Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1107

Laska666

I stumbled across Anglo-Vietnamese conflict (1808) a couple of weeks ago, and was struck by its claim that a British expeditionary force had been repelled by a local force with loss, yet there appeared to be no sources focusing on the Royal Navy to substantiate what should be readily verifiable losses. I went so far as to order a copy of one of the sources cited, The Mandarin Road to Old Hue by Alistair Lamb, and found that the page references made no mention of anything like that, or even pertained to that year. I approached Laska666 (talk · contribs) with my concern [1] and they altered the sourcing [2]. Another editor alluded to past issues that I haven't been able to track down [3], and I am starting to think that there are broader issues with this editor. I've tagged the article as a possible hoax and will send it to AfD shortly, but I am starting to think there is a broader pattern here. Other eyes on this editor's articles would be appreciated, preferably with subject knowledge of Vietnamese history. Acroterion (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• I just looked at that article and, that would require a navigational error of extreme incompetence not something the Royal Navy was known for. You'd physically have to sail westwards and not eastwards to end up in the Gulf of Tonkin, that's definitely not a minor mishap and it would definitely have been documented and investigated. I think it definitely warrants further investigation. I can't locate any other sources either and it does seem like it could be a hoax. Canterbury Tail talk 01:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
• For convenience, all the page pages he has created: [4] Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• Nduai Kabait rebellion is entirely based on a doctoral thesis from 1987 (but cited in the article as 2013). I have only found paper and microfiche copies (no digital) so far, so it seems highly unlikely that this is actually a source for the information in the article. The first page of Google just gets wikipedia mirrors. -- asilvering (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
• 1782 Saigon massacre appears to be legitimate. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
• I gave this user a warning for copyright violations in January 2021; I can't exactly recall if there were issues with source-to-text integrity. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
• Anglo-Vietnamese conflict (1808) is at AfD [5] Acroterion (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment': Laska666 has not really responded to these concerns and has not edited since this has been at ANI. This is the same behavior that Laska666 exhibited in the last two instances where they were brought to ANI (racist personal attacks in January 2021 and post-AfD disruptive editing in August 2021). While they did not continue the same behavior upon their return (to my knowledge, maybe Qiushufang or Donald Trung know better), they never addressed or acknowledged their serious conduct issues. Same with the other concerns on their user talk page that were summarily ignored and later deleted (old version of their user talk page).
  One might expect Laska666 to avoid editing until this ANI thread is archived and then pretend that it never happened, just as they did in the last two ANI episodes. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  In view of the comment above, I am contemplating a block for Laska666 from article space until the issues with their referencing and sourcing are satisfactorily addressed. Acroterion (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  I would support. For starters, WP:Communication is required, and second, I can't help but wonder if there some hoaxes, or what, so an explanation is required here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. If they cannot address their faux sourcing, this should result in administrative action to prevent future disruption. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

My impression of Laska was that there was overall improvement in their behavior over time but that may just be a result of less editing on pages I am watching. Qiushufang (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• I just came across this at AfD. From developments in that discussion it doesn't look like Anglo-Vietnamese conflict (1808) is a hoax but, IMO, demonstrates a lack of understanding of notability standards (others may disagree). I am more shocked that there were no sanctions for these overt racist attacks! Shame on our administrators for letting that go unchecked at the time. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  They still seem to be making these racist/personal attacks in edit summaries. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  I've blocked Laska666 from article space. This is indefinite in the strict sense, until they satisfactorily address concerns about their conduct and editing. They can't go into possum mode and hope this blows over. Acroterion (talk) 23:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

User:None Business123

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.

---

None Business123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): [7] legal threat, WP:NOTHERE Andre🚐 04:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Should probably be blocked for illiteracy too... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

172.243.89.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as well, [8] Andre🚐 04:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Note that they also made an edit via this IP: 172.243.89.92. ––FormalDude talk 04:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – Muboshgu (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[9]

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.

Skippo10

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.

---

Skippo10 (talk · contribs) has a long history of disruptive and poor editing, including adding unsourced content to BLPs, and has been blocked twice before (2007 for 3RR, 2018 for removing AFD tags from articles). They continue to add unsourced content to BLPs and me and another admin (@ChrisTheDude:) have recently tried to explain to him about repeated OVERLINK violations. I fear this editor lacks the competence to edit. GiantSnowman 15:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I will say that sports articles in general are huge violators of WP:OVERLINK the way they're structured and generally edited. Especially sports teams. Canterbury Tail talk 17:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I have been editing for a number of years, and feel on the whole I do things pretty well, I believe this is a personal attack from GiantSnowman on me, I'm not sure why, every so often I make the occasional mistake, and feel a bit of guidance sometimes would be enough, but it appears that GiantSnowman is following my every move, and waiting to find any opportunity to get me blocked from editing and I feel ultimately I am being bullied by this user. Skippo10 (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Skippo10 do you see how some of your responses (e.g. I don't know what you are talking about. [10], thanks for trying to get me blocked...really nice of you to essentially find ways to bully people who work hard editing and bringing articles up to date, but some admins like to flex their muscles don't they [11]) do not endear you to uninvolved users who view these disputes? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your talk page - going back 16 years - is absolutely littered with warnings and comments from multiple other users regarding your poor editing - violation of MOS (mainly OVERLINK), not using edit summaries, adding POV, poor page moves, edit warring, adding unsourced content to BLPs - the list goes on. It is not the "occasional mistake", it is a clear lack of competence. I am not trying to get you blocked or bully you, I am trying to stop your ongoing disruption. Your attitude here says everything we need to know. GiantSnowman 21:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Contrary to the above, I don't feel Skippo "does things pretty well". They have a massive problem with WP:OR; they spent the summer updating club articles with lists of "unregistered" players (see e.g. this or this), which were completely unsourced (and to my knowledge, unverifiable). They did something similar in 2020 too when the listed players as 'out of contract' despite this not being verifiable. Number 57 21:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I feel I learnt from that terrible mistake, very difficult at the level of football I update to get everything right, anyway if you lot want me blocked I guess its going to happen, its a shame you admins can't offer support to us non admins really instead of ganging up and going through the archives to prove your points. Skippo10 (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

If you learnt from it, why did you do pretty much the same thing (on at least a dozen articles) two years later??? And I have offered advice on a few occasions. The problem is that in most cases you react to anyone disagreeing with you by claiming you're being bullied (I see at least three claims of being bullied on your talkpage). Number 57 21:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand how editing and generally adding links to what I do is an ongoing disruption. I feel it is bullying, I am not going to cower down in the corner because the admins are ganging up on me. Skippo10 (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

These essays may be of use to you: WP:1AM, WP:TINC — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Skippo10's talk page shows years of editors trying to get them to understand the problems with some of their edits, and a lack of receptiveness or willingness to learn on Skippo's part. Refusal to improve or change their editing practices based on feedback indicates a lack of competence, particularly for an editor with Skippo's longevity on the project. Schazjmd (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Refusal to improve or change their editing practices based on feedback indicates a lack of competence. Sadly, I am forced to agree. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Indefinitely block Skippo10 because competence is required

Skippo10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See above thread. This user's talk page depicts years of other editors attempting to help them understand the rules around here. Plus 2x temporary blocks for failure to actually correct that behavior. And all of that advice is met with empty pleas, WP:IDHT, or promises to improve, without evidence of actual improvement. Add to this the user's continual appeal that, in essence, all admins are aligned against me. [12] [13] This wiki is not a no-holds-barred cage match. It is a project which requires competence and careful attention to the rules. For this reason, we should indefinitely block Skippo10 via community consensus, as a preventative action to inhibit future disruption. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll save you the time, I have retired on Wikipedia, I'll delete the app and move on to different pastures, I don't need this shit. Skippo10 (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC) (now retired)

I'm afraid retiring in the middle of an ANI thread is often seen as an attempt to avoid scrutiny. How do we know you won't quietly un-retire later on when the heat is off? Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Support - This is extreme levels of IDHT and CIR. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Support A scroll through the talk indicates 15 years of editors trying to collaborate, notify, and improve, and there has been none. Probably should have been blocked after this, TBH FrederalBacon (talk) 07:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Support Per link above and users comments here. Although- points for the irony of them calling users trying to warn them keyboard warriors when they are infact warrioring from their keyboard.... Points lost for them failing to realize the irony on their own. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Support Years upon years of disruption without improvement despite other editors trying to help, yea at some point you have had enough chances. --TylerBurden (talk) 13:43, 26 August 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 (User Blocking Request)

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.

---

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

the following user did many disruptive editings to National Resistance Front of Afghanistan's page without engaging with other editors such as removing the official website of NRF [14] with no sourced information just a WP:POV editing and instead the official website of NRF replacing a fraud fundraising scamming website that even not mention at any sources[15]. I did leave a warning on his talk page to stop vandalism and edit war but looks like he doesn't care about Wikipedia community guidelines and the kept reverting and removing or replacing the official website, and ignoring all reliable sources and three-revert rule, I request to block this user from editing to learn something about policies - — Preceding unsigned comment added by IranicaEditor (talk • contribs) 07:02, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

As a note to admins, the reporter is doing the exact same edits as a previously banned account ([16]), and even is making “I will block you” threats to the exact same user (Dan Wang). Generic CoI that learns a few terms in adminspace. Juxlos (talk) 07:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• without engaging with other editors - I see exactly one of you two on the article's talk page & asking the other (by edit summary) to discuss there, and it ain't you. (The only editor to express any disagreement there with the edits in question is the indef'd account Juxlos mentions in the comment above mine) So if there's anyone here failing to engage, it's you. You also failed to notify Dan Wang, as you're required to. Did it for you. AddWittyNameHere 07:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Juxlos is a proxy or supporter of this violated user Dan Wang[17] here I explained the whole subject of the official website with sources, but after ignoring all @Juxlos threated me to blocking, the user is his abusing power on me, instead of see the truth into the reliable sources and explaination. Is that WP:POV of powerful editors have priority rather than reliable sources? @AddWittyNameHere IranicaEditor (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  For what it’s worth, I had let the edit you wanted to put in pass, and then you acted sufficiently like a sockpuppet for me to become unconfident that you (or for that matter the organization you obviously are affiliated with) are doing it in good faith at all. Congratulations. Juxlos (talk) 07:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  moving topic to another discussing won't hide your power abusing, adding an official website to related article is what wrong?, in on your fact, adding https://www.nrfafg.org (fraud fundraising scamming website) is right and the official website NRF https://www.nationalresistance.org (no fundraising but a latest updates about NRF) is wrong, correct?

  so easily everyone can understand your main purposes IranicaEditor (talk) 07:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  As amusing as watching someone clearly without actual understanding of Wikipedia try to bureaucrat their way into COI, this is getting old. For the admins, I don’t think this user has a sufficient command of English (or good faith) to actually engage in talk page discussion beyond name-calling. Juxlos (talk) 08:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  Let the admins investigate on this matter, I have no further talks with you and with your sockpuppet users. The main subject is about abusing power, sockpuppet and violating guideline just for replacing the official website of NRF[18] into a fraud fundraising website[19] IranicaEditor (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG... IranicaEditor appears to be a sockpuppet, or a meatpuppet. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  maybe I appear as an amateur user but it won’t be sockpuppet, you check and see my all contributions, let’s come up to the point and see the truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by IranicaEditor (talk • contribs) 09:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I checked your contributions, and found this. Brunton (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

all I want to say on this issue is about the scam and legit website of NRF article, wikipedia should be a better place on internet for legitimate information, do you consider wrong information within an article of wikipedia? on that email I received [20] I will provide the copy if you required, the whole email explained about the legit website of NRF that all sources mentioned and confirmed. after I manually reviewed sources tuen I compromised to contribute the right or real website of the following article. so what is wrong if consider the real website of NRF on article? IranicaEditor (talk) 11:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• IranicaEditor indef blocked for a history of disruptive editing, meatpuppetry, possible IP socking, and NPOV issues. Generally, WP:NOTHERE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:27, 26 August 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.

MatthewS.

MatthewS. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have attempted to engage many times through many channels to get this user to talk reasonably instead of edit-warring over a content disagreement on Egyptian pound and Template:EGP, however all my attempts have failed, with them refusing to acknowledge that they may have come to an incorrect conclusion. It feels as though I am arguing with a brick wall because no matter what I say I either receive silence or the defence "it was like that before you joined the website". Many times I have attempted to demonstrate to them how inaccurate content has sometimes slipped under the radar for years, but I never get any substantial engagement beyond a demand for agreement with them, claiming their edits are "here to stay" and that they "won't give up". TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey @TheCurrencyGuy, it would help if you elaborated further and provided additional dif links. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@MatthewS. has indeed been edit-warring on Egyptian pound again today and has violated the 3RR policy. @TheCurrencyGuy is dangerously close to violating the 3RR policy. This has become a repeated occurrence on that page. Both @MatthewS. and @TheCurrencyGuy were temporarily suspended a few weeks ago for edit-warring on that same page, although @TheCurrencyGuy does seem to be making an effort to communicate on both the article talk page and @MatthewS.’ user talk page. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It is difficult to provide a full list as he has made many MANY reversions to the article since 2006, but in the past other editors seemed to give up on it as a lost cause due to fear of ending up in an edit war, the edit history affirms this [21]. He seems intent on including some poorly sourced and potentially spurious material (he keeps adding back in completely unsourced statements, such as the etymology of "geneih", this may be true, but despite my asking him to offer a source he never has), and whenever its presence is questioned he defends it on the grounds of having been in the article a long time if he responds at all. All I seek to do is to include verifiable factual information in the article and try to prevent things such as citogenesis, which the "currency converter" sites he cited appear to do. The main one he relies on is Investopedia, whose page on the Egyptian pound appears to have been copypasted from an earlier version of the Wikipedia article.

To give one of the more minor examples of an error he is intent on retaining, the caption on the LE 200 banknote at the top of the infobox currently states it to be the "obverse", when the image file itself states it to be the reverse.TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• These two editors had been edit-warring at Egyptian pound and were both given short blocks, and were then told to seek dispute resolution, which they did at DRN. The issue seemed to have to do with what symbols can be used to represent the Egyptian pound. It appeared that an RFC would be necessary, and that subsequent discussion should clarify exactly what the choices should be in the RFC. After more questions, it appeared that maybe they were only arguing over what symbols they preferred, in which case an RFC might not be necessary. I then asked if I should close the DRN thread as resolved. The Currency Guy then posted a complaint about MatthewS, and then posted this thread. I failed the discussion at DRN before I had seen this thread, but I would have failed the discussion if I had seen that it had gone to WP:ANI. I have tried to mediate the dispute, and am not getting clear answers as to the scope of the disagreement. I don't know what should be done. I know that DRN didn't work, and I don't think that was my mistake. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  Apologies that I did not make myself entirely clear.

  I became frustrated at MatthewS.'s statement that he "saw no issue with the way the article currently is", of course he's happy, it reflects his personal preference, and he seems determined to keep it at a standstill, so I became a bit personal.

  It is just extremely frustrating to me the way he takes out verifiable sources because they detract from his personal preference for the dubious "E£". He seems to think I have an obsession with "forcing" £E, when infact my preference is for LE because that is the abbreviation used by the Central Bank of Egypt, currently issued Egyptian stamps, and the World Bank, and is the most common representation used by the Egyptian press. £E is supported as a rarer variation by reliable sources such as older Egyptian stamps (though as recent as 2002), the CIA World Factbook and Encyclopaedia Britannica.

  The version of the article I wish to see is one where LE is the main symbol used, reflecting actual use, with alternatives mentioned but not given the same weight. In the introduction I added a wiki note for editors stating "This appears to be the most common abbreviation for the currency and should, therefore, be the style generally used for identification", with other forms cited after that. MatthewS. took this out and replaced it with a string of potentially dubious sources, citing websites that seem to have got their information from the Wiki article, thus being a form of circular reporting. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  • I now see that I did make a mistake, but that it wouldn't have made any difference. I didn't check the article Egyptian pound to see if MatthewS. and TheCurrencyGuy were edit-warring. They were. The rules for DRN say not to edit the article while discussion is in progress, because the discussion should decide how to edit the article. I still don't know what should be done. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

    @Robert McClenon Another user has tried to start a conversation on the article talk page about pooling sources, which seems like a good idea. Otherwise, I suspect one or both of these squabbling users will be blocked from the article if they continue the edit-warring. Bgsu98 (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• What the fuck is it with the Egyptian pound? We've had two ANI threads, two MOSNUM threads, and a challenge to pistols at 20 paces -- and that's just in the past two weeks. Maybe it's the Curse of Tutankhamun at work. EEng 10:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  User:EEng - There have been other mummified Pharaohs whose tombs were raided, of whom Tutankhamen was only the most recent, or most recently documented, and Cleopatra was the last, and maybe the most attractive. So take your pick from four millennia of ancient history. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, but Tutankhamum turned away from the worship of the all-powerful Aten, and he had a really cool meteorite dagger, so, you do the math.... Dumuzid (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  Part of the problem is that none of the Pharaohs authorized the use of the Egyptian pound, so that they disapprove and may be causing trouble. There are gold bars in gold depositories that are marked with the signets of certain Pharaohs. They verified that those gold bars are money. And many of them were mummified by a process that took 140 days. It could be any of various Pharaohs. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  "E£" was added to the article in August, 2005, without a source given.

  The claim about the etymology of the Egyptian name was added in November, 2005, again, with no source given.

  These two claims appear to have no supporting verifiable citations. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  We are not going to resolve the editing dispute here. Please stick to discussing what behavioral issues we're supposed to be dealing with. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikix645 for long-term and profane abuse

• Wikix645 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Wikix645 is a long-time, low-frequency editor (first edit 2012, last 50 edits go back to 2015). However, over their edits in the last year and a half, the editor has repeatedly appeared on articles relating to Catholic views on sexual morality to delete content and leave uncivil edit summaries, many of which take a deeply sectarian tone. The editor was repeatedly warned following an edit war just over a year ago to cease behaving in this manner. However, despite later acknowledging fault (and deleting the evidence), the editor has returned to reinsert similar material from the initial edit war. A serious penalty would likely be excessive, considering this editor's frequency and intensity of disruption. However, the repeat and exceedingly profane nature of the edits following a prior final warning suggest that some sort of formal response is needed. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Delete my account, I wish to be dissociated with the account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikix645 (talk • contribs)

Accounts cannot be deleted. PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for the profane edit and would like to have my comment deleted if possible. ~ Wikix645 (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2022‎ (UTC)

See WP:VANISH. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• This user's comments are beyond the pale and extremely rude. I would suggest allowing them to vanish, and then permanently blocking them, honestly. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  Blocking them precludes taking advantage of VANISH. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Sunderland Renaissance

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.

---

• China Global Television Network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• CGTN (TV channel) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sunderland Renaissance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Antonian Sapphire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (acknowledged secondary account of Sunderland Renaissance)

I cannot show publicly because WP:OUT but I have strong suspicions that this user is a contributor to China Global Television Network (CGTN). The user has been editing CGTN articles in a more positive manner for some time, trying to remove negative information about them. Pinging @Amigao since they have experience dealing with this user. The Account 2 (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I share your concern. If the non-public evidence is what I think it is its pretty darn ironclad. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I should also note that if this account really belongs to that person, they (through their blog) have attempted to dox a fellow Wikipedia user (won't name names here), which is a very serious violation of WP:PRIVACY The Account 2 (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

If thats the case I think this needs to go to WP:ANI. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

How should I do that? (haven't been editing for three years so forgot a lot of procedures :D) By this I mean what kind of report should I write. I fear I may make a mistake so... Thanks in advance! The Account 2 (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@The Account 2: I have moved it. Sunderland Renaissance has a long history of bashing their wikipedia "opponents" (myself included) under their IRL identity in opinion pieces published by fringe tankie outlets. That they're going beyond that to doxxing is inexcusable, I extended them the benefit of the doubt again and again and I'm tired of the bullshit to coin a phrase. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

If there is off-wiki evidence of doxxing, it might be best to contact ArbCom regarding this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I found the tweet. I can confirm The Account 2's assertion that doxxing has occurred, not going on the person's personal blog for obvious security reasons. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I would definitely send to ArbCom then to let them investigate further. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

How does one go about doing that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Here. Black Kite (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I categorically deny all of the associations above and the user who have posted this is a throwaway account (created 7th August) who is someone with an extensive history of pushing a long-term grudge/harassment against this respective person who I am accused of being. It is also ludicrous to assume this "person" is in the interests of defending CGTN when he was in fact famously dismissed by them nearly one year ago after publicly criticizing them for their perceived incompetence. Also, not all edits I have made to the article are positive, here are edits from this account adding critical content [22]- Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Am I missing something, or are you trying to WP:OUT them? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I also have behind the scenes evidence (which also I cannot post) which demonstrates that the original poster "The Account 1" is a throwaway single purpose account belonging to someone who has a long term grudge against the specific person he is targeting, including a long term and extensive history of harassment which involves the creation of scores of parody accounts (both on and off Wiki) as well as single-purpose harassment accounts. "The Account 1"- created his account on August 7th having seen a twitter post about a dispute related to a specific user that day (who also cannot be named) wherein accusations of Doxing are being lodged. The report has been made entirely in bad faith, and Horse Eyed Jack has also been looking for respective excuses (through political differences) to get me banned for a long time. I do not know who he is and I do not have an off wiki agenda against him to declare- Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, your position is that you cannot be this person, who was dismissed by CGTN (apparently being rehired some months later) because around the same time that he was dismissed you added critical content about CGTN to Wikipedia? MrOllie (talk) 01:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Just because the same high profile (Peng Shuai) was ongoing does not equate to such being an implication of guilt, but I am not aware this person was rehired. But either way, there is no COI and no doxxing on my behalf, and the original poster of this thread is doing this is absolute bad faith, which can be verified privately- Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Are you referring to the email you sent me? No I am not "Alek" (whoever that is). I edited "Juche" and North Korea articles because I have an interest in East Asia in general (and the ideology section of DPRK needed serious updates). I didn't "claim ignorance" but was genuinely confused on how to take this to WP:ANI and no, I did not start Wikipedia just to attack you (I did it because many of the China articles were pretty outdated and missed editing Wiki after 3 years). I have not ever collaborated with ASPI member Fergus Ryan. Are you preparing an "article" about "me" (or the person you think I am) on your blog? Also I happened to edit Wikipedia some time ago, since 2019 (but took a break for 3 years). The Account 2 (talk) 10:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

EDIT:here are the emails if anyone's wondering [23] The Account 2 (talk) 11:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Who said anything about writing an article about anyone? For a supposed random account you do seem to have a lot of background knowledge on something you otherwise claim to know nothing about. It is your choice to publish such emails but as they contain nothing inapropriate it only serves to consolidate this particular case that the original poster is acting in blatant bad faith and clearly trolling. I am otherwise happy to cooperate in private and provide any information necessary admins are seeking in their investigation regarding this. This will be my last post on the matter and will otherwise avoid topics of respective sensitivity in future in the bid to preventing any further accusations- Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

FYI I didn't claim to know nothing about anything. I have some knowledge about these things since I happen to follow China-related accounts on Twitter because I happen to be interested in China. The Account 2 (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE:The article that included the doxxing was removed, but the article is archived on WebArchive The Account 2 (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Are you seriously threatening another outing? Those emails are highly inappropriate, also please note that repeatedly and aggressively emailing someone who has not responded back is generally perceived as harassment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Also they seem to know A LOT about the person they're being accused of... and an additional note, their blogs Twitter account became private the same day he responded... very interesting... The Account 2 (talk) 16:41, 26 August 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.

Atlanta IPs violating BLP

2600:1700:D390:2DF0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Some Atlanta-based IPs have added falsehoods to BLPs. The person changed the first wife's surname and added a child to Ted Nugent.[24] They are also clumsily adding biography info[25] and changing England to UK and back. WP:CIR is an issue.

Last January they were busy whitewashing the Ted Nugent biography, removing negative material, for which they were rangeblocked for six months.[26]

The IP range is Special:Contributions/2600:1700:D390:2DF0:0:0:0:0/64. Can we set a longer rangeblock? Binksternet (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Still a problem! Today the person added unsupported political party affiliation to Stevie Nicks.[27] Let's get this thing capped. Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing. Looking at the range contributions for last 2 days but it appears an IP block is appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Combining the ongoing disruptive (or at least not constructive) editing through current time, and the history and IP range's prior block history, I have applied a 1 year block on editing article space and linked to this ANI for discussion. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

White Beard 1 edit warring and persistently adding a non-reliable source

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.

---

White Beard 1 (talk · contribs) is persistently POV-pushing and using using a Youtube Video as source at Moab Man. They have not replied to comments other than accusing editors of "silencing the truth." [28] I would suggest that this user is WP:NOTHERE. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• Good grief. Indeffed as NOTHERE, though I may have to answer to a higher power, it seems. Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite: Jimbo Wales? TornadoLGS (talk) 20:49, 25 August 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 talk:Caesium-137 RT 1893-20

Can we get an admin to revoke TPA to match the sock master. Lavalizard101 (talk) 08:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 09:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Legal threat on userpage

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.

---

2A00:1370:8172:2AA3:49BB:C027:26F7:EE7F has posted a legal threat - acknowledged as such in their own text - on their user talk page. The /64 for this IP is already blocked, may need to pull TPA as well. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Done, Special:Contributions/2A00:1370:8172:2AA3:0:0:0:0/64 blocked without talk page access. I also removed the rant. Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Makes a change from the accusations of extreme liberalism that we normally get accused of. Nthep (talk) 07:37, 26 August 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:Masonjcole

This user has been asked multiple times on their talkpage that when they update NFL roster templates, to update the count (number of players on active roster, reserve lists etc.). User has continued to make these edits without updating the count. User has not at any point acknowledged the requests and continues to edit with any sort of communication.--Rockchalk717 18:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind, it seems the user is finally updating the count.--Rockchalk717 18:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

IP user 103.58.75.198 (talk · contribs) calling me racist three times

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 user called me racist three times, [29], [30], (two times in Mongolian, you can use google translate), and one time on my talk page. Claiming I am "anti-mongol", which I am not. I was reverting unsourced edits of his on Borjigin and Qarachar Noyan articles. Also here he calls me "tyrant", also claims to be even block me for years, suspecting being IP sock of Iam.i.20 (talk · contribs), having similar edits. Beshogur (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for a week for personal attacks. The IP seems kinda static (for the last few days anyway) so we'll see what happens. No comment on the sock issue. Canterbury Tail talk 16:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Looking through your contributions, I'm also seeing reversion of sourced material (eg [31]) with no justification beyond the fact it was contributed by an IP. It might not be that surprising that they got a bit cross with you. If you dispute sourced material, the talk page is your next step, not reverting. GoldenRing (talk) 17:01, 29 August 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.

Corrections neccesary

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.

---

There is public information about rob schneider that is inaccurate and when I tried to correct it, I was told the editing function is locked to prevent misuse. The standing of knowingly incorrect information for public print is actually misuse. It's actually illegal, and I actually recommend you knock it off before I actually find out who you are and Sue you until you can't actually feed your kids. Stop ruining our country and God Bless America. 🇺🇸

• Specifically rob Schneider is a republican that you have listed as an independent. He went on a talkshow and clarified that he is a republican and would care to be recognized as such, in light of the current debacle in the Democratic party.

• • Why a Comic Legend Chose His Country over Career/Rob Schneider/the Glenn Beck Podcast Episode 152/ YouTube/ August 27, 2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:80A0:500:2CD:F0B7:C07C:BDE0:73F1 (talk) 10:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

ANI does not adjudicate content disputes. If someone has reverted an edit of yours (which by the way, your contrib history has no history of), you must take it to the article talk page, not here. You have not provided any diffs or other evidence to help us help you. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 10:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• I have blocked the OP for a week for making legal threats. Black Kite (talk) 10:58, 29 August 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.

New editor taking ownership

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.

---

Pnngnn (talk · contribs · count)

New user is reverting multiple times, not communicating, blanking warnings without replies. Needs to calm down and open discussions and not just be a bull in a glass shop. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I made a very simple, uncontroversial edit. I stated what I did in the edit summary. This user FlightTime accused me of making a test edit (it was perfectly obviously no such thing), then accused me of not having a consensus for this simple uncontroversial edit, then simply reverted without explanation. If they had any actual reason to object to my edit, doubtless they would have said what it was. Pnngnn (talk) 16:46, 27 August 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.

SpacemanSpiff allegedly creates many conflicts between templates and transclusions

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:SpacemanSpiff edited many astrology sign articles, such as this edit, which eliminated the parameter varna from the inclusion. I don't understand what varna is, but I see that it has been in Infobox zodiac since 2012. I asked about this on SpacemanSpiff's talk page and he/she blew me off. He/she said he/she would stop editing Wikipedia but this turns out to be untrue. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Jc3s5h - User:SpacemanSpiff never said that they would stop editing Wikipedia. They said you reminded them why maybe they shouldn't be editing Wikipedia, but that was sarcasm, and, on the Internet, no one recognizes sarcasm. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• There has never been a parameter called varna in that template until five days ago. It was also added to the documentation here by the same now-blocked editor that SS was - quite correctly - reverting. IIRC, varna is fringey nonsense. Black Kite (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
• By "blew you off" you mean "responded completely appropriately to your officious demands"? JBL (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
• Just for context, the "varna" parameter was added by a now-blocked editor who was intent on making a connection between Varna (Hinduism) and Zodiac/birth charts, wanting to change the meaning on Wikipedia to the idea that people born certain times of the year fell into certain castes, which is not how that works, to put it mildly. The parameter doesn't belong in the infobox because it's a single editor's fringe idea. - Aoidh (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for that context, Aoidh. I know little about Hindu astrology but do know of the concept of varna in Hinduism, and was trying to work out what the connection was between it and the signs of the zodiac. You have expained very clearly that there is none, so SpacemanSpiff was correct in his actions. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• The 2012 diff doesn't show varna at all, not sure why you think it does. I frankly don't understand why you approached this the way you did. Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think the 2012 diff was pulling in the current documentation, because it did display "varna" in the infobox earlier when the OP posted. I think the OP (like me) isn't too familiar with how certain technical aspects of how templates work. Schazjmd (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• First, the OP came running to my talk page in an accusatory tone without doing a basic check of the history and I did not take kindly to that (although I did point to them that they should check the history and also that they were wrong on the template history), that the OP isn't happy that I haven't quit yet isn't something I'll do anything about! If the OP had just asked what was going on instead of coming in with the accusatory tone, I'd have given some explanation on the lines that Aoidh has given above, albeit not as eloquently! —SpacemanSpiff 01:08, 27 August 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:Skuma81

• Skuma81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Prof. A.C. Kuma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A.C. Kuma

This editor is blatantly defying the results of the AFD by creating the same article as was draftified in article space, although User:Liz said to use AFC when the draft is ready for mainspace. It is not ready for mainspace, and the editor may be not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. The editor's only edits have been to promote a family member. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with your contention. This article is not about promoting a family member. Prof. A.C. Kuma is not a living person. He passed away twelve years ago. It is a biography of a renowned Ghanaian lawyer and law professor, who played a measurable role in Ghana's political and legal history. Please research all the references provided. Skuma81 (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Why did you create a bio page, that was recently deleted? GoodDay (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The originator was told by the AFD closer to submit the draft to AFC when it was ready for article space, and was advised that the references should be made inline. Instead, the originator created the same article again in article space in blatant disregard of the close of the AFC. Sometimes when you are told to use AFC, it means that you should use AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

By way of (hopefully) helpful comment as someone who reviews pages at AfC, the page as it currently is would not be approved. It needs inline citations to support the individual sections which makes it hard to even consider if they would pass WP:POLITICIAN or WP:PROF. Additionally it needs to be written in a more neutral WP:POV.

There are also a number of WP:MOS issues including use of honorifics through the article, not using sentence caps in headings, the page name and more. Then with the unacknowledged source of the cut and paste move from the version in draft space and lack of wikilinks this article is not ready for mainspace. Gusfriend (talk) 05:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

• I've indeffed the user as a promotion-only account.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The subject editor says, both here and on their user talk page, that they are not being promotional because the subject of the biography is deceased. I have always thought that a relationship to a deceased family member is a conflict of interest, and I think that the community thinks that is a matter of common sense. We have had other cases of editors trying to use Wikipedia to memorialize a late family member, and I think that has always been thought to be COI. However, I see that the conflict of interest policy does not explicitly state that a relationship to a deceased family member is a conflict of interest. Maybe the policy should be clarified or revised. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I took care of that for you. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 12:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Disruption at Steven Adams and talk page

Debbie.440937 (talk · contribs), edit warring to add trivial content and remove contrary opinions at article talk page. There may be a longer history of disruption. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I left them a warning. Ping me if problems persist. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Kg673

Kg673 (talk · contribs) - warned multiple times for adding unsourced content to BLPs, also blocked previously. Also received warnings for general competence in relation to updating dates when they update athlete stats. However, they continue to add unsourced content and fail to properly update dates (see this where they don't update the stats table date, and this where they update the date but not the time. I cannot get through to them and they will not change their disruptive behaviour. No edit summaries, no talk page posts. GiantSnowman 08:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked for a month. Next time might be indefinite. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you! GiantSnowman 10:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Constant disruptions by User:TheWikiholic, User:TruthGuardians and User:Salvabl at the Talk:List of best-selling music artists

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've been having constant disruptions by TheWikiholic, TruthGuardians and Salvabl at the Talk:List of best-selling music artists for quite some time now. I'd like to mention first that all three editors are always involved in promoting Michael Jackson.

• Their initial joint involvement began at Talk:List of best-selling music artists to promote Michael Jackson at this discussion. In that discussion, all three clandestinely begin to discuss the general system of the list, and gradually switch to discrediting Elvis Presley and The Beatles, claiming that neither deserves to be listed at the top of the list.
• The second main discussion I'd like to point out is this, wherein all three initiate the discussion pretending their concern is within another area of the list, but again they quickly turn to discrediting The Beatles and Presley in hopes that they could replace at least Presley’s spot on the list with Michael Jackson.
• TruthGuardians' Michael Jackson promotions continue in ways like this.

Since they haven't been successful in achieving their goal, they come up with comments like "The list has a systematic bias against black artists". "Currently there is far give too much consideration given to the Beatles and Elvis on the basis of the lack certification system in a time when the consumer market worldwide was a lot less diverse and a lot smaller in markets like today", "I will also initiate a new discussion to use lower claimed sales for many artists, including the Beatles and Elvis Presley, as the gap between their claimed sales and certifications is the most egregious of all". "This benefits the most US-oriented artists such as Elvis Presley", "and that at the same time that is the reason why Presley keeps his 500M figure and is above Jackson".

I'd like to mention that not long ago, I reported TruthGuardians here at ANI for Off-wiki Canvassing, which was a discussion at the Talk:List of best-selling albums where both TheWikiholic and TruthGuardians were involved in promoting Michael Jackson's Thriller for having sold 100 million units. The discussion was closed to their disadvantage by an admin. Ever since then, both have been either engaged in wikihounding me at Talk:List of best-selling albums or targeting my work at Talk:List of best-selling music artists.

Topic ban proposals

I would like to ask our community to ban TheWikiholic, TruthGuardians and Salvabl from editing and/or commenting at the Talk:List of best-selling music artists and its main article as their only goal is to promote Michael Jackson and demote Elvis Presley and The Beatles. Thank you.--Harout72 (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Strong support For topic bans.

Akhiljaxxn aka TheWikiholic was given final warning after a community discussion earlier on ANI.[32]

TruthsGuardians's conduct was discussed extensively in the earlier ANI thread.[33]

It is now time to topic ban all three of these since Salvabl is also acting disruptive and frequently violating WP:POINT[34]. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

First of all, I've had to go username change for the reason of privacy and protection. I was subjected to legal and violent threats on and off of Wikipedia from the ruling party of India because of my edits on Wikipedia. I had explained all of this before undergoing a name change. You need to remove the name of my old account here as you are putting me at risk. I would also like you to show me these so-called disruptive editing or edit warring because these examples by Harout72 are examples of said behavior. TheWikiholic (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Abhishek0831996:@TheresNoTime: WP:OUTING. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 10:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Mako001: I have no dog in this fight but that was no violation of OUTING. Read WP:REFACTOR and don't modify others post. Editorkamran (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Editorkamran: Cheers, I am aware of WP:REFACTOR, however it struck me as potentially a case of outing, so I removed it out of an abundance of caution. If you do not consider that other editors privacy or safety is compromised by the material I removed, by all means reinstate it, I do not object. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks for the response. Editorkamran (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Strong oppose I was not able to independently verify Harout72's allegations that he was being hounded or that the other users engaged in canvassing. If someone is able to verify that, please notify me. Madame Necker (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose topic bans based on the analysis presented below. Gusfriend (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Statement by TruthGaurdians

Here you go again… more false accusations and another failed attempt to weaponize the ANI board against editors who constructively disagree with you as to not have to work towards a resolution with editors who point out the fundamental issues with the articles that you are in clear violation of WP:OWNERSHIP for. The RFC you mention was not closed to anyone’s disadvantage. It was closed because “without prejudice as it was considered a clusterfest that was going nowhere.” So of it was to my disadvantage, it was also to yours as well. Furthermore, I would like to add that you falsely accused me of off-wiki canvassing as is evident by the results and non-action. I told you then you were making false accusations and I’m asking you now to stop making that same false accusation. What you claim to be disruptive editing is not the case. Agreeing with other editors who have voiced the same concerns as I have is how Wikipedia works. Talk:List of best-selling albums#Methodology shows multiple editors bringing up some of these unresolved issues that I have had for years and that is that you are also in violation of WP:NOR. Also, I did not start this discussion. I only constructively added to the discussion started by Rhododendrites. Finally, other issues that have been reported by other editors is what they deem as racial bias found here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1102#Racial bias at Talk:List of best-selling albums reported by Levivich.

So while once again you are making a false assumption that all of these genuine concerns is about the position of one artist over the other, it’s not. It’s about how one editor gets to control the narrative of these pages while in clear violation of WP:OWNERSHIP, WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTHESIS. Instead of wasting the time of the admins by weaponizing the ANI board, I’m asking you to stop with the false accusations once and for all, and work with the many, many editors (old and new) who have been reporting the same issues for years. There are many great suggestions in the works here right now: Fundamental Article Issues TruthGuardians (talk) 05:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but as someone who just started a conversation on the above talk page, I can confirm that Harout has not been receptive to constructive criticism on the talk page here historically, and the only interactions I've had with the three users mentioned above by him have been respectful and attempting to find a common path forward. I was the one who started the Fundamental Article Issues section on the talk page there, and I've never interacted with these users before now. I think Harout is the one being unreasonable here. Pacack (talk) 05:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• What the pluperfect hell? Being an utterly uninvolved editor who's never participated on those talk pages, I just looked over the first linked discussion Harout cites, and his reaction is little short of hysteria. It is not a sinister act to question the criteria used to make a determination, nor is it a thought crime to deem Michael Jackson to be more popular in his time than the Beatles and Elvis were in theirs. (I disagree, but it's certainly a justifiable stance to take.) Harout absolutely gives the finger to WP:AGF in that year old discussion, with this opening salvo: "Finally, you will be Boldy reverted as many times as required and be reported to ANI for edit-warring and disruptive behavior. In fact, let me remind you that your hateful comments here at this talk are disruptive enough." Ironically enough, such an unprovoked statement -- the alleged "hateful comments" had to do with questioning the methodology involved -- would've been ANI-worthy itself.

  Then we go to the second linked discussion, where far from being the monolithic front Harout is claiming, TruthGuardians supports Harout's stance: "I find myself in agreement with Harout’s argument above, “The higher claimed figures should be looked at and considered on individual bases, it's not all that black and white.” He’s absolutely right, there can be a lot to consider and a lot of gray areas depending on the artist and situation." Once again, it's a long, long, long dry discussion of methodology and numbers. I don't remotely have the interest or expertise necessary to parse them out myself, but gosh: that'd be a content dispute, which has no place at ANI.

  Then we have the sockpuppet investigation involving TruthGuardians [35], which was closed by the checkusers as being unrelated to TruthGuardians. Abhishek0831996 deserves one hell of a trout slap for claiming THAT as the basis for a topic ban on pretty much anything. ANI is not a venue to tear down people who disagree with you on content. Ravenswing 08:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

You need to check the talk page archives. This WP:IDHT by these editors is happening for years of years. They don't even understand what is being discussed and keep pursuing their fan-based POV just all the time. Topic ban is necessary now. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

"You need to check the talk page archives." This is adjacent to "'check revision history.' You've essentially made an allegation, then pointed at a mountain of paperwork and told others to prove it for you. Please provide some diffs. GabberFlasted (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Abhishek0831996 is correct, others including Bluesatellite have provided explanations to them also in those discussions, but those three are simply not interested in listening to what anybody explains. Their main focus remains demoting Elvis Presley and promoting Michael Jackson. This can still be seen in their comments today Harout72 (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

These are confusing diffs to include because from what I've reading, including these two diffs in a vacuum, the users you are reporting are being more civil and respectful than some of the people lambasting them. In particular that diff of Salvabl at least to me seems a very civil and thought-out attempt at collaboration and sharing ideas. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

See, like GabberFlasted, I see those diffs and come to a different conclusion: that they think the current way of assessing things is biased in favor of some artists and against others, and they are doing so in a civil fashion. IDHT does not mean "Wahhh wahhh, they're not agreeing with me, so they're Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!" Ravenswing 22:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

No, what you need to do, Abhishek0831996, is sharply ratchet back your rhetoric and accusations before we start seeking topic/interaction bans against you. Reading that diff from Salvabl, which you characterize as "disruptive" and a POINT violation, is nothing of the sort ... unless you're one of those provocative types for whom "disruption" means "The other guy disagrees with me!!!" By and large, ANI regulars are not stupid. It would be extremely unwise of you to treat us as if we were. Ravenswing 22:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

It's one thing to start a topic about methodology or the way list operates as whole and to stay on that issue, but it's completely another thing to start a discussion pretending your aim is to discuss list's methodology, and quickly/clandestinely turn it into yet another Michael Jackson records sales promotion. And this is what these three editors are constantly using the list's talk page for. If these three want to engage in promoting Michael Jackson records sales, they shouldn't be allowed to that on wikipedia. Harout72 (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• The last dispute was closed with the instruction that all involved parties stop bringing these sales disputes up. If we're still talking about this, that means someone is violating that... Sergecross73 msg me 12:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
• Pinged, but I don't have much to add. I saw another dispute about this page pop up, and was struck that the inclusion criteria seemed to rely on more OR than I'm used to seeing. It was a bit too involved, with a lot of apparently strong feelings, to really pursue, though. No comment on the behavioral issues. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
• Another uninvolved observer here and I'm really struggling to see a strong basis for this. A lot of the opening of this report centers around Michael Jackson specifically, and Harout (OP) seems to perceive any talk of Michael Jackson as what amounts to paid promotion. The link in the third bulletpoint listed is nothing more than TruthGuardian (TG) saying that they should expect upcoming news that would alter the article contents, but the bullet words it as if TG is unfairly promoting views in articlespace. OP also brings up an ANI discussion that ended in a 'Knock it off, all of you' but claims it specifically targeted the reportee. OP claims that the reported users are hounding them on a single talk page, instead of the logical conclusion that it is a talk page that all involved users are, well, involved in, and they would naturally contribute. This is a very confusing tangle of talk page archives and ANI threads but what I can be can be certain of is that this thread was written deliberately uncharitably, almost to the point of deception. GabberFlasted (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  Having read TW's statement, and Talk:List_of_best-selling_albums#Methodology? I am inclined to agree with my peers above and below me that this methodology smells of, at the very least, synthesis. This, combined with Harout72's at times confrontational and condescending attitude, do seem to paint a picture of perceived WP:OWNership. The claims of a double standard being upheld by Haruout72 are also of significant concern, as this type of discrimination would border on NOTHERE in my eyes (this is not an accusation). TW has put together a very cohesive argument, and I would commend them on keeping a level head and assembling it. GabberFlasted (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Uninvolved editor as well here, I also don't see any overt Michael Jackson POV pushing. Questioning methodology isn't POV pushing. TruthGuardians even agreed with the reporting party in one of them. All three users comments above appear to be mostly civil, so I'm not sure where the basis comes from.

From the reporting party, however, I have seen open accusations of off-wiki canvassing, socking, meatpuppetry, and more. I don't believe I've seen any evidence to support those accusations from the accusing party. There is also a slight misrepresentation of the information included in this ANI. I find calling a RfC that was closed as this clusterfest is going nowhere as "To their disadvantage" to be disingenuous as best, misleading at worst. There's no way any editor can look at the way that RfC and go "Yup, it was these three editors that were wrong". If it was closed to their disadvantage, it was closed to your disadvantage as well. Also, I would point out, that if you've had an admin come into several threads about this topic and essentially go "Nope" (User:EvergreenFir did it with both the ANI, and the RfC) due to civility issues, there is a severe issue with the way this conversation is going. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, in follow up to all of this, this seems like a topic and methodology ripe for controversy. It appears, according to the page itself, to be leaving off some significant artists, because it doesn't meet their criteria and methodology. I feel like including "Claimed numbers" at all flies in the face of WP:V. The verifiable numbers are directly from the organizations certifying sales. Any artist, label, or news organization can claim an artist has sold a certain amount....but that's not the amount they are verified to have sold, which are provided, and listed, on the page. To have a formula to allow for claims outside of reliable, verifiable, sources is....weird to me. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Uninvolved contributor here also. I want whoever is reading this to know that Harout72's first edit to the page List of best-selling music artists is this one, in 2007. Since then (15 years) he almost owns the page, making possibly hundreds of edits; see the edit history for yourself. So now he arrives at AN/I requesting three users be banned from editing this article. Why? A content dispute, apparently, accusing the three other editors of attempting to "promote Michael Jackson", along with several potentially misleading and/or exaggerated diffs. Reporting three users with whom you are possibly engaged in content disputes with to AN/I, and requesting bans for them, is potentially disruptive; you could have simply walked over to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Harout72, I think it's about time you take a break from that article, and give others a chance to contribute to it, because it's unfair for one user to control the contents of a page to their liking, and it violates WP:OWN. Nythar^T.C 01:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Statement by TheWikiholic

It's been more than a decade now since Harout has been single-handedly maintaining the page List of best-selling music artists. On the list, he includes artists that began charting before 1973 who are required to have a minimum of 30% of required certifications.

• Between 1973–1990 artists are required to have their available claimed figures supported by 30-70% in certified units. (That is 2.35% for each additional year after 1973)
• Between 1990–2000 artists are required to have their available claimed figures supported by 70-77% in certified units. (That is 0.7% for each additional year after 1990).
• Between 2000–the present artists are required to have their available claimed figures supported by 77-80% in certified units. (That is 0.14% for each additional year after 2000).

Throughout the years a large number of editors have expressed their concerns over this calculation method with the last instances being here. If we research the archives of the talk page we can easily discover that Harout72 has completely made up these definitions and the minimum required percentage for artists to be on these respective lists. Even if we follow the above method, we can see that Harout has been showing bias against black artists. For example, according to the edit history, talk page archive, and Harout’s own method artists who began charting in the 1980s might have at least 60% certification to support their claimed sales. Both Madonna and Whitney Houston began charting in 1984 and 1985 respectively. It was in 2010 that an article was being used to support the 300M claimed sales of Madonna. During that time she only had 153.3M certifications, which was only around 51% of her 300M claimed sales. Keep in mind, according to the page’s own rules she should have been at 60%. Last February when Whitney Huston reached 153m certification one user requested to update her claimed sales to 200m instead of 170m per the page’s own rules. Harout was not willing to do so. He told the editor to wait until Whitney adds another 7 to 8 Million certified sales and thus brings her total certified sales to 160m. Last June there was a similar instance of raising the claimed sales of Ariana Grande by 5 million. Interestingly, he had no issue by then as you can see here Similarly, on Feb 8, 2019, the article began using the 200m figure for Taylor Swift. Back then, Taylor's total available certifications were only 201.1M. Currently, Artists like Kanye West and Beyonce have 251.4M ad 222.7M Certified sales respectively, but they are still in the 160 M claimed sales title, whereas Taylor Swift with only 238.9 still has 200m claimed sales. I'm astonished to see that some artists enjoy such privilege, while other artists do not. Every time editors raise their concerns over the calculation method of Harout 72, he falsely accuses the editors of being disruptive, which is why we are here now. He also once called me by my old user name, even though I had a name change on the grounds of privacy and legality. You can also see from this discussion from last June 2021 that Harout has been stating to different users under this thread that the discussion is futile and you guys are wasting your time like he is the owner of this page. Here is another instance where Harout72 was changing the rules to the article’s definition that supports his arguments and then asked me to refer to the definition in a vain attempt to prove me wrong. I've been editing Wikipedia for a while now and I'm also an admin on a local Wikipedia. I have never seen a single editor have so much control over the policy-making of a page by his WP:OR and WP: SYNTHESIS. By allowing Harout72 to continue to do this, the community is allowing him full control of all the Wikipedia pages related to the List of best-selling music artists and albums and every single pages of both albums and artists listed in these two lists. The problems will continue to exist and, editors will continue to discover the same fundamental issues with these pages and, he will continue to claim that they are disrupting simply by them pointing out the obvious on a talk page. This is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be, but Harout has turned it into such a toxic situation. TheWikiholic (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Alright, hang on. Question here. There are obviously a number of editors interested in the topic; I see numerous names listed in the various discussions. What is stopping you -- or any other interested editor -- from opening a RfC to establish a fresh methodology? Set forth the options, have people comment on the options, see if a consensus can be built around one option or another. I realize (having written some notability criteria myself) that one editor can set forth criteria which are taken as a given from there on forward, but no such criteria is immune from changing consensus, and no editor-author gets a veto over the process. Despite Harout's assertions, those so-called "rules" are not set in granite. Ravenswing 22:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

This situation is similar to one at List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation where there were issues with ownership of the inclusion criteria in a way that many saw as WP:OR. Once these issues were publicised to the wider community (in that case through a failed AfD) a consensus on the article talk page emerged and issues were fixed. In this case there was no need to sanction any individual editors and more eyeballs on the issue made consensus forming easier. In other words, an RfC might be the way to go. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it may be beyond that. Read this thread on the talk. I have significant concerns about an editor who tells other editors to disregard the RIAA and instead download a mediafire link. I will not download that link, nor should anyone else, but like...come on, he's using a .doc, with no author listed on the file, for sourcing. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

It is also worth pointing out that the link attached to Rihanna for certified sales is a link to a database to search. If you search by artist, she is no where near the claimed amount on the page. Is "Converting certifications into sales and then converting those into a number we display on the page" a "routine calculation" allowed in OR? Because if the number that the editor comes up with is different than what the RIAA comes up with for official total sales, that appears to fall pretty cleanly into SYNTH, correct? FrederalBacon (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree there are significant WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:OWN issues here and maybe admins should look at these. My example really was about how a critical mass of editors turning their attention to a topic can overturn these issues without resorting to bans etc. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the proposed topic bans have a snowballs chance, and considering the fact that more editors are gonna have eyes on this, you're absolutely right. The issues with the article appear to be a content dispute, backed with some pretty strong feelings and desires. If an RfC produces a consensus that moves away from the current methodology, then that is what will happen. But, my concern with being beyond that point is that, given the above examples, I don't believe an RfC on this issue would remain civil enough for other editors to engage in. The fact that, when Evergreen closed both the RfC and ANI linked in the report, they called them a "clusterfest" and "timesink" respectively, doesn't exactly encourage the idea of holding another RfC where all of the editors involved can do their apparently normal thing, even if other editors would be involved. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I thought we were heading to an RFC for a resolution, per Apoxy’s suggestion and the last comment under Fundamental issues section, but here we are instead. TruthGuardians (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I’ve now put forward a draft of an RfC for discussion on the talk page. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Nuclear option: Fully protect the article

Let every change be run past an admin first. It's fairly obvious that a number of the regular editors on the article, many of whom have ulterior motives for inflating or deflating the figures of various artists, can't be trusted to maintain it accurately themselves. Short of partially blocking everyone (which in some cases may be unfair) I can't see any other way of making sure we won't be here yet again in a few months. Black Kite (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• WP:SUPERPROTECT. Something this important should be left to the Foundation Office to handle. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Not really. We regularly fully protect articles when they're the subject of serious disruption, and that's certainly the case here. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

the foundation definitely shouldn't be getting involved in content disputes like that. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

It was an attempt at humor. See my user page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, I still have yet to see any evidence that any regular editors with the alleged ulterior motives. There needs to be an RFC (or consensus) to handle Harout’s WP:Synthesis and WP:NOR issues as other uninvolved editors pointed out above. Furthermore, there are no disruptions. There is only one editor that keeps coming to the ANI board. Since the last time we were here 4 or 5 other editors have pointed out the same issues that has been getting brought up for years. These fundamental issues must first be corrected. Once corrected, future editors that discover the page won’t have the same concerns. TruthGuardians (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

So START a RfC. (I'd do it myself, but I don't have the expertise to phrase the various options adequately or accurately.) Nothing prevents you from doing so. Ravenswing 03:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not seeing "many of whom have ulterior motives." I'm seeing that Harout routinely claims that his self-declared opponents have ulterior motives, but that's not the same thing, and he could really stand a strong warning to AGF. Ravenswing 03:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

That's what I see, too, but not just lack of AGF, also WP:OWN issues; maybe an WP:ABAN is in order. Levivich 05:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not just Harout (indeed, they are almost certainly not the worst offender). You may both want to search the archives for the multiple previous threads about this article. Though, to be fair, it's partly the problem of the article. There are multiple different sources for "facts" regarding the subject, so it is easy for multiple editors to cherry pick the ones that suit their POV, and they can then say "We must say X, it's sourced". Well, it is, but there may be many sources that say Y. Black Kite (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

You want me to see things beyond the archives and discussions I've already read, come up with some links. Having read the links supplied by Harout and Abhishek as Proof! of their foes' dastardly intent and behavior, and seen nothing that causes me to so much as blink, I'm going to need something considerably stronger. Ravenswing 14:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Abhishek is not even an involved editor. His disdain for me comes because of a non-music related edit, and the fact I ignored him on my talk page. This is the level of harassment that I have been subjected to by some editors. It’s exhausting. By the way, I have no issues if they protect the page for admission only. Also, as far as an RFC is concerned, please refer to the ongoing discussion found Talk:List of best-selling music artists#Fundamental Article Issues TruthGuardians (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to very much second Ravenswing on this one: if this is really just the tip of the iceberg, then there must be a gargantuan amount of disruption that probably should have been addressed a long time ago and should be brought to the community's attention now, whether some of it is stale for purposes of sanctions now or not--if only for context and deciding what needs to be done here. Because my inclination after a non-trivial quasi-deep dive into the record here over the last couple of days (as a community member with no previous experience with the relevant articles and parties), is that I have seen a great deal of concerning behaviour from one editor in particular, and very little in systemic problems that do not in some way involve that user. Not that I'm dismissing Black Kite's observations, but I'm just not seeing live issues from other parties that even remotely rise to the same level. Here, for the record, are my thoughts on the matter (again, as yet another non-involved editor looking at this issue fresh):

We have an editor here who has devised an idiosyncratic methodology for inclusion criteria that is either "merely" 100% synthesis, at best, or probably just better described as pure OR. It certainly isn't consistent with any policy or guideline promulgated by this community, nor am I even seeing the support of a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to apply it as an ad-hoc rule on those articles--even if such a decision could have been used to support diversion of an article's content towards an inclusion criteria separate from WP:WEIGHT and WP:V, which is a dubious proposition it itself.

And from all appearances, that editor thereafter used this made-up standard to bully-boy their way into complete ownership of the article for a truly discouraging amount of time. And then that same editor (and here I'm about to join a veritable chorus of editors above with similar concerns) spun the content of their arguments arising out of this approach to stitch together an ANI complaint that highly spins (if not outright misrepresents) the course of the interrelated disputes to seek sanctions against their rhetorical opposition and remove them from said editor's sphere of influence on the related articles. What's truly telling about this course of conduct though, is how Harout seems to be genuinely oblivious to the fact that their perspectives would not be endorsed. Seeking sanctions against three separate editors at once was always going to put the dispute under a microscope, and you'd expect any experienced community member attempting such a proposal to present an airtight case, instead of a tightly wound boomerang in a box. Yet Harout seems to have genuinely thought this would come off well. That suggests to me that this is not just a case of a badly calculated effort at misdirection, but someone who fundamentally does not understand the deep flaws with their approach to the content, to the consensus process, and their interactions, at least in this subject space.

Are the actions of the other three editors to blame for some of the mess here? Possibly they were suboptimal in places I have not seen. I think they made at least a tactical error in accepting the inclusion framework forced by Harout and then getting in the mud to argue in those terms, and possibly letting their arguments also get tainted by subjective standards--the very thing our sourcing-based verification and weight processes are meant to avoid, and why this ad-hoc, idiosyncratic replacement standard is so problematic. But at the end of the day, I am seeing one major problem editor here, and thus one very simple fix that will begin to sort the situation on these articles faster than anything else. Is an RfC warranted to officially rollback this bizarre franken-monster of ginned-up inclusion criteria that has been foisted on these lists for years? I guess it couldn't hurt, but then it also shouldn't be necessary, since these rules were substantially the passion project of one editor and never passed anything remotely like local consensus, let alone a WP:PROPOSAL threshold. More to the point, I don't see any such RfC going over well if Harout is a party to that process--if my review of the talk pages in question here is any guide.

In short, I am very much in support of a TBAN of Harout72 from all lists and articles concerned with music as a commercial product, broadly construed, as the simplest first step here. I do not see much cause for hope that the substantial and overlapping issues with WP:OR, WP:OWN, or WP:AGF are likely to be alleviated by anything short of this with regard to this editor and that content area. If I am blunt, I'm not sure Harout has sufficiently internalized a number of Wikipedia's most crucial policies regarding consensus and collaboration for productive editing anywhere. But this is a place to start. Apologies for the jumbo post on this one. Regardless, I do broadly support an active community response here, whether focused mostly on Harout or not. Clearly a blind eye was turned to this situation for far too long, whoever is ultimately responsible for the disruption. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Am I the only one noticing that comments on the talkpage clearly show ownership? Editors are addressing new sections directly to Harout, they seem to have the sole voice of what gets added to some of these people, so many unreliable sources listed on the page, and then, there's this comment.

@TJ What's your poin? I think, Harout's explanation already good enough to show the reason why we let Taylor Swift hang out with Mariah, Whitney, and Celine in the table. She deserve it. As for Beyonce. The new claim of 160m is good enough for her at this moment.

That is a heck of a talk page comment. "Why we let" "She deserve it" "Good enough for her". Is this how this methodology is on the page? FrederalBacon (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

You are not alone in your observations. Editors will need to be in Harout’s good graces to get what they need and should be done. If an editor question his arguments you will be falsely accused of sock puppetry, disruptive editing, and working for the Michael Jackson estate… and then bring these claims here to the ANI board, or at least threaten to do so. He has about 4 editors that back his every word and allow him veto power in that article along with any article that is about music sales. I don’t want to list those other editors here, but you can check almost every discussion and/or RFC he’s been apart of and see the same editors echo his words, without merit and sources. I’ve even seen sources, like an Academic journal, being dismissed for what it was because he made up an entire POV for the article in order to try to protect is WP:OR. TruthGuardians (talk) 03:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, let's not get carried away here. You're conflating issues. You have brought some reasonable suspicion upon yourself by your own actions - you almost exclusively POV-push positive slanting content to and and all things Michael Jackson as your main area of interest outside these disputes. That's what gets people suspecting things, not just because "you dared question Harhout" or whatever you're driving at here. Sergecross73 msg me 18:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

What's with this recent trend of admins casting evidence-free aspersions like "ulterior motives" and "POV-push"? "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence...". If that applies to anyone, it applies to admins. Levivich 18:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't know, as I don't spend much time here, but in regards to my comment, I'm not reporting him or calling for any action to be taken on him, I'm talking to him, saying his recap of events was incomplete, and lack awareness of the full scope of the situation. Sergecross73 msg me 18:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I am astonished that I just read that. An admin claiming POV pushing from an editor, with no diffs for evidence, while pretty much the entire ANI (except for involved editors) is saying that the editor has a good point, and that there are significant problems with the page, ownership being chief amongst them? And TG is POV pushing? How about all the editors in here of the opinion the methodology is synth, at best? Are we all MJ POV pushing? FrederalBacon (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

You're ...astonished about that? Are you guys reading into something I didn't intend or something? I said he got suspected of things because he writes exclusively positive content about a subject. It was an observance I saw back when I did some digging at the WP:SPI filed on him. It was a passing observance when I saw what I interpreted. It was not a rationale for an administrative action taken, nor a proposal for administrative action towards him. Your reaction is truly baffling to me. Bizarre interpretations like this are certainly why I usually tend to stay away from ANI though, thank you for that reminder. I'll get out of your way and let you all argue into oblivion without resolution, as is the trajectory of these discussions yet again. Sergecross73 msg me 00:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I've struck the comment since it appears the point is being missed. Sergecross73 msg me 00:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Your exact words were You have brought some reasonable suspicion upon yourself by your own actions - you almost exclusively POV-push positive slanting content to and and all things Michael Jackson.

You didn't say he got suspected of things, you flat out said he did the things he was accused of, with absolutely no evidence or proof. You said he did it by his own actions. This isn't reading into anything but your own words, and I absolutely reject the "Bizarre interpretation" line, because it was your words. Thank you for retracting. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I said consistently editing positively about a single subject eventually leads to suspicions of other things. If I spent the bulk of my time writing positive content about Tom Petty across Wikipedia, people would be accusing me of being tied to his PR team. Sergecross73 msg me 01:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

And if they do, we can all agree they should provide diffs or other evidence backing up those accusations. Thanks for striking. Levivich 01:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Especially considering the fact that this ANI is about POV editing regarding MJ. Multiple uninvolved editors have looked at the evidence presented above, and just don't see it. An admin coming in here and going "Actually during my SPI of this editor, I noticed they do POV edit alot" would be extremely relevant to this discussion, should there be proof of the same. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I really urge that this line of discussion go no further. First off, this is doing no favours to anyone who wants to demonstrate that the disruption here is entirely (or at least in the majority) caused by Harout and not the parties he has brought to ANI. And this is coming from someone who just lodged the single longest and most vociferous post of any non-involved community member to yet look into the issue, in support of that proposition. Before Serge posted the comment to which such umbrage is being taken, I was about to post one myself with advice that dovetails with that given by Salvabl below: namely, that when someone brings multiple parties to ANI and then those parties are lucky enough to benefit from multiple random community members looking into the issue, dismissing the complaints and calling for possible boomerang action instead...that is not the moment in which the parties should be filling the thread with constant broadsides and defensive responses. Because these kind of WP:INVOLVED responses are just going to muddy the waters precisely at a time when you really want the comments of the uninvolved parties supporting your position to shine through. Especially if the involved comments appear even slightly histrionic or questionable. And note, for the record, that TruthGuardians didn't provide a single diff to support their accusations in that post--and yet the un-involved admin who responded to that highly accusatory post is getting lambasted for the same thing? I'm afraid I don't track the reasoning at work there...

And let's also recognize too that whether Serge took the time properly diff it or not, we are in fact talking about an editor who has two entries in their block log (the only two entries, in fact) for disruptive behaviour associated with articles relating to Michael Jackson. Nor is Serge by any stretch of the imagination the first person to suggest that TG has a POV in this area, as can be easily confirmed in mere minutes merely by looking at their talk page edit history. I also saw it in discussions in the involved article talk pages while looking into Harout's problematic behaviour. So if we're going to be forced to get into those weeds to defend an admin's off-hand comment of caution (which seemed to me to be very much in TG's own best interests to hear), it's really not going to improve the case for Harout being the prime issue on these talk pages (a position I still support, incidentally). Quite the opposite, in fact. The group of editors who has been put into opposition with Harout by virtue of this unnecessary thread should really 1) learn to recognize when they are ahead, and benefiting heavily from the due diligence of uninvolved community members, 2) not over-egg the pudding of counter-complaints, when the course of the discussion is already favouring them, 3) not overreact to a comment from an admin merely suggesting that someone is not perfectly, 100% innocent of any errors in the dispute, and 4) not thereby bloat the discussion with combative exchanges with admins which can only serve to distract from the scrutiny being placed on the other party to the dispute. In short, don't look the gift horse in the mouth... (And yes, I understand that not all of the enumerated behaviours above are attributable to involved parties, but also some un-involved community members, but the advice is nevertheless valid). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

First off, this is doing no favours to anyone who wants to demonstrate that the disruption here is entirely (or at least in the majority) caused by Harout The thing is, I'm not here to demonstrate that. I'm seeing that conclusion based off of what I have seen looking through talk, archives, and other history regarding the page and methodology. I'm objective, I'm just following the evidence, which is why I wanted all evidence to be introduced, if there was any. Part of this discussion that has led me to that conclusion, in fact, is that Harout's evidence is (in my opinion) lackluster, and requests for more specific examples as to his claims haven't been fulfilled.

But as for the discussion itself, I had absolutely no intention of continuing. The statement was retracted. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

This admin is not an uninvolved editor. The admin has voted along side Harout a number of times. I have never POV pushed anything. I literally have only question, with evidence and using Wikipedia rules and standards the fundamental issues with these articles. While I am a bit of an expert in all things music and Michael Jackson, I am not a single purpose editor as proven via my edit history. I am a facts based, no non-sense editor and I just wanted to clarify that. Here are two recent examples of the admin being involved: here they vote in the favor of harout per harouts comments. here too. While I am a bit of a tenured editor now, when I first started editing I in 2019 (I think) I didn’t know anything about edit warring or disruptive editing. So while my history my reflect such behavior on a couple of occasions, that was awhile back on an unrelated topic. The accusations of disruptive behavior now is about wiki articles related to all things sales. There is no evidence of that behavior on the topic at hand, because it does not exist. I learn from my mistakes and I think that is made clear through my edit history.TruthGuardians (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I participated in a recent related RFC, and found the proposed change to be logistically unlikely. If I commented elsewhere I don't even recall it. (Edit: checking the 2 difs, they're both from the same discussion.) I have no particular interest in Jackson or the list, I just respond to a lot requests for input at the music Wikiprojects I'm active in. I've already struck my comment and have no interest in any further involvement - I already turned down a request on my talk page to get more involved earlier this week. This is not my interest in the music content area at all. Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

If you check the talk page of the Talk:List of best-selling music artists we can see that none of the discussions were related to Michael Jackson. So I am not convinced that the Michael Jackson argument stands here. Before Harout72 took this issue here, there were three different active conversations was going on. One was about one of the editors finding the 600M claimed sales of The Beatles being inflated. I nor TruthGaurdians even participated in this discussion. The second one was about raising the claimed sales of Beyonce from 120M to 200 million because a few days ago RIAA certified almost her entire catalog equal to another 104M. Neither Salvabl nor TruthGaurdians participated in this. The third one was about the fundamental issues of the list. Harout72 never participated in that discussion. So I don’t see any evidence of his accusations of a Michael Jackson POV push. Ever since the issue was taken to the admin's noticeboard some editors have expressed concerns over the calculation method that was invented by Harout72. So I guess he may feel as though he is losing his WP:OWNERSHIP if the third conversation gathers more attention and that is the catalyst for the accusations against us and the reason why we are here now.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Those discussions referred to by TheWikiholic are not related to Jackson in any way. I just think that Harout72 makes Jackson's name appears frequently (this ANI report is an example of it) in an attempt to discredit and label as disruptive the behaviors of other users with points of view that he does not support. And this is systematic since long ago. I, for example, the last thing I suggested and that has led me to be here was to decrease the claimed sales figures of several music artists (including Jackson). On the other hand, if we take into account all the discussions in which Harout72 has been involved to date, I think there has been an attitude of preserving Elvis Presley's inflated figures by Harout72, or even of defending inflated sales figures fabricated by him (Harout72 stated "The same goes for Presley, just the UK has 17.3 million certified units, which generates under 10% of the global music sales, and the UK has launched its certification system in 1973, surely it would've been close to 50 million if they had been certifying since 1958, like the US."), resulting from speculation. And it is exactly the same with the current methodology that governs the List. However, this situation is not limited to that, as Harout72's negative attitude towards other users' perspectives can be seen even in discussions that are not related to specific artists, like this one about multi-disc albums sales figures, where users provided references to a Rolling Stone article or even an email from RIAA confirming the double counting. Salvabl (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I Support a TBAN of Harout72 as suggested by user:Snow Rise. I've caught up on reading all this drama, and he seems to be the recurring issue. Pacack (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Support topic ban based on the analysis by Snow Rise above. I had skipped over this discussion but noticed it last night and wished to provide my perspective. Gusfriend (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Salvabl

The user Harout72 has brought this "matter" here again, as he has done in the past, but this time is different from the others. In the List's Talk page there is a discussion about the certified sales percentages requirements that user Harout72 has defended on several occasions, but he has not added a single message to the discussion this time, as can be seen in this section of the Talk page.

He is just doing the same thing he has done in the past: labeling our behavior as disruptive when we express a point of view that he does not support. This is not the first time that user Harout72 has refused discussion and the search for a common consensus, as last February the content of the "Definitions" section of the List (which contains conditions for the management of the List now and in the future) was unilaterally changed by Harout72, even though the matter was being discussed on the List's Talk page at that moment. One of the goals of that change was to prevent any possible future increase in the claimed sales of artists such as Michael Jackson, Madonna or Elton John. And I, despite that attitude, made proposals so that part of the text added by Harout72 could stand, even when direct removal would have been the most appropriate action due to the unilaterality of his action (because of that, and because of statements made by him such as "you guys are wasting your time" directed to other users, it is appropriate to assert that this is a case of WP:OWNERSHIP). I think there has been too much collective patience with user Harout72. And what he did after I objected to that change was to start this discussion at ANI, which was centered on accusations about the possible existence or non-existence of racial bias in the List, which was simply a red herring to divert attention from the unilateral change made by Harout72 in the "Definitions" section.

I have always offered him an open door to dialogue, which he has rejected through accusations about alleged intentions to inflate Jackson's figures. Did I vote in favor of increasing the claimed sales figure of the Thriller album in this recent RfC? No, because I didn't even think it was the right time to discuss it, and to avoid possible conflicts between users. My only involvement in that RfC consisted of short messages providing information that I thought might be useful; to which the user Harout72, if he disagreed, did not even reply. Despite his knowledge about music sales, he simply refuses to get the point, and maybe that is the reason why his impartiality, and therefore the impartiality of the List, has been questioned. I, in my recent messages (see here) supported an eventual removal of The Beatles' 600M figure, stating at the same time that the coherent would be to remove Presley's 500M figure as well, since, I think it is a fact that it would be incorrect for both music acts to have the same highest claimed sales figure (500M) when The Beatles' certified sales are almost 60M higher than Presley's. Considering Harout72's words this idea must seem bad to him, but what he has not remarked is that I also stated in my message this: "and there would have to be a discussion about what to do with Michael Jackson's 400M figure, or change other figures", as I see as a good option to leave only the 350M claimed sales figure for Jackson and the 360M claimed sales figure for Presley; I think it would make the list more accurate. But leaving all that aside now, I think this new accusation made by Harout72 is just another attempt to maintain full control over the List and its claimed sales figures. Salvabl (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

While I agree with the three of you (editors named in this complaint) on the merits, just some friendly advice: the length of your comments is hindering resolution of this issue (and it was the same at the last ANI). It's not your fault, but there's three of you, and while individually your comments aren't too long, together it's 3x for the rest of us to read, and the substance of your (collective) message is getting lost amidst the total length. Just my opinion/advice. Levivich 05:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I almost said the same thing myself: These responses are so lengthy and bogged down with music methodology lingo that it scares people potentially offering outside help away. I think it's part of the reason why this still isn't resolved after so many prior discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps there could be a word limit placed on an RfC on the page, for any one reply. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the length of my messages, I'll try to write shorter messages in the future. The problem here has its origin years ago, and retrospective is necessary in order to have context about this situation. Yet, there are many actions by Harout72 that I've had to omit in order not to create an extremely long message, and which are relevant, such as his opinion about a racist message, or his silence after being asked for sources to support the inflated figure of 24M that he added to the certified sales of Presley's Christmas Album. The worst part of all this is that I'm being compelled to not talk about music sales as we should because Harout72 himself has also stopped doing so, choosing ANI reports instead. Salvabl (talk) 02:26, 17 August 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:Reference Adding Account

Reference Adding Account (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was created 3 June 2022, and in the time since, has made 86 edits (and counting). When it's "up and running" (as in today between 12:31 UTC and 13:33 UTC), it made an edit, on average, every 2-3 minutes. It has done so every Tuesday and Wednesday in August as far as I can tell [36]. It refers to itself in the plural (e.g. "we") All it does is add references to (mostly) scientific articles.

En face, this doesn't sound like a problem (if we overlook possibly being a bot, etc). But there are moreover many issues with some of their references. It appears that many of the citations added are proximal to the content the citation is added to verify, but, upon further inspection, do not actually verify that content. All of the cites (at least all the ones I have combed through) are added to sentences which already have citations (curious...) and many are also WP:PRIMARY.

Examples of blatantly incorrect citations

is added to "Words that are commonly spoken or learned early in life or easily imagined are quicker to say than ones that are rarely said, learnt later in life, or are abstract" [37] despite being a paper about reading, not speaking. is added to "Subsequent studies found that ivermectin could inhibit replication of SARS-CoV-2 in monkey kidney cell culture with an IC50 of 2.2–2.8 μM." [38] despite being a paper about an in vivo dose-ranging study in rats. is added to "As it has become possible to study the living human brain, researchers have begun to watch neural decision-making processes at work. Studies have revealed unexpected things about human agency, moral responsibility, and consciousness in general." [39] despite this being a review of a textbook (as in evaluating the book itself, not the arguments therein). is added to "Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptions of race are untenable," [40] despite the paper making no claim on the consensus for essentialist or typological conceptions of race. It's a paper about the sociological impacts of racial hierarchies. See what I mean? adjacent but not correct. is added to "There is evidence that distribution and/or function of this receptor may differ between sexes" [41] despite having only one very passing mention of sex differences, which does not refer to either the "distribution" or molecular "function" of the receptors. is added to "Each atom in a graphene sheet is connected to its three nearest neighbors by a strong σ-bond, and contributes to a valence band one electron that extends over the whole sheet. This is the same type of bonding seen in carbon nanotubes and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and (partially) in fullerenes and glassy carbon." [42] despite the paper having no mentions of sigma bonds, valence bonds, or differences in bond makeup between the listed types of carbon nano-structures. is added to "On November 2, 2017, scientists reported that significant changes in the position and structure of the brain have been found in astronauts who have taken trips in space, based on MRI studies. Astronauts who took longer space trips were associated with greater brain changes." [43] despite the ref being a comment (and therefore not only PRIMARY but also non-peer-reviewed and only 2 sentences long, but also completely unrelated to the question of whether structural changes occur, but instead disputing which type occur. is added to "Neanderthals made use of a wide array of food, mainly hoofed mammals, but also other megafauna, plants..." [44] despite the paper being about human teeth and not related to Neanderthals at all. There are probably more errors, these are just the ones I could find in about 30 minutes of looking. Sources

Some of the added citations are actually good, and do verify the content, but are still added to sentences which already have 2 or 3 (or even 4) citations already! (e.g. [45] [46] [47] [48] [49])

Doug Weller has pointed out the user has also employed very low-quality journals (e.g. Advances in...) and the user replied they were unaware that a list of predatory journals existed anywhere.

Is this an unauthorized bot? Or just multiple users all logged in to one account doing this one task? My best guess is that it's a semi-automated process, wherein current cites are examined, diagramed (e.g. CitationGecko), and high-connectivity cites are added. Could also be papers which reference current citations? Truthfully, it could be a variety of things.

Bottom-line, is this something we want on Wikipedia? Is this user HERE to build an encyclopedia? Are they here to run an unauthorized machine learning experiment? I am very curious to see what this user has to say! All in all, it could be something that is very useful to the project, but the current incarnation has fatal flaws (imho). — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure this account is WP:HERE for a variety of reasons but I think it should at minimum be blocked from mainspace until it can be determined how many people are using it since it really does appear to be shared (or a bot) PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Blocked from article space indefinitely. Told to respond here. Doug Weller talk 18:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I think, at baseline, I also would love some help combing through their remaining edits and figuring out which ones need reverted. I'm going to go ahead and revert the ones I pointed out above as problematic. We may need a full scale revert if consensus is that auto-adding citations to places that already have many multiple cites is also unacceptable. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Looking at some of these, I don't understand how they're remotely related to the subject, it looks like they just searched one keyword and threw in a ref, but I don't have full access to the sources themselves (or honestly the knowledge of a lot of those subjects) to make a determination. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

In the back of my head I have a very fuzzy memory of another editor adding references that were mainly useless, like a third or fourth ref to a fact. But I have no idea when that was. The Banner talk 19:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, once again. I am surprised that you are calling these references "useless", they do expand and further verify content which Wikipedia claims. It took a great effort finding them. Once again, I truly think that a few minutes skim of this account activity can back the claims being raised here. I truly don't see which Wikipedia rule is being broken. If you have reverted any of the citations that were added by this account, I kindly ask User:Shibbolethink to undo the reverts you have done, and please, in future opportunities to raise a query in my talk page instead of unilaterally deleting this account's contribution.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Reference Adding Account (talk • contribs) 15:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, this is user Reference Adding Account writing. I am a researcher at Universidad Torcuato Di Tella (link to my webpage here). This account is of my own, but currently being managed on a day-to-day basis by a research assistant working with me. This is why I refer with "we" in the responses. We are adding references to Wikipedia, and we are taking great care in no infringing any of the Wikipedia rules. I am open to suggestions. In fact, as you can check, upon being informed not to add references to journals listed as predatory by Wikipedia, we stopped adding citations from these journals. I am quite surprised that some editors found the references added as not relevant, given that we took a great work in checking for their pertinence (something I am not completely sure the editor(s) raising concerns really did). For sure this account is not a bot nor part of a machine learning experiment. Please tell us if there is any infringement on the Wikipedia rules and we will take that into account. At least as I see it, highly pertinent citations are being added to the articles, which is positive to the community overall. More comment below.

Hello, Reference Adding Account (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) writing here again. As mentioned above, these references were carefully selected, they do expand on the references where they were placed and are highly related to the topic being discussed. We checked this using different sources. Finding these references took months of work and I am surprised that just by a simple 30 minutes check the editor is so confident in its claims. If you feel necessary, we can defend each of the examples listed above. Regarding the references listed below. I know these are good references. I would like to know why it would be a problem to expand on sentences already having citations. Does this violates any Wikipedia rule? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reference Adding Account (talk • contribs) 15:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Noting here that I moved comments by Reference Adding Account that were added without signature in the middle of the discussion to the end of the section. - MrOllie (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Reference Adding Account, I don't know if your edits violate Wikipedia policy but please read WP:UN which states in the second sentence "It also specifies that a user account should be used only by one person...". You allowing your assistant to use the same account as you is a violation of one person/one account laid out in Wikipedia's username policy. --ARoseWolf 19:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

You may also want to read WP:OVERCITATION, for an explanation of why adding too many sources to one sentence is often problematic. I spend a lot of time checking if sources verify the sentence they are put next to, to remove misleading claims or figure out if a better source is needed. This is a common way editors improve the accuracy of Wikipedia. This becomes much more difficult if I need to check more sources, especially when they are not immediately relevant. Femke (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Aside from the problems pointed out above, which include citations in Neanderthals to an article exclusively about homo sapiens (Neanderthals did not live in Peru [50]), among other clear mis-cites... there are also a great deal of WP:PRIMARY article citations. Do you understand, @Reference Adding Account, the difference between primary and secondary journal articles? On wikipedia, adding a primary article where a secondary article is already referenced is not compliant with WP:RS, as interpretation of primary sources is considered original research, which is not permitted on wikipedia.

I would also like to point out, your webpage states you are a researcher studying how state-of-the-art machine learning and natural language processing (NLP) techniques can aid in understanding social, business and economic phenomena.. Is this account part of a research project into Natural-Language Processing? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, Reference Adding Account, I noticed that some of your research is about references. Is your activity on Wikipedia part of a research project? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah good catch: [51] [52] [53] [54] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

And this comment by Reference Adding Account really makes it sound like research: This account is of my own, but currently being managed on a day-to-day basis by a research assistant working with me. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Apparently the account used to be named "Citations researcher" [55] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Update: I have gone through the user's edits and reverted those which were:

• A) explicitly WP:PRIMARY where a secondary scholarly source was already cited, or
• B) the citation did not verify the content, in an obvious way.

Overall it appears 39 of 84 edits met explicit reversion criteria. I didn't do them all myself, so thanks for the help those of you who did! Some remaining edits may still be unjustified, but would leave it up to everyone else to see for themselves and weigh in (i.e. I did not revert WP:OVERCITE, though that is in my opinion a good reason to revert). — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Update: JJMC89 has indefinitely blocked the user from all namespaces given that it is, as admitted, a compromised account.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/9937 maybe related to this? It’s a “field experiment” where citations are added to Wikipedia articles and then (the description is a bit weird) tracked somehow - lead by the researcher that used to operate the bot/account above. Mvbaron (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Interesting find. They were going to add 980 references to Wikipedia and track metrics on those as compared to 1960 "control references" not added to Wikipedia. The trial was supposed to start Sept 1, but perhaps he jumped the gun, or was doing a test run. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

What's interesting is that if this is indeed the research project that was going on here, there's nothing inherently that prevents this person from doing it... They don't need to put citations only where there already are some. They don't need to put in bad ones which don't actually verify the content. (both of which, btw, I suspect would alter the results in a not great way). They don't need to use any automation to do it. I suppose our requirement of secondary review articles could bias the results some, but still worth doing. If they did this while following the PAGs and not disrupting the project, it could be interesting and personally, I would be curious to see the results. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, thank you all for your suggestions and for taking the time to review all the added references. For the moment I will stop any work on this version of the project, and see if it can adapted in some way so it further goes in line with Wikipedia mission. Sadly we have a huge collection of citations that could have been added to existing pages that will not be added at all. Note that you considered most of them to be pertinent and that in some cases the citations you removed were those that were already present in the article (notable). I truly believe that by having taken this course of action we are all wasting an opportunity to directly improve articles, but more importantly, of scientifically understanding and measuring the impact of Wikipedia.

Additionally, I would very appreciate if this incident could be archived. In good faith I have shared a great deal of personal information here. In retrospective I think this was a mistake, as somehow now, in what I see as mob behavior, you started sharing information about me or my work, which I don't feel comfortable with (that's on you). I think we can all move one. If you have any inquiries, please write in my talk page.RamiroHGalvez (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I can hardly imagine your shock on learning that we volunteer editors don't wish to made be unwitting guinea pigs in your half-baked "experiment". And see WP:NOTLAB. EEng 08:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

If good faith and Mob behavior are now in play, and it is obvious that a large number of humans, by your own characterization, have been affected by this project, has any supervisory committee at your educational institution approved your research project? Did you ask or guidance from any Wikipedia organ? Can we expect an offer from you to repair the damage caused (volunteer time wasted), (propagation through the internet of suboptimal citations)? And reconsideration of the correct object of that's on you? Informed consent beats stealth—it's more ethical. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 21:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC) —

in what I see as mob behavior, you started sharing information about me or my work, which I don't feel comfortable with (that's on you) pretty sure that ones on you when you decided to operate a shared account that mass-spammed your own work in an attempt to do an experiment on Wikipedia without anyone's consent. PICKLEDICAE🥒 21:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

RamiroHGalvez, does your institution have an institutional review board or similar? Did they approve this experiment? If no to either, that's a major problem - since this is an experiment involving humans and human behavior (and apparently not one involving consent), it is the sort of study that really needs an IRB sign-off. If so, please share with us exactly what they approved you to do - you certainly should be able to share the IRB approval information with us on request. And if you do have approval but don't feel comfortable sharing the IRB details with us...then what business do you have conducting the experiment at all if you aren't willing to share your approval with the subjects? GeneralNotability (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Block evasion by WP:LTA at Covid, Monkeypox and multiple articles

Following the rangeblock by Drmies of 2603:7000:b140:3fde::/64 (talk · contribs), a new rash of disruption has been undertaken: [56], [57], [58], [59]--these are just a few of the IPs being used, but they give an idea of the range employed. I don't know whether a broader block is possible, or if several dozen articles would benefit from protection. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

New IPv6 range blocked/ Acroterion (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Acroterion, thank you. Time permitting, I may go through the IP range's edit history and do some more reverting. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Acroterion. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Drmies, Acroterion, 136.158.56.180 (talk · contribs) continues to restore redlinks for nonexistent articles to Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic. Same behavior we saw from the blocked ranges, so: is this further block evasion (regardless, the IP appears to have a largely disruptive history); and is there any merit to the persistent restoration of these redlinks? If I continue removing them it could rightly be seen as edit warring. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

What's weird is they geolocate very differently, and it's only that one small group of edits. I don't really know what to make of it. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes. But there's a focused interest--their first two edits were here [60]; [61]. Then again, restoring the links yesterday after I reverted the most recent spate as WP:REVERTBAN [62]; [63]. And again today [64]; [65]; [66]; [67]. No edit summaries, no explanation. It very well may not be the same user, but someone with similar, er, tendencies. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Personal attacks and continued disruption + edit warring

TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Primary diff regarding the first personal attack from July 30 [68]. Unprovoked and out of nowhere, TheTimesAreAChanging made his first comment on the Anfal campaign Talk page to cast false aspersions and make personal attacks against me since I recently had activity on the Talk page, including twisted and deliberately negative interpretations of cherry-picked diffs of mine as far back as 2020, and other demeaning verbiage. This comment was completely off-topic to the Talk page and article, being little more than a personal attack piece, and the comment was collapsed as off-topic [69]. The editor made many more off-topic comments in the same vein on that Talk page after the initial comment.
• The last time he engaged me prior to July-August 2022 was in early September 2021 when I last had decent activity on Wikipedia, and he insulted me then too, when in response to his mostly uncorrobated and commonly refuted claim, I provided many sources directly refuting this claim. [70] His response to being proven wrong on the matter was an irritated complaint [71], and then calling me a "small child" in a sarcastic and insulting response. [72] and there were other occasions of harassment before this going back to 2020. On the same day, September 3, 2021, he was given a 1 week block for personal attacks on another user. [73]
• In one instance, the admin EvergreenFir had to sternly warn him for personal attacks against me after he stalked and insulted me on multiple Talk pages. [74]
• Continued disruption on the same Anfal campaign article, most recently edit warring over the course of Aug 27-29 [75][76][77][78] contrary to consensus and lengthy discussion on the Talk page. The first revert was reverting content already removed following Talk discussions[79][80] by reverting some of the removed content into a different part of the article. The second and third were direct reverts of edits, and the fourth was in direct contradiction to Talk page discussions. Another editor intervened against this edit warring too. [81]
• On Aug 28, he made demeaning comment to me including casting false aspersions [82], which was rejected by another editor Buidhe [83]. TheTimes then attacked Buidhe with false, off-topic accusations (see WP:ASPERSIONS) [84], which Buidhe refuted.[85]

Note: An admin has submitted a report to the Arbitration Committee in early August regarding other behavior by this editor that is not included here because it is beyond the purview of ANI.[86]. I was later advised to make an ANI section if the other problematic behavior continued. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

More information about other behavior can be provided on request, but this is already getting TL;DR. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Clearly the comments of TL:DR when you brought this "issue" up three weeks ago ([87]) did not make their point clearly enough. Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'd suggest a boomerang and block for wasting editors time again with greatly exaggerated claims and another pointless ANI filing... PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Praxidicae This isn't a "pointless ANI filing" and there are no "greatly exaggerated claims". The editor's conduct has been egregious enough that an admin and ArbCom member removed the ANI report[88] specifically for the purpose of taking up the issue up with ArbCom[89] and then advised me to re-report if there's continuing disruptive behavior (as there is). [90]. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  It is completely pointless because there is no arbcom case and it seems you're greatly exaggerating every interaction you've had with every editor, including with @Barkeep49, and in looking at your interactions, I don't see any indication that they or anyone else indicated that the "issue has been taken up" with ArbCom or any other body. PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  Again, you're casting false aspersions. It's clear you're not here to be constructive. I just linked you a diff when an admin confirmed taking the issue up with ArbCom. ArbCom does not open cases for reports immediately. I emailed ArbCom too, and got a confirmation they received it. What I've learned from admins, experienced editors, and Wikipedia is that ArbCom has a backlog and things move slowly. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Praxidicae Also this ANI report is separate of ArbCom, so it's not pointless... Read it more carefully. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  Stop. pinging. me. PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  Then please don't misrepresent the situation, derail this section, and call personal attacks and edit warring as "pointless". Thank you! Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Black Kite Unfortunately you're mistaken. Look at the revision history, this is the original. [91] What you're linking to was a pared down version of the original report, which prompted those comments. After those comments, I pared it down, and people were happy with the pared down version. Now this one is even shorter than that previous pared down version.

  By the way, I pared this report down more. Is it good now? It's shorter than some other ANI reports. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• TheTimesAreAChanging certainly had a point when they mentioned walls of text. Who can read that talk page? I see content disputes, a problem that can be fixed by having more editors work on the article. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
  • @Drmies What are your thoughts on the edit warring, equating me with a Holocaust denier, describing me as a propagandist, casting various false aspersions, among other things? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Saucysalsa30, I just spent another 15 minutes looking for "you're a Holocaust denier" and "you're a propagandist". Couldn't find it in the reams of text--your opponent is pretty verbose too. You did not include diffs of such statements. If you had, I would have told you to respond, whenever someone is attacked personally in such a way, with a templated warning and perhaps a report to AIV. I do see statements like "Saucysalsa30 repeated apeshit claims"--but that is not a personal attack, though it is a pretty serious accusation, and I would imagine that your opponent would try to argue such claims, with evidence. But that's beside the point.
      I don't know who's right and who's wrong in the content disputes and honestly I don't really care. If your opponent's charges of you whitewashing atrocities has any merit, that's a serious matter, but again, I don't know. That is why that article simply needs more editors, but most of our editors are content with adding wrestling moves and soccer transfers, unfortunately. I can imagine this ending at WP:ARE or whatever, and bless their hearts, those admins dealing with those cases. You all can forestall that, by cooperating. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
      • @Drmies I did include the diff. It's in the first bullet point at the top of the section. Here it is again.[92]. That diff alone was the editor's first comment on the Talk page. has a number of personal attacks, and I refrained from adding in other commments/diffs by the user because this report would be too long. That comment was also a violation of WP:TPG, being nowhere on topic and for no other purpose but a comment for PAs by a user with a history of personal attacks against me.
        "For Saucysalsa30 to maintain that there were actually only 100 deaths and that Iran caused many of them is not dissimilar to Holocaust deniers who say that the Jewish death toll was 600,000 rather than 6 million and that Allied bombing exacerbated conditions in the concentration camps." This is equating me to Holocaust deniers.
        Users have been given blocks for similar. Other than the attack itself, this is casting false aspersions saying I am "maintaining" something that I did not, which also falls under WP:NPA. NPA gives as a specific example "comparing people to Nazis" (e.g. Holocaust deniers, Neo-Nazis, and other common synonyms).
        he "apeshit claims" of a militant/terrorist group was not made with evidence by TheTimes, and I agree it is very serious. It was a false accusation. The reality was in Nov 2020 I clarified a statement in a Wiki article to be more in line with what the source was saying. So by improving an article by what's in the source which was a published work, I'm being accused of "repeating apeshit claims" of a terrorist org. That attack was entirely uncalled for.
        Calling my "primary source for information" "official Saddam-era Ba'th Party propaganda" (Iraqi government propaganda), which is the opposite of reality too because I had used an Iranian historian's work referencing Iranian claims regarding Iranian casualties. This is a very extreme aspersion and false accusation, and labeling me as a propagator of "Saddam-era Ba'th party propaganda". I should point out this is only one diff. There's other diffs with other overt and back-handed insults and disruptive editing, but then the ANI section would have gotten too long. Then there's the edit warring, anti-consensus editing, and so on.
        My diff [93] in response to that comment refutes these attacks and false aspersions, showing them as defamatory in nature. All the details are there.
        Thanks for the suggestion for future reference. I wasn't aware that editors making their first comment on a Talk page for off-topic personal attacks and serious false accusations counted as WP:AIV-worthy.
        What's the purpose in TheTimes calling me a "small child"? Petty personal attack. [94] This editor has been hounding and harassing me for about a couple years, so these are not isolated incidents by the way. I just gave a few examples in the ANI section. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
        @Drmies Regarding WP:ARE, are you saying that's a better place for bringing up hounding, personal attacks, edit warring, and other disruptive editing? If so, it sounds like a fair recourse. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
      • That diff doesn't say what you want it to say. It's really simple. I see some serious discussion, and a few charges made about your editing, but I do not see personal attacks and edit warring. In fact I'm somewhat critical of the reverts you and Buidhe made there, but that's neither here nor there. That you have to say "I was attacked" in fifty paragraphs at ANI instead of in a single report at AIV says enough. Also, I am soooo tired of the loaded questions. I stopped beating my wife years ago, and I'm sure your opponent did too, so please just stop with the "that's a better place for bringing up hounding, personal attacks, edit warring, and other disruptive editing". And you are either willfully misrepresenting me or you don't get it. Y'all's dispute, how much you are trying to personalize it, is about content and content-related issues, and that's why I suggested ERA. Now, Serena Williams is playing and I got dishes to do, and I don't believe I get to charge you my usual rate for the time I already spent on this. Please don't ping me again in this thread; thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• A few general points for the OP without wishing to comment on the merits of their concerns about TheTimesAreAChanging:
  • You are doing yourself a disservice by posting such large blocks of text and (from what I saw) trying to change everything at once including conflating at least half a dozen into the one report. Remember that Wikipedia has no end date and you would be better off approaching it in separate bite sized chunks bit by bit.
  • You are editing in an area that is going to get people with different opinions.
  • If you have concerns about Human Rights Watch then it would be good to look at WP:RSP and if not there then raise them at WP:RSN to get consensus rather than by starting on an individual page. Gusfriend (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
    • @Gusfriend I appreciate the response. For your first point, are you suggesting making individual ANI reports for various violations?

  A point of clarification, the discussion was not around Human Rights Watch at a high-level. It was around particular reports with deep political interference from the US government to build a case for political action, and as a medium for uncorroborated and often redflag information almost entirely deriving from violent militant groups. That was only one topic of contention by the way. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  No need to ping me in the reply. When it comes to the large blocks of text I meant the Talk page and the fact that when talking about HRW you said that that was only one topic of contention is an example of the complexities that can occur when items are not split up into bite sized chunks. Gusfriend (talk) 06:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Chamroshduty

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.

---

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

Chamroshduty just recently received a warning for adding unsourced content [95]. What does he continue to do? Keep adding unsourced content. I went to his talk page to explain it to him [96], which in turn led him to throw slur words at me in some very unintelligible Persian, so I'll only be translating the bolded parts;

Talk:Sasanian Empire, where I reverted him [97]:

gh nkhr bnms ozgal bzn bro tarikh kshwar khodto bnwis = prick go write the history of your own country

ozgal chra ks mgi parchami k sabt shde ch sourci mkhad, az kja pol mgiri k tarikh irano tahrif mkni = prick who says that a flag should have a source.

He called the title of the section 'pak nkn tokhme tazie arab', which means 'dont remove it seed of tazi arab'. In Persian, Tazi is a slur used against Arabs. Apparently he thinks I am Arab because I reverted him, great.

And of course, on his own talk page where I opened the discussion [98]. It's even more unintelligible there, I can only translate a few words here and there (eg [99] 'ks nnt rsht tkhme rus' = 'your mothers pussy rashti, seed of a russian (?)'). Anyways, you get the idea.

This user also lacks too much WP:CIR to be editing here. In the very discussion, he asked me what a source was.. and yeah, the rest of the comment speaks for itself [100]. He did not understand/ignored the guideline of WP:COMMONAME as well, multiple times changing the name of articles to its supposed Persian spelling [101] [102] [103] [104]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• HistoryofIran, I just wanted to say that I finished reading The Gardens of Light last night and it was great. Good luck with your ANI report. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Indef blocked, talk page access removed. I've been taking my time, verifying the translation (which isn't simple for an English only speaker) and the claims made in this report hold water. WP:NOTHERE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:39, 30 August 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.

Itsrahulkashyap and Copyright Issues

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.

---

Itsrahulkashyap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been copying text from other websites for the article Minjar Mela, copyright violations in article that has been replaced twice. Editor has been warned before about this First time and second time. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 22:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) There appears to be at least five occurrences on that article where copyvio content was added. I AFD'd it before it was replaced with a CSD. Itsrahulkashyap's talk page is almost completely made of deletion and draftify notifications. A few drafts that I looked at were reversed and sent back to mainspace by the user. Something needs to happen here. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 23:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Found another copyright violation at Bhuri Singh Museum. Indeffed. Will be opening a Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigation. MER-C 10:27, 29 August 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 Burtigin

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.

---

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

Burtigin seems to be here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and whatnot rather than being here to actually build an encyclopedia.

Keeps accusing others of 'Pan-Iranism' and whatnot with no diffs to support it (WP:ASPERSIONS).

• "Maybe it's because pan-iranists (it can be understood by looking at the nickname) declaring everything "Iranian" by showing imprecise information."

• "I need to speak to a really "neutral" official who apparently doesn't take the side of the Pan-Iranists"

• [105] Randomly slammed the bizarrely transliterated word "İranized Turks" in this article with no source, was reverted by User:LouisAragon, went on to rant in his talk page with this bizarre argument "It's okay to say Iranian to people like the Xiongnu, but it's okay to write for Xionites, right?"

• Burtigin then restored his addition in the article, with no edit summary either [106]. I reverted him, which led him to rant on my talk page as well; "You cannot accept a people whose Turkic origin is seriously discussed as pure Iranian."

Also really loves to throw the word Kurdish propaganda/nationalism around, again sheer aspersions;

• "Moreover, to present some Turkish provinces as "Kurdish majority" for some unknown reason, by citing the pages that promote Kurdish nationalism, is proof of how neutral people like you who are on Wikipedia are."

• As a response to a well-explained and calm comment [107] by another user, Burtigin went on to rant in their talk page as well [108], calling the title "So you can use Kurdish propaganda but no Turkish", saying "if you are so anti-propaganda, delete the part based on separatist Kurdish propaganda that "the majority of the province is Kurdish"". Another example of Burtigin being obsessed with removing something Kurdish related.

• [109] [110] Created a section named "Kurdish propaganda" TWICE in Zazas where he went on to rant about the "Zazas not being Kurds".

• [111] Did the exact same at Germiyanids, where he claimed them to "not be Kurds" and that this is "Kurdish propaganda" too

Based on all this, it seems Burtigin has a bone to pick with Iranians and Kurds. He often disrupts/rants in articles related to them, not due to interest, that's for certain. Honestly, this screams like WP:NOTHERE imho. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

1) About Cimmerians:

The sources shown that the Cimmerians are Iranian are such as Encyclopedia İranica, and according to the paragraph I shared from there as evidence, Iranian origin cannot be suggested definitively and clearly, the same source also states that they are of Thracian origin. But in the title it is written that Scythian was spoken, as if a Cimmerian tablet written in İranian was found. However, the origin of the Cimmerians is also attributed to Caucasian autochthonous peoples such as the Moetains, which contradicts their claim to be Indo-European.

2) About Kurds:

I haven't corrected anything about the Kurds, it has only been claimed that the majority of Turkey's Adıyaman province is Kurdish, besides, there is no heavy Kurdish population in the province, except for the range village, mostly Zazas and Turks, as well as Armenians and Assyrians.

3) About Zazas:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaza_language

As mentioned in the same title in Wikipedia, Zazas do not speak a Kurdish language, they speak the Zaza branch of Zaza-Goran languages. Moreover, since the 1960s, especially in the magazines published by diaspora Zazas in Germany, they strongly state that they are not Turkish or Kurdish. If the Wikipedia article claims that Zazas are Kurds, then Wikipedia is self-contradictory and its credibility becomes questionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burtigin (talk • contribs) 11:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

You adressed zero of my points regarding your behaviour. Can an admin please check and close this? --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with your analysis. Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:22, 30 August 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.

Sock has created multiple articles

Poli Hunt (talk · contribs) has created multiple articles which ideally should be deleted. A list at User:Poli Hunt/Articles created has been deleted by User:Explicit but I guess could be restored temporarily if needed. Sock details at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Syed amjad08/Archive. Doug Weller talk 14:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Ki999 is WP:NOTHERE

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.

---

Ki999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is WP:NOTHERE based on his continued POV-pushing at Talk:Andrew Tate#Andrew Tate has active, official accounts on Rumble and Gettr. He's alleged a "coordinated inorganic heavy censorship effort" (diff) on the part of other editors involved in the discussion and accused another editor of lying and "fraud", which he's threatened to report, (diff) after several warnings on the matter (diff, diff). Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I wish we could just use the Chris Chan standard here and get rid of the article for causing more trouble then it's worth. Is it really worth it to fight an onslaught of Tate supporters for coverage of what's otherwise a borderline-notable kickboxer? casualdejekyll 19:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I've been monitoring that talk page for a few weeks now, and everything's been fairly peaceful until this user came around. This is about a single editor, not about a disruptive "onslaught of Tate supporters". I also don't see how the article is "causing more trouble than it's worth". Seems kind of dismissive of its contributors, honestly. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, as someone who has been involved in dealing with the onslaught of his followers trying to change his page (Please note, this is not an unsubstantiated allegation, people claimed they were asking on his behalf, claimed to personally know he was upset by the page due to contact with him, etc) for over a month and a half now, this is about the most calm it's been. Throast and I have been trying to keep things updated and in check, and it's going pretty well for the most part. Throast is accurate when they say that this is a singular disruption on an otherwise stable page. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I am denying any allegations of "POV-pushing" since the only thing I am trying to get added into the article is a single sentence consisting of factual information. This information (the fact that Tate is using Rumble and Gettr) is encyclopedic, at least more than many other claims that are already in the article. I have actually seen another user lying and pointed it out. I have said that "I am considering reporting this". Now this fact is somehow supposedly a reason to ban me, while I am the one being reported. I have made a lot of points in that message. I demand that whoever considers coming to a conclusion about this issue, reads the whole thread first, not just cherry-picked parts written above. Throast, after reading my long message decided to not respond to it at all and instead to report me. My message contains a lot of unanswered points. For example, I have questioned if he has COI (see context to understand why). Meanwhile the following was done in the same thread against me: 1. Throast claimed that I "do not know what Wikipedia is". 2. I posted around 20 different links that have covered information that I want to added. Another user claimed without pointing out to any evidence that most of these links are "outright unreliable". They said about other 3 links that they "they mostly read like celebrity gossip" (whatever that means). Dismissed another source as "advertisement" (which it was not). Falsely claimed that one of the links I posted is "dead". I have addressed this by saying "Perhaps it was unintentional but I see it extremely likely that you intentionally lied to me and regard this as a fraud. I am considering reporting it. Are you making claim (which you haven't made yet) that express.co.uk is unreliable source, too? How about independent.co.uk? I am waiting for your answer." I have addressed many other points here as well. This was a completely civil discussion from my side, meanwhile Throast decided to simply report me instead of responding to my arguments. 3. Throast made the following series of claims: "Ultimately, those [refers to social media that banned him, as opposed to those that did not] are going to impact Tate the most. I'd argue that Gettr and Rumble are fringe platforms, which is probably why virtually no reliable sources cover them in this context. In short, nobody cares that he's still on there." I regard this as a mixture of opinions and false/baseless claims. Meanwhile they accuse me of "POV-pushing". I have only few, if any opinions in the whole text I wrote on talk page and most of them are for the purpose of countering some other claims which were also opinions. For full context, see Talk:Andrew Tate#Andrew Tate has active, official accounts on Rumble and Gettr. ki999 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ki999 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Without wishing to comment on specifics sourcing in Wikipedia has a particular set of rules and reasoning behind it. Information about the criteria can be found at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and the existing consensus about the reliability of particular sources can be found at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Gusfriend (talk) 22:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, Ki999, let's take some of your points.

• As far as I can see, your "context" for questioning whether Throast has a COI issue is their opposition to your edit, rather than any tangible cause. For someone who dislikes being accused of things, you seem quite free in launching accusations of your own.

  * As Gusfriend states, Wikipedia has standards for what sources are considered reliable or not, and your laundry list of blogsites, self-published sites, social media platforms and tabloid sites almost all do not qualify. If you would like to rebut with solid evidence that particular sites do have a verified reputation for fact checking and accuracy, go ahead.

  * Those two sites Askarion reported as dead links? I just checked them, and they are dead links.

  ""Tucker show is opinion show" - by which criteria?" Wikipedia's. To quote from WP:RSP, "Fox News talk shows, including Hannity, Tucker Carlson Tonight, The Ingraham Angle, and Fox & Friends, should not be used for statements of fact." It is up to you to educate yourself on pertinent Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and it is uncivil for you to cavalierly dismiss people attempting to do so.

  "This was a completely civil discussion from my side" -- the hell? Ki999, you want to do something right now: do not assume that we are stupid here. In reading this discussion and the talk page, you accuse people of lying. You accuse people of having ulterior motives. You accuse people of being meatpuppets. You accuse people of "offensive and probably intentionally provocative." You accuse people of censorship. These are serious and repeated breaches of Wikipedia's policies against uncivil behavior and making unwarranted personal attacks, and if you genuinely think this is "completely civil" behavior, then you really do not belong on Wikipedia until such time as you can convince some friendly admins that you understand our civility policies and plan to abide by them. Ravenswing 23:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I see multiple false accusations about me in the message above. Note that definition of "accuse" implies making a claim. "In reading this discussion and the talk page, you accuse people of lying." - this is false, as I made it very clear from very beginning that I am simply suspecting it and not claiming it. The user in the question has come forward, explained what happened and apologised. This is not a problem anymore. "You accuse people of having ulterior motives. You accuse people of being meatpuppets." - These both are only your interpretations of a single sentence I wrote. I see you just intend to make your list of accusations as long as possible for some reason. Don't put words into my mouth. All I have done was to ask a question (not claiming) if a user has COI. This is iirc allowed if I am not revealing their identity. "You accuse people of "offensive and probably intentionally provocative."" - again, there was a word "I would say" in the beginning (it means I did not claim) and you conveniently omitted it. At it was not about people, it was about a single phrase. "You accuse people of censorship." - this is the only accusation here which I cannot deny so I will only try to justify what I am saying. It was not specifically about Wikipedia editors and was not personal. The fact that multiple "reliable sources" have covered the topic and omitted this extremely relevant fact seems like censorship. Regarding the actions of the editors of the article: article contains claims that are not supported by any source at all or a single source. YouTube has been used as a source. The same editors are totally tolerant to this. Meanwhile some of the sources I provided were called "read like celebrity gossip" (not "unreliable") and therefore dismissed. Is this a valid reasoning? I am going to read about reliability of sources more, but I don't remember making a claim that a source is reliable so see no mistake from my side. And as I explained, I deny accusations of uncivil behavior and personal attacks. Ki999 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ki999 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

There are no exceptions made in WP:NPA nor WP:ASPERSIONS for simply "suspecting" an editor of misconduct if the end result is the same; a chilling effect on a discussion. Our policies are written specifically to discourage this kind of chilling effect, which even just "suspecting" still causes. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 10:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

If there is content not supported by any reliable source on the page then you should make an edit request via the talk page. I would encourage you to read WP:AGF which says that all editors should "Assume Good Faith". Gusfriend (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that you explicitly said, This sounds very similar to express.co.uk which is the website that you lied about. in replying to me in regards to a source dispute. I don't think it's fair to say you haven't accused people of lying, when you plainly said that I "lied about" something (that I didn't even lie about). Askarion ✉ 10:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment While I agree with Throast's concern, I feel this is more of a new editor issue. The editor seems to be completely unaware that some sources are indeed not allowed on Wikipedia. I linked them to WP:RSP to hopefully provide some clarification on why some sources aren't allowed here. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I saw this coming and warned this editor, and they came to my talk page to discuss it but have not responded to my message attempting to guide them. ––FormalDude talk 02:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  Well, at least they've been told. Multiple times, by multiple editors, in multiple venues. Now we will see whether or not they really are NOTHERE or not. Forgiveness for ignorance of policy that is built in to AGF only works for so long, any lack of improvement from this point would warrant a block, IMO. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  Given the massive WP:IDHT above, I'd say that the only way this isn't going to wind up an indef is if Ki999 just walks away from the project. Addition by subtraction. Ravenswing 12:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  Given the response to you, indef is needed. They clearly don't get it. Any of it. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I want to address several points made above.
1. My context for suspecting a COI was actually a claim by another user that "nobody cares" about the fact I was suggesting to add. Contrary to the claim by Ravenswing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) merely opposing my suggestion was not a reason for me to suspect COI. Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic [112]
2. FrederalBacon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wrote about me that "Well, at least they've been told. Multiple times, by multiple editors, in multiple venues." Given the context, it seems "being told" implies a warning. I was not warned "multiple times, by multiple editors, in multiple venues." Only a single user, FormalDude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has given me a warning (may seen like 2 warnings but they told me that they were a single warning). Warning was, according to them, for sharing my "original research". I pointed out that this "no original research" rule does not apply to talk pages. Therefore the warning to me did not seem to have any validity and did not change my behavior. FormalDude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) still believes that warning was not a mistake and has not apologised for it. this warning was discussed here.
3. I want to apologise to Askarion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for the sentence "This sounds very similar to express.co.uk which is the website that you lied about." This sounds like I knew they intentionally gave false information about it. I had already clarified this was not the case, I had only suspected it. So I should have said "This sounds very similar to express.co.uk which is the website that you made false claim about" instead. I don't see a really big problem here since I did not make any report.
4. The whole point of the debate seems the claim that I was pushing my original research into the article, but the fact is, the same article's lead section is full of questionable claims which are original research, misinterpretation of the cited sources, or things that have no cited sources at all. Both FrederalBacon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Throast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seemingly think this is OK. Otherwise they would do something about it, since they are monitoring that page all the time. Yet they demand me to be blocked because I posted original research on talk page which is allowed.
5. It would be more constructive for people to point out specific problems in my behavior and give me specific instructions of what exactly I should avoid doing. Rather than directly reporting me for vague WP:NOTHERE and even more vague WP:IDHT. This especially applies to Ravenswing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for saying "I'd say that the only way this isn't going to wind up an indef is if Ki999 just walks away from the project" which is just a seemingly polite way for "STFU or you will be permanently blocked". I see this as a threat.
It is just unbelievable that my attempt to establish a consensus to add a single sentence consisting of non-controversial information caused so many complaints and demands for blocking. Ki999 (talk) 10:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I reject WP:OR entirely, the entire thing is fully sourced, with inline citations (credit mainly to Throast for that, they've done a really good job with that). The subject having a social media account is not notable in and of itself. It would need to be covered in third party sources. This is what has been explained to you, multiple times, in multiple venues, (article talk, here, your talk.)

I would like you to back up your claim of unsourced information and WP:OR in the article with diffs and evidence, or I would ask you to withdraw your accusation. FrederalBacon (talk) 11:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Ki999, FrederalBacon, I would urge you to discuss issues that solely pertain to article content at the talk page though. The reason why no admin has commented still is probably due to the fact that the thread has become so ridiculously long. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 12:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

In this case, they are making a user conduct claim, IE, that you and I are including OR and suppressing his "reliably sourced" information. That accusation is serious, and requires evidence. I am continuing to discuss the content issue on article talk, but if they're going to make the accusation that you and I are COI, submitting OR or misinterpreting sources, the accusation needs to have evidence. Fortunately, their own admission that their information is OR is included above, so I'm not sure why there is a discussion about this anymore when the argument is "Yeah, it's OR, but I should be allowed to use it". FrederalBacon (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Instead of replying to my above request for proof of their COI accusations against myself and Throast, as is required, the editor decided to post a long rant about the NYT "lying" on the article talk page. I originally, above, gave the editor the benefit of the doubt that this was just a confusion related to not knowing what reliable sourcing is here on Wikipedia. I think it's clear now that this is about not caring what reliable sourcing is - So "reliable source" New York Times lied. When it comes to many sites that have been declared as "fake news" on Wikipedia the best evidence for this claim is something like this (sometimes even that is not there, especially when it comes to naming a site or person "far-right"). And yet, "There is consensus that The New York Times is generally reliable" on W:RSP. Another source was declared "generally unreliable" because NYT criticised it. This W:RSP is essentially based on circular reasoning and totally questionable. is the quote from their post. In addition to dismissing WP:RSP and the community that has built the consensus there, they also openly hold contempt for the process itself. Also, casting aspersions on the NYT author with They lied to prevent people from knowing about Rumble. Meanwhile the same article mentions YouTube 8 times. Not only Rumble is not mentioned, the author lied to remove even the slightest suggestion that Tate has a channel somewhere else, instead suggesting that he needs YT so much so that he desperately created a fake channel there. I think NOTHERE is pretty evident at this point. FrederalBacon (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I did not claim that any of the sources I provided falls into "generally reliable" category.

Evidence for suppression of the information that I suggested is very extensive on the talk page.

I did fact check the NYT article on the discussion page and concluded that NYT lied (and proved it). Nothing wrong with this.

I actually did question Wikipedia's consensus achieving process on general reliability of sources. But I did not "dismiss the community that has built the consensus" since I don't believe consensus declared on there was built by community. But yet I did not disregard the RS rules. I have said that a source not being labeled as "generally reliable" does not mean it cannot ever be used (which is true). I also pointed out to the fact that if it is labeled "generally reliable" this does not mean every single thing they say can be included on Wikipedia (which is also true). It all depends on context and if the claim is controversial or not.

I did not "admit pushing OR into the article". I did not push OR into the article. I only admitted writing OR on talk page and pointed out to the fact that OR on talk pages is allowed. Not specifically for me but for everyone.

I did not claim any editor I interacted with having COI. I will not prove any of you having a COI because I don't have to prove something I never claimed in the first place. I only asked a question if you have one, this is something completely compliant with guidelines and does not mean a claim. Yet you claim that this question is something that is to be used against me, which is not. I have only said the following:

And how about "nobody cares that he's still on there"? Do you actually believe this? Or there is someone behind you forcing you to talk like that? What is the source for this claim?

This question was directed at Throast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). To my knowledge, he has not responded.

Regarding OR claims from my side, yes, I am planning to provide evidence for these claims. Ki999 (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

How can you say you didn't accuse us of COI? Do you actually believe this? Or there is someone behind you forcing you to talk like that? is exactly that. You accused me Throast of being a meatpuppet, have done absolutely nothing to back up your accusations, and continue to act like you have done nothing wrong. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I can say very easily: I did not accuse you of COI, contrary to the false claim that you previously made, then you retracted this false claim silently, did not apologise, and did not admit wrongdoing. I can also say very easily that I did not accuse Throast of COI. The quoted sentence is not an accusation. If anybody still fails or refuses to understand this I can only recommend opening some dictionary and read what this word means. I have already covered this very extensively. Ki999 (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not replying to your extremely condescending remark recommending opening a dictionary, since your remark is based off of a view that asking someone if they are being forced to edit a certain way isn't an accusation somehow, I will be using this comment to publicly WP:DISENGAGE and walk away. I believe this ANI and the article talk speaks for itself, and that there is a clear disruption on this article that has been noted by multiple editors. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Admins, have you seen any instances where I made comments that are a legitimate reason for block? If the answer is no, please openly say this. If the answer is yes, please describe these instances using the following format for each of them:
1. Quote from me. The exact quote, not just someone's interpretation of it.
2. Quote(s) from Wikipedia's policies, explicitly explaining that my behavior was unacceptable.
3. Any additional commentary is optional.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ki999 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 31 August 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.

WMF account holder blocked for vandalism through sockpuppet 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.

---

This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 5#ABorba (WMF) blocked. Since it seems appropriate that the wider community be aware of the circumstances, I am posting a link here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump that is a very poor title. Firstly, it was one additional account. Secondly Firstly, I do not believe it/they would be considered a sock. Secondly, it's not vandalism because vandalism requires an intent to hurt the encyclopedia. This is badly designed testing. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

With apologies to ATG, was indeed multiple accounts - my double-check was for naught there Nosebagbear (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

It was indistinguishable from vandalism, however. No prior notification, no edit summary notification that it was a test, no prior claim of the secondary/sock account on his user page. The only evidence that it wasn't was his word. He's probably being honest (which calls his judgement into question), but again, it was indistinguishable from run of the mill vandalism when it was published. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Only if you are viewing the single edit - which isn't how I judge any run of the mill vandalism (unless it's the only actual edit) - their edit history suggested a nature that would indicate tests, and that's even more so with the knowledge that's it's twinned with a WMF account even without the individual's word Nosebagbear (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

What form of testing would require adding 'fuck shit' as the short description to a biography of a 19th century Irish landowner and judge? [113] I find it hard to believe that the WMF would have approved such a 'test', and even if they think it appropriate, I get the distinct impression that people here wouldn't. At minimum, ABorba needs to provide a clear, public, explanation of what was going on. And if the WMF approved of this 'testing', we need to be told why they consider it necessary. Given the technical control they have over Wikipedia data, they need to demonstrate that they can be trusted not to engage in unnecessary disruptive behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

What form of testing would require adding 'fuck shit' as the short description... Um, the form of testing that tests for vandalism in short descriptions? Levivich 23:40, 31 August 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.

Philipjennelle09 behavior

Philipjennelle09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After being given many warnings from multiple editors over the last eighteen months, Philipjennelle09 acknowledged the warnings, but saying that [t]he information is right, I know it. So there!, they immediately repeated the same behavior. While I do think they mean well, they are not willing to edit in a way that helps building an encyclopedia. I ask for a short block which will show them we mean business and that this will not be tolerated. Thanks. --Muhandes (talk) 06:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Ask and ye shall receive. I agree, and blocked 31 hours to get their attention. Hopefully this will make them think about sourcing in the future and no further blocks will be needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit war in the article Mikaela Shiffrin

Marbe166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Although for months he has tried to agree with good manners (I have even tried in six different ways) the user in question that his overbearing way of seeing the matter was wrong (I explained it well in the edit summary of my edit in Mikaela Shiffrin), he continues in his destructive work. Here the precedents. --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

In this case, it is simple. There is an ongoing ANI above (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#World_Cup_race_podiums_in_Infobox_of_the_alpine_skiers) about this, and Kasper2006 added the very content of the ANI to the Mikaela Shiffrin page. That is a blatant disrespect of an ongoing ANI discussion, and was therefore reverted. I propose this discussion is merged with the one above. --Marbe166 (talk) 06:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Diff? Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 15:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Looking out regarding Ki999

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.

---

Ki999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Talk page access isn't revoked, but it's hilarious how they basically are asking for proof of their behavior and getting mad at random people. "I didn't misbehave when no one agreed with me, Wikipedia is not a democracy"... yeah, sure. Might need to keep an eye on the guy.

If it gets worse, then revoke it is. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

P.S. See their topics on WP:Teahouse, they clearly seem to be weird and self-defensive. I'm only putting this up in case their behavior gets worse and needs a revoke. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 15:47, 1 September 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.

158.140.167.0/24 - proxy?

158.140.167.0/24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I've seen an array of relatively-mild disruptive editing from this IP range for several weeks. I noticed that 158.140.167.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is currently blocked as a P2P proxy.

The disruption consists of replacing adequate images with poor-quality ones, moving template fields around in the page markup to obfuscate disruptive changes, and festooning articles with pointless and excessive galleries.

But, that aside, the user switches back and forth between a handful of IPs in this range, sometimes from edit to edit mere minutes apart, which seems strange - and possibly an attempt to evade scrutiny. The past couple days it's been between x.62 and x.87. But based on that odd pattern of IP switching, if one IP in this range is a proxy, is that an indication that others in the range would be? Or perhaps the entire range? --Sable232 (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It wouldn’t surprise me if the IPs in this range have been, or will be, used as proxies but this type of proxy is ephemeral. At a guess, I'd say this editing is normal activity rather than anonymous activity but disruptive editing is disruptive editing and can be reported in the usual places. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Slow burn IP not here for constructive editing

Involved user

• 149.156.234.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Article in question

• Syco Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Issue Said IP keeps changing sourced information. They've made a number of edits identical to their most recent one like this. Its a slow burn of unhelpful edits on 16 July, 17 July, 17 July diff 2, 22 July, 23 July, 25 July, 30 July. This stopped when the article was semi-protected, but has since resumed when the protect ran out here: 1 Sep diff 1 and 1 Sep diff 2. As you can see on the IP's talkpage, multiple warnings have been left and a source was added to the content in the lead to try and prevent this. Clear case of WP:NOTHERE. User contributions show no other target or contributions. Please consider blocking. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 19:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked it from editing that page. If disruption moves to another page let me know or ask at WP:AIV for someone to do a site-wide block. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Mucho thanko amigo >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 20:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football

There are currently 193 articles at AfD just for the football del sorting. I can't keep up, and I am not on that much. I don't know how others can keep up, plus I like to try and do research. So please, is it possible that we can have some kind of cap limit? Govvy (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Speed is surely less important than thoroughness. @Sportsfan 1234: many (most?) of these nominations are yours, slowing down the rate of nominations doesn't seem like an unreasonable ask. I see this was raised with you a few days ago: User talk:Sportsfan 1234#Footballer AFDs. Mackensen (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

It has slowed down on my end. Maybe a cap of 3 per day/per editor until the load has come down significantly? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I would just stop now until the current queue has come down to like 10-20. The participation in the current AfDs is poor. How much WP:BEFORE work are you doing before you nominate? Mackensen (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

This has been a problem for a while - not just with Sportsfan 1234, but also @Avilich:, who nominated 44 AFDs in 71 minutes the other day. I have no huge issue with the quality of the nominations (most are fine, but some are bad), it's the quantity I find an issue. 2-3 per day per user is sufficient. I appreciate Sportsfan 1234 agreeing to slow down voluntarily.

Oh, one user whose quality is bad - @HeinzMaster: - previously blocked for it. If editors won't voluntarily make fewer, better nominations, then editing restrictions will have to be introduced. GiantSnowman 08:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman and Giant: lol it was not because of the quality of the nominations that I was blocked, it was another issue that totally not related to that but is in the past. My nominations have been like 1% of the recent ones and of the ones I nominated 99% were voted delete, including many by you? HeinzMaster (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I think a limit of 5 per day is reasonable, with the caveat that if there are less than 30 listed, you can nominate more. I also think after 120 have been listed, there should be no more noms until the current ones are wrapped up. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

• The trouble is that there's no cap on the number of undersourced BLPs that people can start, so if we cap the number at AfD, the number of undersourced BLPs in the encyclopaedia just keeps on ballooning.—S Marshall T/C 17:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

  The problem identified by GiantSnowman is with articles on topics that would have had presumed notability under the old WP:NFOOTY but do not now following the recent changes to guidelines, not with new articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

  Broadly, this isn't really an ANI issue. There's a general problem of attracting good input at AfD. AfD is absolutely critical to Wikipedia; it's the ultimate arbiter of quality, and (depending on viewpoint) also a potentially dangerous black hole swallowing information at the whims of a handful of deletionists. It's often overly busy, editors who know about the subject might not log on during the critical week, or may not have watch-lists set up, and it suffers from drive-by people merely endorsing the viewpoint above. And it can get nearly as scary as ANI. Many AfD debates come down to a very small number of opinions, rather too few to reach a safe decision. AfC takes the attitude that it's better to reach the right decision than hurry, and doesn't mind if it takes 4 months; AfD sets itself a target of a week, albeit with the possibility of extension if the reviewer thinks it would be useful. Obviously quality is going to suffer if you combine time-constraints with a sudden influx of a large number of nominations. I suspect it's been discussed a lot, but it's still unsolved. I don't know how more people can be encouraged to get involved, and to do the job properly? It requires a particular disposition and skill-set that not every editor has. Elemimele (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

  All this is why Arbcom has decided we're going to have two community-wide RfCs on these very issues. Those RfCs would be the best place to propose a cap on AfD use.—S Marshall T/C 20:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that the RfC would be the best place for a proposal, but it seems we need something in the interim, because we could delete hundreds of articles between now and whenever the RfC concludes, especially given that it hasn't even started yet.--Jahaza (talk) 04:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  Or, y'know, there could've been caps on mass creations of such articles all along, without which there wouldn't be any sort of problem. When that's instituted, then caps on deletion might be reasonable. Ravenswing 08:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  Why would that be a bad thing? Deleted content isn't gone forever. If its needed or wanted it can be restored or userfied for work. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 13:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Realistically even if people come across deleted articles, how many are going to go to the effort of WP:REFUND? Content is much more likely to be improved if the article is already there. NemesisAT (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  That, plus a lot of the content is useful as is and it's just a matter of sort of proving that usefulness! Anglo-Belgian Olympic footballer Eric Thornton got nominated for deletion yesterday, but it turns out that multiple Belgian newspapers ran obituaries when he died, but digging that info out of the Belgian archives takes time. In the meantime, the article was marginally useful as it stands, but it probably would've been deleted for notability based on the current sourcing, even though there aren't really verifiability concerns. Jahaza (talk) 05:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  the article was marginally useful as it stands; I disagree with that - the content it provided would be better suited to a list. In addition, I'm not convinced you have demonstrated notability with the sources you found, as the ones I reviewed, the original four/five you quoted, only contained passing mentions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• If we had a proposed deletion system that actually worked, many of these could have been resolved via PROD. ––FormalDude talk 04:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• Perhaps an interim measure is a more generous relisting of sportspeople discussions, so there is more time for editors to cope with the recent influx. Based on my general observations of the Women's del-sort, what has typically been a list of under 100 noms has recently been as high as about 140 and is currently more than 120. A procedural fix to address the recent sports guideline change could be to automatically extend sportspeople AfDs from 7 to 14 days due to the anticipated influx of sportspeople AfDs, but that seems beyond the scope of the discussion here. Beccaynr (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  This will just result in there being more open AFDs. GiantSnowman 20:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  But it may help address concerns about not enough time to review and research, while we wait for the RfCs. AfD handles what PROD cannot, as well as the consequences of the recent sports guideline change, so the AfD process may need some additional slack to allow editors sufficient time to keep up while alternative solutions are considered, due to the recent uptick in AfDs. Beccaynr (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  Well no, because older AFDs staying open does not help editors find time/sources when other editors are still opening 50+ new AFDs a day... GiantSnowman 14:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  From my read of this thread, it sounds like we need to wait to try to formally address the consequences of the change to sports guidelines, which appears to have resulted in a noticeable uptick in AfDs that is straining editor resources at AfD. As an interim measure, to address the current strain on volunteer labor, my suggestion is essentially a rule-book slowdown, asking admins who close AfDs to exercise their discretion and provide more time under these circumstances, so AfD can continue to adequately function while more comprehensive solutions are discussed. We do not appear to have an opportunity right now to directly address whether AfD nominations should be capped, and if so, under what circumstances, but in the meantime, there appears to be a need to do something to support editors and the integrity of the AfD process. Beccaynr (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  One thing that could really help, and simultaneously improve Wikipedia, is for a bunch of football-knowledgeable people to band together, and systematically go through tranches of these stubs (e.g., by year). They could establish notability, document it, and expand the stubs for those that are notable, and PROD those that are non-notable. Hopefully others seeing a PROD from this group would trust their judgment and let it go through. If de-PRODed, a group member could then nominate for deletion. This could proactively address some of the articles. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Hard to do when deletionists are taking 50+ a day to AFD (although it has slowed down a lot since this thread started). GiantSnowman 19:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• It would be reasonable to encourage relisting instead of soft-deletion until the backlog is clear. This wouldn't hamper anyone's ability to nominate articles for deletion, and it would remove some of the pressure to go through the list !voting quickly. This might not be a perfect solution, but it's one that could be implemented quickly without sanctioning anyone and would address the concern about adequate assessment. –dlthewave ☎ 13:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

, would it be better to suggest, that for topics like this, everything is drafted and approved first rather than created and then deleted? >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 19:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but these articles already exist. We're not talking about current mass creation of footballers.--Jahaza (talk) 05:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Draftifying does not prevent the admin headache of having to deal with the notability issues. GiantSnowman 06:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by User:JimmyBasco

For almost a year, JimmyBasco keeps reverting my edits on DWJP-FM at least once a month. As per recent records from the NTC, the station still carries the call letters DWJP. Yet, he keeps insisting that it currently uses DZJA. I keep reminding him several times. I even advised him to follow the NTC records. Yet, he refuses to accept that fact. He even ignores the warning I left in his talk page.

Here's a list of revision edits:

• September 2021
• October 2021 - Part 1
• October 2021 - Part 2

After a 6-month hiatus, he's back...

• March 2022
• April 2022
• May 2022 - Part 1
• May 2022 - Part 2
• July 2022
• Recent

I'm tired of reminding that hard-headed user. I suggest that the user should be blocked from editing the page. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 13:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

So it takes two to edit war. I don't see any conversation about this on the article talk page which should be the first point of call, not ANI. And I must say that your comment on their talk page isn't particularly friendly nor are your edit summaries. Additionally you haven't notified the user of this conversation as required. Canterbury Tail talk 13:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I sent them the notification. Madeline (part of me) 13:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps, you did not see the the warning I posted in his talk page months ago. The first time I reverted his edit, I even left a polite edit summary, stating DWJP is still the call letter used by the station per recent listing, but the user ignored it. So, I decided to tone my edit summary up a bit and leave mini warnings in the page, but nothing to avail. I don't think he'd bother to peak in his talk page. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes I did see it, and as I said it wasn't particularly friendly or polite in any way. The talk page of the article is the place to discuss and get consensus or the user's talk page. 1 rather curt and not friendly message on their talk page isn't an attempt at discussing what is essentially a content dispute. I would also recommend that you point them to the policy or guideline that supports your view on the callsign. Threats and ultimatums in edit summaries are not communication. Canterbury Tail talk 12:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Knowing the user's reputation for ignoring reminders, including the messages in his talk page, I highly doubt your advice will work. But, I'll see what I can do. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Estonian POV (again)

This issue was previously dealt with at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1093#H2ppyme and Estonian POV, which resulted in H2ppyme (talk · contribs) being banned for removing references to 'Estonian SSR' from articles (despite that being the historically accurate name at that time).

Now Plingen Plungen (talk · contribs) has appeared and is making the same edits, at the same article (Friedrich Karm), including referring to the Estonian SSR as a "scam government set up by the occupying Soviet Union. It was set up illegally and was not internationally recognized".

Plingen Plungen is edit warring to maintain their POV. Please can somebody review and intervene? GiantSnowman 10:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any decision about changing Estonia to Estonian SSR at the biographies in the ANI. I'd say GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) is edit warring to insert their POV. Soviet name was re entered into the article only on 28 June, then when reverted back to original on 24 August GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) arrived to defend the recent change.

I remain at my position, that internationally unrecognized regime that has been set up illegally by military force of a occupying country is scam government. I gave my assessment at the talk of which GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) did not answer instead they posted warning at my talk page, reverted the edits and filed this thing here.

Historically accurate name is Republic of Estonia. Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic was a scam government set up by the occupying Soviet Union. It was set up illegally and was not internationally recognized. It was same as Russian set ups in Ukraine Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic or from the same era Finnish Democratic Republic etc. While the territory of Estonia was under Soviet occupation, Estonian state still existed, it had recognized diplomatic missions in the west Baltic Legations (1940–1991) and Estonian government-in-exile.

But the important part is the widely accepted historical English name

• Library of US Congress newspaper archive 1940-1963 search Results:

• Estonia – 2759
• Estonian SSR – 1
• Estonian S.S.R. – 1
• Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic – 1

• British Newspaper Archive results from 1940–1990 for:

• +estonian -ssr – 9790
• +estonian +soviet +socialist +republic – 95
• +estonian +ssr – 24

Regards Plingen Plungen (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Plingen Plungen's statistical logic makes sense, but H2ppyme (talk · contribs) made the same point about the Estonian SSR being a "scam government." Remember, the Confederacy was not internationally recognized but has its own Wikipedia article. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 12:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Quite. There are any number of polities in world history that were not universally, "officially" internationally recognized, but which had control of its area and a de facto government in charge. We do not huffily pretend that the Confederacy, or Biafra, or the Rif Republic, or the General Government, or the Mahdist State, or countless other such ultimately ephemeral entities were "scam governments," however much the de jure owners of those territories would've loved to push that POV had there been Wikipedia at the time.

Beyond any of that ... was the Soviet occupation of the Baltics "illegal?" I think so, sure. But quite aside from that POV was not universal (numerous countries did proffer de jure recognition), so what? This encyclopedia is in the business of publishing fact, not the amour propre of POV-pushing revisionists who wish devoutly to pretend that history didn't happen. I likewise concede that all the other states I mentioned above were "illegal" as well, but that doesn't mean they didn't actually exist. As someone with Lithuanian ancestry, the occupation of the Baltics was a terrible and shameful tragedy. It also happened. Ravenswing 12:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

You are right, this is encyclopedia, that's why there are numerous articles about Soviet occupation being illegal (without quotes). It is also POV-pushing revisionism to deny that under international law Baltic states remained as internationally recognized states. The question here isn't denying that Estonian SSR existed, as it did, the question is which name should be used in the infoboxes, as stated per sources above the common name used at the time was Estonia, not Estonian SSR. Plingen Plungen (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

If people said Poland between 1946 and 1989 they meant the Polish People's Republic, when they said Estonia the state that existed at that point was the Estonian SSR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Poland is a different case than Baltic states. State continuity of the Baltic states. The legal position that sovereign title never passed to the Soviet Union, which implied that occupation sui generis lasted until re-independence in 1991.[5] Thus the Baltic states continued to exist as subjects of international law. Whatever government Soviets set up it was as illegitimate as are Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic.Plingen Plungen (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Robert Lewandowski, Place of birth Warsaw, Poland. Follow your words and go change it to Polish People's Republic.Plingen Plungen (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

As I saif previously if someone says Poland, for a time period between those dates, the that is saying the Polish People's Republic. The two are the same, you are saying Estonia during the Soviet period is not the same as Estonia SSR, which is revisionist. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Place of birth Warsaw, Poland in 1987, because wikipedia uses common name. Common name was Poland. As said before about other examples all use common name. But somehow it makes people mad if they discover that it is also used for Baltic states because you are not allowed to insult the holy Soviet Union here.Plingen Plungen (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

"...not allowed to insult the holy Soviet Union here"? Where have we read such type of observations before. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@JulieMinkai Also Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic has its own article as do the other Russian backed governments such as Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republic or Finnish Democratic Republic etc. Confederacy case predates modern international policies and it wasn't set up by some other country outside, as Soviet Union did with Baltic states.

Relevant cases here would be other countries which fell under occupation such as Norway, Netherlands, France etc. Biographies of people from this era use the common name of the country not the name of the regime set up by the occupier. For Mette Newth the birth place at the infobox is Oslo, Norway, it is not written Oslo, Reichskommissariat Norwegen, Casper ten Boom died in Scheveningen Prison, Netherlands it is not written Reichskommissariat Niederlande. Per MOS:GEO, widely accepted historical English name should be used. As per sources given above the short Estonia.

Per Template:Infobox person For modern subjects, the country should generally be a sovereign state Sovereign state has supreme legitimate authority over territory, Soviet union never had legitimate authority due to western non recognition policy of the incorporation of Baltic States. (United States Non-Recognition Policy). Estonia while being de facto under Soviet control remained de jure independent. As per Sovereign state states which are only de jure states are sometimes recognized as being the legitimate government of a territory over which they have no actual control. Sorry for the lengthy post. Plingen Plungen (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

You own link shows that the US withdraw backing to independent Estonian embassies in 1966. Anyway whether or not the US recognised the state of affairs, there was no denying the Soviets control of the territory. My grandfather was loyal to the Second Republic, whose government passed on it's responsibilities in 1990, but the Polish People's Republic existed and no amount of revisionism will change that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

No it does not. The archive is accessible until 1963. The British archive is until 1990. State continuity of the Baltic states. Johannes Kaiv followed by Ernst Jaakson served as Consul General of Estonia in charge of the Legation.Plingen Plungen (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I would rebut your statements with logic, but the more I read your statements, the more confused I get. I feel like you're arguing in circles. Why do you keep bringing up the Baltic States when this discussion is about Estonia the Estonian SSR? Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 15:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We've been over this multiple times. Using de jure arguments in Wikipedia is a dead end, because they have little if any bearing on real life events. A person that was born in the 1950s in the Estonian SSR and died in 1980s would have lived his/her entire life in the USSR. Not acknowledging this fact to push a nationalist POV is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. We have plenty of other cases were the de jure governance of a country is in dispute (for example People's Republic of Kampuchea vs Democratic Kampuchea, which has significant parallels to the Baltic case). -Soman (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Very nice. And as I posted above, the sources "bearing on real life". Commonly used name was Estonia. It is more than clear.Plingen Plungen (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

So you'd be ok with "Estonia, Soviet Union" in infoboxes? --Soman (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

That's not how other Estonian biographies are. The thing is, that all Estonian related biographies follow same style. It has been discussed since 2008 as I can see, long debates leading nowhere. The edit consensus has been to use Estonia in all bios, except ice hockey players. If you don't want to talk about vandalism on this one article but about changing all this It should be also taken to WP:Estonia. Plingen Plungen (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Don’t edit war, that never ends well. Arrive at a consensus on the article talk page. Follow WP:Dispute resolution. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  My comment on the article talk was ignored. They posted warning on my talk, reversed all edits and filed the report here. Plingen Plungen (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a quite straight forward question. Did the Estonian SSR (and the Latvian, Lithuanian SSRs) exist? If so, then it shouldn't be deleted or hidden from the bios of those who were born or died there. Personally, I find using "Soviet Union" as the birth/death place, is the best way to go in these matters. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Plingen Plungen, please take into account that H2ppyme was banned over this topic. Klõps retired over it & Nug hasn't been active on Wikipedia, all since February 2022. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, as some have directly or indirectly stated. Wikipedia is not the place to attempt to right the great wrongs. Attempts to replace "Estonian SSR, Latvian SSR & Lithuanian SSR" in bios, with "Estonia, Lativa & Lithuania"? could be construed as advocacy editing. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

H2ppyme was banned for the insulting comments. The article Estonia also has the Soviet era covered. About this case: none of the sources used in the article even mention Soviet Union, they say either Reval or Estonia. Wikilink or not, using "Estonia" is supported by the sources. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Denial via edits in bios that the ESSR ever existed, can be seen as disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

We have an article on Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic for a reason - covers the history and name of that state between 1944 and 1991. GiantSnowman 16:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

IMO, "Estonia" should be used in bios and "Estonian SSR" in body text. Changing "Estonian SSR" to "Estonia" in body text is disruptive. Changing "Estonian SSR" to "Estonia" in infoboxes is not. I'm split on whether to list the Soviet Union as the place of birth/death, since its relationship to the Estonian SSR is purely political. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 17:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes that's the way WP:Estonia editors have done. If the subject has done something that relates them to Soviet era, it is written in the article body. Adding Soviet Union to the articles about people who were born in the 1980s and had nothing to do with USSR is just clutter. Also for others like mr. Karm whose footballer career ended before the war. Plingen Plungen (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I have started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/H2ppyme. GiantSnowman 16:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The content in question is about the place of death of a footballer. At the time of his death Estonia did not take part in international competitions, but people from there had Soviet citizenship and were eligible to be part of the Soviet Union team. We may not like that, but it is the very well referenced fact. I can see reason to give the place of death as either Estonian SSR (as a subdivision) or Soviet Union, but for such practical (not de jure) purposes it was not the country Estonia. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

This hits the nail on the head for me. Estonia, after being invaded and absorbed by the USSR, didn’t exist as an independent country (despite mixed international recognition of the occupation) and to change the info box from the country that existed at the time to the country that didn’t is revisionism, at best. Estonian SSR was an administrative unit of the USSR, that is the country and “state”, not Estonia, no matter how illegitimate the occupation may have been in international eyes. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Exactly - it was the historically accurate name, so should be used.

In other news, Plingen Plungen continues to edit war to restore the non-Soviet version... GiantSnowman 08:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I personally don't think this needs to go on any further. Edit warring with an ANI open about their conduct should be just about as much sign as any admin needs that they aren't here to build an encyclopedia. FrederalBacon (talk) 10:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, FrederalBacon! Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 11:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal

Well, how about this, then? I propose that given his ongoing edit warring and disruption, Plingen Plungen receive an indefinite topic ban, broadly construed, from Baltic States articles, including biographical articles of Baltic State natives. Ravenswing 15:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support. I did a little research, and Estonia is indeed part of the Baltic States. Technially the Baltic States fall under DS on topics related to Eastern Europe (WP:ARBEE), but that net may be a bit too wide. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 15:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support given ongoing disruption and battleground behaviour. GiantSnowman 18:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support Edit warring during an ANI doesn't encourage belief that they are looking to work collaboratively in this topic. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support - The "...not allowed to insult the holy Soviet Union here" comment, is problematic. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  The holy Soviet Union stinks. There. I said it. Waiting on someone to label me public enemy number one. X-750 _{List of articles that I have screwed over} 02:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The suggestion that editors are somehow defending the USSR's actions, is problematic. GoodDay (talk) 02:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Totally agreed GoodDay, that comment was my attempt at this strange phenomenon known as "humour". I'll escort myself out now. X-750 _{List of articles that I have screwed over} 09:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

.Support - I was waiting to see if there would be anything further from Plingen Plunge, but they appear to have ANI flu. The history of atrocities committed by the Soviet Union doesn't excuse nationalist revisionism, and personal attacks are not the way to good editting. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 08:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

There's no nationalist revisionism. These are historical facts. Whatever is said above I never denied that Estonian SSR existed contrary that being attributed to me above. It is also factually true, that Republic of Estonia remained internationally recognized throughout the occupation. But more over I provided sources, about the common name used at the time and that Regarding MOS:GEO the "widely accepted historical English name is used. Such as Robert Lewandowski birth place written Poland, Not Polish People Republic, Xi Jinping Beijing, China (not People's Republic of China), Mette Newth Oslo, Norway, not written Oslo, Reichskommissariat Norwegen. I have not done personal attacks, but have been attacked personally many times. the same accusation of being nationalist revisionist really unnice namecalling here. Already being tired of false accusations I overreacted a little with the not allowed to insult Soviet Union comment, for that I apologize.

Also note GiantSnowman dif and GoodDay dif as involved parties should not take part of any decision making here. Also people who have strong POV on the issue. GiantSnowman actions should be considered also – for starting the edit war, ignoring the discussion at the talk page and assuming bad faith with the title of this ANI and their comments here. Plingen Plungen (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Any member of the community is allowed to join the discussion here, you could added your opposition if you wanted. As to the content issue I have no wish to continue this discussion. You simply keep repeating the same points, even when multiple editors have spoken out against that interpretation. At some point you need to accept that you are in the minority and move on. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Riiiiight ... in short, people who disagree with you shouldn't have a say. We already understood that you're not really big on WP:CONSENSUS. Ravenswing 21:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Person who is part of the conflict is voting to punish the other side. He created the conflict - Have a look at Talk:Friedrich Karm how GiantSnowman avoided consensus there. Did not even came to talk, straight to ANI, ignored the result of the earlier discussion there as he ran out arguments to defend his position. This is just ridiculous. Ten years the article was as is standard with not only Estonia related articles, but all WP. 62.65.204.43 (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

A signed out editor, making his first edit to 'this' discussion & about this topic. Interesting. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support The historical revisionism related to the Estonian SSR needs stamping out. Number 57 14:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Block requested for creep adding unnecessary naked photos of himself to several articles.

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:Courtney312 has been reverted several times but has continued with even less appropriate images of himself, in particular this edit. Reywas92^Talk 14:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Would it be wrong to thank that user for sharing his shortcomings with all of us? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Last editor that was doing this was User:NudistPhotographer, and it didn't end well for him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Blocked as NOTHERE. Bishonen | tålk 18:34, 1 September 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:Heinrichdeutsch

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 promotional edits, see contrib and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esat Ayyıldız. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:55, 2 September 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.

Persistent genre warring

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:Stojo bruv has been genre warring on the page In Flames persistently and hasn't provided any sources. He won't use the talk page either for a consensus to be reached. It is time for a blocking to be in order. FireCrystal 06:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

It may go even further than that too. An ip range was just blocked for the same thing so could be one and the same. Possible IP socks. FireCrystal 08:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, FireCrystal. I looked at that editor's contributions and noticed that they have been edit warring. Then, I looked at your contributions and see that you have been editor warring too. I could block the other editor but I would have to block you too. Stop the edit warring and use legitimate forms of Dispute resolution instead. Cullen328 (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Both editors have now received warnings about edit warring. Cullen328 (talk) 17:37, 27 August 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.

Exclusive world records (and words to that effect)

There have been several attempts to create an article on a publication/platform called Exclusive World Record(s), using different variations of capitalisation and with singular and plural of 'record'. I'm aware of at least the following:

• Draft:Exclusive world record
• Exclusive world records
• Draft:Exclusive World Record
• Draft:Exclusive World Records

Would it be possible to protect (assuming it is felt this is warranted, of course) the whole name space so it catches all variants? I have a feeling we've not seen the end of this yet.

Also, I can't remember or see who the users were who created the already deleted copies; the latest ones were made by two (apparently) different users. Could be just a coincidence, of course, or could be ducky? (I've not taken this to SPI.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

No, that's not possible. Unfortunately it's always hard to catch all spelling variants when a user is determined to get an article published. But of course it's disruptive to keep creating variants in such a way. Looking at the versions with my admin glasses on, I can see that three out of the four accounts have already been indeffed for advertising. I have blocked the fourth, User:Dhilloncharan, as a sock. There's no doubt in my mind that these accounts all represent one individual, likely an UPE. Thanks for reporting, DoubleGrazing. If you should see further variants, it may be expedient to take them straight to my page. Bishonen | tålk 08:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC).

Thanks @Bishonen! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing If you can come up with a reasonable regex you could ask for it to be added to the spam section of MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, but that's probably overkill at this point. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 09:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:AF? casualdejekyll 22:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

• Couldn't we make an edit filter to flag stuff like this? jp×g 10:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

  @JPxG - WP:EF/R's the place to go for to request such a thing casualdejekyll 22:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Casualdejekyll: I am not interested in filing an EFR myself I have not dealt with this UPE enough to tell whether one is justified; I'm mentioning it here as a potential solution that could be pursued by people who are. jp×g 13:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and block evasion by various editors on children's TV series

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.

---

Hi, I've noticed that various IP editors have been disruptively editing pages for various children's TV series by erroneously changing e.g. broadcast years, production companies, and broadcast regions. For example: Strawberry Shortcake (2003 TV series), Polly Pocket (TV series), Babar (TV series), The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!.

This has been going on for at least the last two months; their edits have always been reverted, they have been warned against vandalism, and many times one of these IPs has been blocked, only for another such IP to make similar edits a few days later. Given the nature of these edits, it seems clear that this is just one individual repeatedly evading IP blocks.

I'm not too well-versed with Wikipedia policies, but aside from whack-a-mole-blocking each such IP as it crops up, is there any other action that may be taken here?

P.S. The notice on the ANI edit page tells me that I need to notify the editor(s) on their talk pages, but I don't know how many IPs are involved here, so for now I'm only notifying the four IP editors who have made the edits I'm linking to. Edderiofer (talk) 11:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

• This is quite a wide range (2601:602:8705::/48) but looking at their contribs, pretty much every edit made this year from that range is clearly that person. Therefore, I have blocked the range for 3 months. Black Kite (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, well that's a relief that the collateral damage from blocking the entire range is so small. Thanks! Edderiofer (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

  They appear to be back again on a different IP. See here. Maybe at this point we could consider semi-protecting a bunch of pages? (I unfortunately don't have a full list of which pages they're targeting, although perhaps you have a better idea of that if you can see all the edits that the 2601:602:8705::/48 range has made.) Edderiofer (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

  And another different IP (2601:602:8702:3561:5c14:8468:a1a0:2ea4). Edderiofer (talk) 10:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked the 8702 /48 as well, as there's no other activity on it since 2021. If they carry on from another range, post on my talkpage and I'll see if we can go down another route. Black Kite (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Alright, thanks, will do. Edderiofer (talk) 11:08, 31 August 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.

Persistent addition of unsourced content to children's films and cartoons

Continuing after final warning a few days ago, CoreyRobbo (talk · contribs) adds their own alternate titles and episode summaries that appear to have been copied from other wikis [114]; [115]; [116]; [117]; [118]; [119]; [120]; [121]; [122]; [123]; [124]; [125]; [126]; [127]; [128]; [129]; [130]; [131]; [132].

I've actually attempted to be selective in adding diffs here. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Just out of interest, did you ever ask them why, or did you immediately raise ANI? A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 15:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I reverted them several times two days ago, and left multiple warnings. I Googled and found no support for the alternate titles, but did find episode summaries that appeared to have been lifted from other wikis. When I saw the pattern of WP:OR titles continued yesterday, I went to AIV. There was no action taken there, so I opened this thread. You're welcome to ask them why--I was struck by the edit summaries stating they 'had to' add this or that bit of unsourced content. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

See also 58.178.64.76 (talk · contribs), presumably CoreyRobbo when signed out. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

User Ïvana in a very suspicious attitude

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.

---

Ïvana (talk · contribs · count) is removing content from the Alberto Fernández article that I just posted. If I were wrong, I would accept it, but this is very SUSPECT, given the fact that she is Argentine and may have political or even economic affinity with the Fernandez regime. I'm putting sources that came out all over the international media and she's taking it down on the grounds of not complying with BLP, but it smells like censorship. If you want, feel free to adjust my text, but erasing it completely is trying to remove the information, which is very relevant in this guy's biography. 2804:14D:5C87:8C5D:F8C8:349D:F216:1C7E (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

You found this page, how about finding the talk page to the article and discussing there? You might have a point, but a bunch of edits and then straight to ANI is not collaborative. As we have WP:NODEADLINE, we can take time to discuss and get it right. Slywriter (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

That is highly contentious material added to a biography of a living person that needs consensus to be restored. The matter should be discussed at Talk:Alberto Fernández. In one of your edit summaries, you wrote Please ban this Argentine who works for Fernandez?. Never single out an editor for their nationality and accusing an editor of being paid without solid evidence is a personal attack which is not permitted. Cullen328 (talk) 19:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

After exactly four edits, all of them to the Fernandez article, we have considerably more reason that your editing pattern is suspect and that you have an agenda than we do for Ivana, who has been here four years and has 8,000 edits. Nor are accusations -- devoid of any evidence beyond that she doesn't like your edits -- such as "Please ban this Argentine who works for Fernandez?" remotely helpful. Ravenswing 19:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Are we to denounce any American because she "may have political or even economic affinity with the Biden regime" or any Brazilian because she "may have political or even economic affinity with the Bolsanaro regime"? Who is not very SUSPECT? Just drop the conspiracy theories and discuss what should be in the article on its talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

• I edited a compromise and opened Talk:Alberto Fernández#Luciani comments. User:Ïvana sent me a thank you for the edits. 2804:14D:5C87:8C5D:F8C8:349D:F216:1C7E's edits were mixing fact and opinion. The opposition parties slammed the comment, but Wikipedia can't take one side. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 20:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
• I see the edit-warring continues. Please use the talk-page discussion rather than do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:12, 28 August 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.

Mass Infobox disruption

80s Sam (talk · contribs · count) Second time here I see.

User is changing Infobox formats on musical articles willy-nilly. No discussions, no consensus, just wants to I guess. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@FlightTime: are you going to provide any WP:DIFFS per the page notice and the big wall of text at the top of the page? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 17:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Repeated accusations of POV and COI without evidence

Zefr accuses me regularly of Conflict of Interest as my opinion regarding a specific subject (Polyphenol) does not meet his approval. @Zefr is now threatening to report me to Administrators if I do not adhere to his requests - and I believe such a behaviour is not appropriate. Disagreements about content should be resolved in a discussion without accusations of inappropriate behaviour.

The edit I refer to is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Health_effects_of_phenols_and_polyphenols

"There is a disclosure process at WP:DISCLOSE which you have not followed on your talk page under the COI section, and minor information, albeit with your admission of being "terribly biased" from your own research program on polyphenols, is on your user page. Specifically from the COI guide, "you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." You attempted to create an article about the Department of Food and Nutritional Sciences, University of Reading, which publishes a bioactives guideline, indicating professional association you may have with this department and university where you are employed and compensated - this violates the COI policy. If you don't clear this up, I will report you to admin. Wikipedia has hundreds of related articles you could be working on other than those related to polyphenols or bioactives where your "terribly biased" views would not raise questions about biased editing for unproven health effects - which you admit, rather than neutral editing, as I have emphasized. Zefr (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)"Ggux (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

This has been raised at the appropriate noticeboard without resolution:

[[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 189#Ggux conflicted about polyphenol research]] Ggux (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

• By your own admission in that previous discussion, you have a POV and a COI, so I'm thinkin that is enough evidence to make the claim. You even spoke as to needing help determining what is encyclopedic and what isn't. To top it off, on your own user page, you describe yourself as "Terribly biased.". I appreciate that honesty, but it is what it is. On articles where you have a conflict of interest, you would be better off using the talk page if there is contention about the edits, and building a consensus, rather than editing directly. Most of us have COIs of one kind or another. Mine is in UV lamps and how they are used on animals (including humans) and horticulture. I've been in the field 30 years with a few inventions and innovations to my name. Last time I did a major rewrite on an article, there was someone there along side me, to keep me honest, SlimVirgin (who has since died, sadly). In the end, the article didn't look like I was hoping but it was factual and sourced, and I was wise enough to defer to outside opinions on what should belong and what shouldn't. The same would hold true for you. You aren't likely to convince everyone of every point you want to make. What is important to YOU, might not be what is the most important to the reader, as least as that is determined by a consensus of editors here. And we ARE a consensus community.

• So yes, you are POV and COI. That doesn't mean you can't contribute, but it does mean you need to change how you contribute in areas where that POV and COI exist. This is true for all of us. You are not an exception. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you - I appreciate that I am biased, because everyone is. A good expert is not one who isn't biased, but one who realises the own bias. The discussions with @Zefr have been going on for some time: they included RfCs which went against their opinion but were ignored Talk:Catechin#RfC:Is historical overview appropriate? or which did no result in a decision Talk:Flavan-3-ol#Request for Comments (2). As far as I can see, the main disagreement is whether there are data to support any health effect of polyphenols and @Zefr by own admission was not aware of recent research (Talk:Polyphenol#In vivo biomarkers) - the claim "There is no reliable source used in the article for that measurement, which would be a significant breakthrough for assessing the fate of digested polyphenols." has been wrong for some time, probably at least a decade. Interpreting results through that lens, i.e. the state of science several years ago and a summary provided by one organisation, the Linus Pauling Institute, resulted in most of the disagreements.

  I have no problem to have a scientific discussion on topics and adjust them based on consensus - this is how I understand the process works. But I don't think that accusations of COI or POV are very helpful. @Zefr has not engaged on the talk page with discussions about the content and largely ignored scientific arguments. One might disagree with the concept of bioactives, but this is an ongoing discussion for which I have provided references. And I believe threatening to report me to the administrator, as @Zefr has done, is one step too far. Ggux (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ggux and Dennis Brown: I don't doubt that editors can have biases, but Ggux is right that there is behaviour of concern from Zefr. It's concerning to see the section Talk:Health effects of phenols and polyphenols#Removal of more recent literature reviews on health effects. It appears that slightly less than 3 years ago, the user Signimu tried to add a systemic review to the article on the potential benefits of polyphenols. [133] They were reverted by Zefr [134] (who said "cohort studies are unreliable primary research") and tried repeatedly to engage with Zefr on the talk page, saying that the source (which repeatedly described itself as a review) was not a primary source but a systemic review. Zefr dismissed these asking for the consensus of "3+ editors on the talk page"[135] and only replied on a talk page once Signimu started a thread on WT:WPMED. [136] When that thread began, Zefr changed their opinion, acknowledging that the dispute was over a systematic review, and switched to claiming that the included studies in the review were flawed. At no point on these discussion pages did Zefr provide sources for their claims (besides linking to the disputed review), and some of Zefr's points were at odds with reality. This isn't appropriate.

I'm including this because Zefr often doesn't seem to be engaging on a good-faith basis with editors on the talk page and their edits are interpretable as pushing POVs on phenols by taking creative interpretations of sources, so I disagree with the recommendation by Dennis Brown here. The current dispute appears to be following the same pattern as the last one. Ggux made an edit saying that "some polyphenols are considered to be bioactive compounds" + a point about with a reference to a source, and attempted to engage on the talk page. [137] [138] Zefr replied [139] describing the word "bioactive" as a "buzzword" with no sources, makes the claim that Ggux is trying to "push a positive viewpoint". These are unhelpful and are possibly disruptive comments. Later on in this discussion, Zefr makes accusations of POV-pushing and ignores the underlying content dispute by repeatedly bringing up Ggux's conduct as a reason for why Zefr doesn't have to listen. This is not productive behaviour.

This occured on Talk:Flavan-3-ol as well (which is a polyphenol). [140] Ggux wanted to add in a study with 21 442 participants on the safety of this compound. Zefr was at odds with reality again, and falsely claimed that "The COSMOS study here had only 410 subjects taking the cocoa extract". [141] This is incorrect from reading the abstract, 410 people taking the extract had cardiovascular events, but there were many more people taking the extracts. [142] When called out on this, Zefr double downed and said "Because the primary outcome of the study was a possible effect of the cocoa extract on "cardiovascular events", it is only the group of 410 people that provide the results - no effect on the primary outcome." [143]

There's a pattern here with Zefr's behaviour on polyphenol related pages. Zefr uses terminological inexactitudes in talk page discussions on occasions when someone includes information that reflects favourably on polyphenols, and these facts derail discussion of the underlying content dispute. They're also derailing discussion by focusing on conduct problems or not engaging in talk page threads. While Zefr on the whole is a very productive editor and I'm not taking a position on whether these instances were intentional, they seem to have their own beliefs about polyphenols and it is impairing their judgement. I would recommend to @Ggux: to continue trying to seek outside opinions if they feel they have irreconcilable differences with another editor on a subject, and to consider using Template:UserboxCOI on their userpage as that is generally accepted as an appropriate COI disclosure. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Chess - I have added such a box; what I don't understand: @Zefr suggests that one should only edit pages where one has no COI - but at least following their interpretation, that would exclude every scientist contributing to pages where they have expertise in. In my case, my COI arises from the fact that I have worked with polyphenols for 20 years - one would assume that this is useful when editing and not detrimental. Ggux (talk) 07:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Chess isolated a few debates where I challenged edits/talk page comments. My judgment on the polyphenol literature and status for health claims is not impaired - I stand by my skepticism in those examples and have pressed against advocacy. By history on those articles and talk pages, the majority of other neutral editors abstained or agreed with me, and the articles retain the changes I made, indicating agreement. I added a summary on this topic today.

Ggux has been editing on this theme since May 2022, making some 300 total edits, nearly all of which are on a few related polyphenol articles, causing a WP:SPA concern. More than half of Ggux's edits are talk page disputes, particularly the persistent behavior at Talk:Flavan-3-ol, with no other editor engaging more than I did (also the case at Talk:Intermittent fasting with Signimu). A consensus opposing Ggux was established on the flavan-3-ol talk page, and article neutrality prevailed.

It's difficult to understand why Ggux doesn't avoid polyphenol editing for awhile and contribute expertise on unrelated articles. Diversifying interests is what most experienced volunteers do here. The field of polyphenol research on possible health or nutritional effects moves slowly, so there is no urgency for Wikipedia content changes on these topics.

Ggux's admissions of bias and COI at User:Ggux are sufficient to conclude this discussion. Zefr (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@Zefr: I get that you are opposed to polyphenol advocacy, but Ggux is following WP:COI here by going to the talk page and seeking to establish consensus rather than directly editing the article. You have to engage with the underlying issues, not just make unfounded claims that imply there's promotional conduct or POV-pushing. If you believe that Ggux has a conflict of interest to the extent it's causing disruption, start another WP:COIN thread. The article talk page isn't a good place to discuss editor conduct. You've shown on other pages that you don't need to accuse others of POV-pushing to get people to agree with your stance in a content dispute, and you've also made insightful criticisms such as pointing out that the EFSA does not authorize health claims. Try doing more of that instead of threatening to report people to admins. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

As suggested, I have opened a WP:COIN thread here:[[144]]. Ggux (talk) 05:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I would like to take this opportunity to correct some of @Zefr's statements which are in my opinion incorrect. I would also like to point out that they are clearly not taking this process seriously, as indicated by "good luck with that" comment when notified of this discussion.

- It is not correct that "the majority of other neutral editors abstained or agreed with me" - there was generally little engagement with dispute resolution approaches and there was no clear consensus. One such discussion was whether or not to include a reasonably large RCT [[145]] in the Flavan-3-ol article. @Zefr objects because it is a primary source, I think it is noteworthy as per WP:MEDPRI as it is noteworthy for several reasons, in particular the fact that it is one of very few large RCTs in this field. There was no clear consensus, but @Zefr's comments showed a clear misunderstanding (as outlined by @Chess above regarding population size) which I have tried to address but were ignored. The disagreement on content between us has been going on for some time and responses by other editors are not as clear as stated here.

- I have been editing on various polyphenols at least since 2016 and at least since then had to defend myself against accusations of inappropriate behaviour by @Zefr. The latest thread of doxxing is only the latest in a long row. There is a reason why I edit mainly polyphenol-related articles: it is where my main expertise is and where I believe I can contribute.

- "A consensus opposing Ggux was established on the flavan-3-ol talk page, and article neutrality prevailed." - this is not correct, there was no consensus. The RfCs ended without a consensus being reached.

- Zefr's contribution to polyphenol related articles are sometimes factually wrong; e.g. claims that there are no health claims or that there are no information about metabolic fate. I do not see why I should not contribute to articles where I have knowledge. I am also more than happy to engage in a discussion of content - but I object to these discussion resulting in unfunded accusations.

- The absence of a COI statement does not mean absence of any COI or biases. It is for example noticeable that @Zefr regularly promotes sources by the Linus-Pauling-Institute, an institution that obtains income from work on polyphenols - but there are no COI declarations for @Zefr

It is difficult not to get the impression that @Zefr has - for whatever reason - decided that polyphenols must not have an effect on health and diligently deletes any contribution that contradicts this statement. For example, @Zefr opposed strongly a heading "Flavan-3-ols in nutrition" as this would imply that they were nutrients - a claim never made.

If the Administrators believe my COI/biases are sufficient that I should not contribute to these pages, I will obviously accept - if they however conclude that this is not the case, I would appreciate @Zefr to revert to a fact-based discussion. Ggux (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I may need some eyes on this

Please see the top of my talk page. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Warning: You might go blind. EEng 02:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Bomb has been defused — blind, 'cause I have no idea what's happening. But my acting blind seemed like the right call. El_C 02:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Content was removed by El C, but please stop by anyway and get my recipe for microwaving corn (if you've never microwaved it). You'll thank me later. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Have a corntastic day! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

OMG cuteness overload! El_C 04:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I have now seen it. I think that someone should have notified me that I was being impersonated. Anyone else who has been involved in the Founding Fathers disputes is possibly subject to impersonation also. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn I believe those are all sockpuppets of @Awolf58. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Spafky

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.

---

Inappropriate conduct by User:Spafky

• Special:Diff/1108085775
• Special:Diff/1108087342

PhantomTech[talk] 13:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

If you think I actually plan to eat them with tomato sauce then I don't know what to tell you. Spafky (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

It's an odd choice to only give a response to one of those diffs. PhantomTech[talk] 13:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Spafky has been indefinitely blocked by Tamzin for threats and personal attacks. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Indeffed for physical threats. Zero tolerance; being ironic about what you will do once you find someone is still a threat to find someone. No comment (at the moment) as to whether the underlying userpage material did or did not violate policy; the unacceptable response to the removal is the basis for the block, not the content itself. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 13:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  To clarify, this ANI thread was specifically in response to the conduct in the provided diffs. The WP:POLEMIC issue related to those diffs can be discussed here if anyone feels it needs to be, but it may have been resolved with discussion with the user had they not responded with threats and hostility. PhantomTech[talk] 13:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@User:PhantomTech I also have a problem with their response about userboxes regarding gay porn or diaper fetishism in this section: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Spafky#Threats . Considering they didn't actually link to anyone with those userboxes and just linked to userboxes anyone has about their sexuality, which is saying that all queer people are like that Stephanie921 (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Stephanie921 I'm inclined to assume that they chose to link to the sexuality userbox gallery because it was easier than linking to specific userboxes and that they decided against linking to a specific section on the page because they either didn't know how or because the userboxes they mentioned aren't in the same section. I'd also note that while a majority the userboxes in the gallery relate to queer people, not all do. All that said, if my assumption is wrong and their intent really was to say that all queer people have a specific fetish, certainly if it is meant negatively, that would be another issue. PhantomTech[talk] 14:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Tamzin. I was about to comment on their response. Good block. --ARoseWolf 13:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to also point out that I find Spafky saying "And to my dear Tamzin" in their original unblock request, coupled with the backhandedness, deeply uncomfortable :https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1108091113 and consistent with their pattern of behaviour exhibited here, in which they used an ableist slur and performatively apologised: User_talk:Spafky#Unblock request, and the racist, homophobic slurs here (TW for bestiality and necrophilia): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=824518338 . Both the bigotry and the vile, edgy jokes in this revision - down to the subject matter in one case - are consistent with Spafky's current behaviour, the latter being evidenced by Spafky's proud justification of it on his talk page earlier today, which is why I have reason to believe Spafky didn't unintentionally write something to make Tamsin upset. (TW: necrophilia, CSA): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1108116924 Stephanie921 (talk) 20:03, 2 September 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.

An admin deleted my userpage

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, guys. i am here to discuss an situation. An admin (Oshwah) deleted my userpage. This was an userpage, not an new Wikipedia article. I am an new user, they must keep their own userpage. I need an admin to restore my userpage, please. I had an effort to volunteer to the Wikipedia web kindly, and I ask that you please, restore my userpage.

Internal Wikipedia link here: User:Lobby and TheoTheoDerich. —Lobby And TheoTheoDerich (talk) 02:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Lobby And TheoTheoDerich - Please review Wikipedia's policy on advertising and promotion. It's also explicitly stated on Wikipedia's user page guidelines here that advertising and promotion is not allowed. Your user page was deleted because it met the criteria in policy allowing me to do so. Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

Update: I have no further questions, your Honor. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Lobby And TheoTheoDerich: You have also failed to notify Oshwah of this discussion on his talk page, as the red notification on top of this page and when editing clearly require (and, no, your previous attempt to contact him on his own talk page before this filing does not count). I would seriously consider withdrawing this filing as there is clearly no policy violation at play, and is likely to end with you being sanctioned for you threatening Oshwah. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 04:12, 3 September 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:Jhofferman

User:Jhofferman is their oldest account, but they, in past, never disclosed and always edited under socks. @Joe Roe: as they have been blocked under User_talk:Psycharpax for undisclosed PE, so technically they have to appeal there before creating more accounts. Their disclosed list is incomplete.

Chief example: both accounts edited FBOY (Draft:FBOY Island and FBOY Island).2A02:C7D:3173:4300:F8E6:13E6:104E:278B (talk) 09:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Considering FBOY Island seems to be their only interaction, I don't think it's totally out of the question that these are two different people with no knowledge of each other that an employer paid to create an article. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 09:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Bizarre spam on my user page.

An anonymous user has placed two paragraphs of bizarre spam on my user page. Please block the IP-address. Leontrooper (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Leontrooper: The IP has made no further edits, please report them again if they continue to edit. Sam Walton (talk) 09:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Diff here: [146] and the IP in question is 166.196.58.64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I've warned them on OP's behalf. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Polymateria Wikipidea Page Vandalism

Hi, can we look into blocking the user 'Plasticomp'.

Between the 14-16th July 2022. The user meet several edits to intentionally vandalise our page and put our companies legitimacy at risk by stating inaccurate falsities.

I have since been through and corrected,

Thank you, Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsieff (talk • contribs) 09:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Plasticomp was not notified of this, as is required. I've done that.

Relevant links for investigating this are:

• Plasticomp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Polymateria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

--DanielRigal (talk) 10:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I've had a very quick look at this. Plasticomp is a new user and is editing quite boldly on a single topic, maybe a little too boldly for an inexperienced user. For example, they removed material referenced to articles behind paywalls for being "unverifiable", which is an understandable misunderstanding but still not correct. That said, I don't think it looks like intentional vandalism. I'd be much more concerned about Jack, who seems to have been editing as User:86.141.251.249 and maybe other IPs as well, despite an admitted COI. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

There are problems throughout the article. On the one hand Plasticomp appears to have removed some unsubstantiated claims (though I've not looked into the individual sources to verify this), but on the other hand they've added unsourced and controversial statements, such as labelling a journal "potentially predatory". For the benefit of passing editors, here is a collection of the user's edits.

On the other hand, however, we have company employees might be trying to control the narrative of their business. To be safe I've reverted back to the last stable version before either side began editing. — Czello 10:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi to clarify I have added (factually accurate) information regarding our progress with adoption of our BSI Standard in several countries around the world - which is huge progression for our business. Please can we revert back to the edits I made.

The core to our business is R&D and the specifics behind our technology and how it works. I made updates on the page to reflect the true nature of our solution. So its important that the page reflects that as done so by my edits.

Thanks. Jsieff (talk) 11:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

All sorts of problems here. @Jsieff: When you report a user here, you must notify that user on the user talk page. Also, if you are editing on behalf of your company, you must declare that, per the requirements at WP:COI. Also also, when you made a complaint about another user, you must provide evidence for your assertions in the form of diffs.

I do think there are clear problems with Plasticomp's editing, too, though I wouldn't call it vandalism. I'm seeing a lot of addition of weasel words (eg [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] and so on) in what seems quite a deliberate attempt to cast aspersions on this company. Also addition of unsourced, negative commentary, eg [152]. It's also worth noting that Polycomp is the name of a competing product Plasticomp is the name of a competitor - so COI may be a concern for both of these editors. GoldenRing (talk) 11:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Note I've pushed Plasticomp in the direction of WP:UAA for being a promotional username. GoldenRing (talk) 11:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Also important to note that they are not competition (Plasticomp ) as they are an entirely different business. It is very likely that user Plasticomb is not related whatsoever.

I have done some personal digging.

We believe that Plasticomp is a “sockpuppet” (i.e.alias) account for a more experienced user. The fact that the user edited Polymateria’s Wikipedia page just minutes after it was created suggests the account was made for the sole purpose of editing the page. . Jsieff (talk) 11:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Those were my edits that I had made prior to creating an account. My bad. Have limited user experience on Wikipidea. Just trying to amend the damage done by another unidentified party. Jsieff (talk) 11:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Those were my edits that I had made prior to creating an account. My bad. Have limited user experience on Wikipidea. Just trying to amend the damage done by another unidentified party. Jsieff (talk) 11:34, 2 September 2022 Jsieff (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Please also read the information on paid editing. Note that if you were compensated for any publicity efforts related to Polymateria (that is, if your position at Polymateria includes marketing) you are deemed to be a paid editor, regardless of whether you were compensated specifically to edit Wikipedia. If you are not a paid editor, you still have a conflict of interest and should follow the advice at WP:COI. Thanks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for causing a bit of a kerfuffle, to clarify, I'm not a particularly nefarious character or have a vested interest in this one article. To be honest I was looking for a new hobby and thought wiki editing could be good for burning the midnight oil. I had been wandering around looking for an article to begin on. I did create this account to edit this page hence the "plasti" "comp" came from too much time compiling text editors- not a competitor im afraid. I take your point on weaselwords coming off as vindictive and I too was of the opinion that id gone a bit far with the editing - I had a sense I'd crossed the line somewhere in my edits so I stopped in paralysis waiting for feedback rather than wanting to continue causing problems here/on another page. I just have an interest in digging a bit deeper into wiki pages and their references/claims. My aim with this edit session was to present things that are not 100% certain in a potentially ambiguous light in the interest of balance. I did it in chunks so that upon review, acceptable parts could stay, anything iffy could be kicked out. I would appreciate someone impartial taking the time to review my edits/this page with this in mind. I just see a lot of logical fallacies in this reverted page; e.g. why is a picture of Prince Charles relevant? I would feel better about someone else "neutral" reviewing because some edits are valid in my opinion but I dont want to drag this out into me adding the parts I think should stay then someone else reverting this. Especially perhaps as the company men will not be around until Monday? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plasticomp (talk • contribs) 01:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

If you have suggestions for improving the article, you can make them on the article talk page, which I assume is now being watched by a number of editors, and discuss them. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Unauthoress

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:Unauthoress is evidently WP:NOTHERE. The user has:

• blatantly vandalised the Doug Mastriano page, as well as accusing the editors of the page of being "far-left" in the edit
• given a response to it basically just calling the page editors "liberal maniacs" (WP:NPA)
• added a long tangent accusing the editors of trying to "defame conservatives" and then going on some sort of unrelated, anti-trans tangent: BTW, there are only two genders, and women should not be able to murder their babies because they were promiscuous, got pregnant, and now don't feel like putting up with being uncomfortable for ninth months. And no, it is not there body. The baby has completely different DNA, and is another person.
• added a similar comment to my talk page, again telling me to take my "radical leftist views somewhere else"
• on another talk page, accused another well-established editor of "slander", accusing them of being "after people who lean to the right", "harrassing conservatives" and telling them to take their "bozo radical leftist views somewhere else", as well as adding in the same unrelated rant about abortion and genders. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Kindly disregard all of the foregoing as it is make-believe, and please see the post immediately beneath this one. Thank you. Unauthoress 10:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Ser! is targeting certain users on Wikipedia plainly in WP:BADFAITH.

Ser is attempting to have me blocked from Wikipedia simply for sharing my position on the way an article lead on that article's talk page, the exact appropriate space for that sort of discussion. Ser's improper post you can see immediately above this posting. Since my stance on the particular article differs from his, Ser feels it is appropriate to delete all of my talk page posts and refer me on here to get blocked, despite my being on Wikipedia for months and constructively editing, all of those edits clearly to improve Wikipedia and in good-faith. The article of Doug Mastriano is the article I expressed my views contrary to his in the Mastriano article talk page, which Ser deleted off his talk page and tried to get be banned for. Ser is also abusing this very page and blocks, and so he is gonna have to be blocked until the reviewing admins feel he does not a pose a risk to any good-faith editors by potentially falsely trying to get them blocked simply for sharing their views on talk pages that differ from his. Unauthoress 10:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Unauthoress: I'm going to give you exactly one warning here - if you can't edit Wikipedia without insulting other editors and inserting your personal opinions into articles and talk pages you will be blocked. It's clear that you have specific issues with the content of some articles, but you need to make your arguments on the talk page by citing reliable secondary sources (of which NYT is one and Fox News is not, for the record). Not by inserting your own personal views and throwing around aspersions. Sam Walton (talk) 10:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Thanks for the note. Let the record reflect that I have not cast one aspersion in the direction of Ser!. Rather, I stated a contrary position regarding the way the Mastriano article should lead in that article's talk page where it belongs, and Ser's reply to that was not to respectfully respond and engage in a productive discourse, but to instead refer me on here for a block. I understand you find Fox News biased and not reliable but find the New York Times completely neutral and non-partisan, and I respect that. Nevertheless, I ask this ticket be closed and Ser's request to have me blocked be denied with prejudice. Unauthoress 11:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Unauthoress,Do you deny vandalizing Mastriano's article? I see no mention in your response about that edit. Slywriter (talk) 11:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter Touché. I did indeed write he had been knighted and it was immediately reverted. I did not engage in an edit war and revert the revert, and it ended there. The incident is over, and so a block is unnecessary, as blocks on Wikipedia cannot be for punitive purposes, only for preventative purposes. It is clear I am not continuing that knighted claim on his article so there is nothing to prevent at this point with the imposition of a block. Unauthoress 11:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Unauthoress For the record I think I've been lenient in giving you a warning here - you very clearly have been casting aspersions and creating a hostile editing atmosphere, and your edit to Doug Mastriano is indistinguishable from vandalism. But I'm willing to believe that if you have a read of WP:RS and WP:RSP and engage in discussions following the previous consensus on what constitutes a reliable source, we can avoid needing to resort to blocks. Sam Walton (talk) 11:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Understood. Warning accepted and noted. Please now delete this ticket so this can be resolved. Unauthoress 11:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

ANI posts aren't deleted, but we can consider this resolved for the time being. Sam Walton (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• They've made multiple comments that conservatives are being "defamed" which teeters on WP:NLT territory. This ANI should be their final warning. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

At a minimum any further nonsense should likely result in an AP topic ban IMO. They've now received the necessary alert. If that becomes a defacto site ban because they don't edit anything else, so be it Nil Einne (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Unauthoress is clearly here to push their POV onto articles, see, for example, their edit to Derek Chauvin [153]. They should at the very least be topic banned from American politics, though I'd support an indefinite block as WP:NOTHERE. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 14:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• endorse indef block for WP:NOTHERE-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• I forgot to add this in my original post, but since the user's behaviour is again coming into question: they also accused another well-established editor of "slander" and told them to take their "bozo radical leftist views somewhere else", as well as adding in the same unrelated rant about abortion and genders. I'm adding it to the original post and posting this comment as thus. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 15:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• I've indefinitely blocked the user for disruption, personal attacks, and pushing a political agenda.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 3 September 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.

Nonsense by 2001:8004:2790:FE5E:91F9:B296:B291:9278

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 IP address just added nonsense to the page Stingy can you block him for 9 years? Thank you. 174.27.3.169 (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

No. The IP address is already blocked and their last edit was from February. This report is pointless. --Yamla (talk) 19:56, 3 September 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:مهدي جزائري

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.

---

مهدي جزائري (talk · contribs) - football editor that has had repeated warnings, mostly from User:Robby.is.on, for adding unsourced content to BLPs. Has been on something of a spree today; they created two unsourced BLPs, which I sent to draft: Draft:Jamal Al Khatib, Draft:Awodh Hassan. Their response to this was to recreate these in mainspace with no improvement. See Jamal Al Khatib, Awodh Hassan. Then followed by continual edit warring at Moussa N'Daw which has been happening since March 2022 [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159]. Even on the sixth occasion of adding this career stats table, they have not cited a source for the info. The Soccerway page doesn't even have any stats. Please can someone intervene? There could be a language barrier here but it could also be WP:CIR or WP:NOTLISTENING. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. 1 week. pending further discussion.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 3 September 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.

IamNasirZaman - CIR?

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.

---

IamNasirZaman (talk · contribs) seems to be a poor fit for the English-language Wikipedia, generally abusing the autoconfirmed right to post utter junk and plagiarised content into mainspace, as well as responding to any attempts to quarantine or push back against this with essentially a copy-pasted responce crossposted to a few venues and non-argument arguments (such as the all time classic hit "They're famous so they deserve an article"). Their talk page is populated by warnings and notices from other editors, but has never been touched by Iam themselves and they do not reply to rebuttals to their posts otherwise. I suspect they're a mercenary, but even then that does not justify the complete lack of engagement with the community, with the talk page and noticeboard posts they make being more a case of talking at someone rather than to them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 21:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

(Diff of notification, as a precaution: [160]) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 21:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

"Iam"? I think their name is Nasir and they just missed a capital A. I might be wrong. casualdejekyll 22:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

As an addendum, they've just re-created the draftified Sikander Ghuman by (what looks to me) like copy-pasting the draft as it currently sits and changing the image. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 22:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

IamNasirZaman seems to not be here to constructively contribute to an encyclopedia. Despite multiple warnings they do not interact with others on their talk page or here. Instead they once again re-create a draftified article (this time Victory (punjabi song)).

It appears they are an undisclosed-paid editor, and potentially a sock given their strange question at Talk:Muqadas Farooq Awan#Wikipedia regarding deletion of articles created by socks. – NJD-DE (talk) 08:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

It's getting clearer with every move they make: they not only don't understand how Wikipedia works/what Wikipedia is, but also are completely unwilling to learn. Latest example is the removal of AfD-templates despite having received a warning specifically against that. – NJD-DE (talk) 11:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

They're now angry that a piece of information that was never in any live revision in a specific article was "removed". And they've attempted to remove AfD notices from same. Is it possible to block them from article space for now, so that they (1) can't create new unacceptable articles and (2) can't remove AfD notices? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I actually think that this user is a dangerous combination of WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps they are using machine translators to communicate. If they simply don't understand what the warnings say, that could explain why they aren't changing their behaviour, and "If you want any other about me news link reference link go source gender then I can provide you" sounds a lot like the garbage that comes out of an autotranslator, but perhaps it is perfectly coherent in the language they are translating from. The diff I linked is about Draft:Champ Imi (fashion model); there's been a bunch of socks creating drafts and articles about that person for at least a couple of years, at Champ Imi, Draft:Champ Imi, Muhammad Ali Subhani (Champ Imi's real name), Draft:Muhammad Ali Subhani, and a few other titles. I think that's a pretty strong indication of UPE shenanigans. Spiderone's right, this is not a good combo. --bonadea contributions talk 13:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

If they are using machine translation it'd also explain why they've been plagiarising. They don't understand English well enough to actually write an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 21:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Something needs done now

He's been removing AfD notices. We need a block of some sort. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

And more removals. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Last removal was three minutes before a level 4 warning was given. —C.Fred (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

My favorite is when he declined all the AFDs, @C.Fred I am just letting you know that I declined the deletion of Orkhan Muqadas Farooq Awan, a page you tagged for deletion, because of the following concern: This is just not spammy. It's a short bio which is encylopedic, and then a short career history. He may well not be notable, but there's credible indication as president of the AZ Futsal assoc. Needs to go to PICKLEDICAE🥒 18:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked for 48 hours to prevent any further disruption. No views (at this stage) on wider issues. GiantSnowman 18:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

When he said remove the deletion notice as soon as possible, I was tempted to offer to close the AfDs early. Of course, the closes would have been snowball deletes.... —C.Fred (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

My best guess is that they're confusing PROD for AfD, since removing a PROD notice is a legitimate way to contest it. But the overall lack of competence and obvious inability to read English stops them from putting up a coherent argument. I've noticed that their talk page posts are all the same copy-pasted text modified slightly for the subject (this is most obvious looking at Talk:Muqadas Farooq Awan and Talk:Sikander Ghuman), and that they're seemingly keywording on "deletion" and "sources" while failing to grasp everything else being said. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred I mean...I don't think anyone who isn't this person/their sock will object to you still doing that. ;) PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

bot to the rescue! – robertsky (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Still active

Someone blocked them from the articles for removing the AfD tags, now they're blanking the AfD instead. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeffed by JJMC89 FrederalBacon (talk) 04:31, 2 September 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.

Template:One Piece series overview

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.

---

When I started editing Template:One Piece series overview a user named VillainofWiki reverted my edit and said "These are season names for the Japanese dvds"[161] and "I'm talking about the DVDs like Naruto Shippuden, not those the story arcs[162] in their edit summary, I got confused because the heading of column was "story arc" not season name then I changed it but user kept reverting my edits, I tried to solve this matter on user's talk page but they didn't listen when I gave them edit warning they abused me.[163]Yuu Haru Angelo (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Warned user.. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:29, 4 September 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.

Mass undiscussed changes at bios

Kyleung05 (talk · contribs · count) keeps on making mass changes, without discussion, and has been asked not too. They have not replied or responded.

These often seem to be minor changes, that are mainly about moving this from the see also to the body (as see also's). The problem is it is 20 0r 30 changes a day, all of which have to be policed, and none of which seem to really be of any value. But it is mainly the refusal to engage. Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I think a block would certainly get the editor's attention. I just hope this isn't a ban evading situation. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I strongly suspect this editor of being a sock of Carmena Seoul, though a CU failed to confirm. But there’s enough here to justify a block even assuming I’m mistaken. Wallnot (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Hmm. The first 2 I looked at Sandra Bullock plus Steve someone (2 diffs each) were fine - adding info + refs & pics. "20 0r 30 changes a day" isn't that terrible, given many are to the same article. Moving "see also"s into text is actually a good thing. More damning diffs are needed to make a case here. Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven. It's likely that if it's a sock, the master wouldn't want to communicate with others, in order to lower the chances of being detected. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, he's resumed editing & is still showing no signs of acknowledging other editors, both 'here' & at his talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU? Levivich 02:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

They sure slowed down, since this ANI report. Purely coincidental, of course. GoodDay (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Plus, a logged in mobile app user should be getting notifications. The WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU bug is for IPs, or at least I thought so (and that table seems to confirm). This user clearly knows what’s going on and has chosen to ignore countless talk page messages. A block is the way to get their attention. Wallnot (talk) 03:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

They know they are being reverted. Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

IP not here for constructive edits

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.

---

2A02:C7C:6409:7F00:1517:7C75:5495:4BAA (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made a number of mass genre edits, removing presumably due to disagreeing out of personal opinion. Not attempt to discuss and multiple warnings left. They've edited multiple different articles otherwise would have gone down the page protection route. Think its clear a block/ban might be necessary? >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

 Blocked x 1 week for disruptive editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:31, 4 September 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.

Ongoing Vandalism From 2600:1700:1161:CFC0:0:0:0:0/64

• 2600:1700:1161:CFC0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Multiple warnings have been issued to an anonymous user 2600:1700:1161:CFC0:0:0:0:0/64 using multiple IP address from the same ISP/IP Block. This user was previously blocked in early May for adding vandalism and unsourced (false) content to articles. All edits seem to be focused on National Football League and World Wrestling Entertainment-related articles, deliberately adding a false information that is spelled incorrectly or not formatted appropriately.

Examples:

1. Ron Meyer on 9/4
2. James Ellsworth on 9/1
3. Mike Ditka on 8/27
4. Kellen Mond on 8/19

Warnings:

1. [164]
2. [165]
3. [166]
4. [167]
5. [168]
6. [169]

• ANI Notice

Thanks, --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  14:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

/64 blocked by Doug Weller for three months. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Heraldrist is banned and has been blocked by the community

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.

---

Heraldrist (talk) has been banned by the community as it seems it is a sockpuppet. So maybe, in Wikimedia Commons, Elcobbola blocked Heraldrist so maybe it is a sock of WikiLoverFan1007. In the English Wikipedia, Liz want to block the user, so it is can be a sockpuppet of the account. I see there is a HUGE accounts of Russavia, so Heraldrist is related to Russavia. Celbusro is maybe to be a sock in this way because in French Wikipedia, Celbusro will activated tomorrow. So in this way, Heraldrist is very similar to Russavia, while both Heraldrist and Russavia is interested in Russia and also the member of WikiProject Russia, WikiProject Airlines, and WikiProject Bhutan. Celbusro will blocked becuase he was inactive since September 5, 2020, and is reactivated in September 5, 2022, and was blocked in September 30, 2022. IndonesiaSquarepants (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

So you are asking for User:Heraldrist to be blocked as a sockpuppet of User:WikiLoverFan1007 because that is what has happened on Commons. And you are a self-confessed alternate account of Heraldrist? Does that sum it up? -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked OP for WP:NOTHERE (putting a fake block notice on Heraldist page alone was enough for me). Will request a SPI to confirm this claim. RickinBaltimore (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Though, bizarrely, Heraldrist also put the banned sock notice on their own userpage ... [170]. Black Kite (talk) 10:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Noted that in the SPI I just filed. Not sure what is going on. (And it's way too early on a Sunday for me to be up to think about it). RickinBaltimore (talk) 10:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I think this is a lame attempt at trolling, or Heraldrist's account has been hijacked. Either scenario warrants blocking both accounts. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Noting Heraldrist just tried to remove this report and I think by now has firmly proved they are not here to build an encyclopaedia if nothing else. The SPI is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BFDIFan707. --Jack Frost (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Heraldrist has been blocked by AzaToth. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:38, 4 September 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:Russholio33

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.

---

@Russholio33 is fairly evidently WP:NOTHERE.

Yesterday, the user made an edit to the Tudor Dixon page, alleging that Donald Trump's false claims of election fraud in 2020 were not in fact "false". The user was reverted, and then came back to the thread to make a similar edit, again removing the "false" and adding that Joe Biden's victory was "questionable".

I left a note on their talk page asking them to stop introducing incorrect information. The responses I got were:

• "Go piss up a rope", removed by a talk page stalker
• "Go piss up a rope", removed again by the talk page stalker
• "Take a hike"

They then returned to the Tudor Dixon page and made another edit along these lines, alleging that the claims were legitimate and that Biden's victory was "dubious", which I reverted. As I was filing this report, they did the same again.

I noted on the user's page that they had previously been warned for edit warring, and discovered that this edit warring was on a similar political note, on Dan Bongino. Of their 17 edits, nine have been straight-up edit warring behaviour, with another five being related to said edit warring behaviour (including the three personal attacks above) on their talk page. It's evident that the user's editing is consistently WP:TENDENTIOUS and they're not here to build an encyclopedia. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse indef block for NOTHERE-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:17, 6 September 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:Melange6

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.

---

[[171]] Not doing a very good job of asking for an unblock. As before, I won't take admin action, since I've confronted this editor over content. Acroterion (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Jeez. TPA pulled. firefly ( t · c ) 20:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

And obviously, the unblock request was declined. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Rick - I must’ve forgotten to click the button in my amazement at the bizarre rant. firefly ( t · c ) 20:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe this was the "unblock request" they mentioned in their appeal by the way CiphriusKane (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes it was. Maybe somebody can spot why it was ignored. Acroterion (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

That's one for the ages all right. Mackensen (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

It seldom fails to amuse me as to how many editors at ANI Demand! this or Demand! that. To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, that really doesn't work the way they think it works. Ravenswing 23:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Wow, that "appeal" was going so well up to the second word. @Firefly:, I would also like to meet you and demand to buy you a bagel. Though that may not be what this user was going for. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Ooh yes please - smoked salmon and cream cheese for me. firefly ( t · c ) 11:43, 6 September 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.

Editor refuses to accept BrEng spelling

Cherry pizza (talk · contribs) has been changing "programme" to "program" in various articles where British English naturally applies. They have used the edit summary "Incorrect. 'Programme' is not British spelling, it is a pretentious affectation". I have raised the edits on their talk page and their response was to say they will continue to make the edits, and to claim that the Oxford Dictionary prefers "program". I have checked the OED and it says " The forms programme and program have since become established as the standard British and U.S. spellings respectively, with the exception that program is usual everywhere in senses relating to computing". Taking all this into account I do not believe the user to be here to edit collaboratively or in good faith. DuncanHill (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster agrees with DuncanHill, and so do I. Cullen328 (talk) 22:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree as well, and I've left them a final warning. Black Kite (talk) 22:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

They have introduced another spelling error after your warning: Special:Diff/1108359493 dudhhr_Contribs^(he/they) 16:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

That is not a spelling error. In modern English, actor can be used for females, as well. El_C 16:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

nevermind then dudhhr_Contribs^(he/they) 16:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not a problem at all, in fact it's probably correct. Black Kite (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

1lib1ref #1AfLibWk

Can anyone direct me to the appropriate place/contact to express concerns about editors participating in this contest? S0091 (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Difficult without more detail. Can you give a link to the contest or some example diffs? Black Kite (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Ah - the problem is User:Anyaegbumercy, I see. Looking to see what I can do. Black Kite (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Black Kite, here is a diff and here is the 1lib1ref info on Meta but it says the contest ends in June so thinking there is a separate contest somewhere. S0091 (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite yes, that is who caught my attention but I am worried it might be broader than that as they are not the only one participating. See [172] on the same article. S0091 (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Right, I think I've fixed all the articles that Anyaegbumercy actually broke. The question is - are the citations that they're adding actually any good? Because if they aren't, they need to stop (or be stopped). And secondly, where can we find out if there is a separate contest somewhere? Black Kite (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Not sure, but pinging someone who probably knows: Astinson (WMF). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

That #Aflibwk sub-campaign is organized by the team at AFLIA: https://web.aflia.net/aflibwk/ but local event organizers across Africa continue to encourage folks to continue editing well beyond the end of the campaign and they seem to be talking with the organizer -- who will probably connect with the AFLIA team about feedback they got on the training. There is sometimes light prizes for the big campaign, but since its after the prize period, its likely just a satellite event inspired by the theme. This happens a lot with campaigns: events can happen well after the international campaign has ended.

As an observation/opinion though (more based on my experience as enwiki editor, than in my professional capacity): @S0091-- there is really nothing wrong with someone adding extra citation needed statements and doing them with small edits -- its not exactly as clean as the most experienced English Wikimedians would prefer -- but it also a bit harsh to demand a newcomer stop doing something that is constructive (if a little repetitive). You have to remember, that for most of these folks -- its the first time they realize that Wikipedia is something they can edit, so are learning by doing. However, since most of the participants in #aflibwk are librarians: they are also good at learning through documentation and advice, its part of their professional training, so communicating with them onwiki is a good way of encouraging different actions.

I hope that is helpful context, and as always -- campaign activities are organized in a decentralized manner -- so its a learning process for many involved, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Astinson (WMF) thanks for the reply. The issue was the volume of tags being added to individual articles along with some other issues. For example, about 20 citation needed tag were added to a single article. At least for one editor, they had received complaints on their talk page so myself and other editors did try to communicate but were not getting responses. They finally responded yesterday and now we have very constructive ongoing conversation which is what I was aiming for and why my initial post here was not calling out any specific editor but simply trying to find a contact. I think everyone's goal is to improve Wikipedia and for everyone involved to have a positive experience which starts with communication. Thanks again. S0091 (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

User:82.23.69.143 (Dove Windsor)

I believe that 82.23.69.143 (talk · contribs · count) is a person called Dove Windsor who is submitting false edits about themselves. These include edits to Jenny Ryan asserting themselves as her partner (I cannot find any sources for this), and several dozen edits to Ed Annunziata claiming to be the co-creator of Ecco the Dolphin (not a subject I'm familiar with but I think this is clearly false).

In response to a revert I made to Jenny Ryan expressing scepticism that Dove Windsor existed, they posted on my talk page linking to an external wiki article about them which states that they are from Leicestershire. The IP address they are posting under is also in Leicestershire. This has led me to the conclusion that they are Dove Windsor. JackWilfred (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Adding to this, they also seem to be vandalizing the page of a star system, claiming to be from there and changing the name from TOI-1452 b to "Honorem", with the accompanying star being renamed from TOI-1452 to "Solaris". Diffs: [173][174][175] Lamaredia (Kasper D.L) (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

This IP address is now the subject of a lengthy globally block. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Mass renames by Dickylon

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.

---

As I write this, User:Dicklyon is renaming what appears to be hundreds of articles related to NCAA tournaments (NCAA = authority on American college sports). As far as I can tell, there has been no discussion preceding these moves, and they are not moves I agree with. The basis of the moves seems to be making things lowercase; however, I would personally argue that these are proper nouns that should be capitalized. –IagoQnsi (talk) 05:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I finally managed to find the discussion that I must have missed a few weeks ago. Please disregard. –IagoQnsi (talk) 05:03, 9 September 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.

How do I reinstate a deleted page

Hello, I work for Ansvar Insurance which is part of the Benefact Group of companies. The parent of the Benefact Group is Benefact Trust which is a charity. We have had a page for Ansvar Insurance for many years with purely factual content about our history and charity giving. I went onto the page to do a few corrections to the page and it was then deleted for 'Unambigious advertising' which I have taken great care to keep everything factual such as how we run the Eastbourne arm of The Hygiene Bank, other charities we sponsor, number of employees etc. Could I have advice on how to get the page back please and how I may make sure it fits in with the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samantha Sanderson (talk • contribs) 07:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Are you satisfied that you are abiding by Wikipedia:Conflict of interest? If your only interest in being here is to write about your company, that won't be acceptable. Deb (talk) 08:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Samantha Sanderson Wikipedia is not interested in what your company says about itself, only in what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about it. Your company does not have a page here, Wikipedia has a draft article about your company(at Draft:Benefact Group). The article about your charity seems to be at Allchurches Trust. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Samantha Sanderson Out of interest, I checked back on the history of the deleted article, which was created by an employee of the company and should have been deleted there and then because it did not make a claim of notability or include any independent references. Successive edits, by yourself and others, brought it to a level of blatant advertising where it fully merited deletion for that reason. There were basic errors such as writing in the first person. Please don't attempt to create the article again. Leave that for someone who knows how to use Wikipedia, and I'm sure such an attempt will be successful when the company has achieved the notability criteria. Deb (talk) 09:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Article moved to Benefact Trust per sources, with no comment on its quality or suitability. — Trey Maturin has spoken 18:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Theworks84

Theworks84 (talk · contribs · count) keeps on changing the uses of the dating format of pages from BCE/CE to BC/AD even when the BCE/CE format was the primarily used format on on the page (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) or when the format is already used consistently on the page (1).

Their arguments given for their changes also are inconsistent, since at one point they cite the fact that a page was initially written using BC/AD for their changes (here), but they disregard that another page had used the BCE/CE format from the beginning to change its format (here). Their only motive seems only to change the use of dates format in the pages to BC/AD rather than BCE/CE.

They also appear to be editing using their IP addresses as a form of sockpuppetry to carry out edit warring (1, 2). Antiquistik (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually diff #1 at Alexander Sarcophagus was a good edit - an American student had made an undiscussed conversion to BCE last December, contrary to WP:ERA. This happens very often. I haven't looked at the others, but it might be wrong to assume he is incorrect. Johnbod (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit #2 & 3 above at Coin, back in 2020, also seems good, and this edit wrong. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

And User:Antiquistik, who launched this section, did a blatent breach of WP:ERA] at Scythia in August, which has been squashed by others. He also seems to have edit-warred over it. WP:BOOMERANG. Johnbod (talk) 03:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Looks like the fault is indeed mine. I apologise and will avoid repeating these mistakes in the future. Antiquistik (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I should also point out that Antiquistik has engaged in an edit war on the Iškuza page as well regarding the same issue. I have manually reverted these changes. I appreciate that Antiquistik has added much good content to many of these pages but that doesn't give them them right to change the style to fit their personal preference. Apology accepted, but please next time you disagree with some of my edits Antiquistik write on my talk page first so we can discuss the problem or disagreement rather than attempting to get me banned for no reason Theworks84 (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Fwiw, #7 above at Scythian_cultures was also clearly correct per ERA. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Syed Ali Ibn Ahmed

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.

---

Syed Ali Ibn Ahmed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user been making unexplained and unsourced additions/changes for too long. They have been warned multiple times about it (as far as a year(!) ago) [176]). Though still keeps doing the same thing. I don't think I have ever seen this user write in the edit summary field, let alone in an actual talk page. As you can see here, even when reverted, they sometimes later come back to the very same article and makes a similar edit/restore their revision.

• Abul Hasan Qutb Shah 19 May 2022 31 August 2022 31 August 2022

• Aurangzeb 18 June 2022 18 June 2022 18 June 2022 18 June 2022 31 August 2022

• Bahadur Shah I 31 August 2022

• Akbar 31 August 2022

• Shah Rukh 31 August 2022

• Timur 31 August 2022

• Humayun 31 August 2022

• Jaunpur Sultanate 19 August 2022

• Shaykh Haydar 3 June 2022

• Murad Bakhsh 18 June 2022

• Kaykhusraw I 3 June 2021

You get the idea, I could link a lot more diffs. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Writing so it doesn't get archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Ditto. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Three-tto (?). --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• This is not a revert-athon by HistoryofIran; the user has been reverted also by LouisAragon, ShaveKongo, and Jay D. Easy just in the edits i looked at. About forty of his last one-fifty edits have been reverted, which implies to me that there is an issue. Pinging Ad Orientem, who blocked Syed Ali Ibn Ahmed previously ~ maybe he could be blocked for longer, as 48 hours doesn't seem to have had an impact. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 16:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Indeffed User has been disruptively changing the spelling of names without any explanation, despite multiple warnings and attempts by other users to discuss. As far as I can see, user has not responded once to the numerous warnings or here. A 48hr block does not seem to have phased them. This is a collaborative project. In this kind of situation, communication is not optional. Am open to reducing the block conditional on constructive engagement by this user. Until then... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:23, 6 September 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.

Flag of Antarctica RFC and Dispute

I think I made a mistake about two weeks ago in opening a moderated discussion at DRN. In any case, I would appreciate if one or two admins or other experienced editors would take a look at the RFC at Talk:Flag_of_Antarctica#RFC_on_main_flag_used_in_the_country_data_template and comment on whether there have been any irregularities. The RFC was initiated by User:Vanilla Wizard on 20 July. There was then a Third Opinion request by User:Federalwafer on 13 August, who also requested DRN on 13 August. The Third Opinion request was closed as stale on 19 August, and I opened the DRN. Legobot then removed the RFC ID, also on 19 August, which is what Legobot is supposed to do. Federalwafer then inserted new RFC IDs, apparently three times, and on 28 August User:Redrose64 fixed the RFC ID and said to stop churning the RFC. On 31 August, Federalwafer asked to pause the RFC while a sourcing issue was resolved at DRN. This sequence of events annoyed me because it seemed to me to be gaming of the system, so that I was no longer capable of being a neutral mediator. (I probably shouldn't have started the mediation, because I should have checked for an RFC, which takes precedence over other forms of dispute resolution.) So will someone else look at the dispute, please? Also, since the RFC has now been running for about six weeks, first, should it be deactivated, and, second, should formal closure be requested? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

For convenience, here is a link to the aforementioned DRN discussion: [177]  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, looking over the talk page and the DRN discussion, my takeaway is this (and please, correct me if I'm badly mistaken): (a) back in the 1990s, Some Guy from a UK outfit that's interested in flags (but, however, has no official or statutory authority) proposed a flag for Antarctica; (b) In 2002, an equally unofficial flag loving bloke took several of them on a trip to Antarctica, passed them around, and an unknown number of bases/installations displayed them; (c) this particular flag has never been officially adopted, largely because the article concedes in the lead that there's no statutory, unitary authority for Antarctica with the power to do so, yet (d) despite a solid consensus that Wikipedia should not use any flag icon templates to represent Antarctica, (e) there's edit warring and hot debate going on as to whether Some Guy's flag actually flew twenty years ago, and whether some sources saying so are reliable or not?

Am I missing something crucial here, or is this a terribly petty issue meriting some trout slaps? Good grief, I was a member of NAVA at one point, but this is the moral equivalent of an argument over how many oriflammes can flutter on the head of a flagpole. Ravenswing 02:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I honestly have to agree that it's petty. But just to clarity, the DRN discussion and the RFC are not about the same topic, or at least I don't think they are. The RFC is about the flag template, and the DRN discussion is about a single sentence in the article. Note that the sentence doesn't say anything important, it's 13 short words that mostly just add on to what the previous sentence said. What I find most bothersome isn't that Federalwafer disagreed over its sourcing, but rather that they seemingly viewed the dispute over the sentence as a trojan horse to make other, unrelated changes to the article. Either they believed in good faith that its inclusion or lack thereof truly had far-reaching implications for the rest of the article (a rather odd thing to believe), or they fixated on it as a bad faith justification to try to throw a wrench into an unrelated RFC by suggesting that editors were basing their !votes off of misinformation and that more editors would have !voted for their preferred option if only the words "several bases flew the flag" weren't in the article. Either way, this was too small of a content dispute to warrant being brought up at three different noticeboards. This has been much, much more exhausting than it needed to be.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The RfC was started after many verified sources had been removed and continued after what I believe to be questionable claims had been added. To me it seems clear that the content of an article influences an RfC (both the claim you added, @Vanilla Wizard, and others that had been removed.) But if the consensus from this and the DRN discussion are that they don't and that the RfC should proceed, then I won't interfere. Federalwafer (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll admit I've never done an RfC before and should've looked into the details before trying to re-add the ID. My only goal was to get it listed on the RfC noticeboard and didn't know it would send notifications. I did it twice is because Legobot immediately removed the first ID for an expired tag, so I tried again with the "don't auto-expire code" in, which is when I learned I should've kept the same ID from before. Federalwafer (talk) 13:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Federalwafer - The RFC was started on 20 July, and then was automatically deactivated on 19 August. Why did you restart the RFC at the time? Also, now that it has been running for more than six weeks, after being extended, should it be turned off and formal closure requested? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

At the time consensus had not been reached. It was 3-2-3 for each of the respective options (Bartram, True South, none). Formal closure has been requested by Vanilla Wizard. Federalwafer (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Mass undoing of redirections, false accusations of vandalism

In this edit, Bfruit4 (talk · contribs) falsely accused me of vandalism for redirecting stub articles related to Blue Rodeo. I warned them about not assuming good faith, and they immediately blanked the message and accused me a second time. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

They're restoring links you had removed without discussion that were reverted by @Northamerica1000: back in June as rapid-fire and connected to the WP:ARBDEL issue. I certainly don't agree with the 'vandalism' tag by them, but the restoration of the links was proper. Also running to ANI because of a talk page blank (which they are allowed to do) is overreacting; expand your reason in your own words, and don't just template. Nate • (chatter) 00:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm running it here because I do not appreciate being falsely accused of vandalism, especially when I politely asked the user to stop doing it and they kept doing it anyway. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I've left words of advice on their talk page.©Geni (talk) 03:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Maxwell14134 and chronic WP:ENGVAR related issues

• Maxwell14134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Maxwell14134 (talk · contribs) was first informed about how different national varieties of English are used on Wikipedia through a notice on their talk page in October of last year, and how you should not be needlessly changing the version used based on personal preference. Since then, they have recieved numerous more messages from different editors on their talk page about making the same unnecessary changes, but despite the notices getting more and more stern they have completely ignored every single one of them and instead continued to make the same edits.

A few recent examples can be seen here: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Since MOS:RETAIN sensibly exists, these edits are irritating for other editors and the complete lack of communication despite also being asked to use edit summaries several times on their talk page also does not help matters. Editors are meant to collaborate and I'm not convinced Maxwell14134 is a net positive for the site when they constantly irritate other editors by inserting their personal preferences into articles and refuse to listen to anyone who attempts to communicate with them. TylerBurden (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

At least some of these seem to be de-mixing confused ENGVARS (recent example), or justified by MOS:TIES (lots of Hong Kong articles, which I presume should be essentially British English), but at the least he needs to develop his edit summaries & so on. Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying all their edits are bad, but the issue is with the pure preference ones such as changing from American to British spelling on a Norwegian article like in diff 6 where there are no ties and MOS:RETAIN should apply. It's pretty clear they have a preference for British spelling and is needlessly making changes on articles where it is not needed based on this preference. TylerBurden (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Many of their edits are valid but they persist in a pattern of edits to eradicate -ize endings in favour of -ise. Per WP:ISE and MOS:IZE, both are acceptable in British English so WP:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES are no justification for their edits. Only an internal-consistency argument would hold and does not seem to pertain to the examples I have seen. What's more, at least some of the examples have no strong ties to either Britain or America. Their lack of response to the raising of these and related matters, over months, is not encouraging. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

A block of the editor will get his attention & invoke a response. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

More or less what I was thinking. The perfect outcome of this would be that they finally address the issues people have been raising to them, and stick to making productive edits thereafter since they have proven capable of doing so. But that isn't possible as long as they ignore any complaints about their more problematic edits and simply continue doing the same thing. TylerBurden (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• He has edited since my very clear warning about communication was put on his talk page. He's about 1mm away from a block to get his attention and force discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown Forgive the ping, but there have been more edits since you posted this seen here. Again, the complete lack of communication is disruptive. TylerBurden (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  So far the edits appear to be fully within the expectations we would have for changing engvar, so maybe they get it. I would leave this open and monitor a few days. Really, WP:Communication is required, but total compliance will work in the absence of communication. And it is fine to ping me when changes are noticed in a report, as I'm active on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

This edit may be worth considering and it's an odd one, in the sense that it is the reverse of their usual forcing of -ise over -ize, changing "privatisation" to "privatization" in this case. It seems just as arbitrary and unnecessary though as the edits that are of the usual direction and there is no edit summary to explain. I'd guess that, as a Commonwealth variety of English, as for British English there is no requirement for -ize over -ise (or vice versa) in Nigerian English and, with all the warnings they've had, they are aware they should be communicating about their edits. They clearly are still failing to pay heed. Short block and a(nother) reminder? Mutt Lunker (talk)

Probably justifiable with the changes from "meter" to Commonwealth English "metre" but they're still at it re -ize eradication. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• I had already blocked Maxwell14134 before I saw this discussion. Whether I would have made the same decision had I seen the discussion first I don't know, but as things are I see no reason to change anything. Of the edits that I have looked at, all of the changes to national varieties of English are either clearly correct or at least arguably justified, so I don't regard that as a problem. However, two things which I do very much see as problems are Maxwell14134's persistent failure to ever cite sources, and their persistent failure to communicate, whether in the form of edit summaries or in the form of responses to talk page messages. That includes failure to explain when changes to national varieties of English are justifiable, which would have saved a number of editors trouble. As for the lack of citations to sources, for a large proportion of the edits that I have checked I have no idea whether they are valid or not, which should not be the case, as it is Maxwell14134's responsibility to make sure that all content they post into articles is verifiable. I hope that the block will encourage Maxwell14134 to at last take notice of the messagesthey have received, and change their approach, so that a longer block won't become necessary. JBW (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Incidentally, my take on the -ise/-ize issue is as follows. In US English -ize is close to universal, so it makes no sense to use -ise in any US context. Certainly in British English, and as far as I know in most other varieties, -ise is so overwhelmingly the majority spelling that it is natural to use that in contexts specifically referring to non-US English contexts, despite the fact that -ize is widely accepted as a valid alternative purely on the basis that the original editors of the Oxford English Dictionary chose that spelling. I also say that despite the fact that my personal preference is for -ize: we should all follow what is most widely accepted, and not allow our personal preferences to influence what we do in Wikipedia articles. Consequently I don't think that Maxwell14134 should be criticized for changing -ize to -ise in, for example, an article relating to South Africa, although I wouldn't have made that change myself. JBW (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC) JBW (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit conflict, this is a reply to the last but one post but I'll stick with it:

Thanks for blocking them but if the potentially ENGVAR-motivated edits you have looked at include "-ize" eradication from British English articles, there is no arguable justification for that. If their initial ignorance counts as one, it certainly doesn't after they were informed of WP:ISE and MOS:IZE. I tend to use -ise myself but I'm sick of the time-wasters who wage campaigns to impose it (or, as is probably more common, -ize) in BR Eng articles. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Maxwell's two day block is about to expire later today (UTC), doesn't seem like even the block has produced any response from their side which I don't think is a great sign. WP:BLP violations are obviously a much bigger issue than ENGVAR, so hopefully the block and its notice is enough to finally get the point across both in terms of references and edit summaries (or indeed any communication) though at this point I'm questioning if this is a WP:CIR issue as well. If they go straight back to their old ways after this block, then I don't know what to suggest other than harsher methods to deal with it. TylerBurden (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Pov-pushing by probable sock Yeniseian

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

Regarding the probable sockpuppetry, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kapgan Kağan.

I'll make it short and blunt, Yenieian seems to be on a Turkish pov pushing mission. Pretty bold claims I know, let me show you some proof;

Obsessed with changing the result to 'Ottoman victory' in a GA(!) article Siege of Güns, completely disregarding its status and well sourced content. Initially, he outrighted altered (sourced) info and slammed his own personal commentary instead 27 June 2022, came back a month later and tried the same 15 July 2022 15 July 2022. Now another month has passed, what does he do? Removes/alters sourced info once again with no edit summary whatsoever regarding it, whilst slamming multiple random, cherrypicked and badly cited sources [178] [179] [180].

Night Attack at Târgoviște: Revision history, do I even need to say something here? 9 reverts since 29 July, changing 'Wallachian victory' to 'Ottoman victory'.

Battle of Rovine, tried to lessen the Ottoman twice, one month apart between these two (disruptive) edits [181] [182].

I could go on. For more proof, just Ctrl + F 'Reverted' [183], a good chunk of his few edits have been reverted.

WP:NOTHERE, and probably a sock per the SPI.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• This versus this is pretty damning as even the empty spaces match. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't even notice that bit. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment It could be related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Ash-Shihr. Another editor has mentioned the reported user there.[184] Plus see EIA results. Coincidence or WP:MEATPUPPET? Performing a checkuser on both accounts would be very helpful. --Mann Mann (talk) 04:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, I was actually suspecting the same thing. Moreover, Yeniseian has now suddenly stopped editing in the midst of all this (he might start it again now that I've said that it though). He is probably chilling in another sock account. Moreover, this EIA result of Kapgan Kağan/Yeniseian and Gokturklerrr is even more interesting [185]. The two have shown to be randomly hostile towards me as well [186] [187], coincidence? As for the EIA between Gokturklerrr and Kabz15 [188]. Obviously these EIA results might not have been suspicious if they all weren't brand new users, but they are. --HistoryofIran (talk) 06:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

What are admins thoughts? --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Request action and closure

Can we please get a closure on this? They are literally still continuing their edit war as well [189]. Imho, with the evidence posted here, this is a quick and easy matter. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh well, looking at the SPI, Yeniseian just got blocked thanks to EdJohnston (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kapgan Kağan). With the link between those two accounts established, I can start filling another SPI soon considering the suspicious EIA results up above. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

To admins and @HistoryofIran: I forgot to write this. This case also reminds me of similar behavior and edits by Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/KızılBörü1071 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smokva26 (edit warring, changing the results, and pov-pushing on articles about wars involving the Ottoman Empire). --Mann Mann (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I completely forgot about those two users. Thanks Mann Mann! --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Created another SPI if anyone is interested [190]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Aaaand I get another typical random attack by yet another of my fans, coincidence? [191] --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron Canvassing

Not entirely sure where this discussion is meant to go, but I think the WP:ARS needs to be dealt with as a constant source of WP:CANVAS at certain discussions. While the ARS purports to represent a WP:NPOV, the name itself of the project, and their representative participation in canvassing discussions such as Talk:Titus (dinosaur)#Merge proposal and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Titus_(dinosaur) show that the ARS is drawing people with no significant input to mass !vote on merge and deletion discussions without contributing beyond rallying over a single point of guidelines that is subjective and not a rule. This group of editors is disrupting discussions that have been kept open for over two weeks without contrary opinions present, in a situation where administrative oversight is explicitly not required and now have begun an edit war to restore the article to its original status instead of arguing for why it should be kept, contradicting the initially established consensus of the situation.

Thanks. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Further note, my notification of WP:ARS of this ANI has also led further members to join the improperly re-opened merge discussion. See here, where a member followed the ANI notification on the talk page to find this discussion and from here went to the merge to cast their vote to keep. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in the ARS for years. But keep on trying to claim everyone opposed to the merge and the deletion is a part of "insert group here". Silverseren^C 00:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Frankly its not up to me to care or decide. Regardless, you stated that you were brought into the discussion via the notification of the ARS which you also state you are not involved with. Forgive me if this seems counterintuitive. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I was brought into the discussion by you making this thread here. Not by any notification from the ARS. Silverseren^C 01:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, very nice. Apologies for the misunderstanding, I have struck through the above comment. I thought "notified" was corresponding to my use of it on the ARS talk page notice. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd propose maybe a topic ban for them in order to prevent them from participating in deletion discussions. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 00:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

That's... counterintuitive. Participation in deletion discussions is literally why ARS exists. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Well then why was User:7&6=thirteen, a member of the ARS, topic banned from participating in deletion discussions? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 01:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

That's one person. Topic-banning the entire project is the equivalent of proposing that it be abolished. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh well, my bad then. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 01:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Then why was this thread made in the first place? Is it because IJreid seeks to delete the entire group? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 13:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I thought the stated goal was to "rescue" articles by improving them, not by voting at AfD, no? –dlthewave ☎ 01:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Seconding this. The "rescuing" operations have only ended in the article's content being "uneditable", with an edit war nearly starting over whether to un-merge the article to its "stubbed" state just prior to the merge, or to the state at the end of the AFD before substantial improvements had been made. The ARS essentially made the article worse. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

How does the ARS make it worse? As stated up above, the ARS's goal is to "rescue" articles by improving them, not ruining them. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 01:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but that cannot effectively happen when said improvement process is conducted without the involvement and contrary to the opinions of editors from relevant WikiProjects. From what I have seen, I feel that participation at AfD (even if not the stated goal) has been the crux of the ARS improvement efforts that I have come across to date. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I keep seeing this WP:OWN position about dinosaurs, that only members of certain Projects know best and the rest of the community should stand aside. I've seen it expressed at least 4 times now in various ways by multiple people in these discussions. -- GreenC 01:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I am suggesting that the opposite is likewise not desirable, yet I felt that this was the tendency at this AfD with respect to discussions regarding sourcing. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm a semi-active member of WP:ARS so I may have bias. But I've noticed a pattern of members improving articles, including the one we are talking about. I would encourage you to test your assumptions and look at the article history and you may see that ARS members are enthusiastic to improve articles. CT55555 (talk) 02:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I do not dispute that improvement of articles occurs. I dispute that the current process is as effective or constructive as it could be. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• This is to my knowledge not officially the case. ARS is at least notionally supposed to exist solely to improve articles, not to participate in deletion discussions. Having a wikiproject for former is fine; the latter is absolutely unacceptable and would obviously be WP:CANVASSing. If they're doing that (ie. listing an article on AFD there regularly results in the same people from the project turning up to !vote) then the people who are doing the listing should be topic-banned from AFD for canvassing. User:7&6=thirteen was topic-banned for his own conduct, of course, but I think that every heavily-active ARS member should be reconsidering their own conduct to make sure that they're not doing similar things, especially since my recollection is that in previous discussions many ARS members specifically said that 7&6=thirteen's conduct was typical for ARS. And for people who are worried about ARS canvassing, rather than focusing on ARS as a whole, I would suggest similarly looking at people who regularly post AFDs to ARS and what the results are - if it seems like it's regularly resulting in functional canvassing then they should be asked to stop, and (if they continuously refuse and the problem persists) brought here so they can be individually topic-banned from deletion-discussions as well. That's probably going to be simpler than seeking broad solutions to ARS as a whole, since we have existing procedures and standards for that sort of thing. And the fact is that there is only a tiny handful of really active ARS members; obtaining topic bans against two or three people would functionally end it (which isn't necessarily to say that all of them necessarily warrent topic bans - I didn't look too closely beyond a cursory skim during the ArbCom case. But if you want to show that ARS is a problem, it amounts to examining the conduct of that handful of people either way.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, "not sure where this discussion is meant to go"--you started this report, IJReid, so you should have some idea of where you want this discussion to go; the passive voice is not helpful here. And I am wondering what's wrong with the participants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titus (dinosaur)--seemed like a pretty lively discussion where people made sentences and arguments. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

In my experience, often the ARS "improvements" to articles at AfD constitute injecting unencyclopedic passing mentions, non-independent or primary material, and other UNDUE content to drive up byte size and referencing, which then forces other participants to rebut each addition so that !voters aren't misled by what superficially looks like a well-sourced article. Another issue is that members rarely have any background in the subject and so are not familiar with the type of media it generates; this means they don't recognize industry-specific "tells" of routine and promotional material that are rightfully disregarded by editors in the field. So I am not at all surprised the page got loaded up with like three refactored press releases and other exhibition hype once ARS got involved. JoelleJay (talk) 07:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Administrators are discussing (I forget where) ways, on how to deal with AfDs & AfCs. But, I can't remember where. GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

There is going to be a discussion coming out of the recent ARBCOM deliberations but I do not believe that it has started yet. Gusfriend (talk) 07:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The plans for the discussion are actively underway at User talk:Valereee/draft. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm involved, and a semi-active member of ARS, but I'll try my best to provide what I hope is an impartial summary of events:

1. I was the first person to comment at the AfD and because the article was in such bad shape, I flagged it on the WP:ARS page as an article that could do with improvement. link As I hoped, that did motivate a bunch of people to improve the article. I improved it to and it was quickly B-class quality.
2. There was some concern that the article was PROMO in nature and after a healthy debate, the AfD closed no consensus. link on 14 July
3. On 17 August, despite the lack of consensus to merge at AfD, a conversation to merge was started. link
4. That felt like trying to re-do the AfD to me, I opposed. But I seemed to be in a minority of one. I considered making a fuss, but I have more important things to worry about, so I did not.
5. Within the past 24 hours, I got pinged as someone from the AfD noticed the merge was happening and the people who voted keep at AfD chimed in objecting to the merge.
6. In the meantime, there was an objection to a quote in the article. An IP address logged on and said they were the expert quoted in The Guardian and they did not make the quote. That was a sticky situation, as it seemed like a good faith objection, but unverifiable. WP:TRUTH is relevant, I think. Someone helpfully removed the quote and added another quote, I think a diplomatic solution.
7. Now it seems like there is a bit of an edit war happening with people reverting the redirect, people favouring different versions of article, and someone adding what seems to me like too many tags.

In my opinion questions to consider are: is there canvassing? Is it reasonable to propose banning an entire group based on individual members actions ? Is edit warring happening? Are people trying to re-do the AfD because they didn't like the result? I recommend we respect the AfD result of no consensus and people stop trying to merge this article, consensus wasn't reached at AfD to do so. CT55555 (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Re: #6, please note that there is relevant off-wiki evidence: [192] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes I see that. It's not a verified Twitter account, but I assume good faith in the IP edit and I hope I conveyed clearly above that I saw it as a good faith objection. It seems very likely to be by the author, although the quote was cited in a reliable source, and therefore WP:TRUTH explains why the quote could have been kept; to me that would be a very unpalatable outcome, so I commend the editor who found a better quote and gave them wikipedia love (a goat I think) to thank then for the diplomatic solution. :-) CT55555 (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

According to WP:MERGE, a merge discussion should notify interested parties, and there needs to be a merge template added to the top of the page. Neither One of these things were done [the tag]. As a result the initial discussion was 100% support with a few like-minded people. They attempted to quietly make this merge without notifying anyone who might oppose the merge, nor follow the merge procedures. After a proper notification is finally done, and the merge vote doesn't go his way, he blames ARS and seeks to delete the entire group. -- GreenC 01:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Those in the AFD for this were contacted, regardless of if they were in the ARS or not. This is what should've been done at the start. Those who failed to eliminate the article in AFD, are now the ones complaining that someone is keeping them from getting their way in the merge discussion. Dream Focus 02:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Contrary to your whining, there is no requirement that participants in an AfD be notified of a merge discussion. The discussion was appropriately brought up in the relevant WikiProjects, which is what policy calls for. It was left open for two weeks, consensus was achieved, and then someone threw a fit and got ARS to back them.

  Is my assessment harsh? Yes, but the vote-stacking and empty arguments from people with no real intention of improving the article in question has more than gotten on my nerves. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  During the AFD a lot of work was done on the article by members of the Article Rescue Squadron. [193] So yes, we do like to improve articles, not just eliminate most of their content and keep a small amount of information in another article. Dream Focus 02:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Your "improved" version of the article is written like a promotional puff piece, not an encyclopedia article. SilverTiger12 (talk) 03:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, the extent of my own participation in the merge discussion is limited to my votes and comments. I do not have an agenda to exclude keep voters. I did not check whether relevant parties were notified, but I think the onus of doing so is on the initiator of the merge discussion and not the participants. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

According to WP:MERGE, all requirements for the discussion were met. The article was tagged, the project pages were tagged, and the people who were involved with discussing the article's status within the context of merging were also present. Many AFD votes were cast as simply !keep, without discussing or considering the party voting to !merge. An admin is not required or meant to close merge discussions. It was open for two weeks, after which there was a very clear consensus to redirect, which was done by a party who was allowed to per WP:MERGE. And those who were watchlisting the article would have been well aware of the substantial changes I made to it to demonstrate during the course of the merge discussion how the only argument presented to keep was frivolous. Whether the article was merged after the point of my edits or not was not my concern, but those who voted to !keep have *also* started edit wars contrary to the due process of overturning a merge discussion consensus. Instead of re-opening the discussion while the current revisions were allowed to stand, the discussion was re-opened by mass reversions back to the point several weeks prior to the discussion closing, undoing all edits that had been done since the AFD to improve the article from a piece of promotional fluff.

The article was created by a one-goal editor with no other edits to coincide with the promotional press tour of a new exhibit. It does not deserve to have been created, should not be maintained in its current outdated form, and requires the attention of editors who will do more than simple !vote. Only five editors improved the article during the course of the AFD, three of which voted to !delete. The ARS, beyond the efforts of CT, did not "rescue" the article. They only cast votes that match with their groups title to "rescue", while drawing the efforts and attention of those editors who are spending time to improve contents of the topic at hand off of improving the wiki and into these backend discussions that cannot be closed for months per site guidelines.

This ANI was created by me to source external input on what site policies say should be done. I am indeed blaming the ARS for bogging down the otherwise smooth continuation of progress improving the overall topics at hand, by arguing over bytes on a website. The pages edit history shows how its content was being continually reduced to remove WP:ADVERT details, all of which was undone by the improper and mis-motivated re-opening of a closed discussion. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I also wish to emphasise how the closing of the AfD *very clearly states* "any follow-up discussion should be a merger proposal on the article talk page". This was exactly what was followed. The AfD was not attempted to be "undone", it was followed up with in exactly what the closing admin suggested, to preserve article and edit history while allowing editors of the subject to evaluate if the content was deserving of its own article. Claims that the AfD result should have stood for time immemorial are argumentative and false. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The AFD ended on 14 July 2022. It seems like the merge discussion was delayed until far less people would notice who might disagree with you, then a notice played on a Wikiproject those who supported this in the AFD would see it but no one else. Just feels like someone is gaming the system here, trying to get only those who agree with them to notice what was going on, and upset when those they don't agree with find out and show up anyway. Dream Focus 03:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Claiming a merge discussion was delayed is definitely not assuming WP:GOOD FAITH. I did not even start the merge discussion. And talking about how notifying the only wikiproject the article is under is insufficient is not supported by any guidelines or policies. WP:ARS does not care about the quality of Dinosaur articles, nor should they. The quality of Dinosaur articles is under the content of WP:DINOS, which means they are the only group that needs to be notified about the articles under their umbrella. Notifying the other participants of the AfD would have been a nice courtesy, but see how very clearly this example shows that too many cooks are spoiling the broth. The article is in limbo, unable to be changed much by anyone without others reverting it in opposition. Administrators are not *meant* to be required in every discussion, but WP:ARS is forcing them to be.

And to be clear, I do not care what happens to WP:ARS, beyond how it is clear from editing histories and involvements in the discussions here, that a larger project presenting their !votes without any other considerations resulted in the group of a smaller project of active editors being overwhelmed and outnumbered, exactly what WP:CANVAS is supposed to help prevent. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Titus does have several other WikiProjects tagged (Museums, Montana, Nottinghamshire) which do not appear to have been notified, although this is moot since WP:MERGEPROP suggests that WP notifications are optional. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Administrators are not *meant* to be required in every discussion, but WP:ARS is forcing them. Your the one who started this ANI, trying to drag admins into a mess you and a few others created by not properly notifying everyone from the start. Your rationale that only WP:DINO should be notified is another example of WP:OWN and is the heart of the problem. You still don't recognize anyone but the DINO group as valid ("ARS does not care about the quality of Dinosaur articles", "DINOS.. are the only group that needs to be notified", "too many cooks are spoiling the broth"). You and some others have a OWN problem, it's why proper notification was not done, why you have such bad faith toward anyone that disagrees with you. -- GreenC 07:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Without administrative involvement, every subsequent discussion on the article will devolve into a !vote, where the editors of the project are simply outnumbered even if all of us wanted to !merge. And note, not all of us have cast votes. Not all of us have cast the same vote. Because we, unlike the Article Rescue Squadron, are not expected to want to !keep by definition of our project title. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 13:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. Looking at the talk page, there was a prior discussion involving 7&6 thirteen. It settled out fine there was no gang up. The problem I think is your trying to make drastic changes like deleting or merging the entire article. Why have you not tried to resolve the oldest exhibit question with a talk page discussion, or am I missing it? If you have quality evidence that directly contradicts the source, then you should have no problem resolving it, in some way. People are not unreasonable. But when you attack, blame, edit war, try to ban, claim expert exceptionalism, etc.. I don't know man, this is a life lesson. -- GreenC 17:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Note the comment we should usually attempt to discreetly make merge notices on the article talkpage first, rather than take them to AfD, which usually attracts unwanted outside attention by Hemiauchenia at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs. CT55555 diff (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Whilst it is acceptable to say that an article requires the attention of editors who will do more than simple !vote, I am not sure that saying Unless you are going to contribute to making the supposedly deserved article a nice article, please don't vote spam. I do not want to spent 10 hours of my day working to make a nice article for content that you think deserved a nice article. This will be my only announcement (emphasis in original at [194]) raises the level of discourse. Wikipedia is about consensus and whilst having people improve the article is preferred, there is still value in getting views from those who do not. Gusfriend (talk) 07:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

* I've been on record for years now as not in any way, shape or form being a fan of ARS; I've long since believed that they were far readier to Thwart! Deletionists! by any means to hand than to do the work to rescue articles. More than one member (no one's forgetting AD, right?) has been tbanned over the more egregious of their antics.

But. It has been a universal practice for many years to notify people interested in deletion discussions. The Twinkle XfD templates even have an option to notify particular Wikiprojects of a filing. If you have evidence of edit warring or tendentious editing against individual members, report it on that basis. But little as I care for the attitudes and antics of a number of its members, ARS has as much right to be notified about a deletion discussion as any other Wikiproject. A "cure" for this complaint would be far worse than the disease. Ravenswing 10:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• @Ravenswing, is a merge proposal considered a "deletion discussion" (I genuinely don't know, I don't participate in that area)? Is it standard to notify each participant in every prior AfD whenever there are major developments to the page? JoelleJay (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  I've been compelled to take contested merges to AfD to confirm (or not) the merge, and in such cases, they follow all the standards of AfD. Beyond that, while I'm not the frequent AfD flyer I was ten years back, it was sometimes the case that someone filing a 2nd (3rd, 4th) nomination would ping the people involved in prior nominations, but it was never then a requirement. Ravenswing 00:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  I meant is it expected that merge discussions ping all participants at prior AfDs on the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Whilst I've long been a critic of the ARS and their persistently irritating ITSNOTABLE and IFOUNDITONGOOGLE antics - some of which are apparent on the AfD - I do have to say that the sources, including a couple of heavyweight UK papers (and there are others) do IMO push this over the GNG line. One thing I would say, though - anyone reading this article would probably conclude that this is a complete T-Rex skeleton ("Titus is reportedly the first genuine Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton exhibited in England in over a century"), when only 20% of the actual bones are real ones. Somewhat misleading, that. Black Kite (talk) 10:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  I would second this, I read the article last night when this ANI popped up, I thought it was a good article and moved on. Going back now, it isn't explained anywhere that it isn't a "full" skele, it certainly does seem like it's a full skele (up until I read your comment, I thought it was), and the Guardian clearly says The fossil was around 20% complete once fully conserved, so although it is a ‘real’ skeleton, many of the bones are reconstructions made of black obsidian. FrederalBacon (talk) 11:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  That is where probably my biggest gripe comes from. The article devolved into multiple edit wars over whether or not the content as is stands (which is from several weeks prior and before substantial revisions) is promotional and reads like an advertisement. Details such as not specifying most of the "mount" is just Stan (dinosaur), describing the display as the first in "over a century" (when there is an NHMUK specimen that has been on display since 1915), and weirdly describing the conservation and photogrammetry of the bones by saying how "Steven Dyer of ThinkSee3D" did it, all read like promotional details.

  But those details are unable to be removed because whenever the article is "reduced to a stub" it is reverted. Despite an informational stub being much better than an article that is half advertisement. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 13:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think you're making the mistake of thinking that the ARS participants actually know anything about the subject of the article they're "saving". That has never been the case. Black Kite (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  The talk page discussions on these issues are missing. Did they get archived somewhere? I'd like review what has been discussed. -- GreenC 17:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

No, they are there if you look hard enough. [195] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

That's just a list of complaints in a thread inside a merge discussion - what is anyone supposed to do with that? There has been no serious attempt to follow the content dispute resolution processes. A sincere attempt would look like a separate talk page discussion, for each issue, a paragraph neutrally explaining the problem, why your editing a certain way, then make the edit, wait for a BRD cycle if any, and discuss. None of that has happened. Except one time with 7&6 thirteen and it was easily and civilly resolved with no gang up.-- GreenC 17:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

That's because there was no content dispute until the merge discussion was reopened. The changes are a straightforward extension of the source reliability issues discussed with 7&6. None of this was an issue until editors decided that they wanted to vote on the version of the article immediately following AfD. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1104706924/1104805537. This would best be resolved on the article talk page, one issue at a time, as you did with 7&6 thirteen. People can be reasonable, but that sneaky-looking merge really caused a trust problem and we see the result. The best way is show good faith working with people, not patronizing with WP:OWN comments DINO-knows-best and trying to force change with ANI attacks on ARS. -- GreenC 19:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I hope you realize that editors can be individualistic actors. I participated in the merge discussion as a matter of procedure, restating my opinions from the AfD, and I don't care and I shouldn't have to care about whatever the opener or closer of the merge did. I don't care for this ANI thread either, because I did not initiate it, I am not trying to shut down the ARS, and I am only here to provide statements of pertinent fact. I also didn't perform the edits in that diff, and it is not my responsibility to defend them. I am seeing a broad pattern of conflating the actions of different editors here and in the merge discussion, and I do not think that is constructive. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• This has been going on for years, for example: 1. ARS-tagged AFD, DRV, merge proposal; 2. ARS-tagged AFD, merge proposal; 3. ARS-tagged AFD, split proposal (hey that's different!); 4. ARS-tagged AFD in which the closer says "merging the content to another article is a viable alternative...But this should be discussed separately", me pleading with the closer "...I don't think I can propose a merge on the talk page following a "keep" AFD result. When I've done this before, a number of editors said it was improperly re-litigating the AFD (many of the same editors who participated in this AFD).", merge discussion. This is a tried-and-true ARS tactic: block-vote the AFD, then block-vote the merge discussion while simultaneously accusing editors of trying to use the merge discussion to perform an end run around the AFD. An old story. Levivich 16:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  People who were against merging(deleting 90%) of the article in the AFD, are also the same ones against doing it in a merge discussion later on. Knowing people would be against it, so waiting until they felt no one would notice, then doing it, then complaining when those who participated in the discussion before found out and were still against it, is just ridiculous. Dream Focus 16:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Merging is not deleting 90% of an article. Levivich 16:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Eliminating most of the article from public view, by replacing it with a redirect and a small amount of its original content found on another page. Of course you can claim hey, they can look at the history of the article and read the rest of the information there if they want, but whatever. Dream Focus 17:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  What you're describing is not what merging is. Merging is placing the content where it best serves the reader. Levivich 17:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Did you not look at any of the places you linked to? A long article replaced with a redirect to a small amount of information already on the list page linked to. Dream Focus 17:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  What you're describing did not actually happen. None of those merges actually happened because they were all opposed by ARS. A merge proposal is not a proposal to delete 90% of the article. It has nothing to do with the length of the content. And even if it did, it's not like it matter how long an article is: quality, not quantity. And hell, one of them was a split not even a merge: that would have led to multiple, longer articles: ARS still opposed. And of course I looked them, I even participated in those discussions, that's why I remember them. You guys don't care about content, you only care about winning arguments, it doesn't even matter what the argument is. You want to flatter yourselves as heroes, "defenders of the Wiki," which is why you swoop in, block vote, spam articles, then give each other barnstars. Levivich 17:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Tantive IV has far more information than would be merged to List_of_Star_Wars_spacecraft#Tantive_IV_(Rebel_Blockade_Runner). The current article in question Titus (dinosaur) would lose most of its content if replaced with a redirect to Specimens_of_Tyrannosaurus#"Titus", no additional information "merged" over when they claimed it was merged, it just replaced with a redirect to there. Dream Focus 17:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  When did anyone claim anything was merged? The way a merge proposal works is that you propose first, then merge. And, again, it's not about quantity of information, it's about quality. WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:DUE, etc. Levivich 17:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:DUE is indeed exactly the issue here. ARS editors have added content to this article without consideration of due weight and neutrality befitting of the subject matter, because they are not subject area editors (as pointed out elsewhere in the discussion above). Multiple attempts to point out issues with neutrality by subject area editors have repeatedly been dismissed and not engaged with both at the AfD and at the current merge discussion. Only when one has spent time editing articles in a particular subject area and trying to gather appropriate sources to do so can one understand what sources are appropriate and what sources are not. This is not elitist, this is fact. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• The current issue! [196] Someone posted (Merge complete), but only made minor changes to the other article [197], most of the valid content thus lost. Dream Focus 17:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  That's not one of the links I posted, now is it? Did you not look at any of the places you linked to? is what I was responding to. Levivich 17:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  God I so regret not spending the 2 hours digging & writing up the evidence on DreamFocus for ArbCom :(. JBL (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  I would say that the previous case does not preclude another case in the same sphere, especially when the discussion was more-or-less narrowly scoped to the editing in that area by those editors who were ultimately named parties. Izno (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Izno: Fair point. --JBL (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

If enough editors have a problem with the existence of ARS? Then open an RFC (or whatever is required) at the appropriate place (likely a Village Pump), on seeking whether or not the WikiProject should be 'retired'. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Already been done multiple times already. Only people complaining are those that are upset a small number of people showed up somewhere and dared to disagree with them on something. Dream Focus 16:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• I'm a long-time critic of ARS – not the concept of salvaging articles that simply need to be improved, but as a place where there could potentially be canvassing concerns. However, the complaint here is a waste of time and should be closed. Partly as a result of some topic bans and partly as a result of genuine cooperation, there really is very little in the way of misleading other participants in AfD discussions. The key thing is that any deletion discussion that has been listed at ARS should be marked as such with Template:Rescue list. That way, it is transparent to everyone at the discussion that ARS has been notified, and experienced AfD closers understand how to take this into account. Occasionally, someone forgets to add the template, but in that case you can simply add it yourself (as I do from time to time), without any need for making a drama out of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Hmmmm. I came to the discussion because I had participated in the AfD and was kindly pinged by someone. Luckily I came across ARS, a fine group of valuable editors, not too long ago, and since have witnessed many of its members topic banned. I take it there have been past attempts to close ARS, which I have no way to understand as that just seems so counter-Wikipedia improvement that the concept itself should be Wikibanned. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - FWIW, Titus isn't the only individual dinosaur, with its own page. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Most don't though. YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I like how so many here have to set up their comments and show their bonafides with statements like: I've been on record for years now as not in any way, shape or form being a fan of ARS. Regarding the article; over templating for what seems like revenge reasons and WP:OWN behavior are both not collegial but the dino people have been doing that to the article - and they have circled the wagons which is ironically what they accuse the ARS of doing. One only has to read the comment by the editor who started the merge and then closed the merge and then redirected the article to see it was sneaky shady behavior. CT55555 pointed to it above: we should usually attempt to discreetly make merge notices on the article talkpage first, rather than take them to AfD, which usually attracts unwanted outside attention. I remember that same editor being tendentious in another AfD about another Dino. And last night Hemiauchenia posted on several noticeboards lamenting the revert of the redirect and asking for help A user has decided that the Titus (dinosaur) discussion was improperly closed, and has now pinged all AfD participants. Feel free to vote if interested. It would be nice we could work together. We could also remind the dino group that they do not own the subject. And remind them that RS does not have to come from a professor to be RS. Hey, dinosaurs are supposed to be fun! Lightburst (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  This you? JBL (talk) 00:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Whilst I've long been a critic of the ARS and their persistently irritating ITSNOTABLE and IFOUNDITONGOOGLE antics - some of which are apparent on the AfD - I do have to say that the sources, including a couple of heavyweight UK papers (and there are others) do IMO push this over the GNG line. One thing I would say, though - anyone reading this article would probably conclude that this is a complete T-Rex skeleton ("Titus is reportedly the first genuine Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton exhibited in England in over a century"), when only 20% of the actual bones are real ones. Somewhat misleading, that. Black Kite (talk) 10:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  I would second this, I read the article last night when this ANI popped up, I thought it was a good article and moved on. Going back now, it isn't explained anywhere that it isn't a "full" skele, it certainly does seem like it's a full skele (up until I read your comment, I thought it was), and the Guardian clearly says The fossil was around 20% complete once fully conserved, so although it is a ‘real’ skeleton, many of the bones are reconstructions made of black obsidian. FrederalBacon (talk) 11:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I like how so many here have to set up their comments and show their bonafides with statements like: I've been on record for years now as not in any way, shape or form being a fan of ARS. Regarding the article; over templating for what seems like revenge reasons and WP:OWN behavior are both not collegial but the dino people have been doing that to the article - and they have circled the wagons which is ironically what they accuse the ARS of doing. One only has to read the comment by the editor who started the merge and then closed the merge and then redirected the article to see it was sneaky shady behavior. CT55555 pointed to it above: we should usually attempt to discreetly make merge notices on the article talkpage first, rather than take them to AfD, which usually attracts unwanted outside attention. I remember that same editor being tendentious in another AfD about another Dino. And last night Hemiauchenia posted on several noticeboards lamenting the revert of the redirect and asking for help A user has decided that the Titus (dinosaur) discussion was improperly closed, and has now pinged all AfD participants. Feel free to vote if interested. It would be nice we could work together. We could also remind the dino group that they do not own the subject. And remind them that RS does not have to come from a professor to be RS. Hey, dinosaurs are supposed to be fun! Lightburst (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  This you? JBL (talk) 00:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes JBL there is quite a tendency to overreact in one direction - for instance I once said someone was grinding an axe and an admin demanded a retraction as PA. People have said worse in my direction and it is fodder. Just in this discussion we can see the admin Black Kite bringing up their open bias. I am just here to edit and improve the project. I hope to read some of you four articles when I have time. It is helpful for us all to remember that we are building an encyclopedia - and we cannot do that with less editors participating. Lightburst (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I would not have such a bias if I still didn't see certain members of the ARS treating deletion discussions as battlegrounds and spending far more time commenting on AfDs than actually improving articles (this does not apply to all ARS participants, as I have said many times before). Black Kite (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Case in point of my comment above, another case of conflating separate editors involved in the process. It's very easy to see that User:YorkshireExpat was the one who closed the merge discussion. And claiming that the report is being rejected as RS on the basis of not "coming from a professor" is incredibly reductionist when there are clear neutrality issues. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

You know, if you'd rather I withdrew my support in this matter, I believe I can bring myself to do so. Ravenswing 00:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

No conflation. Hemiauchenia directed and steered and lobbied and merged and redirected. Lightburst (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

As the opener of the original AfD, I object to the suggestion I was directed or steered. I was not lobbied to be part of the merge discussion. @Hemiauchenia may have redirected, but I did the actual merge work and I preferred to have my work reviewed by others so requested this on the merge discussion. YorkshireExpat (talk) 08:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Named T-rex skeletons probably do merit separate articles folks, even when incomplete (as basically all of them are, although I think we have about 90% of Sue). T-rex is one of the few dinos for which we have a near- complete half-skeleton, so we can reconstruct the missing bits from the other side. But whole dino skeletons are rarer than hens teeth.—S Marshall T/C 23:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think you need to look at the reasons for naming. Sue is a very complete specimen. Trix is notable for her age. Stan has an exceptionally preserved skull. All three are fairly complete. Titus, on the other hand, is 20% complete, and does not appear to have any other notable features. Also, the fact that it was found by a commercial paleontologist, suggests that the name may have been applied to increase market value. YorkshireExpat (talk) 08:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think your comments get to the heart of the tension here. I think some members of WP:DINO project don't want this article up, because they see that the skeleton's owners have some sort of profit/commercial motivation. I understand that sentiment. But wikipedia has lots of articles about commercial endeavours, it's not a database of social good or only academic and charitable things. I think some DINO project members want there to be a minimum criteria for articles that is something different from WP:GNG. But we create articles based on notability, not the completeness of skeletons or motivations of owners. With the BBC, The Guardian and the National Geographic writing about this, it's clearly notable. And the WP:GNG is what guides us, not any stricter criteria that the DINO project would like. CT55555 (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Does it pass GNG? Maybe, sure, I can accept that. But passing GNG does not mean that the subject warrants a standalone article (per the text of GNG), which is a far more nuanced consideration that is the subject of the current merge discussion. And this is where considerations of WP:DUE, WP:PROMO, etc. become relevant. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• What a waste of time. This thread and the inclusionists vs. deletionists "debates" are a timesink. Imagine how better the encyclopedia will be if people just shut up and improve articles. We probably would have a lot more good and featured articles as a result. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  I propose to archive this thread immediately. This thread hosts no productive conversation on improving the situation or Wikipedia as a whole. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  This is exactly my problem with ARS: the entire group exists as a holdover from the "inclusionist vs. deletionist" days. They're an anachronism and clinging to this outmoded philosophy is detrimental to the encyclopedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  Those that want these labels to presist are not here to build an encyclopedia, they are here for the drama. I would suggest them to go to Wikipediocracy if that's what they want. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• Based on how many times the ARS has showed up at ANI recently, the ARS is becoming the new Esperanza. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 15:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  In terms of "doing what Esperanza was supposed to do" I'd say you're looking for the WP:Teahouse. But in terms of disruption, yes. casualdejekyll 16:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• I don't really count myself as either a deletionist or an inclusionist (improving a nominated article to the point where it becomes kept makes me happier than deleting it, but I think I !vote delete more often than keep, because most deletion nominations are made in good faith for subjects that legitimately look like deletion candidates). That statement of neutrality out of the way, I am tired of seeing the continual wars here between some deletionists and some inclusionists who have such bad-faith assumptions about the people on the other side of the dispute that they would prefer to see them shut out of the process rather than having the open and honest discussions that we need. Both the people finding and nominating non-notable articles, and the people finding and improving articles on notable topics that are so badly-written as to appear non-notable, are performing constructive activities. We need both things to happen. The improvement to the encyclopedia made in both of these ways is more important than getting your way by shutting out all opposing opinions. Neither the existence of bad deletion nominations nor the existence of badly-done cleanup attempts (the recycled press release sources cited above) are evidence of wrongdoing, just of the human imperfection that we all suffer from. I am tempted to propose a WP:BOOMERANG block on IJReid for inflaming the struggle rather than trying to come to peace with the fact that not everyone is going to agree with them on every decision, but I suppose that won't help either. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• What year is is?! I remember when this was a big problem ca 2008/9 and we didn't take action then against the project as a whole. The issues were the same, a project nominally devoted to 'rescuing' articles had a much more productive time disrupting deletion discussions (since that is vastly easier than rescuing articles). I don't think any actions we are likely to take will have much of an impact, but we should keep an eye out for LGRdC... Protonk (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
  • As an addendum, the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the idea of having a point of view on deletion is silly and tiresome. None of us possess the view from nowhere and it is actually much easier to pronounce ourselves neutral and perform disgust at those who have the temerity to have an opinion than it is to accept that we might have a perspective worth operating from. Protonk (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: ARS project members prevented from directly voting on articles listed on the rescue list, but are allowed to edit the articles.

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 think that this has been proposed before, and I think this would ameliortate a lot of the canvassing issues inherent to the nature of the ARS. The whole idea of "rescuing articles" should about improving them. Allowing ARS members to improve the articles and then let independent editors assess the notability would be a significant improvement. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose How do you define a project member? I've been accused of being a member before and I have had the page in my watchlist before (can't remember if it is now), but have also come across and voted on AfDs without realising they were being discussed at ARS. NemesisAT (talk) 09:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose more revenge is not what is needed. Are you going to "let independent editors assess the notability" of paleontology articles? Also are you going to individually notify the hundreds of editors who signed up at the project? This smacks of, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the ...." Lightburst (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose (noting I am an ARS member) because I do not think it is necessary because I do not think it has been demonstrated that ARS members or as a group have done anything wrong, and imposing a new rule on hundreds of editors would be a strange move in such circumstances. CT55555 (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: Quite aside from placing an unwarranted restriction on editors who've done nothing wrong, this would be comically easy to thwart: all it would take would be for members who didn't care for the sanction to "quit" the group. (Possibly to create a new project: Article Salvation Cadre, anyone? They might even decide that a good way to avoid persecution would be to organize off-Wiki, and who could blame them?) I'll say it again: if you believe that particular editors are being disruptive, report them and bring your evidence to the table. Otherwise, the easiest way to avoid accusations of a kneejerk witchhunt is not to have one. Ravenswing 11:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose This is ridiculous as it was when previous brought up. Any member of any Wikiproject can edit articles and vote in AFDs for them. Dream Focus 11:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Anyone should be able to !vote in an AfD. The closer should weigh the !votes based on how policy based they are casualdejekyll 11:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Even if you believe that the primary purpose of the ARS is to be a canvassing tool, this wouldn't fix it; all it would do is to get people to stop admitting they're using the canvassing tool. —Cryptic 11:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per much of above. Cbl62 (talk) 11:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, as it would not be effective in preventing disruption from ARS and wouldn't fix the key issues at play. We should fix the culture at the project or else disband it, rather than issuing a punishing ban. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 12:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support ARS has been a lot less canvassy since several prominent members were banned, this will only improve things further. Mztourist (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Suppose I participate in 20 AfDs, then join ARS? Suppose I exit ARS, participate in 20 AfDs, and then quit? This will serve as a way to limit the membership of ARS, but it it's unenforceable, and it discriminates against every member of a group based on the actions of some. There's a lot of words I can think of describing that sort of action, and all of them are nasty. Jacona (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think the neutral term for what is being proposed is Collective punishment CT55555 (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Banning an entire WikiProject membership, isn't a good precedent. Besides, one would need only to resign as a member of a banned WikiProject, to get around such a ban. GoodDay (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - There's the problem of defining a member, first of all. If it's the membership list, anyone can just remove themselves. If it's votes on articles listed there, well I'm sure lots of people active at AfD but not ARS would be caught, too. Probably the only way would be some number of edits to the rescue list? Regardless, it's messy. Still, maybe five years ago I argued for something similar: that ARS members should be allowed to !vote if they're actively involved with improving the article. Today, however, the urgency is gone. The relatively minor kerfuffle that led to this doesn't actually look that problematic, and we've actually been successful at sanctioning many of the most disruptive figures at AfD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose for the same reasons as others oppose above. The way to fix the problems is to continue doing what we've been doing: hold individuals accountable for their individual actions. Levivich 16:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

'Oppose Per the nomination Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 16:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose I oppose any en masse sanctions for something like this. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:26, 1 September 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.

I have made an error

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 SPI I have just reported was meant to go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mike Matthews17 but I have reported the SPI to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Selwyn the Sloth before I have realised I made an error. I'm sure someone can take into account that the error can be fixed. Regards... Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

No need, I know it is possible for me to put the report in the right place. However Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Selwyn the Sloth should be deleted, thanks - Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

An SPI clerk can sort this out. Are there any reading this board? -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't reading this thread, but I was working the SPI queue and came across this. Superfluous report deleted, both accounts blocked, global locks requested, etc... Girth Summit _(blether) 17:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Good work, Girth Summit. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for everything that needs to be done including the deletion of the 'Selwyn the Sloth' SPI page. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:55, 7 September 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:Ajrun Amir'za-da engaging in meatpuppetry

This user engages in meatpuppetry with ip users 103.134.40.132 (talk · contribs) and 103.58.75.198 (talk · contribs). Note the mobile edits and timing on Barlas and Borjigin articles, he steps in and reverts me back to IP revisions. Also another one 103.67.158.89 (talk · contribs) says: Sorry sir but you are wrong! I am as Moghul my-self i know better my heritage then you, i have sources like book's name (the secret history of mongols, the timurid iran politics, Tuzu-ke-Timuri autobiography of Timur, Baburnama autobiography of first Mughal Emperor Babur and etc.) and on Talk:Timur, Ajrun Amir'za-da [198] : No Timur-Nama was autobiography of Timur; claiming the fabricated book is true as well. They both use the word "autobiography". Note that sockpuppets of Rage476 (talk · contribs) [199] have similar edits on Mongol and Mughal related articles. Not sure if those are all one person or different. Beshogur (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Whats going on here ! I see you always target me to everywhere which i edit i know IP person don't like you but i don't have any link with him, but it’s my personal fair i do revert if you don't like that then told me not to edit or, give me threat in administration boards not edit anything without your way of looks, Simple i don't have any connection with anyone nether any ips but claiming me a anything is not proof i am belong anything i am in my ways — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajrun Amir'za-da (talk • contribs) 20:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Thread retitled from "{{user|Ajrun Amir'za-da}} engaging in meatpuppetry". SWinxy (talk) 21:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• El C has already protected both articles, which should solve the issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive IP range

• 2001:8F8:1A65:EB9D:6D47:BDF0:9CF9:E4FC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2001:8F8:1A65:EB9D:D42F:A82F:89F2:2D44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2001:8F8:1A65:EB9D:CDB4:EB8E:5BCC:C944 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2001:8F8:1A65:EB9D:F9E4:957B:7201:EFA2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2001:8F8:1A65:EB9D:A8C3:2E3B:4365:C9B5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The IP range above is being used only for vandalism (and also for WP:DUCKY block evasion by banned user Bestf123). Administrative action would be necessary in order to prevent further disruption. Renewal6 (talk) 11:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

/64 blocked for two weeks. I see there have been recent blocks at /36 and /32 but I don’t know if they are related. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Renewal6 (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Undying Sikh

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.

---

Undying Sikh (talk · contribs) seems to be a troll and/or WP:NOTHERE. Removes sourced content claiming it is unsourced [200][201][202], adds unsourced content. Frequently claims reliable sources are wrong about people's qualifications [203][204][205][206]. Spurious AFD nom. Refers to the subject of an article as a 'whore'. Holds openly racist views - English people can't be Indian, Jewish people can't be Italian, Taiwanese people don't exist. Almost the majority of their edits have been reverted by other editors, requesting a block to prevent further disruption. GeebaKhap (talk) 12:38, 8 September 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:Dhjeekw

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.

---

Dhjeekw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has already been blocked twice for some combination of failure to cite sources and edit-warring, but has continued the same behavior

The user's basic m.o. is to post ongoing or rumored sports transactions as done deals, and never citing. The user will occasionally leave edit summaries like Sky Sports confirmed Potter as manager of Chelsea from tomorrow or Twitter.com/user/FabrizioRomano Look at all his tweets (FYI, Fabrizio is an Italian journalist who's become famous for accurately reporting football transfers before they become official), or Sky Sports confirmed this and Google it yourself.

I've left multiple messages telling the user about WP:CITE and WP:CRYSTAL, but they seem to be ignored. With the blocks, all the warning messages and the explanatory messages, the user is either uninterested in following guidelines or it's a question of WP:COMPETENCE and a long-term block seems appropriate. (CC Mattythewhite, who has been dealing with this user a lot). --Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 11:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:Dhjeekw#Indefinite_block. El_C 14:23, 8 September 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.

rampant vandalism of Queen Elizabeth II related articles

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.

---

requesting protection for

Death of Elizabeth II

. 204.78.14.9 (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The request should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:49, 8 September 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:Nightscream still on another WP:DE / WP:POINTY roll

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:Nightscream (a former administrator with a long record[207]) is still on a WP:POINTY roll (user history). If this was a legitimate cleanup campaign you would expect this user to participate in the cleanup they claim they want or let the Wikipedia process play out. But the users actions consist of continual WP:DE edit waring,[208][209][210][211][212][213] talk page WP:TEXTWALL/screeds/personal attacks[214][215], name calling (anyone with a contrary opinion is a "serial policy violator") [216][217][218], and modifying other editors talk to prove they were right/vindicated by admins [219][220]. Several editors at reached a consensus at Talk:Radio (no sign of Nightscream with Nightscream chiming in once to point out how everybody else is wrong) and after a week of cleanup edits Nightscream came back without talk page comment and started reverting again[221][222][223]. Looks like a pattern of ramping up edit warring on the weekends when they know there is minimal administrative over-site. Its gotten to the point of WP:DAPE[224].

And it continues on, all other editors are "the violators", users of "shady tactics", to be ignored, and Nightscream has the blessing of admins re: "ANI already looked at my practices and ruled it "no violation""[225]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Looking at the history of Radio, I see Nightscream removing large amounts of uncited material, and a number of editors - including yourself - simply putting it back without adding citations. WP:V is quite clear - "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Meanwhile, there are claims that "talkpage consensus" overrides policy. No, it doesn't - sorry. So, why are you restoring huge swathes of uncited material? Black Kite (talk) 13:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• Referring to other named experienced users as "serial policy violator"s in edit summaries is incivil. Ironically, this has even happened in response to an edit summary that already linked WP:ESDONTS. Nightscream, is there something unclear about the civility policy or can you agree not to do this again? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There appears to be some disagreement on this point even amongst administrators. This sort of behaviour has been brought here before and on previous occasions it is the material removers who have been blocked for being disruptive. The material in question is such that it is correct in what it says and can be found in almost any half decent book or encyclopaedia covering the subject (See WP:BLUE). I note that several of the editors in question are attempting to restore the material and cite it, but the position is being made difficult because Nightscream immediately deletes it again before the references can be added.

Nightscream regularly makes personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with him and will misrepresent complaints to bolster his position. As stated above, he claimed to have been taken to this board where his actions were vindicated (this is the first report AFAIK). This was patently false. He had been taken to WP:ANEW for edit warring where the result was no violation, which was only because he had not made more than three reverts (at the time of the report). 86.181.0.154 (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

You'll need to provide specific examples for supporting the "regularly" (and, strictly speaking, a huge amount of examples for the "anyone") in the second paragraph. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Since you asked:

• [226]
• [227] 2 for the price of one here!
• [228]
• [229]

This list is not exhaustive, but I haven't got all day for this. 86.181.0.154 (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Hm, they're all very recent. I had hoped for evidence for this being a long-term pattern, which your "regularly" seemed to imply. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

if it can easily be sourced to any reference book on the topic. add that book as a source before readding the content. Don't just restore with the lack of citation and then say you are working on sources, that's not the way it works on WP Masem (t) 13:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

There are general references on the page that support material that was been removed. I agree that inline citations are best and required for quotes or content likely to be challenged, per WP:IC, but at least some of the material removed is practically WP:BLUE and not a matter of WP:OR. The existing citation needed tags were more helpful in flagging content concerns than the mass removal of content. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

if the general refs supported that, it would be trivial to add a named ref to fix it, but that does remain the onus of those wanting to retain the info particularly after it been flagged for some time. thats just being lazy to not fix. Masem (t) 15:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Which is part of the process that was happening when the latest wave of mass removal happened and something that the mass removal makes more difficult to fix. If there weren't active efforts going to address the issues, the claim of laziness might be valid, but there were editors working methodically to improve the sourcing when the latest wave of mass removal happened. That's not constructive. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I cannot summon up much sympathy when those uncited paragraphs could easily be added back one at a time with a suitable citation, instead of a bunch of people blindly reverting them back and then not doing anything about the problem. This is not a difficult problem to solve - indeed, some users like LuckyLouie appear to be attempting to fix the issues by adding citations. Others seeingly can't be bothered to do anything but revert the uncited material back in, which is achieving nothing.Black Kite (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no deadline on this stuff and there were, at last count, three editors working on it. If you read the talk page we were all stepping on each others toes so I for one held back so other editors could finish their edits. Talk page consensus was to edit the live article to make cleanup way simpler, but then Nightscream's disruption started up again. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Again - consensus does not trump policy. WP:V is quite clear - don't add stuff back in without citations. If you can't be bothered to add the citations, don't add the material. This is basic Wikipedia 101 stuff. If there really were three editors "working" on those cn tags they would have been fixed in less than an hour. They've been there for months. Black Kite (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Please have a look at the talk page discussions (e.g. Talk:Radio#Sourcing_by_section, Talk:Phonograph_record#Uncited_material_in_need_of_citations) before making your less that an hour assessment of the situation. No matter how small the task is, it is made unnecessarily difficult by all the disruptive editing going on. If Nightscream's editing pattern is approved and widely applied, it would be an abrupt shift from WP:NODEADLINES to WP:NOW. We're likely going to achieve reduced engagement of some formerly productive editors. I have enough deadlines in the rest of my life and WP:NODEADLINES here is very attractive to me. If our work is unwelcome because we don't choose to spend significant pieces of our WP:VOLUNTEER time dragging out and formatting basic citations for uncontroversial material, please continue to support this editing pattern and we will leave you alone. ~Kvng (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

If you haven't got time to add citations to uncontroversial material, I'm sure there will be someone else who has. I'm not particularly "approving" Nightscream's editing pattern, but I'm somewhat bemused that an article with large amounts of uncited material that could easily be cited is still uncited. Some people seem to have spent more time arguing with Nightscream that actually fixing the problems which would mean Nightscream no longer has anything to complain about. Black Kite (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

In NODEADLINES I just can't find anything that suggest it's fine to reinstate large amounts of uncited material and just wait for the citations to be inserted later. This VOLUNTEER argument doesn't hold water: if our time is limited because we're volunteers but we can edit war over uncited material, have huge talk page discussions, and start ANI threads, then certainly we could have found the time to verify one section at a time and then reinstate it. If any of those sections had been reinserted with proper citations, we wouldn't be here, and Nightscream likely wouldn't have reverted. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The the editing pattern is to apply {{cn}} tags liberally throughout an article, wait a month and then remove everything that has not been addressed. It's one month deadline.

The WP:VOLUNTEER issue is not about how much time you have, it's about choosing what you want to spend your time on. However, this is a colaborative project so if you just want to work on articles but are not interested in engaging with other editors, you probably won't last long. So back-and-forth editing and talk page discussions are necessary.

No, I don't want to spend my time bickering with other editors so the perfectionists will likely get their way here and the rest of us will need to decide whether we're comfortable working in an environment where uncontroversial material can be summarily deleted before anyone has a chance to fix it. Do I want to try to build a house in an environment where others believe the objective is to WP:DEMOLISH it? Not a new question, obviously, but this editing pattern definitely puts it in my face in a bigger way than deleting articles at the margins does. ~Kvng (talk) 14:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

"The the editing pattern is to apply {{cn}} tags liberally throughout an article, wait a month and then remove everything that has not been addressed. It's one month deadline."

Is there a policy source for this? Daniel Case (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK it is something Nightscream came up with. The claim is it is justified by a Jimmy Whales talk page discussion. See User_talk:Nightscream#Tagging_uncited_material ~Kvng (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I ultimately found the discussion from last month on Jimbo's talk page that links back to another, 13-year-old discussion of the same issue, which doesn't raise the one-month issue.

That seems to have been something he proposed in the more recent discussion. It's not policy, no, but it's within reason IMO.

We have, as I have said in another discussion of this issue, declined over the years to establish any rule regarding the presence of uncited material in an article, other than that it can always be challenged and may be subject to removal and that BLP-violating material should be removed if no sources can be found, in recognition of the fact that there are many different types of information and many different types of articles and thus it's probably better to let the editors working on those pages decide. Obviously this isn't working here. Daniel Case (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Kvng: "AFAIK it is something Nightscream came up with."

I did not. It was suggested to me during the 2009 discussion as a middle ground compromise between outright deletion and allowing uncited material to remain. I accepted this suggestion. Nightscream (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks for linking to that original discussion. From here it looks like you took the pieces of JW advice that supports your campaign but ignored big chunks of it (strike a balance, don't make it a campaign, work with local editors, not every single thing needs a source, don't be a jerk). I think I did a reasonable job of answering @Daniel Case's question though. ~Kvng (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The issue here is not whether any one particular article might benefit from having more citations. Of course a great many articles would benefit.

Rather, the issue is Nightscream's behavior: the unwarranted fact-tagging activity taken up by Nightscream in the course of otherwise useful article improvements. For instance, at the radio article, Nightscream performed a series of edits in July, adding some good references and supported text, but also adding fact tags to the most basic stuff. Nightscream added a fact tag to the uncontroversial sentence "An omnidirectional antenna transmits or receives radio waves in all directions, while a directional antenna or high-gain antenna transmits radio waves in a beam in a particular direction, or receives waves from only one direction." Nobody at all questions whether this is true. The lowest level radio technician will know this.

This tendentious behavior spans multiple articles. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Um, well, actually, a directional antenna has higher gain in some directions more than in others, but not necessarily in "a particular direction" or "only one direction" (as you of all people, I should think, would know). EEng 23:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

"Nobody at all questions whether this is true. The lowest level radio technician will know this." See WP:NOTBLUE.

The issue is not whether anyone is questioning this. It is that policy from the highest levels on down has long been explicit and clear that sources need to be cited. (And by the way, most of humanity are not radio technicians). If that is so clear and uncontroversial then the Internet or any library should be overflowing with sources that could readily be cited.

In an age when a whole bunch of people can get together on the Internet to reinforce each other's convictions that the Earth is flat or that (closer to this topic) 5G signals can cause a global pandemic Wikipedians should be treating the sourcing requirement as if it were nothing less than brought down from the top of Mount Sinai, newly inscribed on stone tablets by the fiery hand of God. Daniel Case (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I get that we need to justify a statement that the sky is blue, but doesn't "omnidirectional" mean in all directions? Elemimele (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

No, it means in all directions perpendicular to the to the attena have the same radiation. They then get progressively worse until they are useless at high and low angle elevations. Sure that means the "cover" a lot of directions but certainly not all. I can't help but feel this is a good example of why we should use sources.AlmostFrancis (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The word "omnidirectional" still means "in all directions". Antenna engineers have chosen to (mis)use this word because the vast majority of applications are terrestrial, where the only directions that matter are sideways. They are using the word with its two-dimensional meaning in a two-dimensional context. The sentence that got tagged would not have been helped by a source, because viewed in three-dimensions, it is actually wrong. It could have been sourced, using any source that assumes a 2d context. We must, I think, be a bit cautious about how pedantically we write. Factual writing is a balancing act between not misleading those readers who can't supply the context, and not confusing those who automatically do, but who will lose track of what the article is trying to say if it is side-tracked into a long explanation of a concept that doesn't fit into their context. Elemimele (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaking etymology for definition, which doesn't change the fact that saying a onmidirectioal anttena radiates in all directions is wrong, that would be isotropic (assuming they ever invent one). If you don't believe me take a gander at the sourced definition at our article on omnidirectionl antenna. And again this shows why we need acutal sourcing, to defend the misdefinition you are inventing a source that would for some reason discuss a three dimension torus in a two dimentional context.AlmostFrancis (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Unhelpful tangent

I think it should be allowed to call those who persistently violate policies "serial policy violators." People here called me worse things and none of them were warned or blocked. The only mistake I can see here is to write a complaint for such petty issues. Madame Necker (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC) Feel free to show yourself the door if the admin corps here aren't interested in doing it for you. Protonk (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC) @Protonk What do you mean by that? Madame Necker (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC) I mean you should be banned from editing as a disruptive SPA whose main contributions are to downplay the Armenian genocide, argue that gamergate wasn't a harassment campaign and argue that our articles on the war in Ukraine were biased against Russia. You don't belong here and your presence is, or ought to be, unwelcome. Protonk (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Nightstream continues his behavior recently removing large amounts of "unsourced" material from Magnetic-tape data storage. WP:V is actually not so clear - "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." I added emphasis to "may be removed" because WP:UNSOURCED clearly states that when removing material one should "state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable." Nightstream failed to make such a statement and as far as I can tell has no particular subject area expertise by which to raise such a concern. So far Nighstream has failed to respond to my request that he state his concerns. I suggest that WP:UNSOURCED be revised to require editors to state "your concern in detail " and that time is not sufficient reason to remove material. I would appreciate consensus here that I can restore the material to Magnetic-tape_data_storage. Tom94022 (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Have you added a source to the uncited material? That's all you have to do. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Yep, just re-insert the material - with a reliable source. This isn't rocket science. Black Kite (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Addin sources one at a time to a part of an existing article is one thing. Figuring out how reinsert a sourced part back into the article unnecessarily adds to the work. Tom94022 (talk) 05:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

That's why you could take the entire unsourced portion out and work on it on the talk page, in draftspace, whatever.

"Figuring out how to reinsert a sourced part back into the article" is something many Wikipedians, including myself, do very regularly. Daniel Case (talk) 06:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Let's be clear about this - Radio is a disgrace. It's an important article, and yet the vast majority of the article simply spews "facts" without a single source (they almost certainly are all facts, but who could be sure without citations?). Yet when an editor says "hang on, this article hasn't got any sources for large amounts of its content" the response isn't "we must source this" but instead "how dare you point this problem out". It's nonsensical. An admin might block Nightscream for persistent incivility, but they aren't ever going to block them for pointing out that an article is not only sub-standard, but has been for some significant time. Black Kite (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  IMHO, the right way to go about improving an article like radio is to start excising the material that is obvious original research and probably came out of someone's brain, while having access to technical manuals and out of print engineering library books so that the good material can be verified, in a kind of WP:BEFORE. Understandably people are upset when statements like "An omnidirectional antenna transmits or receives radio waves in all directions, while a directional antenna or high-gain antenna transmits radio waves in a beam in a particular direction, or receives waves from only one direction.," are removed instead of verified. It is easily sourced[230]. I think it's legitimate that some users are miffed at the level of excisement of old material from articles that the remover isn't going through any effort to verify. These articles do have huge problems and Nightscream is trying to improve them. However, they should try to find references for what seem to be facts first, and he's going a little too wholesale, and being too defensive and snippy when people start to react to the removals. For example, they removed the statement, "Most tape drives now include some kind of lossless data compression." That seems like an easy statement to verify and add references to. The exercise is left to the reader, but unless there's a copyvio, the job of major rewrites and surgery should be done by someone familiar with the topic area and able to give love to the topic. Andre🚐 22:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think the issue with that is editors familiar with the topic don't necessarily understand what needs to have a reference, as the details appear so obvious to them. Someone with less knowledge is need to point out that it does need referencing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  The source you linked to does not verify "An omnidirectional antenna transmits or receives radio waves in all directions". The source says While the prefix omni—implies that the antenna is able to receive signals from any direction, technically omnidirectional antennas are usually only omnidirectional in a single plane. For example, depending on its orientation, an omnidirectional antenna may detect signals to the North, South, East, and West, but not above or below. Levivich 15:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  The quoted text you quoted verifies that an omnidirectional antenna is able to receive in all directions. The part about a single plane could be added to clarify that omnidirectional may be scoped or limited, not truly every possible direction. The source also includes the text, An isotropic antenna (also known as an omnidirectional antenna) emits the signal uniformly in all directions. In other words, at distance d from the antenna, in any direction, the transmitted signal power is the same. Although building a truly omnidirectional antenna is not feasible, this ideal antenna is frequently used to simplify range estimation analysis as well as provide a reference point in comparing different types of antennas. which supports the transmission part. There are 2 additional sources for the statement now in the article, as well: [231] [232] Andre🚐 16:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

"Most tape drives now include some kind of lossless data compression." is exactly my point there is no concern that this can be verified and it is a violation of WP:UNSOURCED to remove it. Tom94022 (talk) 05:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

For a simple example of the problem caused by the bulk removal of items of little concern as to sourcing see this this dialog about the Burroughs B1700, a small portion of the bulk removal by Nightscream in the Magnetic-tape data storage article. BTW IMO the Magnetic-tape data storage article was in pretty good shape, albeit missing some sourcing, so perhaps it is inappropriate to base responses just on the Radio article. IMO Nightscream's edit substantially reduced the value of the Magnetic-tape data storage article. Tom94022 (talk) 06:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

So add a source and put it back. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:V is not a negotiable or otherwise optional policy. It is a requirement to source material appropriately. Reverting back in material while refusing to source it in line with WP:V is both disruptive and a deliberate attempt to undermine our core policies. Repeated reverting of unsourced material should lead to an indefinite block until the editor commits to abiding by WP:V. This discussion should have been closed immediately with an instruction and a warning to follow our sourcing requirements. Most of the above text is merely mud slinging that has no backing by our core content policy. Either source material when you return it to the article or don't source it and don't return it until you can. There are not any other options. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually that's baloney. "Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article." WP:BURDEN also takes into account that other editors may have objections. When you get to that point its normal to work it out on the talk page. Talk page/editorial consensus was reached via policy, sources, common sense, and suggest alternative solutions. It should also be noted that Nightscream never fulfilled the further step "it is advisable to clearly communicate that you have a considered reason to believe the material in question cannot be verified." Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I had been waiting a day or so on how to compose my response here, but I see now that much of the links I would have supplied to past discussions, including those at ANEW, have already been presented here, along with some of the arguments I would have presented for why most material on Wikipedia needs to be supported by citations. Citations allow the reader to know where the information comes from.

To provide some background, my practice of fact-tagged articles with large amounts of uncited material, and then moving that material to the talk page after a month if no one intervened is derived from a 2009 discussion on Jimbo Wales' talk page, where this was suggested as a compromise between outright deletion and leaving such material in the article indefinitely. I accepted this suggestion. No one has any had any problem with this until now.

I attempted to engage the individuals who opposed this in recent discussions on a number of talk pages, and every time I provided counterarguments that I felt falsified their statements, or even asked them point-blank questions about things they had said, they refused to respond directly, choosing instead indirect rhetoric, ad hominem distortions of my viewpoint, etc. For example, at User talk:86.181.0.154, that editor twice spoke derisively of editors like me who “quote all manner of policies” for removing uncited material. When I asked how their citations of those policies was wrong, he did not respond. He also claimed that two other editors were blocked for removing uncited material from the Alternator article, which he says remains uncited in the article. I asked him these editors made a practice of moving material to the talk page, or if they were blocked for things other than this, like edit warring, and asked for diffs showing who these peopel were. Silence.

On the radio talk page, User:Kvng made the remarkable claim "Consensus is more important than policy." I replied that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines reflect the consensus of the community, as it explicitly states here. Silence.

Binkerstreet claims "Only disputed facts must be verified with a citation." WP:BURDEN says otherwise.

I criticized these editors for their pattern of refusing to respond to my counterarguments in a post on the Radio tap that summarized these instances, and included more of my rebuttals. Much like this post, it was longer than my typical ones, as there was too much ground to cover with a more succinct one, but 86.181.0.154 replied "TLDR", and later elaborated "And I still haven't read the wall o' text and have no intention of doing so." Kvng replied "Please try again", even though he had never responded to any of my other rebuttals that were much shorter. It is for this reason that I gave up on that discussion, for the most part.

Information cannot come from the personal knowledge of the editor. That's original research, and is strictly prohibited. Saying "it's known to any topic expert" or "found in any textbook" is not acceptable. How do I know that it's known to experts or found in textbooks? I don't. I don't know who any of the editors on this page are, any more than you know who I am. That's why we include the sources from which material is derived, and not our personal knowledge, as in the case of Chetvorno, to name one example, who admitted that he wrote most of the radio article without sources. I politely asked him on Aug 23 why, because I wanted to understand his view on this matter. He refused to answer that question.

I'm an "topic expert" on my hometown. But if you look at that article, you find that everything in it is supported by a citation. Ditto for the newest high school in town, which opened in 2009. That's how I single-handedly got that article to Good Article status. Ditto for the Saga article, which I also single-handdled got to GA status. And the Miles Morales article. Compare this to the work of people like Chetvorno and his allies here. Do you honestly think that his stated practices make for a better article, and a better encyclopedia?

86.181.0.154 stated above "that several of the editors in question are attempting to restore the material and cite it, but the position is being made difficult because Nightscream immediately deletes it again before the references can be added." This is a lie.

In the first place, the individuals in question here did blanket reverts of my talk page moves, restoring not only material to which they had (thankfully) added citations, but also the rest of the material as well, which remained uncited, as seen here. What does 86 mean here by "before"? If they were planning on adding citations to it, then why not restore that material once they have those cites? Why restore it without them? Remember, a diff is included on the talk page showing where each uncited passage was before I moved it, so one can restore passages on by one when citations are added to them. And if they want to do it all at once, why not work on the Sandbox?

Second on this point, the individuals in question also did knee-jerk blanket reverts of all articles on which I performed talk page moves, which zero indication that they intended to add citations to all that information, including: Two-way radio, Magnetic storage, Microcassette, UNIVAC I, LP record, RCA Red Seal Records. Those reverts were done five days ago. No sources have been added to them, nor have any of those editors endeavored to compromise by telling me they intend to.

86.181.0.154 claimed that the uncited info in radio "has pretty well all existed in the article for many years. It therefore has a de facto consensus for its inclusion even from many respected editors in the field." Daniel Case debunked this notion fairly well here. Editors like me remove newly-added uncited passages to articles all the time. Are you saying that this is wrong, unless these claims are disputed, or unless they go undetected for some unspecified length of time? Or is it believed that removing newly-added single passages is okay, but removing entire sections of uncited material that make up the bulk of an article, which in some cases have been uncited for as many as 14 years, is wrong? How does it make rational sense to say that adding a single one is bad, but entire sections is okay?

To pose a question that no one would respond to on the radio tp: On the Isaac Hempstead Wright article, I had to remove uncited additions of that actor's date of birth several times ([233][234][235][236][237][238]). Are you going to argue that those editors constituted a "consensus", and that I was edit warring because there were more of them than I? Because his dob is not "disputed"? If no one caught it, does that mean I'm wrong to remove it?

If those who close discussion like these believe that my talk page moves and reverts consitute edit warring, then say so, and I'll stop. Right now, that doesn't appear to be the case, with only ones screaming "consensus" are those favoring adding uncited material to articles. Genuine discussion must be predicated on interpretation of policy. A handful of editors on one talk page who decide that they can just ignore what WP policy says, and who go silent when you falsify their arguments isn't that. If a consensus discussion is needed for the wider community, then let's have one. If a compromise is needed, then let's work one out: Should I wait two months before moving material instead of one? When restoring material, should only the cited material be restored? If editors truly intend to add citations, should they not make a good faith resolution to do so, and state this to others? I'm open to ideas, but the lack of straightfowardness among the Uncited Brigade here does not give one cause for hope. If we do not resolve the question of whether my reverts are genuinely a violation of policy/guidelines, then I do not intend to stop upholding policy, as it is plainly stated.

I apologize for the lengthy post, was there was too ground to sumamrize. My future posts, for the most part, will not be so long. Nightscream (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

What part of "I think it is ok to do what you are doing, but not if it's an ongoing extreme campaign that annoys people without purpose. (That's not an accusation; I haven't looked into your edit history.) I don't agree with those who would argue that every single thing in Wikipedia must have a source. It is desirable to source everything, but some things are simply common knowledge to the point that demanding a source (or else removing it) is just WP:POINT. " didn't you understand? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

None. I understood all of it. My practices indeed have a purpose, which I've explained here. Nightscream (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS says that WP:V > something Jimbo said in 2009 because V has consensus and Jimbo's comment is just the opinion of one person. "...some things are simply common knowledge to the point that demanding a source (or else removing it) is just WP:POINT" is pretty much the opposite of the consensus view. It is not just "desirable" to source everything, it's required. Levivich 15:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying sourcing isn't required by WP:V. The concern is whether or not mass removal of content that is supported by general sources but not inline sources 1) improves the article and 2) makes it more likely for editors to add inline sources. The consensus I saw on Talk:Radio is not that all of the removed material was fine as is, but that editors were better able to add sources without having to navigate the mainspace, the talk page, and edit diffs to figure out what was needed. If Nightscream's mass removal serves to set a fire under editors to improve the article, and I'd note that there have been efforts to add in sources since this mess began, then it seems to have worked. However, insisting upon a single path to improvement that creates additional burden when we're talking about uncontroversial material that's supported by the page's general sources but still needs inline sourcing added feels very BITEY and POINTY and overall not productive. If the removal reversion was followed by no action, I might feel differently, but that's not the case here. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

People indeed seem to be saying that sourcing isn't required by WP:V (example: "Only disputed facts must be verified with a citation."), and they're reinstating unsourced material. Even here, you've said, "editors were better able to add sources without having to navigate the mainspace, the talk page, and edit diffs to figure out what was needed". The suggestion that we should leave unsourced content in an article because it makes it easier for editors to source is anathema to me. Who cares about the editors? This is about the readers. I'm with the other editors here who are saying this is very, very simple: if someone removes something as unsourced, nobody should put it back without a source, period, end of discussion. If that makes it harder for editors, that's just too damn bad. We don't leave unsourced material in an article for the benefit of editors. Levivich 16:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Lacking inline sources but still supported by general sources isn't the same in my mind as unsourced. What I'm hearing in these comments is that only inline sources are acceptable. If we were talking about BLP violations or fictional/obviously incorrect content that would be one thing, but it's not the case here. Yes, I think readers are better served by having material that's supported by general references remain in the article while editors are going about fixing it. That's not an unusual position and one reason citation needed tags exist. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN specifically says inline citation, and that's global consensus (and has been for a long time, at least the four years I've been here). General references are fine until someone removes uncited content, at which point it should not be restored without an inline citation. Levivich 16:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Inline references are preferred for sure, but when we used to create articles back in 2005 or whenever, it was pretty acceptable to create an article for a major topic like radio with a few general references. Over time the articles became unwieldy thus necessitating cleanup and inline references. I think just all of the mass removal makes it hard to respond to challenges. Challenging unsourced material is fine, but if someone says they can source all or most of the material, it's also proper to engage in that dialogue versus a mass removal. Andre🚐 16:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN also specifically says Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. and When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. Mass removal with the blanket declaration WP:OR doesn't seem to satisfy either of those considerations. Again, I agree that inline sources are best and that editors should be working to provide them, but it's clear to me that the mass removal doesn't improve an article. Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

While some of NS's edit summaries were obviously uncivil, "Moving uncited material to the talk page, pending proper addition of secondary source citations, per WP:V/WP:NOR/WP:CS/WP:PSTS, et al." seems like a good one to me, and compliant with WP:BURDEN. The content moved to the talk page in that edit had {{citation needed}} dated 2017! It was restored by Kvng without sources, citation needed template and all. The same thing is happening at Cassette tape (NS, Kvng), and 8-track tape (NS, Kvng) (both tagged {{cn}} dated July 2022). My view is that NS's edits were policy-compliant, and Kvng's were not. Levivich 16:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree to disagree on the first point, especially since the existence of general sources for uncontroversial material (even though inline sources would be better) fails to establish a WP:OR issue. To the second point about long-standing CN tags, I agree that a CN tag that's been sitting for a few years is a problem; I see fewer problems with one that's a month old. However, as I stated before, NS's initial removal set a fire to start work on the improving Radio. That seems like a win to me and something that benefits readers. The insistence on making those improvements only from the talk page and piecemeal reinsertion is POINTY and not helpful to readers or editors. Even if NS's mass removals meet the letter of policy compliance, they do not serve the goal of building a better encyclopedia. Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

In my view, adding uncited content to an article makes it worse; moving uncited content to the talk page makes it better. Sourcing the uncited material would be best, but sourcing what you can and moving the rest to the talk page is building a better encyclopedia. Returning uncited material to mainspace is not building an encyclopedia at all, it's reckless and risks misinforming our readers. What's most important, above all else, is that everything is well-sourced. Levivich 18:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tcr25: They can indeed serve that goal, if they spur others to add sources to that material, which they have. It accomplished this on the Western Electric article. It accomplished this on the History of McDonald's article. And it accomplished this in the Radio article (the uncited info that was restored along with the cited info notwithstanding).

Possibly the most successful example of this is on the List of suicides article. It was filled with uncited entries, and during the 2009 discussion on the matter, it was argued that it was sufficient that they were cited in the parent articles of those notable people. Putting aside the fact that one WP article cannot serve as a cited for info in another, and each article containing a given piece of info needs to have the citation, I did a deep dive into those entries under subheading "A", and guess what I found? Quite a number of them lacked cites. So after the uncited entries were moved, little by little, we moved them back, along with new entries, and now that article is one of the best-cited list-type articles on Wikipedia.

That did make the article better, and Wikipedia better. Leaving those articles with uncited info — that makes Wikipedia worse. Nightscream (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

If your goal was to set a fire behind editors to fix it. Then congratulations, your first removal did that. That you insisted upon continuing to remove content after the reversion, which was done so that edits could be made to address the concerns is where you crossed the POINTY line. It also pushed the editor working most methodically on the issue to stop working on it. If it was just reverted and left alone, you'd have a stronger argument, but that wasn't the case at least for Radio.

Beyond that context matters. Radio was created 19 years ago and has been edited over 6,000 times since then. During that time, standards for referencing and verification have evolved and changed. While inline sources may be the gold standard now, general resources have a long history of use and acceptability. Particularly on a long-time article, something that may appear unsourced has simply not been updated to current standards. Should it be improved. Of course. But WP:BURDEN does require some discretion on the part of an editor to consider the likelihood that sources may exist before removal. With an article like this, there are a lot of ways to address the issue if you don't have time to try to find a source yourself. Beyond CN tags, raising the question on the talk page or asking in a relevant WikiProject may help. (I only found out about this dispute because the bulk removal was brought to the attention of WikiProject Radio.) Unless something is clearly false or a BLP violation, asking and trying to solve the problem, rather than excising material that may well have met sourcing standards when it was added, is more productive and is more likely to get the content sourced instead of leaving choppy text or partial information in the main article. If this were all new material added in the past month, my opinion would be different, but that's not the case.

You said below that you don't think its fair to expect you to attempt to find sources for everything before you remove it. I'd agree that you're not obligated to find sources, but you should make an effort to determine if something may well be verifiable before going straight to removal and consider looking for less aggressive ways to call on others to help address the issue. Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Two additional points, one of which is something I missed above, and the other, an addendum;

@ToBeFree: I apologize for the personal comments in my edit summaries, and will not continue to do this.

Second, I have resolved not to do any uncited info tp moves or revert any of the others' reverts until this discussion reaches a resolution or closure.

However, User:Kvng just reverted one of the articles, and even referenced the fact that the matter is under active discussion here, but did this anyway, arguing, "Let's not involve more articles until we have a resolution," apparently not cluing into the fact that reverting that article does not mean that that article is "not involved" in this discussion. Makes of that what you will. Nightscream (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I am behind on watchlist review. I will also revert your changes at Cassette tape. ~Kvng (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Kvng: suggest you stop reinstating unsourced material. Levivich 16:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's simply WP:POINT editing and asking for a block. Black Kite (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Nightscream, this resolves all concerns from my side. I'm specifically not much concerned about people enforcing WP:BURDEN and/or WP:ONUS in a civil, not severely edit-warring way. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I suggest this be closed as follows:

1. NS has apologized for uncivil comments and committed not to repeat
2. Moving unsourced content to the talk page is acceptable
3. User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr and User:Kvng warned not to reinstate uncited content without an inline citation per WP:BURDEN.

Not sure if I missed anyone/anything here, but this is what I see as the proper outcome. Levivich 16:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich: Kvng has just reverted another article.

@Andrevan: "However, they should try to find references for what seem to be facts first…"

I do. On radio, for example, after doing an uncited info/tp move, I added two citations to an uncited passage. On cassette tape, after my tp move, I replaced an uncited paragraph with a larger version w/ 4 cites of three sources. On the phonograph article, I expanded a section with material supported by 19 cites of 12 sources.

But I cannot be expected to do this will all the uncited info found in all articles. This would not be feasible, fair, nor reasonble. It is far more reasonable for each person who adds (or wishes to retain) information to be responsible for citing it. This is far more fair and far more reasonble a distribution of labor, which will make articles more verifiable. It's also in keeping with WP:BURDEN, which says, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."

As a reader I do not know if the passage about lossless data compression is true, untrue, or unverifiable. That’s why it needs a cite. Nightscream (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Nightscream is admittedly not expert in tape drives or lossless data compression; by analogy then, any fact about which any reader is ignorant requires a citation. I don't think this is Wikipedia's policy. As it turns out the passage is true and readily verifiable, but do we want to source every fact? I again suggest that in keeping with WP:BURDEN any editor who wishes to remove unsourced material must first state a detailed concern on the talk page as to why the material may not be verifiable. I would further suggest expanding WP:BURDEN to state that bulk removals are not permitted and stale unsourced dates are not a valid concern for removal. Tom94022 (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I see a cart in front of a horse there. Nightscream does not need to be an expert to challenge statements. Which policy is that alleged requirement from? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

"by analogy then, any fact about which any reader is ignorant requires a citation. I don't think this is Wikipedia's policy. As it turns out the passage is true and readily verifiable, but do we want to source every fact?"

Once again I am astounded by these arguments that sound like they are made by people broadcasting on Radio Free 2007. Yes, "any fact about which any reader is ignorant requires a citation". Almost, anyway ... see NOTBLUE: "A cite to a reliable source reassures people, even when the statement appears obvious. ... Be aware of the individual and unique nature of each of our readers." And further down: "When a statement that you feel to be obvious is challenged, try to think of a person (such as a person in a foreign country) to whom the statement might not be obvious, or a situation in which your obvious statement might be wrong." As I have noted before, I read CITE as requiring citations except where we have made explicit exceptions, like plot summaries (and that is too much for some people) and the "see also" section (again I have encountered editors who question that).

So it is policy and yes, we want to source every fact that we can except in the instances where we have agreed we don't have to. Nothing complicated about this. Daniel Case (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

That isn't complicated, but I think skips over one of the main issues here. The Radio TP and page history show that several editors were willing to address the concerns about inline sources and that that work had been done. There was also a consensus that addressing the concerns could best be handled in the mainspace and not with a piecemeal approach. That work was being done when the second wave of removal began at which point this whole process devolved. My main reason for engaging here is that I believe the wholesale removal of content lacking inline sources when general sources are present and there's no reasonable expectation that the information is false or violating BLP is not appropriate. If the material were removed with specific objections or questions, maybe it would be a different call, but I wouldn't want to see this ANI leaving anyone the impression that the best approach is mass removal of material based upon a generalized objection and insistence upon a single approach to fixing the concerns when editors are willing to being the process of improvement. Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

At the same time, your account elides the fact that much of this material had lain uncited in the article not for weeks, not for months, but years. And not in an article about some lengthy rebellion in 14th-century Central Asia. In an article about what no one can deny is a core subject. For editors who have been working on the article to say they need yet more time to find sources for material they then insist is such common knowledge in the field as to perhaps not even need to be sourced is, at best, disingenuous.

If it were a new article, an article about the aforementioned hypothetical obscure historical event, perhaps we could be indulgent. But there's not much room for excuse here. Daniel Case (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Tcr25: "The Radio TP and page history show that several editors were willing to address the concerns about inline sources and that that work had been done."

And if they reached out to me to work out a compromise, and said something to me along the lines of "Okay, look, we'll source all of it, just give us time," then I would have agreed to this, and backed off tp give them some time to complete the endeavor. But they didn't. They made a practice -- and this is all of them -- of refusing to respond directly to my arguments, choosing instead the Indirect Approach, which consisted of rhetorical statements, Straw Man arguments, repeated moving of the goal posts, etc. The fact that they also reverted all the other articles that they did without any indication that they were planning on working on sourcing them (Two-way radio, Magnetic storage, Microcassette, UNIVAC I, LP record, RCA Red Seal Records) also makes it harder to argue that they were interested in a good faith compromise that involved sourcing all that.

And as far as your "second wave" remark, I only reverted the uncited passages that they restored, which does not prevent them continuing to restore cited information.

But let's see if we can come to an agreement: @Wtshymanski:, @Dagmar83:, @Fountains of Bryn Mawr:, @Kvng:, @86.181.0.154:: Would you be willing to agree to a compromise like the one I described above? Yes or no? Nightscream (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I get the response to your initial effort wasn't very kind or inclusive, but your responses to it were also very defensive. Footnote #5 at WP:BURDEN seems relevant. Did things spiral out of control, yes, and there was uncivil behavior on both sides. But that's not the point going forward. The actions that happened after the initial revert (maybe it was after the second one ... the changes happened fairly quickly in sequence) was that work began on improvement. Maybe there should have been more engagement with you on how to go about it, and maybe you should have acknowledged those efforts and asked what the intentions were, but the point remains it was happening. You saw that work was going on because you didn't revert some bits that had been fixed, but the need to preserve the mass removal seemed more important than engaging on ways to fix it. I'll give you credit for lighting a fire to address the old CN tags, but people began working on putting the fire ou and you threw more fuel on to it (and the back and forth over reversion overran any discussion of improving things). I'll state it clearly: I think the mass removal of content lacking inline sources from an article, when it can reasonably be assumed to be validated through the general sources and is not violating BLP, does more harm than good. CN and similar tags should be added in a reasonable manner to call attention to the deficiencies or material (from a single section) can be removed with clear articulation of the concerns under WP:BURDEN. It those tags are aging, seeking out editors or WikiProjects that might address them would be advisable. But wholesale removal based on a generalized concern of multiple, unconnected sections is not a helpful practice. Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

"...maybe you should have acknowledged those efforts and asked what the intentions were..."

They don't answer my questions. I've pointed this out repeatedly here and elsewhere, and you can see this in the discussions on my tp, the radio tp, Jimbo's tp, etc.

"...but the need to preserve the mass removal seemed more important than engaging on ways to fix it."

How exactly was I "preserving the mass removal" if I only reverted the uncited portions?

Again, if they had told me what their intentions were, then I could've backed off and given them time to find sources for those uncited sections. But no indication was given by them that they would, and other indications were given that they would not: Namely, the blanket reverts of my tp moves on other articles, which I listed and linked above.

"...the mass removal of content lacking inline sources from an article, when it can reasonably be assumed to be validated through the general sources..."

How do you know that this can reasonably assumed? How did you form this conclusion?

This sounds like a variation of the labels "probably good", "potentially good", and "possibly correct" that the anti-citation editors here have used to refer to the material in question. On my talk page, where Johnuniq repeatedly used these phrases, I asked him at least three times how one determines if material is "probably good" and "potentially good", and he persistently refused to answer. I asked him again on Jimbo Wales' talk page, and got the same sound of crickets.

"But wholesale removal based on a generalized concern of multiple, unconnected sections is not a helpful practice."

Moving long-fact-tagged material to the talk page is indeed helpful, and the fact that it spurred editors on the articles I've described here illustrates this. Do you believe that the citations that have been added to the List of suicides article have not been helpful? Do you dispute that my fighting to get that article to its current state was what did this? Nightscream (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

"They don't answer my questions." To be fair, most of the questions I see from you on Talk:Radio are argumentative and included alongside accusations of policy violation — "Which editors are these? Who has "reviewed"? Where? When? Can you link me to these "reviews"? ... Do you dispute this? Yes or no?" — which is something that doesn't come across as an invitation to discuss.

"...if they had told me what their intentions were, then I could've backed off ..." You responded to comments on August 18 where sourcing was discussed and on August 19 Chetvorno said he specifically: "I'll work on sourcing it, but it's going to be a while."

How exactly was I "preserving the mass removal" if I only reverted the uncited portions? You scaled back the amount removed after all of it was reverted and some of it was improved. It should have been clear to you from the work being done (as well as the talk page comments, even if they weren't addressed to you) that the reverted material was being addressed. You still insisted on putting things back on the talk page. The idea that you were right in what you had done seemed to be more important to you than the decision by those undertaking the work as to how to approach the task. If you feel otherwise, I'm sorry for making that assumption, but that's how it appears to me.

How do you know that this can reasonably assumed? Because of some basic knowledge of the subject matter (I spent over 15 years as a journalist covering broadcast technology) and some experience of using things like cordless phones and walkie-talkies. I may not have a source at my fingertips, but even a quick search in Google Books at one of the general references would pop up at least a snippit preview can confirm some basic information. To me that's a pretty low-effort WP:BEFORE step that should help assure you whether or not something is likely correct. You said below that you didn't think it was "feasible, fair, nor reasonble" to suggest you take such action before removing material that lacks an inline citation. I'd disagree and if it's too much to do that then maybe you're taking on a larger task than you're prepared to see to fruition.

"the fact that it spurred editors on the articles I've described here illustrates this" That's a possible way to view it and one that I've acknowledged in these discussions. My objection is that you rejected the restoration of the material as part of an effort to fix it. As for List of suicides, I don't have the time nor inclination to do a deep dive on what you did there, but from a quick glance it looks like you played a more active role in making the improvements there than you were doing here.

That said, I do have concerns that you view the best way to approach article improvement is through fighting. Your approach may pay off at times, but it is clearly uncivil and can discourage other editors from participating. I know I've walked away from improving articles over WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL situations. Sometimes it's easier to just look away than to deal with someone who engages by attacking. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

This debate seems to have gone way beyond Nightscream, and become a debate on the relative importance of WP:BURDEN and WP:PRESERVE. There does seem to be a genuine conflict. I've read a lot of comments above that summarise to "What's the problem with removing the uncited material? Just put it back in with a citation!" But that is explicitly contrary to WP:PRESERVE and begs the question of why we bother having the {{cn}} tag. I think many of us relatively inexperienced editors could do with some clarity on this wider question. Elemimele (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

That is not "explicitly contrary to [the editing policy]". The section you're citing is about content issues in general, including grammar issues. In a subsection called "Problems that may justify removal", the first example for such problems is "unsourced and contentious material", with a link to the verifiability policy. And no, this debate here isn't beyond user conduct. ANI is especially not a venue for discussing proposed policy changes; if you believe a change is needed, WP:VPP and the policy's talk page are proper venues to propose it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@ToBeFree:, I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult. The policy issue is inseparable from the conduct issue because you cannot penalise someone for ignoring a Wikipedia policy if the policy is contradictory. The sentence that I'm reading in WP:PRESERVE states "As explained above, Wikipedia is a work in progress and perfection is not required. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained...". The sentence I'm reading in WP:BURDEN is "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed...". To be fair, both articles go on to discuss verifiability, but both talk about the possibility of verification rather than the presence of verification (the section you quote comes from specific guidance on BLPs, which obviously deserve the very highest standards). I don't want to propose a change in policy. I just think that from an admin perspective (I'm not an admin, you're going to have to deal with more debates like the one above so long as it's not clear; and from a normal editor perspective, policies should be settled in the correct venue, not by admins establishing a sort of "case law" by interpreting unclear rules on this noticeboard. Elemimele (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

No offense taken. Regarding the quoted sentence, while nitpicking about wording may fail to address the intention of a policy, the "would belong in the 'finished' article" part may be important. Because this is exactly what's being challenged. Without a citation, we can't know if this material is worth keeping, and lacking such knowledge, the default state of the article is a lack of challenged/disputed material. That's not BLP-specific, neither in the editing policy nor the verifiability policy.

And yes, you are correct about the meaning of "verifiability": The verifiability policy is about verifiability, not absolute direct inline verification through a photo of the cited book with the relevant text highlighted in yellow. Adding verifiable material without a citation is not a violation of the verifiability policy. Restoring it in unmodified form after it has been challenged, however, is. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Ding ding ding. Restoring challenged material requires an inline citation. Full stop. Somebody restoring material with a {{fact}} tag without replacing that tag with an inline citation is violating core policy and should be sanctioned if they refuse to stop. If the "general sources" back up the material, then learn to use a named reference and cite it everywhere appropriate. But all challenged material requires an inline citation to a source that directly backs it up, that is the bare minimum here. nableezy - 21:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

You can also use {{sfn}} if the general source is a book 😃 X-750 _{List of articles that I have screwed over} 00:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

"Restoring challenged material requires an inline citation."

The problem is that people regularly remove information not because they are challenging it, but simply because it is uncited. Jahaza (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Like Elemimele i think this discussion has gone way of track.

I suggest the simple question is whether "talk page moves" such as practiced by Nightscream wherein wholesale removal of multiple, unconnected sections of an article to a talk page is based on an unstated concern over number and age of {{cn}} tags constitutes WP:disruptive editing or WP:edit warring?

Note that in all the references on removing unsourced material say unsourced may be removed, not that it shall be removed and none of them cover talk page moves as practiced by Nightscream. WP:BURDEN does require an expressed concern, which as near as I can tell in Nightscream's case, his unstated concern is the number and age of unsourced tags. There is one little bit of guidance in a note buried in one of the references that an editor who placed a sourcing tag should expect an answer in one month but no further guidance. FWIW, personally I have little concern to the date on an unsourced tag; in articles where I have some expertise, I find them to be amost always attached to facts that are readily sourceable so I expect that most are placed by readers without subject expertise. When reading articles in which I have no expertise I give the benefit of good faith to the original editors of those articles that their unsourced facts are readily verifiable and that the subsequently added unsourced tags are misapplied. In one article Nightscream cited a tag 5½ years old as a concern - that tag had survived about 225 page edits and hundred's of thousands of page views without any editor or reader finding a need to respond; that suggests to me the it is highly likely to be sourced since no editor felt compelled to respond.

In the two articles that I follow, Nightsrcream has removed about 31% of the content to talk pages (15k/36k and 27k/88k). There are about 503k pages with {{cn}} and about 371k pages with {{refimprove}} tags. If such behavior is acceptable the impact upon Wikipedia content will be severe.

In my view talk page moves are disruptive behavior which inherently leads to edit waring and should be banned. As a banned practice returning the material becomes a reversion of a banned practice and not subject to the many sourcing requirements. Alternatively, we could view any objection to a talk page move as a dispute which as part of normal dispute resolution restores the article to its original condition with imposing any specific policy such as sourcing.

Already one editor has decided to reduce the scope of his work as a consequence of allowing talk page moves. If this does become an allowed practice then I suspect many other editors witll reduce the scope of their activity and Wikipedia articles will suffer both from loss of content and the reduction in effort. Tom94022 (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Riiiight. So deleting unsourced statements from articles is wrong. Moving them to the talk page so they can be sourced and moved back is wrong. If nobody in 200+ edits over 5 years has sourced a statement, that's fine and it should be left there. Uh huh. Can you people hear yourselves? We're an encyclopedia, not a fucking blog. FFS. — Trey Maturin has spoken 16:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

In a reductio ad absurdum sense, sure. But I don't see that as the issue. The issue is mass removal of content without specific objections that indicate some degree of WP:BEFORE has been done. That there may be stale CN tags is annoying, but they aren't a call to strip large amounts of content blindly. I'm sure we've all seen wrong or outdated information in an article and then decided to either fix it, tag it, or remove it, but that's not what happened here. And even if we accept that the mass removal was helpful in spurring editors to take action on addressing the lack of inline sources (for material that is covered by the page's general sources), that doesn't excuse the insistence that only one way to address the concerns is acceptable. In this case, the reversion of the removal was followed by efforts to work on the sourcing. The insistence that that work be handled in a piecemeal way and the incivility in forcing the issue. is where the root of the conflict lies as far as I can see. It's when the action became disruptive and a hinderance to addressing the issue that was raised by the original action. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The only problem that I see in this report is that there are users who think that restoring challenged content without adding inline citations is acceptable. Yes, if material is uncited, and then challenged, it may be removed. Yes, that covers a huge swath of Wikipedia content. Yes, people may dislike the idea of the uncited material they are responsible for inserting in to an encyclopedia article is being removed. No, that is not a problem. If you want the article to have some content then source it. The end. If you want to restore the material removed after a challenge then source it. The end. If you restore it without sourcing it then you should be blocked for repeated violations of core policy. Again, the end. The only thing being done blindly is the restoration of content without providing the requested sources. That is the only thing in this section that requires administrator attention. nableezy - 17:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The lack of citations that allow a reader to know precisely where each piece of information came from is a specific objection.

What other ways to address this do you propose, and why weren't these ways brought up with me when I attempted to engage those other editors in various talk page discussions?

As far as the "incivility" is concerned, that did not typify most of my edit summaries, and I've apologize for that and resolved not to continue that type of e.s. In any event, that is not the cause, or even a major factor in the problem that spurred this discussion. It's the notion by man that citations are not necessary.

And which editor decided to reduce the scope of their work? Nightscream (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• Kvny Tom94022 (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry that people's fee-fees were hurt because, after only 200+ edits and just 5 years, someone decided that the most-read encyclopedia in the history of the world should start asking that one of the most fundamental policies of the entire endeavour should be followed and gently removed some uncited passages to the associated talk pages literally seconds before the guardians of those articles finally, after 200+ edits in 5 years, got round to citing them. And that the response to such badly hurt feelings is to re-add the uncited material without providing the citation requested, complete with the tag requesting that one is found, results in the poor, distressed people dragging the editor in question to a dramaboard in order to argue that the editor in question is the one being disruptive. Can you people even hear yourselves? Cheeses H Crust. — Trey Maturin has spoken 17:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Please stick to the issue of talk page moves.' As it turns out the 5½ years ago an IP tag bombed the article with 26 unsourced tags. I and about two dozen editors have over the years ignored them, in my case because for the most part they appeared to be unjustified. Tom94022 (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Moving the material to the talk page is a courtesy so that editors who are interested in finding sources have a starting point. Would you prefer the material just be removed and not moved to the talk page? Cus thats the other option here. nableezy - 17:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

In one case this disruptive editing did cause some finding of some sources but in two cases the disruptive editing has led to this discussion with little or no additional sourcing and one editor reducing his activity. The editors of those pages responded literally seconds becuase in their view such editing is disruptive (mine view too). As disruptive editing, the resolution is to restore the removed wholesale material and discuss specific concerns/disputes on the talk page. Perhaps we should have an expiration date on {{cn}} tags. BTW I don't use the {{cn}} on pages I edit; if I have some issues i fix them or use the {{dubious}} tag and discuss my concerns. The {{cn}} tag takes no effort to impose but when injudicously applied places an undue burden on an editor - talk page moves are that on steriods and should be outlawed as disruptive (as should tag bombing like Nightscreamer recently did). Tom94022 (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Your view is at odds with our policy, sorry. The disruptive editing is the reverts to restore material that has been challenged. That should be sanctioned. nableezy - 19:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

In reverse order:

From Talk:Radio: I was able to make some progress adding sources, but only at the rate of a few paragraphs per day. I could not go any faster, most will agree this type of work takes time. But now with these mass deletions of uncited text from the article, it's needlessly made more difficult to add needed cites while keeping track of duplicate citations. I'm certainly not a "serial policy violator" and it's sad to see other editors disparaged this way. Sorry, but I won't be working on the article again until the situation is resolved and the disruption ends.

Your incivility (scare quotes aren't appropriate) was also evident on the talk pages, which is likely why you didn't get the sort of polite engagement you seem to be asking for here.

I've made several suggestions as to how I think you should have approached it. Basically, don't use a flamethrower when a scalpel will work. CN tagging is an acceptable approach and addresses the concern of a missing inline source. Be open to the idea that you might well be wrong or that other approaches may be acceptable. Scale back your instinct to fight and take a collaboration-based approach. Don't be surprise that people don't respond well to being shouted at. Do the work of WP:BEFORE even if it means it takes you more time and effort.

The lack of a citation may be a specific objection, but it's not the sort of objection that's mentioned in WP:BURDEN. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. Cutting something like "AM (amplitude modulation) – in an AM transmitter, the amplitude (strength) of the radio carrier wave is varied by the modulation signal" because it lacks an inline cite doesn't seem to be a good faith expression of your belief that it may not be possible to find a WP:RS. Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Using cordless phones and walkie talkies enabled you to assume that the text above could be validated by general sources? How?

I don't view the best approach to improvement to be through fighting. I believe it to be through including citations for most material. With regard to disagreements, I believe the only approach is to comport oneself in a manner characterized by intellectual honesty, coherence, consistency, straightforwardness, and transparency, and there was a glaring lack of it from those who disagree with me on the various talk page discussions.

Fountains appears to have said that he won't work on the article again "until the situation is resolved and the disruption ends." This discussion will end sooner if not later. As for "disruption", well, if he is referring to requiring citations, or if he is unwilling to discuss timetables for adding them, then that's unfortunate. Rolling up his sleeves and adding himself to the effort to add citations would've improved that endeavor.

I did not reject the restoration of the material. I rejected the wholesale reverting of both the uncited material along with the cited material. I appreciate your point that I could have tried compromise on whether to restore the radio article piecemeal or not. Can you appreciate that those editors were not interested in responding to my statements, unlike you have done here? Are you aware that some of them did blind reverts on several other articles that I listed here, with no indication that they had any intention of sourcing them? You go on and on about "incivility" on my part, when there is nothing inherently "incivil" about moving uncited info to a talk page, yet you make no mention of the rampant hostility on their part, like when they deliberately distorted my statements with Straw Man arguments, on the radio talk page, on Jimbo Wales’ talk page, etc. Why is this?

I do not see why the passage on amplitude modulation does not need a citation. There is no reason to omit a cite for that passage any more than for any other, and I don't believe "that it may not be possible to find" an rs for that, nor do I understand where you got this idea from. From these comments, I get the sense that you and I simply have fundamentally different ideas of how this encyclopedia should work, and are at the Agree to Disagree Threshold.

If there's a way I could've approached this better that I haven't mentioned here, I'm sorry I didn't. But going forward, we can resolve this. I would suggest that we resolve to source the material in question, and I'm willing to compromise on timetables and whether to do it piecemeal. But there has to be transparency on this. And when you consider that a couple of the editors who are not getting their way here have restored to revert the way I organize or name subheadings on my talk page, I question whether they are genuinely interested in this. Prove me wrong. Nightscream (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I would appreciate it Nightscream if you would raise the level of this discusion above the specifics of the Radio article and various incivilities to address the issue of his practice of talk page moves. In two other instances there has been no incivility, little to no finding of sources by editors other you and all the editors have considerred your practice and requested or implemented reversion. I do not think any timetable would be acceptable and I suspect you would not agree to concencus deletion of inappropriate sourceing tags. Tom94022 (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Youre the one that needs consensus for reinsertion (WP:ONUS), youre the one that needs sources for reinsertion (WP:BURDEN). You keep proclaiming your view that the removals are disruptive, but that view seems to be distinctly lacking in consensus. nableezy - 18:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Two quick responses before I stop responding point-by-point, because I think we're approaching the point where it is not productive. I also think Tom94022 is correct in wanting to focus on the issue of mass removal of material to talk pages.

1) I don't believe "that it may not be possible to find" an rs for that, nor do I understand where you got this idea from. That is part of what WP:BURDEN asks editors to consider in removing content that lacks an inline cite. If you think it may well be able to be sourced, then removal may well not be the best approach. The amplitude modulation line is one that seems to be something that quite obviously should be able to be sourced, so add a CN tag and move on instead of deleting it.

2) I rejected the wholesale reverting of both the uncited material along with the cited material. Yes, but that was the consensus of those approaching the task as how best to begin addressing the concerns. Your doubling down on your approach made the situation worse. I'm not excusing anyone else's behavior in the matter, but I do think you could have deescalated things and chose not to. Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry that we have to agree to disagree here. I do not know that the line about amplitude modulation is "quite obviously" sourceable, and I don't see how we can expect any read to assume this.

As for the issue of talk page moves, something like nine other editors here (plus others in other discussions) appear to support my practices, so it looks like the talk page moves have consensus. I'm not clear on what two other instances you are referring to (please clarify). citations need to be added. If waiting a month after fact tag/refimproving an article is not sufficient to spur editors to add them, then suggest an alternative.

I acknowledge your point about BURDEN, but I would ask howe, in your view, that jibes with the portion of that policy that says that it is the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. How would this be applied to so many articles whose bulk consists in large part of uncited material, in your view?

Again, how did it make the situation worse if it resulted (at least in the radio article) in citations being added? Isn't the intransigence and what some here see as "incivility" on my part really just a matter of a poor attitude on the part of those who opposed added citations from the get go? Those editors did not want to address the concerns until did the talk page move. Look at the discussion on that talk page, where a number of them (not all) argue against citations, and employ all manner of sophistry to rationalize this ("consensus is more important than policy"). If they were genuinely interested in discussing how to address that matter in a way that in your view, should not have involved a tp move, then why didn't they do so during the month after I fact-tagged the article and adding the refimprove banner to the top of it? Nightscream (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Here's how amplitude modulation looks like, perhaps illustrating why some might consider the above-quoted description to be obvious. I have added reference pages to the now-existing citations, so the result should be fine now. There is no inherent issue in challenging such information; Wikipedia is improved by the resulting citations.

Nightscream has apologized for the incivility, Kvng is removing the articles from their watchlist ([239]). People (not surprisingly) disagree about what is obviously verifiable and what is not. This can't be resolved at ANI, and there is no need to resolve this kind of disagreement. We can note, however, that WP:BURDEN generally benefits those questioning the verifiability of material and places, well, a burden on those who want to re-add the material. Perhaps that's an issue, but even if it is, ANI isn't the venue for changing it.

Edit warring is disruptive even if you are (or at least strongly believe to be) right, though, and this does also apply to enforcements of the verifiability policy in articles unaffected by the BLP exemption of the edit warring policy. This should be clear by now.

Is there still a current behavioral issue left to be discussed? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

This is not the place to explain how something works. The very fact that Nightscream has admitted that he has no knowledge of how radio works means that he should leave the article alone because Wikipedia requires competence in a subject before you edit it. 86.181.0.154 (talk) 10:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Nope. Wrong answer. And you have now just made a deliberately menacious statement. First of all, that is an essay, and not a policy or guideline. I can't imagine why you would actually attempt ot claim an essay illustrates that Wikipedia "requires" the ideas stated unless you were being deliberately deceitful. Second, that essay says nothing about competence in a subject being required. In fact, what it explictly spells out in a bulleted list what it is referring to in the first section after the lede. If we're treating essays as if they're policies, then should I cite WP:EXPERT ( Wikipedia has no formal structure with which to determine whether an editor is a subject-matter expert, and does not grant users privileges based on expertise; what matters in Wikipedia is what you do, not who you are. Previously published reliable sources, not Wikipedia editors, have authority for the content of this encyclopedia.) Just who did you think you were fooling with this claim? Nightscream (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Nightscream: Your WP:BATTLEGROUND approach made it worse. Even if you had handled it better, this still is a sharp turn emphasizing policy over collaboration, deadlines over volunteerism, and perfection over incremental improvement. It is whiplash-inducing and creates an environment where WP:POINTY academics may be comfortable but I'm not sure who else is. You can't achieve your goal of raising the quality of targeted articles if you drive off all the qualified contributors that could make them better. The effort you briefly induced at Radio was short-lived and not sustainable or scalable. If I understand correctly, your vision is that deleting stalled work-in-progress leaves us with a high-quality encyclopedia. I don't think it will work out that way in the short or long term and I'm not feeling like sticking around to find out who's right. ~Kvng (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

You do not understand correctly, as that is not something I've ever said nor implied. That's just a Straw Man argument. If you wanted to know my stated position, you could just have read it, and respond to it on the basis of its plain wording, and request clarification where needed. But you couldn't do that, could you? Nightscream (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, belatedly, can you explain where I have gone astray? ~Kvng (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Where you went astray was in refusing to read my actual statements, repeatedly evading them by refusing to respond directly tot hem, and employing bad faith tactics to jusitfy this conduct, including lying/false accusations, evasions, repeatedly moving goalposts, etc. Nightscream (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Nightscream: I'm interested in understanding your vision for improving Wikipedia articles. I don't understand how deleting sections of them will improve them either in the short or long term. ~Kvng (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Is it your contention that I have not answered this question numerous times on this talk page, and all the others? Yes or no? Nightscream (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Nighscream I have no contention either way. If you have answered previously, I hope it it is not too much trouble to repeat or quote your answer here. ~Kvng (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Responding to one part because I think it is at the heart of the matter. how did it make the situation worse if it resulted (at least in the radio article) in citations being added? The citations were added in while the material was in the main article space, not the talk page. You lit the fire, but kept feeding the flames. That was what wasn't helpful and the ends don't justify the means. Even though article improvements may have sprung from your actions in this case, I don't believe as a habit that such mass removal of content solely because it lacks an inline citation is supported by WP:BURDEN and don't think you should take away from this process the idea that you don't need to give some careful consideration of how your approach may be disruptive and harmful to the project. I'm not calling what you did vandalism, but an article can also end up being improved as part of cleaning up bad faith edits. It can call attention to an article that has otherwise gone under the radar (in my case, it wasn't your removal of content that drew my attention, but a post to WikiProject Radio saying there was need for help with citations), but I would hope there are more productive ways to achieve that. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Unless there is a policy passed behaviour issue left to be discussed I think this thread has wasted far to many editors time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• This has been open for four days. I trust everything has now been cited in accordance with wikipedia:Verifiability. Can we now move on? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tcr25:, thank you for your straightforward criticism and your suggestion about a post on a WikiProject. If I were to make a post on the WikiProject at the same time that I fact-tagged/refimproved the article, and made a point to find citations for some of it myself, and no one responded after a month, or did not express a good faith resolution to fix all the uncited material, would you still be opposed to a talk page move?

@Malcolmxl5: It has not, to my knowledge. Blanket reverts of my talk page moves have not been undone, since I chose not revert these reverts during this discussion. Or do you mean that I can now revert those, fixing the problem?

In a related question, does Levivich's September 6 resolution here have consensus agreement, given the number of people that I've observed here who have agreed with or expressed support for requiring citations, and tp moves? Nightscream (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Are those editors, who have expressed different levels of agreement with me on this (@Black Kite:, @Daniel Case:, @Masem:, @Drmies:, @ActivelyDisinterested:, @Levivich:, @Trey Maturin:, @Nableezy:, @EEng:, @AlmostFrancis:, @Andrevan:) in agreement with this? Please clarify. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

No, I do not mean you can now engage in reverts and do not think it would be a good idea if you were to do so. I am though disappointed to hear that uncited content has been returned to main space and I expect those who did to cite their sources very soon. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

You're joking right?

You genuinely believe that User:Wtshymanski and User:Dagmar83, who did knee-jerk blanket reverts on Two-way radio, Magnetic storage, Microcassette, UNIVAC I, LP record, RCA Red Seal Records are now going to add citations to all that uncited material, even though they have made no indication of this, and haven't even participated in this conversation, even after I pinged them? Please clarify. 14:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Since you asked, I think that engaging with a relevant WikiProject (or several WikiProjects, depending upon the topic) after you tag material that needs citations would be a good first step. I still don't think that mass removal of content that lacks an inline source for that reason alone to the talk page is a good practice, however, and I object to Levivich's proposal's second statement. I don't think it is in line with the portion of WP:BURDEN that calls for you to determine whether or not material may be verifiable before removal. The lack of an inline source or a badly out-of-date CN tag (which to me would be years old, not a month) may be an appropriate reason to remove something, but it shouldn't be done en mass. Each statement should be examined and considered before removal, particularly in an older article that includes material added when citation expectations were different. That doesn't mean the material shouldn't be sourced or tagged as needing sources, but it shouldn't be removed in an indiscriminate manner. I'd again point out that the improvements to the article have come while the material in concern was in the article space, not while it is on the talk page. If the efforts to improve the article are ongoing, even if you think there's a consensus that your approach is the right one, pay attention to the work that's being done and try to respect how those who have undertaken the task are accomplishing it. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

If a reasonable amount of time has passed, and noone has made an attempt to fix the missing references, then I see no reason why the content can't be removed. Especially if an attempt has been made to add additional references. The entire onus for fixing the issue can't be, and isn't, on the editor noticing the issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the onus lies solely on the person who noticed it, but I also think it's the sort of thing that should be approached in a reasonable manner, not blanket removal of large amount of content spanning multiple sections of a page in a manner that is at odds with WP:BURDEN. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

If a reasonable amount of warning has been given, and effort has been made to fix the issue, then I don't see any problem. As good faith action has been exhausted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I would only say this if unsourced content is removed, regardless of how that happens, returning that content without inline refencing is against policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Is this a reply to me? Sign your comments correctly and try not to break the formatting. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

As to my point, if you want to change policy the correct place is WP:VPP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Tcr25, do you believe that I should engage with a project every time' I find articles with large amounts of uncited material, across different topic areas? And if so, what form or depth should that engagement take?

No, Actively, it was a reply to Malcolmxl5. But what do you consider a reasonable amount of time? Nightscream (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, of course. If your intent is to see the article improved, I think that seeking the help of people who are familiar with a topic and understand where to seek out sources makes sense. I'd also say you should probably try to figure out who added the material and, if they're still active, ping them about it too. If the material lacks inline citations (again, you keep saying "uncited material," but that's not necessarily accurate if general sources are on the page too) and you can't find them yourself, then go to those who might be able to. You've asked several times here "how do you know" if something is correct or verifiable without a source: The answer is you do some work. If you feel the task is too big for you alone, then seek help or accept that there isn't a quick fix. In response to the "it's policy" argument, two things: 1) WP:BURDEN includes some guardrails on content removal that I don't think are being followed, and 2) WP:5P5 exists for a reason. Sometimes "it's policy" isn't the best answer to a problem. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely agree that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, personally WP:V is the closest thing we have to an absolute. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

That could vary dependent on which project is being notified and how active they are, but a week or a month seems reasonable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Actively, I wouldn't go so far to say that it's an absolute, since that word means "without exceptions", though I'm guessing you were using that term in the loose sense with which others use it?

"I'd also say you should probably try to figure out who added the material..."

C'mon, Tcr25, you want me to find out all the editors who added uncited material that often makes up the bulk of an article, and do this with all the articles I come across? No, I'm sorry, but it just isn't reasonable to put all of that responsibility on me and other pro-inline cite editors, along with all the other regular editing responsibilities I have vis a vis my watchlist and other articles. We need a better compromise on this. I can meet you halfway in terms of beginning discussions on WikiProject tps after fact-tagging articles, diving into the edit histories of all those articles, and sifting through them to see who added what--? I'm sorry, but that's way too much to put on me or other pro-inline cite editors.

And yes, I have "done some work", as I've stated repeatedly. On radio, for example, after doing an uncited info/tp move, I added two citations to an uncited passage. On cassette tape, after my tp move, I replaced an uncited paragraph with a larger version w/ 4 cites of three sources. On the phonograph article, I expanded a section with material supported by 19 cites of 12 sources.

If you can think of a better shorthand term for material lacking inline citations, I'm open-minded to it. :-)

I'd like to ask you three other questions:

1. Do you agree with Levivich's September 6 resolution here, at least a modified version of it that includes opening a discussion on a Project talk page, attempting to source some of the content myself as a good faith gesture, and moving the uncited info (again, waiting on you for a better term) after a month if it does not appear that the community of editors on that project is making a good faith attempt to source it?

2. Should we agree to this, may I contact you in the future if I need help implenting these changes to my approach and getting responses to them?

3. Should the reverts of my talk page moves be undone, in particular thsoe on which other editors made no indication that they intended to find sources for them? Nightscream (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Here's the issue, NS, if you want to undertake a sweeping review/revision of an article, then, yes, it's going to involve a lot of work. Looking for a quick fix isn't acceptable. No, I don't think you need to find all the editors who inserted something, but taking a look at when it was inserted might give you a clue as to whether or not it is material that may lack an inline cite but was originally sourced generally. Remember, the standards have evolved so something added in 2012 with appropriate sourcing may need additional sourcing now. You've asked how can someone know if something is sourced to a general reference when an inline cite is missing: The age of the content can be a clue.

You mention all your responsibilities, unless there's something about your role here that's not obvious to me, you're a volunteer just like almost everyone else on the project. You set a scope that's appropriate for you, and you can modify that as you choose. I don't think you can justify making en masse cuts and removals based solely on the lack of inline citations because a different approach would be too much work. That's your choice, not an obligation or responsibility.

I agree you've fixed some citations. I'd say adding CN tags is also acceptable work. But I think under WP:BURDEN you have a responsibility to make a reasonable assessment about all the material you want to remove. An inline source may be needed, but it's absence isn't a mandate to remove content in every instance without some investigation.

To your three questions: 1) I appreciate that you're trying to find a middle ground, but so long as mass removal is on the table, I'm opposed. I think that mass removal is at odds with WP:BURDEN's obligation to provide specific objections that the material may not be verifiable. More methodical moves that explain the specific concerns might be acceptable. As for an appropriate timeline, I think WP:NODEADLINE is better guidance than WP:NOW. Again, we're all volunteers and some corners of the project are going to have more active souls than others. If something lingers with a CN needed tag, that's not the end of the world (or it's a reminder to go back and address the concern yourself when you have time). 2) Sure, feel free to reach out, but absent changes to your approach don't expect me to back you up on these sorts of en masse moves. 3) No, I don't think the reverts of your talk page moves should be undone, because I still see the original move as flawed. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

When you say, "taking a look at when it was inserted", you seem to be referring to small, individual passages. Again, we're talknig about entire sections that sometimes make up a large bulk of the article. You want me to dive into the edit history to sift through it to see where each piece of info lacking a cite came from?? I'm sorry, but that is not reasonable, and is far from a middle ground compromise. Nothing personal. Nightscream (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not taking it personally, and I hope you aren't either. You've asked me to expand on my concerns and ways to address them. Reviewing edit history is something I do when I'm questioning how info made it into an article and it's not clear from the text or the sources. I'm suggesting that the edit history can help you figure out if something is genuinely uncited and may not be verifiable or if it's lacking an inline cite but may have been sourced in a different manner. I do expect you to consider each piece of information removed and not just assume that if there's not an inline cite, then you have to excise it. How you go about that is your own business and working method, but if you can't provide a specific reason for the removal and support your belief that it's unverifiable or WP:OR, then expect to continue to have people challenge you on it. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Carter. Any editor wanting to remove any one {{cn}} tag has the obligation to make a good faith effort which should either result in adding a reference or removing the material with an explantion in the Edit Summary or on the talk page or both. I see no reason why this does not apply to a all the tags prior to a "talk page move." Tom94022 (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Obvious trolling is obvious. — Trey Maturin has spoken 15:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

How about... User:Nightscream is WP:NOTHERE Nightscream is wholesale deleting unreferenced parts of article but is making no attempt to find references himself but expecting everyone else to do the spade work. And continuing on this rampage coupled with threatening to get anyone who disagrees with him on his talk page blocked shows "Little or no interest in working collaboratively" and "Treating editing as a battleground" - the personal attacks listed above are further evidence. I might also add "Dishonest and gaming behaviors" because when an edit warring complaint was made to WP:ANEW and was (correctly) judged as 'no violation' because Nightscream had only made three reverts (at the time of the complaint), he then proceeded to parade this result falsely claiming that the adjudicating administrator had condoned his mass deletions at WP:ANI. 86.181.0.154 (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC) No. Not helpful. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC) Just no. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC) I never "threatened to get anyone who disagrees with him on his talk page blocked." Your statement is a lie, plain and simple. Nightscream (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Here is another attempt to see if there can be any consensus regarding "talk page moves". Previously we have tried to decide whether or not it constitutes WP:disruptive editing or WP:edit warring?

I suggest an even simpler question is whether "talk page moves" such as practiced by Nightscream wherein wholesale removal of multiple, unconnected sections of an article to a talk page is based on a concern over number and age of {{cn}} tags and/or other such sourcing tags constitutes vandalism? Vandalism is defined as Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any legitimate reason so the question is whether or not some large number of stale {{cn}} tags in an article is a ‘’’legitimate reason’’’ to remove significant parts of a page’s content?

• If it is not a legitimate reason then like all vandalism, the removed content is restored without necessarily examining it for any problems.
• If it is a legitimate reason then no unsourced content may be restored with first being sourced.

While the intent of "talk page moves" may have been to improve an article it appears that in practice it has failed to make significant improvement in any article and in at least two articles (Magnetic-tape data storage and Cassette tape) would remove significant parts of those articles without any improvement. Furthermore in all articles where applied it has been opposed by the article’s editors, led to contentious discussion in the article's talk pages, resulted in at least two editors reducing their efforts in the articles (count me here) and led to this unending debate.

So how about a poll? Tom94022 (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism is not defined as "Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any legitimate reason". Per WP:VANDAL, Wikipedia defines it as "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia." Where is your "removing all parts..." definition from? It doesn't appear at WP:VANDAL.

Moreover, my tp moves are not done "without any legitimate reason." Just because you disagree with that approach is not the same thing as saying that the person doing so does not have a legit reason for doing it, which is an ad hominem argument.

And yes, it has improved articles, and I've mentioned some of them here, and repeatedly. It improved the radio article by spurring other editors to add citations to it. It did this with the Western Electric and History of McDonald's article. It prompted List of suicides to go from an article that was largely uncited to one what is probably one of (if not the) best-cited list-type article on Wikipedia. Nightscream (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

To your last point, the ends don't justify the means. Your content removal was raised with WikiProject Radio nearly two weeks after your first talk page move and after the back and forth reversions began. The improvement was not because your action was a positive, but because it was flagged as a negative thing. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, and shouldn't be discussed as such. WP:VANDALISM requires intent to vandalise. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not vandalism because, aside from the good-faith intent, "unsourced" is a legitimate reason to remove content. It's time to stop beating this dead horse. Levivich^😃 19:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

And the other articles, Tcr25? Why did you omit mention of those?

The radio article could've been improved in the exact same way as those other articles, if those editors on radio who favored that material's inclusion reacted in the positive manner that editors on those other articles I mentioned did. Nightscream (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I focus on Radio because that's the one I have knowledge of. Even if you do have instances where people responded in a positive way to your process, that doesn't mean you have carte blanche to insist upon the same process when you encounter objections. There's more than one way to improve an article. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I can answer Nightscream's question about where the above quote came from. Tom94022 was taking it not from WP:VANDALISM (a policy) but from the essay WP:Vandalism types. That does indeed list Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any legitimate reason as a type of vandalism; however in the very next cell, it explicitly lists the following as not vandalism: Legitimate removal of content. There are many legitimate reasons for removal, including information that is inaccurate, unreferenced, is being transferred to another page, or is vandalism itself (emphasis mine). So, yeah - this horse was born dead, no amount of prodding it with sticks will spur it into life, and anybody who wants to continue accusing Nightscream of vandalism based on this sort of thing can expect to come under scrutiny themselves for making sustained and unfounded personal attacks. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

"...that doesn't mean you have carte blanche to insist upon the same process..."

We'e not talking about whether I have carte blanche to insist upon the same process. That's the broader discussion, eys, but right now, I was focusing on your claim that it doesn't improve articles. I provided examples where it has, because I myself did have knowledge, being the person who employs the approach under scrutiny. Nightscream (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

NS, a question for you: Thinking of radio, do you think that how you approached the article was overall a positive? It seems like you contend that no matter how WP:POINTY or WP:DE it is so long as it spurs editors to add sources, then it's worth it.— Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Poll on whether or not a large number of stale sourcing tags is a legitimate reason to remove such material from an article

Comment: There is support that an editor should expect a response to posting a sourcing tag within 30 days of posting; however there is not any guidance as to what said editor can do if there then is no response. So in one sense "stale" may mean any sourcing tag older than 30 days, that is, most sourcing tags are stale but they still are valid. Tom94022 (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• NO - each tag must have a gf effort to be resolved before content is removed regardless of age. Tom94022 (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Absurd question Since when do sourcing tags get "stale"? As long as sources are not found and cited, they are valid. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Would you prefer "old" or some statement of time like "> than 1 month" or perhaps just remove "stale"? In any event, since they are always valid, I take it then you agree one cannot remove any unsourced tag or such tagged content without a gf effort. So can you wholesale remove unsourced content without a gf effort? Tom94022 (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think that if we decide we need rules for this (as I have previously commented on more than one occasion, we have thus far decided that this is best left to the editors on individual articles), it is better done as a formal policy discussion, not as a poll added to an AN/I thread. Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• No, but it should trigger a new task in the associated wikiprojects.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• (Provisional) No

If you mean by "gf effort" that pro-inline cite editors like me have to try and find sources for all of it, then no, abosolutely not. I do sometimes find sources for individual passages in articles on my watchlist or related areas, and have done so with the articles in which I've found compose of large amounts of uncited material. But expecting people like me to do all of it is not reasonable. The burden should be on those who favor its inclusion. I'll help, but if there is not an effort on the part of those editors, then tags should not be removed, and a talk page move after some length of time (a month? more than a month?), with a diff showing where the material was in the article (as has always been my practice) is acceptable. Nightscream (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

What I have found sufficient, at least when I've done this on a more limited scale where I think the stated fact is contentious (i.e., extraordinary claim; contentious BLP info gets taken out immediately per policy) is a) tag, and note in edit summary that if this isn't cited in a few days it gets taken out, then b) post on the talk page near the end of that period pleading for someone who might know where to find a source to do that and then finally c) take it out. Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the crux of the issue is that what's at issue here is not on a limited scale and isn't involving material that can reasonably be considered contentious. Your process sounds reasonable if the stated fact is contentious and you've been unable to find support for it. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I think you mean Yes it is a legit reason and no GF effort is required for all of the tagged material contemplated for removal Tom94022 (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Bad question. This isn't the issue under discussion, not even close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

To go further. If an editor adds a {{cn}} tag there is no given time that another editor must respond in. However if an editor comes across large swathes of unsourced text, notifies others that they are thinking of moving it to the talk page, and tries to fix as much of the issue themselves, then noone should revert unsourced content back into the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this section is meant to achieve. Building policy? Wrong noticeboard. Re-discussing what has been discussed above? Unnecessary. Please stop opening new subsections and let someone close the ANI thread already. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I am going to remove this from my watchlist and stop responding. I don't believe there's anything to add that hasn't already been said. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 19:31, 8 September 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.

Roads4117

Editor user:Roads4117 seem to be paying lip service with the requirement to ensure articles are correctly referenced. Edit has appeared before:

• [240]
• [241]

The editor created A4421 road (Great Britain) with no references. I reviewed it and reverted to a redirect. It was then reverted back. I left a message suggesting then use draft or a sandbox to work on it and add needed proper references. They added two dodgy sources. The editor is paying lip service to the whole idea of referencing. It is effectively a copy and paste exercise on their part. scope_creep^Talk 16:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello Scope creep, the reason why I didn't add references is because references don't matter, what does matter however is potential. I mean references do matter, although if you have potential, you can then add references at a later date. I agree, some of the articles I have edited look terrible at the moment, although if people come together and work on it, in one or two years time, it could be a fantastic article. In my opinion, I feel that users like John Maynard Friedman and many others at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Highways/United Kingdom help me to become a better editor, although editors like Scope creep and Ritchie333 do the opposite effect. Since day one of editing on Wikipedia, all the way back in June, it has changed my life significantly, and for the better. If you took it away from me, by banning me from editing, or something like that, it would mean a lot to me. Back on your talk page, I said that the reason why I reply in short, sharp sentences was because it was part of my personality. You can't ban me for being who I am. It is also better than how I was communicating 6 weeks ago. Thanks, Roads4117 17:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

What matters as per WP:VERIFICATION is that you add references for any content you add, potential or not. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately the idea that "references don't matter" is a direct violation of a policy (WP:V) which I suggest you start to follow from now on. Black Kite (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Roads4117, when you write references don't matter, that is a troubling attitude even if you qualified it later. We have draft space and sandbox space for topics that have potential but are not yet ready for main space. I highly recommend that you do not add any article to main space that does not contain references to at least two and preferably three or more references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic. That will prevent other editors from complaining about your behavior regarding creating new articles. Cullen328 (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Per all of the above; best practice is to ensure that references are already in the article, reliable, and sufficiently in-depth to pass WP:42. No article ever created that was well-developed and was sufficiently referenced to multiple, reliable, in-depth sources has ever had people request its deletion, or turn it into a redirect. You can either follow the guidance at WP:42 or WP:GNG or WP:YFA and make sure you have your sources already in place and do your research and your gathering of materials before you even start writing. If you decide to skip all of that guidance, expect people to delete or redirect your mostly blank article. --Jayron32 18:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. I will try to get into the habit of creating a new articles only if there are more than two or three references. Thanks, Roads4117 06:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Roads4117 Writing new articles from scratch is tricky, we all know how tricky it can be to find a niche, and to get used to the sourcing requirements. I don't know what experiences you've had in the past, but I expect that you're being rather unfair here to Scope creep, who is a very experienced article reviewer, and also to Ritchie333, who is enthusiastic both about writing high-quality articles, and about encouraging newcomers. If your interactions with them have been abrasive, consider this: you are expecting us to accept you the way you are; you also need to be willing to accept other people the way they are.

High-quality sourcing is all-important when putting together a new article. Don't just look for some random links - look for two or three high-quality reliable sources giving the subject in-depth coverage. If you can't find them, don't write article. And remember that nothing you write in the article should come from your own background knowledge, it should all come from what the sources you use say. If you can't find a source to support it, just leave it out. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@ Girth Summit Thank you for your response. I will take the information with me when I am next creating new articles. I would also like to say sorry to Scope creep and Ritchie333 for saying that about you both. Many thanks, Roads4117 06:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• This is actually something that is likely to be discussed and perhaps settled in the upcoming RFCs about article deletion and creation, but I do feel compelled to point out that under current policy, Roads4117 is broadly correct that they are, largely, allowed to create completely-unreferenced articles, though it was inappropriate of them to revert it back after it was challenged - per WP:V, citations are only strictly required for material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged. I tend to agree that this should be discouraged more strongly than it currently is, but existing policy seems clear that you're allowed to add stuff you consider uncontroversial, with no sources, without it rising to the level of misconduct - it would only become misconduct if they were adding stuff that is likely to be challenged (ie. obviously controversial stuff), if they were adding contentious things that fall under WP:BLP, or (as in this case) once they restored it, still with no citations or with plainly insufficient citations, after it had been challenged. It might be worth looking at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Requests_for_comment/Article_creation_at_scale for discussions related to this and if / how to change it. What a lot of people say above is best practice, but I don't think there's actually any justification in current policy to sanction someone who adds large amounts of unreferenced, uncontroversial text under the assumption that someone else will cite it. --Aquillion (talk) 06:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

However, there is a general agreement that articles that have no sources, or bad sources, are at risk of being sent to WP:AfD for deletion or possibly redirection. For example, I recently turned A226 road back into a redirect, as I couldn't find any substantial sources to show notability. A road article that just has an account of where it goes is, in my opinion, not notable because it turns Wikipedia from an encyclopaedia into a gazetter. User:Uncle G/On notability is my favourite essay for explaining this; by way of an example, I wouldn't create "Raspberry Hill Lane is a road in Kent. It runs from the village of Lower Halstow eastwards towards Old Ferry Road between Iwade and, as the name suggests, an old ferry route over the River Swale towards Sheerness." because it's not notable.

However, my changes were reverted with a note "Ritchie333, please do not redirect" and the current version of the article cites two sources, go-fastrack.co.uk and subbrit.org.uk. Neither of which looks like a significant source to contribute to notability. So I still think we have a problem. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh yes, we definitely want people to include sources, and Roads4117 was clearly in the wrong once they started reverting to restore it. But "what do we do about people who repeatedly create articles with no sources?" is a question that we're currently (or will be shortly) having a big RFC over, even if that RFC is more focused on mass-creation. I read some of the responses above as basically saying "you must include sources, even for uncontroversial things and even before you're challenged", which is not currently policy and which, if people feel ought to be the case (or ought not to be the case), should be raised at the RFC. --Aquillion (talk) 12:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Footballrelated

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.

---

Footballrelated (talk · contribs) - long history of adding unsourced content to BLPs, talk page is littered with warnings from multiple users, and I blocked them for this in August 2022 - but they continue to add unsourced info to BLPs... GiantSnowman 06:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Still adding unsourced content to BLPs... GiantSnowman 11:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Still adding unsourced content to BLPs. GiantSnowman 15:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Still adding unsourced content to BLPs. GiantSnowman 20:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Still adding unsourced content to BLPs (I'm going to this every day until somebody deals with it). GiantSnowman 18:54, 9 September 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:Panda619

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.

---

Panda619 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This concerns User:Panda619, who made a really disgusting edit to the Elizabeth II page here:[242]. That just came out of nowhere, and I don't think we should let an account just get away with such blatant disrespect and disregard for not only the encyclopedia, but especially the person in question (as well as her mourning family and country). TNstingray (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. I see no harm done. MonarchyKilla (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, that's a blocked troll. As for Panda619, I saw a final warning posted on their page and I'm likely to agree. Another outburst like that and I'll be happy to block. El_C blocked, so nevermind.RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It could be a compromised account trying to get attention. NASCARfan0548 (alt) ↗ 18:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:Panda619#Indefinite_block. As noted in the block message, I don't think a warning is enough. I, at least, am unwilling to take the chance. Nor do I think that we should fully protect, as some have suggested. That is not a reasonable preventative action here. El_C 18:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

(Non Admin) I am a British contributor to Wikipedia. I found the edit mentioned by the original reporter to be 'inappropriate', highly disrepectful and distressing. I appreciate Wikipedia has a diverse contingent of views, but to mock the death of an internationaly important figure is not conduct I would expect to see from Wikipedians in response to tragic current events which will impact the lives of Wikipedians both in Britan and the Commonwealth. Do oversighters read WP:ANI or should I speak to them in another way? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I am legit disgusted here by Panda619's disturbing, tasteless and (rather) disrespectful edit. I'm not British, but this is pretty disgusting for somebody to outright mock her death like that. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I actually had the WP:REVDEL tab open and I was gonna do it right after the indef block, but then I had to get the door. Then shit kept happening and I sorta forgot. Anyway, now  Done. El_C 18:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm a Brit, who is going to have to speak to his class of children about this tomorrow morning, and I think we should try to keep our knickers as twist-free as possible about this silly, childish piece of vandalism. WP:DENY, and all that. I doubt this is a compromised account - more likely just an editor who is fairly immature (which some of their talk page comments would seem to support), who thought this would be funny and no big deal. I thought a one-off warning would do the trick, but I have no problem with El C's block. Either way, this is wrapped up now - let's not reward this sort of silliness with any more attention. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Alright then. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I 💙 teachers! El_C 18:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks :) There goes Year 6 maths in Lesson 1 I guess - God save the king! Girth Summit _(blether) 19:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@El C:, I had seen you reopened this with the purpose of getting more opinions on the matter. I don't see the block as problematic considering the editor in question clearly does not grasp the severity of their actions. We have policies against gravedancing on Wikipedia when editors are blocked. This was a clearly inappropriate example of real life gravedancing... considering what had happened, it was a rather tactless gesture designed to continue the cycle of hatred around the world rather than attempt to break it. You don't go out and murder someone because you don't like them and those they associate with. You act in a mature manner by tolerating those you disagree with and leaving the table if needed. Part of being a Wikipedia editor requires having a stiff upper lip and thick skin in certain circumstances. If people are going to blow up and defile the pages of those they don't like, then simply put, they don't belong here. Just my thoughts as an editor who saw this disgraceful edit. Noah^Talk 03:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Keep blocked One needs to check talk page history of the talk page for knowing the true extent of warnings given to this user.[243] He was brought to ANI during last days of March 2022 for uncollaborative approach, was alerted of AC/DS related to India/Pakistan in June 2022, was falsifying sources last week and attacking users as "instead of going crazy lol".[244] The block should be retained and all these behavioral issues require a detailed explanation by Panda619. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Note User:Floquenbeam has suggested that Panda's block be reduced to a partial block. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  I've read the exchange on the talk page, and I remain unmoved. Do we really give free passes to behavior egregious enough to require revdel because "my Indian brain flashed all the colonial bloodshed?" Really? If so, we might as well toss out the whole notion of discretionary sanctions. Hell, never mind all the vicious racial, religious, nationalist, ethnic and/or political disputes going on right now -- or the ways that Britain was beastly in the subcontinent a century ago -- we're not allowing "my Ukrainian brain flashed all the Russian bloodshed" as an excuse for a wristslap for vandalizing articles on Russian subjects. Eleven thousand edits in, this is not a rookie editor, and if they cannot control themselves in strenuous areas, they do not belong on Wikipedia. Ravenswing 05:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Well... given what transpired with the unblock requests, I think it's off to Azkaban with him. Noah^Talk 13:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, Mellohi!, for noting my comment at Panda's talk page. El C suggested last night that I post that comment here at ANI, but I was on a phone and am simply not evolved enough to type on a 21st-century phone with my obsolete 20th-century fat fingers; I'd already spent embarrassingly long typing what I typed there. I see from Panda's most recent unblock request that they are not interested in de-escalation after all, so I won't expend any more of my time trying to help someone who doesn't want help. But I have to say that characterizing my posts there as "giving free passes" is one of the lazier comments I've seen on here lately. I guessed wrong about Panda's willingness to knock it off, but if I had guessed right, I still think an immediate indef block and rejecting the first semi-reasonable unblock request was too harsh. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  You say "lazy." I say prescient. There's making unwarranted comments, and then there are comments so far over the line to require revdel, and the latter is a very strong indicator of someone with the lack of self-control to safely edit this encyclopedia. (How confident are you, for example, that Panda wasn't taking the same nationalist tack in articles such as Violence against Muslims in India, Islamophobia and Violence against Muslims in India, Civilian casualties from U.S. drone strikes, Left Democratic Front or Socialism in India, among the numerous South Asian topics he edited?) If this was an editor who'd had only a dozen edits, his ass would've been hung out to dry, and no one would've given it a second thought. Ravenswing 15:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Floq, maybe I went a bit hard on you initially. I think lingering whatevers from our conflict that followed my indef block of Johnpacklambert influenced me a bit. Still, I gotta say that it's weird to me that you thought the indef site wide was too harsh and that a p-block would have been enough (i.e. the risk of them vandalizing other related pages/spaces was too great IMO); or that you thought the initial declined unblock request was somehow sufficient (I found it quite flimsy, even if earnest).

Oh well. As mentioned, I was inclined to err on the side of severity in this instance, while you on the side of leniency, which is fine, but I also think that how you expressed your position actually might have ended up doing them more harm than good by perhaps prompting them to ignore my follow up (diff). A follow up which I felt was thoughtful, and which your comment, I found, failed to address, as well. I suppose it's moot now, anyway, but FWIW, those are my thoughts. BTW, I also have a phone from the 21st Century. It's from 2007, but it still good, it's still good. Flip-flip. Cheers! El_C 15:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• I have declined the latest unblock request, which contained more personal attacks against Queen Elizabeth, which I have redacted, and turned their talk page access off. I pointed out that I would have done the same for any controversial (or perceived as controversial by some) leader who died. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Oh dear. They’ve burnt their boats with that request. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Since the reported party has lost their talk page access over further derogatory material in their failed appeal, it doesn't seem that there is anything else to do here. Should we close this? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse indefinite block Conduct is beyond the Pale.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse indefinite block This user seems uninterested in maintaining the most basic form of decorum necessary to respectfully edit. Worse still, the party has tried to redouble this callousness by asking to avoid the consequences of such egregious vandalism. aeromachinator (talk to me here) 22:33, 9 September 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.

World Cup race podiums in Infobox of the alpine skiers

Moved from WT:AN (permalink)

The speech is very simple. The medal count of the World Cup races (sum of the podiums of Downhill, Slalom, Super-G and so on) has always been reported in the skiers' infoboxes, although medals are not actually awarded in these competitions. After all, in the "medaltemplate" the possibility is given to specify what it is and "World Cup race podiums" is a perfect description. Marbe166 (talk · contribs), on the other hand, felt he had to remove this statistic from the infoboxes of only a few active athletes. And luckily it hasn't bothered to do it from the hundreds and hundreds of infoboxes of athletes in which this statistic has always been reported. Over time we tried to involve the various projects in a discussion, but with poor results. Very few have intervened, however it is believed that by asking for the simple confirmation of the status quo, if anything, it should be the other user who seeks a broad consensus and does not constantly revert. --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Forced to ANI after trying to discuss reverts with the user, the various projects (but with very little participation), the Teahouse, the "dispute resolution" and having opened the discussion in the talk of the skier Federica Brignone. --Kasper2006 (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Kasper2006 only included his own POV from the Talk:Federica Brignone page, so I copy my response here:

Let's get one thing straight here. Those stats have never always been reported in all skiers' infoboxes. It has been added to SOME infoboxes of, mostly Italian skiers, and a few select others. It is using the medaltemplate, which, as is apparent by the name, is to be used for medals, and only medals, i.e. for World Championships, Junior World Championships and Olympics. Therefore, including WC podiums in the infoboxes is NOT status quo and is wrong. It clutters the infoboxes with too much information, the line must be drawn somewhere. However, it is interesting information, but it is better suited as a separate table in the body of the articles. I remove them when I see them, but I do have a life outside of Wikipedia, therefore I am not going through all the thousands of infoboxes of alpine skiers that there is. That would be an endless task. --Marbe166 (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, it is the inclusion in the infobox which is the anomaly. --Marbe166 (talk) 11:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that only you say this. We've been going on with this for months and reverts are never a good thing --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Likewise, you are the only one claiming your point. Marbe166 (talk) 09:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Fantastic!. So in this sixth attempt of mine to find out who between you and me is right someone will have to give us some answers. --Kasper2006 (talk) 11:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

And now Kasper2006 has added the very content which is the subject of this dispute to the Mikaela Shiffrin page, diff. Excuse me, but how exactly is that respecting an ongoing ANI? --Marbe166 (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I have a lot of respect for the ANI in progress, but after 10 days of silence on the part of the administrators I thought it appropriate to give a shock by explaining in a Wikipedia article what was happening (I add contents and the user disrespectfully continues to delete them) --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

2 days, you started the ANI 2 days ago. Marbe166 (talk) 06:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• An administrator is unlikely to intervene in a content dispute. Have you consider Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5: Already done, but to no avail.--Kasper2006 (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Mediated discussion here must be preceded by discussion on an article talk page. Perhaps discuss it on an article talk page, that's always the starting point. Or get a third opinion? Or start an request for comment? WP:Dispute resolution contains good advice. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I've done all of this before. Here is the summary of the attempts made.

1. Attempted in user talk: no result;
2. Attempted in the infobox talk: no result;
3. Attempted in the talk of the two related projects: no results;
4. Attempted at the Teahouse: no result;
5. Attempted to dispute resolution: no result;
6. Attempted in the talk of the skier: no result;
7. Attempted ANI: no result

Kasper2006 (talk) 00:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Tell me what should I do? Over the months I have:

1. Attempted in user talk: no result;
2. Attempted in the infobox talk: no result;
3. Attempted in the talk of the two related projects: no results;
4. Attempted at the Teahouse: no result;
5. Attempted to dispute resolution: no result;
6. Attempted in the talk of the skier: no result;
7. Attempted ANI: no result --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Why don't you try doing things in the correct order this time

1) Discuss on the articles talk pages

2) Open an RFC Post notices on relevant WP talk pages

3) Come to the DRN After those two have been done

4) If all of these still fail to work THEN come to the ANI. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

It is proven that the user Marbe166 is a cheat and in bad faith. He asserts (lying) that it wasn't true that the status quo had been the podium table in the infobox for years, but... I find it even crazier that he has quietly edited, for example in Lindsey Vonn, they leave the table for four years from 3 February 2018 to your cancellation on 30 January 2022. So the status quo for at least four years, in this as in all the other articles, was "world cup podiums in the infobox", before the user forcefully deleted him from dozens and dozens of articles --Kasper2006 (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, that's it. We have had a civilised discussion until now, but I will not tolerate being accused of lying. Marbe166 (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me Marbe, no one is accusing you of being a liar in life, I'm just saying "you said something wrong" here on Wikipedia when you said that the status quo was "table no" and not "table yes", as I said. In fact, you knew that in the page of Lindsay Vonn, which you edited over four years: from 3 February 2018 to 30 January 2022, the status quo was "table yes" and it has been good for you for 4 very long years. --Kasper2006 (talk) 10:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Basically, this seems to belong in WP:LAME more than anywhere else, it really isn't that important. Having said that: Marbe166, if you believe this info doesn't belong in the infobox, start an RFC on the infobox talk page, hope for enough input, and respect the result. Until then, leave the parameter alone. And Kasper2006, retract your personal attacks above, and don't call people "a cheat" and so on, or you will end up being blocked. Fram (talk) 10:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

In the meantime, Fram thank you for your intervention, finally a "historical" Wikipedia administrator has deigned us to his attention I have not attacked Marbe166, I have already apologized and clarified with him, I just wanted to say that he "he had said something incorrect" asserting that the status quo was not the table. If you go through the chronologies of many of the most important skiers (that is, those with many podiums and for which the statistic is increasingly relevant), you will see that he has removed the table after accepting it (easily editing in those articles, then "seeing" the table), after 4 years. So the status quo was "table yes", as I said and not "table no", as he said. That's all Kasper2006 (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring on Ambedkarism

It looks like edit warring is going on at Ambedkarism. Since I cannot see which IPs are which registered users, the report format for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring makes it very difficult to report this there.  --Lambiam 08:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a week, Lambiam. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Admin Account hacked

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.

---

Looks like this admin account has been hacked. Can anyone help? DeCausa (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Now blocked as compromised account. DeCausa (talk) 20:51, 10 September 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:Stephanie921

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.

---

Stephanie921 (talk · contribs) moved Dwayne Johnson to Queen Elizabeth The Second. I'm not sure what this is about; possibly a compromised account? — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: likely compromised account. El_C 20:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

You beat me by a few seconds, El_C. Checkuser needed to see if this was compromise vs. sleeper LTA vs. an exceptionally bad idea. Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Checked, no indication of compromise — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 20:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, shit. El_C 20:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks, Sammy. Guess we'll have to wait and see if she has an explanation for this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Sad, hopefully they have a good explanation but this is pretty egregious. Thanks for reporting @Ingenuity and the quick action @EL C, @Tamzin and @TNT. --ARoseWolf 20:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Noting that I've updated the block rationale, just so there's no confusion in the event of an unblock request. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

As awful as this sounds, I'm not sure Stephanie921 is emotionally constrained enough to be a net positive, and that this pagemove was in the heat of the moment because they were frustrated. I've had a few interactions with her and while I can definitely see the good faith, I don't think she gets the point. I've told her a few times about dropping the stick and I see Ferret has mentioned gravedancing as well to no recourse. I can't see the CheckUser data, but from a cursory behavioural overview it seems to be the same person that always edits. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 20:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Concur, but wow. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Wow, I'd have thought for sure this was a compromised login. While I knew Stephanie could be a bit hotheaded, after having to moderate between her and another editor and tried to give counsel to slow down, I wouldn't have imagined her making contribution that lead to the block. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I've requested a second opinion ref. the technical data — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 20:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Given that the edit prior to moving that page was them going back to an edit request they declined 4 days prior to say something to the effect of "LMAO you were right it should be Liz Sus not Liz Truss" [245] I doubt this is a compromise. How many vandals using compromised accounts start their vandalism spree by returning to stuff the actual account owner was doing half a week prior? 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps, though based on my past interactions with Stephanie previously that particular comment seems slightly out of character to me. I could be mistaken though. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• I have updated this to a sockblock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ariana Williscroft. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Tamzin and @Genericusername57: good spot. I went over the contribs and saw some stuff that made me think they were different. Props to you two. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 21:47, 9 September 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.

administrator behaving ill, constant reverts

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.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Perejil_Island&diff=1108900318&oldid=1108899715 Cullen328, administrator, constantly reverts my edits, and he doesnt talk in the talk page answering me or arguing what he means. To me it's clear hindering of the progress of the page, I bettered the page I cleared the tendentious writs, the lies with fake references, as i say in the talk page and is clear. i reformed my writ to do it more politically neutral and clearer and better but it doesnt change him, he only reverts and reverts. I only add more clarity and knowledge to the article and then he says my edit is "poorly written POV pushing". the member is a bad administrator and as i see it he doesnt merit to be one and i think he can use his power against me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvtqui (talk • contribs)

• Oh gee, I hope @Cullen328: recovers quickly from his illness! PICKLEDICAE🥒 12:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• @Mvtqui: You are required to notify the user you reported. I have done so for you. Mind the Australian airfoil. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 12:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• In the diff you provided right near the top was the addition ...nigh to Ceuta. With the end of the Spanish Protectorate in Morocco in 1956 Spanish military are set on the island until the early sixties, when Spain cedes with Morocco any habitation and symbol of sovereignty but reads herself the owner, setting itself Morocco parallel, so being that the island be waste. which is poorly written and I would have reverted just for that reason.Gusfriend (talk) 12:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  you know how much i care about you gus? lets do this, i edit, you revert, i report u Mvtqui (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Sounds like a great way for you to get blocked, but you do you. PICKLEDICAE🥒 13:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Mvtqui, please heed these warnings above. I am formally warning you that your conduct is subpar and, if it continues, may results in sanctions. Thanks. El_C 14:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Don't worry, Praxidicae. I am not ill. I was just asleep. Cullen328 (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Reports of your illness have been [that's it, that's the end of the sentence]. El_C 14:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy, I reverted twice, 2-1/2 days apart. The OP, on the other hand, has been edit warring for two weeks. Perhaps an uninvolved administrator can review the edit history? Cullen328 (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks — p-block 2 weeks. Sorry, I overlooked their removal of past warnings. El_C 15:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

So neither sick nor tired? :-) Levivich^😃 15:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Chipper and wide awake now, Levivich. Cullen328 (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

That's a relief! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:42, 9 September 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.

Calgary vandal is back

2001:56A:7939:800:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Blocked four times, the IP range Special:Contributions/2001:56A:7939:800:0:0:0:0/64 resumed vandalizing a few days after the last block expired.[246] Past blocks came from Kinu, El C, Izno and EvergreenFir. Let's give this one a lengthy timeout. Binksternet (talk) 02:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 years EvergreenFir (talk) 03:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Very good. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 06:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Kutybap edit-warring

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.

---

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

Three days ago, Kutybap (talk · contribs) was blocked by @Daniel Case: for 48 hours for edit-warring at Confederation Liberty and Independence. See the report at WP:AN/EW for details. Shortly after the block expired, they returned to the behaviour that resulted in the block: diff, diff.

Since Kutybap started editing on 7 September, Confederation Liberty and Independence has been the only page they have edited. Their edits have mainly consisted of removing the well-sourced "Right-wing populism" description from the party's page claiming "sources have provided no evidence of this". After they were reverted by many different editors, they started parroting the other editors' explanations which shows a lack of WP:Civility.

As @Vacant0: pointed out at WP:AN/EW, Kutybap's edits and behaviour match the edits and behaviour that saw Damianbolek (talk · contribs) receive an indef block in June.

I am bringing this here to AN/I because I don't think another temporary block for edit-warring will permanently prevent further disruption.

Pinging other involved editors: @PopoDameron:, @LilianaUwU:, @AzureCitizen:, @Do-Do-Drop: Robby.is.on (talk) 11:26, 11 September 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.

TPA revocation request

2600:1700:6180:6290:4C28:2D06:E904:12A6 (talk · contribs · count) is disruptively editing their talk page, including removing block notice and this (again after reverting once). —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 14:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 16:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:POINT / WP:HARASS, apparently related to an SPI

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

This edit to my talk page [247] appears to be an effort to WP:HARASS and/or make a WP:POINT regarding an SPI I filed over a month ago involving this editor. As it stands the SPI has gone nowhere, so it is odd that they would feel the need to lash out now.

Prior to my filing this SPI, MarshallKe and I hadn't interacted much, with the notable exception of this response to my post on Dennis Brown's talk page back in March: [248] (Quote: And you're right. I am not inclined to stop *as I told you a long time ago in arbitration*, so if your short blocks were in belief you could change my behavior, that is a sign, Dennis, of your incompetence. My behavior is in defense of Wikipedia's principles and I will not modify my behavior in violation of my principles like a coward. The block in question was a 72-hour block for WP:POINT, WP:FORUM, WP:HARASS, WP:TROLL and especially WP:TANTRUM.

I am not hugely bothered by their childish behavior myself (I get a lot of harassment that is far more aggressive than this from throwaway accounts and LTAs), but I do think the wider community should be aware that it is ongoing. And I suspect that the problem will only get worse if it isn't called out directly. Generalrelative (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

(scritches his head) Okay, he sent you a pony. What about this do you feel is actionable? And what did you seek to do about this before you went to ANI? Why wasn't the first step a "Look, dude, stop posting to my talk page unless you have something meaningful to say" post? Honestly, this is less likely to convince us that MarshallKe is an ongoing menace that needs to be watched (it's not that your SPI "has gone nowhere" so much as there's firm consensus, including from the admins involved, that it's without merit) than that you're extremely trigger-happy where he's concerned. Ravenswing 08:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the first step here would be to ask MarshallKe why they posted that, and/or perhaps ask them to stop posting on your talk page if you don't want them to. As far as harassment goes, posting a pony seems basically harmless, though I agree it's a fairly strange thing to post on the talk page of someone you haven't interacted with since they opened an SPI on you. Endwise (talk) 08:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

This is just unconstructive and baffling as fuck. Like, what the hell does this have to do with anything? Marshall just sent you a pony? Honestly, just calm down and rethink what you just said; it's literally just a horse, and it is like when users send others cats and goats - it's like a Project:WikiLove thing. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Ravenswing too: if you don't want these kinds of things, then just tell MarshallKe???? There is no point in posting things like this in ANI. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

You have no idea what their purpose even was, and by your own admission, you're operating on an assumption. For all you know, they were offering you an olive branch. What exactly is your intent in bringing this to AN/I and what kind of outcome are you expecting, especially since you're not hugely bothered by their childish behavior? ButlerBlog (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Instead of responding to each of the questions raised above, I’ll invoke the first rule of holes, since it's clear that the community simply doesn’t see this the way I do. If y’all feel the need to slap me with a trout, so be it. I hope that MarshallKe continues to behave in a way that the community finds acceptable and that this will be the last anyone hears of the matter. Generalrelative (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Jesse Lee Peterson edit war

• Jesse Lee Peterson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A slow motion edit war has been unfolding at Jesse Lee Peterson for several weeks now.

From the revision history:

• [249]
• [250]
• [251]

Just a few examples. I didn't post them all because they're basically all the same, just different IPs. Multiple editors seem to think that these contributions aren't helpful, but the IPs (which geolocate to all over the world) keep coming back to revert over and over again.

Sorry to bother the admin team, but I'm failing to see how this can possibly stop without increased protection.

Edit: I guess I should have mentioned that the IPs have failed to discuss anything at the talk page, and consistently ignore the concerns of other editors in their edit summaries. And thank you for your attention. - Hunan201p (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 years, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Logged AE action. El_C 17:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit war in article on the Azerbaijanis

In the article about Azerbaijanis, I put the population of the nation 17-25 million into the infobox. User Golden withdrew it asking for sources - ok [252]. Sources I added - French and Ukrainian encyclopedia, which are also confirmed by the numbers given in the infobox in individual countries. However, user Beshogur decided to withdraw my edition, claiming it was an outdated source (2001). However, the number 30-35 million mentioned in the infobox also includes the old source - from 1999. Ultimately, user Beshogur decided to continue the editing war 1, 2. User Golden also intervened in the editing war [253], he then posted a warning on the talk page for me, but did not do so against the Beshogur user - very biased [254]. I decided to post a warning on his page in response, but user Golden canceled the edits [255]. I am asking for intervention in this matter, the behavior of users is unpleasant, they try to appropriate the article and do not allow anyone else, removing information that is inconvenient for them, despite the sources. LechitaPL (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I've made a single revert on that article in the past 24 hours in which I asked the user in question to stop edit-warring and instead discuss their changes in the talk page (they've made three reverts today). Opening up that discussion instead of this would have been a much better use of the editors' time. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 17:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Obsolete source. And it's weird you're trying to restore a 1 year old edit, and edit war about it. If you have more present sources, put it. And your A source of 30-35 million dates from 1999. Stop vandalism claim is not true, since that book is from 2002. Why are you even putting older source than 2002 one? Also it is not even clear that the Ukrainian source is from 2001, it looks like it was last edited in 2001, the citation section shows older sources from my understanding by google translate. Beshogur (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

LechitaPL can I suggest that if someone reverts you the best idea, as per WP:BRD, is generally to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Also for reference vandalism has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, see WP:NOTVANDALISM, you shouldn't accuse someone of vandalism unless it meets that specific meaning. Your reference appears to be from 2001 using 2000 data, while the book is from 2002, it is possible (in general not just Wikipedia) for there to be conflicting data. Maybe the three of you together could find a more up to date source you could all agree on. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

You neglected to mention that an entire week had passed between this edit and this edit from Golden. @LechitaPL: Why did you omit this detail? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and if you report someone to this page, you must notify them by posting to their talk page. I have now done this for you. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• I've imposed an indefinite semiprotection as a Logged AE (WP:AA2) action. Not directly related to this complaint, which I haven't examined closely at the time of writing this, though it did prompt me to look at the page's revision history over a long term span. El_C 04:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

User: Cmguy777

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 am reporting a series of conduct issues and WP:COMPETENCE concerns with Cmguy777. This editor and I have intersected with each other a few times because we both primarily edit articles about early United States history. I have observed a pattern of problematic behavior which I wish to bring to the community's attention.

Cmguy777 is the kind of editor to change "to" to "too" when "to" is correct. [256] This editor also adds "the" to sentences when it is totally unnecessary and will shorten paragraphs that are supposedly too long, and in the process leave a paragraph without a reference at the end. This was done to an article that this editor knew to be under featured article review. [257] Here is an example of them at the same article making tiny sections which contain content not covered in the section title. [258] Here he is adding random links an article when the links are already included in the text. [259] Cmguy777 is the most prominent recent editor of the Ulysses S. Grant article, a featured article. Cmguy777's continued addition of trivial content to the article is primarily responsible for the fact it now stands at a ridiculous 18,594 words. Search through the editing history from the last couple of years, and you will find him adding large amounts of content-more than any other editor-to an already long article. From a cursory glance, his excessive piling on of content seems to have more or less destroyed that article and made it a suitable candidate for featured article review.

On the Ulysses S. Grant talk page, Cmguy777 advocated removing mention of Grant being ranked poorly compared to other presidents from the article on the basis that historians who ranked him poorly were racist. [260] That appears to be an example of attempting to censor scholarly voices because of personal bias.

There is an ongoing content dispute at Andrew Jackson. Cmguy777 has been heavily involved in the dispute, despite admitting (upon being asked), that a 20-page summary of Jackson's presidency by historian Richard B. Latner in a larger work about presidents, which he kept trying to promote both in the article and on the talk page, was the only scholarly source that he had read about Jackson. This editor's behavior there has been, from start to finish, atrocious. The issues at this article center around allegations made by some editors that the article is too favorable to Jackson. Cmguy777 added an unfavorable assessment of him to the Legacy section. However, what he chose did not come from a book. Instead, he dedicated a new paragraph to a single-sentence summary of a Vox article written by a non-scholar. [261] There were entire books on Jackson written by scholars that didn't receive that much attention. He also added a citation to the page in the Bibliography [262] even though the Bibliography is clearly only for monographs, not websites. After the source was removed from the Bibliography, Cmguy777 went on the talk page to shriek hysterically about censorship. [263] When told that the work should not be used because it was not written by a historical expert, he made an absurd comparison to Ken Burns' Civil War documentary, as if that and this random Vox article were of similar importance. [264] After this was removed, Cmguy777 added a critical assessment of Jackson from the Latner source. [265] Part of the content that he added was a sentence saying that Jackson was hostile to abolitionism. I told him that the sentence should be replaced because it did not say anything about Jackson's legacy but simply repeated a basic fact that was already mentioned earlier in the article. Instead, Cmguy accused me of having an issue with Latner. I tried to explain multiple times that my problem was not with Latner but with the sentence, but he wouldn't listen, and despite my protests, continually accused me of having a bias against the source, while also making broad statements about Jackson and slavery that had nothing to do with the conversation. [266] [267] [268] [269] It's impossible to communicate with an editor who behaves like that.

An RfC was started on the talk page about whether to describe Jackson's Indian removal policies as "forced removal" or "ethnic cleansing." Cmguy777 disrupted it by posting off-topic and inaccurate statements about Jackson supposedly defying the Supreme Court by removing the Indians. However, the Supreme Court never ordered Jackson to do or not to do anything concerning Indian removal, so the statement was not correct. Not only that, but Cmguy posted these comments, which were not related to the subject in the RfC, in the section of the talk page devoted to the RfC, and did so in multiple different spaces, breaking the flow of comments. [270] [271] [272] [273] An editor respectfully pointed out this problem on his talk page, [274] and he neither responded nor did anything to fix it. I went to Cmguy777's talk page to complain about these edits. Trying to justify his false claim that Jackson defied the Supreme Court, he said that our article on Jackson says that he did not enforce the Court's ruling. It was a misleading statement, because the article says, in reference to a Supreme Court ruling invalidating a Georgia law preventing whites from entering Native American lands, that Jackson did not enforce it because there was nothing to enforce. [275] I pointed this out, and he responded by accusing me of harassing him. [276]

Back on the Andrew Jackson talk page, Cmguy777 made a post seemingly accusing those disagreeing with his position on the article as being white supremacists. To his credit, he later struck this statement when an editor advised him to do so. Here is the diff: [277] In typical Cmguy777 fashion, the edit was placed beneath an unrelated comment rather than the comment to which he was responding, making it difficult to follow the conversation.

Cmguy777 has engaged in disruptive editing at the article by twice adding material that was being debated on the talk page to the article without consensus or prior discussion. [278] [279] Most recently, I started a new section with a proposal to try to resolve issues with one of the sentences in the lead. [280] Cmguy777 posted a message in response which basically ignored the proposal and instead contained, in a typical manifestation of that editor's behavior, unfocused ramblings about various aspects of Jackson's life with no clear suggestion for improving the article. [281] I was trying to find a solution to disputed material in the article. Edits like these distract from such attempts and keep disputes active after they should have ended.

In sum, Cmguy777's edits to articles are disruptive and unhelpful. Talking to Cmguy777 is extremely painful because they either cannot or will not engage in rational discussion. I believe that this editor is either a troll or there is a COMPETENCE issue that simply makes them incapable of productive edits or reasonable discussion. Perhaps it is some combination. The scary part is that they have been here since 2009, so this isn't some new editor who is just figuring things out. Whatever the reason for their misbehavior is, they should not be allowed to continue disrupting Wikipedia like this. I propose a block from editing or at least a strong warning to desist against future disruptive behavior and to encourage constructive discussion on talk pages. Display name 99 (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Response: I have not made any recent edits directly to the article but just resolved to talk on the talk page. Anyone can edit on Wikipedia. Unfocused ramblings? This is not true. I have made many suggestions to improve the article, including adding the term "African American" to the introduction and Latner's (2002) commentary in the Jackson reputation section. I had thought that Display name 99 and I had come to an agreement on adding ethnic cleaning to the last paragraph. I felt discussion in this manner had been stalling. My only motivation is to get Jackson to FA and remove the neutrality tags. If my action in that manner was premature I apologize. The article, as mentioned, is under current neutrality tags. There is a dispute over using the term ethnic cleansing. I believe this is a personal direct attack on my good faith editing of the article and talk page by Display name 99, who seems to control the article as to its content and must need Display name 99's approval. I do not shame other editors but encourage all editors to improve the article. I have created many articles on Wikipedia. My only intention is to get the neutrality tags removed on Andrew Jackson and get Andrew Jackson, a true American patriot, on a featured article on Wikipedia. I did take a break from the article's talk page, but my name was brought up on the talk page. Frankly, I am glad to have had this conversation. I feel that editors, including myself, are under the intense scrutiny of Display name 99's hawk-like oversight of the article. I have no desire to edit or contribute on the talk page to the Jackson article under such hostile circumstances. In an effort to cooperate, I will stop editing the Jackson article for a significant time, a month or more, including the Jackson article's talk page. I hope this will meet Display name 99's approval. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Cmguy777 FYI, in case you are working on early American history -- it is correct to say that an officer "resigned his commission", not "resigned from his commission". See [[282]] 71.228.112.175 (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Noted. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• First, the OP's initial comments are WAY too long. I didn't read all of them, but before they get to the Jackson issue, all of their diffs are from 2021, and much of what the OP accuses Cmguy of look inadvertent to me (like too instead of to). Second, Cmguy has about 50K edits and no blocks, whereas the OP about half that many, which is still a significant amount, and many blocks. Finally, I am not convinced that there is any significant problem with Cmguy. I certainly see no evidence of incompetence. For reasons that are unclear to me, it looks like this is one long personal attack.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 4 Septemeditor22 (UTC)

Thank you Bbb23. Yes. I agree this is a personal attack on my integrity as an editor by the OP. Non the less I am steering clear for awhile of Andrew Jackson article to avoid any more personal attacks by Display name 99, the OP. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• I was also involved on the Andrew Jackson talk page and RFC where Cmguy777 and Display name 99 disagreed. This report seems retaliatory and is too long. Display name 99 has been warned of WP:TEXTWALL. I think Display name 99 should either present a narrower case of recent disruption or withdraw this report. Andre🚐 23:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• @Display name 99: Your report is far too long. Chop it down to around 200-300 words please. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• The report is as long as it is because I feel it needs to be in order to document the numerous instances of what I consider to be this editor's unconstructive behavior in both articles and talk pages. I cannot shorten it further. If you don't want to read the whole thing, you have the option of just picking a few paragraphs and responding to that. I won't withdraw the report because I believe that it is merited, but I won't attempt to force people to accept what I'm saying if they don't want to. Display name 99 (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• Display name 99 Blocked indefinitely: I've p-blocked Display name 99 indef from the article and talk page, because even a glance at this lengthy and attack'y report, at the article, and on its talk page, show consistent misconduct. Block notice here. El_C 15:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

El_C, for such a drastic action, I would expect specific examples of misconduct by myself at the Andrew Jackson page and the talk page page to be mentioned by you. Your failure to include any is disappointing. Cmguy777 has edited disputed material on the Jackson page without consensus. On the talk page, he has seemingly called editors white supremacists and frequently posted rambling (and sometimes factually untrue) comments with no clear suggestions on how to improve the article in the middle of discussions on unrelated issues, impeding the ability of other editors to communicate. Please explain how that is not misconduct but whatever I'm accused of doing on those pages (I can still only guess because you haven't explained it clearly) is. Display name 99 (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not gonna prove a negative, because that's not a thing. But if you continue to attack other users, the indefinite sitewide block that was imposed on your account in 2021 is likely to be reinstated. And, if you continue to reject submitting a normal report that isn't filibuster in length, which no one is gonna read, then there's nothing really to talk about. In any case, you are welcome to convince another admin to lift this block by using the {{unblock}} feature. Thanks. El_C 00:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Random example from the article talk page (diff): Yes, of course, I should have known that Cmguy777 would come by to leave a rambling comment with an unclear point that in no way helps move the discussion forward. Also, you say that the lack of editorial consensus on ethnic cleansing needs to be addressed. How? You can't force there to be consensus if there isn't. Stop trying to pretend like you can. Display name 99 (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC) — El_C 00:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

That one was over the line, yes, but it was not an unprovoked attack but the result of understandable frustration with constant disruption.Display name 99 (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not understandable, that's the point. Three admins now have told you that you need to put up a normal-sized report, or drop it. But you were, like, nah. So, it is what it is. Also, a "drastic action" would be to indefinitely block you from all of Wikipedia, as you had been twice before, not simply two pages out of ~six million. Meanwhile, as mentioned, unlike yourself, your opponent has been blocked zero times. El_C 00:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Really? It's not understandable? Have you read the talk page and seen Cmguy777's off-topic and almost incomprehensible comments? To block me indefinitely from two pages, including an article that I successfully brought to featured article status, while citing no specific examples of misconduct, and later adding just one example of a slightly uncivil comment made to an editor who had been actively disrupting discussion on the page for weeks beforehand, and meanwhile ignoring that misconduct, is not acceptable. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, really. No, I haven't in full. But you were given an opportunity to explain yourself without the filibuster, yet you declined. That is why we are where we are. Again, you can make use of the {{unblock}} function at any time. Any admin should feel free to do whatever with the partial block, including lifting it outright. I need not be consulted or even notified about that. El_C 01:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

You are free to take issue with anything you like about my report against Cmguy777. That is not, however, a sufficient reason for blocking me from the Jackson article and its talk page. Display name 99 (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, obviously, I thought a WP:BOOMERANG was called for. And, seeing as one of the admins who participated in this discussion and who had expressed similar concerns as myself, just declined your unblock request, I'm not the only one to think this. El_C 01:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't address the point, which is your refusal to provide evidence of misconduct to justify your block, which at this point is downright appalling. And an administrator who participated in the discussion probably should have let an uninvolved administrator review the request rather than doing it himself. Display name 99 (talk) 01:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't address the point in your view. And an uninvolved admin does not become involved simply by commenting on an ANI report in their capacity as an uninvolved admin — see WP:INVOLVED. Sorry, I don't have much more to add beyond that at this time. El_C 01:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Display name 99, I'm sure I don't have to remind you that I, as an uninvolved editor in the content disputer or in the history of the article, weighing in only after the article came to WP:FAR (now on hold pending the outcome of the RFC), have noted that you have very concerning ownership issues at that article, even if we account for WP:FAOWN. I am not familiar with Cmguy's behavior, as I intentionally avoided reading the content dispute so I could remain neutral until the FAR resumes, but your responses wrt the article size indeed indicated ownership problems are in play at this article. To bring an ANI, when your own behavior will be scrutinized, implies that you may be missing quite a few points. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I have said that I disagreed with you about the article and would protest against your proposed changes within the rules of Wikipedia if an attempt to implement them was made. Any editor has the right to protest changes to articles that they believe are harmful. Display name 99 (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

What you said was: " I would rather lose the bronze star than lose vital information in this article." I gave you two side-by-side examples of excess verbosity of non-vital information, and had to remind you that it's not your decision whether an article carries the bronze star, rather the community's, and that I was by no means the only editor who held the opinion that the verbosity needed to be trimmed; there were two others.

Further, that you brought an ANI with such an excess of verbosity when my very complaint about the article is ... excess verbosity ... gives further concern about your own cluefulness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@El C: Could you please reconsider your block? I've been working a little on Andrew Jackson as well, and have interacted with Cmguy for years. Have you? Almost every competent editor who works with him has had our patience tried with his style of editing. I'm trying to be kind, but I don't know how to put it other than that he isn't very competent. In June a university professor/Wikipedia editor asked me for advice in working with him; we discussed the situation by private emails. Ask User:Alanscottwalker or User:Parkwells.

Cmguy means well but is biased toward minorities, particularly Black and Native Americans, and against Whites. He expects modern sensibilities in people who lived one or two or more hundred years ago. He makes lots of spelling and grammar errors. He doesn't know how to use sources properly. He knows how to cite them, but typically finds some passage somewhere that he likes and vigorously tries to insert. I cringed when I read that Display name 99 said he "went on the talk page to shriek hysterically about censorship," yet I knew exactly what he meant. That's actually an apt description, just inappropriate.

And Display name 99 rightfully complained that you gave no specific reason for blocking him. His complaint was too long? Did you look at the talk page and follow Cmguy's comments? Perhaps Display should be admonished, but I don't see why he gets an indefinite P-block. Please consider unblocking him. Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps both of them need to stand aside from the article, so the many competent editors at FAR can sort the issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Yopienso, thank you! Finally, a voice of reason. I'm not a patient person normally, and what little patience I've had has been exhausted by the drama at this article, whic has now dragged on for about a month and a half. I have not always made my point in the best way possible, but my point is correct. Display name 99 (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Please take to heart what other editors are telling you about your own editing. I've always found SandyGeorgia to be fair and reasonable. At the moment, I do think El_C was hasty in blocking you and over-zealous in making the block indefinite instead of for a few days. Nonetheless, since you realize you aren't normally a patient person, this action against you shows how important patience and collaboration are, not only at Wikipedia, but everywhere we interact with other people. Wishing you the best, YoPienso (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Yopienso. I'm not attacking SandyGeorgia's character. I feel like he's just wrong about the article. He is asking for the article to be cut in half when it is already within the realm of what is considered an acceptable length per WP:SIZERULE. It is well within a normal range for U.S. presidential biographies and was promoted to featured article at slightly above its current length. There simply isn't justification for the changes that this editor is proposing. I promised to protest these changes if someone tried to implement them, and explicitly said that I would do so within the bounds of Wikipedia's rules. I fail to see anything wrong with that. Display name 99 (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn't think you were attacking anyone; I was encouraging you to listen to their good advice. It would be wise for you to stop commenting here. You're protesting instead of listening. This is my last comment to you, not because I'm being mean, but because it's just time to stop the conversation. We're not in our own private corner but on a Wikipedia talk page. Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 01:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

DN it's so unfortunate that you are missing the bigger point (than size), which is that I was offering you a way to develop a collaborative environment on the article. That is what you turned down, quite stubbornly, I might add. When three editors agree with me, it appears there's a problem with how you have approached the dispute. Again, I don't intend to say Cmguy is right; I am ignorant on that matter, intentionally. But I know for sure that your approach will not lead to collaboration or to solutions. "My way or the highway" is rarely a good approach, on Wikipedia or IRL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I have reduced the length of the article by almost 2,000 words. It was at over 17,000 words before and is now less than 15,300. That isn't "my way or the highway." As far as reducing the length further, we simply disagree. Disagreements happen. I don't own the article, so if there is a consensus to reduce the length by more, I wouldn't be able to stop it. But I don't have to agree with it. Display name 99 (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not inclined to unblock on the basis of your reasoning. If anything, your comment (shriek hysterically about censorship, etc.) only further reaffirms to me that it was the right call. El_C 01:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

To whom is this directed? YoPienso (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

It was directed to you, Yopienso, which was why my edit summary read: reply (YoPienso). El_C 01:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Your edit summary is what made me wonder if it could be directed at me. That wasn't my comment, which is why I didn't think it was for me. I was quoting Display name 99. I said I cringed at it and I called it inappropriate.

Please consider slowing down a little. YoPienso (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say it was you. I'm aware it wasn't you. If it was said by you, why would I blame DN for it? It's just a personal attack by DN that I wasn't privy to until you mentioned it. El_C 02:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

That said, Yopienso, you come to my talk page with a lengthy unblock request on behalf of DN (link) that also attacks a different user, so not that stellar on your part, either, if we're gonna go there. El_C 02:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

El_C, you have mainly cited my post at ANI as the reason for your block. I made that comment about Cmguy in my initial post, but you weren't aware of it until now? So you're admitting that you did not read the post that I made which helped serve as the impetus for your block? How is that appropriate? Display name 99 (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The fact that you outright refused to trim your lengthy report even after multiple admins asked you to do so, was key in my determining that a WP:BOOMERANG was warranted. Also, you want the block to be lifted because I overlooked a personal attack by you? That makes no sense to me. El_C 02:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Two administrators complained about length. Only one asked me to trim it. I only refused because it was not possible. I could not trim it without losing details of the complaint. If I could have trimmed it without cutting examples, I would have done so. Display name 99 (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

This feels circular at this point, so I'll leave this to other admins. I suppose you could argue that my missing a personal attack by you is grounds for an unblock.

Or that your claim that trimming your very lengthy OP was "not possible" is likewise grounds for an unblock. Personally, I don't think it'll work, but who knows, I guess. In any case, I'm unlikely to respond further for the time being. El_C 02:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Now that this has calmed down, can you please give me some constructive feedback?

1. Do you think the block was hastily applied or properly applied? Do you think the block was fair? (I think it was hasty and harsh.)
2. Do you think I was attacking anyone, and if so, who? (I wasn't attacking anyone--an attack is deliberate and I know my intentions. But, did I inadvertently bump into somebody?)
3. Do you think User:El_C is being heavy-handed or do you think he did a good job on this report? (I think he was brandishing the mop in people's faces instead of wiping up the floor with it. I think he was relishing his power.)

Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 04:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, this is lovely... relishing. But thanks for the ping, I guess. Anyway, I don't know your intentions nor did I comment on these, but you did attack Gwillhickers on my talk page for no apparent reason (link again). And now you're attacking me. GG. El_C 04:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I won't defend everything that I wrote on the talk page or in my original post, but I agree that the block was both hasty and excessive. It didn't have to be indefinite when it could have been a few days. I appreciate Yopienso making these points. I don't think that he attended to attack Gwillhickers. I read his comment as an attempt at humor that maybe didn't come off as intended. I've never interacted with Gwillhickers as far as I can recall, so I don't have any opinion of that editor one way or the other, and thus my reading of the comment is totally impartial. Display name 99 (talk) 04:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, Gwillhickers certainly didn't think it was a joke, but rather, viewed it as an attack (diff). Maybe YoPienso thinks that by attacking me now, instead, that will help you somehow...? I dunno, either way, it's disconcerting. One thing is certain, there's no shortage of troubling behaviour as it pertains to the Andrew Jackson page. El_C 04:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Well we are in agreement there. However, indeff blocking me from it in part on the basis of "perennial disruption at both the article and talk page" while only citing as evidence one moderately uncivil comment that I made on the talk page (and that after I had to ask) clearly isn't helping to fix the problem. How about this. This thread started because of my issues with Cmguy777. The problematic behavior that I observed by him extends to multiple articles. Yopienso certainly sounds like he can point out even more examples. But if I were to repost my original comment including only the parts about the Jackson talk page, and removing the parts that were too strongly critical and deemed personal attacks, would you consider removing the block? Display name 99 (talk) 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm done. And if that helps you with an unblock, I'm fine with that. But again, the p-block was largely a WP:BOOMERANG block, so that might be worth keeping in mind. El_C 05:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

"Cmguy means well but is biased toward minorities, particularly Black and Native Americans, and against Whites." Wikipedia has a choice about the future and it is right here. We can look at this shit and say that it is merely a difference of opinion or we can boot people like this out of the fucking community. Protonk (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Now that's significantly more uncivil than anything I've posted either here or at the Jackson talk page. Display name 99 (talk) 04:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah it's pretty uncivil to tolerate this kind of open bigotry. Protonk (talk) 04:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

You not liking something another editor says does not mean that the other editor's statements are not tolerable. We don't ban editors because Protonk says they're bigots. Display name 99 (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Still not hearing you distance yourself from that sentiment. Protonk (talk) 05:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not trying to distance myself from it. Display name 99 (talk) 05:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Good to know. Protonk (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Protonk, Yopienso, and Display name 99: I'm having trouble understanding what everyone is saying. First, the quote is from YoPienso's comments earlier in this thread. Yet, YoPienso did not respond; instead, DN 99 did. It seems that Protonk is, on their own, demanding that Cmguy be indeffed for anti-White bigotry and that they are unhappy with the fact that DN 99 does not agree with them. I might point out that at least in their comments, YoPienso offers no diffs in support of their allegations of bigotry.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes I believe that is exactly what this sub-thread is indicating. I don't know if Protonk has seen any damning diffs but his quoting of Yopienso makes it seem like he hasn't, and that this flag was just picked up off the ground because of what Yopienso offhandedly mentioned. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

???????? I'm sorry but this is the LITERAL opposite of what I'm implying. I apologize for being terse and too vague. It must have been my mistake for the implication to be read that was endorsing this behavior and not pointing out that "Cmguy means well but is biased toward minorities, particularly Black and Native Americans, and against Whites" is an absolutely unacceptable statement and one which ought to call into question whether or not the speaker ought to be in the community. I have no complaints about CMGuy but YoPienso, who decided that was something which was ok to lob at an editor and DN99, who saw no problem with the sentiment, should be shown the door. Protonk (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Ahh I see. The quote just happened to be a coincidence of a highly inappropriate casting of aspersions intersecting with an inappropriate racial attitude. I genuinely read that as you taking a stand against the implied racism. Thank you very much for clarifying. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I'm still waiting for you to retract or substantiate this deranged interpretation of my comment. Protonk (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

It was clear to me that Protonk was reacting to the statement by Yopienso, which I agree was inappropriate. As Bbb23 says, Yopienso did not substantiate their allegation, furthermore, it is unlikely to be substantiated. But in case it wasn't clear, Protonk is saying that what Yopienso said was inappropriate, and that DN99's reaction to it also inappropriate. I have not seen evidence that Cmguy is biased against whites, and that seems to be at least a highly inflammatory accusation. Andre🚐 01:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Andrevan, perhaps the allegation made by Yopienso should have included specific examples to back up the point, but it's not an inflammatory allegation if it's not worded unnecessarily harshly, which it wasn't. Protonk's response, saying that he should be kicked "out of the fucking community" and calling it "bigotry" (and then later saying that I should be banned as well simply because I decided not to condemn it) is what's really inflammatory. It's more inflammatory than anything I've written in this ANI thread or at the Jackson talk page. I've never called for Cmguy777 to be banned entirely from Wikipedia, even though he drives me absolutely insane. Your decision to ignore Protonk's vicious response and instead act like YoPienso was in the wrong is pretty nearsighted. I see that nobody has responded to my post below pointing out provocative comments made by an editor at the Jackson talk page whom ARoseWolf accused me of bullying, and whom I think they were referring to when they were talking about editors leaving the discussion at that talk page. Right now, it seems like there's a double standard at play here in which people on one side are harshly dealt with for stepping out of line, while people on the other side are allowed to say almost anything that they want without consequences. This doesn't excuse my own lapses in civility, which I acknowledge and which I recognize need to change, but until people like you and El_C start holding other editors like Protonk to the same standard as you do me and Yopienso, I simply can't take you seriously. Display name 99 (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not an admin, I am just a guy who was involved with you on the Jackson noticeboard post and RFC. My observation is that you're responding more to tone than to substance. I didn't echo Protonk's call to ban you, but I think El C's block is sound. You have too much emotional connection to the article. I know, because I've been there, and I understand your feelings. But you have to listen and learn. As far as Yopienso's comment, it is absolutely inflammatory and inappropriate to accuse an editor of racism with 0 evidence. I didn't echo Protonk's call to ban Yopienso. However, I think Yopienso should retract their allegation or provide evidence. Andre🚐 02:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm also not an admin, and I'm sorry that you think it is ok to complain about "anti-white bias" but consider the word "fucking" to be uncivil. Protonk (talk) 02:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I neither endorse nor refute YoPienso's allegation, as I have not seen enough evidence in Cmguy's behavior to accuse him of racism, but your apparent belief that it's okay to say bad things about white people on Wikipedia and that anyone who complains about it should be banned is quite upsetting. Display name 99 (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

My heart bleeds for you. Protonk (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

"Say bad things about white people"? Who did that? Cmguy? Where and when? Andre🚐 02:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

No, not Cmguy. Protonk claimed in essence that anyone who makes complaints about anti-white bias should be banned from Wikipedia. I was objecting to his statement. I do not accuse Cmguy of making racist statements against whites. Display name 99 (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

That seems like a mischaracterization of Protonk's statement, Protonk seemed to be referring to the WP:ASPERSIONs of Cmguy's anti-white bias, which are a WP:NPA violation. That is a blockable statement to make unfounded accusations of racism. Andre🚐 03:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Either block me or unfuck your unsolicited commentary. Protonk (talk) 04:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't gonna return to this thread (no need to continue to ping me here, Display name 99, when I said I was done I meant it), but I just wanted to say that I, at least, understood what Protonk meant in their original post. Which is why I thanked them for it a few minutes after they had submitted it. El_C 14:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I understood it, but it's also clear how a person could (in good faith!) misunderstand what Protonk wrote: in the key sentence We can look at this ... or we can boot people like this out of the fucking community, the referent of "this" is not specified either time; the sentence parses equally well with "people like this" being "people like Cmguy" (Bbb23's misinterpretation) as "people like Yopienso" (what was intended). --100.36.106.199 (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, IP. Well said. El_C 16:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you think it is ok to complain about "anti-white bias" but consider the word "fucking" to be uncivil. There's no mention there that it matters whether the complaint is substantiated or not. Editors may make complaints of anti-white bias if they are substantiated. Protonk does not appear to agree. Again, I do not endorse Yopienso's statement. If he wants to provide support for it, that's up to him. But if they decide not to provide support for it, I agree that it would be best to withdraw it. Display name 99 (talk) 03:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I offered you a chance to distance yourself from this statement and you pointedly declined. /emoji shrug Protonk (talk) 04:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• Firstly on the locus of this thread. It's not impossible I missed it in the overly long ANI request, but I would like to ask DN99 (or especially anyone else) for prior attempts to address the broader issue with the user short of a full ANI case. The two threads I saw were specific, and the latter hindered by poor interactions. I don't believe the user is a troll. I do believe it may be possible there are some issues. Speaking with regard to the page ban by El_C to DN99, as I started reading (including a detour to the original locus) I briefly thought that they'd been hasty, at least to indef level. Reading further I had to strike my position as incorrect - as it looks well warranted, from various further details and comment within and without this thread. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• YoPienso, thanks for the ping/question, but I am not an admin. I am a contributor to the FA process. I see (at least) two editors possibly damaging an FA, one of whom is certainly exhibiting ownership and has WP:IDHT issues. There are competent editors who work at FAR who are knowledgeable of the topic and capable of writing a neutral succinct article. I see no FAR regular who doesn't agree that the article has serious problems. I offered a methodology that worked when bringing a much more controversial article (J. K. Rowling) through FAR with its star intact. That suggestion for using a collaborative method was stubbornly rejected by Dn99, who does have a most impressive block log. Those are the only factoids I can opine on; behavioral issues are dragging down a bronze star. If you were asking if I felt attacked in this thread (???), no I did not. I do see Dn99 keeps shoveling deeper, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
• I was involved in both the RfC and the FAR discussions. Multiple editors have expressed the ownership style of editing DN99 has taken with the article. The discussion went on long enough with quite a bit of circling and bad faith assumptions/personal attacks so I disengaged seeing as we were not going to reach a true compromise that improved the article to the point it represented, in actuality, the verifiable sources that are out there. The process will run its course. I can say that Cmguy is not a troll. They just have a different opinion and one that is shared by many reliable sources. Even though DN99 is blocked from the article and Cmguy is not, I would encourage Cmguy to treat it as though they were. They can continue discussions on the article talk page. I elect not to go back there as I am thoroughly disgusted by DN99's position in their arguments and their bad faith description of Cmguy as well as my own and several other editors that happen to disagree with them. There are many Natives and Native descendants who edit here, quite a few that have been involved in the discussion on the talk page. All have made sound and reasoned suggestions based on reliable sources but the most outspoken have likewise been given the "biased" descriptor by DN99 and driven off the discussion. --ARoseWolf 15:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
• I've largely agreed with DN99's editorial views and concerns but I also think others are correct that even when editors don't agree we need to respect CIVIL. As the editor who, as I understand it, did a lot/the most to get the article to FA status I can understand a feeling of OWN and we shouldn't discount the efforts DN99 made to get the article to the level it was at. It's understandable they may be protective of the article. I think part of the problem may be DN99 may not be used to dealing with a contentious topic area. I mean I figured most historical topics aren't likely to have a feeling like they are contemporary politics. DN99. EL_C is a pretty darn level headed admin. With the obvious exception of any time they have told me to behave, if they are concerned it's probably best to stop and think about how you are approaching an issue. I think it's really easy to feel like the other editors are mindless jerks who will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes... or at least they are POV pushers. But the best answer is probably somewhere in the middle. I would hope that if you can really understand why El_C was concerned they will be willing to lift the block. It certainly can be frustrating to deal with an editor who edits first and asks questions later. Still, I've found that it's best to take is slow and try to work with edits as much as possible. Else, being bullheaded and not obviously in the majority is likely to end up places like this. Springee (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Nosebagbear, I had addressed issues with Cmguy's behavior with him several times on the Jackson talk page and once on his user talk page, although admittedly not in the most respectful way. As I mentioned in my original post, Andrevan posted on his talk page asking him to clean up comments that he wrote on the talk page which were entered out of order and in between unrelated comments, and he neither responded nor did anything to fix it. ARoseWolf also criticized him for disruptive editing after he made an edit to the lead on a disputed point without engaging in discussion with other editors. ARoseWolf, my issue is not that Cmguy and I have a different opinion. It's actually been hard for me to figure out his opinion because his talk page posts are so opaque and filled with random off-topic observations and statements of fact without context. For example, he voted for "Ethnic cleansing" in the RfC despite saying that he agreed with me that the term ethnic cleansing should not be mentioned in the opening paragraph. That's just one example of not conveying opinions clearly. I'm not retaliating against him because he has certain opinions. I can barely even tell what his opinions are because of his style of discussion, which has become a major problem when he has posted so often at the talk page. But Cmguy and I have actually eventually arrived at the same conclusion, which is to reference ethnic cleansing in the final paragraph and not in the opening paragraph. My problem with Cmguy is his disruptive style of discussion. I probably disagree much more strongly with you and SandyGeorgia about how the article should look than I do with Cmguy, but I haven't made ANI threads about either of you because, while I feel that both of you are wrong about the article, I don't see any major conduct issues with you, whereas I do with Cmguy. Why does it matter if editors are Native Americans? Are their perspectives somehow more important than mine, as a white man? Lastly, when an editor posts in the RfC that they "have a deep antipathy for Andrew Jackson and curse his name" [283] and writes that the works of a reputable historian whose perspective they happen to disagree with is, among other things, "cringe-worthy fan fic" and "historical fiction" [284] (comments which, to their credit, they later admitted may have been "intemperate"), it doesn't seem wrong for me to speculate that they are editing from personal bias. I'm confused. People are saying that my approach is too combative. But then how is this okay?

Springee, thank you for your comments. But I have asked El_C for evidence of persistent disruptive behavior on the pages, and all that he provided me with was a single post which, though I have admitted was inappropriate, does not in my mind come anywhere close to justifying an indefinite block from the pages. Also, I wish to note your description of Cmguy as "an editor who edits first and asks questions later" and point out that you are second editor after myself to express concerns about Cmguy's behavior. While my own conduct is being scrutinized, his ought to be addressed as well. Display name 99 (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I am staying away from the Jackson article and talk page. Other editors can figure out how to remove the neutrality tags. I do not in any way wish to create any controversy among editors or disrupt the article. In the best interest of the Jackson article, I am taking an extended break from editing on the Jackson article and talk page. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the considerate approach, Cmguy777. When the RFC closes, if there is a conclusion that can be acted upon, then allowing some time for the dust to settle is good. If there is not, or if the dust does not settle, anyone can post to the talk page associated with the FAR on hold at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Andrew Jackson/archive1, and ping Nikkimaria to inquire about reinstating the FAR. When the FAR resumes, it should be possible to approach the issues in a deliberative fashion, as FAR is a "slow and steady wins the race" kind of place, without time pressure or the need for anyone to get hot under the collar. FAR allows for all voices to be heard, and works best with a collaborative spirit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I just want to put in a good word for Cmguy777. I thought I remembered his user name from the revision history of the Nathan Bedford Forrest article, which was a place of contention in the past, but has been pretty stable for quite a while now. I did a good bit of work on it, and Cmguy777 contributed 149 edits. I don't remember ever having a problem with any of them, and I regarded him as a benefit to the project. Peace. Carlstak (talk) 04:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Carlstak Cmguy777 (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• I am the primary writer of the Jackson article. I brought it to featured article status and have helped maintain it at what I believe to be a high quality ever since. During the course of this neutrality dispute, I have offered two potential compromise solutions, both of which were rejected by the loudest voices on the other side, who in essence insisted on nothing less than absolute capitulation despite the fact that they had consensus neither in their sources nor in the RfC responses for their position. Some of them, like Carlstak, made extremely incendiary statements and didn't even try to pretend like they were editing from a neutral point of view. Contrary to repeated allegations of ownership, I have been the one doing the most to try to affect a compromise, and have sacrificed significant ground in order to do so, but I have been thwarted by the intransigence of editors like ARoseWolf.

Andrevan has told me that I have to "listen and learn." I have listened, and what I have learned is that none of that matters. It doesn't matter that I made Andrew Jackson a featured article or that I have been actively trying to end the dispute through negotiation with other editors. All that matters is that I lost my temper a couple of times in dealing with what I think any experienced editor who took 5-10 minutes to seriously study their contributions to the article and talk page (Someone please tell me, has anyone actually done that yet?) would agree was a disruptive and incompetent editor. I will be punished for that, while Cmguy777, the editor who caused that disruption, will not be sanctioned, and the other editors who make incendiary comments on the talk page and obstinately refused compromises that were reflective of the results of the RfC and the sources will likewise go unreprimanded. So far, that's what I have learned from this discussion. Display name 99 (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Display name 99 I know this post is a wall of text, but idk the article about Andrew Jackson will retain its featured status or not if I have brought up this at WP:FAR. 36.81.245.239 (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the article on Andrew Jackson will stay featured. What matters for a featured article is not the conduct of the editors that wrote it, but the quality of the article itself. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 11:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know FAR is about reviewing the quality of the article itself. BTW, @Display name 99's posts are excessively long, reaching the borders of WP:WALLOFTEXT. 36.81.245.239 (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh really IP? Nobody ever told me that. Thank you for adding so many new points to this discussion that have not been stated half a dozen times already. Display name 99 (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

DN99, I don't think anyone is doubting that you've done good work, but I think your ability to work collaboratively and dispassionately needs improvement. I speak as someone who has also had to learn how to improve in that area. I don't think you are being punished. You are being temporarily partially blocked from editing to prevent disruption, but if you were to apologize and turn over a new leaf and AGF, you will be likely unblocked. The fact that you are still claiming Cmguy777 is disruptive and incompetent says that the block is merited. Andre🚐 15:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I am politely requesting this noticeboard incident report be closed. I continue to be disparaged by a blocked editor DN99. I have not been editing on the Jackson article and talk page, nor do I plan to do so in the near future. I am staying away and taking an extended break from the Jackson article. Other editors can bring the Jackson article back to FA status. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Andrevan, it's hard for me to see this as a temporary block. It was made indefinite when it could have easily been for a few days or a week, and no administrator has given me anything specific that I can do to have the block lifted. You say that my claim that Cmguy777 is disruptive and incompetent justifies the block. Have you studied that user's contributions to the article and the article talk page? If you haven't, I politely ask you to do so before criticizing me again for making those statements. I cited numerous examples of what I consider to be bad conduct by that user in my opening post. I have already said that some of my comments towards Cmguy777 were regrettable and inappropriate, but me being wrong sometimes does not excuse the fact that most editors here continue to ignore the unhelpful behavior by Cmguy777 as well as the battleground behavior of other editors at the Jackson page. While my behavior at the Jackson article has not always been admirable, the issues there are not all my fault. Now you'll probably say that you aren't saying that they're all my fault, but it does seem that way, as you and other editors here continue to criticize my conduct and only my conduct. Display name 99 (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Instead of admitting your bad faith assumptions of others, like myself, you double down. As I have stated and continue to state. I have left that article talk page strictly because of you, your attitude and the way you denigrate others who have a different viewpoint than your own. It's always about how you did this or did that. How you made this article a FA. It's always about how you presented a compromise and how I, or someone else, somehow thwarted it. I'm going to be as blunt as I can be when I say this, it isn't about you. It isn't about me either so remove my user name from your vocabulary please and thank you. You think my intransigent viewpoint is such a terrible thing but there is no requirement for me to alter my personal viewpoint on anything so long as I honor consensus. If you have diffs where I have not honored consensus and edited the article at any point throughout this discussion to try and force my views into the article then please present them. Otherwise I kindly ask you to stop casting aspersions about myself and others. Actually, can you even infer what my actual views are about the subject or the article itself based on what I've written or are you going to go with further bad faith assumptions as you did on the talk page? --ARoseWolf 17:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I have never accused you of disruptive editing or editing the article without regard to consensus. That is a charge that I have made against Cmguy777, and is again, part of the reason why I made an ANI thread about him and not about you even though I disagree with you. Like you, I have not altered my viewpoint about what should be in the article, but I have been willing to give up some of my preferences based on the results of the RfC and in the interest of finding a solution to the present controversy. Your refusal to do the same is disappointing. You are right that you were not required to accept my proposed compromises (again, I did not make the ANI thread about you), but the fact that I was the one proposing them and you and other editors were the ones rejecting them demonstrates the absurdity of the idea that I am the one who has a problem with stubbornness and a refusal to collaborate with others.

Basically, if you don't accept my compromise proposals, fine. We'll wait and see how the RfC turns out. But don't turn around and say that I'm the one exhibiting ownership behavior and not working collaboratively.

You have specifically called Andrew Jackson's removal policy a "cruel action." [285] You have made reference to "human lives that were tossed to the side by Jackson's ideals." [286] Also, while I grant that this wasn't at the Jackson talk page, you have made your position abundantly clear here. So yes, I think that I have a very good idea of where you stand on the subject. That isn't my problem. I can handle differences of opinion. I'm not trying to punish you because of your position on the article's subject. My problem is with Cmguy777's unproductive edits and disruptive manner of contributing to discussion on the talk page and with me being persecuted while misconduct by other editors is ignored. My problem is with me being blocked from the article while I've been the editor most actively trying to meet in the middle to arrive at a solution. Display name 99 (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I also don't like that my proposed compromises, which I opened up to community comment on the talk page and did not implement after they failed to gain sufficient support, were criticized as somehow trying to circumvent consensus, or as "horse-trading deals" and an "editorial poker game". [287] [288] I resent the fact that I am now blocked indefinitely from the article that I helped bring to FA status while the editor who made these assumptions of bad faith has not been admonished. Display name 99 (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I resent the false narrative you paint, the false assumptions you make and also the way you attempt to discredit those that have a different view than you do. Even in what you say above, which it completely true of what I said, you still claim you know my position. You don't. The option I !voted for in the RfC was a compromise from my personal views from the beginning. So your "compromises" were actually a capitulation and relegation to obscurity within an overly verbose and bloated article the widely accepted opinions of scholarly sources, nearly equal to those you claim support your position. So there you have an even further glimpse into my personal position. Again, I will abide by a well-reasoned decision once one is made at the RfC else there are other venues one may go to for a review. Until then I am done here and in that discussion and I ask that you stop with your assumptions and aspersions no matter how frustrated you may be. --ARoseWolf 20:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Not a single thing in your response is a fair representation of what I said. I have just said that I can handle differences of opinion, and I made no assumptions in my post. I just pointed out the things that you said. If that makes you angry, I don't care. You have already said repeatedly that many reliable sources call the event a genocide and that calling it ethnic cleansing was a compromise, so that I already knew that you probably considered it a genocide. Your response here just confirms that. I know exactly what your views are now. I'm just struggling to figure out what your point is. How can I assume what your views are when you tell me? Display name 99 (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Reading this, hey - if people criticize you for throwing around accusations, don't just say "If that pisses you off, whatever". It's rude. Plus, they're trying to be civil - if you want to contribute to this discussion properly, maybe don't take people pointing out what you do wrong as a personal attack? WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

WannurSyafiqah74, when another editor makes false and defaming comments about me and all I do is point out facts about what that editor has said, it's a totally acceptable response. Display name 99 (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I've seen your talk page. Dude, if people are gonna tell you you're acting in a bad manner, then they have every right to tell you what you did wrong, especially since you are blocked from editing. As I said, don't take their criticism as a "personal attack". You also need to better yourself, and not see our criticism as "defaming" comments.

How many times do I have to tell you this? If you're not going to improve, then I'm just writing down all of this for nothing. Just listen to what people have to say? It's not hard! WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 07:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Unless you're gonna continue to say "well, they're incorrect and want to defame me"... you do realize not taking criticism doesn't help, right? Like, growing as a person would benefit Wikipedia. Stop dismissing users' comments toward you, here and at your talk page.

The only thing worth being mad about is if someone said "you suck", "you're stupid lol" or something. I'm only stepping in because I don't want you to continue the exact sake behavior you had for the last two years. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 07:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, you should be wary when people say you attack other editors. It's okay to point out on who did wrong, but I found out the context. You really should just not be petty over stuff like this, if people - including the user you targeted - are going to reason with you about it.

Just do better. Don't attack people and dismiss criticism towards you as "defaming" - just grow out of this defensive persona and actually rethink your behavior. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 10:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Jr8825, I am responding to your ping on the Andrew Jackson talk page. I am blocked from that page as well as the article itself per the above thread. However, because you pinged me, I want to say that I have no issue with your proposed version. Because they are quotes, "common man" and "corrupt aristocracy" need citations. Look at the "Philosophy" section of the article. There are citations there for those quotes. Please include those if you are going to add your proposed version. I am unable to discuss them further due to not being able to edit the article talk page.

WannurSyafiqah74, you're telling me that I should stop seeing criticisms of my own behavior as attacks but also that I should stop attacking other editors. How are these editors' criticisms of me not attacks and my behavior towards them is? Please explain yourself. ARoseWolf's criticisms of me were unfair and vindictive. He accused me, without evidence, of assuming that he had a certain viewpoint about the subject of the article, and asked me whether I even knew what his view was. I denied having an issue with his contributions to the article and the talk page because of his views, but cited several examples of him openly broadcasting his position to show that I could, in fact, tell what his belief was. He then, again without citing evidence, accused me of making false assumptions and casting aspersions on other editors. That is not acceptable behavior. Like most of the other editors who have posted here, you continue to scrutinize my behavior while ignoring disruptive, inflammatory, and pugnacious behavior by other editors. I have acknowledged saying some ill-advised things, but as I have said above to other editors, so long as you continue to blame me for all of the problems at the article and ignore the bad behavior by other contributors, I cannot take you seriously. Also as I said above, I have listened to what others have said, and I have found their criticisms highly hypocritical and lacking in sound judgement. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah. My apologies for pinging you. I've read your comment, but if commenting on that page here could be a breach your ban you may wish to strike your above comment out of caution (I'm not saying it is, I do not know the details). Jr8825 • Talk 22:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Not to worry. You didn't know. I struck the comment as a precaution. Display name 99 (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Are there any administrators who can close this report that seems to have gotten sidetracked? Has the matter been settled? Thanks. I am staying away from the Jackson article for a prolonged period of time while letting other editors settle the neutrality issues. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:57, 12 September 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.

Restrict creation of User:Peonydanvers to staff?

Update: Peonydanvers (blaming admins for being bullies, in spite of said user having a history of harassment) had been blocked as per WP:NOTHERE. Also, "staff" was the incorrect word to use - the right one was "admins". Until further notice, archive this thread. --WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 08:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

---

(This is to compensate for my previous thread: Sorry for being on ANI before to report on Ki999 too early. I'm young and was too eager.)

Peonydanvers has been doing disruptive editing, engaging in personal attacks, as well as remaking their own userpage to target and name-call the Wikipedia staff. It's a dumb, ridiculously pointless rant, and I've voted the userpage for deletion - I wonder if it can be restricted so that they can't make it over and over.

Speedy delete by the way - I can only assume this user has been acting like this ever since they wanted to make an article about their band... which Wikipedia is not for, but they got mad and I had to tell them directly about how angry they're suddenly acting. --WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 12:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Either way, it's not even funny to be mad over Wikipedia staff members just doing their damn job.

I don't want a new userpage for Peonydanvers made at the moment, unless a specific template is needed to specify something. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The obvious solution is to indef them per WP:NOTHERE. They made one edit to an article 2 years ago, and since then have focused exclusively on recreating their userpage as a personal website, resorting to personal attacks, insults and what seem to be veiled legal threats due to it being repeatedly deleted under WP:U5. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 12:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

They're not active right now. I don't want to report someone unless they have repeatedly demonstrated bad behavior. Either way, I'll wait until admins reach a consensus. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, given how their responses to the situation have included an attack on another editor's mental health [289] and their repeated assertions that they can use their page for whatever they wish regardless of policy [290], I'd be tempted to go for a WP:NOTHERE regardless of their next response CiphriusKane (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

And the one edit they made 2 years ago was WP:OR bordering on vandalism. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

They're currently ranting about admin bullying and censorship [291]. Maybe time to revoke TPA CiphriusKane (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Revoked. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments! Honestly well deserved. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 07:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, I've put their longer-winded rant in a collapsible box, because holy SHIT. I can only predict the length of their unblock request (if there will be any) will be an entire essay. Probably on how they are not in the wrong.

P.S. how the hell did they come to the conclusion people assumed they're a terrorist? No fucking shit calling admins "bulies" gets them in trouble. But no, the admins are the bad guys here and theh definitely did not attack anyone. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

WannurSyafiqah74 I'd advise maybe watching yer wording. This edit for example is frankly unnecessarily hostile and this sort of language only fuelled their statements CiphriusKane (talk) 05:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Ohh, okay. I'll strike the reply, if that's fine. I might as well refrain from expressing frustrations no matter how ridiculous a user can be - thanks! WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 09:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@CiphriusKane Removed hostile wording + my reply towards their final rant. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

By the way, for future reference, WannurSyafiqah74, administrators are not "staff" here. "Staff" usually refers to employees of the Wikimedia Foundation, who by design have very little role in the Wikimedia projects' day-to-day governance. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Or at least shouldn't have a significant role in day-to-day operations, although we have seen a trend towards usurpation of community perogatives by staff. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin Thank you - I had no idea how to word it. How about "admins"? WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 07:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

That'll work. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

FRINGE, promotional editing by SPA User:Bcjohnjr

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.

---

Bcjohnjr appears to be self-described "former UC Berkeley Blockchain Technology student and Canadian environmental activist Jonathan Bily" himself promoting conspiracy theories about how the U.S. government wants to kill him, citing social media posts on Facebook, YouTube, et al. See diffs at CIA activities in Canada ([292]), Disposition Matrix ([293]), List of CIA controversies ([294]), and Human rights violations by the CIA ([295]), as well as the user's original work "File:Carbonite Flow Chart.jpg," an "algorithm flowchart which funds massive tree planting and theoretically stabilises the price of a carbon coin," according to the author. It seems scarcely conceivable that this account is here to build an encyclopedia.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:Bcjohnjr#Indefinite block. El_C 02:40, 13 September 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.

IP editor making legal threats and personal attacks.

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.

---

2601:140:8400:36C0:489A:364D:961E:BA96 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been issuing legal threats in their edit summaries at Andrew Anglin ([296], [297]). They've also made a combination legal threat and personal attack on Talk:Andrew Anglin ([298]). Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Diff of ANI-notice. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I reported them at AIV. They're also being antisemitic at Sines v. Kessler. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked six months for pro-Nazi and antisemitic editing, with hints of legal threats thrown in . Cullen328 (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen328. FYI, you blocked them for one month. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Adjusted block to six months. Cullen328 (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Should the range block on 2601:140:8400:36C0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also be upgraded to 6 months? It was instated a few minutes after Cullen's block on the IP by NinjaRobotPirate. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Eeeesh. Too many people out there -- or what you get when laymen pretend to know about the law -- who think that the definition of "libel" or "slander" = saying bad things about them. Someone whose day job is editing the freaking Daily Stormer IS a neo-Nazi, and he seems to boast about his allegiance to Hitler often enough. Ravenswing 22:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Good block. Indef would have been better. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  IPs don't get indef'd. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 02:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  If indefinite blocks of IPs were accepted on English Wikipedia. I would have given one. Cullen328 (talk) 02:08, 13 September 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.

Smorkach 24 is at it again

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.

---

A month ago, the editor Smorkach 24 was blocked for two weeks for disruptive editing, after he was reported by myself here at ANI (see [299]). Sadly, their behaviour has not improved since the end of that block, although they have made some notable effort to avoid or postpone detection, with mixed results. Their recipe for disruptive editing has largely remained the same, too: changing numbers while keeping the same source as before ([300], [301]), changing information and using a source that literally says the opposite of what they claim ([302]), and failure (refusal?) to put things into context, associated with use of very questionable sources ([303]). Basically, Smorkach 24 has only changed the frequency of his vandalism. Apart from that, it's exactly the same as before his first block. BilletsMauves^€500 18:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 3 months: User_talk:Smorkach_24#Block. BilletsMauves, the source used for expenditures at Armed Forces of the Republic of Kazakhstan no longer works. El_C 02:10, 13 September 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 talk page spam

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/Dakado_Global_Services_Co_Ltd needs talk page access revoked - despite being blocked they continue to attempt to post spam on their user talk page (getting blocked by the edit filter repeatedly). Taking Out The Trash (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. Widr (talk) 13:55, 12 September 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.

Vandalism from User:Lynn who is ready

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:Lynn who is ready has been vandalising pages by adding the image from the Doug Coldwell preparation article to [304], [305] and [306] and seeming to GA nominate an article on Doug's behalf at [307]. From the text in the GA nomination and the image used I do wonder if they are trying to make a point but it is vandalism regardless. Gusfriend (talk) 07:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I am prepared, in principle, to let you know, copyright vios aren't really a big deal Lynn who is ready (talk) 07:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Quite the contrary actually. Wikipedia's Non free content policies are very strict, and these can have major implications. I got a block myself recently for my misinterpretation of them with regard to the logo of BP (luckily I learned my lesson and admins unblocked me). InvadingInvader (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have much longer barn stars than you. Big long shiny green plus shaped barnstars. Do you need to use a tool to see? Use AIV young padawon Lynn who is ready (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

This week is already shaping out to be one of the best this noticeboard has seen so far. First the so bad, it's good misapplication of the USC by Oryzo, and now blatant lies about barnstars anyone can disprove. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 08:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia OFFICIALLY thanked me for ten edits. Do you need more?? Lynn who is ready (talk) 07:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

This should be a clear block. Every edit of theirs have been reverted, but they blank their talk page afterwards. Seems to lack the ability to speak in any coherent manner. Claims to have "a ton of GA nominationz" and barnstars but has none. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 08:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

They're clearly WP:NOTHERE and more concerned about a block. InvadingInvader (talk) 08:18, 13 September 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:Adamdaley's continued troubling behaviour and WP:IDHT after expired block

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.

---

Adamdaley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notified here)

Following a previous ANI discussion in July 2022, Adamdaley was blocked on 19 July 2022 for one month for consistently editing against consensus, and [..] fail[ing] to adjust [their] behavior despite concerns expressed by many editors. The block followed other editors' requests (going back to at least 2020) to halt their disruptive behaviour.

Since their block expired on 19 August, they've returned to their modus operandi of producing massive amounts (See contribs) of talk page edits that consist primarily of inconsequential (i.e. not producing any change in the visible page) edits to talk page banners. Each edit might contain one or two useful changes, but they are hidden in massive, inscrutable, diffs that take way too much time to parse for other editors. Random recent examples from their contributions page: [308], [309], [310]. As established in the previous ANI discussion, these edits are completely manual, not using e.g. WP:RATER.

Following the end of the block, multiple editors have attempted to get Adamdaley to modify their behaviour ([311],[312], [313], [314]). The only result is a large amount of WP:IDHT and... what ever this sequence of edits is [315] (NB: spans multiple revisions).

Since it appears that Adamdaley has no intention of listening what the editors who have taken to his talk page have to say, I'm hoping that outside voices might help resolve this matter. Ljleppan (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Adamdaley. Cullen328 (talk) 19:20, 11 September 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.

Not sure if this is a 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.

---

@Oryzo: edited Catholic Church with an edit summary[316] that led me to consider if it invoked Wikipedia:No legal threats. The edit summary states that reverting their edit would be a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1001, the U.S. federal criminal law pertaining to false statements to the government (which is of course, not true). I'm not certain this rises to the level of sanctions, but I wanted to put administrator eyes on this and on the generally somewhat rocky contribution history of Oryzo[317] (renamed from previous username Lehtianimation). Jahaza (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Seems like an obvious legal threat. Of course, it's the funniest one I've seen. Besides Oryzo's interpretation making lying illegal in the U.S., they miss the part of the cited subsection that describes in what places making such statements can carry penalties (hint: Wikipedia ain't one of them). ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I left them a warning and a note about the obvious silliness of their threat. I find it hard to take seriously, unless they make a habit of threatening other editors after this. Acroterion (talk) 03:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I just wasn't sure to what extent the policy required action. If it doesn't, then I think that's an appropriate level of response. Jahaza (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Bluntly, I'd just block them for the legal threat even if it were ineffective. The obvious goal is to try and scare editors from reverting them, which in and of itself should be grounds for a block. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 03:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Just click enough stuff randomly, and you'll figure out he's probably citing himself. Commons:Special:Permalink/554530626, Special:Diff/1109826153. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Ahh. Jahaza (talk) 04:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Their edit summary sounds defamatory, so they should not cast legal threats -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Looking at their contribs, they should be done till a year from now. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Well if that don't seal the block, I don't know what does. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I blocked him indefinitely. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, that diff is enough to indef. Acroterion (talk) 11:58, 12 September 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:Naaginised

Past more than many warnings whether on his/her user talk page or edit summary since February 2022. He is doing biased and disruptive edits again and again.

The user: Naaginised (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Some of the complaints:

• Adding cameo role again and again in main role and starring infobox where main leads are to be written for example this [318]
• Removing main male lead names from infobox
• Creating fantasy tab “Naaglok Overview” according to whims and fancies and most of them are wrong[319]

Some of my warnings on his talk page: Special:Diff/1075559952 Special:Diff/1084482859 Special:Diff/1084488523 Imsaneikigai (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is it a content dispute? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually he/she is just making endless disruptive edits of Naagin (2015 TV series) and reverting good faith edits of others and writing content according to his whims and fancies and biasedness. I have tried reaching him/her via talk page but he/she just blanks it and does not revert. Imsaneikigai (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Partial block from editing Naagin (2015 TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and invited to discuss here. Any admin may unblock w/o discussing with me. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by IP address

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

This IP address has been involved in disruptive edits across the cricket related articles over the couple of days. They are adding nonsensical information such as [320]. And other unsourced materials such as [321], [322], [323] and many more. Human (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Ugh, mobile diffs colour overload. Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. El_C 16:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@El C: How do you even warn an IP address? They probably would never be notified and never check them. And where does it say that mobile diffs aren't allowed? Human (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, they're allowed, I just hate em because I find them too visually jarring to easily parse. In answer to your question: you may post relevant user warnings on their talk page. So, for example, here, I'd start with {{uw-disruptive2}} and from there go to {{uw-disruptive4}}, if needed. El_C 16:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

{non-admin comment) The first diff posted by OP is indeed nonsense. You can no more win a cricket match by 16 wickets than a single round of golf by 19 holes. The maximum is 10. Narky Blert (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The IP editor has now been blocked 31 hours by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Persistent disruption by IP range 172.58.0.0/16 (talk · contribs)

[324] is already subject to a partial block--their recent history begs for something more comprehensive. See latest edit warring at Suckless.org, to restore poorly sourced content. By the way, after cleaning that dross up, another round of page protection may be in order. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

no idea who the other edits are by, this is a shared ip. 21:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.103.95 (talk)

Of course. And this is a coincidence [325]. It occurs to me to ping Yamaguchi先生, who performed the partial block and noted the connection to Youngstown music vandal [326]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Could I also request edit summary blanking of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suckless.org&oldid=1109781656 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suckless.org&oldid=1109781291 for vulgar language? Thanks. Inomyabcs (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

It's been well over a day since I opened this report. The vandalism from 172.58 range is unabated. Is there a reason we have ANI? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:6126 (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Kleinpecan and User:Amigao

Amigao and Kleinpecan have been reverting my edits to Great Translation Movement which were properly cited and contained information that does not depict the movement as even slightly falliable, refusing to give even any reason for undoing my edits. Furthermore, I would like to report that Amigao has returned to their usual antics of changing all instances of "Communist Party of China" to "Chinese Communist Party" (for some reason?), and that Kleinpecan has made racist statements about Russians by referring to them as "vatniks" (see [[327]]). Quite frankly it's baffling that these racial slurs were casually allowed to be made without anyone calling this user out on them. 129.97.125.1 (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Start a discussion at the talk page first: Talk:Great Translation Movement Dawnseeker2000 23:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

While I await their responses, may my other complaints about these users be addressed? 129.97.125.1 (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Check the link that you provided. It links to this page. Pretty sure that's not what you intended, right? Dawnseeker2000 23:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The intended link was this, for a permanent link to said user's edit, see this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1109789333 129.97.125.1 (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Vatnik is not a "racial slur", and the person whom I reported isn't even Russian. Kleinpecan (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It is really strange that the OP considers jingoistic war hawks to be a protected racial group. But the world is a strange place. Cullen328 (talk) 05:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

And to pick on another of your complaints, quite aside from that "Chinese Communist Party" has half again the Google hits of "Communist Party of China," the former is what the Wikipedia article is called. Your bafflement at the reason for changing the latter to the former is either clueless or disingenuous.

As far as your main complaint goes, it's been answered on the talk page, where it was pointed out that an opinion piece (especially in a publication owned by the Communist government) cannot be used as a reliable source for statements of fact. Ravenswing 08:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Vatnik vandal

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.

---

For quite some time now some vatnik has been vandalizing articles, mostly on Russian propagandists (example: Special:Diff/1108707074), resulting in at least two pages (Semen Pegov and Alexander Kots) being temporarily semi-protected. Can something be done about it, or would the collateral damage be too big?

• 151.34.120.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 151.34.66.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 151.34.9.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 151.36.10.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 151.36.206.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 151.38.189.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 151.38.216.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 151.38.92.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 151.44.59.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 151.68.60.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleinpecan (talk • contribs) 21:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Kleinpecan: You forgot to sign your post with 4 tildes (~~~~). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Yep, thank you. Kleinpecan (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I blocked 151.34.64.0/18 as recent edits in that range are over-the-top propaganda. I don't see any propaganda edits in the last few days from the other IPs. Let me know if more pop up and I will investigate. Johnuniq (talk) 05:09, 12 September 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.

Persistent disruptive editing and failure to cite sources

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.

---

SBS3800P has a long history of disruptive editing by continually adding unsourced information. They were previously blocked for two weeks for doing so, but their recent edits [328] [329] [330] show that they have not learned their lesson. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 05:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey, that was me! Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:SBS3800P#Indefinite_block. El_C 16:25, 11 September 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.

Date-changing vandal in Chile

• 45.232.92.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone in Chile has been changing filmmaker birth dates to be wrong.[331][332] It's been going on for more than a year.[333][334] Perhaps a rangeblock to temporarily stop the disruption. Binksternet (talk) 06:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I blocked that range for a month. Johnuniq (talk) 09:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Davisisgreat blocked without explanation

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.

---

Davisisgreat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user was blocked by Doug Weller (talk · contribs) per WP:NOTHERE, but it is unclear why NOTHERE applies. An unblock request has already been declined, without further clarification except that it was not for adding unreferenced content. The blocking admin has been notified of this discussion, but I am not sure if I am supposed to notify Davisisgreat as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

From an editor not involved with the edit reversions, I would say this is valid. The first submission was a fluff test edit. The secession ones were unsourced and were never going to be validated (from a good ten minute review on Google for anything similar to the edits). In fact, the Seminole Nation website makes no discussion about secession (they are independent anyway). The last edit was not even close to relevant for the article topic. Inomyabcs (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Multiple bullet points from NOTHERE apply: WP:SOAP, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:SPA just to get started. It's clear the editor had an agenda, and wasn't here to improve the encyclopedia. Good block. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

We aren't banning other users above (I.e. Doug C.) for hundreds of copyright violations, in fact people are offering to mentor him. I propose to mentor this user. An indef would be punitive. 166.205.97.124 (talk) 06:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about #Doug Coldwell and self-promotional editing as you haven't linked to a specific discussion. The editor under discussion there has been editing here since 2006, has thousands of edits, many GA's and other community based recognitions, etc. While the editor under discussion here was created days ago, and has made no edits of value and appears to be WP:NOTHERE. There is no comparison here. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Nor, frankly, does an anon IP with exactly one mainspace edit to the encyclopedia have a resume upon which we could assess their value as a mentor. Ravenswing 08:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Their first edit was to Oviedo, Florida adding "Home of great king Zacharius" in the middle of a citation. Their second was to Texas secession movements adding "In 2022 students in Seminole County Florida attempted to make Texas a Country through Petition.". Their third and last was to Secession in the United States adding "Additionally in 2022 there was some talk around central Florida about creating a Seminole country to "keep out Yankees"". Can anyone find a source for either of those statements? I couldn't. I blocked for NOTHERE, I guess I could have blocked for vandalism. I'm at a loss as to why this is a bad block, but if the community or another Admin thinks it was, fine unblock although I think that would be a mistake. I will also be bold and suggest that the IP is likely someone logged out or an editor using more than one IP. But again, if an established editor with a good record offers to monitor, I'll unblock. Doug Weller talk 09:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• If the editor makes a good-faith request that addresses all the issues with previous edits, I'd be willing to unblock, but I see no issue with the block itself. It's not just unsourced content, I'm seeing one instance of a joke or vandal edit, and two of presumed fabrication. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Re "unclear why NOTHERE applies", when would NOTHERE apply if not in this case? I suppose it's possible to regard the latter two edits as merely misguided rather than trolling. If the OP believes that to be the case, I recommend they spend however long it takes to communicate with Davisisgreat and get them to see why the edits might not be regarded with favor. Once that happens, some coaching on how to write a good appeal might get positive results. If that's too tiresome, you could always speak with the blocking admin and explain why you think NOTHERE does not apply. Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• While LaundryPizza03's concerns are appreciated, it is clear the block was justified. NOTHERE covers many forms of disruption, and the blockee indulged in more than one. The blockee had been warned for their "questionable" edits and persisted. Their unblock requests have fallen short of answering the three questions I ask a blockee seeking unblock. As Johnuniq says, LaundryPizza03 helping blockee explore their inner workings would be great-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Good block. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Good block, Doug Weller; ignore the static. Miniapolis 22:31, 13 September 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.