Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Topic ban proposals

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

• Strong support For topic bans.

Akhiljaxxn aka TheWikiholic was given final warning after a community discussion earlier on ANI.[1]

TruthsGuardians's conduct was discussed extensively in the earlier ANI thread.[2]

It is now time to topic ban all three of these since Salvabl is also acting disruptive and frequently violating WP:POINT[3]. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by TruthGaurdians

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

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

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

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

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

  Then we have the sockpuppet investigation involving TruthGuardians [4], which was closed by the checkusers as being unrelated to TruthGuardians. Abhishek0831996 deserves one hell of a trout slap for claiming THAT as the basis for a topic ban on pretty much anything. ANI is not a venue to tear down people who disagree with you on content. Ravenswing 08:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by TheWikiholic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nuclear option: Fully protect the article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Salvabl

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry for the length of my messages, I'll try to write shorter messages in the future. The problem here has its origin years ago, and retrospective is necessary in order to have context about this situation. Yet, there are many actions by Harout72 that I've had to omit in order not to create an extremely long message, and which are relevant, such as his opinion about a racist message, or his silence after being asked for sources to support the inflated figure of 24M that he added to the certified sales of Presley's Christmas Album. The worst part of all this is that I'm being compelled to not talk about music sales as we should because Harout72 himself has also stopped doing so, choosing ANI reports instead. Salvabl (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

User Davey2010

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Davey2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user decided to revert a picture I swapped 19 months ago (does 19 months imply consensus?). I restored the earlier version once, but Davey was deadset on the earlier one so I let his changes remain. It's not worth edit warring over. However, I did remove the forced thumbnail size which he kept restoring. He then reverted this change too (twice, probably in haste the first time), and threatened to report me. Davey2010's reaction made me write a fuller response on his talkpage, asking why he was so hostile. His response was "Blah blah blah no one gives a shit about what you have to say. Thumbsize does indeed state that so congratulations you win!, Have a cookie.". I thought maybe we had had some old disagreement that still rankled with him and asked. His response: "Fuck off seriously. I have no interest in conversating with you, I have no interest in further wasting my time with you, Adios."

Two issues for me: first the immediate vitriol and subsequent foul language, completely unmotivated for an argument that I had already ceded because it was not worth the effort. This is not how we treat other editors.

Secondly, his reply to the forced thumbnail size was "congratulations you win!", implying at least a mild problem with WP:NOTHERE. It appears to me that Davey2010 treats WP as a battleground and has real problems working collaboratively. I don't intend to post any more on their talkpage as it would only stir trouble, but I would like to draw attention to this. Thanks.  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Mr.choppers, you need to notify Davey2010 of this discussion, as instructed in the pink box at the top of the edit window. Cullen328 (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• • Cullen328 He did. See here. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I agree with you, and reverted Davey's change. Yes, his behavior is outrageous, and he should be warned for being impolite. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I thought I had, thanks Rockstone. Is there some more elegant way of doing that? Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Mr.choppers, I apologize. I did not notice it because you added it to an unrelated talk page section. Best practice is to create a new section. Cullen328 (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I think generally the idea is to make a separate heading. But the act of editing a user's talk page will notify them. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• 2 things. 1. Rockstone35 - {{Why were these 2 edits reverted given they had absolutely nothing to do with the dispute?,
  

2. The very first revert on my talkpage stating: Blah blah blah no one gives a shit about what you have to say. Thumbsize does indeed state that so congratulations you win!, Have a cookie[5] (emphasis mine) should've been a very clear indication that A) I became aware I was incorrect with the thumbsize reverts and B) that should've been matter resolved. Sure I made snarky comments but what does adding 2 different comments after being reverted actually achieve ?. Nothing. Just like this ANI thread right now doesn't achieve a lot. Anyway what's happened has happened, I should've kept my big gob shut and IMHO MrC shouldn't have repeatedly posted on my tp. –Davey2010^Talk 21:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I totally understand being hot-headed as I get riled pretty easily. That said, Davey is a good editor and perhaps needs the annual reminder that if we notice we're falling into a heated exchange it is probably time to just stop editing for a bit and think. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

[{u|Davey2010}} 1. The image that you changed is part of the problem that Mr. Chopper's has with your edits. He stated that the original image was better. 2. The main problem is that you are, to be frank, being unnecessarily hostile and rude. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, is that nine previous ANI incidents? All I did was ask him why he was behaving in such a combative manner over something so minor. "no one gives a shit about what you have to say" is not snark, it's unacceptable both for its language and what it says about Davey's opinions of other editors. Which is why I wondered if we had had some sort of incident in the past.  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

It shows this is not as one off, that's for sure. Secretlondon (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The image has been there since 2013[6] without issue but now someone changes it without any consensus I'm now expected to seek consensus for something that had been there 9 years without issue. Makes sense. –Davey2010^Talk 21:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

It does make sense -- the image was changed 19 months ago, and since no one objected, that's the new consensus. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but it doesn't. I would've reverted much much sooner if I was actually editing here. No one else reverted because preserambly no one else noticed the change. –Davey2010^Talk 21:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• There is way too much reverting going on right now, and I note that nobody has opened a discussion at the article's talk page. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• Do you want me to open a discussion? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

  No @Rockstone35it's fine, I'll start one in a few days. Until that RFC has reached consensus I shall not revert on that page. –Davey2010^Talk 21:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• That sounds good to me! Thank you! @Mr.choppers: I'd close the discussion since it sounds like we have a workable solution. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I've started a thread on the talk page. We'll see how that goes. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Lepricavark I didn't bring it to the talk page because I didn't want to argue about one picture over another (note that I only changed it back a single time) - I am aware that picture preference is subjective. I came here because I am bothered by Davey2010's lack of civility not because I wasn't getting my way.  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Mr.choppers Personally, I don't want Davey to get in trouble, even if his actions were uncivil, as long as he recognizes why they were uncivil and tries to do better in the future. It's easy to not realize how you're coming across on the Internet. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The thing is - it's not a one-off and it's really unacceptable behaviour. Secretlondon (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Secretlondon That's just it - It isn't a one off and it'll forever be a problem with me - this has been an issue since 2010 although in my defence I'm not as bad as I used to be (sure i'm not perfect but still I've come a long way to the person I used to be). If someone gave me an ultimatum and said "don't say FO again or you'll be indeffed" I would at that point take the indef option because I'm never going to change - I've improved a lot sure but I won't ever not say it.

Of course I don't scream FO to everyone whilst I'm walking down the high street like a lunatic but yes I do swear and yes when provoked I do say it irl (although irl it's very rare i'm provoked), Anyway I wont reply further as don't want to dig more holes for myself. –Davey2010^Talk 22:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Davey blocked

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours: User_talk:Davey2010#Block. El_C 02:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Good on you for providing such a thorough, honest, and fair-minded block rationale. You handled this very well, and I really hope Davey will take your words to heart. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Well said, El_C! Could not have said it better. That's why we pay you the big bucks. I thank you for having the courage to block "vested" users when repeated patterns are undoubtedly harming the project. Softlavender (talk) 06:02, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

What a well grounded and explained block notice El_C. Pretty sure I wouldn't have explained it that well. Canterbury Tail talk 10:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Weird Contributor #1

I originally posted this as a vandal report, but:
136.158.41.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Skeevy behavior: made a dubious draft (Draft:List of Tom and Jerry voice actors), edited my section on the talk page (saying they were sourced from BTVA when Tom and Jerry in the draft were "voiced by 50+ people", etc.), and repeatedly removed my cleanup addition (to add episode notes + find false info with the voice cast) in The Tom and Jerry Show (2014 TV series). They also have edited other dubious drafts, notably relating to Nutri Ventures.

Furthermore, when I added the template Template:Hoax to their drafts, they reverted it. They also edited my talk page message on Draft talk:Nutri Ventures (2023 TV series). It leads to believe they're trying to be defensive with the info they're writing about. I'm reporting them in case they still don't get the memo.

I would also like to add they make drafts on upcoming reboots (Draft:Tom and Jerry Time, and something for Tiny Toons Looniversity) with fictitious details. Both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:MADEUP. I've warned them about making unconstructive edits twice, but to no success. ... sigh. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Their first edit was last month (on the Nutri Ventures article too), so it appears as if they're trying to bring their information into random drafts they make. While at the same time, trying to write about upcoming reboots with uncited voice casts they made up. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked Special:contributions/136.158.41.0/24 for six months. Many of the individual IPs within the range were already blocked or previously blocked; this is a long-term problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you! Didn't know it was a long-term problem. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 04:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• I've CSD'ed the redirect and article as likely copyvio and unnecessary. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

User:ThinkingSirus1800 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Spamming a CFD entry with multiple edits mere minutes apart. [7] [8] [9] [10] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r: there's nothing disruptive about this. He's realising new things and commenting on the CFD as he notices them. @ThinkingSirus1800: it's better to collect all your thoughts at once before writing them down, so that it's organised, people can more accurately respond to them, and it doesn't fill up the page history. Mvcg66b3r, try assuming good faith next time. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 17:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I am just getting use to it, my apologizes. ThinkingSirus1800 (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with DatGuy. It can be a little annoying sometimes, but it's a one time thing and obviously done in good faith. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
• I've CU blocked ThinkingSirus1800 as a  Confirmed sock of this master. The edit request at Talk:KMYT-TV was a dead give-away if your familiar with the master account.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Nameless User

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

I noticed some low-quality non-notable pages created by Nameless User, a now-blocked sockmaster. Nameless User created the following pages, which I proposed for deletion:

1. 2008 FC Gifu season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2. 2009 Tochigi SC season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
3. 2010 Tokyo Verdy season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
4. 2009 FC Gifu season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
5. 1995 JEF United Ichihara season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
6. 2003 Consadole Sapporo season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
7. 2004 Consadole Sapporo season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
8. 2008 Ehime FC season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
9. 2008 Mito HollyHock season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
10. 2007 Yokohama FC season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
11. 2007 Oita Trinita season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
12. 2010 Urawa Red Diamonds season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
13. 2000 Shonan Bellmare season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
14. 2010 Ventforet Kofu season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
15. 1999 Bellmare Hiratsuka season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like for an administrator to assist cleanup of pages created by Nameless User. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 02:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Interestingly, I have also nominated quite a bite via WP:PROD from this user. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Most of these look like abandoned half-finished drafts....they've been live on the namespace for 11 year? Nice catch. I'd imagine most of them could be speedy deleted. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

If any of these fall under any CSD, they should be tagged as such. Otherwise, they'll be deleted in a week unless challenged. I don't see any urgent issue for admins here. Still, I agree, good catch given that some of these have raw wikimarkup scattered about. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I have rejected these deletions. These articles are notable. 100.10.40.186 (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree they are not notable, and has zero reliable sources. Chip3004 (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

IP blocked for personal attacks. [11] Acroterion (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I am inclined to restore the PRODs since it appears that they were removed by a blocked user who was using an IP to evade their block. Acroterion (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat on userpage

IP user 2600:1003:B02E:D53B:0:4C:4304:FC01 is posting legal threats on their userpage. They are already rangeblocked, may need talk page access pulled. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Tpa revoked for a year, threats removed. Bishonen | tålk 06:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC).

I've reduced it to a week. Random IPs on Verizon Wireless shouldn't be blocked for so long. The only thing such a long block will do is inconvenience the next random person to be allocated that IP address, which will probably happen within hours, anyway. This isn't like a residential cable ISP, where the /64 will stay allocated to a single person for months. Anything like 2600:1000 will be Verizon Wireless, and you can check the "whois" link to be sure. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, most of the cellular IPs (particularly AT&T) I've seen are blocked for months or even years at a time, and usually immediately re-blocked after these blocks expire. I think they should be treated the same way as open proxies, which is to say blocked permanently, to encourage users to create accounts or move to static IPs. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Open proxies are not blocked permanently. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Open or anonymous proxies may be blocked on sight is pretty damning (from blocking policy). 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with block duration. IPs change hands, open proxies close, and so we don't block IPs – proxies or not – indefinitely, with extremely few exceptions. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Skippo10

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

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

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

@Skippo10 do you see how some of your responses (e.g. I don't know what you are talking about. [12], thanks for trying to get me blocked...really nice of you to essentially find ways to bully people who work hard editing and bringing articles up to date, but some admins like to flex their muscles don't they [13]) do not endear you to uninvolved users who view these disputes? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: Indefinitely block Skippo10 because competence is required

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

See above thread. This user's talk page depicts years of other editors attempting to help them understand the rules around here. Plus 2x temporary blocks for failure to actually correct that behavior. And all of that advice is met with empty pleas, WP:IDHT, or promises to improve, without evidence of actual improvement. Add to this the user's continual appeal that, in essence, all admins are aligned against me. [14] [15] This wiki is not a no-holds-barred cage match. It is a project which requires competence and careful attention to the rules. For this reason, we should indefinitely block Skippo10 via community consensus, as a preventative action to inhibit future disruption. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

User:Motherlily

User has reverted the current version on a featured list article of an actor's awards and nominations page by totally removing all content and replacing it with a previous version that completely undid the work that was put into it. Removed the lead, changed the structure of the table, and took out the sources—including the {{Featured list}} tag. User claims that removal of non-notable awards is unwarranted, exclaiming Who are you to say not worthy of mention?, User has explicitly said I am maintaining this page for years and suddenly you changed everything, which to my knowledge is contrary to WP:OWN. Of note, since the User's last edit in September 2021, the article has gone through a rework, nominated to FLC and promoted to FL. Given the User's unwillingness and counterintuitive behavior, I suspect this will just escalate into WP:EDITWAR at some point. It appears User is clearly WP:NOTHERE. (persistent edits [16] [17]} (talk page discussion [18] --Pseud 14 (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Pseud 14, they haven't reverted again after your last comments on their talk page, so I'm not sure why you escalated it to ANI when they have yet to respond to your latest comment, nor as mentioned, reverted again. El_C 20:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

El_C I brought it up in 3RR but was asked to escalate to ANI. Understandably, it hasn't gone to a third revert just yet, but I'm not keeping my expectations high, based on how the responses have been (twice) and the user's behavior. It's only a matter of time—given this type of user who is unwilling to adhere to any Wikipedia guidelines. But like you said, wait and see. Which is what I'll do.--Pseud 14 (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Post-close note: I dunno, maybe still WP:AGF...? Also, RE: User is clearly WP:NOTHERE — that is not clear to me. I don't think you've established that clearly. El_C 20:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

El_C Perhaps you have a point. I could be wrong. But if you see me back, that'll be your answer, which I have no desire going through honestly, if I can avoid it. No one wants to be on a reverting battle. WP:NOTHERE—could fall as narrow self-interest or addition of information that can be perceived as promotional. The article being reverted to looks more like a webpage with a laundry list of awards which isn't FL material, which is very common amongst fanatics. I would have been hands off otherwise. But oh well, case closed for now.--Pseud 14 (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Uh, maybe don't use the word fanatic. Anyway, the general ethos of Wikipedia is to give users a reasonable chance to self-correct, even and especially when it's difficult. I just don't think it's appropriate for you to jump the gun by asking for preemptive action. Because by doing so, you're the one who is cutting the conversation short and possibly not allowing for it to reach its logical conclusion (whatever that ends up being). El_C 21:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

El_C did not intend to have the word used negatively, I meant some die hard fans obsessing over pages which in certain ways tend to be going WP:Fancruft territory. Wouldn’t be the first instance I’ve come across editors with this kind of behavior (mindset). But then again, every case is different. Understandably, I’ve had time where pre-emptive action wasn’t imposed which later on escalted, while I’ve also had ones that took the warning and stopped. It’s a hit or miss. Hopefully this one is the latter. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

2A02:8084:8020:2280:0:0:0:0/64

2A02:8084:8020:2280:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Notification will be to last few used addresses.

Description of issue

The range has been active since September 2021. A large amount of their changes have been WP:ENGVAR changes despite notices about ENGVAR. They've received many talk page warnings but there haven't been any blocks on the range yet, likely due to the IPv6 issue. 2A02:8084:8020:2280:9D20:73B1:A680:3B21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is an early instance of an ENGVAR notification but it's difficult to tell which notifications were received and which weren't. I haven't calculated it but it looks like about half of the range's contributions have been reverted.

Timeline evidence

Some recent events indicate that they are aware of WP:ENGVAR, that they are unwilling to communicate, and that they may be changing addresses intentionally:

• 2A02:8084:8020:2280:7DAE:8B55:E3AC:31F (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 17:06, 20 August 2022 - ENGVAR notification form me Special:Diff/1105521893
• 17:40, 20 August 2022 - Edit by IP changing $ symbol to £ symbol where source appears to be in $ Special:Diff/1105529898
• 19:09, 20 August 2022 - Level 3 warning to IP by another editor Special:Diff/1105548401
• 09:41, 21 August 2022 - Edit by IP changing a date Special:Diff/1105696740
• 10:20, 21 August 2022 - Edit by IP changing theater to theatre Speical:Diff/1105701654
• 10:22, 21 August 2022 - Level 4 warning to IP by another editor Special:Diff/1105701859
• IP changes to 2a02:8084:8020:2280:d5c6:4900:97f4:b1b4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 11:00, 21 August 2022 - ENGVAR edit Special:Diff/1105706233
• 11:20, 21 August 2022 - ENGVAR edit Special:Diff/1105708386
• 11:22, 21 August 2022 - ENGVAR edit Special:Diff/1105708574
• 13:43, 21 August 2022 - Grammar edit Special:Diff/1105726117
• IP changes to 2a02:8084:8020:2280:d5c6:4900:97f4:b1b4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The edits after the warnings on the same IP indicate the warnings were received and then either read or ignored. The switch of IPs after the level 4 warning indicates a possibility that the change was intentional to avoid a block. PhantomTech[talk] 21:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion watching this range, the editor is very aware of MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:RETAIN but is showing deliberate disdain for the MOS by knowingly refusing to comply. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

"they may be changing addresses intentionally" – that's not how the internet works. I did a 1 week block, though, and included a link to this discussion. If it continues after that, I can do a longer block. It looks like this has gone on for a long time. It's difficult to effectively communicate with IP users whose address constantly changes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Buenos Aires music genre vandalism

186.129.0.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone in Argentina has been adding and removing music genres without reference or discussion.[19] Many of the edit summaries are pasted markup in Spanish or other languages such as Arabic[20] or Turkish.[21] The person has never responded to warnings or notices—has never used a talk page. Can we block the range Special:Contributions/186.129.0.0/20? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

186.129.0.0/20 Blocked – for a period of one week. El_C 01:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

2402:4000:2382:2E9B:48DB:50BF:A506:2

• 2402:4000:2382:2E9B:48DB:50BF:A506:2 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Disruptive comments on IP's own talk page after a block ("paid propagandists of murderous usa regime like you", "go get an education"). Kleinpecan (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

TPA revoked. El_C 01:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

IPv6 addresses disrupting edits

This IP addresses keeps disrupt edits on this article without giving proper summary: User:2405:9800:BA31:CA3E:4DFA:A8AB:3088:4096 User:2001:fb1:14c:100f:c021:9081:63b:565a User:2001:EE0:257:FD08:4755:D3DE:5336:625E User:2001:EE0:2F7:8C37:6764:24A2:4E6C:7D7C — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volley000 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Volley000, sorry, but this looks like WP:FORUMSHOPPING. My query concerning your protection request for this article at RfPP still remains outstanding as of my writing this (permalink). El_C 04:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Possible sock puppet

Hi. Sorry to be back again with another report, but OV Inc. may actually be a sock puppet of South Dakota Pizza, which is also a suspected sock puppet of Orca Vision Inc.. The reason I suspected sock puppetry is because OV Inc and South Dakota Pizza have been inserting a sentence about South Dakota Pizza being headquartered in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

The edits that raised my suspicion were this and this.

Also, their usernames are very similar.

Could someone take a look? Thanks! weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 04:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The content they put on their user page User:OV_Inc. makes it pretty clear. Uhai (talk · contribs) 04:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I was typing this when I saw a message in my e-mail saying that the user page had been created. It pretty much gives away it's operated by Orca Vision. Thanks! weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 04:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Worth noting for posterity that when this user has one of their sockpuppets blocked, the account should also have talk page access revoked otherwise they will abuse it with frivolous unblock requests and other nonsense. Uhai (talk · contribs) 04:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. "Please buy my stuff" isn't going to get the user unblocked. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 04:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

TPA revoked. /gen Ordered their soap since I keep seeing accounts promoting it. Will unblock if it's any good./j -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Sergio3018 and persistent removal of Russian names

Sergio3018 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On 17 August, the user was removing Russian names from the articles on Ukrainian localities without any comment (example, about 20 edits, see their contributions). There is currently no consensus that Russian names should be removed from the articles on predominantly Russian-speaking localities (well, one can argue that WP:MOS only recommends one name in a foreign language, but in many similar situations articles have two or even more names, and they have been there for ages - I mean, it could be an interesting discussion to have, but we never had this discussion). I warned them and rolled the edits back. Next day, they did the same (example, about a dozen of edits). I warned them again and indicated that their account can be blocked. Yesterday night, they continued (example, about a dozen edits). They never responded to me and in fact I believe never used a talk page, they are editing from a mobile. However, I do not see any other means to stop this behavior than to block the account. Ymblanter (talk) 05:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Is this a legal threat?

I am in doubt if the edit summary of this edit constitutes a legal threat or that it is just a desperate editor: Note- Everyone who tries to change/edit/delete the page of this respected village will be fined as per the new act of govt. of india. The Banner talk 13:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

At the very least, it appears to be an attempt to scare away editors. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah! i think so Editornews90 (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked for disruption, including the legal threat.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
• User:Pillukherateshil Probable sock of of User:Editornews90--VViking_TalkEdits 14:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yup. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Revoke talk access

This sock is asking people to engage in edit warring for him. This is misuse of talk page and it should be revoked since this is a confirmed sock who already admitted to have used "former account".[22] NavjotSR (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done Cullen328 (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Constant reversion of edits by User:Thenightaway on Leyla Aliyeva

Constant reversion of edits by User:Thenightaway on Leyla Aliyeva

I am worried about the behaviour of User:Thenightaway on Leyla Aliyeva. Here's my case: In line with WP:BOLD, WP:GF and WP:NPOV, I made the following edits on Leyla Aliyeva:

International Dialogue for Environmental Action

In July 2011, Aliyeva launched the International Dialogue for Environmental Action (IDEA), an international environmental NGO that works to promote awareness and education of environmental issues.

Awards and recognition

• 2011 - Received the Key to Life award of the Children's Cancer and Blood Foundation(CCBF) in New York

• 2012 - Received Special International Honorary Award for Environmental Protection at the 6th International Environmental Project Olympiad (Inepo-Euroasia) held on April 6-7 in Baku

The edits above are factual and are clearly inline with WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. But User:Thenightaway reverted the edits minutes after tagging them as "Puffery" and "COI". This is never puffery. Also, I don't have any COI issue on this. I only made a good faith edits in line with WP:BOLD

A look at the history of the page reveals that User:Thenightaway has been in the habit of reverting edits on the page. He prevents other editors from updating the page by reverting their edits. This is quite disheartening.

I am saddened about this. I believe User:Thenightaway's actions are not in line with wikipedia mission which allows good faith edits from all editors. I feel so bad about this to be sincere.

I am bringing up the notice here admins to review the scenario. I believe there are no issues with the edits I made. The edits are factual and properly sourced. They are also written in line with WP:NPOV. These are never spammy.

I don't want to engage in "Edit wars" with User:Thenightaway. I want the edits to be re-added because they are inline with wikipedia guidelines. Thanks.Phedhima (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

References

• I do not see a single comment by either of you on the talk page of the article. Before coming to ANI, you need to first discuss the content differences on the article talk page. Admin do not decide content, we only deal with behavior, and since no effort has been made to discuss it, I would opt to not act at all here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I mean, they're not wrong. The edit you made is just puffery of non-notable awards and a seemingly non-notable organisation. Canterbury Tail talk 16:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The article in question has been rife with WP:COI problems for more than a decade (a glance at the article history shows that veteran editors have had to periodically clean puffery and fluff from the article). The edits made by this editor (whose sole edit history is to (i) create an article for an obscure TV show months before the show started and (ii) add the same puffery to the Leyla Aliyeva article that WP:COI accounts previously added) are pure promotional and have no added value for an encyclopedic article on the subject. In my view, there are good reasons to initiate a sockpuppet investigation based on these edits[23][24], but that's not something for ANI to evaluate. Thenightaway (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you User:Dennis Brown. I am sorry I didn't discuss about this on the "talk page". I never knew. I have tried now to raise the issue on the talk page but it seems the talk page is now working out well. In any case, I only want to understand the reason for the incessant reversal of a sourced and factual content that I added in line with wiki guidelines. The subject in question appears to have won several awards. I only picked two that have good WP:RS. I see many other pages with "Awards" section. The other edit is also backed up by WP:RS. I really don't understand the reason for the incessant reversion by User:Thenightaway. The behaviour is discouraging and worrisome. I stand to be corrected if I am wrong.Phedhima (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

This is why you use the talk page, to learn what is and isn't considered "notable" in the way of awards. There are tons of awards that sound notable, but aren't for example. I have no comment on the merits here, just saying that things aren't always what they seem and any problem must start with dialog. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Non-notable positions with non-notable organizations, awards from non-notable organizations, an award from an organization that there is no actual evidence of her having received outside her personal website and a celebrity site with zero credibility, and sources all sourced to the state news agency of your father's country which is renowned for having no freedom of journalism. I think that about covers it. Canterbury Tail talk 21:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I would still encourage them to use the talk page rather than come here.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. However I may open an SPI as it seems there are multiple accounts trying to add the exact same things on that article. Canterbury Tail talk 13:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

67.187.73.94

IP User 67.187.73.94 makes strange contributions. Fist he started trolling me at my talk page [25], [26], [27], then he added hidden URL to my talk page[28]. Now he removing big amount of sourced data from the Turkish Angora without explanation [29], [30].

Just recently Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for block evasion. I believe this user is not build for Wikipedia. Can Admins please look at that? Thanks! --Abrvagl (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Blocked longer this time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Atlanta IPs violating BLP

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

Some Atlanta-based IPs have added falsehoods to BLPs. The person changed the first wife's surname and added a child to Ted Nugent.[31] They are also clumsily adding biography info[32] and changing England to UK and back. WP:CIR is an issue.

Last January they were busy whitewashing the Ted Nugent biography, removing negative material, for which they were rangeblocked for six months.[33]

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

Mulatto

The has for some time been a slow pattern of edits at Mulatto, asserting that the commonly-described and sourced usage of the term is not derogatory or in general deprecated. Most recently, Melange6 (talk · contribs) has appeared to right great wrongs in this matter, insisting that at least in Brazil it isn't viewed as an offensive term, and therefore shouldn't be in English. Most recently, Melange6 has started accusing other editors of racism [34] for not allowing Melange6 to assume the role of self-appointed spokesman for the group and the term [35] , and is exhibiting inappropriate ownership of the subject [36]. I left a final PA warning, but since I've disputed this editor's efforts, and others on the same topic, I will not take further action. Acroterion (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Blocked as NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Laska666

I stumbled across Anglo-Vietnamese conflict (1808) a couple of weeks ago, and was struck by its claim that a British expeditionary force had been repelled by a local force with loss, yet there appeared to be no sources focusing on the Royal Navy to substantiate what should be readily verifiable losses. I went so far as to order a copy of one of the sources cited, The Mandarin Road to Old Hue by Alistair Lamb, and found that the page references made no mention of anything like that, or even pertained to that year. I approached Laska666 (talk · contribs) with my concern [37] and they altered the sourcing [38]. Another editor alluded to past issues that I haven't been able to track down [39], and I am starting to think that there are broader issues with this editor. I've tagged the article as a possible hoax and will send it to AfD shortly, but I am starting to think there is a broader pattern here. Other eyes on this editor's articles would be appreciated, preferably with subject knowledge of Vietnamese history. Acroterion (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

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

• For convenience, all the page pages he has created: [40] Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Nduai Kabait rebellion is entirely based on a doctoral thesis from 1987 (but cited in the article as 2013). I have only found paper and microfiche copies (no digital) so far, so it seems highly unlikely that this is actually a source for the information in the article. The first page of Google just gets wikipedia mirrors. -- asilvering (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

1782 Saigon massacre appears to be legitimate. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I gave this user a warning for copyright violations in January 2021; I can't exactly recall if there were issues with source-to-text integrity. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• Anglo-Vietnamese conflict (1808) is at AfD [41] Acroterion (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

User:DinosaursKing causing edit warring, rude remarks

This user (contributions) is once reported in this time, but after that, this user still continues to add the theory they want to emphasize on pages like Largest prehistoric animals, mainly discussion for Megalodon, which is so controversial. they continues to claim that Megalodon has grown to an average length of over 16 meters. In talk page of that page, that user discussed with @Toddy1: and @Ishan87:, and Dinosaursking claims "accurate source" with relatively unreliable sources than papers, such as news article, Britannica, and Prehistoric Wildlife (completely unreliable as source, see here). And in this talk page, they can be seen provoking the other users on talk by saying things like "Got it? Kid? LOL" or "OK? Kid?". And this user added their theory back to the page after a gap that the fuss had subsided. I think what this user is doing is quite confusing and rude, and something needs to be done. I propose partial block for that page works for that user. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Largest prehistoric animals has long been the target of disruptive editing by users who are otherwise uninterested in editing about paleontology more broadly. This person clearly has no understanding about the concept of civillity or reliable sources and should be at least temporarily blocked. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The DinosaursKing account's contributions history shows it to be a single-purpose account. A look at his/her contributions to the Largest prehistoric animals article page shows that he/she has merely resumed edit-warring to his/her preferred version after other users moved on. His/her last contribution to the article talk page was 24 December 2021. He/she did make an edit to another page,[42] (without an edit summary), but only to promote his/her POV on with respect of the size of Megalodon, which he/she has edit-warred over on the Largest prehistoric animals article. I suggest an indefinite block for an editor who is clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Even through I tagged them on talk page and warned here, DinosaurKing worked to edit for pages of Largest Prehistoric animals and Shark again.[43][44] I will change my policy, as Toddy said, indefinite block works better for this user. This user just want to advert theory of large averaged Megalodon, and nothing other than that. P.S. Although I amended the Megalodon size ranges in their edit based on newer papers and removed the controversial average size, they added the data for an average 16 m-long Megalodon and deleted smaller estimate as they did many times.[45] It's also worth mentioning the reference they always use to claim a Megalodon with an average size of 16 meters. That is this researchgate poster[46] which is not published as paper, and published newer study by same researchers[47] does not contain that average length estimation. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I commented on their talk page that they should stop editing once and join the discussion here, but they ignored and made the edits, with that poster as reference.[48][49] They will not stop editing until they are punished. indefinite block is needed. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Submitted for AN3. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

DinosaursKing (talk · contribs) blocked for 48 hours. @DinosaursKing: When your edits are challenged, you must use an article talk page to explain why your edit should prevail. Please let me know if problems persist after this block expires. Johnuniq (talk) 07:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring IP range

The range 2600:6C55:4B00:75D:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) has been making questionable formatting changes to media-related articles, and often when reverted will edit war to restore their preferred revision (e.g. insisting that "i just don't the need the date of the sale" (which comes perilously close to asserting "ownership" against policy) and insisting a not quite gramatically-correct edit is "the best grammar". They have also admitted that they may be editing logged out, acknowledging that "i already tried by creating my account to myself it made block 2 times." (For the moment I am refraining from making any actual connections, but if it is what I think it is the account in question, though it has indeed been blocked twice, is not currently blocked.) Out of an abundance of caution I note that the specific IP I am notifying (as it is the most recent) is 2600:6C55:4B00:75D:643D:B3A3:C46D:4F59 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Update: The range has been blocked for a month by Ohnoitsjamie (after their request to protect MyNetworkTV ended up resulting in a boomerang), but an unblock request, claiming to have "settled the edit war", has been made on one of the range's talk pages… by Grenertson1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which is the account I alluded to earlier. Their editing history shows many of the same traits as the IP, and they have had two short blocks for edit warring; before the request, the account's lone edit since August 10 (during which the /64 was actively editing) was to the semi-protected Template:Paramount Global. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Francabicon2 impersonation and abuse

Dear who ever may concern, please read on this edit comment on this date and time 11:14, 16 August 2022‎ by user Francabicon2.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=United_Malays_National_Organisation&action=history
The user blatantly claims that i have more than one account and copy my profile article. Also he calls me a pH potential hydrogen supporter which i have no clue what he meant. Please do review and give a fair judgement for this matter. Thank You. Francabicon (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

It's been blocked for impersonation. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 04:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I want to report a user who calls me obstinate dolt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%E9%B3%A9%E5%B1%B1%E7%94%BA%E3%81%AB%E4%BD%8F%E3%82%80%E3%81%8A%E3%81%98%E3%81%95%E3%82%93

I am a Japanese user who often uses Japanese Wikipedia. User: Ebizur has been blocked several times due to editorial disputes in the Japanese Wikipedia. User:Ebizur always sources what User:Ebizur wrote in the English version of Wikipedia when there is an editorial dispute in Japanese Wikipedia. User: Ebizur also asked other users about their nationality. User: Ebizur asked me what the iq is.And User: Ebizur insulted me as obstinate dolt.I was badly hurt. I want to report on this matter.鳩山町に住むおじさん (talk) 06:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

You have failed to notify Ebizur (talk · contribs) of this ANI filing, as the edit notice and the top of the page clearly require. I have done so for you this time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 06:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you.鳩山町に住むおじさん (talk) 07:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

User:鳩山町に住むおじさん has been harassing me for several months now, repeatedly reverting the article about Haplogroup O-M176 and the corresponding article on the Japanese version of Wikipedia on the basis that I have been "distorting" the article. When I asked him to explain what he meant by "distorting," he accused me of being a Chinese nationalist (I am an American, although that is not really relevant), and he claimed that I was intentionally manipulating the order of entries in a list. He apparently was unable to tell that I had put the entries in order from the smallest value to the largest value without any intention of manipulating them for reason of propaganda or whatever he has imagined in his delusions.

Is there any way to prevent User:鳩山町に住むおじさん from pestering me and reverting my additions to Wikipedia for no logical reason? Ebizur (talk) 07:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Ebizur has a history of being blocked about four times or more due to ongoing editorial disputes at Wikipedia in Japan.The editorial dispute continues today.He also insulted me.鳩山町に住むおじさん (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Ebizur also doesn't apologize for insulting me by calling me an obstinate dolt and he tried to delete the text and hide it.https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%E9%B3%A9%E5%B1%B1%E7%94%BA%E3%81%AB%E4%BD%8F%E3%82%80%E3%81%8A%E3%81%98%E3%81%95%E3%82%93&diff=1106106884&oldid=1106100715 Also, he does not reflect on his mistakes by telling groundless stories.鳩山町に住むおじさん (talk) 08:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Ebizur's repeated edits and rude remarks have their own problems, but the reporters don't respond to their questions and appear to be editing on their own. Looking at the editing history of the Japanese version of Wikipedia,[50] it seems that reporter making unfounded editorial comments such as "they worship China" and "The editor is Korean." for Ebizur and other editors. I feel that both need to be addressed. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 08:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Although Ebizur is a long time user he has insulted the JP user. The JP user’s account is very new, both in JP WP and ENG WP. The JP user has been disruptive on the JP WP but they have a different set of rules. I would advise both parties to disengage and pause edit warring.  Augu  Maugu ♨ 09:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed for that solution. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions.

I would like to request at least one disinterested third party to compare and contrast the most recent edition of the article on Haplogroup O-M176 published by myself and the most recent edition of the article published by User:鳩山町に住むおじさん and choose the most appropriate version to leave on Wikipedia for the time being. Ebizur (talk) 09:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

This comment doesn't look like disengaging. Kire1975 (talk) 10:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide an explanation as to why User:鳩山町に住むおじさん's version of the article should remain unedited while both he and I "pause edit warring" according to User:AuguMaugu's suggestion? Ebizur (talk) 10:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Rather than making a decision here, shouldn't it be better to make a decision in a place where there are many users who specialize in the same field (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Molecular_Biology, etc.)? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

There is something misunderstood. I never once said he worshipped China.I think that what he writes is not neutral and I say that it is biased towards a particular country.Also, the editing of this person and the editing of Koreans are similar, so I only raised an objection that they might be Korean.Importantly, Ebizur has a history of being blocked from Japanese wiki about four times.And he insulted me.I never once insulted him.You're talking as if I was wrong first and you're misunderstanding.鳩山町に住むおじさん (talk) 10:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

You are claiming that I saw Ebizur in the Japanese Wikipedia and said, "He worships China." I never said he worshipped China. Where does it say that?鳩山町に住むおじさん (talk) 10:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I've never insulted him and said he worshipped China.Does he have the right to call me an obstinate dolt here?鳩山町に住むおじさん (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Possibly I mistook that, but you also said, "This compilation is based on Chinese thought"[51] and "Ebizur's compilation is Chinese propaganda"[52]. Of course, Ebizur's insults are unacceptable, but I feel like you're being too speculative and prejudiced as well. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand Japanese perfectly. I think it's because you use a translator maybe.I did not say "Chinese thought" I said "It is a biased description of China." and I did not say "Ebizur's compilation is Chinese propaganda" Please let me know where such a writing is written. 鳩山町に住むおじさん (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's prejudice to argue that certain content is biased.I don't think there's a right to insult people by protesting against bias. 鳩山町に住むおじさん (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

As you can see from my Japanese id, I am an old man.I have a chronic disease. I felt so bad and had a sudden headache after he insulted me.So I just went to the emergency room.It's a little stable now, but I still have a headache.鳩山町に住むおじさん (talk) 11:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Then perhaps you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia until such time as you are healthy enough to cope with the stresses that come with editing in contentious areas. Ebizur certainly deserves a trout slap for his unwarranted and unacceptable personal attack. But I am a senior citizen myself, and I accept the fact that sometimes editing Wikipedia is stressful, and if that is too much for me, I need to walk away until I am better able to cope. Ravenswing 11:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The reporting editor has been constantly accusing Ebizur of being a sock since May. I would argue that if Ebizur needs a trout, the reporting editor need a strong reminder of assume good faith. Just because two people agree with each other and not with you doesn't mean they're the same person. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• Certainly, editing from the cheap seats, I do not give a good goddamn how many times -- or for what causes -- Ebizur has been blocked on the Japanese Wikipedia. This is not the Japanese Wikipedia; they tend to their own issues, and we tend to ours. 鳩山町に住むおじさん, we heard you the first few times on that score, and you don't need to keep repeating it.

  Now for Ebizur, I have an answer to your question about which version of the article should stay in place while the underlying content dispute (which, by the bye, has no place on ANI) is resolved: it really doesn't matter. Whatever a consensus decides is the proper way to handle it is what the eventual article will display. You do not somehow "lose" if your preference isn't somehow on display in the meantime. Ravenswing 11:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok,I understand your opinion Thank you Ravenswing.鳩山町に住むおじさん (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Ravenswing, thank you for your attention to this matter.

Do you agree that it is possible that one of the parties to such a dispute may be striving to maintain an article with citations to valid sources while another party may be arguing in bad faith and adding fictitious references or misrepresenting the content of a particular source? In that case, there does need to be some way to arbitrate which of two (or more) versions presented by editors who have been deemed to be engaging in an "edit war" is more reasonable.

I prefer to believe that another editor eventually should notice the errors that a certain person has introduced into the article in question and take action to emend it, and I do not intend to die on this hill, so I will take your advice and let it be for the meanwhile. Ebizur (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit war on The Idol (TV series)

This is in regards to an upcoming series on HBO. IP user 47.16.173.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and AlishaLaurie1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appear to be WP:SPA's dedicated to nothing but editing and reverting edits on this series page and the pages of actors and crew involved with the show. I posted my concerns about it on the talk page here, so as to avoid breaking the three edit rule but instead of seeking a consensus, the editors just keep on manually reverting my edits without providing RSS that contradicts my two sources. User talk:47.16.173.9 was warned about making problematic edits on these pages going back to April, and other problematic edits since April 2020. The user doesn't engage with these warnings or requests to take it to the talk page before making these edits. I suppose a TBAN might be in order for the IP user if they continue to make these edits and don't engage with the community, and I hope that AlishaLaurie1 will start engaging so nothing formal will be necessary. In any case, I ask that an administrator protect both Talk:The Idol (TV series) and Suzanna Son from IP accounts for 90 days. Suggestions are welcome. Kire1975 (talk) 08:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Instead of attempting to reach a consensus or engaging with the ANI notice posted on their talk page, the IP user has now written the same message that they have spammed these two pages multiples times with on my personal talk page, again ignoring the RS provided that establishes that the particular actor did exit the show after four episodes. Furthermore, the IP user has also since been warned by User:Arado Ar 196 to refrain from removing content from the same page without giving an adequate reason in the edit summary. Kire1975 (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

More vandalism and WP:3RR breaking here. Kire1975 (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The vandalism was reverted by User:Mike1901 and almost immediately reverted yet again by User:AlishaLaurie1. I'm pretty sure now that this is a WP:SOCKPUPPET situation. Kire1975 (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Point of note - I was solely reverting the unsourced line in the IP edit about rejoining the show - this wasn't re-added by User:AlishaLaurie1 so the above comment isn't technically true. I've no real opinion on the wider dispute at hand here. Mike1901 (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out my misunderstanding. There are so many manual reverts in this edit war. I get confused. Both users are aggressively ignoring RRR, posting unsourced, undue claims, ignoring calls for consensus and the timing on this incident still seems indistinguishable a sockpuppet issue. I can't prove that last point, though. Regards, Kire1975 (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

AlishaLaurie1 has also maliciously broke the RRR rule on the Idol page here. Kire1975 (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Government process threat at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake Krishna and Radha in a vulgar painting

This AfD nomination contains the following (admittedly weak) threat "Later choice will have serious repercussions. Wikipedia might be banned in India if things like this come out open." and "So, admins delete it if you don't want more controversy." SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 11:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

ShresthaShome.Ullas (talk · contribs) looks to be generally WP:NOTHERE. They seem to be primarily interested in deleting articles that they don't like or view as offensive to Hindus, and have filed a number of baseless prods, speedy deletions and AFDs, along with some disruptive tagging. For a small selection of examples see: [53] [54] [55]. There's also stuff like this comment, which contains a veiled legal threat and instructions that non-Hindus should not be editing certain articles [56]. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• The AFD discussion has been speedily closed and the account indeffed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The threats are continuing "You guys will be responsible for your own destruction. Your time is ticking".[57] Please can someone remove talk page access. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Y Done, by Bbb23 (talk · contribs) SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism only account: User:35.143.190.63

This account 35.143.190.63 obviously is not here to contribute constructively to this encyclopedia. I reported the account a while, an admin told me to report back if user resumes vandalism. Sadly the account expired in my watchlist and I cannot find the admin who gave me the task. I want another admin to look into this users contributions and take necessary actions. Uricdivine^TalkToMe 12:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, as per editing pattern, this user biological name might be "Summer Gwen" because in every of thier reverted edits they always add it. — Uricdivine^TalkToMe 12:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Ping Masem LuK3— Uricdivine^TalkToMe 14:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• Hi @Uricdivine:, this isn't an account, it's an IP editor. There haven't been any contributions from this IP since August 4th (see here). What we usually do in cases like this is assume the problematic editor has moved on, and so blocking the IP wouldn't achieve anything. If vandalism does start to appear from this IP again, we can block it then. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

disruptive static IP

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

This IP address is an SPA editing in the topic of free software and intellectual property. They seem to have a grudge against the word "content", leading them to replace it in various pages around the project. The effects of this are often harmful to the pages, including such nonsensical results as this and others. They also seem to be pushing a copyleft POV onto articles, such as by replacing terms like "intellectual property theft" with "unauthorized copying".

The latter isn't necessarily problematic in and of itself, except that, upon receiving pushback from me at Online piracy, they've taken to edit warring a warning template on my talk page along with threats to report me if I continue to remove it. see [58], [59], [60] & [61].

The IP has previously directed users to discuss on talk, but has so far refused to discuss their edits on the Online piracy talk page, despite me opening a section about it. Since this is a static IP, there should be no collateral damage from a block. Happy (Slap me) 14:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The IPs counter report, should be separate from this report. To avoid confusion. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

This user repeatedly reverts my edits with POV terms such as "content" and "intellectual property" despite my best efforts to replace them with unbiased terms.

e.g. There is no such thing as a "content filter" -- this is just censorship.

This user also demonstrated his love of censorship by repeatedly censoring my many attempts to talk to him on his user page, instead of communicating.

As this user is new, with few, insubstantial edits, and a penchant for using biased terms, I recommend an immendiate permanent ban. 185.217.158.63 (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

There will be no immediate permanent ban. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

As a FYI I have just changed "censorship filters" to "filtering technology" on the page Trade group efforts against file sharing as that the term that the reference uses. It is worth remembering that part of writing on Wikipedia is to represent what the sources say.Gusfriend (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I suggest that this is a content issue. All parties should abandon trying to address it on user talk pages. The discussion at Talk:Online piracy#Bias claims, if contained to edits not editors, should be enough to resolve issues. My two cents. _signed, Willondon (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, I was happy to discuss the issue, until the IP began edit warring threats and warnings on my talk page. Also, a look through their contributions shows that this is an ongoing problem for them.

A previous example of their harassing behavior can be see in Ahunt's user talk archives, where Ahunt noted that the IP's editing resulted in page protection for the article due to persistent vandalism.

If the IP were willing to engage in a civil manner, I would be happy to discuss the issue. Indeed, the replacement of "content" with other words is a perfectly reasonable matter for discussion. The repeated use of warning templates, threats, edit warring and hyperbolic language about "POV", however, is a behavioral issue, not a content one. Happy (Slap me) 15:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with User:HappyMcSlappy's complaint here. This static IP has a long history of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and POV pushing and, as noted above in my own user talk page archive, has had pages that had to be protected to prevent them editing them as a result. Clearly WP:NOTHERE and a classic example of WP:OWB case #3. Taken over the IP's history, this goes beyond any current content dispute and now requires further admin action. - Ahunt (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Both of these users have a documented history of reverting my edits, thereby restoring biased terms on articles I was replacing with unbiased ones.

Ahunt even complained to an admin to ban me instead of politely discussing the issue.

Also, insulting me by calling me case #3 is childish, as from my prespective, that's exactly how I view Ahunt.

185.217.158.63 (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I would also like to add this diatribic section of Quetstar's talk page, which happened after the IP was blocked over this same behavior. Happy (Slap me) 16:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

That user, like you, was causing tremendous trouble and stalking me.

Some people are very reluctant to question their own beliefs, even when presented with evidence which proves them wrong, such as when they use biased terms. After all, they must be unbiased if other people have been using them for 20 years, right? Right?

185.217.158.63 (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I was not causing ANY trouble nor did i stalk you, I was just enforcing WP policy and maintaining neutrality. Quetstar (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

"Maintaining neutrality" by using biased terms. Peak irony.

185.217.158.63 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Your attempt to re-name this report, as though it was about others? is quite troubling. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• I am about >< this close to blocking the 187.215 IP for recidivist tendencies towards harassment, given their prior block for the exact same behavior, and their repeated statements here that amount to refusal to accept responsibility for the disruption caused by their aggressive behavior. The content issues are entirely separate from this. Looking at the contributions from 187.215 I see very little-to-no use of the article talk pages to discuss changes and resolve disputes, and I see many times where they aggressively use warning templates and the like as a means to bully others and drive them away. I haven't blocked them yet, because I want to see if they are willing to change their behavior, to use article talk pages and seek dispute resolution when discussions at article talk pages fail to resolve issues, to refrain from casting aspersions against others and focus discussions on content rather than editors, and to voluntarily refrain from issuing any more warnings; as they clearly don't know how to use such warnings appropriately. 187.215: Can you agree to these behavioral modifications on your part? --Jayron32 16:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Jayson's observations. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• I'm ok with a block here. Lot of pompous strutting going on, which isn't conducive to building an encyclopedia. As to offering the second chance, ok, but I think you're casting pearls before swine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I feel like I am being ganged up on by many users, and two admins using the ad populum fallacy. The only reason I use these templates is because the accounts refuse to engage with a humble IP editor. I have been willing to use the talk pages the entire time, but these editors are not: see HappyMcSlappy's comment on Talk:Online piracy for instance.

Accusing me of IDHT is a self-fulfilling prophecy and an excuse to ban me, because if I do anything but profusely apologise, cap in hand, begging at the feet of the admins not to ban me, then they will give themselves the excuse to ban me, despite the fact that I am trying to use the talk pages, but these users refuse to talk!

185.217.158.63 (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

It's funny how *I'm* accused of "recedivist tendencies" for defending myself, but when HappyMcSlappy censors his talk page, the admins let the account editor get away Scot-free! This is blatant predjudice against an IP editor.

185.217.158.63 (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that gaslighting admins is the way to go, but it's your choice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I have presented evidence that I am talking on the talk page, but HappyMcSlappy is not. Put your admin ego aside and focus on the issue. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to harass IP editors.

185.217.158.63 (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

By all means, please continue, you're making your point so well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

An editor is allowed to remove comments from their own talk page. There are only four things that can't be removed by a user from their own talk. Other than that, they don't have to leave your warnings up. See WP:OWNTALK and WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME for further information. Also see WP:DRRC that advises against restoring removed user talk page comments if the user removes it from their own talk. FrederalBacon (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

As you can see on Talk:Online piracy, I am happily communicating, but HappyMcSlappy refuses to talk. 185.217.158.63 (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• Jayron32, I do believe you've gotten an answer to the question you've posed the IP, even if they've thus far neglected to do so directly. If you'd like to visit Talk:Online piracy#Bias claims, you can see the quality of 'discussion' the IP is engaged in. If you don't care to read through, then just know that it consists of the same 'I'm right and everyone else is wrong because I say so' diatribe that they've filled this thread with. I really don't see any upside to letting them continue. Happy (Slap me) 22:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

You literally described yourself as "copyleft" which demonstrates once and for all that you have no idea what you are talking about. You are the one not engaging in debate.

185.217.158.63 (talk) 09:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

HappyMcSlappy reverted my edits for no reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1106402815 which had to be un-reverted by Willondon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1106403517 That is evidence HappyMcSlappy is not here to build an encyclopedia, but to harass me. 185.217.158.63 (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Willondon almost immediately restored the bulk of Happy's revert. There is no evidence that Happy is WP:NOTHERE nor that their objective is to harass you, only that the two of you are on opposite sides of a content dispute. Schazjmd (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Ogaden War

70.53.105.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), keeps making disruptive edits on the Ogaden War page, he is refusing to cite the sources on the article and instead putting it in his edit summaries. He is also changing information that is not mentioned in his edit summaries.[62] [63] He is also using inflammatory language such as these "lying ethiopians"[64]. محرر البوق (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The IP is banned user PaullyMatthews IPsocking. Compare the IP's edits diff with a confirmed sock of PaullyMatthews: [65] - MrOllie (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

There's also: [66] [67] [68] Look how similar these edits are with the IP's edits. Very similar style of editing, I also believe that this is PaullyMatthews IP socking. محرر البوق (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• I've protected the page for now. Keep an eye out for talk page disruption. Those two IPs are static, same geolocation. Feel free to revert the disruptive edits. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Reference Adding Account

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

This user was created 3 June 2022, and in the time since, has made 86 edits (and counting). When it's "up and running" (as in today between 12:31 UTC and 13:33 UTC), it made an edit, on average, every 2-3 minutes. It has done so every Tuesday and Wednesday in August as far as I can tell [69]. It refers to itself in the plural (e.g. "we") All it does is add references to (mostly) scientific articles.

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

Examples of blatantly incorrect citations

is added to "Words that are commonly spoken or learned early in life or easily imagined are quicker to say than ones that are rarely said, learnt later in life, or are abstract" [70] despite being a paper about reading, not speaking. is added to "Subsequent studies found that ivermectin could inhibit replication of SARS-CoV-2 in monkey kidney cell culture with an IC50 of 2.2–2.8 μM." [71] despite being a paper about an in vivo dose-ranging study in rats. is added to "As it has become possible to study the living human brain, researchers have begun to watch neural decision-making processes at work. Studies have revealed unexpected things about human agency, moral responsibility, and consciousness in general." [72] despite this being a review of a textbook (as in evaluating the book itself, not the arguments therein). is added to "Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptions of race are untenable," [73] despite the paper making no claim on the consensus for essentialist or typological conceptions of race. It's a paper about the sociological impacts of racial hierarchies. See what I mean? adjacent but not correct. is added to "There is evidence that distribution and/or function of this receptor may differ between sexes" [74] despite having only one very passing mention of sex differences, which does not refer to either the "distribution" or molecular "function" of the receptors. is added to "Each atom in a graphene sheet is connected to its three nearest neighbors by a strong σ-bond, and contributes to a valence band one electron that extends over the whole sheet. This is the same type of bonding seen in carbon nanotubes and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and (partially) in fullerenes and glassy carbon." [75] despite the paper having no mentions of sigma bonds, valence bonds, or differences in bond makeup between the listed types of carbon nano-structures. is added to "On November 2, 2017, scientists reported that significant changes in the position and structure of the brain have been found in astronauts who have taken trips in space, based on MRI studies. Astronauts who took longer space trips were associated with greater brain changes." [76] despite the ref being a comment (and therefore not only PRIMARY but also non-peer-reviewed and only 2 sentences long, but also completely unrelated to the question of whether structural changes occur, but instead disputing which type occur. is added to "Neanderthals made use of a wide array of food, mainly hoofed mammals, but also other megafauna, plants..." [77] despite the paper being about human teeth and not related to Neanderthals at all. There are probably more errors, these are just the ones I could find in about 30 minutes of looking. Sources

Some of the added citations are actually good, and do verify the content, but are still added to sentences which already have 2 or 3 (or even 4) citations already! (e.g. [78] [79] [80] [81] [82])

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aside from the problems pointed out above, which include citations in Neanderthals to an article exclusively about homo sapiens (Neanderthals did not live in Peru [83]), among other clear mis-cites... there are also a great deal of WP:PRIMARY article citations. Do you understand, @Reference Adding Account, the difference between primary and secondary journal articles? On wikipedia, adding a primary article where a secondary article is already referenced is not compliant with WP:RS, as interpretation of primary sources is considered original research, which is not permitted on wikipedia.

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

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

Ah good catch: [84] [85] [86] [87] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Apparently the account used to be named "Citations researcher" [88] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

User:Praxidicae

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

deleted my first attempt at an article. I wanted to expand the organizations and business projects the community has endorsed, and I disagree that my article violated any policy. How can this be revisited? Stupac88 (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• Bringing it here isn't going to do it. Removing Speedy Delete templates isn't either, although that is a good way to get blocked. And Praxidicae didn't delete it, she tagged it. Firefly is the admin that deleted it. Looking at the deleted copy, I can see why, just advertising, not really notable judging by the prose given. You also didn't notify Praxidicae of this discussion, so I did it for you. The top of this page tells you that you must, and even gives you a template to copy to their page. In short, there is no need to revisit, it was a spammy article and it was deleted. The policy it violated was WP:GNG, which is the criteria for inclusion. If an article doesn't pass that sniff test, it is deleted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Let me also add, you CLEARLY have a conflict of interest here. See WP:COI. If you are being paid directly or indirectly for creating articles, you must disclose that fact. See WP:PAID Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The Praxidicae curse continues (being brought to ANI for no good reason)! And, Dennis Brown, just a note that Praxidicae uses female pronouns. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. One more ANI report punched on her card and she gets a free Subway sandwich. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@Stupac88 the community has endorsed what community endorsed your edits? Inquiring minds would like to know. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not being paid. It is factual, it is well cited, what about it is a conflict of interest? Stupac88 (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't ask that. I asked "What community endorsed your edits" and quote verbatim from your opening statement. So which community endorsed said edits? PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

When you tag things after you create an article for review, what is that called? This is me fumbling up the learning curve on wikipedia from the edits side. Stupac88 (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm new to the edit side of wikipedia, what is community endorsement of edits? I'm confused. Stupac88 (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

(ec x2) I will concur with Dennis Brown and Praxidicae here. Had I seen it tagged prior to Firefly, I would have deleted it myself. It was purely promotional, and it was not showing any notability. However, if you feel the article is deserving of being republished, you can go to deletion review and have it looked at there. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the answer. Stupac88 (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

WHen I put the article out it said list it under projects (one is expanding Organization content, another is expanding business content) Stupac88 (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, looking at your previous edits plus the tone of this article, you need to review either WP:COI and/or WP:PAID. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

WikiProjects, such as WP:WikiProject Organizations and WP:WikiProject Companies are a system for organizing articles and coordinate editors' efforts to improve them. All individual articles are still expected to meet notability guidelines and steer clear of speedy-deletion criteria, regardless of whether a project exists to support the general categories of topics they fall under. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, the article was also in large part a copyright violation - with material lifted from the organisation’s website. firefly ( t · c ) 19:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Shocked that a spamticle was copy pasted form the subject's website. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Just as a suggestion, I leave an explanation of how an article met speedy criteria on the creator's talk page. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

IF YOU LOOK AT THE TALK SECTION OF THE VERY FIRST ATTEMPT I MADE AT ADDING A NEW ARTICLE I ASKED HOW MUCH INFORMATION SHOULD BE REFERENCED FROM AN ORGANIZATIONS WEBSITE ITSELF BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF WIKIPEDIA IS TO PROVIDE OBJECTIVE INFORMATION. DO YOU WANT SUPPORTERS/BELIEVERS IN THE MISSION TO LEARN HOW TO CONTRIBUTE, OR DO YOU WANT TO RUN THEM OFFBEFORE THEY EVEN GET THEIR BARRINGS? 73.73.135.223 (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Turn off your capslock if you'd like people to actually read your comments. PICKLEDICAE🥒 23:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:185.76.177.43

• Racist threats. Needs block. Loew Galitz (talk) 06:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  Blocked the 0/17 range for 2 days. Someone might want to look at their earlier edits. And revert their attacks. Doug Weller talk 06:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

   Done Only two of them are not reverted as both editors have replied to it, so I will not bother reverting them. Jolly1253 (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  I've done a few more, [89] and [90]. In Kfarchouba the IP changed "Hezbollah claims" to "Lebanon admits", something al-Arabiya did not say, it means the IP was doing pro-Hezbollah edits starting months ago. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 07:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

This Hezbollah resistance messaging hit me three times, two from 185.76.128.0/17, but also 2A00:6920:E0EF:D34D:E103:2C0D:9315:388F. This included curses and threats. REMOVED Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 06:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Do not use a noticeboard to spread FUD about another editor. There is no reason to think that a random IP is connected with an established editor and people violating WP:ASPERSIONS may be sanctioned. Johnuniq (talk) 07:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Youre supposed to notify somebody when you raise them on a noticeboard. Kindly retract your bullshit implication that has zero evidence. You have any idea the racist shit that has been spewed to me over the years? You think I tried to connect it to editors I disagreed with? Either provide evidence for your claim or retract or you should be blocked. Admins should note User:חוקרת was issued a logged warning that the next behavioral breach will result in an immediate block from editing for having misused a WikiProject to attempt to coordinate against an editor. (See, that is how you prove a connection between topics, with diffs substantiating the relevance). nableezy - 13:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I gave a diff of the request. I see this can not be discussed, so I'll remove. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

What you needed to substantiate was the implication. Anyway, no reason to think this isnt a joe job either. Given one of the editors that had a similar message posted hasnt, yet, participated in the RFC, seems like an easy way of notifying them. nableezy - 14:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Albanialover and intellectual superiority

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

This is a user with about 30 Wikipedia edits who is mainly interested in inserting some particular material into one specific Wikipedia article. When I left them a warning yesterday (they have been reverted in total I believe six times) they responded that they can not accept the warning because they are "intellectually superior to me" and I am incapable of understanding their argument [91]. Whereas this may very well be the case, could we please see whether they user is here to build the encyclopedia? To be honest, I am really sick with users below hundred edits, appearing out of nowhere, behaving inappropriately in contentious areas, and most of them just turn out to be socks having fun. Ymblanter (talk) 08:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I have given them the standard DS Alert for Eastern Europe so that they are aware of the existence of them. Gusfriend (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeffed as WP:NOTHERE, for his/her determined refusal to collaborate or respect WP:consensus – e.g., "However, I’m right, and you’re wrong. We can’t all be winners!" and "I respectfully decline your warning, and will continue on my path of righteousness". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)