlike many of the others, your AE threat wasn't placed directly at me. You are now defending that edit for being because of an attempt to replace medical secondary source material with primary sources and other editors supported my edit in the history. But you don't explain (1) why being "right" about this would make it appropriate for you to threaten other editors with AE; (2) how it could have been "right" of you to reinsert - against WP:ONUS - outdated medical content to which multiple editors had already explicitly objected; or (3) how what you did could have been in any way appropriate, as opposed to the intervention that ended that absurd edit war, which was my removal without replacement of the deprecated content to which you were apparently so attached, followed by the development of new content and discussion on Talk [276] [277] [278]. How you could interpret this as a situation where you were "right" to threaten other editors with AE - rather than a situation where you were wrong to reinsert disputed, discredited content and wrong again to edit-war about it - well, I hadn't previously considered you the creative type; let's put it that way. Newimpartial (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I was restoring the status quo, and that the material was "outdated" was in no way established at the time I restored it - it was just replacement of secondary sources with primary. Nothing wrong with going to Arbitration Enforcement to perhaps get page restrictions like 1RR in the event of a multi-sided edit war like that was. Even easier if just mentioning it could stop the carnage and prompt discussion instead. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

So, basically, it was fine for you to restore disputed content, against WP:ONUS, because you agreed with the content? That's an interesting fashion choice for you: sort of a left-side speedo for the dramaboard, and it leaves you looking a bit silly IMO. Multiple editors had in fact pointed out that the text in question defied mainstream MEDRS on the issue, which is why it had been repeatedly removed - your disagreement with those editors didn't give you a mandate to wedge in your preferred version, as you should have known. Newimpartial (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

and the editor who much later was topic banned for separate edits I don't think I would describe the sixteen day period between the version that was unstable because of the disruptive editor (12 December 2021), and when that editor was topic banned (28 December 2021) as much later.

Also while you are somewhat correct in saying that the editor was topic banned due to their commentary at AE, the only reason a request was brought against that editor was because of the disruption earlier in that month. The two are still intrinsically related. The primary issue with the earlier edits not forming a part of the reasoning for the topic ban was because the ds-awareness had expired, however multiple administrators did comment that comments made during the lapse in awareness were problematic and had the awareness not lapsed those would have warranted a topic ban. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The singular "they", is confusing. But, I suppose its usage is here to stay, on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Oddly I find this confusing. I grew up in a not progressive English speaking country and I've been using singular they as a pronoun for people in general my entire life (and that's from the 1970s.) It's normal English where I come from and not even related to people's pronoun preferences. It's perfectly regular English English for situations where someone's gender is not relevant to the point being made. Difficulty with it seems to be a North American thing. It's been part of regular British English for centuries. Canterbury Tail talk 21:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, as I pointed out on NewImpartial's talk page, it was good enough for Bill Shakespeare. Dumuzid (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

(e-c)In my experience, there are two, slightly overlapping, categories of editors who "find the singular they confusing": (1) ones who were taught "rules of English" in which "they" only takes plural referents; (2) ones who will go to great lengths to object to the preferred pronouns of nonbinary and genderqueer people (the ones most likely to prefer "they"). I WP:AGF by placing editors in the first category, rather than the second, where the evidence is unclear. Newimpartial (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC

Sorry, relevance? I was taught the rules of English and I know fine and well that they can be used singularly and plurally, I do not see how this contributes to the discussion at all & it actually seems to be discriminatory, some people have not received the same level of English education as others but putting that down to WP:CIR is trudging close to WP:BITE, it is possible to let someone know in a friendly, or at least civil way that a word can be used in another way. I'm not one to brag about my own English literacy but unless someone's English is bad to the point where understanding them becomes difficult, there is no grounds for incivility. Like if someone places the odd capital letter in the wrong place or misses a comma, I'm not gonna throw the whole kitchen sink at them, however if there is a prolonged misuse, there's grounds to at least gently question them. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 22:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

On the surface, this is a content dispute over pronouns. This is sadly pretty common in trans and non-binary BLP articles, particularly for those who use either they/them or neo-pronouns. Based on reading the discussion at Talk:Demi Lovato#Demi using female pronouns again, Emli89 has explicitly mis-gendered Lovato when saying There is nothing surprising about refering to a woman with 'she/her'. (diff) Based on reliable sources, Lovato is non-binary and does not call themselves a woman at present.

There is also some relevance here when Emli mentions their cultural background. French, as a language, is heavily gendered, and while one dictionary has added a gender-neutral pronoun it has, unsurprisingly become part of the current anti-trans culture war. As such, I sympathise to a degree with the lack of familiarity with singular they due to it not having an accepted French counterpart, however that sympathy ends when it comes to our policies and guidelines which fully support its use in biographies where appropriate. I'd also like to point out that this is the only time that Emli has revealed that they are not a native English speaker. As such any implication about Emli's literacy as a result of this, while unfortunate, is purely unintentional.

Multiple editors at Lovato's talk page have disagreed with Emli's requested change, with many saying that the recent addition of she/her after they/them on Lovato's Instagram profile is a clear indication of preference to use they/them pronouns. I agree with that assessment, as pronoun order in social media bios is pretty frequently done so to indicate order of preference. When contrasted against MOS:GENDERID, I see absolutely no reason to change the state of the article at this time.

While I would not use precisely the same language that Newimpartial has used, I do agree with the broader points they have raised. As a frequent contributor in the GENSEX content area, I do find it to be a fairly extraordinary claim that many of our biographies on trans and non-binary individuals are as Emli asserts misusing pronouns (diff). Changing that practice would require a substantial discussion and RfC on amending MOS:GENDERID, as well as substantive and weighty evidence to assert that singular they pronouns should not be used. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello Sideswiped. I would like to make some things clear first. I am NOT in any kind of anti-trans culture war. PLease do not accuse me of such. As for my use of the word 'woman', I did use it reflexively , it was unintentional. It is true that Demi does not view herself as such, but her DNA is still very much XX chromosomes. So while I might have mispoken, accusing me of mis-gendering people is a bit far-fetched. I am careful with words, but will be even more so going forward.

Second, I do not disagree with the use of singular they, I disagree with abusing it. Singular they is used when the person is essentially unkown. For example: I wonder who stole my identity, they emptied my bank account... But in this case, we know clearly who we are talking about : Demi. Using singular they again and again where unnecessary is adding confusion. That was my point.

Now, I understand that a lot of editors do not find the current wording confusing, and that I accept. I can agree to disagree with y'all ;).

I am not here to make war, but I will absolutely not stand by when my literacy is, very intentionnally , being insulted. Newimpartial was very clear in his wording, and his attack against my english competency was very much a directed personnal attack. It had nothing 'nonintentional'. Just like people saying mother*ucker without knowing anything about the other person's mother still being an insult.

While I simply meant to increase conciseness and clarity, I understand that other editors do not wish to proceed as it would be too much work and time on their part.

I look forward to the discussions you have mentionned in order to change the current practice, in an effort to make writing more concise and clear. If you have the link, I would like to read those!

Lastly, thanks Sideswiped for the links you added to my page ! Much appreciated :D. Emli89 (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

but her DNA is still very much XX chromosomes. I can see why you are having trouble with singular they. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 22:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I am NOT in any kind of anti-trans culture war. PLease do not accuse me of such. I did not accuse you of such. I made a remark on the culture war in relation to the French language, not to you as an editor.

but her DNA is still very much XX chromosomes You might want to look again at the WP:GENSEX discretionary sanctions, because that statement of biological essentialism is very problematic in this content area. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

You may have hit the crux of the problem surrounding the gender-pronoun topic. It's not so much what goes in or is taken out of a page, that's a source of frustration. But rather, it's the restrictions on the talkpage discussions, that creates friction. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Misgendering BLP subjects (and editors) on Talk pages would create friction even if there were no restrictions against it. Indeed, I dare say that if there were no restrictions, there would be more friction than presently. Newimpartial (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Re: You might want to look again at the WP:GENSEX discretionary sanctions.

I did say I would be more careful going forward. I'm not sure if you are threatening me with sanctions, but it is unnecessary. I simply meant to say that , it is not semantically wrong to say that a biological woman has XX chromosomes. It does not change how she, or they, perceive themselves. It is also not meant as an insult, it is merely a biological fact. My statement had nothing to do with Demi's identity, it came from a place of science only. My original phrasing should have specified as such, it is my omission. Emli89 (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 23:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I would never intentionnally make personnal attacks. I will, however, continue to point out the limits of people's linguistic competence when that affects the arguments they make about what Wikipedia article text should be.

Re: but her DNA is still very much XX chromosomes - there really ought to be a rule against ungrounded speculation about the chromosome complement of BLP subjects. Like a rule against "OR" where the "research" is really just semi-educated guessing, right? We don't have a policy covering that, do we? Newimpartial (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

But you DID make a personal attack ? My 'literacy' has nothing to do with you disagreeing with me. There is a way you can explain your point without resorting to insults. Denying it is even more disgusting.

Re:Re: but her DNA is still very much XX chromosomes - there really ought to be a rule against ungrounded speculation about the chromosome complement of BLP subjects.

Oh my. How is that speculation? If you really think so, perhaps you should revise you biology classes... Here is an article you can use to educate yourself on basic biology. I want to bring your attention on the definitions of sex chromosomes: Females have two X chromosomes in their cells, while males have one X and one Y chromosome.

This should have never become the point of an argument. You are still very much deflecting every single issue. From the beginning we have only being discussing 1. your personnal attack on my 'literacy' and 2. the excessive use of neutral pronouns, making it confusing on whether it is plural or singular in a lot of paragraphs. We have already come to a conclusion on point 2. , as a majority of editors have agreed that it would be too time-consuming to modify the article. Please stop deflecting, a simple apology will bring this conversation to a stop. Emli89 (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh my. How is that speculation? Are you aware of any reliable sources that state that Lovato has had a karyotype and has discussed the results of it? If not, then it is entirely speculation as to what their genetic makeup is. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Emli89, okay, is your issue with the use of the singular they in Demi's article with readability? Because this talk of DNA and chromosomes gives the impression that your real worries lie within your personal beliefs and not with improving the article. --VersaceSpace 🌃 01:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

As I have said, I only want to discuss 2 issues :

1. your personnal attack on my 'literacy' and

2. the excessive use of neutral pronouns, making it confusing on whether it is plural or singular in a lot of paragraphs.

I already said I do not wish to discuss those side topics that have absolutely nothing to do with anything. But somehow, @Newimpartial keeps bringing up new issues...

I only want an apology from @Newimpartial, as the second topic has been closed already. Emli89 (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

correction : 1. your @Newimpartial 's personnal attack on my 'literacy' Emli89 (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

It's nice that you want that, I guess, but please review WP:BOOMERANG. I would like to see an apology to you, but I confess I am rather more troubled by your apparent approach here. Dumuzid (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean troubled ? I read the boomerang article, but I believe I did everything neutrally. I did not want want those side issues to pop up, but they did and I will not shy away from them. Just like your link says , i was ' up front concerning any of your actions that might have contributed to the problem'. I explained my reasoning, and apologized for the bad wording I unintentionnally wrote. Everything I did was in the spirit of cooperation, and I have no qualms amdmitting my wrong. I do not believe I have 'shot myself in the foot'. Emli89 (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Emli89, if you believe that females have two X chromosomes in their cells, while males have one X and one Y chromosome is a generalization that applies to all individuals, so that you can reason inductively from their assigned sex to their complement of chromosomes, then (1) please don't edit articles on human biology and (2) perhaps you should revise you biology classes. I haven't insulted you once in our interaction - my statement that you are using your own, apparently limited, literacy in 21st-century English as a basis to argue that the singular they is confusing and should be avoided is an observation, not a personal attack, and doesn't come close to your comments that I should revise (my) biology classes, or your repeated insistence that I am insulting you or engaging in personal attacks, for which the only evidence is that you feel insulted.

I don't want to involve WP:CIR, but to be clear, I did not make the ad hominem argument you are attributing to me, that because you are apparently an ESL speaker, that your argument should be dismissed. Rather, I noted that an argument where the examples you use were only confusing to you because of limited language competency, and would not be confusing to a competent speaker of 21st-century English (a minor premise that many other editors have subsequently confirmed), therefore your argument should be set aside. That isn't an ad hominem or an insult - some of my best friends and most respected colleagues have been francophone - it is a policy-compliant argument about how to edit article text.

Your decision to make a dramaboard issue out of this tells me two things: (1) you badly misinterpreted my argument and (2) your feelings were badly hurt. I'm sorry your feelings were hurt. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean either that you understood me correctly or that your views on English pronouns and gender (or biology for that matter) ought to be taken into account in editing Demi Lovato. Newimpartial (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, does every single BLP need to have a karyogram so that we can ascertain assigned sex at birth and rule out other associated syndromes such as Klinefelter's syndrome? If they do not exhibit signs of aneuploidy it's wholly silly to propose that... There does not need to be a policy either. You haven't explained to him why two X chromosomes and one X & Y chromosome is a generalisation (it is), it's because conditions such as trisomy X exist, you should at least try to explain to them why. We do NOT need a policy on this... unless there is suspection of aneuploidy I see it wholly unnecessary to have an idiogram in someone's article... X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 04:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this was meant to point out to Emil89 that without a karyotype, we cannot say '...her DNA is still very much XX chromosomes' and know that statement is unequivocally correct. To me it read as editors trying to explain that people may present as stereotypically one gender or the other, but that doesn't mean we know their gender - Emli89 assumes that Lovato must have XX chromosomes because they appear female, and that if someone has XX chromosomes then referring to them as 'she' is invariably correct. And so, instead of requiring a karyotype for every single BLP so we can choose pronouns based on their DNA (which would clearly be ridiculous, not least because DNA does not always align with the person's identity), we can only state for certain the sex assigned at birth and/or the identity currently preferred by the individual in question. (Edit: Whoops, I'm super late, didn't see the timestamp. Apologies if this has become clear elsewhere.) StartGrammarTime (talk) 09:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe this entire thread can be closed, as Emlie89 is no longer interested & has walked away from it. GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Considering they decided to open this thread on ANI to call out another editor instead of talking directly to them first, then called some of the editors in this thread (particularly Newimpartial) ignorant of basic knowledge of Biology, and when things were clearly not going how they expected they bailed, I'd recommend either a very strong warning against further disruption, or a topic ban from Gender and Sexuality. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 02:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Isabelle Belato I have not bailed. One editor kindly asked me to close the thread, another not so kindly. I have respected their wish. I'm genuinely confused if you want me to continue with this thread or not ?

If you want to give me a very strong warning based on what I said, please do so impartially and also give a warning to NewImpartial. Emli89 (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I've logged a WP:GENSEX warning to you, Emli89 (AEL diff) against engaging in tendentious prounoun-driven arguments. Please tread lightly. Anyway, as far as I understand it, she or he can also be confusing sometimes, when it's difficult to tell which person is being referenced (thus, you use that person's name in that instance). That problem, then, isn't unique to singular they. While, granted, singular they can sometime bring the added confusion of plural/singular, it's still quite manageable. And the pronoun choices of BLPs should generally be respected. Also, Crossroads, you know, you don't have to show up every time Newimpartial is mentioned (to the best of my observation, they are not doing the same to you). Oh, and I see that GoodDay is still going on about how much they dislike singular they — gotta play the hits, I suppose. El_C 03:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

For months I've been dying to use the new shortcut WP:VEXBYSTERANG. If Crossroads keeps it up I may get my chance. EEng 05:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I saw that today when I linked to Boomerang, and I suspected the hand of EEng must be involved.... Dumuzid (talk) 05:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The credit goes entirely to JG66 [279]. EEng 05:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't normally. This time, though, based on what I had just been dealing with, I did. Nevertheless, OP (Emli89) did later on get more tendentious in starting arguments about chromosomes and such, so I'm not defending that. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Damn, I missed that (chromosomes, a place of science, etc.). My reading comprehension is... not great. Probably should have banned. Oh well. El_C 03:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked 142.192.224.129 for one week — what is going on there? El_C 13:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why you can't revisit the logged warning and replace it with a ban? If you think think the commentary you've read or re-read after is worthy of it, it seems strange to me that you can't reconsider the action. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Nah, someone else can do it (I have zero objections). I don't want to deal with a lengthy appeal over this, seeing as they've not edited the topic area much, plus my aforementioned logged warning. Obviously, if further problems arise, then that'd be a different story. El_C 23:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Recommend (again), this thread be closed. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Recommend you go do something else. Your comments on this matter on various pages are skirting the line. This is a formal warning alebit un-logged. El_C 14:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Question: Off-wiki behavior

Asking generically, if I were to search a user's name and find that they have a web presence demonstrating bigoted opinions that appear to be reflected in their problematic on-Wiki behavior, is that something that can or should be mentioned on forums addressing said user's problematic behavior? (Not this extreme, but Tyciol would be an example of someone whose off-wiki behavior was reprehensible and was related to his problematic on-wiki behavior). EvergreenFir (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I would email arbcom so there's no risk of outing. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Will do. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Recreation of certain cardiovascular diseases

Nothing for admins to do here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello. I have decided to retire from English Wikipedia rather than appeal for my block to be lifted as I still strongly disagree with your decision to remove certain causes of death and in the past, my arguments stating so have been dismissed. I don’t believe I broke any rules and the fact that you think certain causes of death such as heart attacks, heart failure, strokes, etc are all "non-defining" is completely ignorant and based off of personal opinion. I can understand removing the articles because they’re extremely common causes of death, but I tried to reach a compromise by recreating them so that they could be segregated off by country, region, state, territory, etc so that the categories wouldn’t be too cluttered as I did with Category:Deaths from pneumonia and as I was currently doing with Category:Deaths from dementia, Category:Deaths from lung cancer and Category:Deaths from brain tumor, but yet, you still won’t allow that either. I also see the hypocrisy when you allow cancer and pneumonia on this Wikipedia and those are very notable causes of death. Cancer was segregated by type and location and I had segregated pneumonia by location. Heart attacks, etc could have been easily segregated by location. During my time editing on Wikipedia, I’ve seen subjects who have actually died from heart attacks categorised as the incorrect causes of death such as Category:Deaths from coronary thrombosis, which is one of the reasons why I did what I did. Even before my time editing on Wikipedia, I’ve heard people slating the site saying "You can’t trust Wikipedia because not everything they say is true." Given the recent events, I’m beginning to understand why. When I was making those edits, I’ve received thanks from other Wikipedia users for my contributions adding categories such as Category:Stroke-related deaths in California, etc and I’ve been grateful for that since, so I decided to keep going. It was never my intention to be disruptive, but the fact that the administration thinks so has been very obstructive for me and for other certain users. With that, I have decided that I will no longer be active on English Wikipedia as I have grown very disillusioned with your rules regarding categorising people by certain causes of death. I may or may not return at some point in the future. Who knows? And so, I close by saying that these past four years editing on here has been quite an experience for me. Thank you. 20SS00 (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC) At the top of this page, it says This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. This belongs on your personal talk page, not here. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Repeated addition of fictitious entry on 2022 in archosaur paleontology with unreliable source.

• CuddleKing1993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.40.207.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 98.16.29.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A few weeks ago, CuddleKing1993 added a fake pterosaur taxon to the 2022 in archosaur paleontology page, supported by a source that does not mention the name they added. After I reverted them, they approached me on my talk page, implying that they added it because they wanted to see more of a certain type of pterosaur. I told them to wait for an actual scientific paper, but two other IP's continued to add the fake taxon. Given the "MOAR KEM KEM DINOSAURS!" on the CuddleKing's user page, which perfectly describes the agenda of the last user I reported here, I believe these IP's are all connected.

On a tangentially-related note, CuddleKing also has a fair share of problematic behaviors, such as changing the dates dinosaurs lived because they personally don't believe it, calling it "false hope", "r*pe", "heresy", and "blasphemy". The latter comment implies they do this because they want the dates to support their fan remake of Walking with Dinosaurs, which raises doubts about their true reason for being on this encyclopedia.

Atlantis536 (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Atlantis536, this is from April, so it is now Stale. While I'd have blocked indef for that truly unhinged attack (which I WP:REVDEL'd), another admin did warn them about it, so I'm not sure there's much to do there. El_C 12:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Addition of copied content to multiple articles

By Markpravda1 (talk · contribs). In most instances it's a sentence or two, lifted pretty much verbatim from sources. Seems right to let an admin decide whether these merit rev/deletion. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Wrong number vandal from Pittsburgh

• 2601:280:C281:70C0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone from Pittsburgh using the IP range Special:Contributions/2601:280:C281:70C0:0:0:0:0/64 has been vandalizing multiple articles by slightly changing dates and numbers.[280][281] Everything they have ever done has been reverted. Can we put a stop to the disruption? Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Harassment/Hounding

Hello, long time reader here that recently started editing last weekend. Most everyone has been helpful and friendly so far, however in my short time here Zefr has accused me of:

• Having COI.[282]
• Being a sock-puppet.[283]
• Edit-warring.[284]
• Being a single-purpose account.[285]

As well as demanding I register an account[286], reverting three of my edits in a row[287], reverting my mention of this[288], reverting a source[289] added through consensus[290] during an active DRN where the moderator asked us not to edit the article further.[291]

For context: most of the content dispute has been centered around usage of drugs.com as a MEDRS-compliant source[292] and inclusion of sources showing lavender oil capsules as treating anxiety symptoms.[293]

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.170.185 (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Zefr has now also opened an admin noticeboard discussion against me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:50.45.170.185_reported_by_User:Zefr_(Result:_) 50.45.170.185 (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, as for Lavandula your first edit was at 6:56, June 29, 2022 ([294]), your second edit was at 7:37, June 29, 2022 ([295]), your third edit was at 7:48, June 29, 2022 ([]), your fourth edit was at 7:51, June 29, 2022 ([296]), your fifth edit was at 16:44, June 29, 2022 ([297]) and your six edit was at 17:57, June 29, 2022 ([298]), you already went pass WP:3RR and it is now a violation of the three revert rule. Chip3004 (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

He has opened another against me after User:Pyrrho_the_Skipper and I tried to revert his disruptive edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:50.45.170.185_reported_by_User:Zefr_(Result:_) 50.45.170.185 (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

This isn't going to go the way you think, it's quite clear you're edit warring to add in this material. If you add something, and someone reverts you, you take it to the talk page and discuss. You do NOT revert and edit war for your preferred version, you discuss. Canterbury Tail talk 19:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

Just to clarify, there already was quite a lot of discussion (including on DRN) for another page that contained the same content/sources. I was merely syncing this page's content with the one where the discussion already happened. Also I honestly don't think my changes count as reverts as I was trying to address Zefr's concerns as well as having opened up a talk page discussion about a revert he made (removing the Research section). 50.45.170.185 (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Also I'd like to thank everyone that participated in the DRN, including the moderator.[299]

Moderated discussion was definitely going well and I think was a great way to talk. Unfortunately, due to Zefr's actions the moderator had to close the DRN. I really wish we could have just continued with moderated discussion to reach a consensus. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi User:Daniel_Case I noticed you handled my case on the edit-warring noticeboard. I'd like to thank you and apologize in advance if this is asking too much but could you please look into this. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALavender_oil&type=revision&diff=1096004936&oldid=1096001065

I know that because of page-protection I can't edit the article for a week, but am I really not allowed to discuss the article either? 50.45.170.185 (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I gave him a non-templated warning about edits inconsistent with WP:TPO at his user page. Daniel Case (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

thank you 50.45.170.185 (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Zefr goes against a consensus established on WP:RSN https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALavender_oil&type=revision&diff=1096137909&oldid=1096095331

Calls me obsessed and to stop participating in the discussion when I point this out. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Zefr was not misusing the Warring template for 3RR Warning, you have gone past the Three Revert Rule. Chip3004 (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG is the likely the result, here. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• One-time DRN moderator here: I don't know whether the IP user has a COI involving lavender oil. I don't know whether the IP user is a sockpuppet, and if CheckUser knows that, they aren't allowed to say. I do know whether the IP user is a single-purpose account. They are one. I know one when I see one. We know that the IP user was edit-warring. I can also see that the IP user is being tendentious about lavender oil and lavandula. I don't know whether drugs.com is a medically reliable source. I closed the DRN because the dispute was also pending at SPI, and it is now also pending at ANEW and here at ANI. I can also see whether the filing editor is harassing or hounding the IP user. They are not. They have a right to report an SPI, which may be closed without action by CU, and they have a right to report edit-warring when there is edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the reply Robert.

  I am not a single-purpose account. I have only been editing for 3 days and I've already participated in other things besides lavender discussion. I do not hold strong personal opinion about lavender oil, a substance that until less than a week ago I didn't even know you could eat.

  I believe my requests for MEDRS-compliant sources is not tendentious.[300][301] but feel free to point out how they are.

  Yes, of course every user has the right to report any other user. But when taken as a whole in the context of a content debate, where Zefr was the only one strongly opposed to the outcome, and additionally the short-time frame that the reports occurred as well as the other personally-targeted actions listed above, I would say it is very harassing behavior...

  Man, I asked for a moderated discussion and he got it closed down, this whole time we could have been improving the content of the encyclopedia. Such a shame. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not to mention WP:NOBITING and WP:SPATG and WP:NOSPADE. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  Continuing behavior of attacking me personally[302]

  This time to try to argue that he was right to remove the "Research" section once it contained information (cited by a MEDRS-compliant source) he personally disagreed with. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  • The statement by the IP user that they have only been editing for 3 days is misleading, probably deliberately misleading, as is indicated by their discussion on their IP user talk page. Don't cite BITE. If you have been editing long enough to use that guideline as a cudgel, you are not a newbie. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

    Sorry Robert, your assessment is incorrect. I simply love reading, and have been reading all those fancy "WP:" things people keep linking everywhere, and in turn clicking links on those pages as well. I find user pages also sometimes contain good links to resources as well. If you go through my history you will find my knowledge of various things increasing as time goes on as well as today I finally figured out how to make that cool green quote text instead of "quoting everything like this" which was useful for my RSN posts.

    Also recently I've read WP:NOTCLUELESS, which you may find interesting.

    An example, I was reading WP:BURYES recently which links to WP:SENIORITY which had a nice quote by User:Paulmcdonald whose page linked to WP:ADMINGUIDE which I am now reading through even though I will never do such work for Wikipedia for free. I'd say you dodged a bullet with that one. Twice. (yes I read them both) 50.45.170.185 (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  • The request for medically reliable sources is not tendentious. It is the general pattern by the IP user, and especially toward User:Zefr, that is tendentious. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

    Could you be more specific about the details of this "general pattern"? 50.45.170.185 (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

    • • Look up Wikipedia's article on sealioning. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

        You're calling me a troll for making an RfC and RSN post about improving an article?

        WP:VEXBYSTERANG

        Let's be WP:CIVIL please. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) While the IP has gone seriously overboard in their reaction, it's worth pointing out that both sides are exhibiting bad behavior (as is often the case). It would nice once in a while to see admins have a little more backbone when it comes to the less-than-civil behavior of long-standing editors. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• When the OP says they've "just started" editing Wikipedia, per the admissions on their Talk page this isn't true, since there they say they had an account but got a courtesy vanishing. From the initial edits it's clear this is not a newbie. Given that, AGF rather goes out the window. Alexbrn (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
  • As Alexbrn says. Either the IP/OP is being misleading about being a new editor, or the IP/OP is being misleading about the previous account. They are acting like an experienced troll in using Bite as a cudgel. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  I did just start editing wikipedia. I never used any previous account to edit pages outside of my own user-page that I just filled with silly boxes.

  also see WP:NOTCLUELESS

  Or you can see here where I didn't yet know how to make the green quote text Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kim99#Comments_by_other_users

  That was my second day editing, I learned how to make it the very next day for my post to RSN https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1095732775

  Always assume good faith 50.45.170.185 (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Worldoffacts101

Worldoffacts101 is clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia; all of their edits ([303], [304], [305], [306], [307], [308], [309]) are unsourced additions to the biographies of Sebastian Croft and Kit Connor, two actors in the Heartstopper series on Netflix. —QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@QueenofBithynia: User has been blocked. Nythar (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive IP range

Every edit from 41.150.243.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for the last week or so has been deleting all the links and citations from various articles. A range block might be warranted. MrOllie (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

LuciferAhriman

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

I need help dealing with this Chinese or pro-Chinese editor, with weak English, poor understaning of sourcing and practically no understanding of Wikipedia policies. I have had to revert to practically every edit they made today [310] but they show no intention of stopping or slowing down.

As an example, supposedly this section merits a POV template because locations are "wrong". No information about how they are supposed to be "wrong". They also tagged every sentence of that section with a {{vc}}.

Now supposedly, the other name of Hot Springs, Chang Chenmo Valley is "India-China border". They reinstated that edit. No sources provided ever.

This is becoming disruption on steroids. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Support an indef. There might be some bones to pick with the ORF source but this is sheer disruption at display, probably accentuated by linguistic divide. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

"Kongka Pass" is a "border pass". this sentence is wrong,

"Kongka Pass" belong "border pass", not my definition.

Actually, "Kongka Pass" not locate on LAC, but near LAC.

Hot_Springs - India–China LAC - Kongka Pass

like

Gogra - India–China LAC - "Chinese: 温泉哨所_(阿克赛钦)"

like

Daulat Beg Oldi - India–China LAC - Tianwendian

understand?

Kongka Pass I write "location = Xinjiang, China
(claimed by lndia),
India–China border"

Kautilya3 always reverted "location = India–China border"

Actually, Kongka Pass now in China Control.

I never wanted to say the following:

undeniable, I think the person who modified my content is pro-India stance.

LuciferAhriman (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The level of English in this post speaks for itself. Let me point out that there are still no sources forthcoming. To claim that a border pass belongs to one side and not the other is a new kind of strange logic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• At Special:PageHistory/Kongka Pass I'm seeing at least some progress toward responding to others' concerns. @LuciferAhriman: Do you understand the importance of citing sources for claims you add? Do you understand that this is especially important in a discretionary sanctions area like India? And do you understand that there is a difference between a country controlling some land and it being acceptable say, in the encyclopedia's voice, that that land is in that country? (If you don't understand that, please see cases like the Golan Heights and Crimea.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Abdunibnabd

On the page Nuh Ha Mim Keller there is a problematic editor that has repeatedly deleted reliably sourced material here, here and here from Middle East Eye based on the claim that it is defamatory (not established, substantiated or discussed, and in defiance of WP:NOTCENSORED), and more recently under the premise that it is irrelevant and unverified - obviously sub-standard reasons. A talk page discussion has been opened, but ignored, despite invitations in edit comments here and here, and on their talk page as part of edit warnings. Here they also removed a reliable book source, and here inline primary source tags, again described as "irrelevant". The user has recently ONLY been logging on to vet the information and I can only really conclude that they are WP:NOTHERE. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Abdunibnabd, the user in question, has made 20 edits and never edited a talk page. I think there's good reason to at least give them a warning. Outside of the Keller article their edits have mostly been unhelpful. This edit was vandalistic. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: And now we have this diff with the possible Freudian slip in which the editor either uses the Royal we, or is in fact acting as part of either a collective editors, or an external group, with a possible conflict of interest in editing this content - something not exactly contraindicated by their intense interest in removing the material in question. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

As is evident from the page history, the user is engaged in a slow-burn edit war, and continues to ignore the talk page discussion and dialogue attempts. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

NebulaOblongata

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.

---

NebulaOblongata wishes to keep their rant on an article talk (2nd restore), in spite of me pointing them to WP:TALKNO. Is that a violation or not? Hemantha (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I suspect that TB refers to me and DW to Doug Weller? Their conduct has been concerning since long and I will file a request at AE. You might or might not choose to close this. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like another one of those attempts. Please inform me when you file a request at AE. Thanks, NebulaOblongata (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Admin, please note that the references to other users were removed by me after careful consideration. I realize that calling out other users was unnecessary. NebulaOblongata (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

NO has had multiple warnings about bad faith. And when User:Kautilya3 have then a DS alert it was reverted (not a problem and NO removes almost everything without archiving, making it hard to see their interactions with others) with the edit summary “wikilawyering much?” It’s only been an hour or so since I pointed out that their sarcastic reply to me on a talk page wasn’t conducive to collaborative editing. Doug Weller talk 20:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I am allowed to remove templates and warnings from my talk page that I don't appreciate. I like to keep my talk page clean. You are free to go through the talk page history. Quoting your talk page, "If I choose not to answer, that's my right." NebulaOblongata (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as I said it’s not a problem other than making it hard for people to see, for instance, what warnings you’ve had so if they want to warn you they know what level warnings you’ve already been given. I and many others archive for transparency. Doug Weller talk 20:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Appreciate your response. NebulaOblongata (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Hemantha, you are not expected to remove talk page posts even if they are "rants". If there are clear personal attacks, they can be warned on their user talk. That is as far as you can go. (There appears to be a new policy allowing WP:NOTAFORUM posts to be removed, but even this would have been considered impolite a couple of years ago.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

  Just as a point of order WP:NOTFORUM has been around since at least 2008. It’s not new. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

  In addition, WP:TPO is the guideline that ultimately deals with this. The current version also straight removal for cases of "harmful posts" which includes personal attacks, albeit noting this doesn't apply to merely uncivil posts and it can be controversial in cases of simple invective linking to WP:RPA for discussion on this. TPO also allows collapsing, moving or yes deleting/removing off-topic posts depending on the circumstances. I'm not going to go through all the history, but we can see in June 2007, an editor added mention of the controversial practice of removing personal attacks [311]. By 2010 we arrived at something akin to our current wording [312]. On the off-topic side, in August 2007 an editor added mention of deleting material "not relevant to improving the article" [313]. In 2010, this was changed to significantly limit straight removal/deletion, instead saying offtopic posts should normally be archived [314] but still allowing deletion in some cases with wording not that different from what we currently say although not mentioning collapsing. The collapsing bit was first added in some form in 2012 [315]. In other words, the idea that article talk page posts can never be removed or is always controversial is not supported by either the history or I'll add my experience which is significantly more than 2 years. Note this doesn't mean it's never controversial, as the TPG make clear, it can be. It really depends on the specific post and also the specific talk page. The more nonsense a page gets, generally the less tolerant we are of nonsense posts and so these will generally be more rapidly archived or yes straight removed, again depending on the specific post but also the editor dealing with it, mostly without any controversy. Note I make no specific commentary about the removal of that post. Nil Einne (talk) 04:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you Nil Einne for an excellent summary. I didn't know there was so much consideration given to this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, but your own diffs from as far back as far back as 2015, make me cautious about taking your comments about both TALKNO and NOTFORUM at face value. Hemantha (talk) 04:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  Please don't go diff-hunting because there would be context around it which won't be clear unless you are an involved editor. Note also that the second diff invited the editor to repost after cleaning up their original post. The main reason for doing this is to ensure a productive discussion, not to punish an editor for a "rant". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  Surely the same argument - of context and the need to ensure productive discussion - applies to talks not involving you as well? Or is that the prerogative of "experienced editors" only? Hemantha (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  Aren't you an "experienced" editor yourself? I see you've been editing Wikipedia for nearly 10 years. NebulaOblongata (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  Well, apparently that (not 10 years though) counts for nothing since I only have a normal brain, not a galaxy brain. Hemantha (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Continued BLP violations

After a BLP DS alert and me pointing them to WP:BLPCRIME, NebulaOblongata has now created another article, which labeled some suspects as perpetrators, based on a developing news article. Hemantha (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Also, I appreciate your edits - those men are indeed accused and not yet convicted. But why did you delete the entire section? Also, why are you using this forum for resolving content disputes?

Note: Hemantha has a habit of hand-waving WP policy links without demonstrating how those policies are being violated. See (1) and (2).

Thanks! NebulaOblongata (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLPCRIME. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I have read the policy. It's quite well-written. I agree that "accused" is appropriate wording. I don't agree with section blanking, though. I am happy to hear your arguments. NebulaOblongata (talk) 11:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

So you restored BLP vios, but self-reverted after an admin comment? Good to know that to get you to understand policy, an admin needs to link it. Hemantha (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. I decided to err on the side of caution and removed the names of the accused, even though they have been widely published across multiple news sources. Note: India has no law on the right to privacy. Nevertheless, in the broader scheme of things, it didn't seem to me like a hill not worth dying on. NebulaOblongata (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment

The talk page comment was discussing the edit pattern of a particular user. I didn't use ad hominems or personal attacks. The text where I pointed to other uninvolved users was removed by me after Hemantha deleted my comment. Please take an unbiased look at the talk page comment and evaluate if any policy has been violated. I would request the admin looking into this matter to please also have a look at the ongoing content dispute that I have been having with Hemantha, where they have been blanking entire sections of articles under the guise of BLP violations. I see this as an attempt to take punitive action against me for reverting their edits. Note: Hemantha has still not been able to point out what part of WP:TALKNO was violated by my comment. I would be interested in seeing what they think was violated. NebulaOblongata (talk) 09:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

See also the talk page comments here:Talk:Criticism of Muhammad#Mention of accusations of pedophilia in lead responding to me and User:WikiLinuz. Doug Weller talk 11:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

What about them? NebulaOblongata (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, it's (link) not just at BLPN (link), but also here. That makes sense. El_C 12:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Banned and COI

I see that this user is now banned by Bbb23. In case of a request for unblock, I did want to note that I've been able to pin him down as another EXMNA sockpuppet. At least two different EXMNA employees have previously made three major attempts to revise the WikiIslam article in violation of WP:COI. NebulaOblongata is the same employee behind 2600:1700:20C0:F600:3DAD:50EE:2F11:EE01 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as well as other IP addresses identified on the article's talk page on the same subnet editing the article and Editor atlas (talk · contribs). I have not had time to write a detailed memo and submit it to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org, as I did for users Underthemayofan and RubiconForder. However, interested administrators may ask me for the evidence I've compiled or ask me to submit it to the paid-en-wp queue—I can't post my findings due to WP:OUTING. Snuish (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

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.

Noting that Hemantha is blocked for sockpuppetry, appealable only to ArbCom. This does NOT mean the decision was in error, but it should be mentioned. Doug Weller talk 07:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

IP vandal making racist attacks

User 211.168.108.125 is making racist attacks on pages African Americans in California and African-American neighborhood: [316] and [317] are the two diffs. GTNO6 (talk) 07:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

And taken care of with a 31h block by Materialscientist. Just a note for next time, Wikipedia:AIV is much better suited for vandalism by IPs. MiasmaEternal☎ 09:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive new user

Омарова Гулпият Рабадановна (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Гулпият Мадина Омарова (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
176.98.158.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
45.132.253.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

These Russian IPs and this account who are obviously the same person have been engaging in a significant amount of screwing around in behind the scenes areas over the last few weeks and are making an enormous amount of mess in the process. They do not appear to be here to build an encyclopaedia. I do not think that many, if any, of the edits they have made outside of article space have actually been productive.

They have wasted a load of time with ridiculous deletion nominations, which consist of them just copying and pasting a closing statement from some other discussion and used it as a nomination statement [318] [319] [320] [321] [322].

They have tagged a load of pages for speedy deletion under criteria that blatantly do not apply [323] [324] [325]

They have made a mess adding pages to inappropriate categories, e.g. adding category pages to the category for files nominated for deletion [326] [327] [328]

They have made a mess trying to get rid of category redirects, replacing them with plain redirects [329] [330] [331]

As an account they are now mucking around making a load of ridiculous and useless templates, like {{Deleteslow}} {{Article for move}} and {{Article for protection}}

Some kind of intervention is needed here. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Also User:Гулпият Мадина Омарова, and I filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Омарова Гулпият Рабадановна before seeing this. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I also edit conflicted with you adding that account to this report. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• Both blocked by Bbb23. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikihounding - SPECIFICO

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.

---

Hello Administrators!

I perceive that I have been wikihounded by the user SPECIFICO for quite some time by now.

I have really appreciated some of the users edits, so it is a bit sad to have to do this. But I really think this has gone war too far since it has been going on for months by now.

You can see a overview here. But there is also specific examples down below of when I edit a page which SPECIFICO previously has not paid any attention too, and then just happens to show up. https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Pauloroboto&users=SPECIFICO&users=&startdate=19950502&enddate=20220621&ns=&server=enwiki

Please see the green spoiler down below for a couple of links to individual cases. Please note that Specifico has never edited any of these pages before me. So it is either one really unlikely coincidence, or a clear case or wikihounding.

The user also have engaged in a similar pattern with another user by the name of @NadVolum. As as pointed out by the user @192.76.8.89 See link below: https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=SPECIFICO&users=NadVolum&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki

(I have have however not had enough time to investigate if this is the case with even more users.)

I would like to thank @FormalDude for encouraging me to take this to ANI when I asked for help in the IRC-channel.

Kind regards, Pauloroboto

Pauloroboto (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

OP is a single purpose account that is inserting UNDUE Marxian narratives in various articles where they either need to be attributed as such or where they are FRINGE or UNDUE. Several editors have asked them to slow down, use talk, refreain from reinserting disputed content, etc. Correcting OP's ping of @FormalDude: above. SPECIFICO talk 19:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi!

Since we have talked about this on numerous occasions by now, I am going to be brief in my reply to save both you and the Admins time.

Regarding the single purpose accusation:

It is easy enough to establish that this claim of yours is false. I edit on numerous topics which anyone, including you, can clearly see in my history. Much of your editing could probably be grouped in a category such as "conservatism in the united states" or "the far right", with large numbers of edits on sites such as: Donald Trump, Stefan Molyneux, Murray Rothbard, Austrian School, Mises Institute, Racial views of Donald Trump, but that does not at least in my understanding of it make you a single purpose account. You merely edit a lot on topics which you seem interested in, and that's probably good in the big picture since it drives the pages you edit forward due to others disagreeing. But if you beg to differ I would be glad to hear you out on that.

Regarding your accusation regarding that I write marxian narratives:

I do not really care much about politics. I care about spreading knowledge. (I wish you were there the times I have debated marxists. They usually are not very fond of me to say the least.)

Regarding your claim that other authors think I edit too fast etc: Several authors have worked alongside and together with me, and I at least perceive that we have had fruitful exchanges. Typically they have been more experienced and constructively suggested what I should do to improve articles. So I do really think I have any particular issues with other editors. You are the only editor that have been engaging with me for months on end and are seemingly following my every step. Thanks for correcting the Ping. Kind regards // Pauloroboto Pauloroboto (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The accusation that SPECIFICO hounded NadVolum is pretty nonsensical and appears to be a very transparent excuse for canvassing (NadVolum has previously disagreed with SPECIFICO). I don't know why Pauloroboto links the editor interaction analyser, which clearly shows that SPECIFICO was the first to edit almost all pages listed. 129.67.119.80 (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I would like to clarify that I merely included NadVolums case since another editor thought is was a similar disruptive behavior, which I thought could help clear this situation up. Sorry if it did more bad than good //Pauloroboto Pauloroboto (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Hounding says, "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." It only crosses the line if it is done "to cause distress." If SPECIFICO's statement is correct, then it was appropriate. You need to provide differences to show that this was inappropriate. TFD (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your reply TFD. You are very welcome to check the links I have provided to the individual cases. You can for example see the most recent case: https://sigma.toolforge.org/timeline.py?users=Pauloroboto&users=SPECIFICO&users=&page=Situationist+International&startdate=19950502&enddate=20220704&server=enwiki which is a edit I clearly think is unreasonable. The situationists were clearly in this tradition of thought. One does not have to know many quotes from Guy Debord on the top of your head to know this. This is causing distress since is does not exactly help in building a encyclopedia. I perceive that I am being stopped from inserting content that SPECIFICO does not agree should be on Wikipedia. But not due to that it is not noteworthy or otherwise. But merely because she seems to unlike the content. Even when it does not in fact seem to interfere with any policy, hence the edits and their motivations seems to be published in a perfunctory manner. Requests regarding what I can do to improve the situation also seldom seem to lead to anything constructive. //Pauloroboto Pauloroboto (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I do not see that the sidebar you added (Critique of work) to Situationist International meets the criteria required. The Critique article has a section on Guy Debord, who was a founder of the Situationist International, while the International article does not mention the Critique of work. Incidentally, Debord is included in the sidebar for Critique of work. TFD (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• Pauloroboto, SPECIFICO is an extremely experienced editor, and you'd be advised, per the important guideline WP:BRD, to start a discussion on the talkpage of every article where you have been reverted by him, and attempt to create consensus for your views/edits (a practice he has already advised you to undertake), rather than reporting him to a noticeboard. Until you can demonstrate that you have done so in good faith in each instance, and abided by WP:CONSENSUS and other Wikipedia policies and guidelines, this report is going nowhere. I would like to also mention that a cursory glance at your editing history does seem to confirm, generally speaking, his identifying you as a Marxist SPA. Softlavender (talk) 04:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

  Hi! Thanks for your response. I think the BRD is a healthy process, and it usually solves issues. But not with SPECIFICO. I find it strange that I seem to be able to work constructively with other users. I have on multiple occasions tried to engage with SPECIFICO in a constructive matter, something which SPECIFICO does not always seem to be very keen on.

  For example see the page: August Strindberg's Little Catechism for the Underclass. The claims regarding that the content was unsourced was simply false. Which anyone who reads the page I published can see. One does not even have to pick up a copy since it is available online. (Yes the first draft was mostly from a first hand source, but I since added secondary sources.) I would be happy to make the page more encyclopedic, but it becomes significantly harder to do that if the content is removed. And if I do a edit with major changes to it, to to improve the situation, that does most often not seem to be very appreciated either. I understand your perspective regarding the wp:consensus policy, but this is what it has come to since the conversation has broken down over time. To the point where I really have to force myself to take the stuff that's written seriously sometimes.

  For example: (The context here is regarding if the page economics should have a page on criticism of the field, their assumptions and practices etc.)

  "We could just as well have a page called Criticism of the human elbow or at least a section in Elbow. - "The elbow has been the subject of criticism throughout history, including that it suffers from tennis elbow, arthritis, and ugly-looking wrinkled skin on the back..." This kind of false equivocations really leaves one thinking; but does not really contribute much to a reasonable discussion. I have also stated my opinion on the accusation regarding that I supposedly merely care about a political theory that more or less has been dead since the 90's above. You may read it in the response to SPECIFICO. Kind regards // Pauloroboto Pauloroboto (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

This isn't "actionable", because you're just venting opinion, despite the reporting instructions at the top of the page and reporting advice from at least two editors in this thread. If you remain immune to feedback its a sign that you might actually be the problem. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

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.

Disruptive editing by 50.45.170.185

I would appreciate it if admins could take a look at the recent editing habits of this anon IP. The editor has removed content that is verified to cited materials at the article on Kathy Ireland and American Football. The editor has also claimed they are doing the work of removing material added by a sock, but without disclosing which sock puppet and the relevant SPI case. In addition, the editor seems to have some sort of vendetta against articles and content on the historic Pennsylvania Van Leer family (see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Need help completing AfD - Articles created by some sock obsessed with the Van Leer family; even though several of these articles have reliable sources (others need work). In addition, there has been recent concerns about the edits made to the Lavender Oil page, which you can read at the IPs talk page. All of this to say, there is a pattern of disruptive editing that needs to be addressed.4meter4 (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Concur. The user is removing cited content from History of Atlanta, History of Georgia (U.S. state), and Sugar Bowl, with similar edit summaries. For a new user, this is all quite odd. BilCat (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

It took me quite a while to write up an accurate and fair summary of the events based on the NY Times article.

Does anyone really think the sock puppet's text is better than the one I wrote? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Atlanta&type=revision&diff=1096175951&oldid=1096115594

I don't feel like I've removed anything, rather just changed it to be more easily readable and actually reflect the content of the source. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

First off, only 1 user has accused me of disruptive editing at the Lavender oil page. And an admin has already given him a warning for his constant warring with me. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AZefr&type=revision&diff=1096010398&oldid=1095847751

As for the Van Leer drama, I'm sure User:Drmies can offer insight here. I was simply there offering a third-opinion when the admin found the sock accounts. So I went ahead through their changes and saw how they have been trying to put Van Leer in every page possible even when it's undue. For example on Batman.

The particular change in summary of the 1956 Sugar Bowl is also an example of this. The sock added a paragraph about it on every possible page he could, but worded it in a weird way and tried to make it sound like Van Leer is the reason a black man was allowed to play in the game, when in reality it was protests, media criticism, the coach and players wishes, and eventually a vote by the board of regents. It's pretty obvious if you read the source https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/sports/ncaafootball/grier-integrated-a-game-and-earned-the-worlds-respect.html 50.45.170.185 (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the thing to do would be to leave the source, and alter the prose to match what is in the reference rather than remove valuable sources from the article. That said, your zeal to undo the work of a sock has led to problematic editing. For example, you have made some inaccurate claims at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Need help completing AfD - Articles created by some sock obsessed with the Van Leer family. For example, it was very easy to verify the accuracy of the content at Maryly Van Leer Peck from the cited sources in the article and elsewhere in a standard WP:BEFORE search. (For example this source is from an official biographical document from the Florida Women’s Hall of Fame which is a state government program verifying that she founded the college https://flwomenshalloffame.org/bio/maryly-vanleer-peck/ ) Likewise, it's likely the majority of these articles would pass an AFD as there are sources with WP:SIGCOV if you bother to follow the steps at WP:BEFORE. I would caution you to be more careful in how you choose to address the edits of the sock within articles. It's fine to remove content not verified to the sources, but please do not remove RS from articles or remove content that is verifiable. It's best to look at the sources, and alter the prose of the articles to match the source if there are errors or misrepresentations. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

That website claims she founded the 'Community Career College of the University of Guam', a thing that doesn't exist. The Community College of Guam website says it was founded by the Guam's 'Community College Act of 1977'. In fact, you can search their entire site for 'Van Leer' and you'll get no hits. She may have been a dean, so possibly could have deserved a footnote on the Guam_Community_College page, but since no other deans are listed about this tiny insignificant college I doubt it is due.

I would very much appreciate it if you or @BilCat revert to the clean-ups I did.

I will not fight you though. If you prefer the sock-puppet's version of reality to be what's on Wikipedia then it's no skin off my back.

Thanks. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

50.45.170.185 This is a perfect example of biased editing leading to false assumptions. A reliable source (the Hall of Fame bio) confirms a fact, and yet you are denying that it's accurate. If there is a contradiction the responsible thing to do, is to dig further. Doing a university library search, I was able to locate an offline reference which explains this discrepancy. William J. Fitzgerald (1989). The Overall Economic Development Plan for Guam: 1989-1993. Guam Department of Commerce. p. 157. details that the majority of the programs of Community Career College at the University of Guam were moved to newly founded Guam Community College in November 1977; thus it's accurate to say that she founded Community Career College at the University of Guam which is now part of Guam Community College. This is exactly what the first source stated and in keeping with the other reference.4meter4 (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

>details that the majority of the programs of Community Career College at the University of Guam were moved to newly founded Guam Community College in November 1977

Good source, but...

>thus it's accurate to say that she founded Community Career College at the University of Guam

Your source literally does not say that... what are you talking about? Also, public colleges are created by government, they don't have "founders".

>A reliable source (the Hall of Fame bio) confirms a fact

Self-published anonymous primary source, does not back up their claims, claims contradict other sources and simple facts like what a public college is and what the 'Community College Act of 1977' is. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Self published? It's an official document of the Florida Women's Hall of Fame and published by the Florida Commission on the Status of Women which is under the office of the Florida Attorney General. Claiming that this is A. Anonymous or B. Self published or C. Unreliable is ludicrous. Additionally, the hall of fame article states " She was the founder and dean of the Community Career College of the University of Guam, which is now the Community College of Guam." This exactly matches the history of the two schools as related in the other source. 4meter4 (talk)

The only source that claims she founded it is the hall of fame website. Which is impossible since it's a public college created by the 1977 act. If the hall of fame website claimed she worked as one of the cleaning maids for the 14th Queen of Guam would you just nod your head and say "hmmm yup this is a reliable source so it must be true even though Guam has no queen, being a maid isn't an exceptional claim! Neither is being a founder of a college!" like you are doing right now? 50.45.170.185 (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

You are making several errors and are confused. 1. Nobody is claiming she established Guam Community College. Not even the hall of fame source (which incidentally is not the only source we have on this as there are others cited in the article) 2. The sources say she established the "Community Career College at the University of Guam". This was am institution at the University of Guam not the GCC which existed for years at that university prior to the establishment of the GCC. 3. The sources state that in November 1977 the "Community Career College at the University of Guam" moved from that institution to become a part of Guam Community College. 4. Guam Community College was established by Public Law 14-77, “The Community College Act of 1977". This established the GCC as an institution but had nothing to do with the merger or move of the Community Career College at the University of Guam to the GCC.4meter4 (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

>The sources say she established the "Community Career College at the University of Guam"

Which sources say this besides the hall of fame website? And how exactly does an individual "found" an institution at a public university? They can't. Look man, the sock also claims that she founded the University of Guam itself when she was 22 years old. Something seriously fishy is up and I don't think we should give this sock the benefit of the doubt.

If you want to know just how non-notable her position was at the college look no further than her name simply listed among other non-notable people https://www.uog.edu/_resources/images/seprs/files/2004_retrospective-of-uog.pdf 50.45.170.185 (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

As it turns out, I was wrong on one point. I found another offline source which discusses Public Law 14-77 in detail. That law established Guam Community College by consolidating several pre-existing programs from a variety of institutions, including the Adult Evening School of the Guam Department of Education, the Community Career College of the University of Guam, the Apprenticeship Training Program of the the University of Guam, and other programs originally created by Guam's Department of Labor and the Guam Police Department. See Guam Economic Research Center (1980). Guam Annual Economic Review. Department of Commerce, Government of Guam. p. 12. Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I saw the IP's comments at Talk:Anthony Wayne; I believe they thanked me for my actions regarding the Dcgene/Drstrange/etc. sock. I am not going to look at all their edits, but I will say that their edit at History of Atlanta was an improvement. And it is true that the socks had an almost unhealthy obsession with the Van Leers, so I am not surprised to see the IP editing in a way that downplays their importance which had been inflated by the socks: I believe I was fully justified in making this big revert. Perhaps the IP needs to be more careful, I don't know, but the enterprise they had engaged in has merit. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming good faith. My main change has been doing this across the six articles where the sock injected this paragraph trying to imply that somehow Van Leer was the reason a black man was allowed to play in the Sugar Bowl, when really he had almost no role at all. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, if we have any sleuths around--one wonders where the IP from Romania got access to to and knowledge of GA Tech archives, or how User:Kathrynlemieux materialized into Anthony Wayne. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies. I say the IP needs to link to some discussion of the sock when making such reverts, or at least identify the sock in their revert summary. I can understand removing Van Leer's name from some of the articles, but he probably is noteworthy in the Sugar Bowl article, the Atlanta history article, and probably the Georgia article too, which are the ones I reverted. BilCat (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies An IP from the same location as the sock's just posted a weird message on my Talk page. I think they are trying to make me look nefarious lol, but they are (once again) being way too obvious. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Two more North Carolina IPs popping up (same location as the sock's IP and the one that put message on my talk page trying to make me look nefarious).

They seem to be now trying to remove VanLeer mentions? But in a weird way that makes the effort look bad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/174.99.194.50

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.182.148.215

thanks 50.45.170.185 (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

What edits have I made that you've been unhappy with my contributions @Drmies? Kathrynlemieux (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Kathrynlemieux, let's say there's an article in which a couple of different socks are edit warring, and all of a sudden a brand-new account comes by, with no previous edits, an account that shows interest in only this precise article--wouldn't you find that interesting? Drmies (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't think I was edit warring with anyone, sorry. Can you point me to whose edits I am disagreeing with? I just love history, have a Master's degree, and am on summer break from teaching so I am starting to add some edits and citations to wiki pages. Figured if I allow my students to use wikipedia I should ensure it is credible! This is just my first article, but I plan on doing more! Kathrynlemieux (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• Editing from the IP is very clearly disruptive and I don't see how having an SPA account against an article subject is any better than the SPA that originally was obsessed with adding to them. Outside of this IP's obsession with adding pseudoscience health claims to the Lavender oil article, of course. The proposed AfDs were clearly out of order and being aimed at notable article subjects whose articles themselves openly made their claims to notability, sourcing included. Silverseren^C 02:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

  Since there are recent meta-analyses published to reputable peer-reviewed journals showing effectiveness, it would be incorrect to label it as " pseudoscience" and frankly the labeling is not constructive, we should focus on the content of the encyclopedia by summarizing reliable, third-party published secondary sources, from roughly the last 5 years as per WP:MEDRS guidelines:

  • 2021 meta-analysis, published to Brain and Behavior (a journal cited on Wikipedia 26 times)[332]
  • 2019 meta-analysis, published to Phytomedicine (journal cited 131 times)[333]
  • 2019 meta-analysis, published to Scientific Reports (journal cited 6424 times)[334]
  • 2018 systematic review, published to World Journal of Biological Psychiatry (journal cited 46 times)[335]

  Let me know if you have any questions. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 03:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - This is a continuation of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment/Hounding, where the IP, who has been static so far, claimed that they were being harassed by User:Zefr. They then began claiming that everyone else was harassing them. See also User talk:50.45.170.185, where the IP states that they previously had an account, which is probably true, and the above, where they state that they have only been here a few days, and that everyone is biting them. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

  I have not claimed anyone else is harassing me. Why lie about something that is so easy to verify?

  And if you actually click the ANI discussion you just linked, it is clear that I state I have been here a long time but only started editing recently. Almost anyone that uses the internet is a long time Wikipedia user.

  And yeah, the biting is very discouraging. Makes me think the whole project is a lost cause. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Even looking at the edit history of the I.P, which is lengthy and extends back over a year to 1 May 2021 What are you talking about? You can see my oldest edits here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/50.45.170.185&offset=20220628165250&target=50.45.170.185 50.45.170.185 (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Appologies. I'm going to redact and remove the last comment, as it was based on looking at an IP address that was one digit off.4meter4 (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, you're just wrong. I explain why I am learning so much here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1095750752

Thanks 50.45.170.185 (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I read that. I'm not buying it.4meter4 (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Based on what? Did you go through that link I posted with my oldest commits?

First edits are edit warring. Straight up. Didn't even know it was called that at the time, quickly learned what that was. Started reading about it. Page says there are various other ways to deal with dispute like WP:DRN, so I open that next. Next are some edits on medieval technology just because I saw it linked on WP:DRN, where I ask about policy (because I'm still learning about it).

Then a sock-puppet investigation is opened up about me, where I defend myself using italics to quote because I don't know about the tq template yet for green quotes. I also mention at this time I had an account I courtesy vanished. Why the heck would I mention that if I'm trying to hide something?

This investigation gets the DRN closed down, so I look around for other ways to settle disputes. I find RfC, so I make that. Zefr posts on my talk page accusing me of all sorts of more things. I google what to do when someone harasses you on wikipedia and find ANI. What is there left to say? I've just spent way too much time here the past week reading stuff. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Bhojpuri language page

Few users are making wrong pages for analysis on BHOJPURI language named as kasika and mallika, They don't have anything to do with BHOJPURI Language they are just distorting the articles of Bhojpuri language and adding new new theories — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saurabh Kumar Chaubey (talk • contribs) 15:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, which are not dealt with here. Feel free to discuss this calmly on the article's talk page. — TREY MATURIN has spoken 17:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)