Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • 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

WP:RUSUKR sanctions violation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

disruptive use of Telegram mind elaborating?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: Warning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TBAN for Alexis Coutinho

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

official routine statistical reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's do some examples just to be clear:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conduct dispute against Geogene and SMcCandlish in Cat predation on wildlife

I have been unable to reach understanding with Geogene who persists in reverting my contribution to the Cat predation on wildlife article and has received full partisan support from SMcCandlish. I reject their unsubstantiated claim that my contribution has contravened Wikipedia guidelines and suggest that their actions are driven by a partisan point of view regarding the article content. The article is closely related to a scientific (and in part NGO-driven) controversy about the global impact of cat predation on wildlife and biodiversity, and effectively replaces an objective coverage of this debate on Wikipedia. Geogene and SMcCandlish, who profess complete agreement on the matter, deny that such a debate has any scientific merit and seek to foreclose any discussion of it, as they happen to side with one extreme of it. They have produced no direct evidence (to counter that cited by myself) that the debate has either not existed or been resolved. Their claims rely on a selective original interpretation of sources (i.e. they echo the claims of one side to have won and to be the only "scientific" one).

Geogene raised an original research objection against properly sourced content and made bad faith allegations that I am trying to push a fringe viewpoint and that I am effectively "watering down or discrediting the modern viewpoint on cat predation". That is something that ought to be demonstrated through adequate citation of evidence. Equally objectionable is their pattern of dismissing entire sources based on their date (without additional justification as per guidelines), arguments advanced, perceived influence etc. This appears to be a way in which Geogene and SMcCandlish have exercised their effective ownership of the article this far. Such a priori judgments about the reputation of a source constitute a personal viewpoint (POV) and if they were to be included in the article, they would constitute original research (OR).

Geogene and SMcCandlish not only represent an extreme stance in the debate, but also deny that any debate is legitimate. They have sought to outright disqualify my contribution and any sources I have cited based purely on their opinion and by attributing a nefarious agenda to it, and invoked either a local editorial consensus between the two of them or an unproven scientific consensus in support. An eyebrow-raising claim they uphold is that "modern science" only dates from the year 2000. There is a considerable scientific literature omitted from the article due to its one-sidedness. (There would also be no ground on which essays, opinion pieces or journalism can be flatly excluded - not least because such sources are already cited.) Judging from their behaviour so far, Geogene and SMcCandlish will dismiss information based on sources that contravene their viewpoint out of hand.

The discussion history can be found on the article's talk page and on the NORN noticeboard. The talk page section in which SMcCandlish seeks to discredit a source may also be relevant.

As far as I am concerned, the only way to assess various claims is through adding verifiable content, and the way forward is for everyone involved to focus on building the article, rather than edit warring and making unsourced claims. I have not been able to persuade Geogene or SMcCandlish about this, however.

Due to their persistent refusal to recognise any evidence that contradicts their viewpoint and to engage in editing the article instead of edit warring, I consider the actions of Geogene to be vandalism, committed in defence of their POV and their effective ownership of the article. I think it is more than stonewalling because the guidelines on OR and OLDSOURCES were twisted to fit a purpose, and because Geogene has resorted to action despite the failure to evidence their claims or offer persuasive arguments in discussion. I am concerned about the two editors' propensity for escalating unfounded accusations and treating them as proven from the start, and about their shared habit of seeking to discredit sources a priori.

I am asking for an investigation of the conduct of the two editors, since it is their attitude and not a dispute over content (i.e. they prefer to focus on reputation and general outlook over the detail of evidence) that stands in the way of resolution.

To be clear, I am far from arguing that my contribution was beyond criticism. It is the resistance with which it met that was unwarranted and gives ground to suspecting that any further attempts to edit the article will be met with the same hostility. I am requesting an intervention to restore the possibility of constructive engagement with the article. VampaVampa (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

While your message isn't entirely about a content dispute, a lot of it is and that's not the sort of thing this noticeboard is for. I did my best to read and comprehend that talk page discussion and I just keep coming back to the same question: why hasn't anyone tried an RFC yet? City of Silver 20:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I understood that RFC is not suitable for disputes in which more than two editors are involved.

I grant that it may look like a content dispute. However, what I encountered was a wholesale revert and an attempt to paint me as a conspiracy theorist, therefore I fail to see what specific question in the content of my contribution could be the subject of an RfC here. The question of the existence of the debate has emerged as the underlying point of contention, but please note that this was not covered by my contribution and its sources. The broad framing of the entire conflict is something that was imposed on me by the two disagreeing editors. To address that larger question comprehensively, a whole new edit would need to be proposed - and I would actually happily spend time preparing one, but I want some assurance I am not going to be met with unjustified edit warring again. VampaVampa (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@VampaVampa, that's part of the instructions of things to try before opening an RfC (use WP:DRN if more than two editors). Schazjmd (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I know. I did not think it was a content dispute but if there is a general agreement here that it should be treated as one, then I could try to open either an RfC or a DRN discussion. However, would there be sufficient space to cite the evidence in support of my position in the RfC or DRN summary? I cannot expect all contributing editors to do their own reading. As I tried to explain above, the matter is not covered by my contested contribution. The literature is substantial and not discussed on Wikipedia to my knowledge. I will appreciate your advice. VampaVampa (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@VampaVampa, it is a content dispute. I've read through the discussion on the article's talk page. My personal advice is to drop it. If you choose to pursue DRN or an RfC, I strongly suggest that you learn to summarize your argument succinctly. Schazjmd (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

On what grounds please - (1) content dispute, (2) drop it, (3) summarise succinctly? VampaVampa (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@VampaVampa, you asked for my advice; I gave it. I don't know what more you want. Schazjmd (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

With all respect, I have asked you for advice with how to tackle the fact that I am expected to defend myself from exaggerated charges that are not really covered by my edit, since RfC or DRN was suggested. I did not ask for advice on whether you think I should accept emotional blackmail and character assassination from other editors.

Since we are a community on Wikipedia your advice has as much value as your insight into the matter. Therefore I asked to know why you think what you think. And if you think my case has no merit, then it is even more necessary for me to learn why that should be the case. VampaVampa (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Geogene's actions are not vandalism, and I suggest you refrain from describing them as such. This is a content dispute, not a conduct one, so there is very little that administrators can do here. If you want to add your changes to the article, get consensus for them first, possibly through an RfC. —Ingenuity (t • c) 20:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand that you disagree with my description of Geogene's actions as vandalism but could you offer any reasoning for this? As for RfC I considered it but decided it was not appropriate (as explained in my reply above). I will appreciate your advice on how to frame it as an RfC. VampaVampa (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@VampaVampa Edits made in good faith, even if they are disruptive, are not vandalism. Vandalism implies a wilful intent to harm the encyclopedia, and if such intent is not obvious, then continuing to call edits vandalism constitutes a personal attack. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I am wrong on this, but for me to assume good faith means that I can add information to the article without being asked to meet the two arbitrary conditions suggested by Geogene in their opening post of the discussion:

(1) use sources more recent than the cut-off date for whatever Geogene considers "modern" in every instance, and

(2) censor myself to avoid "watering down or discrediting the modern viewpoint on cat predation" at any cost (i.e. twisting everything to suit a predefined viewpoint).

If these two arbitrary conditions are not attempted to be enforced through edit warring then indeed I can work together with Geogene. VampaVampa (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to dispute the vandalism point unnecessarily, but it would seem to follow from a relevant guideline that if "Even factually correct material may not belong on Wikipedia, and removing such content when it is inconsistent with Wikipedia's content policies is not vandalism", then removing content when it is not inconsistent with policies may constitute vandalism. I explained in the discussion on the talk page why I reject the charges of WP:OR and WP:OLDSOURCES and was not persuaded that I was wrong. VampaVampa (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism is like griefing: if someone thinks that their edit is improving the article it's not vandalism. It literally means, like, when somebody replaces the text of an article with "loldongs" et cetera. What you are referring to is "disruptive editing". jp×g🗯️ 05:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG: Are you saying my edits are disruptive? Any ambiguous statements on that are likely to encourage further problems here. And isn't the I explained in the discussion on the talk page why I reject the charges of WP:OR and WP:OLDSOURCES and was not persuaded that I was wrong. evidence of the real problem here? Geogene (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Geogene: Yes -- the thing that VampaVampa is accusing you of is "disruptive editing", not "vandalism". I am not VampaVampa and have no idea whether this is true or not. jp×g🗯️ 10:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification - I was wrong about the definition of vandalism. Geogene's conduct is much more sophisticated than that. As far as disruptive editing is concerned, I think it is intentional. VampaVampa (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

VampaVampa, I'm glad you have accepted (albeit after some significant repetition) the feedback of the community here regarding what does and does not constitute article vandalism--though I do very much suggest you take a look at Formal_fallacy#Denying a conjunct, because with regard to your proposition here, your conclusion does not follow from your premises. However, it is actually your last sentence in said post ("I explained in the discussion on the talk page why I reject the charges of WP:OR and WP:OLDSOURCES and was not persuaded that I was wrong.") that I think still needs addressing. Because it is no way required that you be convinced that you are incorrect before your edits can be reverted--and in suggesting as much, you are actually turning the normal burden of proof and dispute resolution processes on their head. Rather the WP:ONUS is on you to gain clear consensus for a disputed change, and WP:BRD should be followed in resolving the matter.

Now, I haven't investigated the article revision history in great detail, but from what I can tell, the article has somewhat been in a state of flux over recent years, reaching the current "Cats are the greatest menace to biodiversity of the un-wilded world" state relatively recently. Neverthless, your changes were to fairly stable elements of the article that had at least some existing consensus support from the then-active editors of the article. When your edits are reverted in these circumstances, you are required to overcome the presumption of a valid reversion by gaining consensus for your addition/preferred version of the article. It is not always a fun or easy process, but it is the standard for how article development and dispute resolution proceed on this project. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

User:VampaVampa - If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism. Yelling Vandalism in order to "win" a content dispute is a personal attack. This is a content dispute, compounded by conduct. I don't know what the merits of the content dispute are. I can see that the conduct includes the personal attack of yelling vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that is clear enough and I stand corrected - there is indeed nothing in the list of vandalism types that corresponds to what I reported Geogene for. I engineered it backwards by proceeding from "removing content when it is inconsistent with policies is not vandalism" to "persisting in removing content when it is not inconsistent with policies (and argued repeatedly not to be so) may be vandalism", but I realise that has no logical purchase and is nowhere close to any of the definitions. I retract the charge of vandalism and apologise to Geogene for the unjustified accusation on this particular point. VampaVampa (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the last discussion of the talkpage and stopped reading details in the first paragraph when one of the editors described the RSPB as holding a 'fringe scientific view' on cat predation on birds in the UK. There is little point in even entering a discussion with someone who says that, as you are never going to convince them by reasoned argument. If you are in a content dispute revolving around sourcing with an editor who is never going to change their view, your options available are a)move on, b)Try and get a neutral third opinion, start a clearly worded RFC and advertise it widely to draw in more than the usual niche editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

It is, however, useful to actually read the material and the cited sources before pronouncing that specific editors are "never going to be convinced by reasoned argument"... because the RSPB in the past has indeed been pleased to throw their weight behind badly reasoned minority interpretations of the science on this topic. That is the point of this dispute. Please spare the stentorian pronouncements if your time is too precious to read up on the material. - That being said, there seems to be no reason for this discussion to continue here, as multiple avenues for expanding the discussion on the article's talk page do exist, and the editor has indicated that they want to pursue them. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the advice. Depending on the outcome of this incident report, I will consider an RfC and find suitable places to advertise it through. Elmidae seems to be suggesting that a potential RfC could revolve around how the respective positions of RSPB and Songbird Survival on cat predation of wildlife should be introduced in the article. However, as is clear from Elmidae's comment, this would likely end up triggering a much broader dispute about the respective merit of the current "majority" and "minority" conclusions drawn from available scientific evidence (assuming all of this evidence is methodologically unproblematic to either side), which could easily be the subject of a book. I think everyone's energy could be spent much more productively in editing the article, but if the only option is to debate the extensive literature in a talk page then so be it. I am open to any option that involves a careful examination of the evidence and the arguments. VampaVampa (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Just a quick word re the amount written hare and on the Cat predation talkpage. I've learnt over the years through my own errors, less is more. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I will try to learn from my mistakes. VampaVampa (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Aside from not being an ANI matter, this proceeding is also redundant with an ongoing WP:NORN proceeding involving the same parties and material (specifically here). I.e., this is a WP:TALKFORK. "Geogene and SMcCandlish not only represent an extreme stance in the debate, but also deny that any debate is legitimate" is blatant falsehood on both counts. The first half of that is what the NORN thread is about, with VampaVampa attempting to rely on 1970s primary research papers and a defunct advocacy website (and later an "attack other academics" op-ed that is the subject of the long thread of RS analysis immediate above VV's repetitive PoV-pushing thread at the article talk page), to defy current mainstream science on the topic. The second half is just made-up nonsense. In point of fact, at the article's talk page, I specifically suggested that we might need a section in the article about the history of the public debate about the subject. But to the extent that VV may instead mean entertaining perpetual opinion-laden debate on Wikipedia about such topics, see WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:NOT#ADVOCACY. We are here to reflect what the modern RS material in the aggregate is telling us, not cherrypick half-century-old surpassed research claims that someone likes the sound of, and argue circularly ignoring all refutation, in an "argue Wikipedia into capitulation" behavior pattern, which is what VV is bringing to this subject.

PS: VV is completely incorrect that "RFC is not suitable for disputes in which more than two editors are involved", and has simply misunderstood all the material there. RFCBEFORE in particular makes it clear that RfCs should be opened after extensive discussion has failed to reach a consensus. That process almost always involves more than two parties. Where "more than two" appears on that page, it is simply noting that another potential venue one may try, for trying reaching consensus without an RfC, is WP:DRN (and VV notably ignored that advice and ran to ANI to make false accusations instead). The section below that, RFCNOT, certainly does not list "disputes with more than 2 editors" in it as something RfCs should not be used for, and that would be absurd. However, an RfC would not be appropriate at this moment, while the NORN proceeding is still open.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

As to the WP:NORN, we have reached a dead end there:

(1) no party uninvolved in the dispute has intervened,

(2) you have not replied to my last post,

(3) most crucially, in this last post of mine I invited you again to build the article and warned that I would report your conduct to the administrators if one of you reverts again, which Geogene proceeded to do. You left me no other option.

As to RFCNOT, you are probably right and I am happy to be corrected on procedures. But at this point my dispute is with your and Geogene's conduct. VampaVampa (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of such noticeboards is to patiently solicit uninvolved input. There is no deadline, and starting talkforks at other noticeboards is not conducive of anything useful. Under no circumstances am I obligated to respond to your circular attempts to re-re-re-argue the same matters endlessly, and doing it at NORN would be counterproductive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

One user against two shouldn't be able to preserve their disputed content indefinitly just by bludgeoning the talk page until the opposition is tired of arguing. That's the disrputive editing here Geogene (talk) Geogene (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a policy about consensus which says polling is not a substitute for discussion. VampaVampa (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Also see WP:NOTUNANIMITY. Geogene (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

For that good faith would have been required. VampaVampa (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

VampaVampa, after nearly being WP:BOOMERANGed for arriving here with false accusations of "vandalism", has now turned to demonizing those they disagree with via false and undemonstrable accusations of bad faith. That is not exactly a wise move.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
PS: It's actually worse than I thought, with VV more recently accusing someone else (EducatedRedneck) of having "a nativist agenda" [27]. At this rate, I don't think we're very far away from simply removing VV from the topic area.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

An editor's claim that an RFC about content is unnecessary because they're right is prima facie proof that an RFC is necessary. The decision as to whether or not an RFC happens should be made with zero input from VampaVampa, SMcCandlish, and Geogene.

Much to the surprise of nobody, the NORN discussion is going nowhere because the three involved editors are bickering there exactly like they have been here and at the article's talk page while nobody else has weighed in on the actual content dispute. (As an aside, any of these three who has complained about anyone else running afoul of WP:WALLOFTEXT is a massive hypocrite.) An RFC will compel these three to state their cases in far fewer words, which will be nice, but much more importantly, it'll attract uninvolved editors who'll review the content issue and work towards a consensus on the content, which in the end is all that's supposed to matter. These threads won't accomplish anything because none of these three editors has shown a willingness to compromise to any extent and their tendency to link policies, guidelines, and essays across multi-paragraph messages ad nauseum guarantees they'll keep speaking past each other. City of Silver 01:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver: Re nobody else has weighed in on the actual content dispute Three editors (@EducatedRedneck:, @Elmidae:, @My very best wishes:) have weighed in on the article's talk page since this thread was opened. Still no evidence of support for VampaVampa's revision. Your "blame all sides" is not helpful. Geogene (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Geogene: Before anything else, edit your message to strike the quotation marks around "blame all sides" and add a note saying you were wrong to quote me as saying that. In your note admitting you falsely ascribed words to me, please include my username so it's clear to others. I never came even close to saying there were sides in this issue because I absolutely do not believe there are. You, VV, and SMcCandlish are all on the same side, the side of improving the website. I also entirely disagree that any substantial part of any discussion has been anything more than two people talking past one person and that one person talking past those two people. But if you've got consensus, why not start an RFC? City of Silver 02:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Before anything else, edit your message Edit your message to remove the personal attacks, including "hypocrits". I never came even close to saying there were sides in this issue because I absolutely do not believe there are. I said you are blaming all sides, which you are. I put that in scare quotes to express my disagreement with them. You, VV, and SMcCandlish are all on the same side, the side of improving the website thank you for that. I find editing Wikipedia to be an extremely thankless enterprise, this thread being a great example of it. I also entirely disagree that any substantial part of any discussion has been anything more than two people talking past one person and that one person talking past those two people. and then the one flings bad faith assumptions at the other two at ANI to try to eliminate them from the topic area. But if you've got consensus, why not start an RFC? Normally it's the one who wants content added who starts the RFC. I noticed above you said, The decision as to whether or not an RFC happens should be made with zero input from VampaVampa, SMcCandlish, and Geogene. I don't recall stating any opposition to an RfC. Geogene (talk) 02:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

And see also Brandolini's law; if someone text-walls with rambling claims that are a mixture of personal belief, repetition of and reliance on a defunct advocacy website, and OR extrapolation from and other reliance on ancient primary research papers from the 1970s, then later adds in op-ed material from one academic personality-smearing another and badly confusing public-policy political arguments with scientific evidence, then the response to this is necessarily going to be detailed and lengthy, because it involves multiple forms of refutation of multiple wonky claims and bad sourcing. The alternative is simply ignoring VV's input entirely, but that would be rude and less constructive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Responding because I've been pinged. I agree with City of Silver that it feels more like people are talking past each other rather than to them. It's hard not to respond to what one hears, rather than what is actually said, when a debate has become drawn-out. Based on the most recent exchange with VV, which SMC alluded to above, I fear that now includes me as well. (Accusing me of a "nativist agenda" is making it harder for me to view the matter dispassionately, and I'm not sure I'm hearing what VV is trying to say at this time.) EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this post because I could see from it that you genuinely tried to mediate, and it perhaps just so happens that with regard to the "objective" differences in worldview, which we have to somehow work past on Wikipedia, you seem to stand closer to Geogene and SMC, without necessarily having been aware of it. So I offer apologies for the accusation.

I also declare myself ready to work with Geogene and SMcCandlish on the condition that none of us tries to seize the upper hand in advance of putting in the work to edit the article. I should make clear that to me that involves seeking to discredit sources that do not unambiguously contravene Wikipedia guidelines (not to exclude genuine debates on the talk page, that's a different thing). I regret but I cannot compromise on this point. VampaVampa (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver: Thank you for this - even though I don't think I claimed I was right.

With regard to Geogene's reply, can I just point out that the impartiality of such third-party interventions cannot be assumed? VampaVampa (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@VampaVampa: Please don't make edits unless you think they're right. And I hope you don't expect "impartiality" from other editors. My very best wishes hasn't said a single thing that could get them excluded from an RFC and neither has anybody else who's weighed in. City of Silver 02:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I mostly agree with your comments and comments by Geogene and SMcCandlish above. As about user VampaVampa, they obviously made this posting to get an upper hand in a content dispute. That does qualify as a WP:BATTLE, in my opinion. That user is clearly not working collaboratively with others, at least in this dispute about feral cats. My very best wishes (talk) 02:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Holy mother of walls of text... I strongly agree with the most useful feedback that has been given here: this is clearly the stage at which RfC is not only warranted, but arguably the only path forward if one side or the other is not prepared to give way.

That said, I strongly suggest the involved parties attempt torecruit a neutral to word the RfC prompt and that the most vociferous single parties from each side (and I would hope you both know who you are) exercise some considerable restraint in not bludgeoning the resulting discussion (either in terms of volume of response or the length of individual posts). As in, your positions having been well established already on the talk page, you should each make your contributions to the RfC roughly on the scale of 1/30th of what you've had to say so far. Given the relatively small number of sources being debated, the existing diatribes are way out of proportion and, bluntly, well into WP:disruptive territory at this point. And I say this as someone who isn't exactly always the soul of brevity themselves here at all times. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Detailed analysis of material and claims based on them requires a considerable amount of text. But I've already done the work, so of course I have no need to do it all over again, especially at the same page. Any politicized subject (see, e.g., virtually any major thread at Talk:Donald Trump and its 169 pages of archives) is going to be longer than some people like, both due to the detail required and due to someone trying to get their contary-to-RS viewpoint promoted being likely to recycle the same claims repeatedly, leading to recurrent refutations; rinse and repeat. This is a common "try to wear out the opposition" tactic, in which refutation is ignored and the same claims are re-advanced (proof by assertion fallacy).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

My friend, McCandlish, this isn't Donald Trump's BLP, and even if it were, what you have been doing on that talk page was clearly excessive. You added 24KB (31 paragraphs!) of text in one post, most of it dedicated to micro-analyzing every aspect of one source, down to caption summary of the careers of everyone involved with it. At the time you posted it, it was larger than all of the rest of the comments from all other editors on the talk page in all threads, put together. All to support an argument that said source was more editorial than a typical MEDRS primary source, and should be afforded less weight accordingly--an adequate case for which could have been made with one paragraph, and an excessive one with two. Nor is it the only titano-post from you or VampaVampa, who I think only slightly trails your numbers.

Look, I think you're an often-compelling participant in discussions, in part because of your propensity for thoroughness. But there's practical limits before it becomes a WP:Bludgeon issue (however inadvertently). And whatever compelling interests you may feel that you have to press your reading of the sources, they can't come close to justifying the extent of the wordcount arms race you and VV entered into. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON refers to re-re-re-responding to every or nearly every post in a discussion (RfC, etc.) with many participants. It does not refer to producing a source analysis that a particular person disapproves of because of its detail level. And you're not getting the chronlogy right. That material long preceded VV's participation at that page; notably, when VV attempted to recycle the same bad source, I did not post a lengthy re-analysis of it, but referred to the one already done. My responses to VV have been directed at unrelated claims and sources put forward by that editor, and when they turned to circular argumentation that ignored prior refutation, I walked away rather than continue. So, there is no "wordcount arms race". We are at ANI now because one particular person, VV, refuses to drop the stick, despite there already being two (article-talk and NORN) discussions open trying to resolve the underlying content-and-sources matter. Whether this subject rises to the subjective importance level of, say, Donald Trump is irrelevant; it is certainly as polticized and emotive, attracting the same kind of misuse-bad-sources PoV pushing, which is the point I was making.

In the spirit of what I just wrote regarding circular argument and just walking away, I am not going to respond here any further unless pinged directly. There is no ANI matter to settle, except possibly VV's renewed personal attacks in the same subject area (see diff of one against EducatedRedneck above). VV's ANI is WP:asking the other parent. Either NORN will address the sourcing problems, or will not and then we'll have an RfC, but ANI is not for content disputes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Two Unpleasant Comments

I have not tried to read the content discussion, and don't know what the content details are. I have two mostly unrelated comments that are not about content, but this is not a content forum.

First, multiple posters have posted overly long posts, that were literally too long, didn't read, which is one reason I haven't studied the content. However, I can see that the original poster has misread two Wikipedia policies, and posted based on their misreadings, and has since backed off from their original comments. One of the guidelines was worded in a complex way because it is complex, and so it could have easily been misread. The other policy could not possibly have been misread by anyone who read it with an intent to understand it, because it is very clear about refuting misconceptions. The first was that User:VampaVampa said that RFC was not applicable if there are more than two parties. That is part of a sort of flowchart-like guideline, and could easily be misread, and was misread. The second was that User:VampaVampa said that Geogene had engaged in vandalism. The vandalism policy is very clear on what is not vandalism. It is sufficiently clear that anyone who argues that overzealous editing in a conduct dispute is vandalism hasn't read the policy. They obviously know that vandalism is one of the worst things that an editor can do, but they haven't read what it is and is not. In other words, VampaVampa insulted the other editor first, and only read what the insult meant after being called to account. So, if I do read the content details, I know not to give much weight to what User:VampaVampa writes, because they are an editor who makes sloppy claims. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Second, the dispute has not been addressed except by the original parties at the No Original Research Noticeboard because WP:NORN is a dormant noticeboard. It apparently has no regular editors, and it is very seldom if ever that anything is resolved at WP:NORN. It is a noticeboard where content disputes go to fester and die. The suggestion was made, and not followed up on, that perhaps it and one or more other noticeboards should be merged. So VampaVampa is not asking the other parent here. There is no parent at WP:NORN. But they appear to be following a policy of post first and think second. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I find your comments fair, with one exception. I wish to contest the reputational charge that I am "an editor who makes sloppy claims", which is a generalisation from two instances, for one of which you have found extenuating circumstances. (Incidentally, a generalisation is also at the heart of the content dispute.) This criticism of yours comes after I have already admitted having overreacted, in the spirit of seeking reconciliation. In my defence I also plead inexperience in raising matters for dispute; I suspect that many a user with no exposure to procedural affairs would have been intimidated by the sheer conduct of Geogene and SMcCandlish to drop the content dispute. I finally wish to use my freshly learned lesson in logic to note that even if I were to be wrong in all of my claims it still would not follow that the other party to the dispute cannot be seriously wrong in theirs. VampaVampa (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

User:VampaVampa - It is true that whether you have been right or wrong is independent of whether Geogene and SMcCandlish have been right or wrong. You have stated that they have been guilty of serious conduct violations. You have stated that they have been guilty of serious conduct violations. You have used many words in making that statement. However, I have not found your argument to be persuasive. You haven't made your case, at least not to me, and I am not planning to read your walls of text again, especially since I have already seen that you made two mistakes, one of which suggests that you post first and think second. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Suggests that you post first and think second. .. Does this imply a lack of good faith on the part of this editor ? Botswatter (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not questioning the good faith of User:VampaVampa. Posting first and thinking second is not bad faith, although it is sloppy and undesirable. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Botswatter This is your 4th edit. Your 3rd as to add yourself as in training at DRN - something you aren't doing and have no experience to do. I don't know why you inserted yourself here, but there is a saying "good faith is not a suicide pact". There can come a time when good faith no longer be offered, and this looks like one. Doug Weller talk 09:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I am however agreeing with User:Doug Weller in questioning the good faith of User:Botswatter. I wonder whether they inserted themselves here and also at DRN in order to snipe at me. I wonder if they have a grudge against me from some previous unsuccessful mediation at DRN, perhaps one that ended with them being indeffed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• I'd like to share VampaVampa's latest diff, continuing to personalize the content dispute [28]. I had just reverted a POV rewrite of the lead that was sourced in part to a likely front group. Yes, there are apparently front groups out there on the web pushing scientifically dubious views on outdoor cats. This controversy may not rise to Donald Trump levels of importance, but neither is Scientology or Young Earth Creationism. That doesn't mean it's unworthy of the Wikipedia community's concern. Geogene (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Your action in reverting that edit is illustrative of the conduct that I have submitted a case against above (i.e. seeking to exercise ownership of the article and to prevent the representation of legitimate views by falsely construing them as fringe and denialist). This is not the place to enter into content disputes. However, you are using your experience to discourage new contributors to engage with the article through unnecessary hostility. I am not sure why you should seek to draw more attention to your behaviour yourself, but that is welcome as far as I am concerned. VampaVampa (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Law of holes comes to mind here, VampaVampa. What you're claiming as ownership is not, and in fact that claim is making it more clear you do not understand our rules and guidelines. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  HandThatFeeds What do you propose calling it instead? Eight of the last 50 edits on the page are Geogene reverting something, most of which in my opinion would have improved the article and the rest still had some merit to them. (3 in an edit war with VampaVampa, the rest from various different editors.) Iamnotabunny (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'd say you need to propose changes on the Talk page & get consensus first, rather than just bludgeoning ahead to get those changes into the article. Especially since they appear to be an attempt to insert a POV into the article, something you're going to find is frowned upon in Wikipedia. Enforcing our NPOV rule is not OWNership. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, Geogene is doing such a good job of enforcing neutral point of view that he immediately removed the maintenance tag about "Too few opinions".

  When I made those 2 edits, I was unaware of exactly how controversial the article was. As you can see, all of my edits since then have been to the talk page rather than to the article. And let it be clear that I dispute that the article currently has a neutral point of view, which is a matter for the talk page and not for here. I assumed Geogene's claim that the source I used was a "front group" was so obviously false (it does not even speculate who is secretly behind them!) that it would boomerang on him without me doing anything. Iamnotabunny (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Short Summary

A short but not unbiased summary of this whole thing, as I see it.

0. Earlier article edits that set the scene, June 2022 and December 2023: Xhkvfq (previously went by the username StrippedSocks) makes edits that are reverted by Geogene. Xhkvfq adds a source Lynn et al 2019. On the talk page, SMcCandlish describes the source as, among other things "a butt-hurt rant".

1. Article editing happens. Geogene reverts many things (to me, looks like based on whether they are pro-cat or anti-cat rather than whether they match the sources). SMcCandlish edits the article to more closely match what the sources say. Geogene and VampaVampa revert each other a bunch.

2. The NORN noticeboard. Geogene opens a question regarding one of VampaVampa's edits. SMcCandlish answers in the affirmative, goes on to call Xhkvfq a drive-by editor, and complains about people who are okay with bird species going extinct as long as feral cats don't get culled. There seems to be an implication that VampaVampa is one such person, which I don't think is accurate nor warranted.

3. VampaVampa opens this discussion here, beginning with an accusation of vandalism due to a misunderstanding of wikipedia policy. Once that was explained, VampaVampa changed the accusation to disruptive editing my mistake, "status quo stonewalling". Many words about both wikipedia policy and article content have been written here, but not much has been said.

4. Not knowing any of this, I come across the article, attempt to make an edit, and get dragged into this discussion. GG's mention of that edit here was to complain about VV's reply "personalizing the content dispute" by saying GG's revert was based on unevidenced assumptions, but if that's a personal attack then so is GG's claim that my edit was "profringe". Something being "profringe" implies it is based on unevidenced assumptions.

5. With the help of other editors to keep the discussion on track, VampaVampa and Geogene are able to have a mostly civil conversation (compared to previously) on the talk page about the content of the article.

My own experiences involving Geogene have been quite negative (edit: perhaps there was some misunderstanding going on), but as it appears he and VampaVampa are currently making progress on article content, perhaps it is not worth bringing them up. Iamnotabunny (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Adding on: I just realized the above makes it look like VampaVampa is blameless. That was not what I intended, but I feel that part of things is already covered quite thoroughly earlier in this thread. Iamnotabunny (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Closing Options ?

I think that this has gone on long enough, and that nothing new is likely to happen, so it is time for some sort of close. User:VampaVampa is the original poster of this thread, and says that there have been serious conduct violations by User:Geogene and User:SMcCandlish. I haven't seen any evidence of conduct violations by Geogene or SMcCandlish, either in VampaVampa's walls of text or on my cursory look at the article talk page. There have been two specific conduct allegations. The first was a claim that Geogene's editing of a content dispute was vandalism. The second conduct allegation is that Geogene and SMcCandlish have asserted article ownership. It appears that what they have actually asserted is that they have a rough consensus, and two-to-one really is a local rough consensus. There haven't been any other conduct allegations that I could parse. I don't intend to try to read the excessively long post, because I know that VampaVampa is not a good judge of good and bad conduct. So no action should be taken against Geogene or SMcCandlish.

I see three possible options with regard to VampaVampa:

1. Close this thread, doing nothing.
2. Close this thread with a warning to User:VampaVampa for the personal attack of a bad allegation of vandalism.
3. Close this thread by topic-banning User:VampaVampa, at least from this article.

What do the other editors think? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a consensus that the accusations by VampaVampa about other contributors were ungrounded, and he admitted this himself. However, option 3 might be an overkill. If there are any problems with the editing by VampaVampa, this is their tendency to produce walls of text and argue to infinity on multiple pages, not just that page. But option 2 seems to be warranted based on the discussion above. My very best wishes (talk) 03:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

One further conduct allegation I have made was status quo stonewalling, which I wrongly claimed was vandalism when premeditated. I think a cursory look would not have detected that, so I can cite relevant passages if needed. I was concerned with the immediate accusation of "fringe" views against me and with the caricaturing of my arguments and intentions. That said, I am more aware now of various policies such as WP:BRD and the requirements for gaining consensus, so I can partly see where my opponents were coming from, at least procedurally. Having since participated in some RfCs and talk page discussions, I remain concerned about the amount of leeway for editors to keep dismissing reasonable arguments under superficial excuses, and I still do not think my defence of my edit had been given a fair hearing by Geogene and SMcCandlish before they sought to force-close the debate and escalate it from the specific edit to my agenda. But I am prepared to accept that succinct evidence-based discussion and RfC would be worth trying. VampaVampa (talk) 06:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Wow, this thread is still open? I got pinged back here, so I'll respond. For my part, I'm not one to assert that two editors against one at a poorly watched page actually constitutes much of a "local consensus", just as a thing in and of itself. What's far more important here is that we have WP:Core content policies and they apply equally to this article as any others, and VV's PoV edits are not in compliance with them (or if you prefer, multiple editors have raised multiple policy concerns about them). The WP:ONUS is on VV, and VV has not addressed much less dispelled these concerns. VV's position appears to basically boil down to assuming they have a right to make the changes they want, and anyone who disagrees is just some vandalistic stonewaller.

As for WP:SQS, VV apparently has either not read that page, even its first line, or has serious difficulty understanding it. (Cf. also apparent severe trouble understanding WP:RFC, WP:VANDAL, the content policies themselves, and the meaning and relative import of the source material; this is starting to look like a WP:CIR issue.) Let's quote directly: Status quo stonewalling is opposition to a proposed change without (a) stating a substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines and conventions or (b) participating in good-faith discussion. Both Geogene and I have raised very detailed substantive rationales based in policy, and our participation in good-faith discussion has been so extensive that various parties above have vented about it being too detailed and long-winded. VV has utterly failed to demonstrate that any sort of SQS happening.

PS: WP:NORN is a dormant noticeboard. I was not aware of that (and it seems weird and unfortunate). Given that RfCs are expensive of community time and attention, probably the thing to do would be to close this ANI, close the going-nowhere NORN thread, and re-open the matter at WP:NPOVN or WP:RSN; all of these policies and guidlelines are implicated in inter-related ways in this issue, so either venue will do, really; it would just be matter of writing it out in a way that pertains more to one noticeboard or the other. That's assuming a T-ban doesn't happen. I think one could arguably be justified because of the repeated incivility and other problems evidenced above after this ANI was opened. But I'm also not one to seek to "silence the opposition". I give benefit of the doubt (sometimes maybe more than I should) that an editor may prove to be productive on the project in other ways despite a recent WP:DRAMA flare-up. And in this case, I really have no policy-and-sourcing doubt about how the underlying content and sourcing dispute is going to turn out in the end.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 for now, with the assumption that VV will read the room and drop the stick. I feel warnings are most effective when people can trust the good faith efforts of the editor to heed the warning. If this topic continues with more walls of accusational text, then I think the topic ban becomes necessary. The late, poorly document allegations of WP:SQS are not helping matters at all here. Geogene and SMcCandlish should have the right to not be in a position where they have to continually defend against amorphous allegations. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Option 2. My experience has been that VampaVampa has, several times, assumed bad faith, leaping to conclusions about my intentions, alleging bias, and displaying a battleground-esque mentality. I maintain they are a net positive to the project, and have demonstrated that they are WP:HERE, but believe that the warning for personal attacks should be construed to include a caution against WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:ABF. It should also include a caution against WP:WALLOFTEXT. I'm often guilty of that myself, but dang. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

User engaging in nationalist revisionism

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

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

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

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

Oppose. I checked some of the edits and they appear to be well-sourced [29]. The editor includes link to a book published by established German publisher and I fail to see it being "adding Kurdish nationalist historical revisionism". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are probably succumbing to your ideologies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You may have rebutted the allegations, but you have certainly not refuted them.[30] RolandR (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your warning and advice.

All the sources I gave were sources used on Wikipedia.

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

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

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

It is clear that there is prejudice against Kurds

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

You are persistently trying to block me

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment Aamir Khan Lepzerrin is a WP:NOTHERE user, I fail to see what they bring to this site. As noted up above, they engage in WP:TENDENTIOUS edits (eg [31] [32] [33] [34] [35], yes, I'm including one edit from 2015 because they have barely edited and its the same type of edit). And when Aamir Khan Lepzerrin gets reverted for these WP:TENDENTIOUS edits, they resort to personal attacks [36]. And if you're lucky, they will randomly attack you despite not having interacted with you before [37] (yes, I'm not kidding, I literally had not interacted with them before, and they introduced themselves with this nasty message). Kurds were not even an ethnonym in the Late Antiquity, this is no secret [38]. Heck, its even stated in Kurds with WP:RS [39]. Yet, here they are trying to portray various groups such as the Cadusii, Parthians, Medes, Gutians and Kassites as Kurds...? I wonder what group will be claimed next. Revisionism indeed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion of the block

Moved from WP:VPM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coordinated editing around Indian military regiments

Users:

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

Drafts:

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

SPIs:

• WP:Sockpuppet investigations/832LT

COINs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doing a search on the category looking at latest changes [40] shows several more new editors changing existing articles and even one trying to prod page as it contains "confidential information" Lyndaship (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In re the drafts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concerning appeals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this really so bad?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ARCA Request

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

User:TheGreatPeng

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

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

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

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

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

An earlier version of the article contained much content that was directly translated from outside sources (WP:TRANSVIO) or was not supported by WP:RS.[41] Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons says, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. [...] This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism."^{(5 June 2024)} When there is copyright-infringing content in an article, Wikipedia:Copyright violations says, "the infringing content should be removed". The nominator/creator of the article objected to tags placed on that article and stated on its talk page, "I'm a student and have a job, so I don't have much time to work on Wikipedia like you do. If I have any free time, I need to find part-time jobs for my friends to help reduce unemployment."[42] Taking this to mean that they were not planning to remove or replace the problematic content, I did so.[43] The shorter article is not amazing, but it is better than preserving violations of WP:COPYVIO and WP:BLP. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

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

@LaundryPizza03: There are issues with WP:CLOP in the earliest version of the article and the versions tagged for errors by Nineteen Ninety-Four guy.[44] Phrases and whole sentences seem to be translated directly into the article. A few examples below:

Wikipedia article (original version)

"McDonald's Vietnam has launched three new meal slogans: "If you don't like vegetables, eat BBQ cheese chicken." This slogan has aroused great anger among netizens, and many people have criticized the chain store for being "cold-blooded" and "immoral." Vietnamese netizens expressed outrage at the slogan and called for a boycott of the brand. McDonald's later realized the gaffe and posted an apology on its Facebook page."[45]

Cited source, via Google Translate

"McDonald's Vietnam has launched three new meals in Vietnam with the slogan: "If you don't like vegetables, eat BBQ cheese chicken." This slogan caused great anger among netizens, with many people criticizing the chain as " Cold-blooded” and “immoral.” [...] Vietnamese netizens expressed outrage at the slogan and called for a boycott of the brand. McDonald's later realized the gaffe and posted an apology on its Facebook page."[46]

Wikipedia article (later tagged version)

"Some netizens also believed that authorities were trying to use the "Fat Cat" incident to divert public attention from the recent collapse of the collapse of the Melong Expressway in Guangdong, which caused a high death toll."[47]

Cited source, via Google Translate

"Some netizens also believed that the authorities were trying to use the "Fat Cat" incident to divert public attention from the recent landslide on the Mei-Da Expressway in Guangdong, which caused heavy casualties."[48]

The BLP violations come from details in the article that aren't in the cited sources. From the first English version of the article, there are statements about the recently deceased subject, his ex-girlfriend, and his surviving family members that I don't see verified by the sources. For example, the article stated that his girlfriend "repeatedly requested money transfers from Fat Cat under various pretenses."[49] Looking through Google Translate, I don't see support for "pretenses" which indicates that the causes were false. The article seems to say that she kept asking him for money. It does speculate about the potential for fraud, but it does not indicate that fraud took place. The Wikipedia article also stated that they "had agreed to get married in May 2024",[50] which I don't see in the cited source. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Wikipedia article (original version)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@LaundryPizza03: Yes, but I may take a few days to get to it. The translation excerpts posted above come from [51] and [52] It looks like there are a couple of additional copied sites. Also pinging Nineteen Ninety-Four guy for input, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

BLP issues with nomination

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Anonymy365248 and merge proposals

• Anonymy365248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been warned repeatedly not to tag articles with merge proposal notices without opening a discussion on the talk page, as can be seen on their talk page (sections "Your proposal to merge articles" and "Merge proposed without starting discussion"). In spite of this, they have continued to engage in this behavior, most recently at the article Malek Rahmati (diff1, diff2). I also noticed from their talk page that this user has a history of disruptive editing. Thank you for your consideration. Davey2116 (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

They have a habit of removing warnings and advice from their user talk page but not heeding the warnings nor taking the advice, and in fact they nominated their own user talk page for deletion (just prior to the most recent username change) because "I don't want any topics on my talk page." They have a previous short block on their record for disruptive editing, and I just cleaned up a batch of malformed AfD nominations which they recently submitted. I won't question their good faith, but their level of competence seems to me to merit closer scrutiny. --Finngall ^talk 17:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Their response so far on this ANI thread has been trying to edit Davey2116's post: Special:Diff/1228266845. Though they did say something in the user talk recently: Special:Diff/1228325353. – 2804:F14:80E0:5601:B09C:126D:624:271 (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The amount of effort they have made to cover their usernames is suspicious to me. Originally I had assumed okay maybe it was just a user wanting a clean start, but you found not 1 but 2 name changes "in less than six months"? [53] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: Not “found”, exactly–they appeared on my radar under their original username when they tried to unilaterally reopen an AfD discussion which they had started but which didn’t go their way, so they’ve been on my watchlist since last year. --Finngall ^talk 04:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm coming here from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malek Rahmati and the user keeps changing how signed comments can be viewed and just now tried to remove the first line stating,

"* Anonymy365248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)" Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

That's my unofficial username that's why I keep replacing it with the word "anonymous" as part of recognizing me anonymously. Also, I didn't want that username to be place in any discussion. Anonymy365248 (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

That's too bad, because we need to know who we're talking to. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I just want to clarify if there's a second chance for and Article for Deletion. Anonymy365248 (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I see that even after being told here to stop messing around with their signature, Anonymy365248 is still doing it. [54] If the isn't trolling, it is a WP:CIR issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry if what I did was an act of messing up the signature, but I swear I'm not trolling, I just want to know how to be recognized as an anonymous user. Anonymy365248 (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Everybody's posts are followed by their usernames, period. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Anonymity is pretty much impossible on Wikipedia unless you edit without an account (aka edit as an ip). While it is technically true that a link only to a users talk page suffices under WP:SIGLINK, if it is causing disruption, which seems to be the case here, the signature falls under WP:SIGPROB, which says that editors can request a problematic signature be changed, and says that problematic signatures may result in a quicker block for other problems with their editing. In addition, your username still appears in the page history, which is legally required because the copyright license that Wikipedia operates under requires attribution to the contributors. GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 17:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

How do I edit as an ip? Anonymy365248 (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

If you want to edit as an IP you simply log out of your account. But you should be aware that if you do then every edit you make will reveal your IP address at the time, which is a fair bit less anonymous than editing under a pseudonym. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. See WP:ANONYMOUS. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Just simply log out of your account. hamster717 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ * my contribs🌌)} 21:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Just an fyi, I don't think you need to use the non admin comment template in a discussion like this, I think that would usually be used only in places where non admins don't make comments that often, like WP:UAA or WP:AIV. GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 22:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

oh, sorry about that hamster717 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ * my contribs🌌)} 22:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

No worries. GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 22:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I was drawn to this discussion via this deletion request that Anonymy365248 opened on June 8. Their conduct throughout the discussion has made me wonder if we are dealing with a WP:CIR issue. They stated three times in that discussion that they wanted the article deleted because of their personal preferences, despite being told that personal feelings are not ground for keeping, deleting, or renaming articles. This is basically a pattern that has appeared in pretty much all the pages they have nominated for deletion:

• "I prefer the information of this article be transferred on the article that contains the list of governors in Iran"
• "I prefer the information of this article to be transferred in other websites like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes"
• "I prefer its information in the Local void article or the Void galaxy article, if you want the information of this article to be move there as well"
• "I prefer the information about this article should be other websites like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes. Since those websites didn't need a big description of an article about someone", etc.

Maybe the user does not know how to express himself/herself but this is not the correct way of listing articles at AfD. Keivan.f^Talk 01:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

What are the good examples of nominating an article for deletion? Anonymy365248 (talk) 05:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

You could start here first of all. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I was going to start a new thread here, then I saw this one. There are some clear WP:CIR issues here. A day after the last comment above, Anonymy365248 continued disrupting AfDs, such as:

• Unstriking their own vote as nom, despite being warned on their talk.
• Another AfD, and when most !votes are keep, a merge proposal, and voting "support".
• !voting thrice in one discussion.
• Again, messing with their own signature.

Looking at their AfD stats, it's clear they don't understand relevant policies. Something needs to be done here. A pblock from the Wikipedia: namespace, maybe? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay look, I'm sorry, if what I'm doing is disruptive again. However, I would like to clarify how is unstriking your own vote a disruptive editing.Anonymy365248 (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Miscellaneous advice. Liz has already explained this on your talk page. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I think a WP:CIR block may be in order at this time. Again, they may be acting in good faith, but in the end they've done little except be a timesink for more experienced editors whilst providing little if any positive contribution to the project. --Finngall ^talk 15:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I pretty much agree. hamster717 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ * my contribs🌌)} 16:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

This editor wanted to delete their user talk page, and now does not want to have a name. This appears to be an editor who, in clueless good faith, wants to be an invisible editor. That seems to be an idea that is inconsistent with the idea of a wiki, a collaborative endeavor. The question for us, the Wikipedia community, is simply how much patience we have with this completely clueless good faith idea. I suggest that we ignore them as long as we can, but no longer. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Genre warriors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Koppite1 and DollysOnMyMind you've both violated WP:3RR on Beyoncé, and I suggest you review that policy page as well as Dispute Resolution. (Koppite1 [55],[56],[57],[58] and DOMM [59],[60],[61],[62].) To Koppite1 I might suggest self-reverting your last revert on that page as a show of good faith and respect for this bright-line rule. GabberFlasted (talk) 12:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Declared manager of the UK pop group Steps

• 14.177.239.15 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 116.111.19.157 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Steptacular12 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Convert12 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 101.99.12.214 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Someone from Vietnam has been editing pages related to Steps (pop group) with an IP address and also a username; the latter claims to be the group's manager.[63] These edits are primarily promotional, based on primary sources. The IPs and the usernames insist on adding a large section listing "revisited" music videos, completely unreferenced.[64][65][66] I think we should block some folks or protect some pages. Binksternet (talk) 05:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Adding another IP who continued edit-warring. Binksternet (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks to me like they are engaging in WP:LOUTSOCKing to try and avoid scrutiny on the accounts here. — AP 499D25 (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Please Indef them immediately for offences against music, good taste and civilization generally. ——Serial Number 54129 13:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The page that has been most targeted by these accounts and IP addresses, Steps discography, has been semi-protected for two weeks by User:BusterD after a request at WP:RfPP/I.

I asked the IP editor on their talk page if they are Steptacular12 / Convert12 or not, and they seem to deny such claims, although it remains unknown whether this is a truthful answer or if there's deception in play here. — AP 499D25 (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Big update: they are now back, under the User:Steptacular account, publishing the same edits as before. Looks like they gamed auto-confirmed permission (ex. 1, 2, 3) to continue disrupting the now semi-protected article. — AP 499D25 (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Based purely on the overt WP:GAMING to upgrade multiple accounts to bypass semi-protection; I've upgraded protection level to extended-confirmed on both the group page and the discography so the articles themselves may be investigated and the socking may be reported. Once the SPI is up, we might relax the protection. This is not exactly the first time we've dealt with this sort of thing. BusterD (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Which is why I thank you nice folks for following up on the protection, btw. BusterD (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I have filed an SPI report accordingly: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Steptacular12. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Commission on Graduates of Foreign Nursing Schools

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

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

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

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

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

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

PicturePerfect666 bludgeoning at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further context:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Mandela Creator

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

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

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

Restoring my autopatrolled bit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wasn't notified that I was being discussed here, but anyway... Last week, they submitted Draft:Grokking (machine learning): it got accepted by a somewhat careless patroller, I moved it back to draftspace[67] because three of the four sources were Arxiv preprint articles, which in general aren't considered reliable sources (WP:RSNP). I don't think regranting them autopatrolled is warranted. Fram (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 174.115.203.105

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

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

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

Jonharojjashi and Indian history

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

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

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

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

WP:NOTHERE user who should have been indeffed long ago. I think this bit from Jonharojjashi's previous ANI report (which is abundant with their disruptive diffs) sums them up pretty well; [68]; "It seems sufficient that this editor (Jonharojjashi) is habitually citing poor sources, misusing better ones in an OR matter, and PoV-forking at will, all to push a viewpoint that is clearly counter-historical and India-promotional." --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Block evasion from Slovenia and Macedonia

Someone has been disrupting articles under many IP addresses geolocating to various places in the Balkans including Slovenia and North Macedonia. The edit summaries say "New changes".[69][70][71] The activity represents block evasion by Special:Contributions/31.11.96.0/19, Special:Contributions/164.8.7.72 and Special:Contributions/46.123.247.1 Among the recently involved IPs are the following:

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

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

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

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

Tangail Saree

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

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

• খাঁ শুভেন্দু created the NEW-Tangail Saree article on February 3, and moved OLD-Tangail Saree to its current title before carrying out an extensive rewrite. About 91% of the current contents of OLD-Tangail Saree were written by খাঁ শুভেন্দু. They have reverted users at OLD-Tangail Saree who changed the origin to Bangladesh (latest instance), and reverted a user who removed a poorly-sourced statement about migration of Bangladeshi Hindus to India ([72]).
• Debarghya Bhatta extensively rewrote the lead of NEW-Tangail Saree ([73]), and has never edited OLD-Tangail Saree. I cleaned this up while writing this comment because the new text was of extremely poor quality, but I do not think it significantly changed the POV of the article. Of the current contents in NEW-Tangail Saree, AlbeitPK (talk · contribs) authored 51%, খাঁ শুভেন্দু authored 13%, Debarghya Bhatta authored 5%, and 166.104.29.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk · contribs) each contributed 11%.
• There is a merger proposal between both Tangail Saree articles at Talk:Tangail_Saree#Proposed_merge_of_Tangail_Saree_(West_Bengal)_with_Tangail_Saree, with allegations that one is a WP:POV fork of the other.

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

Fertility clinic linkspam

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

• diff
• diff
• diff

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Personal attack from @Ukudoks:

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

---

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

Comment: @Ukudoks is a very strange user. As seen here [74], he goes on a statement about a page I had noticed was of poor quality (Emicho) which sounds a lot like he is trying to 'befriend' me (against WP:NOTAFORUM) rather than anything contribitional. He also has a habit of inserting subtle humour/Easter eggs into article notes [75]. However @Nivzaq's removal of anything from the source 'Abkhaz World' is also something I don't quite understand, since I am not aware of any statements on its reliability.

An IP[76] who posted to the wrong board a few days ago was my first knowledge of Ukudok and broadly shares my concerns, at least broadly, about WP:CIR:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I know it's irrelevant now, but just found that they added Hitler as the first president of Israel.[77] Schazjmd (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On a subsection of the article’s talk page, I have requested that the user revert their edit insofar as to re-include the POV tag, as the article’s NPOV was currently actively under discussion with some consensus pointing towards the article being insufficiently neutral, and out of courtesy, I have reiterated this on their talk page [78] with the note that POV tags should not be removed as long as the discussion was on-going. Their reply to me on the Talk Page was lacking courtesy [79] at best, and was tone-deaf and clearly violated policy at worst.

After tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) badgered my talk page [80] extolling about the virtues of being biased on Wikipedia, they threatened me [81] with being topic banned, even though they had no cause to do so.

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

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

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

Two things can be true at the same time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• OP writes: "Their reply to me on the Talk Page was lacking courtesy [82] at best, and was tone-deaf and clearly violated policy at worst."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  I have demonstrably not [83]. -Konanen (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Ivanvector Please do not circumvent [84] this ANI procedure which had (evidently, in my opinion) resulted in the status quo ante being restored by the responding user. There has been no ruling because no ruling has been deemed necessary, but on-going torpedoing of the intent of finding consensus and unilateral decision that I have to justify the existence of the POV tag apart from the fact that I have referred to the on-going discussions on NPOV/N and the article’s talk page are nothing but brow-beating and badgering of the situation. I have responded that the discussion is still on-going, and there has been enough dissent about the articles’ NPOV that the tag’s existence is warranted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hoax edits by User:Pharoahjared

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Being harassed by User:Jd101991

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

1. [85]
2. [86]
3. [87]
4. [88]

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

1. [89]
2. [90]

Their behavior seems to stem from disagreements on Talk:Jet Lag: The Game: [91][92].-- Cerebral726 (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I have put warnings on this user's (@Jd101991) talk page. They delete them very quickly without acknowledgement and continue making unconstructive edit's and harassing other editors, normally @Cerebral726. [93] [94] [95] SimplyLouis27 (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think uncivil "regulars" who scare off newbies are one of the biggest structural problems with Wikipedia. That being said: [96] this is "dismissive to the point of being cruel"? Let's tone it down a bit. BoldGnome (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I hardly find this and this trying their best, and I feel like it is an unfair mischaracterization to say I was incapable of typing out more than 10 words to help. They consistently ignored me (and others) when they had various Wikipedia norms and policies explained: [97][98][99][100][101][102]. While your example of me telling them that their justification for keeping something wasn't based on any sort of Wikipedia policy could have been longer and perhaps kinder, they had long ago started their harassment at that point and I had explained why their addition would be doomed. That harassment was not reactionary to any rudeness from my end but the perceived slight of trying to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as I explained to them. Cerebral726 (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Search is broken now

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

---

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

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

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

Persistent addition of unsourced video game platforms by a /64

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

---

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

Block reapplied. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by Oz346 and Petextrodon

Oz346 and Petextrodon, have repeatedly engaged in attacking me personally by means of unsubstantiated allegations. The initial few [103], [104], [105] I have ignored, however it is coming to a point that it is no longer possible to engaged in a meaningful discussion in the article talk page and has become very disruptive since they are attempting to change the content dispute into a personal attack [106], [107], [108] and gone as far as to include these allegations in an edit waring report against me [109]. Now they have effectively stopped me from editing [110].  Kalanishashika (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• @City of Silver, this is my first go at editing Wikipedia and it has been very frustrating. @Lavalizard101 I admit that I got carried away on the 10th of June, I apologize and accept the warning issued to me [111] by Aoidh. I have heeded this warning and avoided the urge to revert when invited to do so by Pharaoh of the Wizards [112]. As you say if the incidents that I have reported are not considered personal attacks, please close this incident report and I apologize from everyone for wasting their time. Honestly this is a very stressful experience, my intentions were to improve the quality of this article by cleaning up the citied sources and event taking one to RSN [113], I received very little support on this and have been facing lot of rude responses like [114], and the latest [115]. I am surprised to see that I had been reported to SPI. This does now make a lot of sense of what Oz346 and Petextrodon have been accusing me of. However, their logic seems strange like this one on an archived RSN [116] to which my answer was [117] and this [118] on the use of BLP. The Tamil genocide page has been inundated with accusations and counteraccusations of sock puppetry and meat puppetry. My request is, can this be settled here, and I can move on or out. Kalanishashika (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Persistent addition of unsourced content to film articles by a /64

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

---

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

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

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

Baowisteel's user page

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

---

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

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

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

User:Sebastianmarco and LGBT rights in Canada

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IP(s) using talk page as WP:FORUM

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

Can someone consider blocking or restricting these IPs? For weeks now they've been continuously adding random, irrelevant, even nonsensical comments to talk pages. They've been reverted by multiple editors (myself and others) and warned twice on User talk:12.146.12.12. Since their second and final warning on 13 June ([119]), they've gone ahead and done more of the same ([120], [121], [122]; all three of these are irrelevant or pseudo-gibberish). Needless to say, they've ignored the talk page warnings and the revert edit summaries that consistently point them to WP:FORUM.

Note: 12.146.12.12 seems to be the most active IP, but 12.146.12.2 looks very much like the same person (e.g. [123], [124], [125]). R Prazeres (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Nevermind, after the reply above they simply copy-pasted one of their previously removed comments back into a talk page ([126], from [127]) and added another rambling personal comment ([128]). R Prazeres (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive edits in India-related articles

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

INDEFFED

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

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

Numerous personal attacks done by WorldMo

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

---

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

Calling me an idiot, and to log off: [129]

Calling me an "Afghan nationalist weirdo", and saying that I practice Bacha Bazi, which is something I'm not going to explain here and you can read the page for linked. [130]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Short descriptors

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questionable edit summaries by an IP editor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV blanking and IDHT by User:Truth Seeker Alway

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

---

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

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

My observation is that a large majority of usernames containing the word "truth" are disruptive POV pushers. Cullen328 (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

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

User:L Money Scribe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Among L Money Scribe (talk · contribs)'s responses are Who is your boss? We need to square this. This is ridiculous. I want to know his contact information. ([131]) and I would recommend to consider therapy. ([132]); the former is doubled down as And yes, I still want to know your boss's information. You should be ashamed of yourself. ([133]). This is absolutely egregious and unacceptable harassment. Without any comment on the substance of the dispute, I've blocked per WP:HARASS and WP:NPA. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Edit warring, BLP coatrack and POV issues: Harold the Sheep

Harold the Sheep (talk · contribs)

At Steven Hassan, this user has been edit warring (breaching 3rr [134][135][136][137]) to include opinions about the general topic of 'cults' in the article. They added it to the article a few months ago alongside some salient content.[138] This was raised previously as a POV issue by another editor.[139] Harold the Sheep then edit warred to keep even the maintenance tag off the article[140][141].

This is a problematic ownership issue, with the article being used as a coatrack for the views of academics in a different field about the general topic of 'cults' and the use of the word 'cults'. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

You should perhaps have also mentioned the discussion here which, to my mind at least, resolved the previous issue. However, I'm happy to continue the discussion on the talk page of the article. Harold the Sheep (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion to which you link was over the same issue. There is no resolution in that topic: you simply stopped responding. To you that (combined with edit warring the maintenance tag) resolved the issue? Behaviour like that is why we ended up here. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Cambial, can you explain why this issue can't be resolved via WP:RfC or another one our general dispute resolution processes? Other than the brief edit warring (to which you contributed more or less equally), this looks like entirely like a garden variety content dispute at the moment. I've reviewed the talk page and most recent archive and found a slight (and I mean very slight) tinge of battleground tone in some of HTS' responses. But ANI is for serious, intractable behavioural issues; it should not be your first stop immediately after entering into a conflict over content and before you've attempted any discussion or process to resolve the matter or form consensus. It seems you waited about three quarters of an hour after making your first talk page comment before you made this filing. Given that Harold seems to have been heavily involved on that talk page for some time, don't you think it would have been more pro forma and potentially productive to have waited for a response there before escalating the matter here?

Please try discussion, and if neither of you succeeds in affecting a change of perspective on the other, and a middle ground solution does not seem viable or appropriate, then seek additional community perspectives on the content issue to achieve a consensus--including via RfC if necessary. In my opinion, your diffs do not come close to establishing strong evidence of an ownership issue under the relevant policy, so please WP:AGF for the time being and pursue the normal dispute resolution process. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Persistent unsourced changes on articles relating to Fairly OddParents

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

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

72.131.35.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for 48 hours on June 9 for disruptive editing and non communication, mostly on aviation-related articles. A few days after the block expiration they’ve begun again, making unsourced [142] and nonsensical [143] edits Celjski Grad (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Plebeian Patriot on Emerald Robinson

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

---

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

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

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

Al-Khujandi (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

User:POSSUM chowg, malicious templates with obscene titles

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

---

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

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

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

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

WP:NOTHERE It would be hard to believe that any good faith editor would rename a Whilly on Wheels sandbox [144] Meters (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Widespread disruption on election articles

Following the Twitter storm mentioned in the section above, there is now widespread disruption on a large number of election articles – editors driven by the Twitter stuff are ignoring an RfC at 2022 Italian general election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and 2018 Italian general election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (on the 2022 article, one editor has reverted again despite being made aware of the RfC); made-up election results that were removed are being blindly reverted back into numerous French election articles (e.g. edits like this and this (exactly the same as was happening at the time of this ANI report from January. Can someone please step in – restore the Italian articles to the RfC-approved infobox and lock them and look at what is happening on the French articles. Cheers, Number 57 01:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Wow, disappointed in several long-standing editors actively working with the newly made WP:SPAs to go against a consensus that was established over an entire year. To start with calling out just one from the first article you linked, Μαρκος Δ, explain yourself. Because this is a really bad look for someone who's been here a decade. Silverseren^C 01:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

RfC was achieved through the consensus of four editors. Not to say that it should be gone against, but I think it deserves a new one, given how volatile this issue is and how many editors care about it, currently. Lucksash (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

2022 Italian general election is an absolute shitshow right now. It should be reverted to the RfC-approved version when consensus was established, and then locked to prevent continued disruptive editing. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted the most recent disruption and locked the page for 48 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, you might want to do the 2018 one as well. Cheers, Number 57 01:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Recommend adding the same level of protection to 2018 Italian general election as well for the same reasons. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

And what happens if the consensus has changed? Siglæ (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Consensus can indeed change, but has it? A new RfC would be required (and I say that as some who favours the older, TIE infoboxes). — Czello ^(music) 07:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

We don’t know if consensus has changed yet, that is why some people, including me, are proposing a new RfC. Whereas other, notably people who favour the new format, believe that it is unnecessary because they believe that new discussion arises from “extra-wikipedian reasons” (and I don’t get how that invalidates anything) and consensus has already been established (which also does t make any since, since consensus can change) Siglæ (talk) 07:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I would like to challenge the slander coming from some users. The people who are noticing problems coming from certain editors are also wiki users or editors or contributors. You can complain about their means but don't slander their cause. That's unbefitting of y'all. The people who are rightly indignant that Number 57 and the sort are messing around with election pages, seemingly without reason, and especially WITHOUT consensus, are doing it out of love for a particular community on this website. Talleyrand6 (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I would like to point to the French legislative election pages for this. I haven't got a clue about the Italy situation. If there's an RFC decision for that it should be restored. I would however add that maybe a review of it should happen mostly on procedural grounds. Technically a consensus was formed but from...what...four people? There's clearly popular angst with it. I would reckon that interested parties should be allowed to level representations for that issue. AFIK an RFC decision isn't set in stone. Talleyrand6 (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a way to challenge a RFC, and perhaps the Italy one might change, but the edit-warring at the Italian articles is for sure not the way to go about it. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree! I'm just explaining more of the situation. Talleyrand6 (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Number 57's edits to French legislative articles are particularly egregious because he cites a consensus for his decisions that doesn't exist. A friend of his cites a discussion (well, actually, three different discussions) where a consensus was supposedly formed except actually for those with eyes to see, the opposite is true. A consensus formed against his proposed edits. My personal opinion is that his actions are driven more by his opinions and tastes than actual consensus. As such, others noticed this happening, yes, on Twitter, but then most (there maybe be exceptions) of the revisions and edits came from wiki editors and those edits (going against Number 57's proposals) seemed to garner a real consensus. Talleyrand6 (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not without consensus. The last major discussion was held last year and led to the current accepted consensus. Of course, consensus can change, and I'm saying this as someone who preferred the old infobox style myself.

But the fact is, the amount of outside interference going on means that it is currently the worst possible time to hold a new discussion on this, and what 57 (and others, including myself) are doing is just trying to keep pages in line with the last RfC consensus, until a new one can be made at a better time. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree! But 57's changes aren't limited to where there is a legitimate decision. Talleyrand6 (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I am only speaking to the Italian articles. If someone is taking the RFC from the Italy consensus and then trying to use that to justify changing infoboxes on election articles of other nations, then there is a problem. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the case for the France articles. Last I recall him and another person claim there was another consensus decision there yet refuse to follow up with proof/provided contradictory evidence as to this. Hyraemous (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Talleyrand6, you just became indef-unblocked, after an impressive series of blocks for edit warring and personal attacks (pinging your last blocker/unblocker, Deepfriedokra), and here we find you being part of what seems to be an orchestrated edit war, and making comments that violate AGF. I think you are skating on thin ice. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies:. Thin ice? The unblock log reads zero tolerance for personal attacks and edit warring. Please feel free to reblock at will. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I have not being edit warring.

I made one (1) edit. Talleyrand6 (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

And nor have I 'orchestrated' anything. Talleyrand6 (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

But you are casting aspersions which is a form of personal attack. Assume good faith and stop seeing conspiracies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I have never claimed its a conspiracy. I think his decisions are simply misguided. Talleyrand6 (talk) 04:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

There are no conspiracies when there are facts. Beside the case of the Italian general elections (for which I believe we should acknowledge that consensus may have changed, but that is another discussion) most of other edit wars have been caused by number 57 changing things without consensus and then him or someone other who agrees with him appealing to an established consensus which doesn’t simply exist. Siglæ (talk) 05:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

See the case of the South African elections where there was the unilateral decision to change the info box without BEFORE reaching consensus, while the talk was still ongoing. Siglæ (talk) 05:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editor 107.129.97.80

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

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

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

Legal threat

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

legal warning and attempt to impersonate my account

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

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

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

Proxy IPs conducting disruptive edits

181.117.93.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

1.21.121.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

112.184.132.153 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

180.35.109.165 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

124.144.93.137 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Related to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1157#IPs that persistently harass me and WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1157#Another Proxy IPs that are conducting disrputive edits. 117.53.77.84 (talk) 06:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Brentonrkaring ignoring pleas to stop controversial edits

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

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

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

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

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

Since this ANI report was made, the user has not only replied here with an attempt at defending themselves, but have also removed the ANI notice from their Talk page (here). While in understanding that Brenton may have done this to acknowledge their message, this is also typical behavior, as they resume their controversial editing after removing messages, which instead suggest that they are ignoring these messages rather than acknowledging them. This is why WP:CIR should apply here. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 07:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

PA by IP

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

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

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