Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1158

WP:RUSUKR sanctions violation

Unfam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - non-EC edits of 25 May 2024 Kharkiv missile strikes page [1], [2] despite warnings [3] , [4] , [5] . Non constructive comments with personal attacks in talk [6] [before the warning]. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• All I want is for a single video that proves russian claims about hypermarket used as an ammo storage being either linked or uploaded, in any way you like. It is as constructive as it can be. Also, I don't understand how it is a personal attack. Unfam (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Two (arguably three if you include a typo fix) clear bright-line breaches of RUSUKR, as well as a brand new editor wading in calling another editor a "hypocrite" in a CT area talk page. I think we have generally viewed this pretty dimly? Daniel (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  I might be wrong, but deleting evidence in favour of one side or another due to, in my opinion, personal bias, is much worse than anything I ever did. Unfam (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• Have indefinitely ECP-ed the article per sanctions. No comments on the content, removed or otherwise, have yet to evaluate those. – robertsky (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yet another weaponization of ANI. This is a recurring pattern from ManyAreasExpert. He has already weaponized it against me some 2 or 3 times, as Cinderella157 will probably remember. MAE seems to use all his knowledge, including Wikipedia policies knowledge, to corner and tilt people into making mistakes and rash decisions/comments. Almost as if he laid a trap. I think this is a much bigger problem than a new editor's attempt to edit and balance a contentious page section in good faith. Look, Unfam was very constructive in that talk page discussion and clearly tried to make careful and balanced suggestions of edits, which I thought were reasonable and implemented them myself to represent the Russian POV. It all changed when MAE stepped in.

Why do people seem to loose their minds when interacting with MAE, me included sometimes? Probably because he recurrently uses the theme/narrative of Russian propaganda, Russian unreliable sources, Russian misinformation, Russian war crimes, Western MSM is more reliable, there is no Western propaganda, there is no Ukrainian propaganda, Ukrainian officials can say whatever they want in Western sources and that is always considered superior to whatever the Russians say in Telegram, etc. This kind of argument is infuriating since it's already very difficult to show/represent the Russian POV in anything without the typical Western negative labels. Many Russian sources are already blacklisted and, often, one must translate the allowed sources to find the relevant info. Covering the other (Ukrainian/Western) POV, on the other hand, is so much easier and less stressful. Just Google anything and you'll be almost ensured to be flooded with English anti-Russian articles with varying degree of Russophobia. Why am I saying all this? To show how tense and one-sided this whole RUSUKR debate is, and to show how frustrating it is when we're spat with the "Russian propaganda" argument whenever we try to voice their POV.

But this would be the first step of the trap. As the other editor is getting triggered, MAE counteracts with edits using notoriously pro-Ukrainian/pro-Western sources, injects unfavorable background only to one side, injects wikilinks that are flooded with unfavorable content towards one side, etc. Then, in the heat of the argument, he warns about sanctions and civility as he goes all soft, complaining that being called a "hypocrite" is a PA (which it kinda is, but give me a break, look at what you do. does it actually hurt because you know it's true? or was is legitimately offensive?). By the way, Unfam's retraction and response was quite concerted afterwards; good! However, within those hot minutes Unfam made a technical mistake of directly editing a sanctioned page while I was away. And now the "witch hunt" is on...

And just a few days ago, MAE potentially tried to bait me in a related article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2024_Kharkiv_offensive#Losses_claims_in_the_infobox. He contested one of my recent edits here; I then boldly reverted it mostly based on the POV argument he used (that you can't put Ukrainian and Russian claims side by side because Ukrainian claims are much more 'accurate' in his mind), despite me knowing better arguments in favor of MAE's edit (i.e. that the claims span different time intervals, thus kinda apples to oranges); he then warns me of a policy; I then read it and understood he was right and his tone was fine, then I basically retracted my revert here and pretty much conceded in the talk page here with the OK emoji, dispute should be mostly solved; however, he then poked/baited me with this sarcastic comment, trying to act all tough and superior as if he was in a position to demand submission. I didn't fall for it, fortunately. Or, alternatively, he simply didn't understand my comment and saw the talk page before the article and consequently wouldn't see the retraction edit. Anyways, more and more tension which never occurred, for example, with Super Dromaeosaurus in Talk:2024 Kharkiv offensive#War crimes and misconduct (look at the difference in tone of the dispute resolution).

Concluding, I wanted to formally request that MAE be prevented from opening new ANI tickets against editors when attempting to solve contentious content disputes, especially when only MAE is showing concern in the talk page and especially during the early stages of discussion (it was literally a discussion of a few minutes and MAE was already potentially asking for sanctions/restrictions on this editor). This request also accounts that MAE has systematically made content edits that, afaik, exclusively favor the Ukrainian POV in the past. And also considering that MAE seemingly abuses the enforcement of Wikipedia policies without good intent, i.e. in a mission to corner and intimidate whoever attempts to represent/voice the actual Russian POV in articles.

As for Unfam, he has already been plenty warned and has shown understanding and restraint. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

This is contentious topic. Asked to adhere to Wikipedia rules, you gave no affirmative response [7] and continued [8] adding anonymous tg channels as sources. Removing reliable sources at the same time [9] . You did the same before - User talk:Alexiscoutinho#May 2024 - propaganda telegram in contentious topics . Stop using tg channels and Russian state media as sources, stop equating POVs reported by reliable sources with propaganda reported by Russian state sources, stop attacking the opponent when asked to adhere to Wikipedia rules, and everything will be fine. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

But meduza isn't a reliable source. Unfam (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

So you are adding anon tg channels to the article [10] , and are saying that Meduza is not reliable. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Meduza is a reliable source. Ymblanter (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

It is funded by american government. Then any russian news website should also be reliable sources. Unfam (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

First, it is not funded by the American government. Second, there are many reliable sources funded by the American government. Third, Russian government sources are not reliable because they consistently publish disinformation, not because they are funded by the Russian government. Fourth, the fact that you write this shows very clearly that you need an indefinite topic ban from any Russian and European topics. Ymblanter (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

you gave no affirmative response what?! how is "OK" and an effective retraction edit in the article not an affirmative response? Your sarcastic question was provocative. Did you really want me to "lick your boots"? and continued adding why the "and" connection here? I contributed by adding a missing POV, and was even thanked for it. Even though the execution wasn't ideal, the intention was fine. Removing reliable sources at the same time Don't distort this, I removed blatant POV pushing, like you did in that mini Aftermath section of the battle of Bakhmut, and I would remove it again if I could go back in time. Even pro-Ukrainian Super Dro acknowledged that those wikilinks were a stretch. You did the same before the situations were completely different, and as I explained above, the intent of the latest episode was fine. Russian state media as sources I'm still not sold on the reasoning behind a blanket rejection. stop equating POVs reported by reliable sources with both POVs were reported by reliable sources as you showed. with propaganda reported by Russian state sources this is just your POV leaking through; doesn't even try to hide the lack of acknowledgement of Western and Ukrainian propaganda. stop attacking the opponent when asked to adhere to Wikipedia rules, and everything will be fine. well, one gets what one sows. Whenever you base your concerns/disputes on one-sided propaganda claims, you'll get unconstructive discussions. Give neutral comments/requests, like you sometimes do, and we'll actually get somewhere without wasting arguments. The same applies to other editors: don't expect them to be all cooperative when you start calling the shots, deleting stuff, substituting it with oppositely biased sources, calling the other's info propaganda and then threatening through ANI. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

he recurrently uses the theme/narrative of ... there is no Western propaganda, there is no Ukrainian propaganda, ...
This is plain wrong. Please limit the user from making such false accusations. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry, ManyaAreasExpert, I won't do this any more. I've made you stop vandalasing the article with your edits, and stopped you from hiding the evidence. Now the page is locked, so nothing can be changed. Even though there is still no video linked or uploaded, as I asked, but at least it is mentioned. This is the best anyone could do, with people like you around. Now you can continue crying about personall

attacks or what not, I won't bother you any more. Unfam (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you want me to retract that? Because I never saw you acknowledging those. Therefore, it appeared like so. Did I get carried away? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

You are making false accusations because I haven't acknowledged something you think I should? Please stop discussing editors, this is not constructive and is a WP:PA: Comment on content, not on the contributor. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor Well, this whole thread started with a "comment on contributor" when it was actually mostly based on a content dispute... And yeah, this discussion has been pretty milked already. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

this whole thread started with a "comment on contributor"
This is not true. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeed they misrepresented a particular source to push a particular POV.[11] I am not sure if this is due to a poor understanding of English but this is not the first time. Mellk (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Where is the misrepresentation? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Moser does not say that it should be called Old Ukrainian. The alt name is already well established, therefore calling it anachronistic in wikivoice based on one person's opinion is the very definition of POV pushing. Mellk (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Moser does not say that it should be called Old Ukrainian
... and Moser did said what?
is the very definition of POV pushing
... but your initial claim was about misinterpretation. Should we abandon it, and discuss the new claim instead? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

In the quote you provided (shown in the diff), he refers to Old East Slavic and mentions the term Old Ukrainian if Old East Slavic "can deliberately be given an anachronistic name". If you cannot understand what the source says, then this raises concerns. Mellk (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

That's the correct representation of Moser. Note how the quote was added with my edit to avoid any misinterpretation.

Now, where is the misinterpretation? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

He did not say that Old Ukrainian is how the language should be called (i.e. this should be included as an alt name), and other editors said the same thing on the article talk page. So, this is just you who misunderstood what he said. Again, for such edits, WP:CIR applies, and it is clear from your other edits that you do not have a good enough command of the English language. Mellk (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

... but Moser did said that "Old Russian" is anachronistic, and that's what my edit was. Moser did also said that compared to anachronistic Old Russian, Old Ukrainian is more appropriate, and that's what my edit was. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I have just told you that Old Russian is a well established name and this is supported in the rest of the article, you changed this to "anachronistic" based on one person's opinion, while you included the term "Old Ukrainian" as an alt name as the "more appropriate" name for Old East Slavic. We are just going in circles here so I will leave it at that. Mellk (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Not "more appropriate" then Old East Slavic. More appropriate then Old Russian, supported by Moser. Provided with quote to avoid misinterpretation. Where is the misinterpretation here. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

This is off-topic deflection by Mellk. Getting back to the actual serious issue - no, anonymous posts on Telegram are no RS, never will be, and anyone who tries to use them repeatedly despite warnings has no business editing this topic area. Volunteer Marek 05:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

No, I just added my experience to the response to claims of POV pushing. Of course, as Manyareasexpert started this discussion, his own conduct in the topic area can be reviewed as well. Since you claim that I am deflecting, doesn't your topic ban include not commenting on editors? Mellk (talk) 05:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not have a topic ban here nor any restriction on commenting on editors, especially at AN/I where the *whole point* is to discuss editor behavior. Please stop trying to derail the discussion by trying to shift the focus to others. You were doing it with Manyareasexpert before - this discussion was about the Kharkiv Missle Strike article and you tried to muddy up the waters by bringing up some completely irrelevant edits at… “Old East Slavic” - now youre trying to do it with me. Volunteer Marek 05:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I see, the restriction is personal comments on articles and article talk pages only. I also responded to Alexis Coutinho's reply which is about Manyareasexpert's conduct. As you said, this is about editor behavior, so I am not sure why you replied to me to complain about this. I added my input, if you do not have anything to add to this, reply to someone else instead. Mellk (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I’m not under any such restriction either. You should probably drop these attempts at derailing the discussion now, since that too can be seen as disruptive. Volunteer Marek 05:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Next time do not reply to my comment about a particular issue if all you are going to do is make nonsensical accusations of derailing. Mellk (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Specifically, this right here is textbook example of using clearly non-RS sources for POV. Last time this happened Alexiscouthino pleaded ignorance of rules. Obviously one can’t use that excuse twice for same offense. Volunteer Marek 05:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

No. That was only a first attempt to represent an official POV in good faith, without ever trying to distort or suppress the other (Ukrainian) POV, in an article that was clearly one-sided and was even pushing untrue statements with wikivoice. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 10:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

This is real POV pushing, and this... Alexis Coutinho (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean, adding academic sources is POV pushing. And replacing TASS and tg links with Meduza and RFEL is POV pushing. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean, adding academic sources is POV pushing. You circumvented two entire RfC discussions by selectively writing in the first sentence of the Aftermath, which was directly linked by the infobox result, the result you preferred, while completely ignoring the other analyses, thus bypassing the spirit the "Russian victory - See Aftermath" link and mischaracterizing the result in your favor.

And replacing TASS and tg links with Meduza and RFEL is POV pushing. I wasn't clear. The TASS replacement was ok and I even thanked you for it. The injected background from RFEL was POV pushing. I could have similarly thrown in mentions of previous war crimes by Ukrainians and instances where they used civilian infrastructure to store military hardware to push the Russian point across. But I didn't, as selectively adding background that is not connected to the incident by current sources is POV pushing. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

while completely ignoring the other analyses
Six academic sources were provided with my edit. Which academic source was ignored?

The injected background from RFEL was POV pushing. I could have similarly thrown in mentions of previous war crimes by Ukrainians and instances where they used civilian infrastructure to store military hardware to push the Russian point across. But I didn't, as selectively adding background that is not connected to the incident by current sources is POV pushing.
Let's say it again. The RFEL article Russian Forces Hit Hypermarket In Deadly Assault On Kharkiv, Surrounding Villages (rferl.org) is not connected to the 25 May 2024 Kharkiv missile strikes. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Which academic source was ignored? Don't play dumb. You know exactly what you omitted. RFEL article propaganda outlet whitewashed as RS. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Another personal attack due to lack of argument. No academic sources were omitted.

propaganda outlet whitewashed as RS.
... but your initial claim was selectively adding background that is not connected to the incident, should we abandon it now? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Another personal attack due to lack of argument. No academic sources were omitted. I stand by it, you're being disingenuous. The situation was obvious. There was an RfC which overwhelmingly sides with "Russian victory" not "Russian pyrrhic victory". There was already a big paragraph discussing both interpretations of the result of the battle in the analysis section which you and I helped to construct. Yet you thought that wasn't enough. You wanted to put "pyrrhic victory" with ALL the spotlight. Since you couldn't write "pyrrhic victory" directly in the infobox you decided to say it in the first sentence linked by the infobox result. You infatuated the citation by adding the most qualifiers you could and flooded it with refs. You even put that "pyrrhic victory" statement before the true aftermath paragraph to make sure the reader was convinced it was "pyrrhic victory". And of course you didn't bother covering the other analysts which considered the battle a "Russian victory" as was done in that larger paragraph of the Attrition section.

your initial claim was selectively adding background What background? If you are talking about the secondary explosions, that's literally part of the incident itself. abandon it now? Well, in the article it was already abandoned... so maybe... Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Since we have determined that no academic sources were ignored, we can conclude there is a consensus among them regarding "pyrrhic victory" or such. And yes, this academic consensus POV can be preferred against what's written in news media. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

You can't dare say there's any consensus given your edit pattern. Until you show how you sampled those academic sources for a representative array, I won't rule out that you simply cherry-picked those sources. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Asked "which academic source was ignored", received none. What are we talking about here? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

You have been plenty explained. If you still can't understand, that's your problem. Unsubscribing from this thread right now as it's becoming unhealthy and toxic for both of us. Ping me if someone requests an important reply. I really don't want to argue with you again in ANI. I repeat my original request that I don't think MAE is qualified to use ANI against other editors in RUSUKR war topics due to being too involved. I won't complain if you argue the same to me, that I'm not qualified to raise ANI tickets in this area. Let cool heads prevail. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The situation is getting a bit out of control as now we have editors arguing straight up that it’s ok to use non-reliable sources as long as these “represent the Russian viewpoint” [12]. I know I’ve been away from this topic for awhile but no one alerted me to the fact that apparently WP:RS got revoked for this topic area in my absence. Volunteer Marek 05:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

MAE's conduct hasn't been flawless, but I definitely think Alexiscoutinho is far closer to a community sanction given the continued, disruptive use of Telegram sources after being told, repeatedly and explicitly, that the community does not consider Telegram to be reliable source. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

disruptive use of Telegram mind elaborating?

At least I don't weaponize ANI, admit mistakes when I make them, and am not a professional entitled POV pusher. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 09:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

am not a professional entitled POV pusher
I'm sorry, yes, another ANI request Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1149#Academic sources removal in favor of trickster POV pushing, WP:BATTLEGROUND regarding your removal of academic POV in favor of Russian Prigozhin POV. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, yes, another... Are you apologizing or attacking? You already lost that case due to distortions. Why are you bringing it up again? I already indirectly mentioned it in my first text wall. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's have a look at one of the latest edits [13] . So the source Summary for 24–27 May 2024 (until 8:00 UTC+3) — Teletype (citeam.org) says
on the basis of video, yet in your text it becomes based on videos - where's plural in the source?

video with pops similar in sound to a secondary detonation - note they use similar to, yet in your text it becomes - recording background sounds of smaller secondary explosions - a fact.

When an ammunition depot detonates, as a rule, some shells fly in different directions, hitting neighboring buildings, but in this case nothing of the kind is observed, yet your text says which was purportedly not observed - where's purportedly in the source? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

where's plural in the source? the fact that there isn't just one eye witness video about the aftermath of the strike. video with pops similar in sound to a secondary detonation - note they use similar to, yet in your text it becomes - recording background sounds of smaller secondary explosions don't see much problem with that. Would need to rewatch the videos. But I guess the text could me amended/improved if someone thought is was important. nothing of the kind is observed, yet your text says which was purportedly not observed just because the limited evidence there is doesn't show such collateral damage, doesn't mean there wasn't any such damage. The affected area was big and who knows what happened, say, in the back of the hypermarket? "Purportedly" seems adequate here when absolute certainty can't be achieved. If we were to report what such sources say at face value, then there would be no need for investigations. Because CIT is God and know everything, knows the absolute truth.

Complaining about these now feels like nit-picking. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

So you misinterpret the source based on your own thoughts. Are we allowed to do this in Wikipedia?

Meanwhile, another telegram link returned [14] after reading on how they are inappropriate. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Are we allowed to do this in Wikipedia? Are we allowed to POV push in Wikipedia like you did? Meanwhile, another telegram link returned stand by it with the caveat in the edit summary. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Are we allowed to do this in Wikipedia? Are we allowed to POV push in Wikipedia like you did?
An unproven accusation is a personal attack and is a good argument to justify your misinterpretation of sources. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Go on softy boy. You're lucky I don't fixate so much on the unproven accusations you did to me. At this point I'm just getting baited over and over by MAE. And fucking up my real life. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Calling someone "softy boy" is a pretty blatant insult, ie personal attack. Bad move. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

That was an absolutely atrocious revert. Using an unreliable source "because it's needed" is absurd. Luckily, it was quickly reverted. Does the community have to stop you from using Telegram against clear consensus? It seems you won't stop on your own. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

MAE's conduct hasn't been flawless
I'm sorry you feel so, and I want my edits to be improved, please do tell how can I do so, thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think pressuring Alexiscoutinho to give a yes/no question about their reliable source use was really productive, since ultimatums like that rarely are. Nothing I would think is sanctionable, especially in a heated argument. Remember, being correct doesn't mean one has to raise the temperature. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Will think about that. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Unfam has made two (technically three) edits to an article falling within WP:GSRUSUKR while not a WP:ECP user. While they were made GS aware contemporaneous with the events. this edit by MAE warns them not to edit the page but also asks them to edit the page to revert their edit, which renders their warning somewhat ambiguous.

Unfam, you may not presently edit any article dealing with the Russo-Ukrainian War (broadly construed) - even if the article is not specifically protected. There are also higher expectations of conduct on talk pages in this area. Once you are confirmed as an ECP user (500 edits and one month registered) you may edit articles in this area. Please ask if you have any questions regarding this.

The article has now been protected by robertsky. In the circumstances, I think it would be sufficient to formally log a warning that any subsequent infractions will be dealt with much more harshly.

On the matter of the alleged PA, AN is very fickle in how it deals with such matters. Don't be a hypocrite [and add the other material] is quite different from saying, "You are a hypocrite" - though we really should avoid personalising discussions. I have seen much more egregious instances bought here (sometimes made by Wiki untouchables) that have hardly raised an eyebrow - which really is hypocritical. I believe that a warning is also sufficient in this case.

On the matter of social media as a source, this video, appearing in the article is sourced/attributed to a tg account, an fb account and a news source (of unknown quality) that has fairly clearly used the fb source. The question of sourcing is not so cut and dried in a POV charged current event dominated by WP:NEWSORG sources used by many without discrimination between fact and opinion and a view that WP is a news streaming platform. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I only created wikipedia account to ask someone in the talk page to include the video of the secondary explosions. I didn't even want to edit the article at first, untill MAE came and completely deleted any mention of that video, called TASS "russian propaganda", whilr i

incingded unnecessary background info, sourcing websites completely or piaalrtly funded by american government (meduza aradio free europe) which is definition of american propaganda. This is the only reason for why I told him to not act like a hypocrite and why I edited the article myself, despite the lack of experience. I haven't called him a hypocrite then, but I will now, because his actions are the definition of this term. In my opinion, he shouldn't be allowed to edit any articles about ukraine/russsian war, because he is clearly biased. I even asked him to include the video in any way, shape or form he likes instead of completely deleting any mention of it, yet he completely ignored my requests. Instead he started crying about me bullying him and about how "anonymous tg channel isn't a source". Yes, MAE, it isn't a source, but it doesn't make the video itself fake. In my opinion, that video should be uploaded on wikipedia and included in the article, like the CCTV video. But at least it is mentioned in the article now, which is already better than nothing. Now it is better than the russian version of the article, which uses the mass murder template, lol. Unfam (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, and so this [15] follows. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Am I wrong? Unfam (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you're pretty much wrong. What is allowed to be used as a reliable source is not a question of who funds, but one which the community decided by consensus of editorial freedom, historical reliability, reputation for fact-checking, and the like. There are many sources that are funded by some government for which a consensus has been achieved that they are reliable and can be used and many non-government sources which there is no consensus that they are reliable. The community consensus is largely the opposite of your opinion is what is reliable, but Wikipedia policies are made by consensus.WP:RSPSS CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

True, after all millions of flies can't be wrong, right? After having a brief interaction with some of the users here, I understand why no-one sane uses wikipedia as a source. It's nothing more than just a giant reddit-like cesspool. At least it is populated with similar people. Oh, you can also cry about personal attacks, I don't care If I'm going to be banned any more. Unfam (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Nobody should be using Wikipedia as a source within Wikipedia per WP:CIRCULAR, and nobody should be using Wikipedia as a source outside of Wikipedia, given that it is a tertiary source. If you question the reliability of Wikipedia, you're in good company. See Reliability of Wikipedia. In general, Wikipedia is considered as reliable as any other encyclopedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Translation: you liked Wikipedia just fine until you discovered that it had policies, guidelines and practices that could constrain you from doing or saying anything you wanted. As may be. You are, of course, the best judge of how and where you spend your time. Ravenswing 16:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

So, what do you suggest then? Reliability of sources not by consensus, but simply by whatever the most recent person to edit something thinks? How exactly do you think this would work?

Wikipedia is based on consensus and reliable sources. And if that's a serious issue, then this simply isn't a project for you. Which is OK; there are lots of many great projects out there in the world. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Given the above tantrum, I'd say an indef is appopriate, since Unfam is WP:NOTHERE. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds, I had the exact same thought when reading the above. This is also a personal attack as it comments on the contributor, not contributions ("Biased user") - plus is just a bit of an obnoxious thing to write to someone. I have indefinitely blocked Unfam. Daniel (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

We have gone from the ambiguous to the unmistakable. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Warning

Proposal: Alexis Coutinho warned not to use Telegram as a source

The rest of the thread appears to be sorting itself out, but Alexiscoutinho's continued use of consensus-unreliable Telegram as a reliable source, despite being repeatedly told not to [16] [17] with the excuse that it's OK because it's representing the Russian POV is disruptive in an already extremely sensitive topic. The latest, removal of an image with an edit summary implying revenge "eye for an eye," rather than arguing the source is unreliable, is another edit beyond the pale. The editor is clearly aware of this consensus from a December thread at WP:RSN which exists because of their use of Telegram [18]. I think an explicit warning from the community that Telegram sources are inappropriate is the minimum that needs to be done. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, left out the "eye for an eye" diff. [19] CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Well their use of tg sources comes not of love for tg, but of their belief that Russian POV, regardless of the quality of the source, should be represented equally to the RS's POV. I. e. WP:FALSEBALANCE .

Addition: I would even correct the "Russian POV" above to Russian propaganda POV, as there are Russian press like Meduza, Insider, Zona, and such, as well as Russian scholars like Igor Danilevsky and others, which are the representation of Russian POV, but the editor is not willing to appreciate these. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Just shut up to say the least. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

A bit of "beating the dead horse", but this: but the editor is not willing to appreciate these. is easily disproved by [20] where I thank you for the alternative meduza source. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The following is the reply I was writing before my short block. It was previously posted in my talk page but was apparently not seen:

[207] [208] with the excuse that it's OK because it's representing the Russian POV plain untrue. In those two instances you linked, Telegram was being linked solely for the video. I would have uploaded the video myself if I had wanted to spend the extra time. I readded it because the "three explosions" statement become orphan without it (i.e. {{cn}}). No other source clarified that, they just repeated the dubious Ukrainian claim that there were two bombs. In fact that citation is orphan right now.

revenge "eye for an eye," rather than arguing the source is unreliable Cinderella already hinted how fragile that video's sourcing is. And I had to right to use WP:ONUS anyways to question its usefulness to the article. I thought it was better o be frank than to be deceitful like someone. Furthermore, if the Wikipedia hitmen are seemingly ok with letting that video pass despite using Telegram as a source, but go out of their minds when a video directly sourced via Telegram is used to elaborate a Russian claim, then there's something wrong with the Wikipedia system, which seems to prefer to superficially adhere to some policies while ignoring the underlying issues causing such breaking of policy.

December thread Let me once again remind that that context was completely different.

Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Super Ψ Dro 18:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• If it was just repeated re-adding of Telegram posts (despite being told not to) that’d be one thing. But we also have super WP:POINTy edits [21] with combative and WP:BATTLEGROUNDy edit summaries (“an eye for an eye”) AND referring to other editors as “professional entitled POV pusher”s AND telling them to “just shut up” (both in this thread above, along with a whole slew of other personal attacks). I think this is well past the point of “warning” (which they’ve had had plenty already) and well into topic ban from Eastern Europe territory. Volunteer Marek 22:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support warning about telegram channels.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support logged CT warning, EE topic ban if this is not an isolated incident, utterly bizarre behaviour, the exact kind that is not needed in these topics. --TylerBurden (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose This specific warning, but I have no issue with a formal warning about battleground behavior and civility. I do not agree with the citation block for a single user. To be blunt, that seems silly. Buffs (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that this is worthy of closure at this point with some type of warning being posted to the agent (I don't have to be part of the consensus to note that my objecting opinion is in the minority). Buffs (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The proposed warning for use of TG as a source is based on a false premise (per discussion in TBAN section). There is no ban on using TG (see WP:RS/SPS etc) or that TG sources used by AC have been used in a way contrary to P&G. WP is not a democracy. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

While there's no consensus (for the ban at least), it has *not* been shown that the editor in question's specific TG sourcing was used in the use case argued below in which they *could* be acceptable. In fact, the linked [[WP:RSN]] discussion in the thread *about* the editor clearly indicated that there was an active consensus for *not* using those links the way they were. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The burden of proof always lies with those making allegations - even on Wiki. A warning/blanket ban on using a source is still a false premise when P&G asserts such sources may be used with appropriate caution. The devil is in the detail. There has been a lot of hand-waving and finger pointing that he used TG but not much scrutiny of the detail. For example, if ISW makes a qualified (attributed) statement X based on TG, is it wrong to cite both ISW and TG? No. I might do this, though as a single citation in the form ISW based on TG rather than as two separate citations. This is just a very rigorous, thorough and academic approach to referencing. I am seeing some very confused assertions pertaining to the distinction between verifiability and veracity. There is also a misperception that WP:BIASEDSOURCES are not RSs. The general problem with this and similar topic areas is a view that anything written in a news source is a fact that can and should be reported in an article. This view ignores WP:NOTNEWS, WP:VNOT and the caveats to WP:NEWSORG. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Except again, there *were* plenty of cites above. They were *not* used with appropriate caution in the linked cites introduced by multiple editors, so pointing out that TG *may* be used with appropriate caution isn't very helpful. That a car *can* be used with appropriate caution is not an argument to excuse me from letting my kindergartener nephew drive my car. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you then arguing for a warning to "use with caution" or a warning to "not use at all"? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

No, if I wanted to argue that, then that's would I would argue. I may have faith in others using Telegram in a very limited fashion, for that very specific usage, but given how you've used Telegram in the past, I have zero faith in you doing so. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. In most of the diffs above Alexis Coutinho uses Telegram (this is an SPS) only as an additional source to support statements that are already supported by other sources. But if so, why does he need the linking to Telegram at all? Why does he continue linking to Telegram despite the objections? I do not get it. My very best wishes (talk) 03:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  why does he need the linking to Telegram at all? the motivation was for completeness/details and transparency. The ISW heavily summarizes statements of territorial changes when aggregating and often omits dates. Since that territorial control list has a huge emphasis on dates, I thought, at the time, it was reasonable to include the relevant primary source to aid verifiability of dates. In the jnb_news case, the TG ref was necessary because no other source in the article mentioned "three explosions", which was a fact as seen on CCTV footage. It was also pertinent because other citations referenced Ukrainian officials saying there were two bomb drops. Sadly, that specific discussion wasn't constructive at the time because nobody explained how I could source that info better (at least now I found an adequate way/alternative source to achieve the same). In the end, the video ref just got removed again. Other instances also had explanations in a similar tone, but it may be beside the point to lenghten this reply further. These are explanations, not necessarily justifications. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 05:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  And there was also the expectation that such TG citations would be collaboratively improved through constructive discussions with better sources, which actually often happened, instead of being coldly/rigidly rejected. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 05:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

So you still insist on using Telegram for the referencing. I am sure you know that many Telegram postings include outrageous lies and outright disinformation. Of course if a reputable secondary RS (such as the military analysts in ISW) made some sense of specific postings in that pile of garbage, one can cite ISW. The ISW sources typically provide linking to specific Telegram posting, so that anyone can follow. Based on that, I still do not understand why you continue inserting Telegram, even after all these objections by multiple contributors. What you do looks like linkspamming. My very best wishes (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• So you still insist on using Telegram for the referencing. No. And then why did you even ask? What's even the point of saying "I thought, at the time," "aid verifiability of dates" and "These are explanations, not necessarily justifications." if the positive details are seemingly going to be ignored and anything I say that could be construed against me is seemingly used in such a manner. Overgeneralizing/distorting like this (I detailed 2 different cases and you replied in general terms) feels like disingenuity. At this rate, I might aswell unsubscribe and stop replying, again, to any and everyone here if my words are just going to be selectively picked to harm me. There was also the episode with CoffeeCrumbs below where I asked Answered what specifically? I don't understand the sudden change of heart. I think you misunderstood something. and was seemingly ignored. Maybe because it wasn't convenient to continue that conversation? The mind had already been set.

This kind of behavior is shameful and toxic in general and is inconducive to an honest and open discussion. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

So you will not include such links anymore. OK. I trust you. My very best wishes (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Based on the brief discussion just above, I support the warning. That was an excessive linking to an extremely poor quality source that has been extensively used for promoting disinformation by Russian milbloggers, however Alexis Coutinho will not do this any longer. My very best wishes (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

TBAN for Alexis Coutinho

Hi, uninvolved editor here. I'd lean towards a TBAN on from Eastern Europe and the War in Ukraine as a whole, given the suggestion from Volunteer Marek. It's clear this user is doing a lot of WP:BATTLEGROUND editing on this topic and has a poor understanding of WP:NPOV. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• I think there is battleground behaviour happening on both sides here (though not from every participant). I would also say that this is going to be somewhat inevitable when the topic is a literal battleground. However, I would suggest a warning might be more in order at the moment, something regarding respecting WP:CIVIL at all times as well as a giving a commitment to respect WP:RS? It is clear that MAE is quite committed to escalating things with AC, and some of their editing does seem to have the goal of winding him up.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. suggest a warning might be more in order that's fine, though I guess the temp block I received already served such purpose, idk. WP:CIVIL at all times Yeah, not saying flashy words even when the other gets you mad is ideal, though unfortunately I have difficulty adhering to that with MAE. respect WP:RS this is contentious though given that RUSUKR is flooded with information warfare from MSM which is generally considered RS despite WP:NEWSORG, which is what I think Cinderella157 was talking about previously. There's also the matter of how to use them. Even though they are considered reliable for statements of fact, they are not exempt from bias. Therefore one should not cite things that mostly reflect bias or bias against a POV.

  It is clear that MAE is quite committed to escalating things with AC, and some of their editing does seem to have the goal of winding him up. Concur. Although he often says correct things, some comments mixed in feel unnecessary and seem to have the aim of provoking and WP:STICK. I think the most applicable case of the latter is this sequence [22] [23]. In the first link, I make a strong attempt to deescalate the whole discussion by acknowledging the arguing was becoming unhealthy and toxic for both of us and by breaking the reply chain by Unsubscribing from this thread right now. I also say I really don't want to argue with you again in ANI pleading to not have to interact with MAE again in this toxic discussion. And end with Let cool heads prevail.. However, I was again dragged back to this discussion with a ping and was immediately presented with a superficial and false/provocative accusation from MAE, Well their use of tg sources comes not of love for tg, but of their belief that Russian POV, regardless of the quality of the source, should be represented equally to the RS's POV. I. e. WP:FALSEBALANCE. I'm sorry, but when someone lowers his guard and humbles that much (my parting reply), but then is seemingly ignored and then viciously attacked again by the other (MAE comment), that's evil. Therefore, although my rude "shut up" reply was obviously wrong in the context of Wikipedia, I still think it was somewhat just considering a RL mentality. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  As said above. If you agree to stop pushing Russian propaganda POV using non-RS and equating Russian propaganda POV presented in non-RS with POV presented in RS then all should be fine. Also please stop blaming the victim, as you did in your unblock request [24] . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Don't know what you think you gain with that comment (needless to say I disagree with it) as you're obviously at the bottom of my list of people I would listen advice from, especially here where there are multiple alternative voices in the discussion. Our relationship may be irreparable. The best I think we can do is to avoid discussing directly with each other and being as objective/dry/concise as possible when we inevitably have to talk. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  I also find it concerning that you repeated basically the exact Russian propaganda argument from before, which prompted me to tell you to shut up some days ago. At this point in time, you shouldn't even be directing a word to me, unless you want more drama. Please let the others handle this. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  It is clear that MAE is quite committed to escalating things with AC
  I'm sorry but even this very request was not about Alexis. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• This is becoming a witch hunt at this point. TBANing me for incorrectly sourcing two citations ("and resulted in three large explosions" and "Some Russian journalists and milbloggers similarly accused Ukraine of using the mall as an ammunition depot, citing the multiple smaller secondary explosions a while after the strike") in one particularly contentious article, both of which are generally hard facts given attribution, in an ocean of constructive and important edits in several other articles is beyond exaggeration. Yeah, I was stubborn to keep those sources instead of adding a {{cn}} tag, which wasn't smart, but I still haven't been given a more profound explanation as to why it's unacceptable to use Telegram in those specific two citations besides the overall "because no" and "because policy" explanations.

The real problem here is that I and MAE simply can't get along well, and this is not from today nor from this month. And it's not just because of his POV. I've gotten along pretty well with other editors with a similar POV from the other side of the spectrum, most notably Super Dromaeosaurus. I once again raise the concern of how often MAE pokes and provokes me in his replies, even when he's saying something right. However, when we engage in battlegroundly exchanges, one important difference is that he manages to avoid the flashy words through various methods (many of which are legit), but including by alleging ignorance of what I'm talking about ([25] [26]). I, on the other hand, have recently been more transparent and been leaking my emotions more, which got me into trouble, sadly.

poor understanding of WP:NPOV Yeah, I think I still don't fully understand it. For example, why I can't cite "Russian law enforcement agencies said that a "military warehouse and command post" were set up in the shopping center and claimed that the Ukrainian Armed Forces were using "human shield tactics"." using TASS which is considered reliable for reporting statements of Russian officials. Note that inline attribution was used and not wikivoice. Also note that this general citation still survives to this day, albeit with a different source. So what does "reliable sources in a topic" actually means? It's not like the pro-Russian POV is fringe. It's simply not accepted by the Western world and is overwhelmingly suppressed by MSM, which is generally considered RS in this topic area despite being WP:NEWSORG. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I think a topic ban might be excessive. Indeed Alexiscoutinho has been generally in line with policy and has acted collaboratively and appropriately. I would just advice them to resist showing their emotions and lose their cold.

It is also worthwhile to explain to them what they do not understand. I encourage experienced editors to take a look at the diffs and try to do so. I don't do it myself because I already had tried to in the talk page and apparently I've failed at that. Super Ψ Dro 17:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Decline I'm quite troubled by the continued use of Telegram as a source despite repeated, explicit consensus to not do so, and the editor's battling over reliable sources. However, I think they are here to build an encyclopedia, and I'd like to see if an explicit, unambiguous warning from the community is effective first.

I now Support a topic ban from Eastern Europe, broadly construed, and only support a warning if there is no consensus for the topic ban. I had hoped that this editor would be able to move on past using Telegram sources with a logged warning, but from the conversation below, I believe that the editor either does not understand why Telegram sources are unreliable or simply refuses to accept it. As such, I no longer have faith that they would meaningfully comply with any warning about using unreliable Telegram sourcing. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

And Alexis, I'd beg you to alter your approach to WP:RS. If you feel that the community consensus about Russian sources is wrong and shows an unfair pro-Western bias, your only direct recourse is to change minds at WP:RSN. Otherwise, the only options are to either accept them and move on -- there are plenty of consensus things, though not this, that I disagree with -- or to find another project that creates content that is sourced in a way you prefer. Because the approach you're taking, getting into the Ukraine/Russian fight du jour and railing about pro-Western bias in reliable sources, is not constructive. I'm only a Decline here because I'm a believer in sanctions being preventative, not punitive, and think you deserve a chance to change your approach here. I'd certainly be a Support for a topic ban if we're back here or at WP:RSN with the same problem the next time there's a new, high-profile article about the Russia/Ukraine conflict. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with using Telegram as a source if that is the vector the Russians are using to express their assessments. That doesn't mean we need to give them credence, but a neutral statement is sufficient, such as "The Russians claimed via Telegram that their weapons didn't do XYZ damage." That's a statement of fact, not any assessment to its accuracy. In fact it's perfectly appropriate to follow that with "But Western sources indicate that the damage was the result of ..." I think a TBAN is a step too far; Oppose. Buffs (talk) 05:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

That's what I thought since the beginning. And why I showed concern that not even mentioning it, alleging WP:FALSEBALANCE or WP:FRINGE (an argument I view as fragile while the RUSUKR war is ongoing), or using wikivoice and wikilinks to directly deny the claim in the following sentence could be WP:POV. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Telegram chats cannot be verified by people browsing the article, so it cannot be used as a source. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? Afaik, only viewing long videos is exclusive to the app. Paid or limited access articles, on the other hand, are much harder to verify. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Access isn't necessarily the issue, particularly with public channels. I think the problem with Telegram chats is more that they:

• are generally primary sources
• are self published
• are social media
• could easily be deleted and aren't easily archivable
• can be edited
• don't have any editorial oversight and have limited moderation

Aside from that, anything worthy of inclusion will probably be covered by a reliable source. For example, at the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, I regularly saw BBC News mentioning updates posted on the Ukrainian military's Telegram channels (particularly on BBC Verify). Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 20:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I see. Regarding the first 3 points, that would probably mean there are exceptions where Telegram sourcing could be acceptable; such as for official routine statistical reports (which may not be consistently covered by reliable secondary sources), and for subject matter experts. Regarding aren't easily archivable, I disagree. I've had no problems in the past to archive Telegram texts through web.archive.org. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I've had a look, it appears that Telegram is to an extent archivable now. The last time I followed a link to an archive.org archive of a Telegram post, I just saw an error. Video content still does not work, for me at least. If no secondary reliable source exists, and in some other cases, primary, self published and social media sources can sometimes be used. Again, though, if reliable sources aren't covering it is it really worthy of inclusion in a Wikipedia article? Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 03:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

👍. is it really worthy of inclusion in a Wikipedia article? Would be debatable on a case-by-case basis. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

official routine statistical reports

I find it hard to believe that Telegram is the only place these are available. I cannot imagine any official government agency using Telegram as their publication method, making the post inherently suspect. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The Russian MoD may be an exception. For example, iirc, the ISW only cites statements by it (at least capture statements as that's what I pay attention to) from its Telegram channel. I think routine statements of the Ukrainian General Staff too, via its Facebook page. Maybe social media is indeed the most consistent or at least convenient place to find such official information. For example, the Russian stats in this section, 2024 Kharkiv offensive#Military casualty claims, benefit from a regular (primary) source of information, which allows for seamless addition ({{#expr:}}) of weekly numbers. The Ukrainian stats, however, are naturally more all over the place as they rely on multiple independent secondaries. In the future, when the offensive ends, totals from both sides will very likely be published by RS. But in the interim, this kind of Telegram sourcing seems acceptable. There's also the matter of RL time spent digging such info in Ukrainian or Russian sites every time, trying to find the most perfect source. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

If this should be an exception that allows Telegram to be used, then there has to be a consensus that this exception is acceptabe; you can't simply decide on it. What steps have you taken to get the community to reach a consensus allowing Telegram to be used in a way that would be unacceptable for any other source? Could you link to any WP:RSN discussions or any WP:RFC that you started that led to this consensus being formed?

I was against a topic ban, but if you truly intend to continue pushing Telegram sourcing without a clear consensus to do so, then I think a topic ban becomes a much more compelling outcome. There's no reason to issue a warning if we're going to just be back here in a week on the same issue. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

you can't simply decide on it. It isn't just me/a monocratic decision. Even here it doesn't seem like a black-white matter. Though there haven't been formal discussions at RSN, for example. Only a limited local consensus there and apparently acceptance by other editors watching the page. Are you saying that I should always ask at RSN whenever a candidate Telegram exception comes up and should never rely on local consensus?

Furthermore, the way you phrased your second paragraph makes it seem like sourcing through Telegram is a capital crime.. But isn't the spirit more imporant than the text of the guidelines and policies themselves? That's why I'm encouraging this discussion to be on a more fundamental level, beyond the red tape. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 13:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, that answered my questions succintly. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Answered what specifically? I don't understand the sudden change of heart. I think you misunderstood something. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that I should always ask at RSN whenever a candidate Telegram exception comes up and should never rely on local consensus?

Yes. You cannot use Telegram as a source without changing our global consensus. WP:LOCALCON never overrides our standard rules like WP:RS. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a key answer I can work with. Let me not forget about it. It's also one on a fundamental level which doesn't flat out block the spirit of trying to use Telegram refs to improve Wikipedia when it seems like an acceptable usage for a specific case following an initial local talk page discussion. 👍 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems you are still not be grasping the point. HandThatFeeds said WP:LOCALCON never overrides our standard rules like WP:RS. Even if you discuss the matter on the talk page and gain consensus to use a Telegram message as a source in an article, it does not override the global consensus that Telegram is not a reliable source of information. Wikipedia does allow the use of primary sources and social media as references in some circumstances, but it should be avoided as much as possible in favour of reliable, secondary sources.

I was hesitant to agree that a topic ban should be imposed, but more and more it's seeming like this is a WP:CIR issue. Failure to comprehend the very clear advice multiple editors have given you shows a lack of basic competence. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 20:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Adam is right, my entire point is that you cannot claim "local consensus" in order to violate our site rules & guidelines. If you want to get Telegram accepted as a source, you'd have to get a general consensus somewhere like WP:RSN, but I doubt that would ever work. The problems with Telegram as a source have been outline above, and I cannot see any situation where that will change. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

in order to violate This, specifically, I disagree. I've never followed that bad faith mentality. In fact, I mostly based on the ECREE principle in the very few cases I used more dubious sourcing, i.e. only for not very controversial cases and with very clear INTEXT attribution for transparency, and for cases where there was at least some local discussion hinting that in such an exception it appeared acceptable at first.

But this is all past now. That's why I stressed the importance of that key question. It was that difference between 95% and ~100% understanding. I already knew clearly that RSN should be used when in doubt about the reliability of sources. I hadn't used it in this latest episode in a false sense of security, as explained previously (that it seemed acceptable in the specific case, and if it wasn't, then it could be easily substituted or otherwise fixed with better sources; not thinking nor fearing that I would be TBANned for such good faith, yet still naive, citation attempt if people contested it). And another explanation as to why my understanding wasn't 100% previously was because I had the idea that the previous RSN discussion wasn't fundamental enough, like this current talk.

It would feel like dying at the last mile if I were to be TBANned right when I finally grasp the true scale/degree of this general policy in a more fundamental level. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems you are still not be grasping the point. I grasp it now, after that key answer. Even if you discuss the matter on the talk page and gain consensus to use a Telegram message as a source in an article, it does not override the global consensus that Telegram is not a reliable source of information. I know that, that's why I wrote Only a limited local consensus, to show that I at least talked/asked about it and didn't just force it in on my own. To soften the mistake and show good faith. Wikipedia does allow the use of primary sources and social media as references in some circumstances, but it should be avoided as much as possible in favour of reliable, secondary sources. I knew that aswell, but what's different now is that I know I should always ask at RSN for such exceptions, even if editors locally seem to think it's fine, and not just do it expecting it to be fixed/improved down the line.

Failure to comprehend the very clear advice multiple editors have given you shows a lack of basic competence. I already admitted that I didn't fully understand some policies in the beginning of this discussion: "poor understanding of WP:NPOV Yeah, I think I still don't fully understand it.", but I disagree it's "lack of basic competence". If I'm not misunderstanding Cinderella157, he seemed to suggest that the RS debate in this RUSUKR War topic is more complex than it seems. I myself have seen other editors over generalize what RS means, i.e. consider an article/source unreliable just because the primary claimer is dubious despite the reliable secondary publisher clearly attributing the statement to the primary; NEWSORG sources being generally considered reliable without any caveats; people mixing together lack of reliability with biasness; people forgetting about ONUS and thinking that just because some MSM reliable publisher said something, that it's good to include in an article, etc. And all this on top of the reality of an abundance of RS publishers for one side and a scarcity for the other (at least scarcity of easily available sources in English), often inducing editors to deal with subpar sources.

See also the dying at the last mile comment in the previous reply. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything listed here that counters its inclusion. As noted, the problems they have (and the methods of inclusion) are that they

• are generally primary sources (and should be treated as such. Primary sources aren't bad, but they need to be used appropriately. When you can show exactly what was said or happened with the verbatim text in its original context or even a video it can enhance the content dramatically or confirm what third-party sources/analysts are saying)
• are self published/don't have any editorial oversight and have limited moderation (and should be treated as such)
• are social media (and should be treated as such)
• could easily be deleted [or edited] and aren't easily archivable (they indeed can be deleted/edited, but not easily archivable? I think not. The internet has a LONG memory)

The idea that these cannot be used is absurd, but they still must satisfy all the requirements.

Let's do some examples just to be clear:

• Unacceptable The Russians were not found to be liable for the deaths at Location X.<insert Telegram source>
• Acceptable However, the Russian Army stated via its Telegram account that they were not liable for the deaths at Location X and blamed Group A.<insert Telegram source><third party source backing this up and establishing notability><additional third party source>

Such statements are facts, not propaganda. The Nazis claimed they were only relocating the Jews (yeah, Godwin's law strikes again). Wouldn't it be better to show those lies within their actual context? It only makes them more stark. The same would apply to statements that are true. It lends no credence to the accuracy of said claims only noting that such claims were made.

Lastly, I think you are misreading WP:RS, The Hand That Feeds You or applying such guidance in a heavy-handed and inappropriate manner. I suspect your motives to be pure though. As I noted above, appropriate usage is needed and should be stated only to the extent that it was a claim which is an immutable fact. It should not be treated as truth and not in wikivoice. Buffs (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 05:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

If we had two third party sources available, that'd end the necessity of citing Telegram directly as well. It should be enough with those two. Super Ψ Dro 08:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Precisely. There's no reason to even cite the primary source if we had two good reliable sources that already cover it. The Godwining comment above is just silly, and not worth engaging. There's nothing heavy-handed about adhering to our WP:RS rule. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Ban I think that there is a reasonable discussion to be had. Buffs (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC) ^{strike double vote, already voted oppose above. Cavarrone 09:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)}

• I would comment on some of the views and discussion herein and what policy actually has to say. This follow the lines of what Buffs has said. WP:RS/SPS, WP:SPS and WP:SOCIALMEDIA are relevant links. SPSs (including social media) are not excluded as RSs across-the-board. They may be used (with care) where the person/organisation has a particular standing and there is specific attribution. Particular social media platforms are mentioned but not TG - given it is relatively new. I am not seeing any specific exclusion of TG (as has been stated) or that there is any substantive reason to exclude TG given the spirit and intent of the P&G. Given two examples: XNews reports Minister Blogs saying on TG "quote" and, Minister Blogs said on TG "quote"; I fail to see a distinction if both are verifiable. In both cases, we can verify the fact of what Minister Blogs said (though what Minister Blogs was saying is not of itself a fact). XNews is not attesting to the veracity of what Minister Blogs said, only the fact of what Minister Blogs said. I do not see how the comments regarding WP:LOCALCONSENSUS are in line with P&G in this case. AC appears to have a better grasp of RSs in this case than those that might sanction his actions on this basis. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  In your example, we're relying on the reputation of XNews. Many of the Telegram links were not to sources that were even claimed to be of the same verifiability as Minister Blogs and the use of those cites was largely not to simply report on what was said on Telegram. I feel I'm on quite firm ground given the discussions in which Telegram has come up on WP:RSN. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  Should I reply/clarify, Cinderella157? Or is it more appropriate if you do? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  In both cases, we can verify the fact of what Minister Blogs said (though what Minister Blogs was saying is not of itself a fact)
  But wait, here you are advocating to include "what [russian] Minister Blogs said", and here - Talk:2024 Kharkiv offensive#c-Cinderella157-20240604115800-Alexiscoutinho-20240520172400 - you are opposing to include what secondary RSs say Ukrainian officials have said. Because "NOTNEWS". Shouldn't we apply the same approach? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  The same standard should apply to all. You'll note that I'm not including the primary source without inclusion of other reliable sources. Let's try a different hypothetical case. Country A and Country B are fighting. Country A drops a bomb on Country B with massive secondary explosions that kill hundreds. Accusations fly from both sides like rabid monkeys in the Wizard of Oz. Including the actual context of such accusations AND third-party sources that reference them is vital to understanding the situation and all of its intricacies even if the sources are Twitter/Telegram/etc. They are simply primary sources. No matter how biased, they can be included WITHIN CONTEXT and alongside WP:RS. Buffs (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  My comment was regarding other editor's arguments. But no, we are not providing context [as we see it] using primary sources [we see fit]. This is original research. And there will always be disagreements regarding what context to provide and what not and what primary sources do fit and not. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  But no, we are not providing context [as we see it] using primary sources [we see fit]. This is original research. That is not what I'm advocating. In every instance, I stated two WP:RS with the primary source. You are conflating multiple things to construe an argument I'm not making. Buffs (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  The situations are different. On the one hand, the Russians are defending their action without solid proof, on the other hand, the Ukrainians are accusing Russia of a war crime without solid proof. The latter has much more propagandistic value, imo. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  the Ukrainians are accusing Russia of a war crime
  Let's have a look at the source I proposed there: Civilian killed by Russian forces while evacuating border town, Ukrainian prosecutors say | CNN . Everybody can see that what you said is not true. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  You've only provided that source recently. The original wording that was included in the article was much closer to what I stated. Besides, that is not the only originally dubious claim, there's also the weak accusation of looting. So please be cautious to not pit people against each other. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  So, you were mistaken saying "The situations are different"? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  No. They were different and still partially are different. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  Holdup. It seems there was a small misunderstanding from both of us in this tangent. The most problematic Ukrainian accusations in that article were not about the wheelchair casualty, but actually about the looting and accusation by the Ukr police of Russians using human shields. My The situations are different. comment mostly refers to those, though the spirit also applies to the wheelchair case (notability and encyclopedic value diminish if it was just an unfortunate accident).

  Therefore, Cinderalla is not employing double standards, nor different approaches. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I would imagine that we would have reliable secondary sources to use for the statement of an important minister, and that if the statement of a person has not been reported on by media, then it's not very important. I only ever see Twitter or other social media being used for statements of presidents, prime ministers and foreign ministers in reactions sections of events that have just happened, and then they get replaced by secondary sources when enough time has passed for them to appear. Super Ψ Dro 08:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

In fact, a source which relays official statements without commenting on context or anything is not a secondary source, but just a place of publication of a primary source. And we already have WP:RS which says we should preferably write articles using sources which are secondary. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

"preferably", not "exclusively". Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Commenting on the previous: The issue of TG (as I am reading it) specifically relates to this edit (and similar) at 2024 Kharkiv offensive. Figures for Russian casualties are cited to news sources which specifically attribute these to the Ukrainian army (and are so attributed in article text). Russian figures for Ukrainian casualties are from a Russian MOD TG site and are attributed to the Russians in article text. In reporting the Ukrainian claims, XNews is distancing itself from the claims through attribution. It is not relying on its reputation. In reading the claim, we do not rely on the reputation of XNews for the credibility of the figures - only that XNews has accurately reported what was said. Neither figures are particularly credible. They fall to he said, she said. They are certainly not facts. The use of TG with a comparable origin for comparable information (with attribution) is not at odds with the prevailing P&G. As I read it, this parallels the comments by Buffs. MAE, there is a big difference between the encyclopedic relevance of the ultimate casualty figures and, what are for the present, spurious insinuations of war crimes. Whether we should be reporting these claims of casualties in the interim is another issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Ban per Buffs. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. This is pretty simple. There is a distinction between "Group B did X" and "Group A claimed via <social media source> that Group B did X". The former treats the claim as a fact while the latter states the fact that a claim was made. Let's not make it more complicated than it is. Buffs (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

It's also important who of Group A is cited. It's not the same to cite their president Alaimir Autin than an online milblogger. I find the latter case pretty underwhelming. If secondary sources have not reported on this milblogger's claims, they might not be considered a reliable source for information. Super Ψ Dro 08:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

pretty underwhelming. Would be if in isolation, but there were more than one and were also inline with official statements. might not be considered a reliable source do you mean "notable source"? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

If they are "inline with official statements", then just use those, not a milblogger's thoughts (unless a noted expert). See WP:Notability Buffs (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

👌 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 06:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I move that we close this matter. From what I can see, there is not a consensus to invoke a TBAN. Further discussion appears to be just rehashing previous points about content, not the TBAN. If someone uninvolved would be so kind as to do so, it would be appreciated. Buffs (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 174.115.203.105

174.115.203.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Persistent addition of unsourced content, continued after final warning. Examples of unsourced edits: 1, 2, 3. Waxworker (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

One problem here is that this would be basic number-change vandalism, except that they're making unsourced changes to content that is already unsourced. For example, they have been editing KidZone to say that the show first aired in 1994 instead of 1992, but the article has no references at all (other than IMDb which is not reliable) so how do we verify they're not right? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I have cited a reference in KidZone to show that it was broadcasting by 1992. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Tangail Saree

Fight between India Bangladeshis there unbelievable! POV pushing counting. A new user Id created only for POV purposes and heavily edited on Indian favour. User: Bebarghya Bhatta! Perhaps a sock of User:খাঁ শুভেন্দু!? (Who started all this nonsense)! Please restore the goodfaith edits and semi protection also needed. Thanks in advance -2A02:3035:611:FF7:50C3:726E:A847:3E01 (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The usernames are Debarghya Bhatta (talk · contribs) and খাঁ শুভেন্দু (talk · contribs) (Khã Shubhendu, ISO 15919: Khām̐ Śubhēndu), and you have not notified them of this ANI. Please also link specific diffs that show the alleged misconduct at Tangail Saree and Tangail Saree (West Bengal) (from here on, NEW-Tangail Saree OLD-Tangail Saree). I do see the following:

• খাঁ শুভেন্দু created the NEW-Tangail Saree article on February 3, and moved OLD-Tangail Saree to its current title before carrying out an extensive rewrite. About 91% of the current contents of OLD-Tangail Saree were written by খাঁ শুভেন্দু. They have reverted users at OLD-Tangail Saree who changed the origin to Bangladesh (latest instance), and reverted a user who removed a poorly-sourced statement about migration of Bangladeshi Hindus to India ([27]).
• Debarghya Bhatta extensively rewrote the lead of NEW-Tangail Saree ([28]), and has never edited OLD-Tangail Saree. I cleaned this up while writing this comment because the new text was of extremely poor quality, but I do not think it significantly changed the POV of the article. Of the current contents in NEW-Tangail Saree, AlbeitPK (talk · contribs) authored 51%, খাঁ শুভেন্দু authored 13%, Debarghya Bhatta authored 5%, and 166.104.29.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk · contribs) each contributed 11%.
• There is a merger proposal between both Tangail Saree articles at Talk:Tangail_Saree#Proposed_merge_of_Tangail_Saree_(West_Bengal)_with_Tangail_Saree, with allegations that one is a WP:POV fork of the other.

Overall, it seems that it is খাঁ শুভেন্দু who may be guilty of POV pushing, and that Debarghya Bhatta is innocent. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Fertility clinic linkspam

User:136.232.158.246 appears to exist only to edit in linkspam to an Indian fertility clinic.

• diff
• diff
• diff

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Not sure this is the right venue. User posted two links, was warned posted one more and hasn't edited since. If it happens again AIV is this way. Amortias (T)(C) 15:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough! Seemed to be an WP:SPA considering the three edits, but also the greyed out linkspam option in Twinkle through me in a loop for the appropriate venue. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Commission on Graduates of Foreign Nursing Schools

I found this page where the history looks unusual as the creating user is also the person who moved the page to the mainspace in a very short time. Is this normal? I thought there was a process...TIA Geraldine Aino (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a process called articles for creation that can be followed, but it doesn't have to be. It is mainly in place for those who aren't confirmed or auto confirmed (thought users with these perms can use it too), as one of those permissions is required to create mainspace pages directly. GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 18:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

So you are saying I do not have to use the AFC process? I can almost guarantee that if I created a page and moved it into the main without review I would be reversed, investigated, and prob blacklisted lol But ok guess the user who did this one is ok! Thanks User:GrayStorm Geraldine Aino (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not see why any of that would happen. Also, it's not like pages that don't go through afc aren't reviewed, that's what WP:NPP is for. GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 16:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah ok so they are reviewed - that was my confusion. So if they are reviewed by another set of eyes it seems more inline with wiki goals - thank you User:GrayStorm Geraldine Aino (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 18:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

User:TheGreatPeng

Need help on this editor, who may be acting out over a rejected DYK nomination due to detected copyvio, among other issues that have since been resolved. This began with their other DYK in which User:AirshipJungleman29 detected a copyvio that they were asked to resolve, but began acting combative and took the criticism as a personal attack. I just happened upon the nomination page and told AirshipJungleman to double check if the same issue persisted in the Suicide of Fat Cat DYK (which I also happen to be the reviewer); when AirshipJungle and I found the same issue there, GreatPeng went on to falsely accuse me of acting in bad faith and harassing him (which of course is utterly untrue, as corroborated with evidence); they were templated as a result. Ever since the rejected DYK, GreatPeng has had to engage in more baseless accusations of racism and general hatred hurled towards me and others, from this talk discussion to these edit summaries:

• "I don't want help from jobless...
• "Thinking of myself as a target of anti-China sentiment was a personal thought"
• "stop making any change on this article!"
• Draft not needed an expert and drama from Guanyin and drama kings

As if these were not enough, they even moved the Suicide of Fat Cat back to the draftspace, despite the fact its notability was established. GreatPeng's attitude is frankly toxic and I would like anyone's intervention on here. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 08:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this editor seems to have a tendency towards personal attacks. See e.g. "You just want to target Chinese editors first and ignore the truth", or "After I disagreed with you, you started to bite me on every one of my articles." (clearly disprovable), or "Good luck on the side of the road while drinking coffee.". I would suggest a short-medium block, to prevent further personal attacks while they hopefully muse on their actions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Facing a five-versus-one scenario, now you're calling in teachers for help? Yes, please do. The reason I moved the article to draft was to rewrite it because RJJ removed content that was not close paraphrasing and sections discussing the police issue for privacy reasons. He removed more content than was actually necessary, leaving the article as a stub. I can’t accept that. I need to rewrite it, having learned that direct translation is a policy violation and close paraphrasing is not accepted on Wikipedia. Yes, I am learning. TheGreatPeng (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

An earlier version of the article contained much content that was directly translated from outside sources (WP:TRANSVIO) or was not supported by WP:RS.[29] Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons says, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. [...] This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism."^{(5 June 2024)} When there is copyright-infringing content in an article, Wikipedia:Copyright violations says, "the infringing content should be removed". The nominator/creator of the article objected to tags placed on that article and stated on its talk page, "I'm a student and have a job, so I don't have much time to work on Wikipedia like you do. If I have any free time, I need to find part-time jobs for my friends to help reduce unemployment."[30] Taking this to mean that they were not planning to remove or replace the problematic content, I did so.[31] The shorter article is not amazing, but it is better than preserving violations of WP:COPYVIO and WP:BLP. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: Which sources were allegedly infringed, so that the infringing revisions and BLP violations can be RD1'd? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: There are issues with WP:CLOP in the earliest version of the article and the versions tagged for errors by Nineteen Ninety-Four guy.[32] Phrases and whole sentences seem to be translated directly into the article. A few examples below:

Wikipedia article (original version)

"McDonald's Vietnam has launched three new meal slogans: "If you don't like vegetables, eat BBQ cheese chicken." This slogan has aroused great anger among netizens, and many people have criticized the chain store for being "cold-blooded" and "immoral." Vietnamese netizens expressed outrage at the slogan and called for a boycott of the brand. McDonald's later realized the gaffe and posted an apology on its Facebook page."[33]

Cited source, via Google Translate

"McDonald's Vietnam has launched three new meals in Vietnam with the slogan: "If you don't like vegetables, eat BBQ cheese chicken." This slogan caused great anger among netizens, with many people criticizing the chain as " Cold-blooded” and “immoral.” [...] Vietnamese netizens expressed outrage at the slogan and called for a boycott of the brand. McDonald's later realized the gaffe and posted an apology on its Facebook page."[34]

Wikipedia article (later tagged version)

"Some netizens also believed that authorities were trying to use the "Fat Cat" incident to divert public attention from the recent collapse of the collapse of the Melong Expressway in Guangdong, which caused a high death toll."[35]

Cited source, via Google Translate

"Some netizens also believed that the authorities were trying to use the "Fat Cat" incident to divert public attention from the recent landslide on the Mei-Da Expressway in Guangdong, which caused heavy casualties."[36]

The BLP violations come from details in the article that aren't in the cited sources. From the first English version of the article, there are statements about the recently deceased subject, his ex-girlfriend, and his surviving family members that I don't see verified by the sources. For example, the article stated that his girlfriend "repeatedly requested money transfers from Fat Cat under various pretenses."[37] Looking through Google Translate, I don't see support for "pretenses" which indicates that the causes were false. The article seems to say that she kept asking him for money. It does speculate about the potential for fraud, but it does not indicate that fraud took place. The Wikipedia article also stated that they "had agreed to get married in May 2024",[38] which I don't see in the cited source. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

According to my knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines, direct copying of content from another article is allowed by adding "content taken from ZZZZ, see that page's edit history for attribution (WP:CWW)" or Some of the content in this article was copied from [...] at the ? wiki, which is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 (Unported) (CC-BY-SA 3.0) license. I don't understand why direct translations of content from another Wikipedia are not allowed.

Btw, The content "'Some netizens also believed that authorities were trying to use the "Fat Cat" incident to divert public attention from the recent collapse of the collapse of the Melong Expressway in Guangdong, which caused a high death toll." is a direct translation of zh.wikipedia, not from the original source. TheGreatPeng (talk) 06:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia article (original version)

"McDonald's Vietnam has launched three new meal slogans: "If you don't like vegetables, eat BBQ cheese chicken." This slogan has aroused great anger among netizens, and many people have criticized the chain store for being "cold-blooded" and "immoral." Vietnamese netizens expressed outrage at the slogan and called for a boycott of the brand. McDonald's later realized the gaffe and posted an apology on its Facebook page."

Wikipedia article (later version) - Close paraphrasing? = Yes

"According to VnExpress, McDonald's Vietnam launched a new slogan: "If you don't like vegetables, eat chicken with BBQ cheese." This slogan sparked outrage from netizens, many of whom accused the chain store of being "cold-blooded" and "immoral". Vietnamese netizens were equally critical, calling for a boycott of the brand. McDonald's later issued an apology on its Facebook page."

Wikipedia article (rewrite version) - Close paraphrasing? = I don't think this version is close paraphrasing. The short dialogue quote is impossible to rewrite without changing the original meaning, and all versions of Wikipedia use the original quote. However, you removed the quote from Wikipedia, and without it, the article is incomplete. I only aim to create perfect articles.

"In a marketing miscue, McDonald's Vietnam unveiled a new slogan: "If you don't like vegetables, eat chicken with BBQ cheese." The campaign generated significant negative attention online, with netizens criticizing it as insensitive and lacking ethical consideration. Vietnamese consumers echoed these concerns, advocating for a boycott of the brand. The apology was officially issued on their Facebook page."

TheGreatPeng (talk) 07:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@TheGreatPeng: I'm trying to decide what is the last revision that should be redacted due to known copyright infringement. I'm thinking of the revision immediately before this one. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: I think this revision is the earliest that is acceptable under copyright and BLP policy. Can you provide a full list of links to the allegedly translated sources? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: Yes, but I may take a few days to get to it. The translation excerpts posted above come from [39] and [40] It looks like there are a couple of additional copied sites. Also pinging Nineteen Ninety-Four guy for input, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

BLP issues with nomination

A simple question. Why is was an article on a suicide that took place only two months ago being used for a DYK? AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It isn't AndyTheGrump. See the thirteenth word of this section's prose. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Apologies: 'is' should clearly have read 'was', and I've amended my edit above accordingly. I would note however that nobody who commented in the rejection discussion seems to have even considered the issues involved in using such a recent suicide as a basis for a DYK. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

There has been a lot of recent discussion on this aspect of DYK, as you are aware of and have participated in. It is not related to the matter being raised here at this AN/I. CMD (talk) 09:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd have to suggest that an apparent unawareness of Wikipedia policy by the DYK proposer is most definitely relevant here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

No, but let's be clear, this DYK was promoted before the copyvio issue came up, having been discussed by the promoter and at least two other DYK regulars, which suggests that the discussion isn't having much traction. Black Kite (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I inexplicably overlooked the BLP issues when promoting. That bit is on me, as an experienced promoter who should have known better. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Well that is accurate, the discussion came to no consensus. CMD (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

There may very well have been 'no consensus' regarding the specifics of the RfC, but a great number of experienced Wikipedia contributors expressed serious concerns about the way DYK was being run - and in particular, it has been noted that there seems to have been an apparent unawareness amongst some DYK regulars of aspects of WP:BLP policy. This latest incident suggests to me that lessons have not been learned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Of the nominator, reviewer, promoter, and queuer, only one was a "DYK regular"—myself—and I will endeavour to learn this lesson going forwards. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Apropos the RfC and BLP, the DYK guidelines **already** ask for a stricter approach to negative aspects of living persons than the BLP policy requires: WP:DYKBLP. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 13:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely; I was referring to the fact that at least two other DYK regular editors took part in the nom page discussion. Black Kite (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Out of the promoted hooks' text, linking to a recent suicide from the main page, the text of the article when promoted, and the subject of the article: which are being objected to and based on what parts of WP:BLP? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

You think featuring a suicide that took place two months ago on the front page of a top 10 website would be welcomed by the family and friends of the deceased, not to mention their ex-girlfriend who is being harrassed in public because of it? The nomination should have been rejected on the spot. Black Kite (talk) 07:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I did reject it, so that response seems odd. I'm asking a sincere question about policies and how they are interpreted. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 08:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I misread who the response was from. To answer your question, there doesn't always have to be a statement in BLP that directly relates to the issue. The intent of BLP is "do no harm", which may clearly not be the case for this nomination. Though to quote part of the policy, ...it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article. Black Kite (talk) 08:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

It's no big, and yes that does my answer question. If the sourcing had been better handled, the nomination could still have been rejected based on the link target regardless of the hook phrasing. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• DYK shoots itself in the foot again. And whoever put the word netizen in an article should be shot. EEng 06:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC) Note: Figure of speech, not an actual call for someone to be shot.

  Search for “netizen” in English Wikipedia produces thousands of page matches. I don’t think you have enough figurative ammo to figuratively shoot the responsible contributors. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Search is broken now

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.

---

Nothing happens when the search icon is clicked. 216.66.184.158 (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

This is not the correct forum for technical support. Please repost at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 22:17, 13 June 2024 (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:Mandela Creator

User:Mandela Creator (contribs) has continued to make disruptive changes after a 4th-level warning on their talk page. Example: Special:Diff/1228631693. They are not responding to comments. (Hopefully this is the right venue; reporting on AIV looks to be an AGF violation in most cases.) HansVonStuttgart (talk) 11:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Blocked, that's about as straight forward as it gets. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Straightforward... or is it? Reopening this because Zabluza1985 seems to be a sock/meatpuppet, whose edits seem to match Mandela Creator's. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

PicturePerfect666 bludgeoning at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024

• PicturePerfect666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I see a clear consensus at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024#Talk page archive "minthreadsleft" parameter, with five editors in support of doing something. Unfortunately PicturePerfect666 does not agree and has been trying to stop the process of implementing the consensus. I feel this has entered into WP:BLUDGEON territory, with a new section created today at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024#Restarting archive discussions that is meant to start the discussion completely over from scratch. I feel that a WP:PBLOCK or similar sanction may be needed to bring this discussion to a close. If I am reading the room correctly, we are all tired of discussing this and there is only one editor that is preventing this discussion from coming to a close. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

There's a side discussion about this on my talk page and it has also spawned a technical discussion at Template talk:Archives#An opportunity for doc clarification. I'm very obviously involved but I think we are (slowly) getting through it without the need for admin intervention at this point. It has been rocky but I really would hate to see a new-ish editor blocked over a disagreement about how frequently a talk page should be archived, unless it becomes absolutely necessary. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems like they're not willing to accept a consensus they don't like, maybe worth partial blocking them from that talkpage as they're just bludgeoning there. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

All I'm saying is hold off for now; let the user's next edits decide their fate. Yes they should have accepted the clear consensus and yes they should not have tried to ignore it and start a new discussion, and I don't think bludgeoning exactly describes what's happening here but yes it has been less than ideal. But they also have not edited since I tried to put some explanation behind the already-established consensus other than to offer a compromise, which is also still not perfect but it's progress, in my opinion anyway. I can't control what anyone else decides to do here but we want new editors to stick around, and sometimes it is actually possible to talk people out of a bad situation instead of just banning them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm with Ivan. We may be able to solve this with just a wee bit more discussion. Although this is a little concerning. Valereee (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Ivan I understand you're being kind here and giving them another chance, but your comment sounds very similar to something you said at the end of May - when someone suggested adopting my blocked AN/I you said "Personally I wouldn't just yet: PP666 hasn't edited at all since we started discussing here, and per [other editor's] comment below we'll see when they return if they're here to learn and develop and edit constructively" - their first interaction with the Eurovision page since your comment has lead to this AN/I. BugGhost🪲👻 11:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Further context:

1. The conversation PP666 and I had that led up to me opening the article talk page discussion in question. I felt early on that the conversation on my page wasn't going to be helpful, which is why I opened the Eurovision talk page discussion about it in order to get a wider range of opinions. After I opened that discussion and encouraged them to pursue it there PP666 said that "The discussion is about as dry as paint and will attract no one but the most banal of contributors."

2. The AN/I I posted a couple of weeks ago about PP666 bludgeoning the same article's talk page, demonstrating very similar behaviour. That AN/I got closed due to me not being EC at the time I opened it, before any admins responded to the contents of it (Israel's participation in Eurovision was the main topic of the bludgeoning). BugGhost🪲👻 22:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• The irony being, of course, that now the competition has taken place, unless someone decides to take the article to GA/FA the discussions will fade to practically zero anyway. For example, no-one has posted at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2023 since last August... Black Kite (talk) 07:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I haven't been a participant in the contentious discussion about this article, and so have had to learn what the dispute is by (guess what) reading the dispute. Unless I have completely misread what this dispute is, this should be seen as a meta-filibuster, a filibuster of a meta-discussion. What User:PicturePerfect666 is bludgeoning is a discussion about when to archive previous talk page discussions. They are bludgeoning this discussion now that they have been called to account for setting the 'minthreadsleft' parameter to zero by subterfuge. Setting that parameter to zero would hide the record of many previous discussions. One possible reason is so that PicturePerfect666 will be able to introduce failed proposals again by making the failed proposal almost invisible. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

User:PicturePerfect666 isn't even bludgeoning a content dispute, but a meta-dispute. I respectfully disagree with Ivanvector's suggestion that we should wait for compromise to be worked out. This isn't the first time that PP666 has been reported for bludgeoning discussions at this article talk page, and it won't be the last, even if a compromise is reached, because then PP666 will go back to bludgeoning the original discussion about something.

My opinion is that the community should either topic-ban User:PicturePerfect666 from both the talk page and the article page, or let the administrators at Arbitration Enforcement deal with this meta-filibuster. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm with Robert here. If this were the only appearance of PicturePerfect666, I think this discussion makes a good case for leaving it here. But we've been through this dance already, less than a month ago; the last discussion was basically closed on technical grounds, not merit. The fact that this editor isn't just bludgeoning a conversation and arbitrarily "rebooting" a discussion because of a "dumpster fire" that they basically created and that the whole issue has a strong whiff of being pretextual, I think we have to fix the leaky gas valve, not just put out the most recent fire. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I too agree with Robert. PP666 had a lucky break with the previous AN/I thread being submitted by someone who wasn't extended confirmed. They could have learned from that, instead they've carried on with the exact same behaviour. BoldGnome (talk) 07:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• I'm pretty unimpressed by PP666 apparently going offline to avoid ANI, including ignoring a ping to the discussion at the article talk. Striking my support for a wee bit more discussion. Valereee (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• I've pblocked from Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024 and Eurovision Song Contest 2024 for two weeks. If any further bludgeoning pops up there or elsewhere then we'll be looking at regular blocks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Restoring my autopatrolled bit

I removed my autopatrolled bit after complaints from Fram, who (rightly, but ungraciously) pointed out that I was doing too much drafting in article space. Following removing the bit, I've been making drafts in draftspace, and I'm much happier doing that for my more far-out article drafts. I will continue using draftspace for that type of article. For things with slam-dunk notability, though, I'd like to go back to DIY article creation, and thus intend to restore my autopatrolled bit, unless there is a consensus against this here. Please let me know your thoughts. — The Anome (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm a little confused; perhaps because there's no link to the previous discussion and I'm missing something? Autopatrolled has zero affect on you; you can go back to "slam-dunk notability" article creation in article space at any time without autopatrolled. So why re-add it? If patrollers or other admins ever notice that they're reviewing a lot of new articles by you with zero problems, they can flip the autopatrolled bit. It sounds like you have a wise plan, but I don't get what autopatrolled has to do with it. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

"rightly, but ungraciously" may be right but is itself ungracious. DuncanHill (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

recursion alert! Floquenbeam (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I gave up any claim to grace long ago. DuncanHill (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd encourage any admin not to award themself that bit, but to wait until someone from NPP nominates them (or asks them to nominate themselves). As Floq says, it has no effect on you whatsoever - it benefits the people who review your articles, so until they get fed up of reviewing your perfect articles and ask you to take yourself out of the queue by getting the perm, there is no benefit to you having it. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I just wish more members of the NPP team were willing to nominate people for AP. It's allowed, and I encourage it, but it's just not very common unfortunately. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't notified that I was being discussed here, but anyway... Last week, they submitted Draft:Grokking (machine learning): it got accepted by a somewhat careless patroller, I moved it back to draftspace[41] because three of the four sources were Arxiv preprint articles, which in general aren't considered reliable sources (WP:RSNP). I don't think regranting them autopatrolled is warranted. Fram (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Given this, in conjunction with above comments by Floq and Girth, I don't think it's a good idea at this time. If you were a non-admin applying at WP:PERM, having an article re-draftified barely a week before applying would almost certainly be dealbreaker. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 16:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Grokking (machine learning) was created in draftspace and accepted by an AFC reviewer, right? I don't find fault with Anome here. I think it was AFC's mistake. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

It was indeed. That's what the article review process is for, and that's why I want through the draft/review process. The article is now supported by three refereed academic publications in the form of published conference papers, and I look forward to it being re-accepted. In the meantime, as said above, I'll go back to creating articles in mainspace only if I can give at least two clearly unimpeachable WP:RS, and take the rest to draftspace. I'll leave the setting of the autopatrolled bit to others. — The Anome (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Being harassed by User:Jd101991

I am being harassed by Jd101991. My efforts to resolve disputes have not been reciprocated, and the user has resorted to putting bogus warnings on my page repeatedly.

1. [42]
2. [43]
3. [44]
4. [45]

My efforts to resolve conflict on their talk page have been blanked without response.

1. [46]
2. [47]

Their behavior seems to stem from disagreements on Talk:Jet Lag: The Game: [48][49].-- Cerebral726 (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I have put warnings on this user's (@Jd101991) talk page. They delete them very quickly without acknowledgement and continue making unconstructive edit's and harassing other editors, normally @Cerebral726. [50] [51] [52] SimplyLouis27 (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's Jd101991's attempt to create an article for that show's first season. That's flawed enough that it was never going to stick but it's still a strong, good-faith effort at improving this website. (It also shows that, while they have a long way to go, this editor could have a very bright future writing articles.) For these reasons, when they fought speedy deletion, they were owed a substantial, respectful explanation as to why. Instead, User:Cerebral726, you told them "Time you spend doing something does not equate to WP:NOTABILITY." How awful. They gave a lot, they tried their best, and in response you treated them like utter, pardon my French, shit. (And it's not just one editor who's been cruelly dismissive of their understandably flustered attempts to get help or guidance. User:SimplyLouis27, a week ago you were doing the same thing. Is anybody capable of typing out more than ten damn words in response to this person?)

I'm not saying Jd101991's behavior has been unobjectionable or even allowable; it's neither of those things. What I'm saying is, while I don't condone what they've done lately, I sure do understand it. If they leave this project, we'll have lost an editor who seemed to have a ton of potential and I bet it'll be because of how they were treated back when they were still trying to do good. City of Silver 21:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

May I ask what you mean by saying I was doing the same thing? What was wrong with my response? @Cerebral726 mentioned why their edits were made in the edit summary and I suggested that if Jd101991 thought there was a problem that they should report it and recommend that they use edit summaries. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@SimplyLouis27: Your response was dismissive to the point of being cruel. City of Silver 02:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:THERAPY BoldGnome (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Counterpoint – WP:BITE. City of Silver has a point here. AlexEng^(TALK) 02:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I think uncivil "regulars" who scare off newbies are one of the biggest structural problems with Wikipedia. That being said: [53] this is "dismissive to the point of being cruel"? Let's tone it down a bit. BoldGnome (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@BoldGnome: It matters that you were too afraid to explain why you'd link that essay, one of Wikipedia's most embarrassing, virulently unintelligent pieces of garbage, in this conversation of all places. It's a paradox: I want to know what you're on about but I also really couldn't care less. City of Silver 02:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd respond, but I'll leave the personal attacks on an administrator's noticeboard to you. BoldGnome (talk) 02:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@BoldGnome: This discussion is regarding a person who lashed out after being mistreated on here and you linked to an essay that makes fun of the mental wellness of people who lash out after being mistreated on here. Who's personally attacking whom? But whatever: I promise you that not only will I take every bit of what you've got, I'll fight tooth and nail to make sure you don't get in trouble for it. Say what you want to say to me. I bet I need to hear it. City of Silver 02:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I was going to ignore this, but citing WP:THERAPY here betrays that either you don't understand what that article is saying, or you're using it in the wrong context just to "win" this debate. No one was ever arguing that Jd101991 was either disrupting the site due to mental illness, nor claiming that their editing was helping them deal with other issues.

If you're citing THERAPY as a rebuttal to CoS calling the treatment of Jd101991 "cruel," then you're definitely misusing that essay in this discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I hardly find this and this trying their best, and I feel like it is an unfair mischaracterization to say I was incapable of typing out more than 10 words to help. They consistently ignored me (and others) when they had various Wikipedia norms and policies explained: [54][55][56][57][58][59]. While your example of me telling them that their justification for keeping something wasn't based on any sort of Wikipedia policy could have been longer and perhaps kinder, they had long ago started their harassment at that point and I had explained why their addition would be doomed. That harassment was not reactionary to any rudeness from my end but the perceived slight of trying to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as I explained to them. Cerebral726 (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Cerebral726: I hope you being snide and abrupt doesn't drive Jd101991 off Wikipedia. City of Silver 02:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

IMHO, this user (@Jd101991) should be told by an uninvolved administrator that some of their conduct has been over-the-top. If the conduct continues, it may be worthy of another visit to ANI. But I cannot help agreeing with @City of Silver. I do not condone JD's behavior, but I do understand it. Extreme terseness seems to have become the norm around here in recent years, but it is not a virtue, and, especially when dealing with new, good-faith users, is inadvisable. Too often, it comes off as arrogant, impatient, and snarky. Pecopteris (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with City of Silver completely when they said They gave a lot, they tried their best, and in response you treated them like utter, pardon my French, shit. There is nothing at all actionable here. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  02:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Just an observation from reading complaints on ANI for ten years, the bar of what is considered harassment seems to really have fallen. It doesn't seem what is happening here, especially from a newer editor is what I would consider harassment which is more content that needs to be revision deleted or efforts of editors to gang up on a particular editor. But posting an undeserved template message on a User talk page? I've been here 11 years and I still get those. It wasn't wise for them to remove your efforts at discussion but who knows, maybe they thought they were being harassed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Jonharojjashi and Indian history

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

This editor is not competent to edit the various History of India related articles they are editing; they continue to create POV-pushing articles of questionable accuracy. They have been deceptive in the topic area going back to their very first edits (Special:Permalink/1168567076, adding 8K of content with the edit summary "fixed typo"). After reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian colonisation of Khotan and the article it refers to, I determined that a referral to ANI was necessary. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG Applies here. Artisnal Pretzel Creator (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC) — Artisnal Pretzel Creator (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Artisnal Pretzel Creator Just as the OP is required to present evidence of your disruption, which he has done as far as I can tell, you are also required to justify how the OP has commited equal or greater disruption if you want to cite WP:BOOMERANG as a reply. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 11:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE user who should have been indeffed long ago. I think this bit from Jonharojjashi's previous ANI report (which is abundant with their disruptive diffs) sums them up pretty well; [60]; "It seems sufficient that this editor (Jonharojjashi) is habitually citing poor sources, misusing better ones in an OR matter, and PoV-forking at will, all to push a viewpoint that is clearly counter-historical and India-promotional." --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposing topic ban on all articles related to India for Jonharojjashi based on this report and the previous ANI report on this user linked by HistoryofIran, as the least restrictive measure necessary to prevent the user's disruption. I'm open to more restrictive measures. BoldGnome (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support indef. Clearly a WP:NOTHERE editor. The article in question "Indian colonisation of Khota" should be nominated for AfD. It is full of WP:SYNTH done by this editor. If his unblock request is sincere then he should not be unblocked without a topic ban from India. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Hoax edits by User:Pharoahjared

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.

---

Rarely is anyone blocked for conduct that happened years ago, but I'm about to try to make a case.

In 2015 Pharoahjared began a bizarre month's-long edit war where he bizarrely kept adding the claim that the M103 heavy tank was named the "Longstreet", presumably after the Confederate general James Longstreet. After finally joining the discussion on the talk page, Pharoahjared produced a very obviously manipulated scan of his source, which other editors called out as fake. Did he back down? No, he accused the IP of manipulating his own copy of the book to discredit him. here's a brief rundown of the hoax on YouTube.

I also think his obsessive sandbox edits paint the picture of someone who is not interested in writing factually. "Troops of the Fire Nation assault a ridge a on Kyoshi Island". I wouldn't trust anything this guy has to say ever again.

See also his most recent talk page comments. Is it too late to block this guy? Schierbecker (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

This user hadn't edited at all in nearly two years before you went to their talk page today, for no apparent reason, to accuse them of writing hoaxes evidently over an incident that occurred nine years ago. Would you like to explain why you're harassing this user? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The OP went to the user's talk page in February of last year, someone else replied today (and then the user replied, and then the OP replied) - though your point still very much applies, back then and now. – 2804:F14:8086:B701:80CC:FCD6:43E3:855B (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I bet their curt talk page responses today stem from their righteous annoyance that they're still getting email notifications about an account they clearly abandoned ages ago. Blocks are supposed to be preventative and this person hasn't made a single substantial edit in over three years so yeah, it's too late. City of Silver 19:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating others, yes it is too late to preventatively block someone for edits made 2-3 years ago. Schierbecker and Blockhaj, absent any more recent editing concerns just leave this former editor alone. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Too late, but wow that edited scan is hilarious ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:08, 14 June 2024 (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.

Coordinated editing around Indian military regiments

Users:

• Jatingarg9368 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Peakconquerors (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GokulChristo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78 MEDIUM REGIMENT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (h/t Pickersgill)
• 117.98.108.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (h/t Procyon)

Drafts:

• User:Peakconquerors/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:207 Field Regiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:150 FD REGT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:1211 Medium Regiment (Congo) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (h/t Procyon)
• Draft:172 Medium Regiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (h/t Procyon)

SPIs:

• WP:Sockpuppet investigations/832LT

COINs

• WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Indian Army regiments—articles being edited by orders from army brass

Over the past couple days myself and a couple of other helpers at WP:AFC/HD have noticed a serious WP:COI/WP:PAID situation with regards to Indian military units. The drafts in question all have virtually identical formatting and tone, are poorly-written and sourced, and are heavily jargoned to the point of incomprehensibility. While there is an active SPI on this matter, JBW notes that this is more a case of coordinated editing; apparently higher-ups in the Indian military have ordered the creation of these article( draft)s on military regiments which is leading to this situation.

I'm starting this thread primarily to collect which accounts and drafts that haven't already been addressed yet are part of this project, and to figure out what, if anything, can be done to stymie this. (I won't host them on my userpage because this falls into the Indian subcontinent contentious topic.) The accounts and drafts I've listed are just the ones I've seen on AFC/HD in the past couple days. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

78 MEDIUM REGIMENT Arrived today, and recently we've had 297 Medium regiment, 42 Med Regt, 108 Field Regiment, 638 SATA BTY, 106 Med Regiment, 95 Field Regiment, and 228 Fd Regt. There are probably more. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't forget Draft:1211 Medium Regiment (Congo) and Draft:172 Medium Regiment. Procyon117 (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

This IP address is also related. Procyon117 (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

We need this centralised in one place. Secretlondon (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Secretlondon: You thinking AN(/I) or LTA for this? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

It's also at COIN and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/832LT. The sockpuppet entry is the longest, but they are meat puppets. 10:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC) Secretlondon (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

As an addendum, I'm putting together a sortable table of all identified accounts/drafts thus far, and I'm noticing a trend - there's quite a few autocon-buster accounts here who've used their status to create articles directly in mainspace; with no exception that I can see (yet) they've been swiftly draftified. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Admin note I've blocked the named accounts. CU evidence is  Inconclusive - most of the accounts have overlap on a range blocked for spamming, but the ranges at play are huge and extremely dynamic. There is also some UA overlap, but again, it's too common to be definitive. This is obviously coordinated editing which, behaviourally, looks to be the same individual (or group of indivduals) which falls afoul of WP:SOCK regardless if it's classic socking or WP:MEAT.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Ponyo More accounts with the same editing patterns (Indian army regiment drafts in the last 3 days or so)

  1. Rahulsingh278 (talk · contribs)
  2. Topguntwoatethree (talk · contribs)
  3. Sarvatra15 (talk · contribs)
  4. 831 palali (talk · contribs)
  5. Basantarbull (talk · contribs)
  6. Piyushkb95 (talk · contribs)
  7. 85josh (talk · contribs)
  8. Braveheart0505 (talk · contribs)
  9. Sam4272 (talk · contribs)
  10. Vijaykiore (talk · contribs)
  11. Garuda35 (talk · contribs)
  12. Manlikeut (talk · contribs)
  13. Govindsingh2494 (talk · contribs)
  14. 171 FD REGT (talk · contribs)
  15. Valiants216 (talk · contribs)
  16. Freeindiandemocracy (talk · contribs)
  17. Srushtivv (talk · contribs)
  18. Sarthak Dhavan (talk · contribs)
  19. Vaibhav Kr Singh (talk · contribs)
  20. Abhi892 (talk · contribs)
  21. Abhi1830 (talk · contribs)
  22. Yugsky (talk · contribs)
  23. Veerhunkar (talk · contribs)
  24. 172fdregt (talk · contribs)
  25. AmrishAnanthan (talk · contribs)
  26. 171FieldRegt (talk · contribs)
  27. Behtereen (talk · contribs)

  Qcne (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Qcne, could you please cut and paste this list to the SPI? I'll handle it from there.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  I've put the list on the SPI as a new request, and included what Procyon has below. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Before I go to bed (and since you haven't posted to SPI yet) I'll post these ones too:

  • SSBSAMmedium (talk · contribs)
  • Velluvoms (talk · contribs)
  • Mighty53 (talk · contribs)
  • 202.134.205.64 (talk · contribs)
  • Proansh1661 (talk · contribs)
  • AU1963 (talk · contribs)
  • Hararkalan101 (talk · contribs)
  • Unknown5xf (talk · contribs)
  • Bahattar (talk · contribs)

  Procyon117 (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Damn you, but also thank you, Ponyo. I just got thru the initial list here and at the SPI; I'll add the list above, where it doesn't overlap with what we've already seen there. As soon as I'm done, I'll post the table to my userspace; this is serious enough I'm willing to ignore my usual "No Contentious Topics" rule. Watch for this link to turn blue: User:Jéské Couriano/2024 Indian Military Regiment Spam. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Worth mentioning that this seems isolated to artillery units. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  I've put up the table and updated it with every name provided by Qcne and Procyon; it's linked above. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Another, User:AyushRoy99/sandbox. @Ponyo @Jéské Couriano Qcne (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  Updated the table with everything that's gone on in the past 18 hours or so. One of the accounts requested an unblock which was summarily declined by Yamla and basically confirms that, yes, this was indeed a concerted effort done under the orders of Indian military COs. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

So after all this, what's the advice going forward – do we bring further cases here or to the SPI case or both or neither or something else? I'm asking because I've just declined another one, Draft:237 Medium Regiment by Yudhhe Nipunam, so this is clearly not over yet. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Take new accounts to the SPI, I'd think. That works as well as anything for a centralised location. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Going through the "AfC submissions by date" category and working my way through the dates, there's a few more that have not been reported still. Procyon117 (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I just created a new section on the SPI; add them there? I can pick them up and add them to the table from there. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Just double-checking first. Procyon117 (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Doing a search on the category looking at latest changes [61] shows several more new editors changing existing articles and even one trying to prod page as it contains "confidential information" Lyndaship (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, add new accounts to the SPI as you find them. I can add them to the table from there, and it'll allow the responding admins there to whack them without looking for bone needles in a haystack. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

SPI are gonna love it, as soon as they close a case, it gets re-opened. :) Then again, it's not like the Indian Army is a large organisation, eventually they must run out of steam...

Anyone happen to know Manoj Pande, who could have a quiet word with him? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Wonder if they'd be able to just leave it open for a few days, and see if other accounts will still be trying, then it won't have to be reopened and reclosed again and again. Unless they don't mind it or if that's not how it works. Procyon117 (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

They should be able to do that; the reason it isn't really happening here, however, is that this is so clear-cut that leaving it open for a long while isn't generally necessary. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Whelp speaking of reopening a case, I just found two more right as the most recent SPI closed. Procyon117 (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

If the report hasn't been archived yet, just change the status to open and add the additional accounts you find. I have the SPI on my watchlist, I'll see the changes.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah I already made a new section...I should have waited a couple more minutes. Procyon117 (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I just want to say that I appreciate the effort people are putting into addressing all this. It sure seems like a handful! I encountered this editing as well on 40 Field Regiment (India) and 56 Field Regiment (India) but I didn't know the proper noticeboard to go to or who to notify. Knowing it was part of a larger issue puts my mind at ease (to an extent) with the realization that other editors were on the case as well!

Seeing as though this seems to be a substantial COI, MEAT, UPE (etc.) issue, is SPI still the same venue I should notify if I come across more of this sort of thing? I'm pretty sure I found a couple accounts not listed on the investigation page. -Sigma440 (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

If you find any that haven't been blocked yet put them on the SPI page. We could use an extra pair of eyes. Procyon117 (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Will do! Thanks for the confirmation. -Sigma440 (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

So I've taken to updating my table to include all the IPs involved so far, and I've noticed a trend with the IP edits. Each individual IP used is, with a couple of exceptions, not used for more than 20 minutes at a time (assuming the IP in question has made multiple edits; several have only made one) and with no exceptions so far laser-focused on a single article, with no edits to draftspace. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you take this to mean that the accounts have shared use? Air on White (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Since we're discussing IP addresses here, the answer to that is "Mu". But the monomania is shared by practically all the registered accounts, so it's possible each individual involved in this was assigned a specific regiment and told to create/edit the article about that regiment specifically. This would also explain the lack of article overlap between each account/IP; it's safe to assume that a second username/IP hitting a page is the same user as the first, either as a sockpuppet or using a different IP address due to normal dynamic allocation. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I've created Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Indian military paid editors for anyone interested. If this is inappropriate for LTA, I'll move it to my userspace. Air on White (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

By the way, can we ban these meat socks? Air on White (talk)

In re the drafts

With the accounts (currently) dealt with, I think the next point of business is the drafts, and whether or not they should be kept or deleted under G5. I'm of the opinion that the lot of them should be deleted under G5; even if they are notable subjects (and I make no judgment on that front; the sourcing presently on them does not help) the articles are so badly-written that they'd need ripped up from the roots and redone by someone with no connexion to this campaign. We also shouldn't be rewarding clueless brutes upstairs by keeping their efforts to spam Wikipedia around. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. None of the "articles" (or drafts, rather) should be kept. I would say under G5 as well. Procyon117 (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I support G5ing all of the drafts that were created after the first sock was blocked. We shouldn't be slaves to a literal interpretation of G5's wording; there's no point in dragging the process on for six months until G13 applies. Air on White (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I have already gotten the drafts in userspace wiped with U5. Air on White (talk) 03:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like they would be valid CSD G5s since no editor was evading a block when they were created. CSD criteria are intentionally limited. Better see if they fit another criteria then try to bend the accepted rules as a way of deleting these articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work done on this to date. Questions: do we know when the first of these accounts was blocked? And does this fit the pattern (it seems rather different from those I've seen to date)? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

This one is not in the SPI, but seems to fit the name/editing pattern too: 106medregt. Blocked on 04:58, 17 May 2024 by @Cullen328 as a spamublock.

That said, I haven't really looked at this, just checked over if the list of accounts here was copied properly to the SPI case (many hours ago) and found this account's sandbox by searching some of the abbreviated terms in user space (ordered by page creation date). – 2804:F14:80BE:B501:BC28:2F:9049:1F4D (talk) 10:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Would a bulk MfD work, Liz? I'm not comfortable leaving a bunch of poisoned drafts to linger for 6 months given the likelihood this farm may spin up more accounts, especially as we now know an Indian military commander is ordering this. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano, as our IPv6 friend says above, the user 106medregt was blocked at 04:58 on 17 May 2024 by Cullen328, and is now included in the SPI. My reading is that any page created by other socks after that block was executed is fully eligible for deletion as G5, "created by a banned or blocked user". Meat or not, the master and puppets are all considered to be one user, a block on any account is a block on all. Liz, does that seem right to you? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: We have an account older than that - Ananthua9560b (talk · contribs) was created January 2018, but didn't edit until this incident. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The G5 clock starts once the account is blocked, not created.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

After the discovery of 106medregt, I've just been bold and started tagging the eligible drafts for G5. Air on White (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• There's some difference of opinion above on whether the drafts can legitimately be G5-speedily deleted, with Liz thinking no, and several other editors thinking yes. Liz says "Better see if they fit another criteria then try to bend the accepted rules as a way of deleting these articles." Well, if we are to stick rigidly to "rules", then Justlettersandnumbers is right: as soon as one account is blocked, any others which edit are sockpuppets (whether run by the same person or by meatpuppetd), and pages they create can be G5-deleted. However, it's much better, in my opinion, to remember the one of the 5 pillars which says that Wikipedia has no firm rules ("The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording") and the very important policy WP:IAR. For some reason many editors seem to think that IAR is something separate from policies, and somehow applying it is a bit naughty; in fact it is a policy, and has just as much authority as any other policy. So here is my conclusion: (1) The important question is not "would G5 speedy deletion bend the accepted rules?", but "would speedy deletion be the best thing to do under the circumstances?" to which my answer is "Yes, obviously it is." (2) However, if anyone prefers to take a legalistic view and inisist on sticking to policies then they can take solace in the facts that any page created after the first block clearly satisfies the criterion G5, in view of the policy on meatpuppetry, and I therefore intend to delete pages created after 04:58, 17 May. Also, any created before then can, I think, reasonably be deleted in view of the policy on on ignoring all "rules", but for the present I will leave those. JBW (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, I want to mention that I am on a cruise ship in Ketchikan, Alaska with limited internet access, and do not have the time to look more deeply into this matter. I will answer any questions on my talk page or anywhere else when I have better online access in a few days. Cullen328 (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• A couple of days ago, I declined Draft:108 Field Regiment (KARGIL) created by now blocked sockpuppet (Braveheart0505), it had very poor formatting and felt like it was copied directly out of some army document, given the large scale of conflict of interest disruption and sockpuppetry, I think these drafts should be speedily deleted under the appropriate criteria. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Concerning appeals

On reading the appeal made at User talk:Ironfist336, I'm concerned there may be some level of not just coordination going on, but actual coercion. Perhaps it's time to loop in the Trust & Safety team?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

What could T&S realistically do here in this situation? Would Indian military brass even listen to what they have to say? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with notifying T&S. It's up to them to determine whether to proceed and what to expect out of it. Air on White (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

If true, holy hell that is actually concerning... Procyon117 (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It might also explain the lack of unblock requests we've been seeing. Only Rahulheer, 172fdregt, and Ironfist have used their user talk pages since their blocks, with the first two filing unblock requests which wound up summarily declined. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Also linking User talk:PRISH123 who appears to give more details about the official orders received. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

That is grim. Qcne (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I am on a break concurrently, but I will say that, at least to my knowledge, the Bharatiya Janata Party are known to be highly promotive of the military. It could be Indian election shenanigans that are leading to this sudden spate of COI editing by multiple accounts across different IP's.

To me, this feels more like a assignment that people have been told to do as part of a political campaign, likely at a particular place such as a office (given the overlap of IP's involved here) rather than a military base and then subsequently went home and went on to Wikipedia to carry it out. And I wouldn't be surprised if they work as part of the Indian political system.

If the Indian Armed Forces are behind this, it is a worrying and oddball progression, but I think they have more pressing matters to deal with than blackmailing people to edit Wikipedia. Still, Trust and Safety may be necessary here.Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The comment reads I am just editing my article for my unit [...] i am under strict orders to complete it by tonight, so it definitely appears to be military-related. Agree that T&S might be necessary. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

User talk:172fdregt's unblock request reads This is the official account of the 172 Medium Regiment created post Orders from the higher HQ.The unit has been ordered to update the regimental information on the Wikipedia page that has been created by our HQ, so it seems to confirm that orders have been issued from higher up. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I doubt this is the BJP (and if it is, they're using military higher-ups as their proxy). We have multiple members of this group directly stating that they're being ordered to do this by their COs (or at the very least by people far higher up the chain of command of the military). I've learnt that, when pressed, editors in a not-so-willing COI will tend to rat out their bosses in an effort to try and distance themselves from any moral/ethical complicity, and I'm thus more willing to take them at face value. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 06:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

And based on the fact we're still getting new accounts spun up, this isn't looking like a political stunt, unless Modi is trying to intimidate opposition leaders by making Wikipedia articles (which doesn't come close to passing the laugh test). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

It looks as if it's only the Regiment of Artillery (India), going by the mentions above, so probably not an edict to all the armed forces from Modi or his Minister of Defence, or even the Chiefs of Staff. NebY (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

And we have User talk:Ashveer1796 who've tried to justify their edits to 1889 Missile Regiment (India) as related to national-security concerns. This might not seem unusual if not for the fact that account was spun up less than 12 hours ago for the sole purpose of editing that article. This isn't going away. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses published sources. What "national-security concerns" can there be about information that's already published? Brunton (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

This has evolved from propaganda to censorship... Air on White (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Brunton, see Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station. It's happened in the past. Nyttend (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The difference between this and Pierre-sur-Haute is that the French governmental authorities coerced an administrator in good standing to act as their proxy, while the regimental spammers here are Indian GIs who otherwise haven't edited Wikipedia before. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Is this really so bad?

I have to wonder about the above question. Yes, the instigators of this have gone about things in the wrong way, but most people in the world know nothing about the internal workings of Wikipedia. There is some useful information among the flowery (dare I say, "typically Indian"?) promotional stuff. If "Indian" was replaced by "British" or "American" in the title of this section would there be such a pile-on? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Even the most blatant advertising contains true information. Even if the information seems useful, it is unsourced. Air on White (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It's a concerted effort by those with a distinct conflict of interest to promote their specific military units on Wikipedia using a large number of undeclared accounts. It has eaten up an extensive (not hyperbole) amount of volunteer time in reviewing, tagging and cleaning up the submissions with ongoing discussion at several noticeboards including WP:ANI, WP:COIN and WP:SPI. I really really hope that you're not suggesting that the individuals who are raising concerns and attempting to clean up this huge mess are somehow motivated by anti-Indian sentiment, because that's what your post suggests, Phil Bridger. And in case it does need to be said, it doesn't make a lick of difference what country or nation the military units are affiliated with - the policies and guidelines being violated apply to all editors.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Heck, I'm Aussie. If this was done by the Australian military, I would still be doing the same thing I'm doing now. Procyon117 (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Phil, it really is "so bad". Of course "most people in the world know nothing about the internal workings of Wikipedia", but bad editing done in good faith by an editor who doesn't know Wikipedia policies is still bad editing. And why on earth do you think that we would be any less concerned if the armed forces of the United Kingdom or the United States were to do the same thing? I think there would be just as much concern about it, and just as much concerted effort to deal with the problem (or "pile-on", to use the more emotive term that you prefer). JBW (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Phil, you're defending mass-spamming of content which is under-sourced, under-baked, and mandated to be so by a clueless executive/commanding officer, and on subject matter that falls in a contentious topic to boot. Are you really sure you want to try and fight on this hill? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 06:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

There would indeed. CMD (talk) 06:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

ARCA Request

I've filed a request at ARCA to try and see if we can't put a 500/30 rule in place here to stymie the article edits. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

173.72.3.91 edit warring with my snow closure at Talk:Project 2025

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

I closed this IP's requested move on Talk:Project 2025 per WP:SNOW. They then reverted my closure twice. They've also been generally disruptive on that page. I've attempted to close the discussion one last time, and don't wanna deal with that IP pulling that again. Anyone wanna help? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I would like to suggest a checkuser. I remember this IP range from way back disrupting right-wing articles. This is not the first time. Viriditas (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Checkuser isn't really useful for things that happened a long time ago, but from the check logs I see this range connected with a couple of SPIs from 2018. It's a mobile network, I doubt it's the same user. But without having checked, this IP is clearly the same user as 63.127.128.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 98.110.81.233 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (for example, see their edits at Talk:Background of the Rafah offensive). We have here the unfortunate coincidence of an editor who doesn't really understand how things work who also only seems to want to edit contentious topics, and I think we're going to end up dealing with this with blocks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I remember there was a similar issue with an IP from NJ a while back. Viriditas (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Baowisteel's user page

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 the account Baowisteel was specifically created for personal promotion of their website. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Taken care of by Seraphimblade. Next time, WP:UAA/WP:AIV will get you a quicker response. Mdann52 (talk) 08:34, 14 June 2024 (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.

Block evasion from Slovenia and Macedonia

Someone has been disrupting articles under many IP addresses geolocating to various places in the Balkans including Slovenia and North Macedonia. The edit summaries say "New changes".[62][63][64] The activity represents block evasion by Special:Contributions/31.11.96.0/19, Special:Contributions/164.8.7.72 and Special:Contributions/46.123.247.1 Among the recently involved IPs are the following:

• 62.162.133.189 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 46.123.254.236 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎46.123.248.213 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎46.123.245.86 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 46.123.242.71 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 46.123.246.206 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 46.123.251.109 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 46.123.241.64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎46.123.241.212 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎46.123.241.151 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 46.123.241.155 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎46.123.241.10 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎46.123.254.190 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 46.123.254.170 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 46.248.85.211 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 185.100.245.4 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 46.123.250.125 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 46.123.255.194 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 46.123.253.92 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

This person was blocked for a year as Special:Contributions/92.53.17.0/24, and they have never addressed the problematic editing style that led to the block. They never improved their behavior. The small amount of communication from them shows that they don't feel that their behavior is a problem, and they don't intend to change anything. I think we must block the ranges Special:Contributions/46.123.241.0/24 and Special:Contributions/46.123.248.0/21, then play Whack-A-Mole with the outlier IPs as they appear. Binksternet (talk) 05:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

One range that neatly covers all the addresses starting with 46.123 above is 46.123.240.0/20. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

 Blocked 46.123.240.0/20 x 6 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Short descriptors

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 suddenly see a swarm IPs and newbie editors happily adding short descriptors in my watchlist of 20K+ pages. Today, "assuming good faith" I reviewed a couple hundred edits and notified several editors to go careful with these. And suddenly I paid attention that it looks like some tool was rolled out which puts edit summary "Added short description, #suggestededit-add-desc 1.0" and of course this bot screws up numerous articles because it is brainless and newbies brainlessly follow stupid advices. Whatever the feature is, it must be disabled ASAP for editors without extended confirmed status, because it increases unnecessary workload on other wikipedians. It takes much more time to confirm validity of such an edit (because it comes from who knows who) compared to brainlessly clicking some button. And developers deserve a trout slap for a tool that suggests edits to people who have no idea what they are doing. - Altenmann >talk 03:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

ANI isn't the place for this discussion, but a big part of this is that the iOS app presently doesn't distinguish between a SD being unset and it being set to none: either way it happily prompts the reader to add one. It's got an open ticket on Phabricator, and I've been patiently waiting for a developer to get around with it amid all the other stuff they have to do. Remsense诉 03:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not that it does not bsee 'none' My point is that it often gives st5upid suggestions. - Altenmann >talk 03:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

P.S. I am thembling with horrror when I think that some smarass will decide to employ ChatGPT to write ledes and rolls it out as a yet another "edit suggester". - Altenmann >talk 03:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

This might me more suitable for WP:VPT -Lemonaka 03:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Thx posted there: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Short_descriptors. - Altenmann >talk 03:30, 15 June 2024 (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.

Numerous personal attacks done by WorldMo

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.

---

Numerous personal attacks done by aforementioned user WorldMo at Talk:Alauddin Husain Shah.

Calling me an idiot, and to log off: [65]

Calling me an "Afghan nationalist weirdo", and saying that I practice Bacha Bazi, which is something I'm not going to explain here and you can read the page for linked. [66]

Overall this user has been uncivil and had launched numerous personal attacks against me during a clear discussion. Noorullah (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Completely unacceptable comments. Straight to an indef. They can justify getting their rights back. Canterbury Tail talk 18:41, 14 June 2024 (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.

Personal attack from @Ukudoks:

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.

---

Personal attack from @Ukudoks: while reverting my editing, the user wrote in edit summery: "@Nivzaq: The only thing that is redundant, is your worthless existance, and by deleting my commits not only you prove it, you also prove that you cannot read nor do independent research. Typical parasite, don't worry you'll reach 501 edits soon enough in another page" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_in_Abkhazia_(1992%E2%80%931993)&oldid=1228851556 Nivzaq (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: @Ukudoks is a very strange user. As seen here [67], he goes on a statement about a page I had noticed was of poor quality (Emicho) which sounds a lot like he is trying to 'befriend' me (against WP:NOTAFORUM) rather than anything contribitional. He also has a habit of inserting subtle humour/Easter eggs into article notes [68]. However @Nivzaq's removal of anything from the source 'Abkhaz World' is also something I don't quite understand, since I am not aware of any statements on its reliability.

An IP[69] who posted to the wrong board a few days ago was my first knowledge of Ukudok and broadly shares my concerns, at least broadly, about WP:CIR:

Completely unrelated to the ARBIPA issues Ukudoks is giving me some CIR/NOTHERE vibes. Adding unsourced conspiracy theory rubbish to an article complete with citation needed tags [85] going to the talk page of the editor that reverted their edit to accuse them of being a paid member of the Spanish intelligence services who is in cahoots with the catholic church to suppress the truth [86] then harassing them by spamming them with barnstars" [87]? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

And then approximately 5 seconds after I made this comment, this happened. Request indefinite block for clear WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Ukodoks continues to edit without responding here. That edit summary is unacceptable. Perhaps Ukodoks should be indef'd until they agree to avoid personal attacks. Schazjmd (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

After edits such as this: Presumably thereafter, Emicho lived his life writing historical fiction for the Catholics, Jews and Arabs (and potentially for the Zoroasterians, though this claim has not been backed up by any credible sources, it is common amongst esoteric hippies). and multiple edits that resulted in this lead sentence: The legend of Emicho was a Hyperborean proto-Nasi (Hebrew title), sleeper agent, blue eyed Super Saiyan with blond hair (which is pretty common for German fanatics) and count Chosen by God (Currently it is not certain which God Chose him) in Rhineland in the late 11th century., I think the problems may go beyond personal attacks. Schazjmd (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I think a fairly sizeable cleanup operation may be necessary, considering concerns other users have had over his edits and sources. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I've already restored that article to its state before Ukodoks began editing it. There was too much mess to clean out manually. But I agree that any other articles they've edited need attention. Schazjmd (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I know it's irrelevant now, but just found that they added Hitler as the first president of Israel.[70] Schazjmd (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

If it were up to me I would definitely ban Ukodoks pre-emptively before he can do any more damage. He is either purposely misunderstanding Wikipedia's policy about primary sources, or he's a troll (I wouldn't dare suggest the other possibly that he's just an idiot). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

New: Flat out refusal to WP:ENGAGE and WP:IDHT. Northern Moonlight 00:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Ukudoks for disruptive editing. When they wrote And let us not forget modern biases which cloud almost all historians who work for public institutions, most of them (I'm making an assumption here) are simply regurgitating unrealiable information. Whether or not I can claim what historians are writing and/or telling is the truth or not is irrelevant because all of us know, they are clueless as much as we are. I think better option is for an independent Wikipedian to look through the surviving archives and find out what really is going on., they showed a deep and profound misunderstanding of Wikipedia's core content policies. Cullen328 (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Judging by that quoted statement, and their Primary sources or nothing. on their userpage, I get the impression this is one of those people who believes everyone should just read the original source & make up their own mind (aka "independent research"), rather than listen to experts who've actually studied the thing & understand the historic context of the primary source. Definitely NOTHERE material. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:15, 14 June 2024 (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 video game platforms by a /64

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.

---

2601:40:C482:A390:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Keeps adding dubious unsourced release platforms to articles about video games with the unhelpful edit summary of "Ok", range was previously blocked for a month in April. Examples of unsourced edits: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Block reapplied. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:54, 14 June 2024 (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 film articles by a /64

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.

---

2603:8080:12F0:2E10:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Keeps adding unsourced content to articles related to film, primarily 3 Arts Entertainment. Was previously blocked on the 9th for disruptive editing, continued after block expired. Same individual was also previously blocked on 35.146.18.46 on the 10th. See edit history of Money Talks (1997 film) and Dead Presidents, where they have repeatedly changed the companies involved in the films without a source. Waxworker (talk) 04:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Blocked the /64 range for two weeks. The 35. IP hasn't edited since their block.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2024 (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:Sebastianmarco and LGBT rights in Canada

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, I'm here to report user Sebastianmarco (talk · contribs). They have been adding unreferenced/improperly referenced content that accuses Canada of making a new law that prejudices LGBT+ members. They have mostly edited LGBT rights in Canada and Brazzers since June 8 and they don't seem to stop, despite many warnings and a temporary block. A longer block for disruptive editing may be warranted. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 09:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

A few more recent diffs: 1 2 3 4 5 etc. Practically every edit by them is like that. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 10:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I've WP:NOTHERE blocked them as they're not responding to warnings, not sourcing any of their edits are are pushing an opinion. If they want to come back and discuss their wish to edit then they can request an unblock but I'm not hopeful. Amortias (T)(C) 10:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm guessing this is another sockpuppet account just by looking at the edit history for LGBT rights in Canada. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, a lot of IPs were making similar edits before this user popped up. I expect we'll have new socks and IPs show up in that article & similar ones (basically any "LGBT rights in <nation>" article). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Confirmed to Canadaisdangerous and their various socks. WP:RFPP if the disruption continues, report similar accounts to AIV mentioning the sockmaster's name, it's pretty obvious. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:12, 14 June 2024 (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 edits in India-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.

---

Harshdeep Singh Ramgarhia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They seem determined to use a low-quality image in Sidhu Moose Wala's infobox (see this, this, this, this, this and this). They continue restoring it (see this) even though I've asked them to seek consensus on the talk page instead (see this). They've disrupted not only Moose Wala's article, but also Diljit Dosanjh, AP Dhillon, Karan Aujla, Shinda Kahlon, Yograj Singh and Shubh. Thedarkknightli (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Harshdeep Singh Ramgarhia has made 240 edits. Of those...

...one, this mess of an edit request that got declined in less than 10 minutes, was to a talk page and the other 239 have been to article space.

...four had edit summaries and the other 236 did not. (Of those four, two summaries were automatically entered and the other two were entirely unhelpful.)

Harshdeep Singh Ramgarhia is not particularly active but editors have raised issues with their changes for years and have always gotten ignored. They're ready for an indef block with a promise to unblock as soon as they commit to communicating. City of Silver 17:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

INDEFFED

Given their long gaps between edits and consistent behavior, it does not appear a shorter duration would work. Star Mississippi 17:21, 14 June 2024 (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.

Genre warriors

There is an essay widely helpful to Wikipedia's music pages called Wikipedia:Genre warrior, that tends to protect articles from edit wars and violations of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Unfortunately, this essay completely descibes the behavioral problem of editors like User:Koppite1 and User:Newpicarchive, that keep on adding poor sources to prove that singer Beyonce is both a country and afrobeats singer. When editors like me or User:FMSky try to tell them that their poor sourcing do not support the statement added to the infobox, they continue the edit war completely refusing to address what's extensively explained by Wikipedia:Genre warrior - their responses are "but what about the Lady Gaga article" (blatant example of Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF), or they choose to remove discussions from the talk pages (1 and 2) avoiding the discussion and clicking "undo".DollysOnMyMind (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The first thing you failed to do was seek consensus via the relevant Beyonce talkpage. Just because you personally don't think the sources are good enough, it doesn't necessary make it so. Seek the viewpoint of other editors/users first before you unilaterally remove sourced material. Try and establish a consensus on the Beyonce talkpage before unnecessarily escalating and creating edit wars Koppite1 (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Genre warrior already expresses the viewpoint of other editors/users, so it's not a "unilateral" thing. Additionally, while discussing on my talk page, User:FMSky gave you the same viewpoint as me. You're accusing me of "escalating and creating edit wars" while you removed the discussion from your talk page without responding two separate times, while wasting no time to continuing the edit war DollysOnMyMind (talk) 09:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I responded on my talk page umpteen times. I have also responded on YOUR talkpage since you are the one who initiated the changes. My response to you was to open up a discussion on the Beyonce talkpage but you have continued to ignore my response and instead decided to prematurely escalate here. Once again, i'll ask you to open up a discussion on the Beyonce talkpage and seek consensus of other editors. If the majority of other editors agree that the genres should be removed, then so be it. But at least make some effort to be democratic and try and establish a consensus. Koppite1 (talk) 09:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

You did not respond on your talk page "umpteen" times. You did respond merely after this noticeboard. Other editors weighted in the discussion and went against your edit that you didn't even bother to explain. DollysOnMyMind (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I have responded on my talkpage, your talk page and when i reverted your edits, i made it clear in the edit explanation that you removed sourced material without consensus. Now, instead of going around in circles, i suggest you open up a discussion on the Beyonce talk page Koppite1 (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh dear AN/I was due for another Genre-warring discussion wasn't it. I keep my nose out of the music genre beehive so I can't and won't comment on the content of such.

Koppite1 and DollysOnMyMind you've both violated WP:3RR on Beyoncé, and I suggest you review that policy page as well as Dispute Resolution. (Koppite1 [71],[72],[73],[74] and DOMM [75],[76],[77],[78].) To Koppite1 I might suggest self-reverting your last revert on that page as a show of good faith and respect for this bright-line rule. GabberFlasted (talk) 12:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I suggest it's taken to the Beyonce talkpage before anything is done. Seek consensus. That is the correct way to approach these things. Editors shouldn't just willy nilly decide to remove other editors sourced work without a proper general discussion. The relevant genres have been on that page for a while until DollysOnMyMind decided to all of a sudden remove without proper consultation. Koppite1 (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Editors shouldn't just willy nilly decide to ignore Wikipedia's essays without a proper general discussion. The essays have been respected on Beyonce page for a while until Koppite1 decided to all of a sudden add genres and decide what's a reliable source without proper consultation. DollysOnMyMind (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not involved with this dispute and don't care to be, but just here to point out that essays hold no authoritative weight. They are not policy, nor are they guidelines; and the essay you're quoting has a big disclaimer at the top that says It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.. Essays also do not constitute any kind of authority as to what is a reliable source -- that comes from policy and guidelines (e.g., WP:RS). Essays can completely contradict policies and guidelines or even themselves; and they often do. As such, editors are perfectly free to ignore any essay for any reason that they feel like, without any discussion whatsoever. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Firstly, i have never edited the genres page on Beyonce. Check the history before coming here with unfounded accusations. I have never added or subtracted genres. I'm referring to the sourced work done by other editors. You don't remove their sourced work without bothering to seek some sort of general consensus. And GabberFlasted has referred to the Dispute Resolution page. If you look on there it says the first port of call really should be the articles talk page. But for some reason, you can't be bothered with it. Koppite1 (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

And a good way to make that happen is to start a discussion there. I see a "Genres" header but it's a single paragraph, that has no responses, which originated with an editor entirely uninvolved in this discussion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

A good way to make that happen is to start with a discussion on the relevant talk page as per Dispute Resolution. Koppite1 (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Either party in the dispute can begin the talk page discussion. The assumption that one side is free of this responsibility simply because they have provided a citation is misguided (you may want to review WP:VNOT). You have options when someone indicates a disagreement, including WP:BRD and WP:BRB, but it is often best to go right to the talk page and begin a discussion to avoid further disruption at the article. This goes for both parties. GoneIn60 (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment/Observation - looks like from the article history this edit war (recently escalated to 3RR), has been going on since March 2024, with multiple editors involved, and not a single editor who has removed the genres or re-added them has started a talk page discussion about it. I guess edit warring over this nonsense is easier, huh? Isaidnoway (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@DollysOnMyMind, Koppite1, FMSky, and Newpicarchive: I've protected the page for a week. Please work out something on the article's talkpage. Please don't edit war about this more, it takes two (in this case, at least four) to war and none of you tried to deescalate or discuss this. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so basically you have confirmed what i have been saying all along since i got involved in the debate yesterday...seek general consensus on the Beyonce talk page. It's a shame it had to be unnecessarily escalated here. Koppite1 (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Koppite1 your attitude in this thread leaves a lot to be desired. Every time someone suggests using the talk page to open a discussion about the content you beat on the drum of 'Yes I agree, someone should really go do that.' Editors here have been patient with you but don't mistake that for ignorance of your attempts to separate yourself from the issue. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not an adversarial competition. So consider this an explicit request that you either join the existing discussion of genres on the Beyoncé talk page, create a new one if you really find it necessary, or cease reverting others' edits related to genres on that page. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

My very first piece advice was to politely seek consensus on the Beyonce talkpage. All i'm saying it's such a pity that it had to go round the houses and be escalated here to get back to square 1....i.e. seek general consensus on the article talk page instead of out of the blue reverting other editors sourced works. Hopefully, now that there is a discussion opened up on the relevant talk page (to which i will join in), a consensus can be found. Koppite1 (talk) 11:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@Koppite1: the genre discussion is open on the talk page. I please invite you to address your point DollysOnMyMind (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems there is a misunderstanding on your part, Koppite1. Both parties have an equal responsibility to begin that talk page discussion once it becomes apparent that the dispute cannot be solved through editing alone. If it had to be escalated here, then your party shoulders just as much of the blame. Don't bank on WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS as a reason to avoid discussion either. Material that has been in the article for a certain period of time isn't guaranteed protection from future challenges. Its "presumed consensus" goes away as soon as that material is disputed or reverted. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

In my view, Beyoncé should not be a good article, as it fails criteria #5 (Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute). However, I'm aware at no GA has never been delisted solely due to edit wars/content disputes. --MuZemike 12:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

MuZemike Is 100% right. The article is absolutely not stable. The page's history says it all DollysOnMyMind (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Update on Talk:Rihanna @Koppite1: is teaming up with sock accounts, trying to stop me while I'm trying to protect the page from sock edits. He said he "agrees" to a request that was clearly written by a sock puppet of longtime-banned account User: MariaJaydHicky, who made the same exact request on the article's talk page days ago using the blocked account User: Shaneyshady. The banned user is trying to get into the protected article, and Koppite1 seems to be glad to help him.DollysOnMyMind (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• I've just blocked the OP as a sock of Giubbotto non ortodosso. I also blocked another sock of MariaJaydHickey this morning. I only became aware of this thread by looking at DollysOnMyMind's recent contribs - does anyone who isn't a sock of a blocked user want to let me know whether any further action is needed? Girth Summit _(blether) 11:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Persistent unsourced changes on articles relating to Fairly OddParents

2601:902:C080:C930:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Keeps making unsourced cast changes on articles related to Fairly OddParents, continued after final warning on User talk:2601:902:C080:C930:CD44:7CE1:5770:8361. Examples of unsourced edits: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 11:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Oz346 and Petextrodon

Oz346 and Petextrodon, have repeatedly engaged in attacking me personally by means of unsubstantiated allegations. The initial few [79], [80], [81] I have ignored, however it is coming to a point that it is no longer possible to engaged in a meaningful discussion in the article talk page and has become very disruptive since they are attempting to change the content dispute into a personal attack [82], [83], [84] and gone as far as to include these allegations in an edit waring report against me [85]. Now they have effectively stopped me from editing [86].  Kalanishashika (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Kalanishashika  is a WP:SPA solely edit warring in the Tamil Genocide page ,he violated WP:3RR but was let off after a warning he tried to game the system by making a fourth revert after 24 hours.  There is no personal attack by Oz346 and Petextrodon who have been working to improve the project. No one has stopped Kalanishashika from editing Tamil Genocide page.Dowrylauds (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I cannot see the diffs Kalanishashika is linking as I'm editing from the Wiki app which is glitching on my phone. However, if it's a reference to my statement that his account is a WP:SPA that is solely removing mentions of crimes committed by Sri Lankan government forces, then that is a fact and not a personal attack. His account has been solely removing content about government war crimes chiefly from the Tamil genocide page, but also the 1984 Manal Aru massacres page (including content from well established sources which have already been vetted as reliable by an admin on the Sri Lanka Reconciliation project). Oz346 (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Moved this thread from WP:AN. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Since other editors are having a hard time saying what they're actually saying, I'll say it for them. @Kalanishashika: have you ever edited Wikipedia with a different identity, whether that was anonymously or using a different username?

Also, let's have some pings. @Pharaoh of the Wizards and Aoidh: I'm sure neither of you are enthusiastic about responding to more of this but I'm pretty sure your input is needed. City of Silver 03:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to any administrator taking action against any of the three editors (Oz346, Petextrodon, or Kalanishashika) as they feel appropriate. I did mention my concerns to Petextrodon at ANEW about their talk page comments, which happened after the above Petextrodon diffs, and at the moment they haven't edited the talk page further. - Aoidh (talk) 06:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• I'm logging a formal 1RR restriction for the article as its falls under CT/DS related content. No comment on the editor yet, although I sense a boomerang in the not-too-distant future. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• @City of Silver: I'm looking through the most recent 500 contributions to the article, I see a single edit from an account User:Kawinvalluvan registered two days before this one. There's also User:Okiloma who was permablocked for copyright violations a few weeks back in May. There's the blocked account User:Omegapapaya, whose edits are almost exclusively to the article and who was KO-ed May 7. Those are just the ones I found in the recent history. Could be another line entirely, but I though it a good place to start. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• @TomStar81: I don't suppose semiprotecting will help but what about extended confirmed protection? City of Silver 04:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any personal attacks in the above, just the two users identifying an SPA and asking if said user has edited before, which are not personal attacks. What I am seeing though is WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour from Kalanishashika. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I have more than a year of experience dealing with an obstructive (now topic banned) user in Sri Lanka-related topics. So I'm well-acquainted with their behavioral pattern. Since user Kalanishashika only joined Wikipedia one month ago (around the time Tamil genocide article was being debated for move) and vast majority of their edits have been on that page, where they have exhibited similar behavior and more experience than one would expect from a novice, I expressed my reasonable suspicion which two other users also shared. I understand that unlike sock puppet, off-Wiki coordination (meat puppetry?) is difficult to prove. If there's a way to show reasonable suspicion without coming across as casting aspersions, I would; but I expressed no other personal insults.---Petextrodon (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• I can say with some degree of confidence that there is no technical connection between Kalanishashika and the Panda619 sock family (Omegapapaya et al). Can't comment on any off-wiki coordination, or any link to any other sockmaster, naturally, but nothing is jumping out at me. To answer Petextrodon's question, it is not usually productive to discuss the possibility of someone being a sock at a venue other than SPI, or potentially AIV/ANI or an individual admin's talk page. Accusing someone without evidence is uncivil; accusing someone with all the evidence in the world at an inappropriate location is ineffective. In a nutshell: report your suspicions at appropriate venue, or keep them to yourself. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Ok, thanks for your input. For your information, Kalanishashika and the Panda619 are not suspected to be socks especially since the former voted to delete the article whereas the latter was the one who created it.---Petextrodon (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  This was the sock investigation opened on Kalanishashika but it was refused: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cossde/Archive#Suspected_sockpuppets ---Petextrodon (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Hah - didn't realised I'd already looked at this, it was me who declined to take action on that case. FWIW, I compared against Panda619 based on TomStar81's observations above. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• @City of Silver, this is my first go at editing Wikipedia and it has been very frustrating. @Lavalizard101 I admit that I got carried away on the 10th of June, I apologize and accept the warning issued to me [87] by Aoidh. I have heeded this warning and avoided the urge to revert when invited to do so by Pharaoh of the Wizards [88]. As you say if the incidents that I have reported are not considered personal attacks, please close this incident report and I apologize from everyone for wasting their time. Honestly this is a very stressful experience, my intentions were to improve the quality of this article by cleaning up the citied sources and event taking one to RSN [89], I received very little support on this and have been facing lot of rude responses like [90], and the latest [91]. I am surprised to see that I had been reported to SPI. This does now make a lot of sense of what Oz346 and Petextrodon have been accusing me of. However, their logic seems strange like this one on an archived RSN [92] to which my answer was [93] and this [94] on the use of BLP. The Tamil genocide page has been inundated with accusations and counteraccusations of sock puppetry and meat puppetry. My request is, can this be settled here, and I can move on or out. Kalanishashika (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry that you interpret my asking you to do basic due diligence before reverting my edit as being "rude". Being arbitrarily accused of being rude can also be taken as rudeness. In any case, if you're being truthful in saying that I've wrongly suspected you of off-Wiki coordination and you have no links to any users here, then I would like to offer you my sincere apology.---Petextrodon (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Kalanishashika Anyone is allowed to edit any article here but I have two questions if you don't mind.

  1) How did you find the Tamil genocide article given your first edits were about public figures? 2) Have you drawn any influence from the edit history of any Sri Lanka topics editor when you challenged the UTHR as a primary source; when you implied that a source must be vetted by RSN before it could be cited; when you gave explicit attribution to certain sources; when you asked third parties at RSN to audit sources used in Tamil genocide article? Thanks.---Petextrodon (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• I think some sort of boomerang is in order here as the filer of this notice has hardly been on their best behaviour in the article. For example, refer to talk:Tamil_genocide#Merge_proposal where they engaged in WP:BADGERING of myself for the high crime that I didn’t satisfy their demands for my involuntary service. TarnishedPath^talk 13:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  @TarnishedPath, I am sorry about that, looking back what I did there was wrong. Even back then I felt that I had made an error after ActivelyDisinterested's explanation. Kalanishashika (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  All good mate. TarnishedPath^talk 14:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I have expressed concern about some of the accusations being made on the talk page; however the suspicions are not baseless. Hopefully SPI can resolve the uncertainty, and any further aspersions would result in warnings or sanctions. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

IP(s) using talk page as WP:FORUM

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

Can someone consider blocking or restricting these IPs? For weeks now they've been continuously adding random, irrelevant, even nonsensical comments to talk pages. They've been reverted by multiple editors (myself and others) and warned twice on User talk:12.146.12.12. Since their second and final warning on 13 June ([95]), they've gone ahead and done more of the same ([96], [97], [98]; all three of these are irrelevant or pseudo-gibberish). Needless to say, they've ignored the talk page warnings and the revert edit summaries that consistently point them to WP:FORUM.

Note: 12.146.12.12 seems to be the most active IP, but 12.146.12.2 looks very much like the same person (e.g. [99], [100], [101]). R Prazeres (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Update: they've now made this brief response. I've invited them to explain themselves further here. Hopefully that'll help. R Prazeres (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, after the reply above they simply copy-pasted one of their previously removed comments back into a talk page ([102], from [103]) and added another rambling personal comment ([104]). R Prazeres (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

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

72.131.35.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for 48 hours on June 9 for disruptive editing and non communication, mostly on aviation-related articles. A few days after the block expiration they’ve begun again, making unsourced [105] and nonsensical [106] edits Celjski Grad (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

User engaging in nationalist revisionism

Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user @Aamir Khan Lepzerrin: appears to have been adding Kurdish nationalist historical revisionism to various pages, such as this this, this, this, and this.

According to their contributions page, they also have been engaging in edit warring when their questionable edits have been reverted.

Per their talk page, they have also responded to warnings against making disruptive edits by being combative, and they have also left blatantly ethnonationalist messages on the talk pages of some of the users who have reverted some of their disruptive edits. Antiquistik (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. I checked some of the edits and they appear to be well-sourced [107]. The editor includes link to a book published by established German publisher and I fail to see it being "adding Kurdish nationalist historical revisionism". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

You're wrong. I'm not even a Kurd. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anyone making the claim that you are. Canterbury Tail talk 17:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

He claims that I practice Kurdish nationalism. However, I am only writing information with cited sources. If I had written information without sources, he might have been right. There is a sanction for deleting sourced information, right? I will also report these users. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Wrong. There is no sanction for deleting sourced information. As with anything else that goes into articles it is subject to consensus on the article talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you think that deleted information will not be sanctioned because it does not correspond to personal ideas rather than reality? If you get to the bottom of the discussion, you can see that he refutes their claims. Although one of the sources in question insisted that they did not accept it as a "source", the same source was used elsewhere... (Gutian people s:22. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@Aamir Khan Lepzerrin: I didn't claim anything about your personal ethnic identity. The issue is with the content of your edits, which is assuredly Kurdish nationalist revisionism in nature. Antiquistik (talk) 06:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Please prove your claim, here you go! Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I’m not an expert, but what’s wrong with the first and third diffs? It looks like relevant information being added. Are the sources bad? Zanahary (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the sources are bad, but it's more about cherry-picking undue sources that are out on a speculative limb to begin with. I don't think this user needs any sort of sanction other than an exhortation to respect consensus and not be so combative. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The sources are either outdated themselves or rely on outdated scholarship. And the user Aamir Khan Lepzerrin is using them to make nationalistic claims that are presently rejected by the scientific scholarship on the subject and largely persist only in fringe (ethno)nationalist ideology.

For example, the name Waššukanni is now accepted to originate from an archaic Indo-Aryan language used by the ruling elite of the Mitanni kingdom. Meanwhile, the Kurdish language is an Iranian language not attested until around two millennia after the end of Mitanni, and whatever ancestor of it that existed at the time that Wassukanni existed would have been more alike to Avestan, Old Median and Old Persian than to the Kurdish language as it is historically attested.

Similarly, the name Karduniaš is from the Kassite language and was used as name for the Kassite kingdom of Babylon in the Bronze Age, again about two millennia before the first attestations of the Kurdish people, while the etymology of the name of the Kurds is itself still very uncertain and the Kassite language is still too poorly documented for any certain etymological connection to be established.

At best, Aamir Khan Lepzerrin's edits fall into WP:UNDUE.

Antiquistik (talk) 06:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep your personal opinions to yourself. We are not interested. You cannot remove information with specified sources just because it does not fit your personal ideology. Based on your field of expertise, do you say that the sources are not valid? All the information I provide is the claim of competent people in their field. They are experts but who are you? Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is exactly the type of response that is the problem. Attempted bullying is not going to be a successful strategy here. Dumuzid (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Bullying is not my thing. Let a few people who think like me come and defend me here. Is this fair? The only thing I do is write information by giving sources. I did not write a single piece of information that showed my personal opinion. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you understand that Wikipedia works by consensus? So that if multiple people disagree with you, even if you can cite to some source, you may not be able to include the information you want? Dumuzid (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Consensus? By how many people? How many people saw this edit and how many approved it? Since only two or three people opposed it, that means hundreds of other people who saw it approved it. Logic is a principle of thinking. One has to be like Descartes. We can understand this by thinking simply. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Your logic is faulty to say the very least; you cannot infer assent from silence when there is no obligation to participate. If two or three people oppose you and no one supports you, then you must accede to that consensus. You can ask for more eyes at a project page, or start an RFC or the like, but you cannot simply demand that your edits be included. Dumuzid (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

No one predicted that you would object to the information whose source was stated. Information is given and the source is stated. Of course other users would not object to this. You are probably succumbing to your ideologies. I am not Kurdish. I write whatever the information is. If there is persistent opposition to the regulations aimed at the Kurds, I would blame it on "hostility towards Kurds". Especially one user makes this happen constantly when it comes to Kurds. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I officially retract my "no sanction needed" stance, and fear we may be nearing WP:CIR territory. I'm done. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It applies to you and they too. I haven't complained about yet. Moreover, there is also the sanction of deleting the sourced information. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

What sanction? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't have the authority to do this. I don't make the decision. But there is a sanction for insistently deleting information given by reliable sources, right? Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

No. This is what everyone is trying to tell you. I mean this in sincere good faith, but you need a better understanding of Wikipedia's policies before you make your definite proclamations. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not trying to fight with anyone.Injustice is happening and I'm fighting it.We're probably all well-intentioned. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I honestly don't want to see you blocked from any pages or from the site, but that's the direction you are headed in. If you want to be an editor here, you have to recognize that when multiple people disagree with you, you have to accept that they get to decide. You can certainly try to persuade people to your view, but if you take the stance that "I am right, everyone else is wrong" then your Wikipedia time will be short and frustrating. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Then you must be fair! You say that this source is not reliable, but the same source is used elsewhere and in other languages ​​(on Persian and English pages).

You say that I am fighting an edit war, but you do not question that when I added someone who wrote "Kurdish king" on his page to the "List Of Kurds", it was removed, so I added it again, but it was removed again! Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 01:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

You are probably succumbing to your ideologies.

I wouldn't go there. This is very close to making a claim that people are racially biased against your edits, which is a personal attack. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

You all persistently put blame on me. But not a single one of you asks "why are you deleting information whose sources are stated?" Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like they’re saying the sources are subpar. Zanahary (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

ZanaharyBased on what areas of expertise do they say that resources are insufficient? Example: I added a source regarding the possible name relationship between Karduniaş and Kurds. If i add the information, I did not say Kassites are Kurds. Since the source itself is Physical Anthropologist Egon von Eickstedt, it was added to the source as "There may be a connection between them". A source was also cited regarding Wassukani. None of the information I added is unsourced. They claim that I practice ethnic nationalism, but they cannot prove it.Example:List of Kurds. In the "Madig" article in question, it is written that he is Kurdish. I also add it to the "List of Kurds" section, but it is persistently taken back. If he is not a Kurd, why does it say "Kurdish king" on his page? When I insistently edit the information, it becomes "Ethnic nationalism". Nobody would believe this! Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Citing the Nazi anthropologist who argued that Upper Silesia must be part of Germany because the people who lived there were "Nordics" is not a terribly compelling argument to me, at least. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The anthropologist's claim is not unreasonable. Anyone with intelligence can understand. It is logical to say that throughout history the Kurds were called with similar silent names "k, r, d", that they and other nations called the Kassites "Karduniash", and that they may have connections with the Kurds due to the "Zagros" mountains they come from. Kardu, Karda-ka, Kardukhi, Kassitan Karduniash and its modern version Kurd. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

These are not my personal opinions. I am citing information from the latest reliable scholarship available on the topic while the sources you are citing are outdated by several decades.

And, based on how combative you continue to be, how you are resorting to personal attacks, and how you are defending citing a Nazi anthropologist who did race science, I second @Dumuzid:'s position that sanctions might be needed. Antiquistik (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I wonder why you can't be impartial on this issue? Even though the anthropologist is a Nazi, his claim is not contrary to scientific thought. I think you have lost the practice of how an editor should think. We are not holding a symposium here. You are trying to impose your personal opinions as "certainty" without scientific support. If you have a opposing source, you can also state it in the article. For example: "Kassites can never be Kurds", if so, please specify your source :) Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

*Aamir Khan Lepzerrin's hostile posts on userpages ("It is obvious that you are an enemy of Kurds") are totally unacceptable on Wikipedia, and what they call "logic" ("Since only two or three people opposed it, that means hundreds of other people who saw it approved it") on this very page is absurd. They're cruising for a NOTHERE block. Also, Aamir, you might as well stop repeating that deleting sourced information will necessarily be sanctioned, because it's wrong. Edits can properly be reverted for several other reasons than being unsourced. For instance for undue weight, tendentiousness, or irrelevance. Bishonen | tålk 13:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC).

I responded to all the allegations one by one and it is obvious that I am right. For some reason, everyone is obsessed with my tone, but they don't focus on the fact that I refuted the allegations. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I am aware that there is a problem with my style. Please be aware that I refute the claims. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

You may have rebutted the allegations, but you have certainly not refuted them.[108] RolandR (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

They are making unfair provocations. Sometimes I can't change my style either.

I admit my mistake in style. We are anti-Nazi.But the anthropologist makes this claim independently of his ideology. Why don't we focus on this? Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Even ignoring Eickstedt's politics and debunked theories, you have presented one claim from 70 years ago. This claim was made by a physical anthropologist with no demonstrated expertise in the geographic area or in linguistics or philology. It is not unreasonable to see this information as WP:UNDUE and so removing it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

"Debunked Theories", Which theories have been disproved? Is the relationship between "k.r.d" and "Kurdish" just the claim of one person? Sumerian: Karda (krd), Akkadian: Kardu (krd), Amorite: Kurda (krd) Syriac: Qardu (krd) Greek: Karduk/Corduene (krd), Latin: Crytii (Old version Assyrians: Kurtie), And modern: Turkish: Kürt (krt), Arabian: Akrad (krd), Persian: Kord (krd). I'm sorry, but you have no evidence to prove otherwise!

We are all anti-Nazis. But if a claim is made on this issue and the claim has remained current for hundreds of years, you have to accept it. What does the anthropologist's ideology mean to us? We don't do politics. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The claim has not "remained current." The fact no one else has shown the same link is a very good indication it is not supported in fact.

The anthropologist's ideology is literal Nazism, which absolutely colors his results. Trying to ignore that is a recipe for disaster. I suggest you drop this and move on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

You are wrong. Gutian people, source 22, "Erdbrink, D. P. (1968). "Reviewed Work: Türken, Kurden und Iraner seit dem Altertum by E. von Eickstedt". Central Asiatic Journal. 12 (1). Harrassowitz Verlag: 64–65." Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

If you are using that source to support the idea that a second academic supports the claims you want to include, you have not read it. Folly Mox (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

You are wrong too. It was claimed that the resource in question was not used in any other way. I also showed that the source in question was also used in another article. If it can be used on another page, it means that the resource in question is considered a "resource". There are people who use it besides me. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not finding that claim in this discussion. Have you read Wikipedia:Fringe theories? I encourage you to familiarise yourself with that guideline, and reflect on the fact that the review (which also should not be cited at Gutian people) is essentially calling Eickstedt a fringe theorist. Folly Mox (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

"The fact no one else has shown the same link is a very good indication it is not supported in fact." If the source in question can be cited for the Gutians with separate content, it can be cited for the Kassites.Additionally, Wikipedia editors make serious mistakes regarding the reliability of sources. Example: There are those who claim that Mehrdad Izady "accepts Neanderthals as Kurds" (while criticizing) even though they haven't even opened and read the book :) Izady never claims such a thing.

I read Izady's book. He would never say such a thing. In addition, he is accepted as a "Reliable source" all over the world and is listened to as an expert on Kurds. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 01:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I have removed that citation from Gutians as well because I concur with Folly Mox's take on the article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It's your fault if you're removing this now.Did this resource exist before? Yes. I also used the same sources, but you called me an "ethnic nationalist". I won't discuss this part. But I also wonder how you have the authority to make such a decision on your own.For example, I could have undone the edit by saying "I don't agree", right?  :)) Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I have never called you an ethnic nationalist. You could indeed undo the edit. Please review WP:BRD. Again, you really don't understand the fundamentals of Wikipedia. Dumuzid (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm ending the discussion. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@Aamir Khan Lepzerrin I think you have a point, but with all due respect, I think there's a better way for you to proceed, rather than trying to edit the articles and arguing with people here. That will achieve nothing.

Kurdish topics fall under the purview of an old WikiProject I'm trying to re-vitalize, WikiProject Countering systemic bias. There is certainly systemic bias on Wikipedia, and although I haven't looked closely at all of your edits and sources, I'm open to the idea that it may be at play, based on what you've said here.

I recommend that you agree to stop editing articles for now and stop arguing your case at this forum, and instead, go over to that WikiProject's talk page and talk about the problem there. Make your case that there is a systemic bias at play. Even if you don't do that, you should back off in general, because regardless of the merits of your argument, the other people here are turning against you, and you are at risk of getting yourself blocked. Pecopteris (talk) 01:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your warning and advice.

All the sources I gave were sources used on Wikipedia.

It is clear that there is prejudice against Kurds.It's terrible that it's also on the English Wikipedia.Example: You cannot write "Karda" in the "Kurdish etymology" section in Turkish Wikipedia, even though you cite sources that are accepted all over the world. But they wrote the Turukku, a Hurrian community from Zagros, as "Turks", which has nothing to do with the Turks, just because their names are a little similar. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, the fact that I do not believe that an etymological connection has been demonstrated between Karduniaš, a geographic term used in the Bronze Age, and the "Kurds" makes me prejudiced against the Kurds? Dumuzid (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I wrote about the possible connection between the names several times.I will not discuss it further and I will express the prejudice against Kurds in a larger way and open it up for discussion all over Wikipedia. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It is clear that there is prejudice against Kurds

Right, at this point I think Aamir needs a WP:NOTHERE block. They've been warned multiple times about making this accusation, and are now doubling down on it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

You are persistently trying to block me

I gave an answer above that would prove you wrong.But you insist on "How do I block this?".I said that there is a systematic prejudice against Kurds in Turkish Wikipedia. I even gave an example. You have to accept this. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

We have no jurisdiction over the Turkish Wikipedia here. Any problems with it should be brought up on that Wikipedia itself, or in extremis on Meta:. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

No I do not have to accept this, because your claim is bullshit. Standing against a single, unsupported source from over 70 years ago is not prejudice against Kurds. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm telling you: I'm telling you that they claim that I'm an ethnic nationalist. However, the source in question was already used on other pages. The person I added to List Of Kurds insists on removing it, even though it already says "Madig, Kurdish king" on his own page.

When I add it again,(you are being ethnic nationalist), they complain about me. Instead of politely criticizing me in terms of tone and giving me my due due to unfair provocation, you are persistently thinking about "how can we block you?" Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, @Aamir Khan Lepzerrin, the source in question was already used on other pages does. not. matter. Please reply to this that you understand that. I will be watching for your indication you understand. Valereee (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Will I report Turkish Wikipedia to Phil Bridger? Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 17:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Please don't report it to me. I have never (as far as I can remember) edited Turkish Wikipedia. As I said in my last edit, report any specific issues at Turkish Wikipedia, or, if you have evidence of systemic problems with that Wikipedia, report it at Meta:. Nothing you say on English Wikipedia can influence Turkish Wikipedia, any more than a discussion on Turkish Wikipedia can influence English Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi,I gave Turkish Wikipedia as an example.It is obvious that there is a general prejudice against the history of the Kurds. There are constant attempts to prevent it.

Wikipedia also does not have a system to prevent bullying. A few people can agree among themselves and block whatever they want. If you pay attention you can see it. Even here they try to block me on the simplest issue. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Aamir Khan Lepzerrin, you are misinterpreting a lot of things here.

1. If it can be used on another page, it means that the resource in question is considered a "resource". This is incorrect. The fact a source is used elsewhere on English Wikipedia doesn't mean much. It may have been used incorrectly elsewhere, or it may be useful in one article or for one claim but not another. And it is completely irrelevant that a particular source is used on Persian wikipedia; the two projects are independent.
2. There is a sanction for deleting sourced information, right? No. Removing from an article content/sources that don't have consensus at that article is not against policy.
3. For some reason, everyone is obsessed with my tone. That's because behavior is what this noticeboard deals with. Admins assessing this don't actually care who's correct on the content. You may as well stop even arguing content here; we don't care. What we care about is your behavior, and what we're seeing is repeated casting of aspersions when someone disagrees with you about your edits.

Valereee (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's the part you don't understand: Even though the same source is used on another subject (Gutians), I am subjected to insults such as "ethnic nationalist" when I use it too. I admitted that there was a problem with my style. I said that the reason for this was unfair provocation. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment Aamir Khan Lepzerrin is a WP:NOTHERE user, I fail to see what they bring to this site. As noted up above, they engage in WP:TENDENTIOUS edits (eg [109] [110] [111] [112] [113], yes, I'm including one edit from 2015 because they have barely edited and its the same type of edit). And when Aamir Khan Lepzerrin gets reverted for these WP:TENDENTIOUS edits, they resort to personal attacks [114]. And if you're lucky, they will randomly attack you despite not having interacted with you before [115] (yes, I'm not kidding, I literally had not interacted with them before, and they introduced themselves with this nasty message). Kurds were not even an ethnonym in the Late Antiquity, this is no secret [116]. Heck, its even stated in Kurds with WP:RS [117]. Yet, here they are trying to portray various groups such as the Cadusii, Parthians, Medes, Gutians and Kassites as Kurds...? I wonder what group will be claimed next. Revisionism indeed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Support - Frankly, I think we've tried everything and yet they persist in these edits. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

There are also people who are disturbed by your behavior towards other users.Your exaggerated attitude towards me does not surprise me. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

When I added the person whose page said "Kurdish king" to the List Of Kurds, you removed him from the list, prioritizing his personal opinion. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

If the societies that make up the "Kurds" are written on the pages of Gutians and Cyrtians, why shouldn't I add them to "States"? Will we make changes based on your personal opinion?? Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Support. Antiquistik (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Indef for WP:IDHT disruption. Valereee (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of the block

Moved from WP:VPM

Greetings, let me bring to your attention the case of an editor indef blocked here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User engaging in nationalist revisionism . While I have no knowledge of the topic, I checked some editor's edits and they don't appear disruptive on the first sight, they are sourced, sources are encyclopedias and academic publishers, if maybe outdated. Some edits were maybe problematic. I had a quick look at the discussion on the ANI and there was little to no discussion of the content, the editor' text and sources. Looks like nobody presented sources contradicting editor's additions. Others were trying to silence the editor with accusations, the discussion quickly went onto discussing editor's behavior, and so the editor was indef blocked.

The thing is, small stateless nations tend to be underrepresented in research, and they tend to be underrepresented here in Wikipedia. The particular nation we are discussing, just think about how many of them have regular access to the internet, at all. Maybe their edits were that bad, but I mostly saw others accusing the editor, instead of presenting sources contradicting theirs. Naturally, national questions can quickly get overheated, and maybe they did? Should we let the rule of crowd rule. Maybe the editor was one of little few coming here with a good faith and try to do their part to fix the situation with underrepresentation a little.

Sorry I don't have resources to investigate the situation more. Pinging @Valereee - if this is not the right place to discuss this, please move the message to where it belongs. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The block reason is WP:IDHT, so looks like they were blocked for their WP:BLUDGEON behavior in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User engaging in nationalist revisionism, not the content of their article edits. I would suggest closing this and continuing the discussion there, to keep everything together. WP:VPM isn't really a user behavior board. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to move it there,I'm not accustomed to forum usage here, thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Done. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Manyareasexpert, your concerns are admirable if misplaced. ANI is a conduct board, and discussion of content is a bit outside its remit, although it comes up in filings like this one. So focusing on editor conduct was the natural and appropriate path.

Second, there is typically little appetite within academic publishing to respond to fringe theories. If a counterfactual claim starts to garner broad popular belief, people will start refuting it in writing, but if no one subscribes to an idea beyond one person who wrote it down one time, there's not much point in digging it up. That no one has bothered refuting the 1960s linguistic theories of a physical anthropologist says much, much less about those theories than the fact that no one has supported or extended them.

Above, you've piped the text "rule of crowd" to the article Tyranny of the majority. A better understanding would be to link instead the policy Wikipedia:Consensus. In short, if no one agrees with you, it doesn't even matter whether or not you're correct.

The reported editor, whom I'll not ping as a courtesy, in case they're attempting to ignore the site while blocked, was blocked for WP:IDHT, part of the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline. At no point did they acknowledge that they might be wrong, others might be right, that they would respect community guidelines, or respect community consensus. Quite the contrary, above somewhere in the conversation where nobody agrees with them, they stated I responded to all the allegations one by one and it is obvious that I am right. As a Wikipedia editor, this gives me the same sense of impending wreckage as might the sentence I just did this whole thing of coke and I'm going to drive this car around real fast.

I'd encourage you to read the project pages I've linked in this post, as well as WP:FRINGE and WP:RGW. That this block was coming was obvious to those of us who read the conversation and understand the Wikipedia community. Lastly, in case you're unaware of Wikipedia:Blocking policy, under this kind of normal admin block, the blocked editor can be unblocked at any time by making an unblock request on their usertalk that convinces another admin that there will be no return to the behaviour that led to the block. It is quite common for good-faith editors making an honest attempt to understand and abide by Wikipedia community norms to have their unblock requests granted. Folly Mox (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Threat of Topic Ban after Objecting to Removal of POV tag during ongoing discussions both on Talk Page as well as NPOV/N

Notice to administrators: The issues with the article have been resolved, the POV tag is no longer required. I request that someone archive this. Cheers, -Konanen (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Valjean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has reverted the page Reiki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) after another user has veered towards edit warring, and they saw fit to also remove the POV tag that I had included roughly a fortnight ago, seen here: Special:Diff/1226277414/1228846541. The POV tag was included following a discussion which was started by another user at the Talk Page, which I agreed with and have subsequently brought to WP:NPOV/N. The discussion is still on-going there.

On a subsection of the article’s talk page, I have requested that the user revert their edit insofar as to re-include the POV tag, as the article’s NPOV was currently actively under discussion with some consensus pointing towards the article being insufficiently neutral, and out of courtesy, I have reiterated this on their talk page [118] with the note that POV tags should not be removed as long as the discussion was on-going. Their reply to me on the Talk Page was lacking courtesy [119] at best, and was tone-deaf and clearly violated policy at worst.

After tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) badgered my talk page [120] extolling about the virtues of being biased on Wikipedia, they threatened me [121] with being topic banned, even though they had no cause to do so.

I strongly object to the behaviour of both editors, and ask that other editors intercede. I will be immediately notifying them on their talk pages of this article. -Konanen (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I tried to be as diplomatic as possible, appealing to your rationality and your capacity for self-restraint. Whitewashing quackery is not a virtue, and certainly not a Wikipedic virtue.

I mean this is the second experienced editor at Reiki who seems to know every rule of Wikipedia but somehow did not get the memo that Wikipedia lambasts quackery. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Two things can be true at the same time.

• 1: Reiki does not adhere to the scientific method.
• 2: The article about Reiki does not neutrally summarize reliable sources.

So, simple accusations of "whitewashing quackery" are not adequate responses to other editors' choice to add a POV tag. Scanning the discussions that OP links to, I see @WhatamIdoing, @Dustfreeworld, @North8000, and @Masem, among others, making some interesting points. I also see some rather snotty remarks from other editors. Looks like a legitimate content dispute that doesn't require administrator attention, other than perhaps a gentle reminder to remain civil and refrain from telling editors that disagree with you to "stop". Pecopteris (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I would like to clarify (apologies if I have not made this clear): I am genuinely not trying to start another NPOV debate, that is already being carried out on other venues. I am only objecting to the POV tag on the article having been removed without cause and the subsequent jeering response to it, as well as the threat of being topic banned when I have not even edited the article, except to add the POV tag (and then once to add further details onto the POV tag). -Konanen (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• I told the OP at my talk page to "Discuss this at the article, not here." I was fully willing to discuss the matter further there, with the participation of other editors. That a POV tag got caught up in my revert was not a deliberate act. It just happened. I was willing to see if other people agreed or if it should be restored. Only the OP objected.

I think the OP is a bit trigger-happy and not exactly cooperative. The discussion on the talk page should continue, with proper dispute resolution processes, IOW an RfC, if necessary. This move is a crap move. That's not right. It just creates more heat than light and shows a battlefield mentality. It is not an attempt to de-escalate a conflict, but rather an attempt to escalate a conflict. Not a good attitude. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Valjean: Do you think the article should have that POV tag? City of Silver 18:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver: my reply below should answer your question: "In the interest of calming the waters, I have restored the POV tag, even though it's just a badge of shame that doesn't serve a constructive purpose as long as the discussion is ongoing. Anyone else is free to delete it." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Valjean: Dang, if I'd waited one more minute I'd have been astounded to see you answer my question before I'd even asked it. And yep, that clears that up for me so thank you for letting me know. City of Silver 19:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding of the purpose of a POV tag. As per Template:POV, a POV tag is to be removed 3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant. This conversely implies that the POV tag is specifically indicated when discussion is on-going about an article’s neutrality. -Konanen (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• OP writes: "Their reply to me on the Talk Page was lacking courtesy [122] at best, and was tone-deaf and clearly violated policy at worst."

My comment on my talk page was "Discuss this at the article, not here." That is not "lacking courtesy" "tone-deaf", or "clearly violated policy at worst." My response was neutral and appropriate. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I notified you on two venues that my POV tag was apparently included in your reversion, and asked you to amend your actions. Your answer to my request on the talk page was Konanen, your own statements above, and those of a now topic banned editor, don't count for much in a discussion of this topic as you reveal a lack of understanding of how we allow biased terminology in articles when they are backed by RS. Quackery is not exactly synonymous with pseudoscience, and is a properly-sourced term. Enough with the whitewashing of Reiki. The word is in the second paragraph, not first, so be happy for that.

I cannot see that this is neutral, or appropriate. You say you were fully willing to discuss the matter further there, and that my revert was not a deliberate act. It just happened, but that is not what your terse reply shows. Indeed, your last sentence reads gloating about the fact that... what? The article’s tone is sufficiently pejorative, and I should be greatful it is not worse? That is a non-starter and a show of bad faith, and I have no desire to continue a debate in such a tone. Your disregard of the matter and wilful ignorance of your mistake in including my POV tag in your reversion, and then doubling down on it when pointed out was what escalated the situation. -Konanen (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

(scritches his head) You know that's not the comment the OP linked, right? Ravenswing 18:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The OP linked to more than one comment. Search for "lacking courtesy" to find this one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I can imagine people thinking it's discourteous for you to tell them that "your own statements above...don't count for much in a discussion". The statement might be true, because we do run on a meatball:VestedContributor system (e.g., so that I can argue that quackery isn't the right word much more safely than a new editor), but it still hurts people to be told things like that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Oops! I was talking about their comment on my talk page and thought they meant my talk page when they wrote "talk page". My bad. Yes, that comment, on the "article" talk page was countering Konanen's pushing of the very same POV that got Dustfreeworld topic banned, so it was a bit sharp. Pushing that same party line is tendentious and I responded accordingly. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• It's important to note that Konanen's only ally was the now topic banned Dustfreeworld, and it is that same mentality Konanen is furthering here. We don't need that mentality at Wikipedia. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  I am sorry, I did not know a debate of facts, and about the tone of an article required allies for points to be heard and taken seriously without resorting to personal attacks. I'll try to WP:CANVAS people the next time. -Konanen (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  Personally, I think that topic ban was heavy-handed, but I don't think that's relevant. We do need people with different POVs here. There needs to be someone willing to ask whether that's the best word choice, or whether particular derogatory labels are properly applied. For example, I quoted a source on the talk page that says "Reiki traditionalists simply claim to channel their god’s divine energy." The response to this was that, at least wrt Reiki, religion is just another kind of pseudoscience. This has happened multiple times: Feng shui wasn't pseudoscience in ancient China; it was practical science (e.g., don't build your house down in the flood plains, but also don't build it on cold, windy hilltops). The version we see in the US, however, is a combination of pseudoscience and straight-up superstition (and probably greed). We aren't sophisticated enough to set aside the point-scoring mentality (gotcha, you evil little pseudoscience!) and provide fuller explanations. We just want to get as close as we can to "Pseudoscientific ____, which is a pseudoscience, pseudoscientifically uses pseudoscientific methods to harm people who encounter this pseudoscience. Also, it doesn't work, because it's pseudoscience". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  you wrote "pseudoscience" or a variant of it 10 times in this comment, wow cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Konanen, I was willing to continue the discussion, specifically about the POV tag, but the actual discussion was a mixture of lots of things, and my objection was primarily to your continuing to push the same fringe party line that got Dustfreeworld topic banned. You were warned about going down that road, but instead you came here. Not a good move. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  There was no discussion to be had. There is an on-going debate about the article’s POV without a clear consensus having been reached, and as such, there are no grounds for removing the POV tag as per the rules on the Template’s page itself. I told you the debate was on-going and to please amend your reversion, yet you rejected the notion.

  Instead of entering into an editing war with you, I opted to go the ANI route, because your responses seem belligerent. I am sorry you do not like it, but I am not sorry I brought this to the ANI. -Konanen (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• In the interest of calming the waters, I have restored the POV tag, even though it's just a badge of shame that doesn't serve a constructive purpose as long as the discussion is ongoing. Anyone else is free to delete it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  I haven’t deleted it but in the interest of calming the waters as well, I opened a specific section on the talkpage for any editor to express any further NPOV concerns they have (beyond the one being discussed) - if after a week or more there isn’t really any discussion supporting the tag, we can remove it - no rush. I second the comments from Valjean and others above regarding the conduct of some editors trying to “whitewash” the topic to avoid calling a duck a duck, and will remind everyone there is an ancient arbitration case with a still lasting designation as a contentious topic that may need to be invoked to deal with the disruption at this article. While allowing for discussion with other editors is ideal, that should not extend to forcing other editors to bend over backwards to cater to pseudoscientific views/proponents. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  I do not understand why there needs to be consensus about a Template whose job it is to notify viewers of an on-going debate, so they can direct their attention to it. Does the mere existence of dispute and dissent about the article’s neutrality irk you so that you need to… require consensus about whether we are even allowed to debate the matter? What in the Orwell is this? -Konanen (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see why a POV tag is required, as the article is factual and neutral. If people want to pay large amounts of money for something that will have no effect on their physical health then that is up to them, but we should at least be informing them that they are being scammed. Black Kite (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. We tend to resist attempts to drag an article back to the dark ages using bogus "neutrality" concerns. Accurate terminology used by RS is not a violation of NPOV. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  The article being factual and neutral is currently under dispute and being actively debated on WP:NPOV/N, hence the POV tag. -Konanen (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  Not really. There's a discussion about one word (and frankly, we could get rid of the sentence that contains that word without the article really changing at all). The other 99% of the article does not appear to be under discussion. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  Konanen, the very fact you think this needs to be litigated ANYWHERE is itself a problem. You are not a newbie. You should understand that NPOV is not violated. Only certain types of editors tend to go down that road. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  You (and another editor who’s now been topicbanned for their refusal to actually discuss) blabbing words is not a “debate”. There is more than enough consensus to remove the tag now. In deference to you as an editor with an opinion, I offered a new section on the talk page to address exactly what you think is NPOV - other than the quackery/pseudoscience words, because those have a consensus for them already. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  I am sick and tired of the personal attacks and ad hominems. Enough! -Konanen (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  You still haven't commented on the section I created on the talk page. Do you think there's a NPOV problem meriting a tag or not? If you do, then you should be able to comment there to explain what exactly you think is the NPOV problem in the article. If not, you are fighting a battle here you will not win. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Berchanhimez: what a blast from the past! That Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience case was a big deal, and we should resurrect awareness of it. The community very strongly opposes pseudoscience, and Reiki is right up there with Homeopathy as classic woo-woo. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  I agree - and while I have tried to stay out of this (because of two reasons - one I hate drama boards, two I haven’t edited significantly in a while but have time again), I figured my input would be helpful to the discussion. I’ll probably shy away from the drama board here for now (unless anyone else thinks my further input would be helpful). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  The OP started this to get more input from uninvolved editors, so your input is exactly what is needed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  I have demonstrably not [123]. -Konanen (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  My bad. I was only AGF. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  PS gets constantly invoked nowadays still at WP:ARE, and is far from the only Arbitration from that time to be a regular appearance. (IP and EE are both also regulars there; PIA would be if PIA4 didn't exist.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• I don't see why, if you felt that the POV tag should be restored, you did not just restore it. Its removal was evidently an honest mistake; by confronting the other editor instead of just fixing it you invite drama, and with drama come the boomerangs. The tag has been restored; there is likely nothing more that any administrator is going to do here unless some of you fail to move on. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  Having said that, as the OP points out themselves, a POV tag should be removed "In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant". No-one has opined at the WP:NPOV/N discussion for a week apart from the OP (and a single short rebuttal to their post). Black Kite (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  True, I didn't want to point it out in the context of a report about alleged personal attacks but there is a whiff of civil POV pushing here. NPOVN seems to have been discussing not whether to call reiki quackery but how to call it quackery, with OP and a now-topic-banned editor the only ones suggesting it should not be described that way at all. I don't find any of the discussion to have been particularly uncivil, despite Konanen's own sarcastic sniping. I think it would be a good idea for them to stop that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, there is not anything more to be done, the status quo ante has been restored. As to your question, I hesitate to revert reverts, and as the original reverter did not, in fact, see fit to amend their error or engage in a civil discussion of the matter as shown in their reply, I chose this route. -Konanen (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

You chose this route rather than opening a discussion on the talkpage for the issue. I’ll note that I opened a talkpage section for you for this tag, and you have yet to post there what your actual reason is for this tag being included and how you propose to remedy it. I recommended a week at most to allow you (and other editors) to discuss it - but if you continue to ignore your responsibility (as the only editor advocating for the tag at this point) to actually specify and discuss your specific concerns, you will likely find yourself being removed from the topic area. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ivanvector Please do not circumvent [124] this ANI procedure which had (evidently, in my opinion) resulted in the status quo ante being restored by the responding user. There has been no ruling because no ruling has been deemed necessary, but on-going torpedoing of the intent of finding consensus and unilateral decision that I have to justify the existence of the POV tag apart from the fact that I have referred to the on-going discussions on NPOV/N and the article’s talk page are nothing but brow-beating and badgering of the situation. I have responded that the discussion is still on-going, and there has been enough dissent about the articles’ NPOV that the tag’s existence is warranted.

Please cite WP policy & guidelines for removing the POV tag while discussion is still not concluded. -Konanen (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Those policies have already been cited above: you cannot stonewall as the sole person disputing the POV tag, when multiple people have disagreed with you. See WP:SATISFY. If the consensus is that the article is NPOV, then you cannot simply demand the POV tag remain & drag out the discussion to keep it there. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem is I do not see that there is consensus in any direction. And while there are other editors contributing to the discussion, I just do not see the harm of keeping the POV tag on the article. It is just a tag, I have not gone wild and added untenable claims in support or in denial of the subject matter. All I am asking is that proper time be allowed for the discussion to conclude. I have a hard time understanding why that is so bad. Some tags, issues, discussions, and requests seem to linger for far longer than a fortnight, and nobody bats an eyelid. What is it that editors seem so moved by when it comes to this specific topic? –Konanen (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

You can have a discussion without the tag. So let me flip it around: why are you so moved to keep the tag in place? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

To make sure others are aware of the discussion taking place. Most people do not check the talk page – and I believe the more, the merrier when it comes to judging an article. Everybody’s opinion gets us one step closer to objectivity in our very subjective human minds. It is a useful tool, and it is harmless enough. But, as I said elsewhere, the tag is no more needed, because other editors have done great work towards neutrality. –Konanen (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

As much as I try to avoid drama boards, I've felt roped in here as a prior medical editor (who hasn't had time to edit in the past couple years, for transparency). Konanen's last comment when I tried to start a discussion on the NPOV tag shows they cannot constructively contribute to this topic area, and as such I now feel that a topic ban from the area is the best option. They posted a long comment that did not justify the tag in any way, justifying it saying they "didn't have time" basically - this is the modus operandi of pseudoscience POV pushers. Claim it's bad/wrong, don't provide any evidence, and then go away claiming they don't have time to prove their points. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Plebeian Patriot on Emerald Robinson

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.

---

Plebeian Patriot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user is persistently making disruptive edits to the Emerald Robinson article, even after being warned multiple times. Isi96 (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: this user is blocked indefinitely by an administrator (Ingenuity) and can't edit own talk page. The person who loves reading (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2024 (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.

Al-Khujandi (talk · contribs)

This user should be straightly banned. Please see his last 8 edits. Beshogur (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

To further explain, Al-Khujandi has been pushing the same edit to Uyghurs over the course of several weeks to avoid edit warring, after they nearly broke the three-revert rule. They have been notified, with clear and specific detail, three times on their talk page and twice on Talk:Uyghurs why their edit is problematic (not citing reliable sources), but they continue to push the same edit. Yue🌙 17:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Beshogur, @Yue, just passing by but shouldn't this go to the edit war noticeboard instead of AN/I ? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

POV blanking and IDHT by User:Truth Seeker Alway

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.

---

Can some admin take a look at the editing history of Truth Seeker Alway (talk · contribs) who has repeatedly blanked sourced content from Lingam and Adultery because in their words Better you should [cite] the tradition[al] source regarding the topic. Don't act like the typical white colonial supremacist.? See warnings and attempts to explain wikipedia policy on their user talkpage and on the article talkpage. The latter discussion was started by Richardgrayson3451 (talk · contribs) but continued by Truth Seeker Alway once the former was NOTHERE blocked by admin Doug Weller; I don't know if the two editors are related. Abecedare (talk) 06:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Update: Account blocked for sockpuppetry by Bbb23 Abecedare (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

My observation is that a large majority of usernames containing the word "truth" are disruptive POV pushers. Cullen328 (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2024 (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:POSSUM chowg, malicious templates with obscene titles

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 don't know exactly what this user is doing, but they seem to have created a series of user pages that use templates in some malicious way that interfere with my ability to view them with Firefox:

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

I can't seem to be able to view the history of some of the files. The user hasn't edited in two weeks, but I would suggest that the best approach would be an indefinite block, so that when they request unblock, they can be asked what they are trying to do. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

This user may be a sockpuppet of a previously blocked malicious user, but I don't think that matters, because I think that in any case they should be a blocked user. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE It would be hard to believe that any good faith editor would rename a Whilly on Wheels sandbox [125] Meters (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2024 (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:L Money Scribe

I've been warning L Money Scribe (talk · contribs) for some time about the long walls of text that they regularly add in the plot section of the Holyland (manga) article. On each occasion that I have warned them, the user refuses to obey and does it again. In fact, less than an hour ago I warned them again about the issue and only a short time later they did it again. I'm convinced that they are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Xexerss (talk) 06:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I told him I would do it again and will continue to post as I have on other novels in the past of Haruki Murakami, without complaint from y'all when I did BTW. Why? Because if everyone else is allowed to, than so am I.

It is NOT against the rules to add in large amounts of text, as many people have written much more than I have all over this website. The complaint Xexerss kept bringing to me has stated that these edits were disruptive, not much else for description, and I am clearly stating facts for the graphic novel, of which I am referencing right now. His complaint recently also referenced "general overview" and "not replacing the experience of reading it".

This is a graphic novel showing panels of martial arts action and dialogue bubbles. My summary is prose. Pardon my french but, there is no fucking way on this planet that you can possibly replace reading a comic with reading prose summary. And, once again, this IS a general overview of the chapters/volumes. There is a multitude of things I have left out.

Also, I will add, there is no personal opinion of mine stated either. I have done well to represent this mange in every way that I can.

If Xexerss want to read the 18 volumes/182 chapters/3000+ pages of manga that I am working on and put forth the effort to summarize in a way that honors the author and the media, and represents the curiosity of manga aficionados, than he is well welcome to do so and is invited in every stretch of the imagination. Until then, I very much expect for EVERY single synopsis or plot in every movie, tv show, comic book, novel, short story, etc. to be completely deleted root and stem if that is the way y'all roll.

This is unprofessional behavior. And your worker should be ashamed of himself. Going out of your way to monitor a guy not even looking for a fight is something absolutely disgusting. L Money Scribe (talk) 07:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@L Money Scribe: Does it seem reasonable to you to "summarize" a volume in almost 600 words? Does it seem logical to you that a series of 18 volumes may have almost 11,000 words to "summarize" the plot? Judging your reply here and your replies at your talk page makes me wonder if you even understand the purpose of Wikipedia in the first place. Xexerss (talk) 07:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I should mention as well their provocative attitude and personal attacks at their talk page. Xexerss (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I note that there is no dicussion at Talk:Holyland (manga). Phil Bridger (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: I firstly addressed the issue directly at the user's talk page after pointing out the issue through edit summaries several times. However, I did not receive any kind of response from them until now. We have policies, templates and guidelines including WP:NOTPLOT, MOS:PLOT, and Template:Long plot, so I didn't feel that starting a discussion at the article's talk page was the appropriate way to ask the user to stop their behavior. Xexerss (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Among L Money Scribe (talk · contribs)'s responses are Who is your boss? We need to square this. This is ridiculous. I want to know his contact information. ([126]) and I would recommend to consider therapy. ([127]); the former is doubled down as And yes, I still want to know your boss's information. You should be ashamed of yourself. ([128]). This is absolutely egregious and unacceptable harassment. Without any comment on the substance of the dispute, I've blocked per WP:HARASS and WP:NPA. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The block for harrassment is obviously correct, but even ignoring that, there seems to be a serious WP:NOTHERE issue, as evidenced by this comment, in which they admit editing for promotional reasons: "I'm trying to win people over to a manga, which I enjoy and am doing right by, fyi." CodeTalker (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems that there are a few good reasons to block this editor, but the content issue pointed out by the OP is not among them. That should (if L Money Scribe returns to editing) be discussed on the article talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but if we have guidelines and rules (the ones I mentioned above) that state that we should not include large and detailed amounts of text to tell the plot of a fictional work, what exactly should be discussed at the article's talk page? Should we reach a consensus on whether we should include the content that the user added or whether it should be removed, even though we have clear rules that indicate that it should not be placed anyway? If even by pointing out the issue directly at their talk page the user was not willing to change their behavior, without at least explaining why they was still doing it, I doubt it would make much difference if this had instead been discussed at the article's talk page. Xexerss (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

They had 21 edits to their account. Clearly a new editor unfamiliar with policy guidelines on plot lengths (I've been here 11 years and I don't know these guidelines either). They handled this situation very poorly but, seriously, why do we jump to ANI when an inexperienced editor doesn't get "it", all of the guidelines and rules? I can understand a short term block to get their attention to the problem but indefinite block for a 21 edit editor? Did they seem irredeemable? Were they making no worthwhile contributions? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: Keep in mind that the user had not only been editing the article for a few days, they had already ben editing it since some months ago, and while I admit that I could have explained the problem with their edits in a more understanding way, the user at no time tried to address issue or defend their way of editing until yesterday, and in a defiant manner without showing any hint of self-criticism. I should also mention that after being blocked L Money Scribe left one more message at their talk page that makes me doubt if they really planned to collaborate constructively from the start. Xexerss (talk) 05:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

legal warning and attempt to impersonate my account

Hi, User:MagmaFuzzy seem like they want to impersonate my account. It’s really suspicious that the account has a similar name and their first edit is to remove infringement from Filippo Berto FuzzyMagma (talk) 06:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

on this edit, they also issued a legal warning FuzzyMagma (talk) 06:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely EvergreenFir (talk) 06:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

PA by IP

Please see here and here against Loafiewa. Probable block evasion or similar. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for personal attacks and harassment of the most severe sort. Cullen328 (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I revision deleted one of the attacks and the other one has also been taken care of. Cullen328 (talk) 07:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: You seem to have forgotten to actually revert the pa's. The second edit is not revision-deleted. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Victor Schmidt, I got distracted and am almost asleep. I think I got them now. Cullen328 (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Aka4729 impersonating administrator and removing AfD template on heavily socked article

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.

---

New user made an account, pasted a user page that declared themselves an admin

diff

and started removing the AfD template from J.Williams and changing the other references to J. Williams using andminesque language. Considering the J.Williams article is nonsense and was heavily edited by an account banned for socking, this appears to be another sock. Previous discussion here:

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Japansonglove

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks like just six minutes after this post, the account got globally locked. So probably nothing more for admins to actually do here. — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2024 (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.

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.

---

See here. Orientls (talk) 05:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

User has been blocked indefinitely for WP:NLT. – robertsky (talk) 07:50, 16 June 2024 (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 IP editor 107.129.97.80

User talk:107.129.97.80 has been making disruptive edits since January, getting more and more frequent and has continued to do so without acknowleding six warnings, including one at level 4.

The user has made POV and original research claims in the body of articles and in their edit summaries and is generally disruptive in almost every edit they ever made. Personal attacks and battleground comments (here, here, here and here and here) in talk pages as well.

Other problem edits are here, here, here, here and here. Kire1975 (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): This seems to have more its place at AIV, I reported IP there. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 15:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked them for 3 months. PhilKnight (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Threat to take legal actions

By an IP address at Special:Diff/1229436000. Can you also protect the page that they edit it. It’s my second personal attacks just today FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi'ed, and blocked for a week. Star Mississippi 20:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

AmechiUdoba1

Since its creation two months ago, the user AmechiUdoba1 (talk · contribs) has made a series of questionable edits on pages related to Nigeria. Although there have been a few simple mistakes typical of new editors, there appears to be a concerted effort by this account to remove or diminish notes of non-Igbo ethnic groups and their languages.

To cite a few examples of AmechiUdoba1's conduct:

1. South East (Nigeria) and South South: For context, these two regions are a "geopolitical zones" in Nigeria; the SE roughly lines up with Igboland but includes a few other ethnicities while the South South is extremely ethnically diverse. AmechiUdoba1 first came to my attention when the account (and an aligned IP) removed a language from the South East page without reason. This is a common tactic that has been employed several times before on geopolitical zone pages, with ethnic jingoist accounts associated with major ethnic groups removing the languages of minorities (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). It is a good mark for a user that is not here to build an encyclopedia and was a key piece of evidence in the eventual blockings of two similar users (1, 2). On the South East page, the account first removed English from the page before deleting almost all non-Igbo languages yesterday. To continue this trend of ethnically-charged edits, on the South South page AmechiUdoba1 just removed two languages without reason — likely a slight against ethnic Yoruba people (another large Nigerian ethnicity) and a denial of the Ogba language's existence (Igbo jingoists often attempt to categorize all Igboid languages as Igbo).
   1. Similar AmechiUdoba1 edits are now afflicting other pages: Ngwa people (replacing Ngwa dialect with Igbo language) and Ilorin (removing Yoruba as its language despite adding Igbo for a dozen cities).
2. Akwa Ibom State and Cross River State: For context, these two states are mainly non-Igbo but were included in the Igbo-dominated breakaway state of Biafra during the Nigerian Civil War. Both pages had a sentence stating that Biafran forces persecuted inhabitants due to their ethnicity — backed up by a journal source which AmechiUdoba1 did not remove or contest; AmechiUdoba1 twice switched the words on the pages, changing it to "Nigerian forces." Not claiming that Nigerian forces did not commit atrocities, but the removal of Biafran crimes is a not not-too-subtle attempt to whitewash one side's wartime atrocities.
3. Rivers State: A combination of the ethnic and linguistic edits by simply trying to remove the Ikwerre group and their language from the page. Ikwerre is another group alternatively classified as either a related ethnic group or an Igbo subgroup so AmechiUdoba1's goal seems to be denying their existence.

Although this is a relatively new account, there is reason to fear further disruptive and biased editing as its already graduated to inflating population statistics (another common vandal move on Nigerian pages). Similar accounts left without sanction have led to havoc on Nigerian pages with editors having to revert months of sourceless changes once they were finally found out. There needs to be some form of action against this user, this is a clear and concerted campaign of ethnically-biased edits Thank you, Watercheetah99 (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Splitsvilla

I would like to request administrators to please review MTV Splitsvilla (season 15). Ravensfire (talk) is disruptivly editing the MTV Splitsvilla (season 15) article and using Wikipedia editing guidelines as shield. Kindly take action. Dr. Trafalgar D Water Law (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Dr. Trafalgar D Water Law: As the text in the red box near the top of the page states, you must notify the user in question on their talk page. I have done so for you this time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

It looks like Ravensfire is making corrections to your edits to bring them in line with WP:MOS. How is that disruptive? Why haven't you engaged in the discussion that Ravensfire started at Talk:MTV_Splitsvilla_season_15#MOS issues? Schazjmd (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

A massive article with practically no sources whatsoever. You would be better concentrating on making the article conform to our sourcing requirements than complaining about minor formatting changes (all of which Ravensfire is correct about). Black Kite (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

There's a Wikipedia:Walled garden around the various Indian reality television show articles when it comes to formatting, following MOS and using sources. Things like the contestents often require not-so-subtle nudging to get sources, but start/end dates and hosts ususally are sources. Details about the show episodes? Rarely, if ever. There's a fair amount of WP:FANCRUFT in the articles, lots of (unsourced) details, and I think too many tables when text could well provide the same information (MOS:TABLES). The specific article and incidents highlights (to me) the walled garden nature as good-faith editors without a lot of experience outside a few of these articles means they are only exposed to poor example articles, so they repeatedly point to those bad examples. I'm not really happy about Dr. Trafalgar D Water Law reverting the MOS changes without enganging at all beyond a handful of posts a few weeks ago, but it wasn't something I felt raised to the point of raising elsewhere for further attention. Ravensfire (talk) 02:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Questionable edit summaries by an IP editor

2605:8D80:4A2:8322:7DC3:7286:9F0A:80B7 seems to be rapidly messing with the French legislative election pages, leaving some questionable edit summaries along them. I'm suggesting a speedy revdel. The IP was already pblocked, but personally I think it's time for a full block to be placed. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I blocked the /64 for a week (and then had to revoke TPA). Revdel'd some of the edit summaries and DMacks took care of the rest. DanCherek (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately it seems to be another Twitter-driven incident started by this and related posts. This sort of thing (complaining about edits and posting screenshots of edit histories etc, driving both disruption and canvassed edits/discussion comments) has increasingly become a problem in the elections topic area in the last year or so. Number 57 05:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

It's been a problem for a much longer while than that, and both sides are at fault if I'm perfectly honest. Hyraemous (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe that the real problem is caused by you changing the formats despite not providing more clarity nor readability and being stubborn about it… Siglæ (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I concur with Siglæ, this issue is only happening due to attempts to ram in an alternate infobox design that lacks any consensus. PubleyPetit (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm with you here haha, I doubt though our complaints will go anywhere given the fact #57 is an admin and we're not, so any changes may require another admin or much more pushback. Hyraemous (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Well I don't know much about that alternate infobox format issue but I just instantly assumed the amount of personal attacks on number 57 was unacceptable and needed a speedy revdel. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I reiterate, the amount of “personal attacks” on number 57 aren’t the cause of the problem, they are the consequence. Siglæ (talk) 04:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

What a weird thing to say in a discussion about the numerous graphic death threats that were being spread by the aforementioned IP editor. Please don't attempt to rationalize threats of violence against any editor as a justifiable "consequence" of their edits. DanCherek (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Well a "consequence" of personal attacks on a fellow editor, whether or not they are an admin, is a block from editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

And the “consequenses” for enormous changes without consensus done by number 57 should also be a block from editing. Siglæ (talk) 05:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Either way I'm sure a speedy block is in order for all IPs and accounts sending threats against #57 in edit summaries and such. Isn't this something that we can notify the police about? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I feel that's a bit of an overreaction. This is mainly being driven, rightly or wrongly, by people who perceive No. 57 to have been imposing consensus on multiple election articles. CainNKalos (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Calling for an editor to be crucified because you don't like their new infoboxes seems to me to be the overreaction. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see that in my browsing of the talk pages, so I apologise on my part for the comment made. CainNKalos (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@CainNKalos A death threat is a death threat no matter what drove people into making it. #57 imposing consensus on election articles doesn't justify the threats being made against #57. It is necessary to take the needed actions to protect user's security if it is ever threatened. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Either way, there seems to be a more relevant discussion about this issue below, so I'm moving there. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Persistent insertion of copyright material by User:Saolazzargorea

Saolazzargorea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been inserting copyrighted material into multiple articles, including [129], [130], [131], [132] and [133], including after being warned. I've done a mass rollback to remove such material from articles, however I'm concerned this behaviour may well continue. Some revdelling may also be needed. Mdann52 (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

And continuing following additional warning and notification - [134]. Mdann52 (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Revdeletions done (unless I missed one?), thanks to Mdann52 and GreenLipstickLesbian for cleaning up. I've left the user a final warning, but no objection if anyone decides to block. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Brentonrkaring ignoring pleas to stop controversial edits

• Brentonrkaring (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2026 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC third round (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Over the past few days, Brenton has made unnecessary and disruptive edits against the wishes of other editors, including premature removal of hidden material, i.e. links missing anchors (user edit here, Cewbot's response here), and unhiding of nonexistent categories (user's edit here, Bearcat's response here), all of which are intended to be created later on. Just today, they have tried to edit war with me these exact same changes after I warned them not to make them again. The user has refused to discuss when contested, and has repeated these edits continuously despite warnings against doing so. At this point, we are at wits end with this user, who now needs administrative intervention as per WP:CIR. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 06:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

you're all wrong they are official pots for upcoming round 3 draw in 2026 FIFA World Cup qualifying (AFC) as per FIFA ranking release due out this coming Thursday as per Footy Rankings tweet and the match sequence is the same format as the 2018 and 2022 third phase of qualifying. Brentonrkaring (talk) 07:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

We understand this, Brenton, but I don't think you understand what we're trying to say here. We're not talking about your recent inclusion of draw pots backed by an unreliable source. I must ask you to wait for the official pots to be released by FIFA themselves in this case (See WP:CRYSTAL for why we don't do this too early). It's the other edits explained here we have concern with, namely your unhiding of content that doesn't exist and other editors reverting you multiple times. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 07:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The definition of "official" is that the organization has announced it. Before FIFA does so, anything else is speculative. We are not in a race here, and no one wins any prizes for "scooping" other editors. Ravenswing 07:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

tough luck they're not a unrealiable source their 99% right of the time actually.

plus i have another link which is reliable as well they update as soon as matches go final:

https://football-ranking.com/rankByConfederation?zone=AFC&period= Brentonrkaring (talk) 10:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Pretty obvious WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE. From this comment alone, has absolutely zero intention of collaborating to build an encyclopedia and doesn't care about Wikipedia policy.

FYI, @JalenFolf you are technically also in violation of WP:3RR as this is a content dispute rather than clear cut vandalism. I would recommend leaving any further edits for another editor to revert. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 10:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Tough luck. Let me put this as simply and clearly as possible, Brentonkaring: FIFA is the only official source for the FIFA World Cup. I did not use the word "reliable." I used the word "official." Do you truly need an explanation of the meaning of the word? I recognize this response comes off a bit caustic, but I'm genuinely baffled at the concept that any editor who believes themselves competent to edit articles about the World Cup is unclear on the concept as to which organization runs it. Ravenswing 11:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Since this ANI report was made, the user has not only replied here with an attempt at defending themselves, but have also removed the ANI notice from their Talk page (here). While in understanding that Brenton may have done this to acknowledge their message, this is also typical behavior, as they resume their controversial editing after removing messages, which instead suggest that they are ignoring these messages rather than acknowledging them. This is why WP:CIR should apply here. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 07:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

They also attempted to delete this topic from ANI. GiantSnowman 12:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@JalenFolf While their attempt at blanking this thread definitely wasn't justified, removing talk page threads such as an ANI notice is permissable as user talk pages are not meant to act as "walls of shame"; if a user removes a notice from their thread, they are presumed to have read and understood it. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 10:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I have issued final edit warring warnings to both Brentonrkaring and JalenFolf. @JalenFolf: I know it can feel difficult when dealing with disruptive editors, but edit warring is no excuse, so if Brentonrkaring continues to make such edits then let me know and I will block them for disruption and for using Twitter accounts to make bogus edits. GiantSnowman 12:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Iran election telegram poll

In the page 2024 iran presidential election this user keeps adding unverified telegram link as source of a poll Heart stroke Jaden Baratiiman (talk) 05:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours: User talk:Heart stroke Jaden#Block. I've also alerted them about WP:ARBIRP. But, Baratiiman, next time you need to notify them on their talk page as per the instructions above (a ping is not enough). Thank you. El_C 13:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Anonymy365248 and merge proposals

• Anonymy365248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been warned repeatedly not to tag articles with merge proposal notices without opening a discussion on the talk page, as can be seen on their talk page (sections "Your proposal to merge articles" and "Merge proposed without starting discussion"). In spite of this, they have continued to engage in this behavior, most recently at the article Malek Rahmati (diff1, diff2). I also noticed from their talk page that this user has a history of disruptive editing. Thank you for your consideration. Davey2116 (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

They have a habit of removing warnings and advice from their user talk page but not heeding the warnings nor taking the advice, and in fact they nominated their own user talk page for deletion (just prior to the most recent username change) because "I don't want any topics on my talk page." They have a previous short block on their record for disruptive editing, and I just cleaned up a batch of malformed AfD nominations which they recently submitted. I won't question their good faith, but their level of competence seems to me to merit closer scrutiny. --Finngall ^talk 17:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Their response so far on this ANI thread has been trying to edit Davey2116's post: Special:Diff/1228266845. Though they did say something in the user talk recently: Special:Diff/1228325353. – 2804:F14:80E0:5601:B09C:126D:624:271 (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The amount of effort they have made to cover their usernames is suspicious to me. Originally I had assumed okay maybe it was just a user wanting a clean start, but you found not 1 but 2 name changes "in less than six months"? [135] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: Not “found”, exactly–they appeared on my radar under their original username when they tried to unilaterally reopen an AfD discussion which they had started but which didn’t go their way, so they’ve been on my watchlist since last year. --Finngall ^talk 04:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm coming here from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malek Rahmati and the user keeps changing how signed comments can be viewed and just now tried to remove the first line stating,

"* Anonymy365248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)" Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

That's my unofficial username that's why I keep replacing it with the word "anonymous" as part of recognizing me anonymously. Also, I didn't want that username to be place in any discussion. Anonymy365248 (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

That's too bad, because we need to know who we're talking to. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I just want to clarify if there's a second chance for and Article for Deletion. Anonymy365248 (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I see that even after being told here to stop messing around with their signature, Anonymy365248 is still doing it. [136] If the isn't trolling, it is a WP:CIR issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry if what I did was an act of messing up the signature, but I swear I'm not trolling, I just want to know how to be recognized as an anonymous user. Anonymy365248 (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Everybody's posts are followed by their usernames, period. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Anonymity is pretty much impossible on Wikipedia unless you edit without an account (aka edit as an ip). While it is technically true that a link only to a users talk page suffices under WP:SIGLINK, if it is causing disruption, which seems to be the case here, the signature falls under WP:SIGPROB, which says that editors can request a problematic signature be changed, and says that problematic signatures may result in a quicker block for other problems with their editing. In addition, your username still appears in the page history, which is legally required because the copyright license that Wikipedia operates under requires attribution to the contributors. GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 17:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

How do I edit as an ip? Anonymy365248 (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

If you want to edit as an IP you simply log out of your account. But you should be aware that if you do then every edit you make will reveal your IP address at the time, which is a fair bit less anonymous than editing under a pseudonym. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. See WP:ANONYMOUS. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Just simply log out of your account. hamster717 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ * my contribs🌌)} 21:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Just an fyi, I don't think you need to use the non admin comment template in a discussion like this, I think that would usually be used only in places where non admins don't make comments that often, like WP:UAA or WP:AIV. GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 22:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

oh, sorry about that hamster717 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ * my contribs🌌)} 22:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

No worries. GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 22:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I was drawn to this discussion via this deletion request that Anonymy365248 opened on June 8. Their conduct throughout the discussion has made me wonder if we are dealing with a WP:CIR issue. They stated three times in that discussion that they wanted the article deleted because of their personal preferences, despite being told that personal feelings are not ground for keeping, deleting, or renaming articles. This is basically a pattern that has appeared in pretty much all the pages they have nominated for deletion:

• "I prefer the information of this article be transferred on the article that contains the list of governors in Iran"
• "I prefer the information of this article to be transferred in other websites like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes"
• "I prefer its information in the Local void article or the Void galaxy article, if you want the information of this article to be move there as well"
• "I prefer the information about this article should be other websites like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes. Since those websites didn't need a big description of an article about someone", etc.

Maybe the user does not know how to express himself/herself but this is not the correct way of listing articles at AfD. Keivan.f^Talk 01:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

What are the good examples of nominating an article for deletion? Anonymy365248 (talk) 05:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

You could start here first of all. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I was going to start a new thread here, then I saw this one. There are some clear WP:CIR issues here. A day after the last comment above, Anonymy365248 continued disrupting AfDs, such as:

• Unstriking their own vote as nom, despite being warned on their talk.
• Another AfD, and when most !votes are keep, a merge proposal, and voting "support".
• !voting thrice in one discussion.
• Again, messing with their own signature.

Looking at their AfD stats, it's clear they don't understand relevant policies. Something needs to be done here. A pblock from the Wikipedia: namespace, maybe? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay look, I'm sorry, if what I'm doing is disruptive again. However, I would like to clarify how is unstriking your own vote a disruptive editing.Anonymy365248 (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Miscellaneous advice. Liz has already explained this on your talk page. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I think a WP:CIR block may be in order at this time. Again, they may be acting in good faith, but in the end they've done little except be a timesink for more experienced editors whilst providing little if any positive contribution to the project. --Finngall ^talk 15:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I pretty much agree. hamster717 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ * my contribs🌌)} 16:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

This editor wanted to delete their user talk page, and now does not want to have a name. This appears to be an editor who, in clueless good faith, wants to be an invisible editor. That seems to be an idea that is inconsistent with the idea of a wiki, a collaborative endeavor. The question for us, the Wikipedia community, is simply how much patience we have with this completely clueless good faith idea. I suggest that we ignore them as long as we can, but no longer. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I change my mind. I don't care about my username being recognized anymore, even if I want to be seen as an invisible editor. My username doesn't seem to matter anyway. Anonymy365248 (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Follow-Up on User:POSSUM chowg

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 don't know if this is the right forum, or if there is a right forum for this question. About 24 hours ago I reported that User:POSSUM chowg had created a large number of sandbox subpages in user space with templates that I thought were malicious, and some with obscene titles.

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

When I tried to view the user subpages, I was unable to view the history. I was also unable to use Twinkle to apply a speedy deletion tag. I did discover that I was able to edit the files, and to insert a {{db-g3}} template into two of them. I then reported this here, and two editors agreed that this was not here to contribute behavior. One of them was admin User:Bbb23, who blocked the user and disabled their talk page. I thought that the block was necessary, and didn't have an opinion about the talk page turnoff. About two hours ago, I got an email saying that I had a talk page message on Wikimedia Commons from User:POSSUM chowg. They asked me why I had had them blocked. I said that I was willing to request that their talk page be turned back on so that they could make a regular unblock request, but that was about it. However, I then saw that they had just been blocked on Commons after spamming Commons Village Pump and Commons Administrators Noticeboard about their block. I now have an email saying that I have a message on Wikidata from the same user. So maybe my question is what is the procedure for making a Steward Request for a Global Lock. This may not be the usual sort of cross-wiki abuse (if there is a usual), but it seems like a clear-cut case of cross-wiki abuse to use multiple systems to harass a user and to complain about a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

They have been globally locked. As to your question of where to ask, usually at meta:Steward requests/Global, just be sure to read the guideline at the top before requesting (and to check if they weren't already reported, as was the case this time). – 2804:F14:80C7:1F01:ACEC:526F:6757:945F (talk) 03:32, 17 June 2024 (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:AllenBealJones

A user (User:AllenBealJones) is insisting on adding a blanket pronunciation guide to the Asaph article despite it not applying to all of the members of the list. They also tried to add this pronunciation guide to St Asaph (where it does not apply) and Asaph (biblical figure) (where it definitely does). I reverted the additions to Asaph and St Asaph, but instead of engaging with my reasons for reverting, this user has decided to wage a war of personal attacks against me both at Talk:Asaph and my own talk page, calling me a coloniser and a racist. It should be noted also that this person previously used the account User:RandalKeithNorton, but decided to change to User:AllenBealJones two days ago. Their attitude is clearly not one of collaboration, which suggests to me that their days on Wikipedia may be numbered. – PeeJay 16:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Wow, that was certainly over the top. I've blocked indef, until the can convince another admin that they won't do that anymore. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, User:PeeJay, did they announce somewhere that they used to be RandalKeithNorton, or is this just based on really obvious socking? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

nevermind, i see it now. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out on the articles in question for any more socks. If I see them, I'll start a discussion at WP:SPI. – PeeJay 17:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Might have to play whack-a-mole for a bit. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive gaming of autoconfirmed status followed by attempt to edit semi-protected page

AshenLegion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) joined Wikipedia today June 17 then in 4 minutes made 12 edits to 12 pages, all of which were both trivial and incorrect: typically adding a space in text where there was already one space or where a space was not correct: e.g., Special:Diff/1229637477, Special:Diff/1229637343 and Special:Diff/1229636938. I suspect that was a premature attempt to get autoconfirmed status. The user then went on to make an edit request Special:Diff/1229638509 at Yasuke, which has been subject to recent disruption.

I know this is a bit preemptive, but I don't see this account doing anything good for Wikipedia, and wouldn't be surprised if it were a sock of another account in the scrum on that article's talk page.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed as nothere. Clear gaming and just here to argue about if that guy was a samurai. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Revoke TPA from 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.

---

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

He has been adding lewd images to his talkpage after being blocked. Air on White (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done DanCherek (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Harassment

I am currently being Harassed by Alex 21 who will not leave me alone after I chose to end a discussion with him.m cos of edit disagreements which we had which I am sorry for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.158.115 (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The editor made unsourced [137] and edit-warring [138] based edits at Peacemaker (TV series), and I made sure to clarify with the anon editor that they understood why their edits were being reverted, especially after such unacceptable edit summaries such as that in the latter diff. Their contribution history shows a pattern of such behaviour. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

IP blocked for a week for disruptive editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

And the block was fairly lenient, given the IP's harassment of Alex 21 with a barrage of insults, for which the IP does NOT seem sorry. Ravenswing 01:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Someone is having a bad day

Could someone block this IP please so that they can do something more productive with their time? Multiple WP:ARBECR violations with a dash of harassment and vandalism. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

(Redacted) 2605:B100:1131:8BB1:94F7:29D9:5FCC:F20F (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes please, besides vandalism at RFA and Arbcom, we have this beyond-the-pale comment. Ah now we have it here too. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

dealt with by user:Robertsky with a block. Some edits reverted and others are hidden. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done. There are some edits which I think are skirting the lines, therefore I didn't revdel those but if any other admin think otherwise, go ahead and revdel accordingly. – robertsky (talk) 08:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

69.121.182.83

User is engaging in edit warring and IDHT as shown here, here and here. Augu  Maugu ♨ 04:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Probably should've gone to WP:EWN, but it's a slam-dunk ECR violation nonetheless. The Kip ^(contribs) 06:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Why had nobody been able to tell me exactly how the edit does not reflect the article? 69.121.182.83 (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:ECR and the templates on your talk page. You cannot discuss or edit about the Arab/Israel conflict unless you have an account that is 30 days old and has made 500 edits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

User seems to have resorted to personal attacks [139] Wiiformii (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Your removal of their comment from their own talk page was unnecessary and predictably aggravating to the situation. I wouldn't say that ending a conversation with Whatever you say keyboard warrior. really constitutes a personal attack requiring deletion from their own talk. It's incivility and name-calling at worst. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, as the user seems to want attention solely and aggravation won't help. Incivility describes it better as I couldn't find the exact word Wiiformii (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes it's best to let people scream into the void. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Deb, admin, and violations of WP:COI, WP:ADMINACCT

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 making this post LOUT to remain anonymous. I have concerns with Deb, a Wikipedia legacy administrator since 2003.

Deb has disclosed on her user page that she is Deborah Fisher, the author. She wrote Princesses of Wales and Princes of Wales, both published by the University of Wales Press. The page University of Wales Press was created by Deb, an undisclosed violation of WP:COI.<redacted>

Another issue is the abundance of incorrect deletions, just see her talk page for the many just this year. Not happy with some of her replies, like this. Admin Pppery warned them to be careful, and Deb's response was "luckily, I don't value your opinion." I don't see this as Pppery's opinion at all, but rather a GF attempt at ensuring administrators maintain conduct (this "opinion" resulted in an overturn, like many other Deb-related DRVs). Sorry Pppery, that musn't have been nice. This severely fails WP:ADMINACCT, and Stifle agrees. Deb then threatened to head to ANI...

Final thing I noticed in a quick search were several accusations of WP:HOUNDING, but unsure about this vein.

For the aforementioned reasons, I find Deb unfit to be an en~wp administrator. This overall conduct could very well result in some kind of a block, but the super mario effect is real. 70.112.193.22 (talk) 02:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Deb does not meet the definition of "legacy admin" the community usually uses (that term more often applies to admins who are mostly inactive for long periods, not people who have been continuously active since). And digging up ancient (2006!) dirt and off-wiki evidence some of which had to be oversighted really does not help your case. And undisclosed accounts should not be opening threads at ANI anyway per WP:PROJSOCK. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

IP editor, you dug up an edit Deb made in 2022, 22 years ago, where she declared her real name. You dug up the fact that she created two articles about companies she worked for in 2005 and 2006. Have you used your prodigious research skills to learn what the COI policies and guidelines were 18 to 22 years ago, and what the attitude of the community was back them about writing articles about one's notable employer? Have you discussed your concerns with Deb? Can you explain why you are editing logged out? Are you trying to evade scrutiny? Cullen328 (talk) 03:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

70.112.193.22 here (dynamic IP). There is more COI that was redacted that took place recently during employment. Unsure why it was oversighted as it is public but I'll leave it be. I am editing anon, as I know taking admins to ANI can be troublesome and I don't want to get too involved. 129.222.85.112 (talk) 03:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

In other words, you either don't want to get your primary account blocked for personal attacks or your primary account is already blocked, maybe by Deb. There are several reasons that may explain your anonymity, but none that give us reason to believe you. Verifiability is one of the non-negotiable policies of Wikipedia, and it applies not only to articles but also to reporting. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:V only applies to articles, not to reporting. Levivich (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

What sort of dynamic IP changes your ISP? – 2804:F14:80D0:4F01:DC8C:3E45:EB65:B7BD (talk) 03:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

OP/IP/logged out editor, you are very much involved now. Will you please answer my specific questions? Thanks in advance. Cullen328 (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not very familiar with all this IP stuff, all I know is that it changes mine so that is won't be linked to my current account. COI was looked down upon at the time of University of Wales Press, but you're right that it wasn't as much as it is nowadays. The other recent COI company was, however, during employment, when we expected people to disclose it on their user page / talk page. 174.80.151.166 (talk) 03:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Part of opening an ANI case is allowing yourself to be scrutinized in the context of the case. Using a IP to evade such is a serious violation of WP:SOCK policy and there are people on this site who have tools to find people who do it.

I will take a stab at this 'dynamic IP changer'. Is your network provider Starlink? Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 07:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Does someone have Mole-Be-Gone to pour in these pop-up mole holes?? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• I've been tagged into this by the reporter. I confirm my view that Deb has made several improper G6 deletions over time and that I consider the one case cited above to be a failure of WP:ADMINACCT. I express no further opinions, about the conflict of interest situation or otherwise. Stifle (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Hi. As you all know, I've been an admin for a very long time and I don't doubt I've made mistakes in that period. I've also done things that other administrators disagree with. I've done them all in good faith. I do a lot of deletions, which has made me many enemies. There was a time when, not only was COI not a problem but even advertising your own qualifications wasn't against the rules. I could name you several administrators who still do this on their user pages. I don't.

  I don't see that there was anything wrong with my using a published book as a reference. It happens that I wrote one of the few titles on this subject, and as I had the page number and ISBN details to hand, I used it. Another user took this up at the time, and there was a brief discussion, with other participants giving the blessing to its inclusion. The main issue with COI editing is bias. I'm not sure what the issue is with my employment but I am assuming this was to do with the fact that I wrote an article about Dane A. Miller, who at the time was a former director of the company I worked for. Miller had been a very notable figure in the industry, and it's true that I only knew about him because of my employment, but if there was anything in that article that did not comply with the NPOV policy, I can't see it.

As for threatening another user with ANI, I mentioned ANI as a warning in response to this poorly-veiled threat made to me. Deb (talk) 08:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Deb and I understand that past policy was different. I have zero issue with you citing your own book(s) in accordance with policy because you are a subject matter expert. There are multiple instances of more recent editing (1-9 years ago) however where the COI is stronger (when policy had long mentioned that you should disclose) but I don't know if I can bring examples up without oversighters swooping in. You do stick relatively to NPOV from what I can see. I think you should be more careful, especially as admin. The conduct relating to DRV and replies to other editors was what brought me here though (note that I am involved as a Deb DRV voter). 65.60.240.77 (talk) 08:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you the same person as 70.112.193.22? Deb (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. But this will be my last comment here, as I think I went to the wrong avenue for this. 65.60.240.77 (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Does this mean you still think that this was an acceptable answer, even when considering WP:ADMINCOND? Nobody (talk) 09:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Hmph. It's blunt, but it's not way out of line. In fact, I've done the same myself when I once ran out of patience with an editor that was accusing me of terrible adminning. Black Kite (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• I can't not say anything, but firstly I must also own to my own COI. When I was a relatively inexperienced editor Deb took me under her wing and acted as an unofficial mentor. She tried to instil into me the tenets by which she edited herself and demonstrated every day through them—good faith and goodwill. Whether I was inculcated successfully, everyone will be their own judge—I'm sure a few eyebrows were raised at the suggestion!—but she tried. Anything that improved my approach was down to her, and anything that did not was on me. Clearly she continues to edit by those tenets. As has been pointed out, she's not a legacy admin at all, just an old-school one. And if the old school have anything in common, it's that they speak their mind. While she no doubt spoke abrasively to Pperry, it was hardly egregiously uncivil, particularly in the context of having just been told that, after over 20 years editing, You really need to do better. I'm sure there were... more nuanced ways of expressing that? Unlike many editors, she also recognizes when she crosses a boundary. For example, in 2017, having been involved in a minor edit war, completely trivial as these things are, in response—instead of just going quiet as she could have—Deb self-blocked. Also unnecessarily as her critics noted at the time! And a 17-year unblemished blocklog...well, blemished. TLDR; I suppose my basic view is that what she is 'accused' of is pretty generic for highly active admins, and while I also don't see this as a malicious use of WP:LOUTSOCK—probably a misunderstanding of the policy rather than an intentional breach of it—the whole comprehensive caboodle in a caboose—from allegation, to response, to defence—is absolutely a Gale in a Goblet. ——Serial Number 54129 12:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  Your link to the blocklog is malformed and so doesn't actually show Deb's self block so I am posting a correct link here so that it can be easily referred to: Blocklog for "Deb" . Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 13:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Having read the comments and taken a cursory look at Deb's actions and edits, it appears to me this is an experienced, good faith administrator who occasionally makes the wrong call. There is not a single editor or administrator on this project who is perfect and has never made a mistake. Anyone who says otherwise is misguided at best. That being said, comments like the one directed at Pppery may not be a direct violation of WP:CIVIL but definitely go against the spirit of that policy. A friendlier approach in future would be preferable.

The only real policy violation which needs to be addressed here is the use of multiple IPs by a logged out user to evade scrutiny. There should not be any fear of retribution when reporting an administrator. Any improper action of that kind would lead to outcry from the community and probably a desysoping. Therefore, I can only conclude that in hiding their identity the editor aimed to avoid scrutiny of their own actions. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 14:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't we have a rule somewhere that you can't log out to make complaints about people on noticeboards? Like you can't use a WP:SOCK to do so, so why would you be able to do so while logged out? If truly fearful, the complaint should be directed to arbcom or trust and safety. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:PROJSOCK was mentioned above. This behaviour does immeasurable damage to genuine good faith IP editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:37, 18 June 2024 (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:Sathyalingam - Repeated edit warring without communication

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

There seems to be four blocks by C.Fred from 17 April, 2022 for Disruptive editing/ edit warring. Sathyalingam is now edit warring at Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam. There are no edit summaries or responses to the talk page discussion that I initiated and I see that they haven't used their talk page to communicate even once since 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeraxmoira (talk • contribs)

Not just edit warring, adding election boxes for election taking place in 2026 so Sathyalingam is here for the long haul. The Banner talk 07:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• A note about the four blocks. They were:
  1. 17 Apr 2022: 72 hour partial block from article namespace: Edit warring - changing sourced information without explanation or discussion
  2. 5 Jun 2022: 1 week siteblock: Disruptive editing - persistent changes to movie grosses without sources
  3. 7 Jul 2022: 1 month partial block from article namespace: Disruptive editing - refusal to use edit summaries or explain edits - this allows user to request edits via talk page and communicate
  4. 11 Sep 2022: 3 month partial block from List of highest-grossing Tamil films: Edit warring - persistent addition of problematic content with no attempt to discuss

Since there is a pattern of the user refusing to discuss, I think at this point, if there are problematic edits with no discussion, an indefinite siteblock is in order. —C.Fred (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

User: Alexanderkowal on United States

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, is my conduct on United States appropriate? I'm trying to purge the dysfunction from the rfc I did but I'm struggling to gauge whether it's appropriate to have another topic on redesigning it for relisting. I don't plan on engaging in a relisting Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be better placed on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard? Remsense诉 13:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, sorry thank you Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2024 (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.

Moving all body images into a gallery

In this August 2023 change, Devokewater moved all 32 body images into a new gallery with a misleading edit summary "tidy up". This was contrary to general Wikipedia 'house style' (MOS:IMAGES), wp:gallery and wp:image relevance.

The images are without relevance, having been removed from context, hence, IMO, also contrary to wp:burden by creating an extensive, random, gallery without a rational foundation.

I consider this to be disruptive editor behaviour, not a content dispute. Editor has failed to respond to a polite message (13 June) at User talk:Devokewater#Moving images; I consider this to be passive dissent.

Devokewater also had also removed article Talk content  with a bogus edit summary "Fixing style/layout errors"; this was self-reverted within 10 minutes of my specific mention when posting at User talk:Devokewater, and editor has subsequently randomly edited daily.

At the time of creating the gallery, the article was being surveilled by members of the Wikiproject Geography which made no representation, hence posting here.

I don't intend to laboriously manually re-site 32 images, and I'm unsure if any utilility (TW, HG) would facilitate this.

Would an admin please instruct Devokewater to put this article to rights? It's now 2:19AM in England and I'll be off-Wiki for around 12+ hours. Thank you.--82.13.47.210 (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

You’re bringing an edit from August 2023 to this noticeboard, when it is explicitly for “urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems”? Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The article was very messy, there were just too many photos, (in reality many photos should have been removed, however I personally do not like removing other peoples photos) tried to tidy them up with little or no effect so in the end the best option was to put them in a gallery, see my edits on Ulverston for another example where I tidied up a very messy wikipage. Regarding the talk page the comment made no sense it appeared to be an IP editor playing around.--Devokewater 07:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Devoke, despite the IP's protestations, I think this very much is a content issue, and from all appearances your changes were made in a good faith effort to improve the article. I don't even really have to AGF to come to that conclusion: it seems self-evident. So I think you can feel comfortable that no one is going to grant the IP's request that an admin force you to "set the article to rights" (the IP really needs to familiarize themselves with WP:VOLUNTEER if they don't understand why their demand is a non-starter) and that no sanction is forthcoming.

...But all that said, in terms of community consensus on the style, formatting, and general content issues, you truly are way out on a limb here. It is absolutely very common practice for articles of this sort (and indeed most articles with large amounts of photos) for such media to be placed in the main body of the article. Galleries are sometimes used when there's an excess of images, but even then the gallery is in addition to the in-line photos, not to their exclusion. I've never seen an article wherein the approach you have used here (all of the photos pushed into a gallery at the end) was endorsed by the community of editors working on an article. I don't know what your definition of "messy" is, but if it's "any inline photos", I don't think it aligns with the community's general stance on such issues, nor the relevant policies/style pages. Especially considering the length of this particular article.

All of which is to say, I think I'd save yourself and everyone else a lot of trouble by not going to the mat on this one; in my opinion, if your force an RfC over this, it's a forgone conclusion that your style preference here is going to lose. Nobody is going to make you put all the images back, but if your goal is tidy up the article and arrive at a stable version, I would consider working with the IP towards a compromise version. Leaving somewhere between 10-50% of the images in the gallery but moving the rest back into locations where they have contextual significance sounds perfectly reasonable to me (what the exact proportions should be is hard for me to predict without deeper study of the revision history and the previous locations of the images, but in principle I don't see why a middle ground solution can't work here. If you really do think that the gallery is in the best interest of the article, it would behoove the article for you to reach a compromise, since I think the IP stands to win consensus if the broader community weights in. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 13:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I should hasten to add that, I agree that anywhere between 3-7 of those images probably aren't relevant enough (that is necessary enough to illustrate a crucial aspect of the article's subject matter) to be included at all. But any such cuts would also best be achieved via a consensus discussion as well. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 14:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, when I first saw the article, it was a photo gallery with a wikipage attached to it, there was just too many photos all over the place, I tested different scenarios on my test page and in all honesty the gallery was the best option. Quite happy for other editors move these photos back to the main article, however I emphasise that when I started editing it was a mess. I never went to the talk page because this wikipage appeared to be "abandoned" unlike say Middlesbrough where there are very active regular editors who edit the page with passion.--Devokewater 14:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

In your opinion, which you didn't test by raising the matter on talk. This edit seems highly disruptive to me. I note that your comments in this section seem from your edit history to be the largest in byte terms in your 6 years of editing. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Devokewater was under no obligation to raise the matter on the talk page if he genuinely felt the article was a mess. Like any user, he is welcome to edit the article. Likewise, if someone disagrees with his edits, they are also welcome to revert, edit, or question. Nevertheless, this matter explicitly does not belong here since this noticeboard is for "urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems" - as shown above - which this most certainly is not, being a content disrupte from August 2023. Take this matter to the talk page and let an administrator close this discussion. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I've temporarily hidden File:But he's never had a pint of Mansfield.JPG and File:Not Much Matches Mansfield Beer.JPG as per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy (No. 8). Because the images are stuck in the gallery there does not, to me, appear to be any contextual significance. Devokewater if you move those two back to the correct section they should be OK. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a content issue, and even if it wasn't it is far too stale to bring up at this noticebard. Just discuss it at Talk:Mansfield. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, attack me folks, I expected it. I raised it as soon as I saw it. The polite Wikiquette would've been to raise a talk section. Again, the polite Wikiquette would be to respond to an editor-talk section.

The article has been grossed-out by repeated input/changes over several years by a series of IP/sock/block evader edits (that's what the deleted talk section referred to ). A new username was registered as a way of getting around the block(s) preventing uploads, then IPs were used to place (at least some) images. I raised it with a cu off-wiki in Feb 2023 (from memory), but I cannot commit time to ongoing drama. Of course, I know the SPI and can recognise the tell-tale traits exhibited. I haven't followed up (in one edit summary I advised wp:deny), but File:Rosemary Centre 1.jpg (upload 23 April 2023) is an example of a sock/commons identity, and here (diff, 28 April 2023) an IP placed the cropped/zoomed/contrived image showing how only Iceland was left open in the building (now gone). The sockmeister learned how to get round things.

Hope that generally throws some light onto matters - yes, over-zealous inexperienced editors = messy. I've just had to deal with an AfD caused by a newbie cut/pasting my 1500 bytes section content months back into a premature stand-alone article (thanks due to the bot for notifying me) - I got a 'helpful' editor shouting ownership and soapboxing at me......

IMO it is disruptive, drive-by, editor behaviour going against Wiki-precepts, which is why I brought it here. I am very capable but choose not to volunteer my limited time in this situation caused by a cavalier attitude; I will help anyone when/if I can, but not when disrespected by no response to a polite talk message. As the saying goes: 'there's only one chance to make a first impression'. Thanks for your inputs.--82.13.47.210 (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Just to note that over 3 edits, I have restored the appearance of the article to resemble what it was before Devokewater moved the images into the gallery. I put one or two images in different places, left 7 in the gallery, and also made quite a few changes to the wording (including moving, consolidation, and in-text mentions with refs of things shown in images) and the references. It took a while, so I didn't also look at Commons for better or additional images. After the second edit, I started a section on the talk page (#Pictures). Yngvadottir (talk) 23:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Revoke TPA

User:Ace Travel Sri Lanka seems to be reinserting promotional content in talk page after being blocked years ago, and I request TPA removal of the mentioned user. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 06:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done EvergreenFir (talk) 06:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Proxy IPs conducting disruptive edits

181.117.93.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

1.21.121.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

112.184.132.153 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

180.35.109.165 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

124.144.93.137 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Related to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1157#IPs that persistently harass me and WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1157#Another Proxy IPs that are conducting disrputive edits. 117.53.77.84 (talk) 06:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

disruptive proxy IPs

14.51.145.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
106.172.176.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
180.144.64.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
220.211.71.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Another Proxy IP list that are conducting disruptive edits. Related to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1157#IPs that persistently harass me, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1157#Another Proxy IPs that are conducting disrputive edits, #Proxy IPs conducting disruptive edits. 117.53.77.84 (talk) 02:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Both the content and harassment make it reasonably clear that this is WP:LTA/INTSF. Courtesy ping Bbb23, who wondered in a previous section what was going on. CMD (talk) 11:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content/overlinking

50.205.182.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Keeps adding unsourced content/overlinking, continued after final warning (and hasn't responded to warnings), has been blocked four times previously for disruptive editing in the last 2 years. Examples of addition of unsourced content/overlinking: 1, 2, 3. Waxworker (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked them for a year. It's not usual to block an IP address indefinitely but that might be the only solution in this case. Deb (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Revoke an IP's TPA

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.

---

2607:FEA8:86DF:FD5C:6D48:690A:7D35:DC25 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Making bogus unblock requests, which I removed because they're not worth entertaining, and calling me slurs. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Looking through it, I can definitely understand the edits they made were very disruptive, but this edit summary that you made in my opinion, wasn't very respectful. Let's see what the administrators have to comment. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Buddy, that edit summary is nothing compared to blatant transphobia... and the antisemitism that got them blocked. I think "fuck off" is mild compared to them putting triple parentheses around the ADL's name. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Done, and revision-deleted the bigotry and abuse. Black Kite (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Oh well, I'll just assume good faith and think that what you wrote is indeed milder compared to the slurs they wrote. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 07:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  I can assure you that "fuck off" was an extremely mild reaction to what they wrote. Black Kite (talk) 07:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  True, I used to think "fuck off" was extremely rude, but there's a lot of ruder expressions than this. God, I really need to understand that more often. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 07:19, 19 June 2024 (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.

Problematic edit summaries

Can someone take care of the edit summaries left by Flearoyuoi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? (For the record, I did not inform this user of this discussion; they've already been blocked for flagrant abuse.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Someone has removed the edit summaries already. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 18:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet "keep" votes at AfD listing for Rarri Dream

There are currently three comments suggesting inclusion for the article Rarri Dream at its AfD nomination, all featuring the same run-on-sentence-with-zero-punctuation writing style. When checking the edit history for commenter Firstsail, you'll find that they've only edited the aforementioned page along with the AfD listing itself; the IP address that voted "keep" has similarly only posted on the AfD listing. I have the feeling that this is sockpuppetry in motion. joeyquism (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Blocked by Spicy. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 18:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you please help

•  Courtesy link: Help desk question related to the same matter

Abused online via wikapedia.org. Person using this to bully and abuse me I am scared for my family. Can administrator person responsible please email me to discuss further and in more detail mark Sullivan formb Marksullivanformby (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

meta:Trust and Safety is what you are looking for, I believe. --Yamla (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@Marksullivanformby: It's hard to figure out from your account's contributions' history what specific Wikipedia pages you're referring to, but all of the pages you've edit so far seem to be related to sex work/prostitution in the UK. The content you've been removing with your edits so far seems a bit randon and otehrwise only related to someone who died in 1888; moreover, Wikipedia has several articles about persons named Mark Sullivan. You posted at the Wikipedia Help Desk that you noticed this problem when you type your name. Are you saying that when you do an Internet search of your name, a particular Wikipedia article shows up first in the search results? Is the Wikipedia article about you or is it about someone else you might have the same name as you? If the article is about you, it would be helpful if you could provide the name of the article so that someone can review it. If the article is about someone else, then there's not really anything that Wikipedia can do about it showing up in Internet search results. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Counter request-Blocking OP
I'm requesting to block OP, since they are clearly not here to build. All edits can be considered as disruptive or vandalism. I didn't find anything related to harm them on wiki and they are incompetence for communicating. I suspected someone may post something on miraheze? wikia? about them, but they came to the wrong place. -Lemonaka 02:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The OP has stated at the Help Desk that they have a lawyer looking into this, and has been provided the info email there and a link to T&S on their talkpage. CMD (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Widespread disruption on election articles

Following the Twitter storm mentioned in the section above, there is now widespread disruption on a large number of election articles – editors driven by the Twitter stuff are ignoring an RfC at 2022 Italian general election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and 2018 Italian general election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (on the 2022 article, one editor has reverted again despite being made aware of the RfC); made-up election results that were removed are being blindly reverted back into numerous French election articles (e.g. edits like this and this (exactly the same as was happening at the time of this ANI report from January. Can someone please step in – restore the Italian articles to the RfC-approved infobox and lock them and look at what is happening on the French articles. Cheers, Number 57 01:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Wow, disappointed in several long-standing editors actively working with the newly made WP:SPAs to go against a consensus that was established over an entire year. To start with calling out just one from the first article you linked, Μαρκος Δ, explain yourself. Because this is a really bad look for someone who's been here a decade. Silverseren^C 01:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

RfC was achieved through the consensus of four editors. Not to say that it should be gone against, but I think it deserves a new one, given how volatile this issue is and how many editors care about it, currently. Lucksash (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

First of all, please mind your tone and remain civil and respectful. Do not ping me and say "explain yourself". I voiced my support for reopening the discussion, and that is all. I have not partaken in any edit-warring on any article, unlike several others here. So what exactly is it that you wish to "call out"? I have been opposed to the transition to the new legislative infobox since the very beginning, but have been railroaded by the user above you, and I am therefore happy to see others now wishing to reopen the debate. I voiced this opinion on the talk page in question, as is my right. What part of that, exactly, is it that you need me to explain to you in greater detail? Μαρκος Δ 19:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

2022 Italian general election is an absolute shitshow right now. It should be reverted to the RfC-approved version when consensus was established, and then locked to prevent continued disruptive editing. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted the most recent disruption and locked the page for 48 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, you might want to do the 2018 one as well. Cheers, Number 57 01:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Recommend adding the same level of protection to 2018 Italian general election as well for the same reasons. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

And what happens if the consensus has changed? Siglæ (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Consensus can indeed change, but has it? A new RfC would be required (and I say that as some who favours the older, TIE infoboxes). — Czello ^(music) 07:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

We don’t know if consensus has changed yet, that is why some people, including me, are proposing a new RfC. Whereas other, notably people who favour the new format, believe that it is unnecessary because they believe that new discussion arises from “extra-wikipedian reasons” (and I don’t get how that invalidates anything) and consensus has already been established (which also does t make any since, since consensus can change) Siglæ (talk) 07:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, consensus can change – so personally I'd be in favour of a new RfC. Note, however, that new accounts or accounts accused of meat puppetry are likely to have their comments discounted. — Czello ^(music) 07:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I hope I am misunderstanding and you actually aren’t insinuating that my account is sock puppet. That is ridiculous, as you can see that it has been active on the Italian Wikipedia since weeks before this debacle Siglæ (talk) 07:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I am making no accusations to any single editor, no – I'll always AGF. Regardless, it's undeniable that there is a prominent set of twitter threads that are drawing other users here, and a new RfC would undoubtedly be attractive to them.

What I'm saying is, if you want to start a new RfC you'll need to ensure you can depend on established users rather than people who might have been canvassed. — Czello ^(music) 08:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I am genuinely sorry that I misunderstood the wording. Pardon me Siglæ (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I would like to challenge the slander coming from some users. The people who are noticing problems coming from certain editors are also wiki users or editors or contributors. You can complain about their means but don't slander their cause. That's unbefitting of y'all. The people who are rightly indignant that Number 57 and the sort are messing around with election pages, seemingly without reason, and especially WITHOUT consensus, are doing it out of love for a particular community on this website. Talleyrand6 (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I would like to point to the French legislative election pages for this. I haven't got a clue about the Italy situation. If there's an RFC decision for that it should be restored. I would however add that maybe a review of it should happen mostly on procedural grounds. Technically a consensus was formed but from...what...four people? There's clearly popular angst with it. I would reckon that interested parties should be allowed to level representations for that issue. AFIK an RFC decision isn't set in stone. Talleyrand6 (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a way to challenge a RFC, and perhaps the Italy one might change, but the edit-warring at the Italian articles is for sure not the way to go about it. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree! I'm just explaining more of the situation. Talleyrand6 (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Number 57's edits to French legislative articles are particularly egregious because he cites a consensus for his decisions that doesn't exist. A friend of his cites a discussion (well, actually, three different discussions) where a consensus was supposedly formed except actually for those with eyes to see, the opposite is true. A consensus formed against his proposed edits. My personal opinion is that his actions are driven more by his opinions and tastes than actual consensus. As such, others noticed this happening, yes, on Twitter, but then most (there maybe be exceptions) of the revisions and edits came from wiki editors and those edits (going against Number 57's proposals) seemed to garner a real consensus. Talleyrand6 (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not without consensus. The last major discussion was held last year and led to the current accepted consensus. Of course, consensus can change, and I'm saying this as someone who preferred the old infobox style myself.

But the fact is, the amount of outside interference going on means that it is currently the worst possible time to hold a new discussion on this, and what 57 (and others, including myself) are doing is just trying to keep pages in line with the last RfC consensus, until a new one can be made at a better time. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree! But 57's changes aren't limited to where there is a legitimate decision. Talleyrand6 (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I am only speaking to the Italian articles. If someone is taking the RFC from the Italy consensus and then trying to use that to justify changing infoboxes on election articles of other nations, then there is a problem. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the case for the France articles. Last I recall him and another person claim there was another consensus decision there yet refuse to follow up with proof/provided contradictory evidence as to this. Hyraemous (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Talleyrand6, you just became indef-unblocked, after an impressive series of blocks for edit warring and personal attacks (pinging your last blocker/unblocker, Deepfriedokra), and here we find you being part of what seems to be an orchestrated edit war, and making comments that violate AGF. I think you are skating on thin ice. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies:. Thin ice? The unblock log reads zero tolerance for personal attacks and edit warring. Please feel free to reblock at will. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I have not being edit warring.

I made one (1) edit. Talleyrand6 (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

And nor have I 'orchestrated' anything. Talleyrand6 (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

But you are casting aspersions which is a form of personal attack. Assume good faith and stop seeing conspiracies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I have never claimed its a conspiracy. I think his decisions are simply misguided. Talleyrand6 (talk) 04:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

There are no conspiracies when there are facts. Beside the case of the Italian general elections (for which I believe we should acknowledge that consensus may have changed, but that is another discussion) most of other edit wars have been caused by number 57 changing things without consensus and then him or someone other who agrees with him appealing to an established consensus which doesn’t simply exist. Siglæ (talk) 05:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

See the case of the South African elections where there was the unilateral decision to change the info box without BEFORE reaching consensus, while the talk was still ongoing. Siglæ (talk) 05:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly apologize if my words came off as crass. There was no intention from me to tarnish the character of any admin. If I may be allowed a brief defense, all of my actions were and are singularly focused on the info boxes and related edits. I will be more mindful to avoid giving the wrong impression. Best, Talleyrand6 (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)!

(Maybe this is outside of the scope of this thread, but as we're here...)

Clearly there seems to be a question here about which articles have a consensus for TILE over TIE. Italy seems to have consensus for TILE. There's been much discussion about France – where's its consensus? What about other countries? — Czello ^(music) 07:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Italy doesn’t have consensus for TILE, as for example in 2013 and before (until 1992) they use TIE (and IMO TILE should be used in Italy only before 1992. Other countries are case by case basis IMO (Eg. Israel should use TILE, but South Africa shouldn’t) Siglæ (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

If I'm reading this correctly, Italy does have a consensus for TILE for most Italian elections (though later on it says TIE is off the table and should not be used for any Italian elections.). — Czello ^(music) 08:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Note that the discussion you cite was limited to the last two general elections in Italy and that the RfC closer clarified the result of the discussion as for most infoboxes within the scope of the RFC, which are most Italian elections after 2018. That discussion was definitely not directly appliable to elections before 2018. Impru20^talk 08:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I clearly misunderstood, thank you. — Czello ^(music) 08:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, most (1946 through 1992). Between 1992 and 2013 uses TIE instead. Consesus for 2018 and 2022 was established last year, but a case can be made that it may have changed, or at least it is worth reopening the discussion. Siglæ (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

One thing I will note concerning that specific consensus regarding Italian infoboxes is that it seemingly has a WP:GAME violation in that it was done with solely 6 editors involved and only 4 in favour. There was a short discussion on it and a new RfC hasn't been opened to discuss this consensus on it despite a clear showing in change on this consensus, including that very clearly WP:CCC has occurred, and consensus has very significantly changed. A 4 editor in favour out of 6 consensus might work on an extremely often not browsed page on an obscure topic, but for such an extremely focused on topic of a recent election such a consensus is extremely negative to have such a low interaction from users. CIN I&II (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Stepping in to give my two cents. Just as I commented at Talk:2024 South African general election#Infobox legislative election instead of Infobox election, I was alerted of this issue because of my watchlist becoming full of edit warring notices and the Twitter thread on the issue reaching my personal Tw TL due to it becoming viral. Off wiki attacks on Number 57 are egregious and should receive condemnation, but there are other non-insulting comments and arguments which have been brought forward, which are not without merit and which relate to my own experience for years in election Wikipedia (and, from what I see, to that of many other users). I appreciate Number 57's work to improve election articles for many years. We have both been engaged in clashes and in collaborative efforts aimed at improving election articles. But it is clear that their changes from TIE to TILE across vast swathes of articles (often supported by two or three other users) were, at many times, far from uncontroversial.

Indeed, I can acknowledge to those that keep reverting those articles that specific consensuses were reached for the UK (for future elections only, and only until they happened) and Italy (though as far as I am aware this was limited to 2018 and 2022 according to the specific RfC on the issue, which addressed a particular situation involving the electoral system used for these two. Why was this enforced to other Italian election articles?). But while these were specific, they were often cited by TILE enforcers as some form of general consensus for changing other articles, clearly overextending the scope of the original consensus. For other articles, discussions were either absent, far from reaching a clear consensus or even openly hostile to change, yet many changes proceeded anyway, often citing other similarly-edited articles as justification (when these were edited by the same users) or citing some "new standard" (which was proven as false when you warranted evidence for it) or even justified on the basis of WP:BOLD (which is ok, but then when other users were "bold" and reinstated TIE they were reverted for being "disruptive" or demanding from them a clear consensus for such reversion, something which had not been attained to secure the first controversial edit). Some other cases I can remind of involved reverting users that were blocked by other behaviours, with this being taken to the advantage of TILE's supporters to re-impose their edits as they were not going to be contested by those who were blocked.

Behaviour has been far from exemplary. Number 57 et al.'s proceeding has been to subtly and patiently introduce the TIE/TILE change (many times in smaller, lesser edited articles), then revert anyone who attempted to undo the change, most of the time with very vague edit summaries and in a semi-concerted effort (I am sure there is no "conspiracy" here, but you do not need one: it is not unfrequent for an editor to join another one's cause in any given article when they see it coming, without any explicit concert). I contested some of these throughout the years, but in the last times I mostly let them be as it became a tedious task to contest every single one of these and I was going to be reverted anyway. That did not mean I supported the change, just that I did not have the time to spend it contesting every single of them on my own. It was exhausting. This said, the issue was obviously going to explode some day as opposition mounted, the sense of imposition kept growing and as changes started spilling over to larger articles, and this is what has happened here when this was attempted at 2024 South African general election: the TIE/TILE imposition was attempted with a discussion still underway on the issue, without any consensus being formed, and this seemed to be the last straw for many. Tensions accumulated for many years by many users suddenly unleashed against the latest attempt at imposing a seemingly unpopular edit. Canvassing aside, when you have a whole thread going viral in Twitter, a Youtube video created and such a massive in-wiki response across vast swathes of articles, using sensible arguments and involving not just new accounts but also long-standing users, it is obvious that something is amiss. Impru20^talk 08:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

As already said, wholeheartedly agree Siglæ (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

You've put this extremely well. The best way to diffuse the situation is to allow for local consensus to return without the imposition a small number of experienced wikipedians attempting to WP:BOLD to impose a new consensus across hundreds of articles, then cite distrupiton to maintain it when others attempt to WP:BOLD to restore existing consensus. It all reads of WP:GAME which evidently leads to controversy and when left festering, to unnecessary hostility and distrust towards the small group of otherwise compitent editors. Bejakyo (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Could not agree more, the backlash is unfortunate but an extremely clear sign that these years-long series of edits are imposing the views of a few individuals upon the entire site. I've dealt with a similar situation where Number 57 and aligned accounts acted in ways that toe the line of bad faith gaming of the system (stalling, misrepresentation, ghosting) to force through changes that they wanted without proper discussion. Much like many others have said, it got to a point where I just gave up trying to stop it. Almost more egregious have been imposed removals of "members elected" in the name of 'clarity' and 'removing clutter' — there is a common factor (a small group of users) in all of these disputes. This must change or these "disruptive" backlashes will continue to plague election pages (and the disruptors will have a strong point). Watercheetah99 (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Second all this. This whole situation has gotten wildly out of control, and will probably continue to happen again and again until something changes. CainNKalos (talk) 03:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

+1 on Impru's comment. Vacant0 (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks on Number 57 are entirely inappropriate, and they should be protected from a social media mob. However, I also think this issue has reoccurred repeatedly for a reason - there's clearly a gap between the preferences of a small group of experienced elections Wiki editors, and readers/the public as a whole. We have a difficult time understanding the opinions of readers, and they have a difficult time expressing it, but in some instances, like this one, it becomes clear that they have a different perspective. I think it's worth organizing a larger RfC aiming for broad participation on election infoboxes generally, so that the general community of Wikipedians can weigh in, beyond the few who regularly edit election infoboxes. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

There have been several public death threats made against Number 57 in Twitter: 1, 2, 3, 4. This situation has become alarming Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 14:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

This is all about the infobox?? Not the far-right, or anything meaningful? Secretlondon (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

There have been uhh...incidents like this over a map or maps Talleyrand6 (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Like someone mentioned further up, I think a sound course of action would be to let this entire issue rest for a little while, and then open a civil discussion about it in the not-too-distant future, once the dust from this has settled. Because now, for some reason, it is clear that a lot of users (and non-users as you show us here), feel very strongly about this topic, and it is stirring a lot of overly heated and, in some cases, violent speech, which I think we can all agree is not acceptable. Nobody should face harrassment for their opinions or preferences on any issue on site. I can not see this discussion leading anywhere productive in the current climate, so again, my opinion is that we should all let it rest for the time being. Μαρκος Δ 19:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I concur FWIW Talleyrand6 (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Aside from the one that is now deleted those just seem like lame jokes, they wouldn't fly on Wikipedia, sure - but we don't need to give any thought nor heed to them. Just ignore them and move on.

A wider RfC is definitely in order given that it was a low turn out RfC hosted on a single article's talk page and the amount of people who disagree with.

What User:Impru20 and User:Watercheetah99 have posted is somewhat alarming about 57's behaviour. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, so that's why the IP from earlier was doing that. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protection for all effected pages, would be start. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Affected pages by #57? Or just the Italy and France ones? Hyraemous (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

So this widespread disruption is contagious: look at the completely unexplained series of reverts by User:Luentez, who appears out of nowhere to throw oil on the fire. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Basically the definition of an WP:SPA. Less than 10 edits prior to this and even those were six months ago. Then they show up now to do a bunch of repeated mass reverts and no attempts at talk page discussions whatsoever. I say admins should block and forget for these types showing up. Silverseren^C 21:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Silver seren, I agree, and I'm hoping some admin will pick this up--but since a couple of the reverts were of my edits (which I thought were valid given the existence of this very thread), I can hardly do this myself. Plus, one wonders if this is perhaps someone's alternate account. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

My bigger concern with Luentez is that they are reinserting incorrect/made up information into a large number of French election articles (in this case, three times). A mass rollback of their edits would help. Number 57 21:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see any reason why a discussion on the talk page couldn't override an earlier consensus for 2022 Italian general election; and in fact some editors are engaging in such a discussion. But some of the SPAs are engaging in harassment and edit-warring, and should be blocked for those behaviors. The dispute ultimately does come down to consensus; whether the infobox has pictures of parliamentary leaders is a topic where questions like "what do reliable sources say" will resolve the dispute. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Recommend a block for User:Luentez until he learns how to communicate. Also recommend all of his reversions be rolled back due to lack of explanation or edit summary. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Support Proposal above. The lack of edit summaries are crazy. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: I did leave a notice on User:Luentez' talk page advising him of this thread, in addition to the warning template left by User:Drmies. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

    • Note: I mass reverted all of Luentez's edits reverting drmies on June 16. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

      Anyways, I'm sure this issue wouldn't have been out of control if it weren't for people throwing a barrel of oil into a small fireplace by making exaggerated videos on youtube and making death threats on Twitter. Can those people freaking get themselves together and understand that such actions don't help at all to resolve this controversy? Can they just go back to watching random videos or making shitposts on Twitter? (Also, weren't death threats a criminal offense? Why not report them?) ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  • • • There has been consensus about how wikipedia infobox should look and how it looks in articles about election in other countries. How many people of election wikipedia community were involved in making this changes? Luentez (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
        • Luentez, there has? Where? Why didn't you reference this in your edit summaries? Where were your edit summaries? Do you have any idea how rude it was what you did? Drmies (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

          Articles about the Italian elections in 2018, 2022, 1983, 1979, 1976, 1972, 1968, 1963, 1958, 1953 have different info boxes than the others. The format I reverted them to was used for a long time in most elections before a user named Number 57 decided, along with several other users, to change this formula even though many people did not express their opinion on this topic. This is absolutely unacceptable and needs to be fixed as the wider community was not consulted. Luentez (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

          You didn't answer what Drmies asked you. Did you acknowledge the importance of edit summaries when doing things like this? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

          You should also consider that, for example in the 1968 election, when the infobox was changed from TIE to TILE on the 25th of October 2023 nothing was written in the edit summaries, neither on the talk for that page, so it shouldn’t be a problem to revert that edit because there wasn’t an edit summary nor explanation of sort Siglæ (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I blocked Talleyrand6 in my role as a CU for off-wiki canvasing as well as persistent disruptive editing and edit warring --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 02:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I just spotted (and reverted) three cases where unilateral edits to change TIE to TILE were done (without properly addressing the changes in the edit summaries or seeking an explicit consensus for it): 1989, 1991 and 1993 Polish parliamentary elections. One of these was done in April 2023, the other two were done in the last couple of months (effectively placing them out of consistency with other Polish election articles). I am particularly appalled at these since I myself opposed similar edits to these articles in 2021, recommending a wider consensus to be reached first (since they affected a large number of articles and looked like they were being conducted when they were not being looked upon). The users conducting the recent changes were aware of such opposition and that conducting such a change would be controversial, yet they did it anyway a few years later without even properly specifying such changes in the edit summaries. Obviously, no attempt was made at contacting me or other users opposing them in the past. Impru20^talk 11:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

It's disappointing how many of these edits seem to have taken place without discussion or consensus, seemingly because of personal preference, by editors who have a long enough tenure to know better. I've added these articles to my watchlist. — Czello ^(music) 11:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Good catch, Impru. Vacant0 (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Not commenting on the rest of the dispute here, but it does seem like changes to election infoboxes should be discussed in WP:WPE&R going forward. Allan Nonymous (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

LTA MakaveliReed 3

• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/MakaveliReed
• 2601:240:DE00:740:31D0:D727:BE95:9FDE (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Back from the last block, now that it ended. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 04:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

AmechiUdoba1

Since its creation two months ago, the user AmechiUdoba1 (talk · contribs) has made a series of questionable edits on pages related to Nigeria. Although there have been a few simple mistakes typical of new editors, there appears to be a concerted effort by this account to remove or diminish notes of non-Igbo ethnic groups and their languages.

To cite a few examples of AmechiUdoba1's conduct:

1. South East (Nigeria) and South South: For context, these two regions are a "geopolitical zones" in Nigeria; the SE roughly lines up with Igboland but includes a few other ethnicities while the South South is extremely ethnically diverse. AmechiUdoba1 first came to my attention when the account (and an aligned IP) removed a language from the South East page without reason. This is a common tactic that has been employed several times before on geopolitical zone pages, with ethnic jingoist accounts associated with major ethnic groups removing the languages of minorities (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). It is a good mark for a user that is not here to build an encyclopedia and was a key piece of evidence in the eventual blockings of two similar users (1, 2). On the South East page, the account first removed English from the page before deleting almost all non-Igbo languages yesterday. To continue this trend of ethnically-charged edits, on the South South page AmechiUdoba1 just removed two languages without reason — likely a slight against ethnic Yoruba people (another large Nigerian ethnicity) and a denial of the Ogba language's existence (Igbo jingoists often attempt to categorize all Igboid languages as Igbo).
   1. Similar AmechiUdoba1 edits are now afflicting other pages: Ngwa people (replacing Ngwa dialect with Igbo language) and Ilorin (removing Yoruba as its language despite adding Igbo for a dozen cities).
2. Akwa Ibom State and Cross River State: For context, these two states are mainly non-Igbo but were included in the Igbo-dominated breakaway state of Biafra during the Nigerian Civil War. Both pages had a sentence stating that Biafran forces persecuted inhabitants due to their ethnicity — backed up by a journal source which AmechiUdoba1 did not remove or contest; AmechiUdoba1 twice switched the words on the pages, changing it to "Nigerian forces." Not claiming that Nigerian forces did not commit atrocities, but the removal of Biafran crimes is a not not-too-subtle attempt to whitewash one side's wartime atrocities.
3. Rivers State: A combination of the ethnic and linguistic edits by simply trying to remove the Ikwerre group and their language from the page. Ikwerre is another group alternatively classified as either a related ethnic group or an Igbo subgroup so AmechiUdoba1's goal seems to be denying their existence.

Although this is a relatively new account, there is reason to fear further disruptive and biased editing as its already graduated to inflating population statistics (another common vandal move on Nigerian pages). Similar accounts left without sanction have led to havoc on Nigerian pages with editors having to revert months of sourceless changes once they were finally found out. There needs to be some form of action against this user, this is a clear and concerted campaign of ethnically-biased edits. Thank you, Watercheetah99 (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

JackkBrown further disruption

JackkBrown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I don't want to be here, but it is clear that Jack has not learned from the prior advice, blocks:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143#User:JackkBrown (November block}
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1145 (archived without action)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#JackKBrown_again (one month block)

Questions about minutiae (cannoli (and a move request here based on the continued English/Italian confusion, pronunciation, ingredients despite being told multiple times that this is not what HD/Teahouse are for and to use the Talk. He has also moved on to deletion without an understanding of policy.

I don't know if it's IDHT or lack of competence, but it's clear the behavior isn't going to change if it hasn't for the last 9 months+.Is there a p-block that would work since they seem to need a physical blocker to stop them from the HD. Thoughts? Suggestions? Star Mississippi 15:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: I did my best to improve, I also respected the maximum of two/three questions per month at the help desk; to claim that I haven't improved much is strange. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: ingredients: I never asked this question, as I removed it a minute later; with all due respect, bad idea to report this. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the ingredients thing was quickly fixed, but that kind of highlights the general problem: you're still editing far too quickly and sloppily. And that leads to things like making 20 rapid-fire minor edits to an article or non-constructive PRODs. You're also spending way too much time turning British English into American English and a bunch of editors have been pulling out their hair on your talk page over your intransigence about taking WP:ENGVAR seriously.

It's really unfortunate, too, because unlike a lot of people who end up here regularly, you're definitely here to build an encyclopedia and I don't have any doubts that you have the best of intentions. With your Italian language skills and your apparent love of food, there are so many great contributions that few here could make as well. Valereee even suggested a couple places where your skillset would be most appreciated: Ark of Taste and List of Italian food and drink products with protected status have so many red links and you have the ability to do immense good here. But instead, you're doing things like moving Pignoli (cookie) to Pignoli (biscuit) which don't make the encyclopedia better.

One good, clear, substantive edit is far more valuable than 20 slipshod ones. Wikipedia loses out when you're blocked from editing, which is why the community has been so patient with you. But nobody's patience is endless. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs: thank you. I have made many substantial changes; see, for example, the list of Italian foods and drinks page, of which I'm the largest contributor, and the huge improvements in all Italian foods and drinks. The changes that bothered you represent, perhaps, 1/2% of all my edits. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs: I also improve articles on other nations and cultures. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd been keeping an eye on JacktheBrown (Jack) for a while, but had to take his page off my watchlist due to the pure volume of edits. I think list of Italian foods and drinks page exemplifies both the benefit Jack brings and simultaneously the unmitigated problems Jack presents.

That page shows that Jack is the only non-bot editor for over a month, which shows how they contribute to underserved areas of the encyclopedia. It also shows the pattern of many small edits in quick succession (e.g., 6 edits within 3 minutes on June 7, 5 within 3 minutes on May 7). I remember trying to assist Jack by explaining what cosmetic edits were and why to not make them, and then a later discussion on WP:ENGVAR. I am concerned that each time one problem area is addressed (whitespace, Engvar), the disruption seems to move to a different area.

It's disappointing that Jack seems to spend so much effort on the form of Wikipedia (managing lists, copyediting, changing image sizes), tasks which any English speaker could do, and seems to spend relatively little time on the substance of it, such as finding Italian-language sources for articles, a task of which few of our volunteers are capable. Of Jack's past 100 edits, 40 have been to article or talk space. Of those, I found only two (5%) that I would consider substantial, removing one unsourced passage, and discussing pronunciation on a talk page. There's nothing wrong with housekeeping Wikipedia, but Jack seems ill-suited for the task, and yet spends 95% of their edits on such things. I concur that Jack is very much WP:HERE for the right reasons, but their many small edits seem to cause frustration for other volunteers. If others are like me and have unfollowed a page because of the watch list spam, it seems like the best intentions may be harming the encyclopedia. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The flood of inconsequential cosmetic edits make up a lot more than one-per-200 of your edits. A wide assortment of people have commented on these problems. And nobody is saying you don't make substantial changes, but that your insubstantial ones, and frequently ones that are not ideal to make with someone's second language, are overshadowing the very good contributions you do make. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs: I'm sad and also disappointed about it; with myself. JacktheBrown (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I note here that Jack moved one of their comments, changing which one my post replied to. I wrote enough that the intended context is clear, but have seen discussion in which this could've caused great confusion. The move edit summary was in the correct place, and demonstrates the same misplaced confidence shown in their copyediting and unfamiliarity with policy that are causing concern here. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck: the comments you refer to are part of the same comment, but I decided to write them in two comments (for more order); so I thought it was a mistake of the (kind) user who answered me. Try to understand that in this place (ANI) I'm in a panic. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are feeling panicky. Secretlondon (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Some of this seems to be about unwritten rules. How do we treat ENVAR? Does it matter if its a cookie or a biscuit? Which rules are more important than others? These can be hard for some people. Secretlondon (talk) 09:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused. MOS:ENGVAR seems very much written. Am I misunderstanding you? EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but SecretLondon is talking about ENVAR, which remains unwritten. EEng 16:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

(content comment therefore off-topic and *sigh*) It matters because biscuit means different things in different varieties of English, whereas cookie (even if primarily a North American word) is unambiguous. Compromise in cases like this is how we help readers find what they're looking for. Did I mention that I'm a Brit? Narky Blert (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Since I posted about something else, I might as well post here. I think what EducatedRedneck and others mentioned is is highly relevant in this discussion. However much importance various editors may attach to Engvar issues, a key point is that JackkBrown apparently (I have not independently looked at the evidence) is largely doing copy-editing. In that case, getting engvar right is far more important especially when it comes to introducing new errors. If JackkBrown was adding significant new content and in doing do introducing engvar mistakes; I expect editors would be far more tolerant to such mistakes. (To be clear, this would only apply to such changes. If they did that stuff while simultaneous copying editing existing content and making engvar mistakes, they'd probably still cause a high level of annoyance.) Copy editing where some of your changes are a net positive and some are a net negative tends to be viewed poorly for good reason. Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Adding new sources to existing content is another area that occurred to me but I excluded it because it's unlikely to lead to Engvar issues but perhaps improving content to better match sources as opposed to simple copyediting is another area where there would be more tolerance. Nil Einne (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Right, and in a collaborative environment the best tact to take when something is difficult for you is to recognize that, and perhaps exercise additional caution when that thing crops up—in so doing, preventing yourself from making more of the same work for others over and over. It's difficult to make Jack aware enough of very specific points to change his behavior, but he does not seem interested in extrapolating any larger norms from what other editors tell him. It's an exhausting game of whack-a-mole, and it's beyond our remit at this point to solve the endless new puzzles of how to adequately explain a thing to him—often related to things already explained to him.Remsense诉 18:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I have a question and a comment. First, @JackkBrown: has anyone ever suggested that you take your questions to the reference desk instead? Second, I was annoyed when you started an RfC over comments I had made at Talk: Pied-noir because it seemed like a recipe for drama I was trying to avoid, but while drama did ensue, the spelling problem I was complaining about did get resolved as a result, so thank you for that. Elinruby (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: you're welcome, the important thing is the end result; however, I apologise to you. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Neither expected nor required; I may have expressed some annoyance at the time is all, But seriously, well-done. Elinruby (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: I'm very satisfied, thank you! JacktheBrown (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

So did anyone ever tell you to take your strange questions to the Reference Desk? They like strange questions there, and they once even took a heroic shot at "what's the word on the tip of my tongue?" so it's worth a shot. As far as the rest of this goes, maybe lay off a bit on the espresso? I dunno. Hope these suggestions help. Elinruby (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: I think, and hope, that I will definitely stop asking questions, even important ones, except in the article discussion pages. JacktheBrown (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I would hate to think that the thing to do is not ask the important questions. Are the ingredients of cannoli an important question? Elinruby (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: it would be better to tagliare la testa al toro (Italian way of saying) and exclude any type of question, except in the article discussion pages. JacktheBrown (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I think think that is the wrong takeaway. Why did you wikilink "Italian" there? Did you wonder whether you should do that? Do you know how to look that up? See, sometimes questions are important. By the way, you didn't answer mine. Did anyone ever suggest asking questions at the Reference Desk? Elinruby (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: let's continue the discussion in my discussion page, the response space is really narrowing too much. JacktheBrown (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Y probably also annoying some watchlists. We can do that. But I think the question about the reference desk might be important; could you please answer it? Elinruby (talk) 00:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: if I remember correctly it was recommended to me, yes, once or twice. JacktheBrown (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

so why didn't you do that? Elinruby (talk) 01:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: I did it for references, two or three times. JacktheBrown (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I really, really don't think redirecting Jack's questions to another venue is going to resolve any issues, and RD is not going to be appropriate for all the wiki-specific ones anyway. We shouldn't be encouraging these kinds of questions at all. JoelleJay (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Well either he is supposed to ask questions at the help desk or he is not. I take no position on the matter since I don't answer questions at either board. (well, rarely, at the Reference Desk, if something comes up like Vichy or medieval Church law or the like.) But I think right now his impression is that he is "not" supposed to ask questions anywhere and I can't say I blame him. But that way lies a CIR for sure. I told him (at his user page) to find and read the Manual of Style with particular attention to what it says about the dialects of English, because the editor talking about cookie vs. biscuit has a point. And to find a large and active project if he wants to discuss stuff. Dude needs a Wikiproject: Italian food but there isn't one. If any of what I said was wrong then please let me know and I will tell him so, or just talk to him yourself. I am not certain whether he listened to me or whether I did any good, sure. That was me trying.

But at least now he knows that the Reference Desk isn't just for references. And that there are places to look stuff up. I suspect he has been told both those things before, so I take no position on what should be done here; depends on how often, maybe. But I really hate to see someone conclude that the way to flourish at Wikipedia is not to ask questions. Usually most people have to be told most things more than once, and I haven't really been tracking how many times it takes with him. But I looked at the list of Italian foods, and he was told there to only include "encyclopedic" foods. English is my mother tongue, but I'd be confused by that too. (But by the way that list should be broken up into sublists or something) Elinruby (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

No one would be complaining if the questions he asked were generally reasonable. Even if they weren't reasonable I doubt there'd be as much of a problem if they weren't very frequently just different shades of the same question, or if the answer wasn't so often "SOFIXIT" or "go to the talk page". Jack has suggested in the past that he struggles to control his compulsion to ask questions. Since the current HD/TH restriction was placed, he's been very good about limiting his questions there. Giving him a new place to indulge in that behavior just seems like an invitation for an indef down the road. JoelleJay (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I am definitely in favor of JackkBrown being allowed to ask questions 'somewhere' (I have no opinion about the 'where'). That's what I and others had been asking for in December ANI thread and in his talk page when he started editing here. I get his constant questioning can be annoying and frustrating, but the alternative would be having JackkBrown being bold, piling up dozens of mistakes and creating a great deal of additional work to fix them (something we already experienced). How about setting a limit to the questions, eg. JackkBrown being allowed to ask questions just twice a week, so that he himself will be more selective between trivialities like cannoli ingredients and important questions? Or even better, finding a volunteer to serve as some sort of mentor/supervisor and be willing to answer his questions on their talk page? JackkBrown is sometimes problematic (eg. here) and his edits are sometimes unhelpful, but at this stage I don't see a situation requiring blocks or bans. Cavarrone 10:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

What I was having trouble understanding was why, if the helpdesk keeps sending him away, we want to limit his options on where he can ask questions. Most of the questions are on point. Elinruby (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Cavarrone: regarding the question limit, I'm already respecting the limit of 2 (maximum 3) per month (of course it concerns the month, so they could both be in the same week). JacktheBrown (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

He has already had a question limit, and his track record makes it very doubtful if anyone will have the time or energy to mentor him (unless you're offering). Looking increasingly intractable, unfortunately. Ingratis (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm worried about a WP:CIR block. Jack is clearly both enthusiastic and has niches in which his contributions would be invaluable. The trouble is getting him to those niches. Gentle redirection has not seemed to be effective. Perhaps the community could come up with a well-defined area (e.g., "Adding sources or sourced content to articles") and obtain a commitment from him to stick to such an area? We'd have to workshop it if others believe the idea has merit. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Like herding cats. I don't know if a set of TBANs would help make such a commitment more likely to stick - I doubt if it would otherwise, based on past history. Ingratis (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

We should treat young editors and those with special needs with kid gloves when possible. It's clear that they are trying despite not being aware of concerns raised in a combative atmosphere. Moxy🍁 19:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not unsympathetic, but am mindful of the extremely slow and disruptive progress of the measures regarding John*Pack*Lambert, and how long they dragged on. This did no-one any good, including JPL. Just a thought - perhaps you could express your concern in a practical way by, for example, offering to take on a mentoring role. Ingratis (talk) 07:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Massive edits by suspected sockpuppet Ip adress

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 already filed a sockpuppet investigation due to the size of the edits made by Special:Contributions/93.199.244.40. To ensure a quick response, I would like to file a complaint here. I would appreciate it if an admin could review the changes currently being made by this user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Göycen (talk • contribs) 09:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I just revert your vandlism. Most of these versions have already been accepted by administrators and even been accepted in talk pages of the articles, like in Pastirma. Your approach is awful. @KhndzorUtogh can check our edits and see who is right, now stop edit warring Göycen. 93.199.244.40 (talk) 10:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Abuse log of the user can be seen here. Göycen (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• The report is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2003:EA:4F00:0:0:0:0:0.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2024 (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:Jomadodgh possible block evasion

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

This user has made three edits so far to the pages Dodol, Bilqis Prasista and Ketoprak (dish). In all three cases, the edit summary was yama nene or a variation upon it.

User:Kumananah was blocked on 30 April 2024 and User:Its oke wae was blocked on 2 April 2024 both for making similar edits which used the same edit summaries. Other accounts have engaged in the same editing behaviour, particularly at the Bilqis Prasista article but I am listing the most recent diffs for expediency.

• Ketoprak (dish)

• Edit by Kumananah at 10:21, 21 March 2024
• Edit by Jomadodgh at 09:53, 20 June 2024

• Bilqis Prasista

• Edit by Its oke way at 15:01, 2 April 2024
• Edit by Jomadodgh at 09:54, 20 June 2024

• Dodol

• Edit by Jomadodgh at 09:56, 20 June 2024

Based on these edits, I think it is reasonable to assume that this is an attempt at evading a block and that these accounts are all sockpuppets of each other. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 10:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This should be reported at WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course it should have been, sorry. Will move it over to there shortly. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 13:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

sanitisation of page / heavy editing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Fischer

this page has recently been heavily edited and needs investigation. its been sanitised and is now inaccurate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.125.110.236 (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a clear an unambiguous conflict of interest here. The article subject has edited the article themselves and declared that they are the subject on the article talk page. I'm taking a look through the diffs and checking all of the edits were appropriate. At a glance, several edits need to be reverted. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 15:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

IP editor, please be aware of our stringent policy on biographies of living people. Gossip, speculation and innuendo are not permitted. I removed a BLP violation from the talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Adam Black, why did you restore the content sourced to Geni.com, a user generated genealogy record? Is that appropriate? It looks like original research to me. Cullen328 (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I restored the page back to before the COI editor started editing and then subsequently removed that portion. Unless I've missed a second use of that reference, I'll double check now. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 16:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe I've correctly removed that reference ([140]). I can't see any further use of Geni.com. I was going to now fully copyedit the article, verify the references, and make changes to comply with BLP policy as necessary but my partner has just arrived home early and I have to get started on dinner. I can finish doing so later this evening unless someone else wants to take a look at the article in the meantime. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 16:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Adam Black. I looks to me like IP editors are trying to portray this person in a negative light and she is trying to defend herself somewhat ineptly. Cullen328 (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Swam Hossain

• Swam Hossain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been persistently submitting poorly made drafts. They are about topics that already have articles and suffer from problems like poor sourcing, poor style/formatting and even blatantly false information. Draft:Huricihan Sultan is a particularly egregious example, which passes a fictional character from a historical TV series as a real historical figure. I have warned them (diff), but they have continued with resubmitting Draft:Nurbanu Sultan and Draft:Fatma Nur Sultan. I therefore believe that most of this user's editing history has constituted disruptive editing, and that they have not responded or changed after warnings, so they should be blocked. Air on White (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we generally penalize new editors for writing poorly made drafts. In fact, they are expected and Draft space is a place for editors to learn how to write better articles. I dare say that there are more poorly made drafts in Draft space than well made drafts or they wouldn't be in Draft space. Editors are given a lot of leeway here. Is there something problematic about the content that requires immediate admin attention? Honestly, Air on White, sometimes it seems like you go looking for problems to "solve" that aren't that serious. Granted I haven't examined all of these drafts but "poorly made drafts" is really not a problem. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a straw man, I am not suggesting a block for writing poorly made drafts. I am suggesting administrative action for repeatedly spamming AfC with bad drafts, including hoaxes, without showing signs of understanding why the drafts get declined. This user is just wasting reviewer time and shows no signs of communication. Their few mainspace contributions seem unproductive too. A combination of disruptive editing, lack of communication and incompetence after multiple warnings from different users is a sufficient reason to block. If you expect communication, improvement and awareness from this user, it just ain't happening. Air on White (talk) 03:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

User turned out to be a sock puppet and was blocked by Girth Summit. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

USER:LibStar is continually and incorrectly deleting content from Greystanes

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:LibStar is not editing or redistributing content, but instead, deleting factual content, multiple times now. I am doing my best to contribute to the Wiki project for my hometown, and have put alot of time doing the best job I can. The issue here is not citation but the deletion. For example, for "Notable People".

Instead of taking the facts of this page and updating the notable people's respective articles, does USER:LibStar instead believes that those articles need to form the basis of this article. Why is that? And if these other articles are incorrect (which they are)? Some articles say Sydney - AND, Greystanes is a suburb of Sydney!!!

Furthermore, Amanda_Farrugia - User:LibStar deleted from Greystanes stating "Notable residents: her article doesn't mention this suburb, rm under WP:BURDEN".... But her article clearly states that she's from Greystanes, and of Maltese descent too. You clearly are attacking and discriminating this article and it must stop.

This is not a good enough reason, to form the basis of the content deletion, especially when I can give you addresses and school photos and birthday parties of these notable people, who lived in this area. Your reason being "his/her article doesn't mention this suburb . Rm under WP:BURDEN" - You should update his/her article then, and stop being a WP:BURDEN on this article!

Also, I don't appreciate USER:LibStar's tone. Ownership is not being assumed, I have taken alot of time to edit this article and have done an incredible job here. And does USER:LibStar believe that have the right to come and just delete content that is correct, without researching before they delete? That is vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annamaria.dmrt (talk • contribs) 09:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

can you provide some diffs? It's not clear at all which articles you're talking about. Orange sticker (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Appears to be a content dispute. scope_creep^Talk 09:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

is it possible for you to please check and compare the history?

Notable people are being removed when they are from Greystanes.

The last edit for example:

[[Amanda Farrugia]] - User:LibStar deleted from Greystanes stating "Notable residents: her article doesn't mention this suburb, rm under WP:BURDEN".... But her article clearly states that she's from Greystanes, and of Maltese descent too.

He is removing people whose articles say they are from Sydney. Greystanes is in Sydney.

These articles might be wrong, and why should that be the basis of the facts in this article? Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

hey Scope Creep, there seems to be an error on the page, from a change you made. I don't want to touch it though, in case you are in the middle of something??? Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Really sloppy referencing without and incorrect page numbering. I've fixed what I can. scope_creep^Talk 10:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Annamaria.dmrt is a very very new editor. scope_creep^Talk 10:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I am now Scope Creep, and thank you for your help with this, but there is still an error. Your reference is showing on the frontend.

The grand mansion was demolished in 1946, but its gates still remain intact on Greystanes Road.ref"Cumberland Historical Timeline" (PDF). Cumberland City Council. p. 31.</ref> Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

new* Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I just fixed that reference up. was missing the opening <ref Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 10:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The very issue for why I posted this to begin with, [[user:theroadislong]]] goes and starts deleting notable people as well. I just don't get why content get's removed? Carissa Walford has content all over the net about being from Greystanes. Do I need to update people's bio's too? No thanks. But just cause other articles on Wiki are incorrect, does that mean we use them as the basis on the way moving forward, so that all future content remains incorrect?

I am happy to address the citations and delete what cannot be referenced. But the notable people should be researched by the one wanting to delete it, and then if it's found that the person is from Greystanes, the other article should be update. True?

Also, Greystanes IS Sydney. So if it says someone is from Sydney, that is actually impossible. Because Sydney is not a suburb. Greystanes is a suburb of Sydney, so why delete it, if someone's article says "Sydney". It doesn't make my notable people list incorrect. Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

You are getting close to being blocked, the onus is on the person adding the content to include the source. Theroadislong (talk) 10:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

being blocked? For what? More threats. I haven't said or done anything wrong to you, and instead of threatening, stop being aggressive and educate! We all contribute to Wiki, you are not an owner, but a contributor like myself.

All of my citations added for Notable People were removed by Scope Creep, because it's ridiculous and you know it. Show me an article where notable people are referenced? If your Wiki articles do not match my new content, then it is your responsibility if you like, to research that person and update and reference that specific article. Not delete proper and good content from my edits.

Have a think about it. Because you are not making much sense. Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 10:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

You are not being threatened, merely informed that your behaviour is such that you may receive a block from an administrator.

If you'd like to see an article where notable people are referenced visit Derry#Notable people. This is how all articles should look. All content on Wikipedia must be backed up by a reliable in-line citation, except patently obvious stuff (e.g. we wouldn't provide a reference for "the sky is blue"). Just because other editors have failed to provide references elsewhere does not excuse policy violations elsewhere. WP:VERIFY states Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 10:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

You are in violation of the three revert rule. I can see five reverts by you in the past hour alone. You must stop reverting other editors. I know it can be frustrating seeing your work reverted, but violating Wikipedia policy may lead to a partial block, where you can't edit specific pages, or a full block, where you can't edit at all, even if you weren't aware of the policy. However, I can see that your latest revert came after @Theroadislong issued you with a warning for edit warring.

My best advice would be, take a break from this article for now. Take the time to read some of Wikipedia's policies, particularly WP:VERIFY, WP:3RR and WP:MOS then come back to this article and make the changes in such a way that it is unlikely to be challenged by another editor. Theroadislong is correct above in saying that the onus is on you to provide an in-line citation for any content you add to an article. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 10:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok no worries, I actually didn't see my talk page, and only just saw it now.

I will provide citations on all notable people then.

Thanks to all for your time on this. I will sort it out.

Instead of deleting, can maybe next time, there be a Citation Needed added?

And also, Amanda Farrugia was deleted as a notable person, but her article clearly says she is from Greystanes. Which is what really frustrated me the most. Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, her article doesn't clearly say she is from Greystanes:

Farrugia was born and raised in the western suburbs of Sydney in New South Wales. Her parents are of Maltese descent and she attended Our Lady Queen of Peace Primary School, Greystanes.

It only mentions that she attended a primary school in Greystanes, not that she is from Greystanes. Attending a primary school in an area does not necessarily mean someone is from that area. For example, my close friend grew up in the Earnock area of their hometown but attended a primary school in Hillhouse.

I prefer to use cn tags and try to return after a few weeks to remove the content if it hasn't been sourced, but editors are free to remove unsourced content immediately. In fact, there is an unsourced statements drive going on right now in which the objective is to either provide sources for content tagged with citation needed tags or remove the unsourced statement entirely, so you may find that this month an unsourced statement with a tag is somewhat more likely to be removed. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 11:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Adam mate, understood. I have a job on my hands it seems!@Adam Black

I will sort all the citations out. Thanks for the clarification and for being nice and civil about it all, and sorry for ruffling some people's feathers. Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome and I wouldn't worry too much about ruffling feathers. We can all be guilty of it from time to time and as long as you follow Wikipedia policy going forward there shouldn't be any issues.

I haven't taken an in-depth look at your edits, but if any of the notable people you were trying to add are more historic then Trove can be an excellent source for pre-1950s coverage of Australians. There are several more recent newspapers and magazines on Trove as well, but there are over 1,800 digitised Australian publications dating from the early 19th century to roughly the mid-50's. If you need any help finding references, feel free to post a message on my talk page and I'll help out if I can. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 12:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

As an editor of 17 years experience and over 90,000 edits this is a hilarious ANI frankly, I've never been accused of vandalism before. The ANI has only focussed attention of the practices of Annamaria.dmrt as per WP:KETTLE. They clearly need to read WP:V, WP:OWN, WP:3RR and WP:BURDEN. I agree that of this aggressive ownership and failure to abide by Wikipedia policy by Annamaria.dmrt is getting them close to be being blocked. I'll let admins decide that. If an article says someone is from Sydney that does not automatically mean they are from Greystanes. All notable people must have a verified source that they actually lived in this suburb. Finally, Annamaria.dmrt would be best served by editing a broader range of articles to better understand how Wikipedia works. LibStar (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate this report was originally about you, but it does seem as though the user has accepted the advice and explanations given and they will hopefully be contributing in-line with Wikipedia policy from now on so I think it would be best just to let this matter lie, unless any further problematic behaviour occurs. I would definitely agree with your suggestion, however, editing a broader range of articles would I'm sure provide a better understanding of our policies and guidelines. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 18:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC) *reply moved here by 2804:F1...30:B3FD (talk) 02:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC) (original diff)

I thought you were just trying to make life hard and to just in some ways, prove a point User:LibStar. And cause I took you the wrong way, I got off on the wrong foot in the beginning by being abrupt in my feedback to you. I now fully understand the situation, and whilst it is really frustrating, and time consuming, I will get this article to the standard it needs. It makes life hard when you and User:Theroadislong still continue to delete details on the page, and dont' put a citation tag. Cause I want to do my best to have the opportunity to cite every notable person, but instead I need to compare revisions, to find who has been removed.

So, all in all, thank you everyone for your time. Sorry for false accusations against you LibStar when you were correct. My bad on that. And it's also annoying that facts can be lost forever, if they cannot be properly cited via online sources, I have alot of other info on the area and surrounding areas, that there are no online sources for. It is original content, like old colonial letters that have facts about the area in early settlement. And it hasn't been documented elsewhere before. It would have been good to contribute to Wikipedia with these facts, but I cannot cite them. This for me is a shock. Even people who are from Sydney, and from Greystanes, if it is not anywhere else online, well then, we cannot add it. I received a confirmation from Brad McGee yesterday on whatsapp, that I can add Greystanes to his personal article and to this Greystanes article. But again, how do i cite that.

Anyway, I will do my best to cite all i can, and what get's deleted, get's deleted.

Thanks again, sorry about all the fuss, especially to LibStar. Thanks for being really kind and civil about it all @Adam Black. Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I did a thorough Google search for the names I removed and nothing came up, sources do not have to be online but they do need to have been published. You cannot add Bradley McGee to the article without a source either, personal communication is NOT encouraged or useful, unless he can give you a suitable source. Theroadislong (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Theroadislong but you've removed Frank Cefai and Lawrence Dimech, who have numerous online sources, indicating that they are notable to the community. Does a person need to have a Wikipedia article dedicated to them, to be in the Notable People list? Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes otherwise they are not a "notable" person in Wikipedia terms. Theroadislong (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Adam Black, or someone else, are you able to confirm what @Theroadislong is saying here?

There are 2 notable people of the community, which have multiple sources online to cite, and according to Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, section "Lists of People", it has the following exceptions:

There are some common exceptions to the typical notability requirement:

• If the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. If a person in a list does not have a Wikipedia article about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to: a) establish their membership in the list's group; and b) establish their notability on either BLP1E or BIO1E.
• In a few cases, such as lists of people holding notable positions, the names of non-notable people may be included in a list that is largely made up of notable people, for the sake of completeness. Can these exceptions apply here? Is it really that bad to have 2 very notable people of the community, cited, in the notable list... without having an article on them? I think this is going abit too far to be fair. @LibStar is still deleting content after I have asked multiple times not to, in order to give me a chance to cite what needs to be cited. Like honestly, calm down mate, you're abit over the top.

Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

You have spent an extraordinary amount of time here complaining and attacking other users, if you have the sources please just present them here or on the article talk page. Theroadislong (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Theroadislong I don't see any attack/complaint, and I didn't spend an extraordinary amount of time. I simply made reference to an article where the rules are. Is that okay, or is that unusual for you?

1. I am asking for another opinion as you have stated that notable people, are only notable on Wikipedia, if they have an article. And I want to double check the exceptions to that.
2. I have asked if content can stop being deleted in order to give me a chance to check and cite everything. And I had to do that to deleted people, who many of which, were readded. But alot of people have been removed from the article now.

Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 07:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Annamaria.dmrt This is not the correct location for this discussion please take it to the article talk page and provide your reliable sources for including non notable people in the list. Theroadislong (talk) 07:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Theroadislong is correct, yes. A person does need to have a Wikipedia article or they need to meet the notability criteria set out in WP:NBIO and be eligible for an article to be listed in the notable people section. If you are certain that an individual meets Wikipedia's eligibility criteria, you may add them to the list as a red link but if challenged you should be able to demonstrate why they meet the criteria.

The WP:STANDALONE policy only applies to list article, such as List of prime ministers of Australia, List of Australian criminals and List of Indigenous Australian historical figures. It doesn't necessarily apply to lists within articles. When it says non-notable people can be included in lists for completeness, this is in the case of definitive lists rather than subjective ones like this. For example, the article for a university which has had multiple notable chancellors may list all of the university's chancellors for the sake of completeness.

I have purposefully not yet read the article (other than checking a few diffs), in an attempt to remain impartial and provide advice based entirely on policy rather than opinion. I cannot say whether any of the notable people listed belong there.

In order to give you more time to properly cite the content, I have copied the article to your sandbox (User:Annamaria.dmrt/sandbox) where you can edit it without worrying about other editors removing uncited contributions. Once you've got references for the content you want to add you can merge it into the article yourself or ask a more experienced editor for help doing so.

This thread is now quite off topic from what should be discussed at ANI and so I'd ask that an uninvolved editor closes this discussion. The original reason for this report has been dealt with and this conversation would be better continued elsewhere. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 09:32, 20 June 2024 (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.

Contested RfC Close

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 wish to challenge the June 18 closure for parts two and three of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Anti-Defamation League. The RSN RFC for was closed by User: ScottishFinnishRadish on Jun 18, 2024. The editor invited challenges to the close on ANI. Despite the June 18 closure of the entire RfC, and after an ANI discussion was started that focused on part one, about 14 new editors went to “part two” and left additional responses to the survey. Clearly, these new editors felt there was still merit in further discussion.

But others, such as me, obeyed the dictate to not participate and waited for the challenge at ANI to resolve. We can’t know how many others refrained from participating. This is particularly germane in my case because the ADL just asked me for advice as an unpaid consultant last night. I refrained from posting on the RfC. Starting a separate challenge to the close on parts 2 and 3 seemed premature given there was still a very active discussion of part 1. User: The Wordsmith closed the discussion on part one on June 20. Wordsmith then went to part two and left this message: “Close in progress: The Wordsmith is in the process of closing this discussion. Please do not contribute further to it; the result should be posted within a day or so.”

Simply disregarding survey responses after June 18 does not seem wise given some of these responses are substantive. But other editors have now been warned twice - by Wordsmith and Scottish - to stop participating. I also went ahead and just left a comment now that I know 14 others already disregarded the closure admonition I would like to propose that the RfC for parts two and three be reopened for discussion, and any decision postponed until substantive discussion of the survey concludes. BC1278 (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• This seems like an attempt to WP:Wikilawyer by an editor with a declared COI and should be disregarded. Closure of a discussion that has been open for 2 months is overdue, not premature. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• This statement is false: The RSN RFC for was closed by User: ScottishFinnishRadish on Jun 18, 2024. DanCherek (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  To clarify, I was just closing the out-of-place discussion on challenging the close of section 1. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• The RSN RFC for was closed by User: ScottishFinnishRadish on Jun 18, 2024: There seems to be some misunderstanding. ScottishFinnishRadish only closed the subthread discussing the closure of part 1. Other un-closed subthreads remained open after June 18, and The Wordsmith posted the notice boxes about in-progress closures for parts 2 and 3 on June 20. I don't think The Wordsmith has expressed any plans to disregard survey responses after June 18. I suppose don't know what would become of additional responses now that the closures are indicated to be in progress; the notices don't prohibit additional commenting, after all. I grant that I can't help but think that doing so seems like it'd be kind of impolite to The Wordsmith, who has committed to take on the time-consuming task of carefully reading the already very long threads, analyzing the arguments, and describing what the community's consensus is or isn't. Since all three parts had been have been open for comment from the Wikipedia community since April 7, and since this is building on other long discussions, it's hard to think that closure would be premature or that substantive discussion hasn't already taken place. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• A close review of discussions that haven't yet been closed... -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• I think this discussion should just be closed to avoid a WP:WASTEOFTIME. There is nothing to resolve as the RfC in question (Part 2 and 3) hasn't even been closed, as referenced above. The obvious suggestion would be to wait for the RfC to close before contesting, as there is otherwise no reason to contest the imminent closure of an overdue RfC because the subject has something to say. All I see is defamation of an admin, ie claiming they closed a contentious RfC when they didn't, as it still remains open. CNC (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Harassment from VPN

I came online to check my watchlist and get notified that 16 of my edits have been reverted. Each reversion is to an individual article, and all of the articles are then immediately restored to the status quo ante. The edits originate from different IPs in Lagos, Nigeria, that correspond to a VPN provider, Zenlayer Inc.

• 98.98.197.162 (4)
• 98.98.197.194 (6)
• 98.98.197.216 (5)

That's just today.

Yesterday, we had three from 98.98.197.196, and the day before I had one from 98.98.197.215. On Monday there was one from 98.98.197.168 and two from 98.98.197.163. Thus far, that makes 22 reversions and restorations, all originating from IPs from the same company.

This may or may not be connected to the Bluebird207 situation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1157#IP editor confessing to harassment on behalf of a registered user. In both situations, VPN-based IPs were involved.

Given that the person behind this is hopping IPs, please advise me on where/how I should attempt to notify them. I will notify Bluebird207's talk page as well. Imzadi 1979 → 22:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Add Contributions/174.206.169.95 to that list. Dave (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked 98.98.197.128/24 x 3 months. Moabdave has blocked 174.206.169.95 x 1 week. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I went with a shorter block as I wasn't 100% sure this was the same person. But it looks like they are the same person. I'll up my block to 3 months to match yours, unless someone objects. Dave (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Moabdave I based my block on the almost total lack of constructive editing within that range. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Boogi wu and their hoaxes

Though Boogi wu (talk · contribs) has been blocked and locked years ago, I found some of their hoaxes are still in the current article.
For example

1. Flags of the Holy Roman Empire, section of 14th century, the banner are still the one they added as "King of the Romans"
2. Church of Greece, the founder are still the one they changed as Dionysius the Areopagite (tradition)

Is there any sysop or common user who are familiar with history can reviewed their edits one by one? These hoaxes are scattered on Middle Age history. Or, where should I post this notice on? -Lemonaka 01:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

If you feel certain that you see hoax or false information in an, article, you are free to remove it yourself, no need to wait for an admin. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

You should notify WikiProject Middle Ages of this cleanup, where the notice should last at least 30 days instead of 3. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

That project is likely inactive, I wondered who may see this notice? -Lemonaka 01:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

User:GenevieveDEon

@GenevieveDEon has attempted to accuse me of targeting them, over a basic CTOPS notice for climate change.

Notice on their talk page about climate change and a climate-change protest being a contentious topic: [141]

GenevieveDEon nominated a climate change protest article for deletion (Vandalism of Stonehenge, a protest by Just Stop Oil). The nomination was perfectly acceptable and allowed. However, in the nomination, GenevieveDEon focused on the article creator (myself) of WP:OWN, over a false accusation that I did not want the scope to be expanded. As a note, the single comment I made on the talk page ([142]) was replying to Ad Orientem who questioned the notability of the article. I stated it seemed to pass LASTING, but we should reassess in a week to see if it passes LASTING and the 10-year test. Not once did I mention "scope", and yet, I was accused of doing so in the AfD nomination.

When confronted regarding the false accusation, GenevieveDEon gave some interesting answers, including more accusations. GenevieveDEon responded that I was targetting them by giving them their first CTOPICS notice for climate change. I gave it for a very appropriate reason, (and editor with just over 500 edits who started an AFD on a climate change protest). In that same response, it was also stated as clear as day by GenevieveDEon: "I also note that WeatherWriter tagged me with the 'climate change is a contentious subject' talk page template. This isn't about climate change. I have no interest in the purported subject matter of the protest (bolding my doing).

After this targeting accusation, I quickly alerted them that CTOPICS is just a required thing: "The tag on your talk page is a required thing per WP:CTOPICS. This was a protest related to climate change and as such, first-alert topics are given to editors in the field of articles regarding climate change. Nothing directed towards you." Despite that notice, GenevieveDEon continued pressing the matter and doubled down saying, "I regard it as rather targeted, because you didn't add the tag to the Vandalism of Stonehenge article itself when you created it, but only when you were tagging various places including my talk page, after I had made this nomination. And I'm not sure it's a sensible use of the contentious topics policy for you to create an unnecessary (and untagged) article about a very minor event somewhat connected with the contentious topic, and then start throwing around the template once someone challenges that creation."

After giving them a chance to strike their doubled down accusations, GenevieveDEon stood by their word saying, "No. It's about how you handled the marking of the article in question, and related pages, as being related to a contentious topic only when it served to criticise this deletion discussion. My comment stands."

This is a clear case of someone who doesn't understand CTOPICS and wants to personally attack people, even when it is stated that it is a required thing. GenevieveDEon just recently acquired their EC status (early June 2024 as far as I can tell), and they are editing heavily now in a contentious topic. Given they have directly stated a protest regarding climate change by Just Stop Oil is not related to climate change and that the standard CTOPICS notice was considered targeting to them, I believe they are not truly ready to edit in CTOPICS areas. My suggestion would be either a formal warning/alert that CTOPIC notifications are required and that a climate protest does indeed related to climate change (this is my preferred request) or if it is indeed felt by the community/others that GenevieveDEon is not ready for CTOPICS, that their EC status be revoked (I do not feel this is necessary). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

It's late here, and I'm not particularly interested in wikilawyering. If contentious topic flags are mandatory, and you knew that, why did you not put one on the article that you yourself had created, until after I had nominated it for deletion? This just looks like a way to interfere with the AfD process. I already said that on closer examination the removals of large blocks of other content were to do with other users' POV-pushing, so you needn't worry that I'm still concerned about WP:OWN issues. But this is a lot of verbiage about a very insignificant article, about a very insignificant event. Please back down and let the AfD run its course. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

ETA: The top of this page says "This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems." Which of those do you think my actions count as? GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, thank you for admitted that you are still accusing me of ownership (without providing a single Wikilink to my supposed ownership) over an article, which I myself supported to merge in the supposed AFD. Funny enough, after doing a count of direct comments in the AFD, you happen to have seven unique comments while I have five (three of which are in the coversation between myself and you) in the AFD). Now you have accused me of interfering in the AFD, OWNing the article, and accused me a POV-pushing. Lol. I want others to comment on your behavior, but I am tempted to switch my supported/proposed action away from a simple warning into more of a T-Ban. Please stop accusing me of things when I haven't done anything but follow the rules. You were not the only editor to receive a CTOPICS notice either. Several other editors did as well. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

thank you for admitted that you are still accusing me of ownership - no, that's the opposite of what I meant. By you needn't worry that I'm still concerned about WP:OWN issues I meant that I wasn't taking that line any more. I'd have done the same as you (and another editor) did with the additional content you removed. I also haven't said anything at all about you and POV-pushing; again, the mention of POV-pushing was in reference to the users who wanted to make the Vandalism of Stonehenge article into something to do with the road tunnel. But your level of aggression about this is wearisome. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I apologize, I misread what you put. You are correct, you seem to not be accusing me of anything anymore. Still sad it took opening a discussion at AN/I to get you to understand that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems like this is all talked out which is great. Weather Event Writer it looks like you are rather quick to escalate minor disputes into visits to noticeboards which can be unnecessary stressful for multiple parties and can be seen as a way of manipulating the understanding of how events unfold. I'd try talking more and don't expect editors to immediately understand the points you are trying to make. Most editors do not immediately warm to being corrected and you should expect some pushback. ANI should be your last resort, not a place you bring disputes that just haven't gone your way. And this is not casting aspersions I've just noticed that you have opened at least two cases here this week. Believe me, it's not a great thing to be seen as an ANI regular. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey Liz, if I may ask a question, what should I have done differently in these type of situations? Talking it out didn't really happen until it was started at AN/I (as seen in the timestamps). To use this as an example, GenevieveDEon stood their ground, even after being linked to correct policy. Once it was brought here, GenevieveDEon talked it out. In those sitations, instead of coming to AN/I, where is the best place to do to get the "talking it out" to occur, if initial talks don't go anywhere and result in more escalation? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk Page Access Needs Reviewing: Ironcurtain2

After being blocked for WP:NOTHERE and a declined request for an unblock [143], Ironcurtain2 has used their talk page mainly to go on screeds about administrator corruption [144]and to continue insulting Valjean [145]. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, in the interest of full disclosure, please note that I had a very brief communication with this editor, in that I earlier suggested to the editor that it would be a good idea to remove a particularly bad edit they had made to their talk page, so I am not completely uninvolved [146]. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The talk page is turning into a regular clusterf##k of content unrelated to appealing the indef block. Please clear the excess and lock the page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Looking now EvergreenFir (talk) 05:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

It is my impression that all the teapots have stopped whistling and that Ironcurtain2 has had their say. I see no need to block talk page access (yet). That said, it wouldn't take much more for me to support such a block. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Publius Obsequium disruption

Publius Obsequium (talk · contribs)

Publius Obsequium has been active since June 2024 adding unreliable content to many articles including Life satisfaction, Hypnotherapy, Gender dysphoria, Sex differences in intelligence, Flynn effect, ‎Joseph of Cupertino, Driving while black, Intelligence (journal), race and genetics and others which is soaking up other users time by having to clean up after them. Often this user will either add fringe or primary sources to articles that fail WP:MEDRS or WP:NPOV. At first they started restoring their deleted content but now they simply ignore any advice they were given and go and find a new target article and add in more unreliable content. After their content is removed then they just move on to another article and do the same again. This has been going on now for nearly 3 weeks.

If you scan through their edits since early June almost every edit they have made has been reverted in mainspace. There is a consistent pattern of disruption here and I am surprised they have not been blocked before now. At least 5 users have explained them where they are going wrong, but they do not listen to said advice. Examples of warnings can be seen on their talk-page [147] [148] which they have not properly acknowledged.

I first encountered this user on the Joseph of Cupertino article where they were adding unreliable content which several users took issue with. The user has made it clear that they believe fringe science is a subjective opinion so they ignore WP:Fringe guidelines. This user only seems to want to edit controversial or fringe related articles related to race and intelligence, gender or fringe and alternative medicine.

If all this was just happening on 1 or 2 articles and they moved on and admitted to their mistakes it could be excused but it has been going on for far too long now. I am not convinced the editor has been acting in good faith. I believe that a topic ban on fringe related content would be appropriate here.

Just a few examples where they have added fringe/unreliable/undue content [149], [150], [151], [152], [153] Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I have earnestly and in good faith been trying to learn how things work as I have not been active for a long time. I have shifted my edits on sources to include secondary work as has been recommended to me. Not all messages to me have been addressed but that is simply because I have forgotten to respond, as I have multiple people trying to talk to me.

psychologist guy has not interacted with me previously beyond a couple of edit reversions, and now wants to escalate things to a topic ban. Fine, it appears I need to learn more about Wikipedia conduct before touching controversial topics. I do not wish to cause anyone frustration. Publius Obsequium (talk) 02:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

PO is formally aware of gender/sexuality and race/intelligence contentious topics, and their disruption in both is TBAN-worthy. If they are willing to take on a TBAN from both of those and fringe-related content, I'd be happy to see how they fare in less controversial spaces. The reverting without explanation needs to stop. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

i would rather just voluntarily desist from editing in any controversial topics. I think it should be noted that I did see the warning on my talk page about these topics being controversial and I avoided making further edits to them subsequently. Publius Obsequium (talk) 03:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Since the contentious topic notices on 11 June, you've made edits/comments related to multiple gender/sexuality topics (e.g., Gender dysphoria, Kenneth Zucker, Susan Coates, David Reimer) and race/intelligence topics (Nations and IQ, Flynn effect). I think the fact that you're so incorrect here is a sign that formal topic bans, and not voluntary restrictions, are necessary. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect I did not make any edits to Nations and IQ. The Flynn effect is not a topic I would consider as falling under the umbrella of controversial. I think the only one that would be considered controversial is gender dysphoria, and yes I recognize that I should have seen that as being too controversial to jump into the fray on and I apologize for that. Publius Obsequium (talk) 03:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Firefangledfeathers that voluntary restrictions are not enough — they rarely are. Publius Obsequium should not be the one to determine what topics or articles are controversial and then to avoid only those, as they attempt to do above ("The Flynn effect is not a topic I would consider as falling under the umbrella of controversial"). I support formal t-bans from gender/sexuality, race/intelligence, and pseudoscience ("fringe-related content", as Feathers calls it). As far as gender/sexuality and race/intelligence, it's not necessary to await a community consensus here, since PO was formally alerted to them as contentious topics on June 11. Firefangledfeathers, you know you can set those two tbans on your own authority as an uninvolved admin, right? I'd recommend it. Bishonen | tålk 10:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC).

Sorry Bish, I'm hopelessly involved here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, Feathers, I didn't understand that. Well, I invited you to do it more as a courtesy, because you were the first admin to comment; I'm certainly not involved, and can just as well do it myself. Done. Publius Obsequium has been indefinitely topic banned from gender/sexuality and race/intelligence. Bishonen | tålk 12:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC).

The 'Zilla was released... and bright colours returned to the world  :) ——Serial Number 54129 14:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Publius Obsequium has blanked their talk-page within half an hour of receiving notice of the the topic ban [154]. Obviously it is their talk-page and they can do what they want but this type of behaviour is just odd. Thanks for the help from admins. This issue has been resolved for now. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Not odd at all. Others will assume that, having just been twice TBanned, they wish to draw a line under events and make a fresh start and new memories. ——Serial Number 54129 14:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Tendentious editor on Sonny Liston

TheManTheyCallAdam is engaged in slow-walking reverts of content against guidelines, in this case MOS:THENICKNAME. At an earlier point, I and this editor discussed this matter, although they expressed that their view of how the English language works means that Sonny Liston's nickname "the Big Bear" must have have 'The' capitalized. On their talk page and in the article's talk, I showed them the guideline that shows 'The' is not to be capitalized. It is in the middle of a sentence as well.

I realize that the specific matter at hand is very minor, that it's just the casing of a word. But the problem as I see it is TheManTheyCallAdam is acting as someone who 1) pushes their opinion over that of the wiki guideline, with no acknowledgement there even is a guideline that covers it; 2) uses a slow-walking WP:TENDENTIOUS editing approach to ensure their opinion wins; and 3) based on their editing pattern, mostly focused on this matter, they aren't really here to build an encyclopedia. Most of what they're "doing" is waiting to change it back again.

I considered treating this as a content dispute and going through other channels first, but I have come to look at this as straight-up problematic editor behavior, disruptive in nature, with an apparent unwillingness to accept that the Wikipedia is written with guidelines in mind. New editors who so openly refuse our guidelines at least need to be reminded that we take them seriously, and that willy-nilly changing something to be their way is disruptive, if not unsavory behavior. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 02:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Both of you have been engaged in an editing war since at least April. It also appears that you have been watching the page since around last year.  Augu  Maugu ♨ 04:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

That could well be the appearance at a superficial level but I have tried to explain my edit and the other party stopped trying to, and is simply reverting me. Also, let's review that my position is based on the MoS. The bottom line is the other party is required to discuss if they disagree. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 04:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not this is edit warring (WP:3RR doesn't appear to apply), if you or anyone would like to lay out a solution, I would like to consider it (why I'm here). I am not interested in having a conflict. I just would like the other editor to understand we have guidelines here, and move on to other articles to work on if they so choose. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 04:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I completely understand and have looked at the matter a little more closely. Given the typical options, I would imagine the kindest conclusion would be for an independent admin to give a warning and block if it occurs again..

Well thats what I thought until i found this: User:TheManTheyCallGaryColemanFan. I could be wrong, but this user appears to be evading a block from 2009.  Augu  Maugu ♨ 05:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I’m on mobile (desktop view) so it’s difficult for me to request for a checkuser. Also, given that the accounts were made 14 years apart its possible ISPs wouldn’t match anyways.  Augu  Maugu ♨ 05:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Give me a bit to review that case to confirm what you're laying out, and if I see the same problem, I will make a request. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 05:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I have reviewed this. Beyond the username being similar to the suspected sockpuppet and there being an apparent shared subject interest, I don't see hard evidence connecting them, and it has been seven years since the last sock in this case has appeared, with the long-term case closed with "Long-gone LTA". Of course, there could be something I'm not seeing. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 06:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I will strike my comment then as I am not here to cast aspersions.  Augu  Maugu ♨ 06:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for helping here. If the issue is limited to what I stated above, I am fine with a warning or at least an informational reminder about the MoS and ensuring they understand to consider the other party's views in a discussion. If it's more than that, and is a block evasion, that would of course merit something stronger. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 05:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Per the "watching" part, I have watched it for the usual reasons for watching, and has nothing to do with this matter. I watch because I am interested in subjects related to Muhammad Ali and there have been problematic edits to review over this period of time. Just thought I would respond to that element. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 04:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

What's funny is that this is far from being the worst issue in the article, where the back and forth on the subject's birth date sometimes is problematic, to put it mildly. I am going to resolve this by no longer watching or working on the article. Sometimes in life, you have to let things go, especially when they eat into your productivity and sanity. That I'm not getting support on this smaller matter tends to make such a choice the wise one. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 19:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

He has blatantly ignored this ANI as can bee seen here and has continued to war, i support an indef. I think the point was proven by this that he is WP:NOTHERE, as sad as that is.  Augu  Maugu ♨ 10:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe that is the edit that was the last straw for me that led to this report. But there's no question he ceased discussing this and has ignored this ANI. His recent contributions show he has given up on wiki productivity just to lie in wait to recap a word that shouldn't be capped, when experienced, serious editors would acknowledge the guideline involved and move on (or in rare cases, challenge the guideline). This is all really just a fancy way of saying this editor is intentionally being a pest via tendentious editing. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Trolling vandalism

Rantoodle seems to be a purely vandalism and trolling account. They received multiple warnings earlier this month for their vandalism and practically all article edits they've made have been reverted. Then they just made this bigoted talk page comment. Very clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE. Silverseren^C 03:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

As I responded on my talk page, you’ll see that I haven’t made any edits of the kind that other people expressed concerns about. I’m honestly confused as to what was wrong with the edit request I made, too. I’m not understanding how it was bigoted but I’m open to being corrected if perhaps I don’t understand something. Rantoodle (talk) 03:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

If you don't understand why that comment was (Redacted) inappropriate, frankly I don't know how we can help you. I am not going to repeat it here and advise you to refrain from doing so also as it was wholly inappropriate. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 03:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Edit: redacted and replaced part of my comment, mindful of WP:NPA. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 03:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted the linked comment and warned the user (not that it's likely to make much difference). Together with adding the word niggardly to the article Gravity Falls (diff) and then claiming they didn't (diff), I agree this is clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 03:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

And they've reinstated said talk page comment again. Silverseren^C 03:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I had a legitimate request. Other editors are welcome to disagree and decline. I also did have a salient comment about another topic of discussion (which I added as well). Rantoodle (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

What's happening here is POV pushing at best but quite obvious they are making a statement, not to actually improve an article, but to cause a ruckus. I agree their behavior here is not welcome. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 03:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

And I'll note that I personally find their statement to be (Redacted) intended to arouse vitriol via inappropriate, obviously unobjective language. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 03:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, I would appreciate an explanation of how my request was perceived to be bigoted. Nowhere did I make any derogatory remark? Rantoodle (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe you know that the statement is (Redacted) intended to arouse vitriol via inappropriate, obviously unobjective language. Don't play this here. (Redacted) Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 03:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Silver seren, @StefenTower I've redacted that particular word from my own comment above, realising it probably falls foul of WP:NPA, and you may also wish to do so yourselves. I completely agree the comment was objectionable but we should all observe policy. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 03:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I have revised my statements. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 03:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

“Intended to arouse vitriol”? Excuse me, that in itself is an objectionable accusation. Im being called a vandal and said to be intending to arouse vitriol just for asking a question anyone can simply say “no” to and explain why not? Im sorry but this is quite hostile and I would appreciate an apology. I haven’t once been uncivil to you. Rantoodle (talk) 04:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Your question is reasonably seen to be uncivil and I believe you know it is. I am done here. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 04:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

And how could my question “arouse vitriol”? I’m seriously confused here. Please help me understand why it seems I am being ganged up on. Rantoodle (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

You are not confused. Again, don't play us here. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 04:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

In response to this, and your latest edit summary Please simply engage in discussion and refrain from making unfounded accusations that I am acting in bad faith (I am not), I am willing to believe you may not have been acting in bad faith when you first posed the question. However, at least four editors (including another on your talk page) have told you that this was not appropriate and the chances of anyone assuming good faith with you are getting very slim. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 04:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I would just like to discuss this and get to the bottom of what you are all perceiving as objectionable and why, so I can understand it and avoid it in the future. It doesn’t have to be here, it can be on the article talk page and I would in fact prefer that to this noticeboard. Rantoodle (talk) 04:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not believe you genuinely can't understand what is objectionable, but on the off-chance you genuinely don't, please see MOS:GENDERID. This policy is concerned with article content rather than comments on talk pages but should go some way to explaining why we object. WP:NQP is an essay, not an official policy or guideline, but it may also help your understanding. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 04:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

This is an LTA with a familiar pattern of editing. Indeffed. DanCherek (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I noticed things they further said on their talk page before they were reverted and their talk page edit privileges zapped. There is no mistaking this user's malevolence and intention to inject a POV into wiki content. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Persistent changing of talk page comments and possible conflict of interest

This is regards to the users VikAl239[155], Dennis1986Savanah[156] and SigNbol[157]. I'm certain all three of these editors are the same person as the only edits they've ever made were on the article of actress Charlene Amoia and on the talk page[158]. I've mentioned that they're some contradictions regarding this actresses' DOB. However all three of these editors have either removed my comment[159][160][161] or edited it[162][163]. Even after they were asked to stop doing so.

The Dennis editor in particular claims that they want the comment removed for safety measures. Seeing as how it's just the talk page, I really don't understand why there would be any safety concerns. They also claim that they are the subject.[164]. I pinged the last couple of other editors that had been reverting those edits asking to stop removing talk page comments to see if a consensus on what to do can be made as this may be WP:COI. But neither of them have posted. Kcj5062 (talk) 09:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

If you're claiming that they are sockpuppets you really should take it to WP:SPI and provide appropriate evidence. TarnishedPath^talk 11:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

That's not necessarily a needed step in this instance (although it is still a good pro forma step, which could easily have been what you meant). There's a pretty strong WP:DUCK argument to be made here, based on the egregious and repeated violations of the most basic precept of TPG--outside of certain highly circumscribed contexts (none of which apply here), one is never allowed to delete another user's talk space comments--let alone edit them to say something different from what the signed editor actually posted. Very few even absolutely new editors will repeatedly violate this principle unless they are an outright troll/bad actor. That and other factors here to support the OP's read that these are socks, beyond much doubt.

Further, even if these weren't fairly certain socks, each account is clearly operating in a disruptive fashion and could be blocked on WP:disruptive/WP:CIR grounds alone. In short, I think an admin is likely to action this as socking on behavioural evidence alone (and/or disruption), without the need for a CU. The only reason to take the matter to SPI is to log the farm for potential future reference, and because it will put admin eyes on the issue from multiple directions and thus potentially increase the speed at which the accounts are blocked, slightly. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

BLP applies to all pages, including user pages and talk pages, not just articles. You acknowledge in your comment that the information you are discussing is a potential problem re:BLPPRIVACY, and if you are correct about that, these users are correct (actually, they are compelled) to remove the violative material. However, you may be right about the SPI issue, so you should follow @TarnishedPath's advice. Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring, BLP coatrack and POV issues: Harold the Sheep

Harold the Sheep (talk · contribs)

At Steven Hassan, this user has been edit warring (breaching 3rr [165][166][167][168]) to include opinions about the general topic of 'cults' in the article. They added it to the article a few months ago alongside some salient content.[169] This was raised previously as a POV issue by another editor.[170] Harold the Sheep then edit warred to keep even the maintenance tag off the article[171][172].

This is a problematic ownership issue, with the article being used as a coatrack for the views of academics in a different field about the general topic of 'cults' and the use of the word 'cults'. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

You should perhaps have also mentioned the discussion here which, to my mind at least, resolved the previous issue. However, I'm happy to continue the discussion on the talk page of the article. Harold the Sheep (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion to which you link was over the same issue. There is no resolution in that topic: you simply stopped responding. To you that (combined with edit warring the maintenance tag) resolved the issue? Behaviour like that is why we ended up here. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Cambial, can you explain why this issue can't be resolved via WP:RfC or another one our general dispute resolution processes? Other than the brief edit warring (to which you contributed more or less equally), this looks entirely like a garden variety content dispute at the moment. I've reviewed the talk page and most recent archive and found a slight (and I mean very slight) tinge of battleground tone in some of HTS' responses. But ANI is for serious, intractable behavioural issues; it should not be your first stop immediately after entering into a conflict over content and before you've attempted any discussion or process to resolve the matter or form consensus. It seems you waited about three quarters of an hour after making your first talk page comment before you made this filing. Given that Harold seems to have been heavily involved on that talk page for some time, don't you think it would have been more pro forma and potentially productive to have waited for a response there before escalating the matter here?

Please try discussion, and if neither of you succeeds in affecting a change of perspective on the other, and a middle ground solution does not seem viable or appropriate, then seek additional community perspectives on the content issue to achieve a consensus--including via RfC if necessary. In my opinion, your diffs do not come close to establishing strong evidence of an ownership issue under the relevant policy, so please WP:AGF for the time being and pursue the normal dispute resolution process. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: I just now came across this discussion. I am the "other editor" who added the {{POV}} tag on the Steven Hassan article in November 2023 with the edit summary "Recent additions use generalized anti-deprogramming rhetoric to color and frame this article, not specific to this BLP subject". This was after a long series of dozens of edits by Harold the Sheep (current Who Wrote That? tool shows HaroldTS had authored over 1/3rd the article content as of that day). At the same time, I posted my reasons on the talk page (Talk:Steven Hassan/Archive 3 § POV issues), and the following day I posted Talk:Steven Hassan/Archive 3 § COI. Though I engaged in discussion with HaroldTS, I don't feel there was any resolution. I found HaroldTS rude, insulting and uncollaborative. Eventually I quit engaging with the user and unwatchlisted the article.

Last year didn't involve Cambial Yellowing, but it's the same issue CY brings up this week—HaroldTS adding generalized cult-topic information not specifically related to a BLP, and using a BLP as a coatrack for POV-pushing. Looking back on the prior month (Oct'23) when I had first tussled with HaroldTS at Talk:New Cult Awareness Network § Notes re Foundation for Religious Freedom, it seems clear he has been obsessively focused on presenting negative content about deprogramming and anyone who had ever been involved in it (despite common practice ending around 3 decades ago), and has been less interested in discussing content of the article subject or focusing his edits on the article subjects. Just my two cents, for what it's worth.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It's surprizing how thin-skinned you are about this. Both you and Cambial seem to be pretty assertive and uncompromising editors, at least in your approach to talk pages, edit summaries and ANI reports, but faced with a bit of pushback you're suddenly the victims of an insulting, uncollaborative, obsessively-focused, bludgeoning, article-owning, edit-warring, coat-racking monster who has personally attacked you in egregious fashion and maybe even slept with your wife. The discussion at Talk:New Cult Awareness Network just seems like a robust discussion to me. What exactly are you complaining about? And the only pertinent edit I made to the article actually supported your initial thesis on the talk page. On the Steven Hassan page, the repeated assertion was that the recently added material was general anti-deprogramming criticism that did not specifically address Hassan. That was false, and passages from the sources, which were clearly specifically focused on Hassan, were provided. There was no response from you at all to that. A "yes that is specific to Hassan" or a "no that is not specific to Hassan", or perhaps a "well, on the face of it, I can't deny that they are directly addressing Hassan, but it must be some other Hassan" might at least have given me a basis for continuing the discussion. Harold the Sheep (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

suddenly the victims of an insulting, uncollaborative, obsessively-focused, bludgeoning, article-owning, edit-warring, coat-racking monster who has personally attacked you in egregious fashion and maybe even slept with your wife What a bizarre response – the misjudged sarcastic hyperbole reads like someone playing the victim. Your "everyone else is the problem" attitude explains your (not unanticipated) failure to participate at article talk. The passages of anti-deprogramming/cult-apologist rhetoric are not about any individual, neither clearly specifically nor obscurely, which is precisely the problem. That's why three different editors have sought to trim or otherwise address the off-topic content you arbitrarily added to the page. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

"insulting", "uncollaborative", "obsessively-focused", "bludgeoning", "article-owning", "edit-warring", "coat-racking" were all terms used by you or Grorp in your edit summaries or comments here; the rest was just a bit of humour. The content removed by Parakanyaa was not originally added by me, I just altered it so that it actually conformed to the source. As it happens, I more or less agree with Parakanyaa's reason for removal. Harold the Sheep (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

HaroldTS: Your show of incivility is astonishing with you starting right off with it's surprizing how thin-skinned you are, since this thread is discussing you, not me. Likewise, there is no reason to lump me together with Cambial. It doesn't require lengthy discussion threads to conclude that someone will never budge with polite logical discourse. After I tried that and received a few insults in return, I had you pegged. It would have been better for the project had we resolved the issues last year, but instead I decided those articles weren't worth the hassle and I walked away. I'm not one bit surprised that another editor has independently encountered the same problems with your work and attitude. No one called me or tagged me to join this thread; I was browsing ANI and instantly recognized your username... that's how much of an impression you made on me last year. I get involved in a lot of talk page discussions over many topics and I rarely remember someone else's username, but I did yours.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Harold, for what the observation of an un-involved party is worth, I too see incidents where your comments have reflected excessive antagonism to opposing view points, and have even come off as attempts to gatekeep discussion on the talk page (as when you classified one of Grorp's posts as a "dumping ground" for unrelated observations, even though his comments were not really any more voluminous than your own and were pretty well focused on the subject at hand, to my eye). To be fair, those complaints are largely stale, as they concern your interactions with Grorp six months ago more so than your current dispute with Cambial.

Now, as regards both you and Cambial, I think you both are starting to drift towards needlessly personalizing the dispute with discussion here at ANI, but I don't see much in the recent talk page discussions (or the edit summaries of the revision history for the article itself) that I would call WP:disruptive. Again, I am completely mystified as an outside observer as to why this discussion is continuing along personal lines here and still no one has made the least effort to pursue the typical and appropriate content dispute resolution methodologies on the actual article talk page.

As of your most recent post on the talk page today, it seems you are prepared to accede to consensus on at least some of the disputed content. If that proves to be the resolution to the dispute, all well and good--nothing more need be said. But if you still plan to dispute elements of the content in question, it is well past time to bring in outside community input to break the deadlock and form a firm consensus. If I am honest, as of the most recent thread, there is arguably already a small but uniform consensus against your read. But to the extent the issue can be said to still be unresolved, you (and Cambial) need to start applying our standard dispute resolution processes, and quite it with this personalized back-biting here which is accomplishing nothing but wasting community time.

Now, in the spirit of fairness, Cambial Yellowing, while I understand some of your frustrations, I would also describe your behaviour as at least a little suboptimal, and in more or less similar ways to Harold's. You made virtually no effort to resolve this issue (on the talk page or elsewhere) before escalating the matter to ANI; your talk page contributions up until that point involved one post, less than an hour before you made this filing (well before a reasonable amount of time for a response from Harold had elapsed). Your own tone here has been as combative and uncharitable towards Harold as his is to you, and your over-simplified framing of the issue (suggesting that all of the concerns that arise out of ethical questions surrounding deprogramming practices and the moral panic in which they arose can be laid at the feet of "cult apologists) raises questions about your own neutrality and perspective on the editorial question--not the least because it takes focus away from the actual WP:WEIGHT test that ought to be controlling of the open editorial questions.

In short, there has been a spectacular amount of failure to WP:AGF on all sides here. More to the point, there seems to be a basic lack of comportment with the processes available to the disputants to resolve this issue well before it needed to come anywhere near ANI. Bluntly, this is not rocket science: WP:RFC this matter. If you all instead continue to just attack one-another here and consume community attention without availing yourself of a simple process that could resolve the content matter conclusively, I for one am going to start viewing this as a WP:CIR issue for both camps, and will happily support a page ban for at least two of the parties here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I reject the notion that the sentence "The passages of anti-deprogramming/cult-apologist rhetoric are not about any individual, neither clearly specifically nor obscurely, which is precisely the problem." – which is about the sourcing and content not being about the article subject, and is the only mention I make of the phrase ‘cult apologists’ – suggests "that all of the concerns that arise out of ethical questions surrounding deprogramming practices and the moral panic in which they arose can be laid at the feet of "cult apologists"". This is a massive extrapolation into views I do not share. I will take your other comments on board. Cambial — foliar❧ 05:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. While we're on the subject of specific sources, I think part of the problem here is that the sources in dispute (and their precise and relevant content being referenced) are not well-summarized on the talk page: there was some discussion during HotS's original talk page disagreement with Grorp about doing that. And subsequent comments by Harold suggest he feels that was substantially accomplished. But in neither the archived discussion nor the current live talk page do I see that, despite the fact that so much turns on the question of how directly the sources were discussing the article's subject when criticizing certain elements of the historical deprogrammer movement. That didn't matter very much too me, insofar as I wasn't looking to provide an opinion on the content issue. But if I was, I must say I would be very much on the fence between the perspectives of the two "sides" here.

All of which is to say, if the dispute does continue, and an RfC remains necessary, it might be worth it for someone to present the relevant quotes from the involved sources at length. I think it will greatly benefit the follow-up discussion if RfC respondents have that to work with from the start, rather than having to disentangle the multiple previous threads to identify (and then independently find) the relevant sources. Just a suggestion, mind you--it's not incumbent upon anyone to do that. But I think it would help cut through the noise, moving forward. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The dispute won't continue, I'll withdraw from the article. Thanks for your comments. Harold the Sheep (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks by user:2605:B100:1130:ACA7:D79:21D0:86FD:8A6C

Despite multiple warnings, both on their talk page, within others' edit summaries, etc. this user has continued to accuse others of inappropriate conduct, using slurs and fighting language, instead of civilly taking their dispute to the article's talk page.

See: Canadaland, revs. 1230406270 1230405367 1230405018

See: User talk:Smallangryplanet, rev. 1230406345

All of their replies at User talk:2605:B100:1130:ACA7:D79:21D0:86FD:8A6C

Thanks. Staraction (talk | contribs) 14:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

/64 blocked for 48 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Staraction (talk | contribs) 17:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Evru200 adding unsourced content

I've tried to engage USER:Evru200 on their talk page [173] about not adding unsourced content to pages and adhering to NPOV reporting of election results, but their behavior persists. The opposing team wins in "a mild upset"[174] while next time around the home team wins "in a landslide"[175] although there's no RS that uses there terms to describe the results. They have also been admonished to follow the WP:MOS, but they continue to make edits like this [176]. BBQboffin^{grill me} 23:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Yikes. Just a brief review of their edits shows that, in addition to the NPOV issues, their changes introduce all sorts of grammatical and mechanical errors--random capitalizations, sentence fragments, etc. Grandpallama (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Links: Evru200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Northern Moonlight 02:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

So...I don't see anyone trying to get their attention, so what happens next? BBQboffin^{grill me} 03:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

They keep doing it, and with a blank edit summary.[177] BBQboffin^{grill me} 01:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

This sounds more appropriate for WP:AIV. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Death threats by 45.76.65.17

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.

---

45.76.65.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) made death threats diff here Adakiko (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked by Smalljim (talk · contribs) Adakiko (talk) 09:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:EMERGENCY for future reference. High traffic noticeboards such as this one should not be used for reports of this kind. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 11:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

For this kind of thing the emergency email might be an overreaction, and it's correct to post here. For a threat of self-harm, sure, or something beyond aggressive insults, sure, but this was just vandalism with a garnish of threat. Acroterion (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It's better to be safe, I would advise always contacting T&S, or at the very least OS when you see a threat. They can decide from there. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 16:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

While I can't see the diff now, if there was any threat of physical harm whatsoever, I'm on Matrix's side. WP:EMERGENCY says Many threats are empty, but leave that evaluation to Wikimedia Foundation staff. GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 17:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Paraphasing "do that again and I'll kill you, you trump-supporting...". It's not an emergency IMO, just abusive. Secretlondon (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2024 (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.

Editors removing formatted citations for bare URL citations

This seems to be the best place to report this, given a recent edit summary saying this situation is “standard practice”.

Several (experienced) editors have manually removed formatted citations and replaced them with bare URL citations on 2024 Atlantic hurricane season.

Timeline:

• 22:33, 17 June 2024 — HikingHurricane adds a “current storm information section” (brand-new level 4 header section), cited entirely by three bare URLs.
• 23:26, 17 June 2024 — WeatherWriter (myself) removes the bare URL and replaced them for formatted citations (2 of the three bare URLS)
• 00:06, 18 June 2024 — Drdpw removes one reference and reduced the citation on the other, including removing the archival information.
• 00:42, 18 June 2024 — WeatherWriter restores the 2nd reference removed by Drdpw and restores the full citation information for the first reference.
• 00:44, 18 June 2024 — Drdpw reverts back to the smaller citations/removes the 2nd reference
• 00:46, 18 June 2024 — WeatherWriter adds a “unreferenced section” tag to the “Current storm information” section. Drdpw removed all citations present in that article in the last reversion.
• 01:01, 18 June 2024 — Drdpw removes the “unreferenced section” citation and re-adds the three original bare URL citations originally added by HikingHurricane.
• 01:24, 18 June 2024 — WeatherWriter removes the three bare URLs and replaced them with less-linked, but formatted citations.
• 01:33, 18 June 2024 — HikingHurricane restores the three bare URL citations and stated it is “standard practice”.

Is this actually allowed? Even though Wikipedia:Bare URLs isn’t a formal citation, experienced editors seem to indicate that bare-URLs are “standard practice” over formatted citations on 2024 Atlantic hurricane season. Per Wikipedia:Citing sources (policy), specifically WP:CITEVAR, in the Generally considered helpful section, it states “improving existing citations by adding missing information, such as by replacing bare URLs with full bibliographic citations: an improvement because it aids verifiability, and fights link rot;”. I am bringing this to the administrators attention not to get someone warned or blocked, but since there seems to be experienced editors saying something different than policy, and every attempt to remove the bare URL citations is being reverted. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The bare URLs in question are not citations. Their purpose is for the reader to be able to access the latest NHC products directly. What WeatherWriter has done is replace these links to live webpages with archive links, which obviously do not link to the live webpages. I have nothing against adding these citations to the end of the section, but they do not substitute for the live URLs. ~ HikingHurricane _(contribs) 02:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Per what you just said "the bare URLs in question are not citations", then the section is still unsourced. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem with adding a citation to the paragraph from the latest advisory, with the advisory-specific url, so long as it gets updated (every 6 hours) with the information. Drdpw (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Embedded links should be avoided, WP:CS:EMBED. Surely these should be in the 'External Links' section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anything against citing the archived advisories at the end of the paragraph like I said, but the links to the live NHC webpages should still be there. Only including the archived references means counting on editors to update the references every time an advisory is released. Instead, the live URLs can just link to the up-to-date webpages directly. ~ HikingHurricane _(contribs) 13:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

No they shouldn’t. External Links/Bare URLs should not be in the middle of an article. They go in an external link section at the bottom of an article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It makes the most sense for those links to go in the storm's section. Putting them in the external links section makes them harder for the reader to find and gets increasingly confusing if there are multiple active storms. ~ HikingHurricane _(contribs) 15:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

We're not a news site. We're not a weather advisory site. We do not need people to be able to get live information or updates on a storm. We're an encyclopaedia, not a 24 hour weather channel. No those links shouldn't go into the storms section as per all of the above. Having updated live information isn't what we're here for. Canterbury Tail talk 15:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps not what we are here for, but it is, nonetheless, what is done for active tropical cyclones in the form of 'Current storm information' and 'Watches and warnings' subsections. Drdpw (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Drdpw here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, yet people still use it to stay up-to-date on weather events. I see no harm in linking to the latest official information in a storm's section. ~ HikingHurricane _(contribs) 16:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

That isn't how Wikipedia is formatted though. Wikipedia isn't a place for "current"/"live" updates. Even though you both seem to say citing sources is ok, both attempts I did at actually adding citations to the sections (current watches/warning & "current storm info") were reverted directly by both of y'all and you both added the external links inplace of the citations. That is what started this discussion. Basically, why are external links in the middle of an article being used as citations over formatted citations. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

This may be a better suited question at WP:MOS: Are external links allowed mid-article or not? Anyone else agree? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not adding citations to the end of the section that could be an issue, it's removing the external links. You can add citations to the end of the paragraph and editors can update them when they update the current storm info, but the live URLs should stay too. ~ HikingHurricane _(contribs) 16:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I may have missed something in this thread, but isn't WP:EL fairly clear on that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Yup, we're quite clear in several areas. Just because it's "what is done" doesn't mean it should be. ELs should not appear in articles at all other than maybe the infobox and external links section. There are few exceptions and providing live coverage of an event is very much not one of those exceptions due to the fact we're an encyclopaedia not a news site. We are not a place for people to get those kind of updates, nor do we want to be. Canterbury Tail talk 17:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Then no weather article, let alone tropical cyclone article, should be presenting current storm information or watches and warnings. Drdpw (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Canterbury Tail talk 17:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Nothing should go into an article that isn't intended to be there in the final form and that isn't intended to be read by a reader in 10 years time. Canterbury Tail talk 17:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Current is too soon. Also probably incorrect, since editors do other stuff than editing, and a section like "Current situation" is likely to promise more than it delivers. If there is an up-to-date event-dedicated weather-site or something like that, it may fit the EL-section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

This is correct. They should not. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Well, now we have a problem. Despite a clear non-involved editor consensus that external links & current storm info should be removed (as done in this edit minutes ago), Drdpw has, once again, reverted that edit, saying WP:Weather is the best place to discuss removing external links, basically ignoring AN/I and this discussion. Can an administrator do the removal? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Please voice your issue with weather articles presenting current storm information and watches and warnings at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather. Drdpw (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, Drdpw, this isn’t a WikiProject Weather issue, since it was raised on the administrators noticeboard. AN/I seems appropriate since this involves a policy issue, not a content issue. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

For a discussion on WP:EL, WP:ELN would be a better place. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikiprojects cannot override the MOS, policies or guidelines. They have no say in this. See this very important part people miss about Wikiprojects "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations, nor can they assert ownership of articles within a specific topic area. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles. A WikiProject is fundamentally a social construct: its success depends on its ability to function as a cohesive group of editors working towards a common goal." Canterbury Tail talk 17:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Implementation of policy in the various tropical cyclone articles will be a challenge. I suggest posting a message concerning the AN/I consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather. Drdpw (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I nominated all current storm templates I am aware of for deletion here. Noah, BSBA^Talk 18:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, there have been hurricane season articles for a good 20 years, including information such as the advisories and ongoing watches and warnings. If this is the official place to complain about it, then I’d rather Wikipedia continue to be a source of ongoing information. If there’s some official rule that precludes this, then I’d like to invoke ignore all rules for the sake of consistency and being beneficial for the public. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Pinging Jasper Deng here as they have restored the current storm information & external links to the Wikipedia article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment - The CSI sections have been discussed numerous times over the years in one form or another. Personally I don't like them much as on the whole they aren't updated with each advisory package outside of the NHC AOR, however, I strongly suspect that they would just be added straight back in by other editors who feel rightly or wrongly feel that they are doing a service to our readers by adding the information in. As a result, I am neutral on if they should or shouldn't remain in hurricane articles.Jason Rees (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Quick side-note: Per Hurricanehink, this process of adding external links mid-article on tropical cyclone pages goes back two decades to 2004. Honestly, I am wondering if an ArbCom policy clarification request should be filed, given, at least what appears visually to me as basically a recurring problem of ignoring policy. ArbCom is the final resort for dispute resolution, and since this is a multi-year (multi-decade even) ignoring policy issue, they might be best to solve it and clarify if external links are permitted mid-article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Just making sure, is the issue with the external link, or the fact of including current information in general? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

To me, if I interpret the discussion correctly, it started out regarding only the external link issue, but evolved into adding the current storm information into the discussion. I would be fine trying to solve only the external link issue to begin with, since that is what this was opened up for in the first place. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Then ignore the rules for the sake of public safety and be ok with the external links ;) They’ll only be there when the storm is active. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think in-text EL:s adds any public safety. Can't cite it, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

“They’ll only be there when the storm is active.” — That straight up violates Wikipedia:Recentism, also known as the 10-year test. If you are adding information to the article that is garunteed to not be in the article in a week or so (let along 10 years), it should not be in the article. Simple as that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Does this affect the infobox showing current storm information? ✶Quxyz✶ 18:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I have no problem with a WP:EL-valid link in the EL section. On WP promising "current" info, I think that's problematic and I don't trust us with it, to put it in shortcuts MOS:CURRENT, WP:NOTNEWS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Quick clarification: By “EL section” do you mean a true headed section named “external links” or as they are presented in this version? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The customary EL-section at the bottom of the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

See WP:EL. With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article. This has a footnote which states Links to Wiktionary and Wikisource can sometimes be useful. Other exceptions include use of templates like , which is used only when non-free and non-fair use media cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia. This is not one of the exceptions and the rationales so far put forward do not stack up with established policy and so these external links should be purged from all such articles in favour of proper in-line citations and an external links section.

@Hurricanehink mobile Wikipedia is not a news source and we do not exist to promote public safety. This is an encyclopaedia. WP:ARBCOM may be the place to go if this has indeed been going on since 2004. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 18:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Adam Black (talk · contribs), I believe a potentially significant hurricane capable of widespread destruction would be one of those links. Same story if an asteroid was threatening to hit Earth. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there any precedent to support this claim? ✶Quxyz✶ 19:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

If a significant hurricane is about to affect parts of the United States, the Emergency Alert System will inform those of our readers who need to know via their smart phones, radio and television broadcasts, and the activation of sirens in a far more timely manner. I am sure Canada has a similar service. Wikipedia does not exist to warn our readers of upcoming cataclysmic events and we should never be expected to provide this information. There are far more appropriate channels for such warnings. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 19:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

And indeed, the nature of Wikipedia is such that it creates a massive risk that it would inadvertently supply misinformation or outdated information in such events. The public safety argument lies, at best, in Wikipedia signposting the appropriate official sources of information for each emergency. It is dangerous to try to duplicate such information. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Adam Black and WeatherWriter: I know I'm late to the game but since both of you mention ArbCom, and also considering it as a last resort, would an RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones be sufficient? Especially now with several templates nominated for deletion there will need to be a discussion on what information should or should not be included on active storms. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This has been going on since 2004 in part because the policy has evolved since then. In 2004, the concern was avoiding links to paywalled sites or those requiring Flash. In early 2005, the policy was expanded with the main concern being to weed out spam/promotional links. In 2007, after a small Talk discussion the idea of no external links in the main article text was first implemented, again with spamming or acting as a web directory being a central concern. Since then the exact wording of that exclusion has changed from "should not be used" (2007) to "should not normally be used" (2008) to the addition of an "exceptions are rare" footnote (2010), which in 2017 was moved out of the footnote and "normally" removed from the text. The discussions here appear to be the first time the question has come up about whether or not these sorts of links should be considered among the exceptions to the WP:EL policy. That they have been used since 2004 and haven't come up in the past two decades seems to imply a level of appropriateness to include them in the manner in which they are being used. Regarding WP:NOTNEWS, the bits that are relevant here are 1) original reporting, which these bulletins are not, and 2) news reports, which these might quality as; however, the NOTNEWS also encourages including "current and up-to-date information within its coverage," which these links provide. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

(@ TornadoLGS) Consider another venue than a Wikiproject for a less topic-focused audience, Wikiprojects can be appnoted. This seems to be mostly WP:WEIGHT issue, so WP:NPOVN may be an ok place. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Okay, I'm not entirely sure that's the right place, but I'll ask about that on the talk page there. I mentioned the possibility of an RfC on the Wikiproject since they are usually handled at the relevant article talk page, but this would affect multiple articles under the same project. I would rarther have this done sooner than later since the Atlantic season is underway and this will likely lead to edit wars if there is not a clear-cut procedure. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS: The simple thing here is that no current storm information should be included. The article should only contain information that's expected to be present a week or a month from now. The peak intensity would just change as the storm intensifies and then it would not change after the peak. Noah, BSBA^Talk 01:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: Now there I disagree, since that will just confuse readers. That is, I don't think we should treat it so black-and-white. I'll also make the argument that this information will still be around at a later time, since it would be included in the storm's meteorological history. But this is exactly why I have been looking for a venue to have more thorough discussion on this, and I'm not the only one to have suggested taking this part of the discussion elsewhere. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS: village pump would be your best bet. WP weather is too partisan for these types of discussions. Noah, BSBA^Talk 12:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: Yeah, the closest match I found there was Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) but that seems to be more about discussing changes to policy rather than applications of it. TornadoLGS (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah, how and why is the Wikiproject too partisan? Not disputing your claim, just the first time I have heard of partisan activity on Wikipedia. ✶Quxyz✶ 15:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Quxyz, an opinion or 2 related to the subject: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS. There is, in short, an argument that having discussions like these on a wikiproject may increase a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS/"it's our tradition" nature of such a discussion. That is my understanding, anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Quxyz: The project is too partisan because a decent number of members feel they can override policy to preserve the status quo. That was evident in the number of people who opposed the color changes back in 2022–23 solely because they didn't like it and wanted to keep the legacy colors. These opposes boiled down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Noah, BSBA^Talk 22:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll say that I had considered doing it as an RfC on a project talk page but another editor recommended having the discussion elsewhere and appnoting the project. Though now I kind of wonder if that would be substantially different. I've also considered just having that discussion as a subheader under this thread. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would object to meteorological history, especially presented as such. That is, the page should not identify current storm conditions, but I think others would agree that e.g. a table of historical conditions, with citations and without bare URLS, sounds like something that would be relevant years from now, would implicitly include the latest information (sort the table by date). Just my two cents. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Those links don't belong in the text of the article, for all the word salad reasons that editors have noted. They should be in a separate 'External links' section, at the end of the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

At that point, I don't think we should bother at all with the External Links, it'd be too much of a hassel and too obscure to matter. People that are interested enough to read through the EL section are probably going to be monitoring the system vehemently. ✶Quxyz✶ 18:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, if the links were converted into citations, then that’s fine? It seems like there are two points about this discussion, the links, and the fact that articles usually mention current info, like storm intensity/movement/warnings. The current information can easily be cited with actual links. Would that still be in violation or not? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

If the external links were converted into citations, that would not be a violation of the external link policy. That, is actually what I did, prior to the AN/I. Your reversion of that was the last link in the timeline part at the very beginning of the AN/I. That alone would address the external link issue: I.e. removing the “For the latest official information, see:” and “The NHC's latest public advisory on Potential Tropical Cyclone One” and replacing them with full citations. The formatted (full) citation you added for Intermediate Advisory Number 4A in this edit is perfect! In fact, that external link for the “public advisory” is the exact same thing. That is actually what this discussion was opened up for originally. Per policy, the NHC “latest info” shouldn’t be external links, but rather in full/formatted citation form.

As to the current storm info, that is a different topic inserted mid-discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Assuming that cite checks out, that takes care of EL-bit, leaving the current/news bits([178]). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The archive link to an archived public advisory is not the 'exact same thing' as the refresh link to the public advisory. Citing the archived public and forecast advisories and discussion necessitates that editors update the section and citations every time an advisory is released. For the NAtl this is very realistic, but what about other TC basins? Can we guarantee that the citations will always be up-to-date for an active system? No. Why not just include the refresh links at the end of the section? ~ HikingHurricane _(contribs) 19:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Citations to be used for what? Context matters. A "latest updates on local hurricane" website wouldn't be a very useful cite, would it? What lasting article-text would you cite to [179]? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, the citation url would need to change along with the information cited, every 3–6 hours, linked to, e.g. Potential Tropical Cyclone One Public Advisory Number 1, Potential Tropical Cyclone One Public Advisory Number 1B, Potential Tropical Cyclone One Public Advisory Number 2, etc., not to the refresh link. Drdpw (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I have actually used TWOs and discussions in articles to show that the NHC did or declared something, e.g. designated as an invest, a warning being declared. ✶Quxyz✶ 19:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

As in "On friday, NHC recommended people to get the hell out of Kentucky."? Good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It'd probably be somewhere like Martinique instead. Regarding the invest, I used a Tropical Weather Outlook (TWO) in June 2024 South Florida floods to state that the NHC began monitoring the disturbance. ✶Quxyz✶ 19:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

And you link to the archive url when citing things. Drdpw (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, if anything it seems like it should be treated the same as a book. One must cite the specific pages used to back up information from a book, ergo, one must use the specific advisory. However, it is worth noting that I was not using the TWO to cite current information. ✶Quxyz✶ 20:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yup, it’s called a hurricane warning, and would likely be a coastal area. Also we don’t use days of the week, it would be, “Late on August 25, the NHC issued a hurricane warning between X and Y locations.” And then include that citation. It’s important because some procedures happen when there is a hurricane warning, often including evacuations, closures, etc. All of the current info can be cited. I don’t care if it’s external links or cite web, as long as the info is there. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Quick request

Hi, this is just a short and simple request: can an administrator edit the block on IP address 50.194.36.81 to include no talk page editing ability?

The IP range 50.194.36.80/29 surrounding that single address is blocked with no talk page access, but I am requesting this, just in case (do admins know if block settings on singular IP address blocks override that of rangeblocks if there's one present?).

I deliberately have not left an ANI notification, because you know, I feel like doing that is only gonna invite them to make more vile attacks on other editors...

Thanks in advance! — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, AFAIK it overrides, so I have added TP to the block (and made is 6 months to line up with the rangeblock). Black Kite (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Is this acceptable?

This edit Special:Diff/1229910692 looks to me to be more than a bit racist. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

In the context of that discussion this is fair enough responding to an earlier remark. If you think the statement is incorrect you can argue about it on the RSN. But it is relevant to the debate there. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

And the whole RFC is now closed and archived. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Dancingbridge and edit warring

This user (Dancingbridge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has been going on a massive edit war at Gwen Stacy (Spider-Verse) removing 10K bytes of content in a very WP:IDONTLIKEIT fashion. Potentially also related to the IP 2.96.178.209. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 14:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Take it to the edit warring noticeboard for enforcement. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, one sec. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 14:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually never mind, the edit warring has stopped. I'll re-report there if it continues. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 14:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd still report it if I were you, given the suspected logged out editing as well. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely partial-blocked Dancingbridge and the IP from Gwen_Stacy_(Spider-Verse). Their POV issues are slightly obvious. Black Kite (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Pattern of personal attacks and baseless aspersions from User:RoseAliceD

This Teahouse thread makes baseless accusions levied at SafariScribe. After being asked serveral times they have refused to offer any evidence beyond "look at their talk page". In the same thread they've accused the people in the teahouse of being abusive, not smart enough, selfish, etc. This is not the only time they've baseless accusations, Zefr was of bias in March '24, and Qcne has also called them out for inappropriate off-wiki behaviour (perhaps an IRC user could elaborate). I am hoping that RoseAliceD will rescind all the comments mentioned, and going foward attempt to act with WP:CIVILITY and WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS. -- D'n'B-t -- 16:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I blocked per NOTHERE, for reasons given above, to which we can add general incompetence when it comes to sourcing and a refusal to listen. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I stand by what I said in April on Safari Scribe's talk page and on the Good Article nominations talk page. RoseAliceD's behavior notwithstanding, SafariScribe's understanding of English does not reach the point that they should be participating in reviewing or copyediting work. Given this problem, the 23,000 edits they've racked up in just a few months are cause for concern. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Removal of content without adequate explanation, edit war, and personal attacks

@Loriendrew keeps removing Roblox from the 2006 article without adequately explaining why. They also revert my edit consistently instead of going to the talk page to discuss and reach a consensus. They later personally attack me and make false claims that I started the edit war. Please do something about this. Thank you, ItsCheck the 2nd (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @ItsCheck the 2nd: As the text in the red box near the top of the page states, you must notify the user in question on their talk page. I have done so for you this time. Please also provide diffs for your accusations. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I suppose this is probably the right place to post here, but I feel that the situation is getting heated, and I feel that admin intervention might be helpful. Please see Talk:2006 and User talk:ItsCheck the 2nd to see the discussions that have been occurring. Gaismagorm (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

ItsCheck the 2nd has been indefinitely blocked for impersonating another editor. Cullen328 (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

ah okay. Situation averted. Gaismagorm (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

That made things easy. It is the user who made open attacks (per their edit summaries), refusing to listen to boilerplate warnings and uncollaborative WP:OWN and essentially an. WP:SPA. This is a combination of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, WP:BOOMERANG, and WP:CIR.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 20:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

what's a boilerplate warning? Gaismagorm (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

See WP:Template index/User talk namespace--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

ah okay so just the standard warning templates Gaismagorm (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Legal threat, editing castes

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.

---

Prak Patni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

see Special:Diff/1230605255.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. Clear cut. Canterbury Tail talk 18:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Clear cut

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.

Clarification on citation removals, more info is needed.

hi guys, I am not sure if I risk getting my account blocked, but it's the second time this week I am reaching out here. Because I cannot learn and contribute, if I cannot understand or make sense of what is required. If this is not correct noticeboard, please direct me to where I need to go. And when Admins are being abrupt and just deleting without giving me any information, I don't know how to proceed. And if I disagree, I need to understand either why they are correct, or am I right. I can't just accept what I see as wrong. The issue here is in regards to the conflicting edits by myself and User:Scope_creep.

I am just trying to do my best here and achieve what is needed, through an understand. But instead, it feels intimidating and in some ways bullying. I can imagine how many spammers you get, but genuine contributors shouldn't be treated as such.

I just want more info. And another opinion please.

I have posted information in Talk:Greystanes,_New_South_Wales about citations getting deleted, and I cannot get any information as to why. I have read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard as recommended, and have found that there was a vote on The Daily Telegraph to be removed fron Wikipedia, but it isn't the Sydney Daily Telegraph, it is the UK one. I am referencing the Sydney newspaper, totally independent of the UK.

I provided other citations, and these were then said to be non-rs. But, they are not listed anywhere as being non RS. One of which was the Sydney Morning Herald. ???

I just want to get my head around it. How can the Sydney Morning not be RS. And quotes directly from a published book, on a website, not be RS.

And why should the Parramatta Advertiser as a publisher, which is under the umbrella nowadays of The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) be associated to a vote of 4. Deprecated, to a totally different UK publisher?

From the issues previously had, I've cleaned up the page alot. But, now things are not making sense.

You guys were previously really helpful, are you able to assist at all here? User:Adam Black User:Theroadislong.

Again, sorry to be a pain, not intending to be disruptive at all. But at this point I really disagree with what is evolving on this article.

The messages exchanged are below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annamaria.dmrt (talk • contribs) 16:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

(I have edited the above message to fix a link and to remove a cut-n-paste of discussion from the article talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC))

I think there some confusion going on. Although there is currently a discussion about the UK Daily Telegraph on the noticeboard, there is an archived discussion about the Australian one (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 384#The Daily Telegraph (Sydney))). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Scope creep: I believe that Annamaria has a point and I too don't understand why you repeatedly removed citations to The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) as non-RS. Can you please explain? Abecedare (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I just don't understand it. And now, his latest change, has made a broken reference in it, and is telling me to use {{cite news}} and not {{cite web}}, when it says in citation that it makes no diff. And his previous talk comment never mentioned not to use {{cite web}}. This is confusing. Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The Australian Daily Telegraph has been discussed at WP:RSN here - the discussion does not give confidence in the newspaper's reliability. If it is suspect as the discussion indicates, that it seems to be a good idea to seek better sources, and that it isn't being confused with the British newspaper.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

thank you and fully understand that, but the issue is here, is that the suburban regional newspapers have been bought out and operate under the Sydney Daily Telegraph umbrella, but they are still separate. For example - in this case for Greystanes, many sources for people, come from the local Parramatta Advertiser. Which has journalists, working as part of the Parramatta Advertiser.

So that's why, I have changed the publisher to be the Parramatta Advertiser, to kind of keep it apart, from that of The Daily Telegraph (Sydney). Would this be ok? Otherwise, for some people, there is just no supporting online citations. Honestly, the articles that we are talking about here, are pretty good. I mean, we're not talking biased perception on LGTB+ rights or anything. It's recounting info on local people's events and successes. No bold statements etc.

For example, as a citation for Tim Faulkner living in Greystanes, I now have this on his biography (https://goodreadingmagazine.com.au/article/time-to-act/). But The Parramatta Advertiser reporter wrote an article that is much better - and bang on related to living in Greystanes - https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/parramatta/awardwinning-conservationist-tim-faulkner-on-his-wild-life-growing-up-in-greystanes/news-story/47208abbbefdc41184881351c51cceb9

So I don't know, were is the line drawn here?

If it is not deprecated, and totally relevant to the topic at hand... it should be able, to be used. That's my point.

@Scope creep has made errors in the referencing which i need to fix, they broke the coding (missed }), and the advice is self conflicting too. The Sydney Morning Herald was changed from Cite Web to Cite News, when in previous changes, this user made it vice versa. Then, I read the policy on Template:Cite web that it makes no difference.

The main issue here is the Parramatta Advertiser being used. (falls under Daily Telegraph Sydney)

Based on what I just wrote @Nigel Ish, does your feedback still stand, or can you see the small complexities now? It a bit of a catch-22 Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:ANI is incidents, not content disputes. scope_creep^Talk 19:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Nice one 👍 Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

scope creep, I think this complaint is partially about your conduct. Since this is open and people have responded, can you provide a fuller explanation than what you just stated? I think it would help resolve this dispute if you gave a specific response to this editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

How is this about my conduct? I tried to improve the quality of the article by removing two non-rs references for the second time and changed a cite web into cite news and left some advice. The editor seems to keep adding the same references since last week, when I defended them in the last ANI report as a brand new editor, when they had a dispute with LibStar on the 18th, for similar reasons. The editor is incapable of taking advice, which is WP:CIR issue. I've taken the article off my watchlist and i'm done with it. scope_creep^Talk 20:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Scope creep, in response to your question ("How is this about my conduct?") you should simply expand a bit on your repeated edit summary of "non-rs". I happen to agree with you about the content issue, but certainly do not about your refusal to explain things when you are reverted. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

What exactly are you looking for? Everybody know what non-rs means. There was a comment left on the 18th when I removed the last non-rs references. There was another comment left today for the editor. I don't ever refuse to explain things when I revert. The editor could easily come to my talk and ask, its as simple as that. scope_creep^Talk 21:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

How is this [180] not a reliable source? Traumnovelle (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Scope creep I am sorry to say but these are absolutely NOT non-rs, and you might need to ask yourself this question. I don't get why you are insisting with this. And when I tried explaining it to you, and told you that I will add as Publisher: "Parramatta Advertiser", and also that The Sydney Daily Telegraph, is totally separate to The British Daily Telegraph, and finally, that I will add an additional reference. Your reply to that was - 1. Under a different a different comment in the Talk page. 2. And it said: I haven't confused anything. The references you put are non-rs as well. I've removed. Don't put them back in. scope_creep^Talk 13:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The complaint is partially about your conduct yes, and also trying to get my head around what you actually want. Because, for Cayless Brothers for example. I had 2 citations from the SMH. You deleted the new citation and left the old one. You made edits to one, but not the other (News vs Web), and you also added one } and published it broken.

On the 18th of June, you never mentioned that Cite Web, should be Cite News, in certain spots. You said: The website property for a each cite web should contain the website name, not a url. scope_creep^Talk 10:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not about you defending me previously, it feels as though that you are just leading me around in circles here.

I will fix the Cite Web and Cite News, now that I have a clear answer from @Adam Black. I have fixed the Website names on all citations. And applied your method of page numbering for PDFs.

I disagree that I am incapable of taking advice. I have applied everything, more and beyond, from you, Adam Black, LibStar, Theroadislong. I apologised numerous times to making LibStar upset last week. I was not offensive in my replies to you, but you've been aggressive. And still. The moment I have said something against you, there's always been a consequence. Whether that be, deleting even the SMH citation or the Good Reading Magazine link for Tim Faulkner's book. And now, even in here - I've taken the article off my watchlist and i'm done with it. scope_creep^Talk 20:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

How could I approach you on your Talk Page, when you have been so unapproachable on the article Talk page, and also in here?

I think I have what I need to continue now, and I thank you all for your time on this matter. And I also thank you @Scope creep for the good advice which I was able to obtain from inbetween the cracks in all this. Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 06:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I recommend you do not copy other user's signatures into your comment. I understand you're trying to quote but it can be quite confusing to read.

I do agree that the SMH should qualify as a reliable source unless there's something I am unaware of it. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment This editor has now added these dodgy non-rs reference back into the article, four of them. This place. scope_creep^Talk 09:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Annamaria.dmrt: I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Parramatta Advertiser about the The Parramatta Advertiser. If there are still disputes about how the citations work on a technical level, consider using Help talk:Citation Style 1. If there are still disputes about how citations should be done on a policy/guideline level, consider using Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. These are more specific and you will likely get more informed and clear feedback. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• random passerby I think it would also help to clarify which Telegraph was removed and whether it is RS or not. Because I have been working with Scope Creep for months at Regency of Algiers and History of the Regency of Algiers and while I guess he could possibly be wrong about whether a source is RS, I haven't seen it yet and RS has come up quite a bit. One way or the other it would advance the discussion Elinruby (talk) 07:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

HopDavid pursuing long term grudge against Neil deGrasse Tyson

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

HopDavid has been pursuing a personal grudge against Neil deGrasse Tyson, on and off, since December 2015. This has been combined with personal attacks against editors who have resisted his inappropriate edits, principally @Objective3000:. This has been quite disruptive in the past, mostly focused on Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson including allegations of libel but also taking in some other subjects which are related to Tyson such as Space Odyssey: The Video Game. It all went quiet in April 2022 until a few hours ago when he resumed his grudge and personal attacks here. As he had stopped for more than two years I decided to try a personalised warning before bringing it here but, as you can see, I was rebuffed with a clear statement of intention to continue the disruptive behaviour and a willingness to get banned for it. I think this is a case of WP:NOTHERE. He has edited on other subjects (unrelated to Tyson) in the past but not since March 2019 and not in article space since December 2016. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for filing this. I redacted his link to his own lengthy personal blog/attack/hate page against a living person: Fact Checking Neil deGrasse Tyson, and closed the ten month old section filled with assumptions of bad faith and attacks against editors. Had to go to dinner and couldn’t do anything else. The article has long been difficult partly because of racist comments and then climate deniers. But although there is nothing wrong with including criticism in articles, the editors in this section used bad sources and regularly attacked other editors. I don’t remember old edits by HopDavid and don’t care to look them up. But HopDavid appears to be a serial violator of WP:CIV and WP:AGF and their edits are not constructive. WP:NOTHERE looks like a good call. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Objective 3000, You are the moderator taking action against me? You are one of the editors I take issue with. You are not a disinterested party. You should recuse yourself. HopDavid (talk) 03:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes I am interested in seeing that articles follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Don't think I'll recuse myself for that. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@HopDavid: Wikipedia does not have "moderators" (and Objective3000 isn't an admin either) or "recusal" (outside of a very limited context). You seem to have some misconceptions about what Wikipedia is and how it works. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

From HopDavid's talk page: "If Wikipedia decides to ban me for speaking the truth -- so be it." Hrm. Ravenswing's Second Law in action. Perhaps we can give him his wish, then. Ravenswing 03:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I stand behind every claim on my page Fact Checking Neil deGrasse and will continue to do so unless someone shows me evidence of an error.

Labeling my page an attack/hate page does not counter any of my claims.

If you choose to block me for speaking the truth then may you become known for suppressing information. HopDavid (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:VNT, and blogs are generally not considered WP:RS for that. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 04:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Has Hop cited his own page in an article? —Tamfang (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Whether you stand by your claims or not is neither here nor there. You can believe whatever you choose to believe, be your facts solid or threadbare. What you cannot do here on Wikipedia is assert your beliefs in articles without reliable sources backing up those assertions. This is also not a debating society, and we are under no onus to secure your approval here, or to prove you wrong to your own satisfaction. Ravenswing 14:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not attempting to edit the article on Neil deGrasse Tyson nor am I attempting to assert my beliefs in said article.

I am trying to defend myself from 03000's accusations.

He calls my blog post an attack/hate page. And he seems to be suggesting I am a climate denier and a racist.

As for his accusation that I'm a climate denier -- I believe man made climate change is an urgent problem.

As for his accusation of racism? I am complaining about Tyson's misinformation, not his skin color.

If you wish to attack my page, provide counter evidence to my claims. Trying to discredit my page by attacking me is ad hominem.

As for Reliable Sources -- that was the first objection to mention of Neil Tyson's Bush and Star Names story. But then it was picked up by many outlets considered reliable sources. Like the Washington Post article where Tyson actually admitted his story was wrong. Link. Other arguments were launched. Eventually Neil's defenders were saying it was okay if Tyson made false accusations against President Bush so long as it had no impact on Tyson's career. I reject that final argument.

Tyson has been caught inventing other histories since his Bush and Star Names debacle . He has also been caught botching basic math and science. Tyson's squeaky clean Wikipedia P.R. piece is becoming more ridiculous as more people notice Tyson's misinformation.

It is quite comical that the Wikipedia article on Neil's video game is still using the present tense. Link. That game went done in flames almost five years ago. HopDavid (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I am going to ask some questions but these are not questions that you need to answer here. In fact, I'd recommend not to. These are questions which I want you to think about, maybe discuss with somebody you trust, and see if you can learn something from. First up, why do you still care about a videogame that seems to have stalled in development some five years ago? Video games stall or fail in development very frequently yet you have not edited on the topic of any other videogame or Kickstarter project. Why are you curating a list of articles about one specific person's perceived misdeeds over a time span getting on for a decade? You have not edited on any comparable issues when others in the scientific community have been accused of things. Do you really believe that you are defending yourself against accusations when you waded into a discussion thread to reignite grievances which had been dead, archived, and all but forgotten, for two years? Do you truly believe that this is about anything other than personal animus against Tyson? Is any of this a productive, healthy or enjoyable use of your time? Can't you just let it go and spend your time supporting people you like and respect rather than wasting it trying to drag down people that you don't? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

We are living in a culture that puts tribalism before truth. That puts entertainment before rigor and accuracy. And zealots at opposite ends of our polarized culture actually empower one another. I see Tyson and Trump as two prominent products of this culture.

--

It seems most of us notice confirmation bias in our neighbors but believe ourselves immune to this human failing. Tyson actually gives excellent advice on how to mitigate this problem: Make it a habit to examine and challenge our beliefs to see if they are supported by evidence. However Tyson and many of his listeners fail to follow this good advice.

--

And I want Tyson to be credible. 03000 seemed to suggest I'm a climate denier. Very much the opposite. I believe global warming to an urgent problem. And I want those sounding the alarm to be credible.

--

To be credible Tyson needs to take care to research a topic to get his facts straight before making pronouncements. And to acknowledge errors when he makes them. And those sympathizing with Tyson's positions also need to acknowledge his errors and work to repair the damage when he misinforms.

--

By trying to hide Tyson's errors his sympathizers are destroying their credibility.

--

You ask why I focus on Tyson. There are many I could call out, as you say.

But Tyson, in my view, is the most prominent example. His focus has been to entertain and attract a large audience. And he's been very successful at that! He's great at crafting pithy viral sound bites. His vocal delivery is masterful. He has interesting hand gestures and body language. His wardrobe is a hoot.

His popularity has made him a standard bearer for a number of cliques.

But devoting all his energy towards showmanship has left him little time to review his content for rigor and accuracy. So he has become a standard bearer with an impressive portfolio of misinformation.

--

As for his video game -- have you checked out the comments on the Kick Starter page? I'd post a link to the Space Odyssey Kick Starter page but "People at this wiki decided to block links to this site. Please try another link."

According to MinnMax Red Button says it's no longer working on the game. Again, I'd post a link if but those protecting Tyson won't allow it.

And yet the Wikipedia page say the game is being developed -- present tense. No evidence that it's presently being worked on. No reliable sources to back up that claim.

I would like to add "Citation Needed" -- but the Guardians Of Truth on this website would quickly revert it and possibly block me. HopDavid (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Seems this can be solved very easily by blocking them from the Neil Degrasse Tyson page and talk page and topic banning them from anything even loosely associated, which would also include mentioning them and linking to their attack blog on their user pages. Canterbury Tail talk 13:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I did consider suggesting something like this as an option but, once I noticed that he has not edited on an unrelated topic since 2019, I decided that it probably didn't make much difference either way and chose to leave it out. That said, I don't oppose it. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Nor do I. Ravenswing 14:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

May take a tad more watching. But I'm not opposed either. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

A an article + talk page block, and a topic ban for Tyson ('broadly interpreted') would seem an excellent idea. If that results in HopDavid not editing at all, it would seem that little will be lost. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

+1 this Dronebogus (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

My "attack blog" is a collection of links, many of them to what Wikipedia considers reliable sources. Link. Labeling it an "attack blog" does not counter any of my objections.

Blocking those who call out Tyson's misinformation will serve to demonstrate your lack of regard for truth and providing complete information. HopDavid (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a good venue on which to be engaged in the activity "calling out [anyone]'s misinformation", or really "calling out [anything at all]". You have a blog; do your calling-out there. Here, we are building an encyclopedia. --JBL (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The article willfully ignores the false accusations Tyson made against President Bush. It is noteworthy if a pundit invents history to support his talking points. Editors defending Tyson claim it isn't noteworthy because it has had no effect on his career.

--

I reject that argument. There are plenty sources of misinformation that have very successful careers. If fact I would say those exploit the passions of their audience while ignoring the facts are more successful than those who take pains to be rigorous and accurate.

So, no, Tyson keeping his job at the American Museum of Natural History does not excuse his slander against Bush. Or Hamid Al Ghazali. Or Isaac Newton.

--

And Tyson's Bush and Star Names story isn't the only example of Tyson's misinformation.

Most of Tyson's misinformation is harmless. Who cares if he tells his pseudo nerd fans there are more transcendental numbers than irrationals? Or that the James Webb Space Telescope is parked in earth's shadow?

His wrong history is another matter. It sometimes contains false accusations against individuals and groups. In any case it is a serious offense to use falsehoods to push a narrative.

--

There are reliable sources showing Tyson's numerous errors. But even if supported by reliable sources they would be censored. As has been shown with Tyson's Bush and Star Names debacle being pushed down the memory hole by the Guardians-Of-Truth at Wikipedia.

--

TL;DR I disagree with you. If a pundit misinforms an article on said pundit should report it. HopDavid (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

There absolutely needs to be a topic ban on Tyson pages at this point, as there's zero chance that this editor will constructively edit there. And if there's no other topic on which they'd like to constructively edit, I'll file that as "too bad, so sad," and not think about it for a second. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Enough, I've indeffed HopDavid. They are clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia. Canterbury Tail talk 18:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. It’s unfortunate that some people cannot take a hint even when it is explicitly spelled out to them. Dronebogus (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

User appears out of nowhere to make 90 undiscussed moves

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

User:SurJeetrandawa has recently began rapidly moving pages without discussion like:

• Yamazaki clan -> Yamazaki (clan)
• Wani clan -> Wani (clan)

etc... I don't know, but with titles like Oda clan, Mizuno clan, shouldn't these titles not be altered like this? I don't know what's the consensus on article titles of Japanese clans... ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked the account as a sock (LTA). If someone wants to revert all the moves, that would be great. Much more work than just reverting edits, and I'm not up to it at the moment (for me at least it takes a lot of focus to make sure I don't screw it up).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I am working on reverting it right now. -- Whpq (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I think I've got it all. Feel free to let me know id I missed anything. -- Whpq (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Not all talk page moves have been reverted. Namely, at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=SurJeetrandawa&namespace=all&tagfilter=&newOnly=1&start=&end=&limit=50, I still see two talk page moves. Please undelete the target pages (Talk:Vania (clan) and Talk:Por (clan)) and then move them back to their original titles (Talk:Vaniš and Talk:POR respectively). GTrang (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Whpq: Please undelete those two talk pages and move them back as I have requested. GTrang (talk) 04:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it looks like Whpq is too busy in real life to be able to respond to my request (as their last edit was made at 13:57, 22 June 2024). So instead, I am going to ask EurekaLott (the one who deleted both talk pages that should have been moved back instead) to undelete Talk:Vania (clan) and Talk:Por (clan) and move them back to Talk:Vaniš and Talk:POR respectively. GTrang (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing those out. - Eureka Lott 15:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@GTrang: Thanks for spotting that. Sorry I wasn't able to get to it. Had a busy Sunday. @EurekaLott: Thanks for taking care of it. -- Whpq (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Persistent overlinking/addition of unsourced content, block evasion

2600:1700:EA50:7FD0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Keeps adding unsourced content/overlinking, and is evading a block on 50.205.182.253, see edit history of Lynn Redgrave, Iring Fetscher, and Günter Kunert. This /64 also has an extensive block log for disruptive editing, most recently being for three years in 2020. Waxworker (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Still adding unsourced content/overlinking (1, 2), and has also added redlinked see also entries that appear to be non-existent nonsense: 1, 2, 3. Waxworker (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Conduct dispute against Geogene and SMcCandlish in Cat predation on wildlife

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 have been unable to reach understanding with Geogene who persists in reverting my contribution to the Cat predation on wildlife article and has received full partisan support from SMcCandlish. I reject their unsubstantiated claim that my contribution has contravened Wikipedia guidelines and suggest that their actions are driven by a partisan point of view regarding the article content. The article is closely related to a scientific (and in part NGO-driven) controversy about the global impact of cat predation on wildlife and biodiversity, and effectively replaces an objective coverage of this debate on Wikipedia. Geogene and SMcCandlish, who profess complete agreement on the matter, deny that such a debate has any scientific merit and seek to foreclose any discussion of it, as they happen to side with one extreme of it. They have produced no direct evidence (to counter that cited by myself) that the debate has either not existed or been resolved. Their claims rely on a selective original interpretation of sources (i.e. they echo the claims of one side to have won and to be the only "scientific" one).

Geogene raised an original research objection against properly sourced content and made bad faith allegations that I am trying to push a fringe viewpoint and that I am effectively "watering down or discrediting the modern viewpoint on cat predation". That is something that ought to be demonstrated through adequate citation of evidence. Equally objectionable is their pattern of dismissing entire sources based on their date (without additional justification as per guidelines), arguments advanced, perceived influence etc. This appears to be a way in which Geogene and SMcCandlish have exercised their effective ownership of the article this far. Such a priori judgments about the reputation of a source constitute a personal viewpoint (POV) and if they were to be included in the article, they would constitute original research (OR).

Geogene and SMcCandlish not only represent an extreme stance in the debate, but also deny that any debate is legitimate. They have sought to outright disqualify my contribution and any sources I have cited based purely on their opinion and by attributing a nefarious agenda to it, and invoked either a local editorial consensus between the two of them or an unproven scientific consensus in support. An eyebrow-raising claim they uphold is that "modern science" only dates from the year 2000. There is a considerable scientific literature omitted from the article due to its one-sidedness. (There would also be no ground on which essays, opinion pieces or journalism can be flatly excluded - not least because such sources are already cited.) Judging from their behaviour so far, Geogene and SMcCandlish will dismiss information based on sources that contravene their viewpoint out of hand.

The discussion history can be found on the article's talk page and on the NORN noticeboard. The talk page section in which SMcCandlish seeks to discredit a source may also be relevant.

As far as I am concerned, the only way to assess various claims is through adding verifiable content, and the way forward is for everyone involved to focus on building the article, rather than edit warring and making unsourced claims. I have not been able to persuade Geogene or SMcCandlish about this, however.

Due to their persistent refusal to recognise any evidence that contradicts their viewpoint and to engage in editing the article instead of edit warring, I consider the actions of Geogene to be vandalism, committed in defence of their POV and their effective ownership of the article. I think it is more than stonewalling because the guidelines on OR and OLDSOURCES were twisted to fit a purpose, and because Geogene has resorted to action despite the failure to evidence their claims or offer persuasive arguments in discussion. I am concerned about the two editors' propensity for escalating unfounded accusations and treating them as proven from the start, and about their shared habit of seeking to discredit sources a priori.

I am asking for an investigation of the conduct of the two editors, since it is their attitude and not a dispute over content (i.e. they prefer to focus on reputation and general outlook over the detail of evidence) that stands in the way of resolution.

To be clear, I am far from arguing that my contribution was beyond criticism. It is the resistance with which it met that was unwarranted and gives ground to suspecting that any further attempts to edit the article will be met with the same hostility. I am requesting an intervention to restore the possibility of constructive engagement with the article. VampaVampa (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

While your message isn't entirely about a content dispute, a lot of it is and that's not the sort of thing this noticeboard is for. I did my best to read and comprehend that talk page discussion and I just keep coming back to the same question: why hasn't anyone tried an RFC yet? City of Silver 20:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I understood that RFC is not suitable for disputes in which more than two editors are involved.

I grant that it may look like a content dispute. However, what I encountered was a wholesale revert and an attempt to paint me as a conspiracy theorist, therefore I fail to see what specific question in the content of my contribution could be the subject of an RfC here. The question of the existence of the debate has emerged as the underlying point of contention, but please note that this was not covered by my contribution and its sources. The broad framing of the entire conflict is something that was imposed on me by the two disagreeing editors. To address that larger question comprehensively, a whole new edit would need to be proposed - and I would actually happily spend time preparing one, but I want some assurance I am not going to be met with unjustified edit warring again. VampaVampa (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@VampaVampa, that's part of the instructions of things to try before opening an RfC (use WP:DRN if more than two editors). Schazjmd (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I know. I did not think it was a content dispute but if there is a general agreement here that it should be treated as one, then I could try to open either an RfC or a DRN discussion. However, would there be sufficient space to cite the evidence in support of my position in the RfC or DRN summary? I cannot expect all contributing editors to do their own reading. As I tried to explain above, the matter is not covered by my contested contribution. The literature is substantial and not discussed on Wikipedia to my knowledge. I will appreciate your advice. VampaVampa (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@VampaVampa, it is a content dispute. I've read through the discussion on the article's talk page. My personal advice is to drop it. If you choose to pursue DRN or an RfC, I strongly suggest that you learn to summarize your argument succinctly. Schazjmd (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

On what grounds please - (1) content dispute, (2) drop it, (3) summarise succinctly? VampaVampa (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@VampaVampa, you asked for my advice; I gave it. I don't know what more you want. Schazjmd (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

With all respect, I have asked you for advice with how to tackle the fact that I am expected to defend myself from exaggerated charges that are not really covered by my edit, since RfC or DRN was suggested. I did not ask for advice on whether you think I should accept emotional blackmail and character assassination from other editors.

Since we are a community on Wikipedia your advice has as much value as your insight into the matter. Therefore I asked to know why you think what you think. And if you think my case has no merit, then it is even more necessary for me to learn why that should be the case. VampaVampa (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Geogene's actions are not vandalism, and I suggest you refrain from describing them as such. This is a content dispute, not a conduct one, so there is very little that administrators can do here. If you want to add your changes to the article, get consensus for them first, possibly through an RfC. —Ingenuity (t • c) 20:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand that you disagree with my description of Geogene's actions as vandalism but could you offer any reasoning for this? As for RfC I considered it but decided it was not appropriate (as explained in my reply above). I will appreciate your advice on how to frame it as an RfC. VampaVampa (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@VampaVampa Edits made in good faith, even if they are disruptive, are not vandalism. Vandalism implies a wilful intent to harm the encyclopedia, and if such intent is not obvious, then continuing to call edits vandalism constitutes a personal attack. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I am wrong on this, but for me to assume good faith means that I can add information to the article without being asked to meet the two arbitrary conditions suggested by Geogene in their opening post of the discussion:

(1) use sources more recent than the cut-off date for whatever Geogene considers "modern" in every instance, and

(2) censor myself to avoid "watering down or discrediting the modern viewpoint on cat predation" at any cost (i.e. twisting everything to suit a predefined viewpoint).

If these two arbitrary conditions are not attempted to be enforced through edit warring then indeed I can work together with Geogene. VampaVampa (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to dispute the vandalism point unnecessarily, but it would seem to follow from a relevant guideline that if "Even factually correct material may not belong on Wikipedia, and removing such content when it is inconsistent with Wikipedia's content policies is not vandalism", then removing content when it is not inconsistent with policies may constitute vandalism. I explained in the discussion on the talk page why I reject the charges of WP:OR and WP:OLDSOURCES and was not persuaded that I was wrong. VampaVampa (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism is like griefing: if someone thinks that their edit is improving the article it's not vandalism. It literally means, like, when somebody replaces the text of an article with "loldongs" et cetera. What you are referring to is "disruptive editing". jp×g🗯️ 05:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG: Are you saying my edits are disruptive? Any ambiguous statements on that are likely to encourage further problems here. And isn't the I explained in the discussion on the talk page why I reject the charges of WP:OR and WP:OLDSOURCES and was not persuaded that I was wrong. evidence of the real problem here? Geogene (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Geogene: Yes -- the thing that VampaVampa is accusing you of is "disruptive editing", not "vandalism". I am not VampaVampa and have no idea whether this is true or not. jp×g🗯️ 10:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification - I was wrong about the definition of vandalism. Geogene's conduct is much more sophisticated than that. As far as disruptive editing is concerned, I think it is intentional. VampaVampa (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

VampaVampa, I'm glad you have accepted (albeit after some significant repetition) the feedback of the community here regarding what does and does not constitute article vandalism--though I do very much suggest you take a look at Formal_fallacy#Denying a conjunct, because with regard to your proposition here, your conclusion does not follow from your premises. However, it is actually your last sentence in said post ("I explained in the discussion on the talk page why I reject the charges of WP:OR and WP:OLDSOURCES and was not persuaded that I was wrong.") that I think still needs addressing. Because it is no way required that you be convinced that you are incorrect before your edits can be reverted--and in suggesting as much, you are actually turning the normal burden of proof and dispute resolution processes on their head. Rather the WP:ONUS is on you to gain clear consensus for a disputed change, and WP:BRD should be followed in resolving the matter.

Now, I haven't investigated the article revision history in great detail, but from what I can tell, the article has somewhat been in a state of flux over recent years, reaching the current "Cats are the greatest menace to biodiversity of the un-wilded world" state relatively recently. Neverthless, your changes were to fairly stable elements of the article that had at least some existing consensus support from the then-active editors of the article. When your edits are reverted in these circumstances, you are required to overcome the presumption of a valid reversion by gaining consensus for your addition/preferred version of the article. It is not always a fun or easy process, but it is the standard for how article development and dispute resolution proceed on this project. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

User:VampaVampa - If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism. Yelling Vandalism in order to "win" a content dispute is a personal attack. This is a content dispute, compounded by conduct. I don't know what the merits of the content dispute are. I can see that the conduct includes the personal attack of yelling vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that is clear enough and I stand corrected - there is indeed nothing in the list of vandalism types that corresponds to what I reported Geogene for. I engineered it backwards by proceeding from "removing content when it is inconsistent with policies is not vandalism" to "persisting in removing content when it is not inconsistent with policies (and argued repeatedly not to be so) may be vandalism", but I realise that has no logical purchase and is nowhere close to any of the definitions. I retract the charge of vandalism and apologise to Geogene for the unjustified accusation on this particular point. VampaVampa (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the last discussion of the talkpage and stopped reading details in the first paragraph when one of the editors described the RSPB as holding a 'fringe scientific view' on cat predation on birds in the UK. There is little point in even entering a discussion with someone who says that, as you are never going to convince them by reasoned argument. If you are in a content dispute revolving around sourcing with an editor who is never going to change their view, your options available are a)move on, b)Try and get a neutral third opinion, start a clearly worded RFC and advertise it widely to draw in more than the usual niche editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

It is, however, useful to actually read the material and the cited sources before pronouncing that specific editors are "never going to be convinced by reasoned argument"... because the RSPB in the past has indeed been pleased to throw their weight behind badly reasoned minority interpretations of the science on this topic. That is the point of this dispute. Please spare the stentorian pronouncements if your time is too precious to read up on the material. - That being said, there seems to be no reason for this discussion to continue here, as multiple avenues for expanding the discussion on the article's talk page do exist, and the editor has indicated that they want to pursue them. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the advice. Depending on the outcome of this incident report, I will consider an RfC and find suitable places to advertise it through. Elmidae seems to be suggesting that a potential RfC could revolve around how the respective positions of RSPB and Songbird Survival on cat predation of wildlife should be introduced in the article. However, as is clear from Elmidae's comment, this would likely end up triggering a much broader dispute about the respective merit of the current "majority" and "minority" conclusions drawn from available scientific evidence (assuming all of this evidence is methodologically unproblematic to either side), which could easily be the subject of a book. I think everyone's energy could be spent much more productively in editing the article, but if the only option is to debate the extensive literature in a talk page then so be it. I am open to any option that involves a careful examination of the evidence and the arguments. VampaVampa (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Just a quick word re the amount written hare and on the Cat predation talkpage. I've learnt over the years through my own errors, less is more. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I will try to learn from my mistakes. VampaVampa (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Aside from not being an ANI matter, this proceeding is also redundant with an ongoing WP:NORN proceeding involving the same parties and material (specifically here). I.e., this is a WP:TALKFORK. "Geogene and SMcCandlish not only represent an extreme stance in the debate, but also deny that any debate is legitimate" is blatant falsehood on both counts. The first half of that is what the NORN thread is about, with VampaVampa attempting to rely on 1970s primary research papers and a defunct advocacy website (and later an "attack other academics" op-ed that is the subject of the long thread of RS analysis immediate above VV's repetitive PoV-pushing thread at the article talk page), to defy current mainstream science on the topic. The second half is just made-up nonsense. In point of fact, at the article's talk page, I specifically suggested that we might need a section in the article about the history of the public debate about the subject. But to the extent that VV may instead mean entertaining perpetual opinion-laden debate on Wikipedia about such topics, see WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:NOT#ADVOCACY. We are here to reflect what the modern RS material in the aggregate is telling us, not cherrypick half-century-old surpassed research claims that someone likes the sound of, and argue circularly ignoring all refutation, in an "argue Wikipedia into capitulation" behavior pattern, which is what VV is bringing to this subject.

PS: VV is completely incorrect that "RFC is not suitable for disputes in which more than two editors are involved", and has simply misunderstood all the material there. RFCBEFORE in particular makes it clear that RfCs should be opened after extensive discussion has failed to reach a consensus. That process almost always involves more than two parties. Where "more than two" appears on that page, it is simply noting that another potential venue one may try, for trying reaching consensus without an RfC, is WP:DRN (and VV notably ignored that advice and ran to ANI to make false accusations instead). The section below that, RFCNOT, certainly does not list "disputes with more than 2 editors" in it as something RfCs should not be used for, and that would be absurd. However, an RfC would not be appropriate at this moment, while the NORN proceeding is still open.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

As to the WP:NORN, we have reached a dead end there:

(1) no party uninvolved in the dispute has intervened,

(2) you have not replied to my last post,

(3) most crucially, in this last post of mine I invited you again to build the article and warned that I would report your conduct to the administrators if one of you reverts again, which Geogene proceeded to do. You left me no other option.

As to RFCNOT, you are probably right and I am happy to be corrected on procedures. But at this point my dispute is with your and Geogene's conduct. VampaVampa (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of such noticeboards is to patiently solicit uninvolved input. There is no deadline, and starting talkforks at other noticeboards is not conducive of anything useful. Under no circumstances am I obligated to respond to your circular attempts to re-re-re-argue the same matters endlessly, and doing it at NORN would be counterproductive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

One user against two shouldn't be able to preserve their disputed content indefinitly just by bludgeoning the talk page until the opposition is tired of arguing. That's the disrputive editing here Geogene (talk) Geogene (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a policy about consensus which says polling is not a substitute for discussion. VampaVampa (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Also see WP:NOTUNANIMITY. Geogene (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

For that good faith would have been required. VampaVampa (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

VampaVampa, after nearly being WP:BOOMERANGed for arriving here with false accusations of "vandalism", has now turned to demonizing those they disagree with via false and undemonstrable accusations of bad faith. That is not exactly a wise move.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
PS: It's actually worse than I thought, with VV more recently accusing someone else (EducatedRedneck) of having "a nativist agenda" [181]. At this rate, I don't think we're very far away from simply removing VV from the topic area.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

An editor's claim that an RFC about content is unnecessary because they're right is prima facie proof that an RFC is necessary. The decision as to whether or not an RFC happens should be made with zero input from VampaVampa, SMcCandlish, and Geogene.

Much to the surprise of nobody, the NORN discussion is going nowhere because the three involved editors are bickering there exactly like they have been here and at the article's talk page while nobody else has weighed in on the actual content dispute. (As an aside, any of these three who has complained about anyone else running afoul of WP:WALLOFTEXT is a massive hypocrite.) An RFC will compel these three to state their cases in far fewer words, which will be nice, but much more importantly, it'll attract uninvolved editors who'll review the content issue and work towards a consensus on the content, which in the end is all that's supposed to matter. These threads won't accomplish anything because none of these three editors has shown a willingness to compromise to any extent and their tendency to link policies, guidelines, and essays across multi-paragraph messages ad nauseum guarantees they'll keep speaking past each other. City of Silver 01:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver: Re nobody else has weighed in on the actual content dispute Three editors (@EducatedRedneck:, @Elmidae:, @My very best wishes:) have weighed in on the article's talk page since this thread was opened. Still no evidence of support for VampaVampa's revision. Your "blame all sides" is not helpful. Geogene (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Geogene: Before anything else, edit your message to strike the quotation marks around "blame all sides" and add a note saying you were wrong to quote me as saying that. In your note admitting you falsely ascribed words to me, please include my username so it's clear to others. I never came even close to saying there were sides in this issue because I absolutely do not believe there are. You, VV, and SMcCandlish are all on the same side, the side of improving the website. I also entirely disagree that any substantial part of any discussion has been anything more than two people talking past one person and that one person talking past those two people. But if you've got consensus, why not start an RFC? City of Silver 02:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Before anything else, edit your message Edit your message to remove the personal attacks, including "hypocrits". I never came even close to saying there were sides in this issue because I absolutely do not believe there are. I said you are blaming all sides, which you are. I put that in scare quotes to express my disagreement with them. You, VV, and SMcCandlish are all on the same side, the side of improving the website thank you for that. I find editing Wikipedia to be an extremely thankless enterprise, this thread being a great example of it. I also entirely disagree that any substantial part of any discussion has been anything more than two people talking past one person and that one person talking past those two people. and then the one flings bad faith assumptions at the other two at ANI to try to eliminate them from the topic area. But if you've got consensus, why not start an RFC? Normally it's the one who wants content added who starts the RFC. I noticed above you said, The decision as to whether or not an RFC happens should be made with zero input from VampaVampa, SMcCandlish, and Geogene. I don't recall stating any opposition to an RfC. Geogene (talk) 02:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

And see also Brandolini's law; if someone text-walls with rambling claims that are a mixture of personal belief, repetition of and reliance on a defunct advocacy website, and OR extrapolation from and other reliance on ancient primary research papers from the 1970s, then later adds in op-ed material from one academic personality-smearing another and badly confusing public-policy political arguments with scientific evidence, then the response to this is necessarily going to be detailed and lengthy, because it involves multiple forms of refutation of multiple wonky claims and bad sourcing. The alternative is simply ignoring VV's input entirely, but that would be rude and less constructive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Responding because I've been pinged. I agree with City of Silver that it feels more like people are talking past each other rather than to them. It's hard not to respond to what one hears, rather than what is actually said, when a debate has become drawn-out. Based on the most recent exchange with VV, which SMC alluded to above, I fear that now includes me as well. (Accusing me of a "nativist agenda" is making it harder for me to view the matter dispassionately, and I'm not sure I'm hearing what VV is trying to say at this time.) EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this post because I could see from it that you genuinely tried to mediate, and it perhaps just so happens that with regard to the "objective" differences in worldview, which we have to somehow work past on Wikipedia, you seem to stand closer to Geogene and SMC, without necessarily having been aware of it. So I offer apologies for the accusation.

I also declare myself ready to work with Geogene and SMcCandlish on the condition that none of us tries to seize the upper hand in advance of putting in the work to edit the article. I should make clear that to me that involves seeking to discredit sources that do not unambiguously contravene Wikipedia guidelines (not to exclude genuine debates on the talk page, that's a different thing). I regret but I cannot compromise on this point. VampaVampa (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver: Thank you for this - even though I don't think I claimed I was right.

With regard to Geogene's reply, can I just point out that the impartiality of such third-party interventions cannot be assumed? VampaVampa (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@VampaVampa: Please don't make edits unless you think they're right. And I hope you don't expect "impartiality" from other editors. My very best wishes hasn't said a single thing that could get them excluded from an RFC and neither has anybody else who's weighed in. City of Silver 02:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I mostly agree with your comments and comments by Geogene and SMcCandlish above. As about user VampaVampa, they obviously made this posting to get an upper hand in a content dispute. That does qualify as a WP:BATTLE, in my opinion. That user is clearly not working collaboratively with others, at least in this dispute about feral cats. My very best wishes (talk) 02:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Holy mother of walls of text... I strongly agree with the most useful feedback that has been given here: this is clearly the stage at which RfC is not only warranted, but arguably the only path forward if one side or the other is not prepared to give way.

That said, I strongly suggest the involved parties attempt torecruit a neutral to word the RfC prompt and that the most vociferous single parties from each side (and I would hope you both know who you are) exercise some considerable restraint in not bludgeoning the resulting discussion (either in terms of volume of response or the length of individual posts). As in, your positions having been well established already on the talk page, you should each make your contributions to the RfC roughly on the scale of 1/30th of what you've had to say so far. Given the relatively small number of sources being debated, the existing diatribes are way out of proportion and, bluntly, well into WP:disruptive territory at this point. And I say this as someone who isn't exactly always the soul of brevity themselves here at all times. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Detailed analysis of material and claims based on them requires a considerable amount of text. But I've already done the work, so of course I have no need to do it all over again, especially at the same page. Any politicized subject (see, e.g., virtually any major thread at Talk:Donald Trump and its 169 pages of archives) is going to be longer than some people like, both due to the detail required and due to someone trying to get their contary-to-RS viewpoint promoted being likely to recycle the same claims repeatedly, leading to recurrent refutations; rinse and repeat. This is a common "try to wear out the opposition" tactic, in which refutation is ignored and the same claims are re-advanced (proof by assertion fallacy).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

My friend, McCandlish, this isn't Donald Trump's BLP, and even if it were, what you have been doing on that talk page was clearly excessive. You added 24KB (31 paragraphs!) of text in one post, most of it dedicated to micro-analyzing every aspect of one source, down to caption summary of the careers of everyone involved with it. At the time you posted it, it was larger than all of the rest of the comments from all other editors on the talk page in all threads, put together. All to support an argument that said source was more editorial than a typical MEDRS primary source, and should be afforded less weight accordingly--an adequate case for which could have been made with one paragraph, and an excessive one with two. Nor is it the only titano-post from you or VampaVampa, who I think only slightly trails your numbers.

Look, I think you're an often-compelling participant in discussions, in part because of your propensity for thoroughness. But there's practical limits before it becomes a WP:Bludgeon issue (however inadvertently). And whatever compelling interests you may feel that you have to press your reading of the sources, they can't come close to justifying the extent of the wordcount arms race you and VV entered into. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON refers to re-re-re-responding to every or nearly every post in a discussion (RfC, etc.) with many participants. It does not refer to producing a source analysis that a particular person disapproves of because of its detail level. And you're not getting the chronlogy right. That material long preceded VV's participation at that page; notably, when VV attempted to recycle the same bad source, I did not post a lengthy re-analysis of it, but referred to the one already done. My responses to VV have been directed at unrelated claims and sources put forward by that editor, and when they turned to circular argumentation that ignored prior refutation, I walked away rather than continue. So, there is no "wordcount arms race". We are at ANI now because one particular person, VV, refuses to drop the stick, despite there already being two (article-talk and NORN) discussions open trying to resolve the underlying content-and-sources matter. Whether this subject rises to the subjective importance level of, say, Donald Trump is irrelevant; it is certainly as polticized and emotive, attracting the same kind of misuse-bad-sources PoV pushing, which is the point I was making.

In the spirit of what I just wrote regarding circular argument and just walking away, I am not going to respond here any further unless pinged directly. There is no ANI matter to settle, except possibly VV's renewed personal attacks in the same subject area (see diff of one against EducatedRedneck above). VV's ANI is WP:asking the other parent. Either NORN will address the sourcing problems, or will not and then we'll have an RfC, but ANI is not for content disputes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Two Unpleasant Comments

I have not tried to read the content discussion, and don't know what the content details are. I have two mostly unrelated comments that are not about content, but this is not a content forum.

First, multiple posters have posted overly long posts, that were literally too long, didn't read, which is one reason I haven't studied the content. However, I can see that the original poster has misread two Wikipedia policies, and posted based on their misreadings, and has since backed off from their original comments. One of the guidelines was worded in a complex way because it is complex, and so it could have easily been misread. The other policy could not possibly have been misread by anyone who read it with an intent to understand it, because it is very clear about refuting misconceptions. The first was that User:VampaVampa said that RFC was not applicable if there are more than two parties. That is part of a sort of flowchart-like guideline, and could easily be misread, and was misread. The second was that User:VampaVampa said that Geogene had engaged in vandalism. The vandalism policy is very clear on what is not vandalism. It is sufficiently clear that anyone who argues that overzealous editing in a conduct dispute is vandalism hasn't read the policy. They obviously know that vandalism is one of the worst things that an editor can do, but they haven't read what it is and is not. In other words, VampaVampa insulted the other editor first, and only read what the insult meant after being called to account. So, if I do read the content details, I know not to give much weight to what User:VampaVampa writes, because they are an editor who makes sloppy claims. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Second, the dispute has not been addressed except by the original parties at the No Original Research Noticeboard because WP:NORN is a dormant noticeboard. It apparently has no regular editors, and it is very seldom if ever that anything is resolved at WP:NORN. It is a noticeboard where content disputes go to fester and die. The suggestion was made, and not followed up on, that perhaps it and one or more other noticeboards should be merged. So VampaVampa is not asking the other parent here. There is no parent at WP:NORN. But they appear to be following a policy of post first and think second. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I find your comments fair, with one exception. I wish to contest the reputational charge that I am "an editor who makes sloppy claims", which is a generalisation from two instances, for one of which you have found extenuating circumstances. (Incidentally, a generalisation is also at the heart of the content dispute.) This criticism of yours comes after I have already admitted having overreacted, in the spirit of seeking reconciliation. In my defence I also plead inexperience in raising matters for dispute; I suspect that many a user with no exposure to procedural affairs would have been intimidated by the sheer conduct of Geogene and SMcCandlish to drop the content dispute. I finally wish to use my freshly learned lesson in logic to note that even if I were to be wrong in all of my claims it still would not follow that the other party to the dispute cannot be seriously wrong in theirs. VampaVampa (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

User:VampaVampa - It is true that whether you have been right or wrong is independent of whether Geogene and SMcCandlish have been right or wrong. You have stated that they have been guilty of serious conduct violations. You have stated that they have been guilty of serious conduct violations. You have used many words in making that statement. However, I have not found your argument to be persuasive. You haven't made your case, at least not to me, and I am not planning to read your walls of text again, especially since I have already seen that you made two mistakes, one of which suggests that you post first and think second. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Suggests that you post first and think second. .. Does this imply a lack of good faith on the part of this editor ? Botswatter (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not questioning the good faith of User:VampaVampa. Posting first and thinking second is not bad faith, although it is sloppy and undesirable. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Botswatter This is your 4th edit. Your 3rd as to add yourself as in training at DRN - something you aren't doing and have no experience to do. I don't know why you inserted yourself here, but there is a saying "good faith is not a suicide pact". There can come a time when good faith no longer be offered, and this looks like one. Doug Weller talk 09:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I am however agreeing with User:Doug Weller in questioning the good faith of User:Botswatter. I wonder whether they inserted themselves here and also at DRN in order to snipe at me. I wonder if they have a grudge against me from some previous unsuccessful mediation at DRN, perhaps one that ended with them being indeffed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• I'd like to share VampaVampa's latest diff, continuing to personalize the content dispute [182]. I had just reverted a POV rewrite of the lead that was sourced in part to a likely front group. Yes, there are apparently front groups out there on the web pushing scientifically dubious views on outdoor cats. This controversy may not rise to Donald Trump levels of importance, but neither is Scientology or Young Earth Creationism. That doesn't mean it's unworthy of the Wikipedia community's concern. Geogene (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Your action in reverting that edit is illustrative of the conduct that I have submitted a case against above (i.e. seeking to exercise ownership of the article and to prevent the representation of legitimate views by falsely construing them as fringe and denialist). This is not the place to enter into content disputes. However, you are using your experience to discourage new contributors to engage with the article through unnecessary hostility. I am not sure why you should seek to draw more attention to your behaviour yourself, but that is welcome as far as I am concerned. VampaVampa (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Law of holes comes to mind here, VampaVampa. What you're claiming as ownership is not, and in fact that claim is making it more clear you do not understand our rules and guidelines. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  HandThatFeeds What do you propose calling it instead? Eight of the last 50 edits on the page are Geogene reverting something, most of which in my opinion would have improved the article and the rest still had some merit to them. (3 in an edit war with VampaVampa, the rest from various different editors.) Iamnotabunny (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'd say you need to propose changes on the Talk page & get consensus first, rather than just bludgeoning ahead to get those changes into the article. Especially since they appear to be an attempt to insert a POV into the article, something you're going to find is frowned upon in Wikipedia. Enforcing our NPOV rule is not OWNership. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, Geogene is doing such a good job of enforcing neutral point of view that he immediately removed the maintenance tag about "Too few opinions".

  When I made those 2 edits, I was unaware of exactly how controversial the article was. As you can see, all of my edits since then have been to the talk page rather than to the article. And let it be clear that I dispute that the article currently has a neutral point of view, which is a matter for the talk page and not for here. I assumed Geogene's claim that the source I used was a "front group" was so obviously false (it does not even speculate who is secretly behind them!) that it would boomerang on him without me doing anything. Iamnotabunny (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Short Summary

A short but not unbiased summary of this whole thing, as I see it.

0. Earlier article edits that set the scene, June 2022 and December 2023: Xhkvfq (previously went by the username StrippedSocks) makes edits that are reverted by Geogene. Xhkvfq adds a source Lynn et al 2019. On the talk page, SMcCandlish describes the source as, among other things "a butt-hurt rant".

1. Article editing happens. Geogene reverts many things (to me, looks like based on whether they are pro-cat or anti-cat rather than whether they match the sources). SMcCandlish edits the article to more closely match what the sources say. Geogene and VampaVampa revert each other a bunch.

2. The NORN noticeboard. Geogene opens a question regarding one of VampaVampa's edits. SMcCandlish answers in the affirmative, goes on to call Xhkvfq a drive-by editor, and complains about people who are okay with bird species going extinct as long as feral cats don't get culled. There seems to be an implication that VampaVampa is one such person, which I don't think is accurate nor warranted.

3. VampaVampa opens this discussion here, beginning with an accusation of vandalism due to a misunderstanding of wikipedia policy. Once that was explained, VampaVampa changed the accusation to disruptive editing my mistake, "status quo stonewalling". Many words about both wikipedia policy and article content have been written here, but not much has been said.

4. Not knowing any of this, I come across the article, attempt to make an edit, and get dragged into this discussion. GG's mention of that edit here was to complain about VV's reply "personalizing the content dispute" by saying GG's revert was based on unevidenced assumptions, but if that's a personal attack then so is GG's claim that my edit was "profringe". Something being "profringe" implies it is based on unevidenced assumptions.

5. With the help of other editors to keep the discussion on track, VampaVampa and Geogene are able to have a mostly civil conversation (compared to previously) on the talk page about the content of the article.

My own experiences involving Geogene have been quite negative (edit: perhaps there was some misunderstanding going on), but as it appears he and VampaVampa are currently making progress on article content, perhaps it is not worth bringing them up. Iamnotabunny (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Adding on: I just realized the above makes it look like VampaVampa is blameless. That was not what I intended, but I feel that part of things is already covered quite thoroughly earlier in this thread. Iamnotabunny (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Closing Options ?

I think that this has gone on long enough, and that nothing new is likely to happen, so it is time for some sort of close. User:VampaVampa is the original poster of this thread, and says that there have been serious conduct violations by User:Geogene and User:SMcCandlish. I haven't seen any evidence of conduct violations by Geogene or SMcCandlish, either in VampaVampa's walls of text or on my cursory look at the article talk page. There have been two specific conduct allegations. The first was a claim that Geogene's editing of a content dispute was vandalism. The second conduct allegation is that Geogene and SMcCandlish have asserted article ownership. It appears that what they have actually asserted is that they have a rough consensus, and two-to-one really is a local rough consensus. There haven't been any other conduct allegations that I could parse. I don't intend to try to read the excessively long post, because I know that VampaVampa is not a good judge of good and bad conduct. So no action should be taken against Geogene or SMcCandlish.

I see three possible options with regard to VampaVampa:

1. Close this thread, doing nothing.
2. Close this thread with a warning to User:VampaVampa for the personal attack of a bad allegation of vandalism.
3. Close this thread by topic-banning User:VampaVampa, at least from this article.

What do the other editors think? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a consensus that the accusations by VampaVampa about other contributors were ungrounded, and he admitted this himself. However, option 3 might be an overkill. If there are any problems with the editing by VampaVampa, this is their tendency to produce walls of text and argue to infinity on multiple pages, not just that page. But option 2 seems to be warranted based on the discussion above. My very best wishes (talk) 03:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

One further conduct allegation I have made was status quo stonewalling, which I wrongly claimed was vandalism when premeditated. I think a cursory look would not have detected that, so I can cite relevant passages if needed. I was concerned with the immediate accusation of "fringe" views against me and with the caricaturing of my arguments and intentions. That said, I am more aware now of various policies such as WP:BRD and the requirements for gaining consensus, so I can partly see where my opponents were coming from, at least procedurally. Having since participated in some RfCs and talk page discussions, I remain concerned about the amount of leeway for editors to keep dismissing reasonable arguments under superficial excuses, and I still do not think my defence of my edit had been given a fair hearing by Geogene and SMcCandlish before they sought to force-close the debate and escalate it from the specific edit to my agenda. But I am prepared to accept that succinct evidence-based discussion and RfC would be worth trying. VampaVampa (talk) 06:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Wow, this thread is still open? I got pinged back here, so I'll respond. For my part, I'm not one to assert that two editors against one at a poorly watched page actually constitutes much of a "local consensus", just as a thing in and of itself. What's far more important here is that we have WP:Core content policies and they apply equally to this article as any others, and VV's PoV edits are not in compliance with them (or if you prefer, multiple editors have raised multiple policy concerns about them). The WP:ONUS is on VV, and VV has not addressed much less dispelled these concerns. VV's position appears to basically boil down to assuming they have a right to make the changes they want, and anyone who disagrees is just some vandalistic stonewaller.

As for WP:SQS, VV apparently has either not read that page, even its first line, or has serious difficulty understanding it. (Cf. also apparent severe trouble understanding WP:RFC, WP:VANDAL, the content policies themselves, and the meaning and relative import of the source material; this is starting to look like a WP:CIR issue.) Let's quote directly: Status quo stonewalling is opposition to a proposed change without (a) stating a substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines and conventions or (b) participating in good-faith discussion. Both Geogene and I have raised very detailed substantive rationales based in policy, and our participation in good-faith discussion has been so extensive that various parties above have vented about it being too detailed and long-winded. VV has utterly failed to demonstrate that any sort of SQS happening.

PS: WP:NORN is a dormant noticeboard. I was not aware of that (and it seems weird and unfortunate). Given that RfCs are expensive of community time and attention, probably the thing to do would be to close this ANI, close the going-nowhere NORN thread, and re-open the matter at WP:NPOVN or WP:RSN; all of these policies and guidlelines are implicated in inter-related ways in this issue, so either venue will do, really; it would just be matter of writing it out in a way that pertains more to one noticeboard or the other. That's assuming a T-ban doesn't happen. I think one could arguably be justified because of the repeated incivility and other problems evidenced above after this ANI was opened. But I'm also not one to seek to "silence the opposition". I give benefit of the doubt (sometimes maybe more than I should) that an editor may prove to be productive on the project in other ways despite a recent WP:DRAMA flare-up. And in this case, I really have no policy-and-sourcing doubt about how the underlying content and sourcing dispute is going to turn out in the end.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 for now, with the assumption that VV will read the room and drop the stick. I feel warnings are most effective when people can trust the good faith efforts of the editor to heed the warning. If this topic continues with more walls of accusational text, then I think the topic ban becomes necessary. The late, poorly document allegations of WP:SQS are not helping matters at all here. Geogene and SMcCandlish should have the right to not be in a position where they have to continually defend against amorphous allegations. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Option 2. Option 3 EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Option 2 again EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC) My experience has been that VampaVampa has, several times, assumed bad faith, leaping to conclusions about my intentions, alleging bias, and displaying a battleground-esque mentality. I maintain they are a net positive to the project, and have demonstrated that they are WP:HERE, but believe that the warning for personal attacks should be construed to include a caution against WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:ABF. It should also include a caution against WP:WALLOFTEXT. I'm often guilty of that myself, but dang. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I changed my !vote for the following reasons: I have attempted to carry on a discussion with VampaVampa. All that has come out of it is that I have determined that, whatever VampaVampa's intentions, the were not about actually improving the article. They have deflected a discussion away from criterion for source inclusion, and back toward whether or not a view is categorized as fringe. In that time, they have added 76,833 bytes of text in 25 days. The next highest, SMcCandlish, added 47,714 bytes over 9 months. (I am in third, with 34 kB in 20 days. I'm trying to trim my responses down.) VampaVampa has made 54 edits to the talk page. The next highest is Geogene, with 38 edits since the dispute began. I believe VampaVampa is WP:BLUDGEONing, that the walls of text are disruptive, and that they have difficulty discussing topics related to the article without hijacking the conversation to be about... whatever it is they are trying to talk about. I do note that I have not seen any more WP:ABF or WP:PA lately, and don't believe the disruption would move to elsewhere in the encyclopedia. N.b.: I am involved in the discussion. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your objectivity. I think your comment about battleground approach goes a long way towards explaining what I did wrong, and it resonates with what was said by some initial responders to this case. It is not a new situation within the "cat wars" topic that two parties cannot hear each other.

You proposed to resolve the core dispute on the basis of what the review articles say. I believed there would be only one or two relevant review articles, or none if relevance was interpreted very scrupulously, so being concerned about nuance I made multiple attempts to clarify or qualify the criteria. What helped me see your opinion above as fair and objective was the simple step of searching the sources I have found so far for the word "review" in their title, instead of relying on my memory. There turned out to be at least five more review articles that are global in scope, which should mean that your criteria can be used to provide a nuanced answer to the disputed question. It does look I was trying to reinvent the wheel and I am sincerely sorry for having wasted your time.

Based on the acknowledgment that the battleground approach clouded my judgment, I also withdraw the charge of stonewalling (SQS) and apologise to Geogene and SMcCandlish for this excessive and I now believe false interpretation of intentions behind their comments about my motives and about the supposed agenda behind the view I sought a representation in the article for. VampaVampa (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that there will be no more problematic behavior, but blocks are cheap and volunteers are valuable. With that in mind, and given VampaVampa's response above, Option 3 may deprive Wikipedia of a skilled editor. I do feel a warning is appropriate, so if the pledged change in behavior is not matched with action, a protracted complaint won't be needed for a correction. If the pledged change in behavior is genuine, as I assume it is, then Option 2 over Option 3 maintains a valuable editor for the project. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• I would like to be able to vote option 1, based on "I retract the charge of vandalism and apologise to Geogene for the unjustified accusation on this particular point." If the charge of stonewalling is also withdrawn, I will be happy to do so, but for now I vote Abstain Not 3 now Option 1 as per situation specified, see VampaVampa's comment just above. Iamnotabunny (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 and/or option 3, as I think both have a role to play in this editor's behavioral development on the English Wikipedia. The need for civility by avoiding aspersions is not met by a restriction from their trigger article, and vice versa ——Serial Number 54129 13:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 or Option 3 would work. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 23:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 - Close this thread without further action. The original poster, User:VampaVampa, has acknowledged that they were in error in opening this thread. It is not very often that we see an editor who mistakenly complained here, and was about to be hit by a boomerang, admit that they had made a mistake. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
• This has been open 25 days?!. I admit to only skimming this, but it appears to me that RMcC's summary is accurate, and I'd like to close it with "VampaVampa acknowledges their mistake, they acknowledge they need to avoid unsubstantiated accusations of vandalism and avoid stonewalling discussions, no further action needed". Would this upset anyone? Did I miss any gaping unresolved issues during my skim? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  While I'd like to see a caution to assume good faith and avoid walls of text, I agree this has been open too long. In the interest of closing the thread and not subjecting VampaVampa to further stress, I would not object to the proposed close. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2024 (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.

Complaint Against Administrator Doug Weller

I am filing a complaint against Administrator Doug Weller for biased and unprofessional behavior regarding my edits and those of my friend, Kirkukturk3. Below are the key issues and supporting evidence:

1. Biased Review Request by Semsûrî (21 June 2024)

Semsûrî requested Doug Weller to review Kirkukturk3's edits, likely influencing Weller's impartiality. This private request suggests collusion and bias ([link to message](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller&diff=prev&oldid=1230247330)).

2. Unwarranted 3RR Warnings (21 June 2024)

Doug Weller issued 3RR warnings based on Semsûrî's biased request. His comment about my friend Kirkukturk3's "lack of understanding and competence" was dismissive and unprofessional ([link to warning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NICTON_t#c-Doug_Weller-20240624190200-Doug_Weller-20240624173900)).

3. Groundless Proxying Accusation (24 June 2024)

Doug Weller assumed without evidence that I would collaborate with Kirkukturk3, issuing a baseless warning for proxying. This accusatory tone is unacceptable ([link to warning](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NICTON_t&diff=prev&oldid=1230776034)).

Request for Action

Given these clear instances of bias and unprofessional conduct, I request the following:

1. Immediate Review by Another Administrator: To ensure impartiality and address the apparent bias.

2. Formal Warning and Retraining for Doug Weller: To enforce standards of professionalism and impartiality.

Despite attempting to resolve this matter directly with Doug Weller, the issue remains unresolved. Immediate action is necessary to maintain Wikipedia's integrity.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this serious matter.

-- ~~~~ NICTON t (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

You should withdraw this complaint, posthaste, before you join your friend in being indefinitely blocked. Grandpallama (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern and intention to help, Grandpallama. I appreciate your advice. However, I believe my report is well-documented and addresses serious issues that need to be reviewed. I hope this can be evaluated fairly and impartially. NICTON t (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Also i dont think even 1% i have made any single big or small mistake that may led to indefinite ban on my account. NICTON t (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

First of all, Wikipedia editors are volunteers, not professionals. Secondly, you really think some sort of sanction would be appropriate for warnings and tone? Dumuzid (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

In order:

1. "Private request"? If it's on Wikipedia, it's de facto not private. It's far from uncommon for users to directly ask administrators to use their tools on their talk page, especially if the admin is familiar with the situation or sockfarm.
2. This is the "Find out" phase of "fool around and find out". There is less tolerance for chicanery in a contentious topic, and you're demonstrating precisely why editors in such topics are on shorter leashes.
3. Doug Weller is right here. Proxying for (editing on behalf of) a blocked editor isn't allowed.

—Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Im not claiming that proxying is good or any such thing , im claiming that I didn’t even do any change then i got my first warning on this platform for some thing I didn’t even do . If talking to a person is considered proxying?

im totally okay for being banned for proxying if i did it , but why abusing his powers to claim i proxy for another user , and go further on insulting the user . NICTON t (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Groundless Proxying Accusation , basically means abusing power to make a favor to another user on sending a warning without any evidence or any action from my side of proxying. NICTON t (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Can I ask a question? if you get, like, 4 people saying you're wrong, and 0 people saying you're right, will you actually abide by that? Or will you just say that all 4 people just don't understand, or are Doug's friends, or are part of the Cabal, or are secret bigots, and keep arguing? The answer kind of affects my next actions here. People do not have a right to be timesinks. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@NICTON t: Nothing Doug Weller has done has, so far as I can see, come close to implicating his administrator tools, especially given there is a contentious topic in play where administrators have somewhat more latitude to act. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh… so why did I receive the warning? NICTON t (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Because the conversation at User_talk:NICTON_t#Kurdish Vandalism implies that editing behavior might be in violation of WP:Proxying so Doug Weller was warning you (and providing that link so that you could learn more). Anyone reading your statement to another editor who is now blocked might be concerned about proxy editing: "Hey there partner! Just checking in about 8 hours after our last convo. If creating a TG account are not possible at the moment, we can use other DM chatting platforms such as instagram , facebook messenger or anything that suits you , I'm so invested in this topic , and i'm so ready to arrange something to make our changes on Turkmeneli or other pages to be accepted by admins ." Schazjmd (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• I've indeffed NICTON t.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  Tried to warn them. Grandpallama (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  For what? Doug-liker myself, btw. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Could ChatGPT, or whatever was used in the OP's first 2 posts, really not even figure out how to do Wikipedia's markup for links? – 2804:F1...13:F724 (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think ChatGPT is capable of doing those yet, fortunately. AI generated requests are pain in the ass acrosss the internet anyways... ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  @AlphaBetaGamma, you should try out ChatGpt 4o. Please make sure you use that version. it can browse the internet and obtain updated data on, well, almost anything. so that is important to note. Sm8900 (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  Well, are administrators having to go through the extra steps of running AI scanner for every block appeal for AI content? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  To be fair, I didn't use an AI scanner, I simply looked at:

  - the way their request was presented and phrased, contrasted with the other messages after the first 2 where the style is completely different;

  - looked for 'weird things' in the text:

  - - the Markdown style links being one - chat AIs are usually trained to generate Markdown so the website can show formatted answers;

  - - the signature of the first post is another, it has <nowiki>-- ~~~~</nowiki> written just before it - that makes me think they copy and pasted it from somewhere and the create topic feature 'helpfully' converted it for them so it would show as text, and maybe autosigned. – 2804:F1...13:F724 (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  It can. But you have to give it examples in your prompt, the same as when you ask it to do any other type of markup work. 2600:1700:F990:C190:595D:5E36:9A3C:3A84 (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

User: Kelvintjy

Hello

This user seems to have difficulties with WP rules.

• on the page Soka Gakkai Italian Buddhist Institute, he keeps misquoting a source that is famous for being doubtful as "the highest profile lobbying and information group for controversial religions" (here). Strange fact : in 2016 he nominated the page for deletion..
• user is constantly removing modifications on pages related to a buddhist cult called Soka Gakkai, and his interventions are always made to work towards a laudative appreciation of this cult, without any consideration for the controversies attached to it, and without considering NPOV.
• user never answers any request or question about his modifications.
• user might be a member of this organization and edit on WP with a NPOV.

Raoul mishima (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

You are required to notify any editors you start a discussion about. I have done so for you here, but please keep this in mind moving forward. GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 01:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I had only just revert the article that is well source. It is Raoul mishima who are pushing through with is own agenda and made the multiple edit with his own interpretation in all the article he made. I just restore the articles which a lot of user had previously disscuss. Kelvintjy (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

thorny problem, eh?

it's possible that both sides of this slow rolling edit war have valid points, and it's possible both sides are including edits that stray from being good faith.

regardless,this will not be resolved through edits, as both detractors and supporters are passionate about their position.

reading over the recent edits, of which i was a participant, it looks like the L Ron Hubbard discussions from a decade ago.

I'm just going to continue to look for obvious vandalism and factual inaccuracies, as i think the current versions are reasonably accurate, outside of the editing back and forth.

have a wiki day, Augmented Seventh (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

It is undoubtedly true that "both sides" have valid points...but there's a fundamental disconnect here between Raoul (who seems to be the lone dissenter pushing a POV which views SGI negatively) and literal hordes of SGI members who keep a tight ship on all the pages mentioned. Raoul clearly has a bone to pick with SGI in any case.

The pages, unfortunately, are not very accurate. As other editors have noted, they are full of laudatory prose and contain very little discussion about the more controversial topics that surround SGI, especially in Japanese-language media. I've added some of this, but it's outweighed by paragraph upon paragraph about various SGI front groups and pointless trivia. wound theology◈ 11:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

need article to be protected

a notable historical era overview article was just deleted blanked in this edit. can you please restore the article and then lock the article? --Sm8900 (talk) Sm8900 (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I've notified the editor who made that edit of this discussion for you. Schazjmd (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok Sm8900 (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The article lacks sources and this has been pointed out clearly on the talkpage for close to a year. Article has been thoroughly tagged without any attempt to address the issue. Sm8900 has also been questioned by at least one other user and is simply refusing to provide any sources.

The request is spurious. Peter ^Isotalo 00:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

there is no basis for deleting an entire stable article, without any community consensus or discussion. Sm8900 (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

As much as the amount of tags are concerning, I don't think blanking it and redirecting (BLAR) is going to solve much, causing some sourced stuff to be voided along with unsourced ones... ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to join the discussion here: talk:late modern period. Peter ^Isotalo 01:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

with all respect, one can't invite people to a talk page for an article which has already been deleted, especially if your edit was the deletion, actually. Sm8900 (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

For crying out loud, use the talkpage. AN/I is not the place for you to resolve disagreements with other editors. Peter ^Isotalo 01:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sm8900The page is NOT deleted: It's just blanked and redirected to a different article, and pretty much anyone can restore the last version with a click, although it is strongly discouraged you do so right now as this is a ongoing dispute. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

ok, so then my concern and my point is that one editor blanked the page, without any consensus to do so. and also, isn't that equivalent to deleting the article, for all practical purposes? Sm8900 (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

by the way the article does have numerous sources. you can view the sources in the most recent version of the article, which, again, was deleted by one editor without a community consensus. Sm8900 (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Sm8900, redirecting is not deleting. Redirecting is not blanking. A bold edit to redirect a poor quality article does not require advance consensus. Do you understand these basic definitions and distinctions and principles? Cullen328 (talk) 03:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but how is deleting the entire content of an article any different than deleting this article itself? Perhaps I'm not perceiving this clearly in the way you refer to above. Sm8900 (talk) 11:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Sm8900 The difference is laid out here. Lectonar (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Lectonar, ok i will review that, and I accept your guidance and input on that. and of course I will fully accept whatever ruling and conclusions may be reached here. and let me just say that i do not perceive any issues personally with the editor who made this edit. i thought blanking a page required a clear consensus. if i am incorrect, then i will fully admit that.

as full disclosure and transparency, let me just say that if and when the discussion here concludes, i may still express disagreement at the article talk page over this issue. thanks.

let me also say, i still maintain that blanking a page should not be able to be done, especially a history article that provides a general overview for a broad era, without any community consensus at all, as occurred here. i appreciate the chance to discuss this here. Sm8900 (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

This page here is for "...is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems." We do not have one of these. As has been pointed out (correctly) by others, blanking and redirecting is not against the rules. I would follow the invitation by User:Peter Isotalo and use talk:late modern period to hash things out. Lectonar (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

i fully agree there is no behavioral problem here at all, in regards to any editors . re the urgent nature, i sincerely thought we needed admin help,,to uphold the requirement for some minimal community discussion and consensus. if i was incorrect, i will be mindful of that. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and POV pushing about the origin of Nsibidi script

CHI-Research, also editing logged out as 2603:7000:cd02:666c:c52f:1112:a1a5:3829 or 2603:7000:cd02:666c:3c71:7b63:1b6f:7da3, is aggressively pushing their OR theory about the origin of the Nsibidi script at Igbo people, Ekoi people, and Nsibidi. I tried to reason with them (User talk:CHI-Research#June 2024), but they've now stopped to argue at all, instead repeatedly pushing their POV and OR theory for which no evidence other than a misrepresented 1909 paper seems to exist. Disruptive edits include: [183], [184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189], [190], [191], [192]. I'm at my wit's end here and suggest them to be topic-banned from the three mentioned articles. Gawaon (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

GAWAON, started vandalizing my contributions from JUNE 19, 2024 through June 20, 2024 and has continued same till today (i)2600:1700:CED:5000:BD64:2E4:9540:57BB (ii) Gawaon talk contribs‎ 143,535 bytes −840‎ "Reverted 5 edits by CHI-Research (talk): Information from 1909 is likely outdated and can't be used to falsify a newer source from 2004. If you want to make this claim, you need a newer academic source confirming it undo thank"

Gawaon is adamantly spreading misleading information, based on conjectures published in folklores and non peer-reviews papers about the origin of Nsibidi script, while completely ignoring a peer-reviewed paper by Macgegor in 1909.

All POV and OR theory being recently pushed to bamboozle unsuspecting readers about the truth. The one question they fear is to provide photos and archeological evidences to support any claims made by "scholars" they reference. None. The "scholars claim that colonial officers found variety of Nsibidi script among Ejagham people but the officers did not provide photos or artefacts of the varieties being claimed, to enable comparison. The officers made the claim after the peer-reviewed paper by Macgregor in 1909. Macgregor's paper showed photos and artefacts and interviews. Thus, photos have been invented by then. Why did the "colonial officers" not document the varieties in form of photos and artefacts? The other lies being spread was that the Nsibidi script spread through migration, which contradicts the consensus among scholars and locals that Nsibidi spread by way of Ekpe society across the Cross River region.

Their only argument to counter all the contradictions, lack of photos, artefacts and peer-reviewed papers among those they cite, is that the "scholars" published their work more recently. Is that how we determine the origin of a writing system if those "scholars provide zero photos, artefacts, or peer-reviewed archeological papers to support their claims?

What is going on is that people have not being paying attention to the harm being done by people who push lies wittingly or unwittingly. Yet, no matter how long lies fly truth overtakes it in the long last. This has to stop. If they have photos, artefacts to support their "colonial officers" hypothesis or the "migration" hypothesis, I will be the first to spread the news. In absence of that, the only known peer-reviewed paper on the origin of the Nsibidi script was published in 1909. Age does not nullify its value in the face of unsubstantiated claims being pushed around today.

Therefore, I suggest that this user be topic-banned from deleting contributions of others at Igbo, Ekoi, and Nsibidi. CHI-Research (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I have combined the related reports.EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Love a Francis E. Dec–inflected grammatology dispute at ANI where Francis didn't inform the person he wants banned about the discussion like is required. I've done so. Remsense诉 15:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

CHI-Research, your complaint submission lacks WP:Diffs and comes off as a retaliatory filing. Know that there's no first mover advantage for ANI. Also note that, even if you're right, edit warring (the phrase "incorrectly attributed to" is reinserted multiple times in Gawoan's diffs) is a good way to get blocked and let the other person have the last word.

Gawoan is also correct in that Wikipedia is not concerned with WP:THETRUTH. Wikipedia cares only about what reliable sources say. And yes, WP:AGE MATTERS. Put another way, if all recent reliable sources said gravity pulled objects sideways, that's what Wikipedia would report.

Finally, this noticeboard does not care about who's right about the content. That's a matter for the article talk page. It does care about behavioral issues, such as not following policies and guidelines. As an example, note that what Gawoan did was WP:NOTVAND, and claiming it was constitutes a personal attack, which is forbidden. Gawoan, I also notice you left a vandalism warning for CHI-Research. I'd suggest a disruptive editing warning would have been more appropriate.

I'd like to give CHI-Research a chance to onboard this feedback before jumping to any sanctions. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip regarding the warning notes, I'll keep it in mind. Fortunately my experience with disruptive or vandalizing editors has been fairly limited so far, and I'm still struggling a bit with finding the best options in the Twinkle dialogue. Gawaon (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Meanwhile the disruptive editing continues, see the five latest edits to Igbo people. Gawaon (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing to my attention the use of "...incorectly attributed...."

Still on my incident report: GAWAON continues to remove my contribution, latest being today, June 25, 2024. Prior to adding my contribution, Macgregor's paper on the origin of Nsibidi was not cited or discussed. When I added it, with a highlight of key points, GAWAON removed my contribution. Could you please address this point. Thank you. CHI-Research (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually the paper is now mentioned in the Igbo people article, including the origin claim, thanks to my synthesis edit: 'though in the 1900s J. K. Macgregor recorded a "native tradition" attributing it to the Uguakima or Uyanga section of the Igbo.' That seems entirely sufficient for that article where the Nsibidi script was always mentioned in just a single sentence before you came and had to add your POV theory there. As for the paragraph you insist on re-inserting, none of it is sourced and, of course, it can't be sourced since there are no reliable sources confirming your claims. Hence it doesn't belong in that article nor, indeed, in any article. Gawaon (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The sources have been entered since you like repetition of citations. Also, you went at length to write your submission but expect a sentence of my source? Then you actually deleted my submission without permission and wrote a incoherent sentence apparently to block readers from getting the substance of my source. Is this consistent with Wikipedia policy especially in the backdrop of you stating that I added a phrase "incorrectly attribute, but you completely deleted my sentences and a meaningless sentence? CHI-Research (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Reliable source policy for historical subjects at Wikipedia:

The issue regarding the origin of Nsibidi is a historical or archeological subject. Wikipedia pay credence to older sources in topics like this one.

If 100 authors published papers and books in 2020 and attributed the origin of Nsibidi to a group, without providing photos, artefacts, or going through a peer-reviewed process among archeologists/historians, such 100 sources would be unreliable or accorded less credence versus a peer-reviewed paper from 1909 showing photos, artefacts and interviews.

Could you comment on this point against your previous post that AGE MATTERS. Thank you. CHI-Research (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Is my filing really retaliatory? No. The fact that GAWAON first filed the incident report did not make my response to the report retaliatory. I mere shared my side of the matter. Is sharing my side of the matter make it retaliatory, per Wikipedia policy? Could you please clarify what retaliatory policy entails? Thank you. CHI-Research (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Notice GAWAON now acknowledging the deletion of my post but justify it by stating that my source has been added by GAWAON. So GAWAON effectively now create sentences for GAWAON and all others. Is that a Wikipedia policy that one user can delete others' contribution or reword other's contributions? CHI-Research (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

You, on the other hand, have now managed to produce three "cite errors" in a single article. Congratulations! Gawaon (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Not a big deal as that can always happen and, as in this case, get corrected. CHI-Research (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I would like to bring to your attention that GAWAON has continued to vandalize my contribution. Today, a contribution I made was deleted by GAWAON and and replaced with new meaningless sentence. Notice how much GAWAON added but argue that a sentence is enough to present the source which was omitted before I saw the omission about a week ago. GAWAON clearly would do anything to block the source and content from readers.

Can a user block others from adding a reliable source, delete others' submission based on the source, and add their own meaningless sentence, even as they write at length about their preferred source(s)? Tank you. CHI-Research (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I had (once more) deleted your unsourced POV paragraph today, but I had written the attempted synthesis sentence earlier than that. You have meanwhile (accidentally, I supposed) managed to mangle the quotations I had added to the references out of the citations and into the main text, which of course makes the result meaningless/unreadable. Gawaon (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, the sources are added and I hope the vandalism stops. Allow others to contribute based on reliable sources.

You now refer to colonial officers as "investigators" to create an impression that they were researchers? Readers are still waiting for photos, artefacts and peer-reviewed publication of their findings, because Slogar only stated what they said.

I did not change your submission, just checked and noticed that the citations are positioned to the specific locations appropriate to individual points that you submitted. You can arrange your sources as you want. CHI-Research (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure you changed the existing citations and the only sources you added are the 1909 paper (your only source of truth, which was already present anyway) and two that currently don't work (due to your messing it up once more) but are supposedly meant to point to articles that, according to you, are wrong. What you would actually need are sources for your claims, not against them.

And frankly, based on your edit history to Igbo people today (three cite errors added and later fixed, three other citations mangled so badly that the "cite book" is now visible in the footnote and the quote block has become a part of the main text) I now feel inclined to suggest blocking you for technical incompetence alone. Gawaon (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

My claim is backed up by Macgregor with photos, artefacts and interviews as far back as 1909.

You claims are based on Carlson (migration) and Slobar (colonial officers), without any photos, artefacts and peer-reviewed evidences of the claims.

The above information has to co-exist in the page for it is pertinent. CHI-Research (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Check my submission again. I do not point to articles that are wrong, but merely add sources to highlight the sources of your 'Ejagham migration' and 'colonial officers' hypotheses of the origin of Nsibidi.

Again, neither source provides photos, artefacts, and peer-reviewed evidences to back up the claim.

Your claims and sources and the Macgregor's paper have to co-exist in the page and readers should understand what all that entails.

You should be championing transparency in showcasing all sources. Yet, that is far from what is going. You use 5o sentences for your sources and a sentence for the source you considered as old enough to omit completely. Still this is history and archeology where old is supreme, per Wikipedia Reliable source policy. CHI-Research (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, let's try this one more time. CHI-Research: First, please stop trying to say why your content is right here. ANI is not the forum for content disputes. I suspect that you feeling correct on content is making it hard for you to see how you've lapsed in conduct. See my original comment regarding edit warring.

You'll also note I didn't say your filing was retaliatory, only that it comes off as such. Your further comments here and on your talk page also make me worry that you're treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. We're all on the same side here: the side of improving the encyclopedia.

I understand that you believe you're right. There is a way to argue that. That way is not to edit war and accuse other editors of vandalism (of which reverting your edits does not qualify). The way is to discuss on the talk page. If you and Gawaon cannot come to a consensus between the two of you, explore WP:3O. If that does not work, try an WP:RFC. And no matter what, abide by whatever consensus is reached. I strongly recommend you the policy on edit warring; it covers this better than I can. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not removing or editing GAWAON's submission. Rather, I am making my submission. My last submission yesterday was reversed by GAWAON on the basis that it did not add sources. Today, I added sources. I hope that this resolves it. If not, I will explore WP:3O.as recommended.

Thank you for your feedback. CHI-Research (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Outstanding; that sounds like the exact right thing to do: try to address the concerns raised, and if they persist, use dispute resolution like 3O. I hope this means neither of you two have to waste any more time here at ANI! EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. CHI-Research (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, let's take it to the talk page and, if that doesn't help, to WP:3O. I'm willing to adhere to the outcome of that process. CHI-Research, are you too? Gawaon (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Yesterday, you stated that you reversed my contribution because it did not have sources. Today, I added sources and you reversed it again because...? CHI-Research (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• See this section I just seeded at Talk:Igbo people. Discussion over article content can continue there and, hopefully, there will be no further edit-warring that would necessitate sanctions. Abecedare (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

References

New user Oros timis cristian ioan changing dates

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.

---

Over the past day this new editor has been changing dates of birth/death on various film industry biographical articles. A couple that I spot-checked and reverted are verifiably wrong - indeed this set of changes not only changed a year away from that in the NYT obituary but also changed the publication date within the reference. Others involve pre-existing paywalled refs which are more awkward to verify, but it appears to me that the editor's changes are likely unsafe across the board and should be reverted. AllyD (talk) 12:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2024 (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.