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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

BilledMammal nominations of Danish international footballers

I am highly sceptical that BilledMammal is doing a true WP:BEFORE. He has nominated multiple Danish international football player articles to AfD. There are questions like, why are they international footballers, they are not called up to the national team for no reason. In fact, some of these footballers have won honours in their country of Denmark like Wilhelm Nielsen (Danish footballer) who has won the Danish Championship three times. That's not even noted on the article, this is just stub article like all the others on his AfD nominations, just because something is a stub, doesn't mean it's not a notable topic.

There is a load of articles at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Nominations for deletion and page moves which he has nominated.

There are multiple issues at play here, I feel there is an attack on Lugnuts who was trying to bring light to the project of useful information that can be expanded on, for these player biographies. An attack on the wiki-stub culture, it's as if an stub article is not allowed.

Another weird issue with all the AfDs in this series BilledMammal writes: Violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE due to being an article that replicates a database entry.

I have a big problem with that, as Wikipedia is a database!

Yes there is GNG issues, but this should be addressed by doing the research and not nullifying the ability for other uses to find these articles and expanding them. This delete culture is simply unacceptable. I wouldn't have posted here if BilledMammal didn't template my talk page. There is serious detrimental issues here at play, and we are about to loose a load of articles because of laziness, people not wanting to do the research to expand on them and rather delete? Who's attack who?? pfft, I am getting fed-up of people who want to feud and run policy base arguments instead of actually working and expanding on the content that actually needs work. Someone here really needs to have a word with BilledMammal about his attitude. Govvy (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing in the above paragraphs that suggest anything relevant for this board. Your skepticism is not evidence of misconduct. Your dislike of another user nominating stubs for deletion is unacceptable to you, but nothing in any policy suggests it is unacceptable to Wikipedia. That you dislike the idea of somebody making policy base[d] arguments seems to be a personal problem. Your defense for the merits of stubs would be fine for a userspace essay, but not for ANI. nableezy - 14:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I've got to say I am also frustrated, 1. by the sheer number of AfDs that are coming in which gives editors little time to review them, 2. by questionable nominations.

Today BilledMammal nominated two dozen Danish international footballers with the surname "Nielsen". Many of these players were active before the internet age so a web search probably isn't enough to check for WP:SIGCOV. But just a quick look at some of the players' careers suggest they could very well be notable. For example:

• Allan Nielsen (footballer, born 1953): two international appearances, played abroad in the Netherlands with Roda JC Kerkrade from 1979 to 1981 – Playing abroad wasn't as common in those days as it is today. Even a quick web search turned up a long article: https://politiken.dk/navne/foedselsdage/art5439817/Allan-Nielsen The AfD nomination makes no mention of it.
• Jørgen Nielsen (footballer, born 1923): one international appearance, played abroad in Scotland with Dundee F.C. in the late 1940s – Again, playing abroad wasn't as common in those days as it is today. www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk suggest there's coverage of his time in Scotland.
• Erik Nielsen (footballer, born 1938): ten international appearances, played abroad in Germany with VfB Lübeck from 1966 to 1968 – Again, playing abroad… A search of Danish newspapers at statsbiblioteket.dk suggests quite a bit of coverage.
• Benny Nielsen (footballer, born 7 March 1951): one international appearances, played abroad in Belgium with K. Beerschot VAV from 1966 to 1968 – Playing abroad… Coverage in Danish newspapers.

Bottom line: It's very hard to assume that "reasonable steps to search for reliable sources" per WP:BEFORE were taken. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:AGF is not optional. He could well have done all the WP:BEFORE and the nominated the articles. If it's a bigger problem maybe it should be part of the ongoing AE discussion. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. These articles (as far as I can tell) are non-frivolous AfD nominations--which is not to presume that they deserve deletion, simply that they're worthy of discussion. Presenting evidence (as Robby.is.on has done above) would seem to be the way forward to me. That said, I feel like everyone is being a bit overly prickly here. A bit unkind to presume no WP:BEFORE had occurred, but also some unnecesary templating. The NPA business seems a bit much to me, but that's subjective. I think, if possible, everyone should try to reset and return to the evidence. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The politiken article is a good one, and had I have found it I would not have nominated the article. However, I did not; I don't know what search terms you used, but "Allan Nielsen" "Kerkrade" places it on my second page of results, and "Allan Nielsen" "Odense" places it on my third. I normally review beyond the first page for Google News or Google Scholar, depending on the topic, but for mass created articles like these I rarely do so for Google search which I find usually produces little but Wikipedia clones and unreliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: I understand. But how do we deal with the problem that for players that were active before the internet came about most sources that would indicate SIGCOV probably can't be found online or at least not with a simple web search? Robby.is.on (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

A person writing a new article has a responsibility to make sure the article is suitable for Wikipedia. That includes making sure the subject is notable. Why not include the results of your notability search when initially writing it?

WP:BEFORE doesn’t require going to printed sources. It’s impractical otherwise, though it does create a challenge for someone who writes an article about a person who doesn’t have ongoing coverage during the internet era. The answer again is, include documentation of notability when writing the article.

We are in a bit of a bind with the mass-produced stubs. Was notability required when they were produced? If so, why didn’t the producer include evidence of notability?

And that still leaves one more mess. For stubs that met earlier laxer notability standards (primarily sports), no one is to blame, but they are subject to challenge, based on a good?-faith WP:BEFORE. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability of footballers is dormant. At one point, when that guideline reflected consensus, it was apparently thought that playing in one full international match showed presumed notability. But currently, there's no sport-specific guideline at WP:NSPORT for footballers.Jahaza (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• The way to counter a challenge of NOTDATABASE / GNG / SPORTSCRIT at AFD is by producing two or three high-quality sources with significant coverage of the subject, that’s the way for you to go here; alternatively, the content may be folded into a broader article, if one can be identified. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a databse. That is one of the basic principals of Wikipedia. All articles should be made to meet GNG before they are created. There is an article for creation process, which is where people should actually take material that does not meet nclusion criteria, instead of just dumping it into article space. If it has already been dumped into article space in a sub-par condition, as Malcolmx15 says you should go and find tow or three high quality sources that meet our inclusion criteria. Basically in the huge discussion of sports realted articles earlier this year it was decided that we would scrap all participation based inclusion criteria, that we wanted quality sources backing all articles, and that we wanted an end to sports stats table entries masquerading as articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database. It has standard inclusion criteria, and I strongly reccomend you review the current inclusion criteria, and recognized in regards to sports figures especially they have been significantly reworded and tightened in the last year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  In computing, a database is an organised collection of data stored and accessed electronically. What is wikipedia but a stored collection of information through it's article structure accessed digitally! Wikipedia is still a database no matter what people want to say. Govvy (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database. Do you infer from that statement that it's better to have no article about a notable subject at all than having a stub article? Is that Wikipedia policy? Because that's what happens when dozens of stub articles are sent to AfD daily and articles get deleted because there is too little time to check for SIGCOV. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

If no SIGCOV can be found during an AfD it can be included in a list instead; if it's indeed notable then eventually someone with access to sources will come along and recreate it as an actual comprehensive biography. Standalone articles are not the only way information can exist on Wikipedia. JoelleJay (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

IMO BilledMammal actions referred to here are not only proper but doubly not a behavioral issue for this board. Both the notability guidelines overall and also what happens at AFD call for the same thing.....to provide 1 or 2 GNG suitable references to establish GNG notability, and producing or being unable to produce that will resolve the question every time. Trying to ignore all of that and instead just look at wp:before and imagining that somebody didn't do it is not right. Similarly, is the poster saying that the search is too burdensome to do for the person wishing to retain the article? North8000 (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oh for pity's sake. Govvy, do you recognize that the reason critical masses of editors agreed to remove participation criteria from NSPORTS -- and, incidentally, to sanction Lugnuts for his egregious and longstanding sub-stub creation -- was outrage at the laziness of many editors in creating so many unsourced sub-stubs for athletes, which those editors then proved completely disinterested in sourcing or improving? What I am fed-up over are editors who always feel that someone else should do that work, but oh no, not them, not ever. North8000 takes the words out of my mouth -- the extremist inclusionists are ever ready to protest attempted deletions, but generally curiously reluctant to do what's guaranteed to save the articles ... source the damn things. I'm militantly disinterested in hearing them call other editors lazy or negligent where they don't want to do the work themselves. In any event, it is no more egregious for BilledMammal to nominate a dozen soccer sub-stubs for deletion a week than it was for the likes of Lugnuts to create a hundred soccer sub-stubs a week ... something I doubt you opposed, then or now. Ravenswing 18:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: curiously reluctant to do what's guaranteed to save the articles As I outlined in my examples above that can be very hard to do when the article subject was active in pre-internet times. When I saw 18 Danish internationals called Nielsen sent to AfD today I went looking for a way to find old Danish newspaper articles and found statsbiblioteket.dk. Example: https://www2.statsbiblioteket.dk/mediestream/avis/search/Erik%20nielsen%20lübeck/page/2 The search results show the title of the newspaper, the date, the page but no article content. Now what? Robby.is.on (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Now either Danish editors get into the act, or one can resort to the text from the Danish Wikipedia ... or else an otherwise obscure footballer from a century ago gets merged into a portmanteau article until such time as someone does pull it off. WP:V requires sourcing, and there is not and never has been a waiver from its provisions just because there's some excuse for why sourcing is hard to obtain. Ravenswing 18:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

But no one is disputing the verifiability of these articles. The databases that they're based on are generally thought to be reliable. What's being disputed is notability.Jahaza (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

And in like fashion, WP:N/GNG requires sourcing. This ought not be difficult for people around which to wrap their heads. Once again, the oft-held canard that if sourcing is hard to obtain for a subject, the provisions of WP:V/N/GNG are somehow waived in its favor is utterly unsupported in any guideline or policy. Ravenswing 06:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Amen amen. Write an article once you've got the sources to do so! -Indy beetle (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• Whether or not BEFORE has been complied with - and I'm willing to AGF here - my biggest concern is nominating 18 (I think?) articles all at once. What is the rush? A handful of AFDs a day allows both 'sides' of a debate to spend the time to find sources and make a wiser decision. 18 in a day is too big a task. GiantSnowman 18:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  This is an all-too-common complaint at AfD, and I've never bought it. Decisions are made by those who show up. Neither your input, nor mine, nor anyone else's is essential to any deletion discussion. If you don't have the time to find the sources that the article creator should have included from the start, someone else may. If no one does within a week's time, then no one cared enough about the article to save it anyway.

  But beyond that, FAR too often, my observation is that those who complain loudest about how hard it is to research sources for bundled AfDs (and come on, how many of these searches require much more than a minute?) never get around to researching any of them. And surely -- if their focus was really on improving threadbare articles rather than just disrupting the process by any means to hand -- they could manage a handful? Or three? Or two. Or any. Ravenswing 18:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  I disagree - once it is at AFD, the burden shifts dramatically to those wanting to keep. If nobody has the time or interest in finding sources, or if interested people are unaware of discussions, then it will invariably end up deleted. GiantSnowman 18:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  The best search for sources on mid-twentieth century (post-1921) Danish Footballers would generally require going to a library in Denmark to look at Danish newspapers. Quite a few are digitized, but the collection isn't available remotely post-1921. That's why a presumed notability guideline is sometimes a good thing to have.Jahaza (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  Then why not make articles (where one has suitable sources) instead? If you don't have sources, you don't have a real article. Also presumed notability is where such is from an SNG, and it appears no SNG was even claimed on these. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  The SNG was WP:NFOOTBALL, which existed when the articles were created but has since been abolished. GiantSnowman 19:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  No, the SNG is and was NSPORT, which always required the subjects actually meet GNG and that this be demonstrated with sources in the article eventually. The article creator should still have verified that the subject was notable before making the article. JoelleJay (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  NFOOTBALL was part of NSPORT, smartarse. GiantSnowman 20:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  Treating NFOOTY like it was an SNG unto itself perpetuates the idea that SSGs don't have to meet the wider requirements of NSPORT, which did/does not presume notability solely through meeting an SSG criterion. JoelleJay (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  I can't answer for the creator of the articles. When I create articles I expect to have better sourcing than a database entry, but their creation has already happened, it's their deletion that is being considered.Jahaza (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  But there has been zero effort to demonstrate why we should presume notability for these players. What evidence do we have that they meet GNG 95% of the time? If existence of SIGCOV isn't even falsifiable in general then how can we possibly argue it should be presumed in specific instances? Not to mention the fact that we do have evidence playing for national teams in other countries in the same time period is not a reliable predictor of GNG: the many, many AfDs on those subjects where no coverage is found despite access to digitized media. That was one of the major factors that led to deprecation of participation-based SSG criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• I don't see the problem with BilledMammal noms. WP:BEFORE isn't a policy so much as a courtesy expectation that can be disruptive if constantly abused, but I digress. We aren't going to sanction someone for "violating" WP:BEFORE because there is no way to prove it anyway. If he is in error, and two or three reliable sources are giving significant coverage, simply add them to the articles and note this at the AFD. If someone is constantly nominating articles that get kept, THAT might be considered disruptive, no one is claiming that. Everything you claim in this report is not actionable. This doesn't belong here, and I expect someone will close this shortly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• @Govvy and Robby.is.on, databases are not a creative aggregation of facts—hard work, they are to build, but thin gruel for even a stub. An article requires creatively gathering significant coverage and using a natural language to summarize and contextualize the data. Because an athlete competed before the internet age is not sufficient reason to stop at building a "database stub". Be aware that before the internet age, orders of magnitude more newspapers, magazines, and other media existed than do now. The Wikipedia Library gives access to millions of archived print articles. Mine these. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 19:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC) —
• If someone is starting AfDs you think are flawed, oppose those AfDs. If you're right, the AfDs will close as keep. (This is definitional: Assuming everyone proceeds in good faith, "right" in an AfD is whatever gains consensus.) If those AfDs consistently close as keep and the person continues to start AfDs that they ought to know will close as keep, then it's a user conduct issue. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• My issue is not deletionists vs. inclusionists but the pace of nominating articles at AFD. I've seen editors nominate a dozen, two dozen or more similar articles within a minute of each other. I'm with GiantSnowman, this pace is unrelenting and also completely unnecessary. It falls harder on those who want to Keep articles who have to track down reliable sources within a week or two, only to see those who wish to Delete the articles shoot them down as not supplying enough evidence for notability. I follow the rules and I close AFDs with delete decisions as much as the next admin but I wish those who are seeking to sweep clean Wikipedia of certain types of articles would accept the burden they are placing on other editors when they nominate 10 or 20 or 30 articles on the same day. No editor, at least no editor who has a job and a family, can spend all of their time tracking down sources for that many articles which will be accepted by those advocating deletion. And I don't know that those advocating "Delete" should be given sole veto power on which sources are acceptable and which are not which seems to be the norm in AFD discussions these days.

This is not a comment on whether individual articles should be kept or deleted, that is for consensus that emerges from a discussion to determine, I'm just talking about the manner of which some editors go about nominating or PRODding articles and to have some consideration for the other editors who want to participate in the process. Slow down, there is no deadline, those 20 articles can be proposed over the course of a week or two, not all on the same day. Now I'll get off my soapbox. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

These articles (and one more, which I declined to nominate) were created between 18:45 and 19:38 on December 21 of last year. They also weren't the only articles the creator made that day; a total of 36 were made, excluding those already deleted. In this context I don't think there is a problem with the number of nominations. BilledMammal (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

+1 to BilledMammal. The day when article creators are limited to making a handful of new articles per day, that's when a limitation on how many AfDs/PRODs per day can be filed is appropriate. Ravenswing 06:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

+2, when failing articles are created at a rate of dozens a day, nomination of them at a similar rate for deletion is justified. Anything other than this is insisting that articles are never cleaned up at all. That paper archives might exist is also not a valid keep rationale - they either do or they don’t, and if they do exist then the wp:burden is on those supporting keeping the article to show that they do exist.FOARP (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• I wouldn't have posted here if BilledMammal didn't template my talk page. I considered it necessary; at the AfD on Kai Nielsen every post you made was discussing behaviour and casting aspersions, rather than discussing whether the player was actually notable. These aspersions, where you accuse editors of behavioural issues without presenting any evidence, are relatively minor, but they aren't isolated incidents; a look at your recent AfD's shows that this is a common pattern of behaviour for you; for example, Rintaro Yajima, Monaem Khan Raju, and Carlo Ansermino.

In addition, the civility issues at AfD aren't limited to these accusations related to WP:BEFORE; you were warned about personal attacks at the AfD on Thomas Green, and since then I see you have issued other attacks such as suggesting articles are being deleted because everyone is too afraid to do the actual work at the AfD on Tobias Linse, and for saying that JPL's vote can be thrown out the window, it's meaningless as he doesn't care for the footy project at the AfD on Simon Gibson. BilledMammal (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not impressed by Govvy's edit summary when removing the warning and subsequent comment; Rv, pathetic comments. Concerns about Govvy's civility at AfD are valid, but that edit summary suggests they don't intend to alter their behaviour going forward. BilledMammal (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• I commend BilledMammal for working to clean up these mass-created stubs and see no evidence of misconduct on their part.

I think that Govvy may have an unrealistic view of what an adequate Before search looks like: They've insisted that it requires an offline search [1][2][3][4], which would presumably require the AfD nom to travel to Denmark if they are not currently located there. WP:BEFORE actually says that if an editor has searched Google, Google Books, Google News, Google News Archive, Google Scholar and The Wikipedia Library and found a lack of sources, than they have completed their basic due diligence.

A lot of the comments here show a lack of AGF toward noms and Delete !voters, with an assumption that people who claim a lack of sources simply haven't looked hard enough while ignoring the possibility that they may have done an exhaustive search and come up with nothing. Often the folks making this argument don't appear to have done such a search themselves, as they often don't have any sources to present as evidence.

In terms of volume, this year BilledMammal has generally been nominating a batch of 10-20 articles once a month, which comes down to 2-3 articles per day if a single editor wanted to check all of them and none were relisted. The Football deletion category currently has about 125 articles. This sounds like a lot but comes down to about 4-5 per editor per day if it was split between 4 editors. This isn't excessive when you consider the number of searches that folks are presumably able to do to confirm notablity before creating these articles. –dlthewave ☎ 00:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dlthewave: Umm, I do do online searches, maybe if you review a few histories on some of the nominations you will also see the updates I done to a few in the past. I've been over the Danish international player articles before. And I strongly believe this topic needs to be given to a Danish editor who can perform such tasks. It's not a great help when an article goes to AfD to get the importance it needs, very few if little, people don't seem to communicate that this article needs improvement or not. More often or not people post, this article fails GNG. And that's not helping anyone. Govvy (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dlthewave: WP:NPOSSIBLE: "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." Reasons have been given why many of these footballers are likely notable – they played internationally, they played abroad at a time when this wasn't commonplace – but I see very little acknowledgement of these sound arguments. If the database of Danish newspapers only allows access from Danish universities and libraries, how are non-Danish editors supposed to deal with that? Robby.is.on (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Reasons have been given why many of these footballers are likely notable – they played internationally, they played abroad at a time when this wasn't commonplace

Except that these reasons were explicitly rejected as presumptive of even SIGCOV, let alone straight notability, with the deprecation of NFOOTY. No one has demonstrated that Danish international footballers at this time generally do have SIGCOV in these offline sources, so assertions that it exists for specific footballers have zero justification. JoelleJay (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose any administrative action against Billed Mammal based upon this complaint. One can argue about whether a bulk nomination is proper or not, but I don't see anything in the present case that suggests bad faith. Cbl62 (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'm sympathetic to the argument that lots of AfDs are a lot to keep up with. But, at the same time, so are all the microstubs that have been vomited onto Wikipedia without a second thought. Do note, if an article has been deleted at AfD for failing GNG. It's very easy to simply recreate the article, providing you have found sources which you are confident would make it pass GNG if nominated again. But I'm with Ravenswing, I've come increasingly under the impression that none of the inclusion extremists would want to do that because that would require a minimum of effort. AfD isn't cleanup, but don't expect articles that aren't obvious GNG passes to never be challenged. I'll put Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachelle Bukuru as the sports AfD that exhausted me. I nominated a current Burundian woman footballer, as there was no SIGCOV about her. Keepers cry BIAS and make baseless claims about it being impossible for us to check Burundian media sources since they must all be in print and hiding within the country, so we should give the subject the benefit of the doubt. Me being familiar with Burundian media and having done an extensive BEFORE, then demonstrate that Burundi's sole private national newspaper, the government newspaper, and a national women's magazine (all of which do regular football reporting and have online presence) show no meaningful hits for the subject's name. This wasn't enough to change people's minds - the claim that we are furthering systemic bias by deleting footballers from third world countries has everything to do with the fact that they're a footballer and nothing to with actually caring about coverage of African topics ("silly Burundian media must be racist against Burundians, us enlightened American/European Wikipedia editors know better about Africa than those dumb Africans" is the only other logical explanation aside from rabid football fanboying for such an attitude in light of the evidence). In this case it's Danish footballers, but allow me to place a bet that the keepers who are not actually looking for sources (like Robby has done, the proper way) but demanding that we prove a negative and go sift through the Danish national archives have zero intention of ever doing such a thing themselves, and will be totally content for the stub to be abandoned and stagnant for eternity, as long as it exists for whatever reason. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• I agree with GiantSnowman and Liz, but oppose sanctionable actions against BilledMammal since bulk nomination is qustionable (as in WTF?), but isn't really an actionable offense. Huggums537 (talk) 08:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose any action through ANI. Being on the "receiving end" of bulk AFD nominations stinks, but that is what happens from time to time. If the nominator didn't do WP:BEFORE (which isn't required) then an enthusiastic edictor can do those same actions in WP:BEFORE. If it bears fruit, simply add what you find to the articles and then that can be considered during the AFD discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanction and suggest a boomerang for wasting the community's time with accusations that have no basis in policy. The source-search suggested briefly in WP:BEFORE is not a requirement; per WP:BURDEN, the ultimate burden to find sources is on the people who added or wish to retain material, not on peopel who wish to remove it. It is completely inappropriate to request or suggest that someone who has nominated an article for deletion be sanctioned for refusing to find sources on behalf of the people who wish to retain or create an article; WP:BURDEN makes it clear that they can refuse, point-blank, to do that search, and clearly indicate that they have not and will never make any effort to search for sources before nominating articles for deletion, and are 100% within their rights to refuse in that fashion. No one ever has, nor ever will be, nor ever can be, sanctioned for declining to search for sources before nominating an article for deletion; it is simply not their responsibility. They may choose to do so, but it is a mere suggestion, not a requirement - anything beyond that would clearly turn WP:BURDEN on its head. People need to stop coming to ANI with these baseless WP:BEFORE accusations - it is not and has never been a requirement, and will never be a valid basis for sanctioning anyone. --Aquillion (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanctions and oppose boomerangs. Everyone involved should be roundly trouted and advised to rethink their priorities in life. Sportsballers should be adequately provided with space to sportsball. Anti-sportsballers should be given other better things to get mad at. Andrevan@ 21:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support limiting the number of AFD nominations made by BilledMammal. Right now, it's an unreasonable ask to have users go through 20 AFDs per day and do a proper BEFORE. It's really easy to make a nomination, and not always easy to find proof of notability especially for articles from the pre-internet era. There are wider ramifications if we use these same AFD rules to the greater Wikipedia as tons and tons of articles (biology, politics, education and the like) are vulnerable to the same type of AFD nominations.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• Opppose The whole thing is a complete waste of time. scope_creep^Talk 06:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

State of play at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football

I don't want to address any specific editor, but I do want to address the situation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football. I used to vote in many Football AfDs. Since the football notability rules changes, the flood gates have been released at this deletion sorting list. I fell inundated, to the point I choose not to participate in most them.

Part of the problem is the sheer mass of nominations. The other problem is that placing an informed voted and doing a detailed WP:BEFORE on the articles nominated is difficult. For English footballers it is easy to locate sources. But English footballers aren't the one's being nominated. There are many nominations from Pacific islands and far away places, where the native tongue is not English and I have no idea what amounts to a reliable source or not. The nomination above of the Danish footballers illustrates this. Just from looking at their record, it is apparent it is likely most of them are notable as they played in top clubs and appeared internationally. However locating sources in Danish from the 50s or 20s is not not easy. This is compounded by Nielsen (surname) being the most popular surname in Denmark, held by 5% of the population, and some of the given names being popular as well. Denmark had press, books, radio, and television in this period so offline sources are probable fro some of them.

With the current rules, I can vote keep if I see others presenting sources supporting notability. In some cases I find sources myself. But in many cases I'm left with a feeling the footballer is probably notable, but no obvious sources available as they are difficult to locate, so I don't vote either way. I don't think I'm the only one with this feeling, as many AfDs stay there with very few voters.

Would it be possible to close the floodgates some? Or at least create some yardstick that is more restrictive than the former football notability rule but at least saves us time on the more obvious cases? Maybe apply this rule only to "old articles", and not newly created articles to prevent new sub-standardly sourced stubs? As it is, the football deletion list is facing a couple of decades of stub creation thrown at it now.--Mvqr (talk) 10:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

That's exactly one of the points I wanted to make, how can you do a detailed WP:BEFORE when you're nominating that many articles. I also work during the day, right now I am on my lunch break and just popped on for a look here. I don't have enough time to do all the checks, I am not time rich like I use to be. There are a lot more people time rich around here who aren't doing the checks and that's what bothers me. Govvy (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• locating sources in Danish from the 50s or 20s is not not easy shouldn't this have been thought about before the article was created? Anyway, just recreate any of the deleted articles if sources are found; it's not like they'd ever be improved without going to AfD first. Avilich (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

shouldn't this have been thought about before the article was created? Maybe, but the articles were created at a time when there was an SNG for footballers. Anyway, just recreate any of the deleted articles if sources are found; That is possible, obviously. But having to create an article from scratch is a much higher barrier to contributing for editors. It takes more time and knowledge than editing an existing one. it's not like they'd ever be improved without going to AfD first. Huh? Robby.is.on (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a bad argument. This entire nonstop back and forth around AFDs is because WP:BEFORE is placed incorrectly in the process. No articles should be created without multiple sources, preventing this drama. Making an article is easy, most of these were auto-generated from a database. Do the work on these articles if they are notable. I suspect many are hoaxes 2601:2C3:57F:3F8E:6874:3AEA:F7B8:F1D5 (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• having to create an article from scratch is a much higher barrier I don't see how; the AfD is on record for everyone to see, and the only difficulty is WP:G4, which shouldn't be a problem if sources actually are available. Avilich (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Most IP editors won't know what G4 is and neither did I until just now. Robby.is.on (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Would it be possible to close the floodgates some? We've been asking this question for years... about article creations. Sorry, but the community let a few editors mass-create these pages by the tens of thousands for years and years, and the result is too many non-notable, under-sourced articles. This "deletion spree", this is closing the floodgates some... closing the floodgates of mass creation. Levivich (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Then hold current creations up to a higher standard, if a new creation is subpar then sure, if the creator doesn't pony up proper sources then delete it with haste. But allow some kind of grandfather clause for older articles. Doesn't have to be one pro match, could be something more restrictive. Maybe phase back the grandfather clause slowly The reality is that the Football deletion list is flooded. Over a 100 discussions listed now, and it's been over 200 as well. For many of these discussions it is very possible there are some sources available, but the ability of editors to cope with this flood is lacking. Look at my record at deletion, I'm not shy at deleting substandard stuff, not at all. But I can't keep up with this flood and from what I see in the discussions other editors are letting these pass by as well. There were a couple of Manchester United players that were put up, for Christ's sake, which were stopped, but those are easier to catch. So sure, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Doughty, was obvious even within all those cookie cutter nominations, but this isn't true for other countries. The amount of editors who have experience with Danish or Micronesia footballers is miniscule.--Mvqr (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The reason I dont find this argument about its too many AFDs at all convincing is that these articles are not being deleted and salted. If at some point somebody actually finds some sources that support some player being notable they can always create the article anew. People are acting like deletion means that now and forever there will be this giant void. But that is just not true. I never understood why people are so adamant that terrible articles remain because someday some person may want to improve it. Well if that day ever comes they can create the article anew or request it be created. nableezy - 16:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: for years, many editors have been saying that some editors are mass-creating non-notable articles. Now, what you want to do is to stop editors from doing this in the future, but grandfather the past creations? Why the heck would we want to do that? What the heck are you trying to preserve here? Non-notable articles? Why?

Look, there are tens of thousands of these. If we keep going through them one-by-one in batches of 10 or 20, it'll take us years. Years. Buckle up, the deletion is going to take longer than the creation. The fact that we don't have time to do so many BEFOREs is the proof that we never should have made so many in the first place.

Mass deletion is the consequence of WP:HIGHSCORE editing, and it always has been, as it always must be. Shoot, at least they're being taken to AFD; if it were up to me, I'd be looking for some criteria for a mass CSD. Levivich (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

If the less significant small stubs with just a name, team, some stats, and no meaningful sources were just redirected to the team article or a list related to the team, then that would be much more manageable than what is going on right now in the football deletion.--Mvqr (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The manageability of the deletion is directly proportional to the manageability of the creation. There are tens of thousands of less significant small stubs with just a name, team, some stats, and no meaningful sources. Redirection won't work because players often played for multiple teams, so there isn't a single clear target, and anyway we don't need to turn entire rosters into redirects. We don't need tens of thousand of redirects any more than we need tens of thousands of non-notable sub-stubs. Again: what is it you're trying to preserve here? A redirect with a person's name? Why? Levivich (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention that many of these supposedly perfect redirect targets would in no logical instance actually mention the name of the person which serves as the redirect. E.g. The parent team article which is supposed to broadly cover the whole history of the team as a well as some of the recent performance is probably not going to mention by name that one left defender who played a half season in 1923, as that would be WP:UNDUE. Not to mention the "MUST BE REDIRECTED NEVER DELETE" privileges these trivial footballers over other possibly notable subjects which might have the same name. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Oppenheim, for example, whereas a result a footballer who played one match in 1909 has a redirect to a list of Austrian footballers, so if you're searching for Harry Oppenheim the newspaper publisher, or the art collector, or the South African businessman, or the Scottish politician, fuck you I guess, only football matters. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

And then if it is pointed out that a redirect isn't suitable, the proposal then becomes to move the article to a disambiguated title and redirect that, before creating an unmaintainable dab page at the primary title for non-notable people in contradiction of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. BilledMammal (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

+1. With a similar case in hockey, where an editor outright defied the SNG (and it took a couple YEARS to finally community sanction him) to mass-create articles, we are still untangling his messes, several years down the road. And he created a tenth the articles Lugnuts did alone, and with more content.

If I thought that the footy project genuinely cared about turning these sub-stubs into actual articles, you guys wouldn't be waiting for AfDs, but working through the backlogs to source and improve the articles you could. But that's not happening, is it? So you will have to forgive some of us from coming to the conclusion that the sentiment is in fact just that bundled AfDs make it harder to delay and obstruct the process. Ravenswing 18:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Too much bad faith here for my taste. Stubs get fleshed out all the time. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

To much bad faith in AFD discussions as a whole. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure thing, I'll bite, Robby. Can you link to some of the recent footy sub-stubs you fleshed out? Ravenswing 02:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I won't bite. :-) Like yours mine was a general observation which cannot be proven or disproven by anecdotal evidence. Stubs or not, I generally don't write a lot of prose. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Then maybe you're not the right person to comment on the issue, hmmm? Ravenswing 03:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Huh? My observation is just as valid as yours, perhaps even more so considering I actually edit footballer articles all the time so I get to see what happens in this topic area. I haven't seen you edit there. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

No, fair point Ravenswing, it's true that evert article arrives here fully formed. GiantSnowman 18:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

So what if some non-notable articles hang around in mainspace longer than you'd like? I'd say the deletion of potentially notable subjects is a far greater risk than non-notable subjects not being deleted. It's much easier for a new editor to expand an article that is already there than to create a new one. NemesisAT (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Months ago, I attempted to bring consistency between National Football League season & American Football League season pages, but was rebutted. My first & last attempt, concerning gridiron football pages. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC) ...which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Fram (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC) The Australian Football League was used as the primary reason for the rebuttal. So there's a loosely link. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

^^^^ Can we please all learn that the best way to handle off-topic comments is to ignore them, not to revert them, restore them, reply to them, or hat them. Ignoring is actually less distracting than engaging. Levivich (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

No, this is an unsolved and unsolvable collective action problem -- as long as you are in an open forum, there is no way to establish the necessary strong norms. Hatting, by contrast, is very effective because it can be implemented by a smaller group and helps communicate what the norms are. 66.44.49.56 (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• This is part eleventy billion of User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_6#Poul_Nielson_AFD and the underlying AfD, which suggests it needs discussion to eventually reach a conclusion rather than being re-litigated quarterly across the project. Star Mississippi 20:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• As far as WP:BEFORE, we actually don't have to assume anything about how exhaustive a search is being performed, because at least one editor here has provided an answer outright: they generally only look at one page of Google results because "the rest are just Wikipedia clones" (except when they're not, as in the case mentioned here). That is not an exhaustive search. It's barely even a cursory search. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
  • One full page of search is an entire page more than was used to create these articles. It's unreasonable to ask for more effort at afd than create time. Didn't spend ten minutes sourcing it, why should anyone else? If these aren't hoax articles, someone can write them properly. If they are hoaxes, we will forever be waiting on nonexistent "but likely to exist" sources. 2601:2C3:57F:3F8E:6874:3AEA:F7B8:F1D5 (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

    There is no exception clause to WP:BEFORE for "well, they didn't do it, so I don't have to either." Nor is there anything in it that says "if you think there probably aren't sources, you don't actually have to prove it." 00:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

    I believe you have misunderstood that comment, and misquoted me. I only looked at one page of normal Google search results for each of the search terms I tried, but I also looked at Google News results, Google News archive results, Google Books results, and Google Scholar results, and often multiple pages of those; I believe this is fully compliant with the expectations of WP:BEFORE.

    I would also disagree with your claim about an exception clause; considering it in the context of WP:ONUS and WP:FAIT, I believe it is permissible for editors to claim an exception when nominating mass created articles. In addition, BEFORE is only required when the main concern is notability; when the main concern is related to WP:NOT, such as WP:NOTDATABASE, such a search is not required although editors may chose to do it anyway. BilledMammal (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  • WP:BEFORE is not and has never been a requirement, so it makes no difference either way. They could flatly declare that they have not and will never perform any sort of search (no matter how cursory) before nominating something for deletion, then go on to nominate ten articles for AFD immediately, and they would be 100% in the right; per WP:BURDEN, the ultimate burden to find sources is on the people who wish to retain or add material - never, not ever, on people who wish to remove it. Not even a little bit; not even a slight or cursory search is required. WP:BURDEN is a more central policy than WP:BEFORE, so it renders the suggested search on WP:BEFORE entirely optional. --Aquillion (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Here's an idea, move these stubs to draft space. Now you get six months to establish they belong and not seven days. Problem solved? nableezy - 00:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

until WP:DRAFTOBJECT, when literally anyone can move it back and force you to use the seven day option. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I feel like people in favor of deleting it wont be moving it back to the mainspace just to start the 7 day clock on them. If somebody were to move a draft to the mainspace and nominate/vote for deletion that move would have been done in bad faith and I would think worthy of sanctions. If somebody who feels that it is notable and wants to move it back, well guess anybody is welcome to start the seven day clock at that point if they feel otherwise. nableezy - 02:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, I haven't really seen people moving drafts to mainspace just to nominate them for deletion. The more common scenario is that an article is draftified by someone who thinks that it doesn't demonstrate notability, and then an editor who wants to keep it moves it back to mainspace which forces an AfD.

On that topic, I think it's interesting that drafts submitted through AfC are quite often rejected due to lack of SIGCOV sourcing even when the topic is likely notable. It would be helpful if we held experienced editors to the same standard as newbies rather than giving free reign to move them back to mainspace. –dlthewave ☎ 03:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The current policy permitting draftification refusal causes these problems. Generally, people who draftify articles are doing it for good reason, and if they’re not, the usual warning and enforcement pathways would manage abuse of draftification. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 10:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I've constructed a list of mass created articles on Olympians by Sander.v.Ginkel (an editor who engaged in unauthorized semi-automated mass creation) and I am considering making such a proposal at the Village Pump; that all those that are not listed as having a non-statistical source are moved out of article space.

I've also constructed a similar list of mass created articles on Cricketers by BlackJack, but I'm giving Wikiproject Cricket time to work out what they want to do with those articles before I consider further action.

Draft space would be an option, but if editors want to avoid the 6 month cut off I wouldn't have any objection to a different location. BilledMammal (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• I personally would prefer it if BilledMammal slowed down a bit.—S Marshall T/C 08:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Not just BilledMammal - we also have @HeinzMaster: who, as highlighted by @NemesisAT:, has nominated c. 25 articles for deletion in c. 20 minutes. Based on the AFD discussions so far, BEFORE was not performed because a large number of sources showing notability have been found by other users. GiantSnowman 16:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• I also think this a bit too fast. If you have a prepared list, do some last minute searches on one, and then nominate it. Than wait at least some time and do another. It is not a race and we need to not flood the system. If you are not doing a group nomination than take time. It is also best to give us at least some sense of the before you have done. I am not sure what reasonable speeds are, but I do not think there is anyway to do more than one deletion nomination in a minute, even if the before was done earlier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• Okay, well, this is kind of a silly discussion. Has anybody bothered to pull up BilledMammal's AfD stats yet? Well, here is the stats page. The actual numbers are as follows:
  • June 11: 6 noms
  • June 15: 14 noms
  • July 18: 18 noms
• Indeed, most of the days of the month, this person is not nominating articles for deletion. So there is not a torrential downpour of noms. I don't know who was saying a couple dozen in one day: that's just wrong. However, with that said -- 18 in one day is nevertheless an extremely large number of noms to make. HeinzMaster, too, has done this: 27 in a single day, July 22, of which all were done in a twenty-minute period. This is unreasonable. Look here: the average rate, from 2005 to 2020, has been 78.9 AfDs per day. Last month, it was 73.6 per day. That's for the entire English Wikipedia. Every page that gets nominated for deletion -- whether it's crackpot nonsense, spam, an outrageous attack piece, completely unsourced, or whatever -- has to get flushed out through that same little hole in the floor. There are a finite number of people who are capable of dealing with it, and fewer still who want to do it. So... a quarter (or a third) of that entire process, for an entire day, was being used by a single person... on what? A bunch of goofy little single-sentence stubs that nobody's edited in ten years and nobody is ever going to read? A lot of editors accuse the people who write these crappy stub articles of being obsessed with minutiae, but nominating them all for deletion in a way that clogs up the entire process is just as pointless. I understand that there are a bunch of them, and I understand that it's disruptive to create ten thousand of them, sure -- people should stop doing that. And people who do that should stop complaining about them being deleted. But come on -- ten thousand AfDs is literally six months worth of them! That's six months worth of work for multiple people. We can just do things at a normal rate. I wish everyone would calm down and quit trying to rip each other's throats out over this, because the blood is getting on the encyclopedia. It should be noted that the reason HeinzMaster went berserk was, in all likelihood, frustration after having one of their own articles deleted per changed NSPORT guidelines. It's just blood on blood. jp×g 05:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  We can just do things at a normal rate. I am not convinced we can; there aren't only ten thousand mass created articles to go through, there are hundreds of thousands. Doing those at twenty a day will take decades, and doing them slower will take centuries.

  Currently, I'm not planning to bring any more through AfD; there are two things I want to happen first. First, I want to try and move mass created articles that violate WP:NOTDATABASE out of article space in larger groups; I'm not certain whether I try this with RfC's, as proposed above, or if I wait and see if a suitable process emerges from ArbCom's RfC. Second, I want to see if there is a consensus in the community to throttle AfD nominations; if there is, I will of course abide by it. BilledMammal (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanction - AFD not being able to handle a nomination rate that is a fraction of what it needs to be to handle a necessary clean-up is not a problem of the nominators. WP:Before has to be proportionate to the effort put in by the article creator, and cannot require efforts (eg searching of paper archives in Denmark) that are clearly beyond the means of the ordinary editor. FOARP (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal

AfD can't handle this volume of deletion nominations, and it's not fair on other people who want to use AfD when a small group of editors is drawing up all the oxygen. But, this is a backlog full of ill-sourced biographies of living people, so gradualism and eventualism aren't the most responsible approach either. We can't just mass-dump these articles into draft space because that's a mass-deletion with a six month delay on it. I therefore propose that we enact a speedy userfication rule that applies only to sports-related biographies of living people that were (a) created before 1 July 2022, (b) unsourced or sourced only to databases, and (c) a good faith online search doesn't bring up any better sources, and I ask the community to say specifically that this search doesn't have to involve more effort than the original creator put in. I propose that all such userfications should be logged to a subpage somewhere where interested editors can check them, improve them as appropriate and move back to mainspace when and if the sources are improved. Userfication would have to be done by a sysop or someone with the page mover user-right (otherwise it would leave an inappropriate cross-namespace redirect) and should probably go to the namespace of the original creator.—S Marshall T/C 19:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

What about draftification instead? Andrevan@ 20:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

"We can't just mass-dump these articles into draft space because that's a mass-deletion with a six month delay on it". It's the third sentence in S Marshall's proposal.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Whoops, thanks for pointing that out, sorry for the oversight. I think that mass-deletion might not be such a bad thing. Any articles that are truly notable can be saved or recreated later. Andrevan@ 20:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with this. JoelleJay (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I dont know why 6 months until mass deletion is a problem. The problem was supposedly that AFD couldnt deal with this many in a week. Treat this as a mass nomination but you have 6 months to find the sources that justify the article. How is that a problem? Draftify the whole lot, if anybody moves it back to article space that one is fair game to be nominated for deletion that same day if it doesnt have the sources to support its notability. nableezy - 23:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I guess the thing that I'm having trouble understanding -- and something that isn't very well-explained -- is why it is important to delete a bunch of articles about soccer players. Typically, when some action is demanded to prevent something from happening, there's an obvious and tangible downside (e.g. "wearing a seatbelt" is done to prevent "being thrown through the windshield in a crash", and the tangible downside of that happening is "dying instantly"). In this case, it seems to me like the worst-case scenario of slowing down deletions is "there are some boring articles nobody cares about". Contrariwise, the worst-case scenario of mass deletions is "thousands of hours of editors' and administrators' time is spent on evaluating and processing boring articles nobody cares about". Is there some other concern here I am not aware of? jp×g 07:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that comes down to why we have policies and guidelines like WP:N and WP:NOT; the reasons we need to delete them are as broad as the reasons we need those policies and guidelines.

To attempt to answer, my opinion is that they make the encyclopedia worse; they reduce its quality, and they negatively impact the reading experience. I also agree with Captain Eek when they said I believe that those stubs have only served to reinforce public opinion that Wikipedia is mostly empty around the edges, and that anything is notable. BilledMammal (talk) 08:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

In addition to what BilledMammal said, there is also the increased potential for harm when we have too many BLPs to monitor. The longer articles stay in mainspace, the more likely it is any misleading or libelous info is propagated to wiki mirrors and captured by Google. It also makes categories less navigable and people with even relatively uncommon names more difficult to search for due to all the stubs and redirects with the same name. JoelleJay (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

There is no reason, some people just get mad that their articles get deleted and not these ones, or just dislike sports in general. I haven't heard a reasonable argument from deletionists, but I also think it's just a fundamentally opposite way of looking at things.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

A sensible proposal would be to limit the number of soccer-related AFDs one person can nominate in a single 24 hour period. GiantSnowman 20:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

That would be sensible if we had limited the number of soccer-related articles one person can create in a single 24 hours period. But we didn't, so here we are. (And, of course, it's not just soccer.)

I support this proposal, or something like it. I don't have the quarry skills for this but I wonder how many articles match these criteria: (1) only external link is to a database, and (2) no edits except the creator. Those ought to be mass-userfied. For everything else, some kind of PROD where you can only remove the PROD if you add a reference to a non-database source (I think this has been proposed before). Levivich (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Is there a project AfD where we could encourage editors of significant standing (who are experienced in topics) to join and become regular reviewers? This could be similar to new article and draft reviewers? Maybe create a similar rule that AfD discussions remain open for a long periods of time too? The issue seems to be more that AFDs just dont attract traffic from people to review them and take part in the discussion? >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Not many, but only because of (2); every articles picks up gnoming edits eventually. In addition, I don't think database sources is sufficiently broad; there are also issues with editors using lists of names, and with editors using statistical books. Instead I would suggest a slightly broader criteria, and suggest that articles that match these criteria should be mass userfied: (1) only references are to statistical sources, and (2) no significant edits except the creator. BilledMammal (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Then we'll just get editors insisting a governing sports organization's website that lists basic biographical info and competition results isn't a "statistical database" because it doesn't contain "parameter data", but at the same time it is SIGCOV (because it's a whole page dedicated to one person!) by an independent RS (because how could FIG "get an advantage" from such a profile?). The disruption is never-ending... JoelleJay (talk) 06:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

If people are mass creating stubs (I mean dozens a day) on borderline or clearly non-notable footballers (e.g. sourced only to database) they should be topic banned. GiantSnowman 13:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Bingo! Footballers and all other sports. But we didn't do that a dozen years ago, when we should have done, so now the problem is how to handle the hundreds of thousands of borderline or clearly non-notable sports BLPs. AfD is not the way to go because the maximum rate of AfD nominations would take many years to chomp through the backlog even if we could somehow stop people making new sports BLPs completely. As it is, we'd swamp AfD trying to exceed the creation rate.

The rules at WP:BLP say that we must "be very firm about the use of high-quality sources". But AfD is not for cleanup, anyone can remove a prod, and tags can be ignored indefinitely. So no venue exists where editors can "be very firm about the use of high-quality sources". We need to create one that can manage the problem at pace.—S Marshall T/C 17:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich: Here is a list of all articles sourced solely to olympedia.org, olympics.com, or sports-reference.com. Limiting it to biographies (as the list articles are likely appropriate) would not be difficult, but what will be difficult is building a list of statistical sources.

I believe all of those articles have been edited by more than one editor, but once we have a definition of a "significant edit" it wouldn't be hard to exclude those with such edits by editors other than the creator - although I'm not certain we want to, given that the additional editors don't change the nature of the sources. BilledMammal (talk) 08:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal how about articles solely to soccerway websites as well? – robertsky (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

That's awesome, thank you for putting it together. I'd add worldfootball.net to the list. By the way, I agree with you that if it only has one database source, then no edits by other editors would be relevant (to the sourcing problem), so it probably isn't worth pursuing that prong. (I was thinking about whether some substantial number of these could be WP:G7'd.) Levivich (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Done both. I would note that these aren't just articles with only one statistical source; it's articles with no non-statistical source. For example, it's common to have both Olympedia and Olympics. On that note, I think that most of the links from Template:Sports_links and Template:Authority control would be worth adding; I believe almost without exception that all are statistical sources, and many are links that I suspect have always been dead, such as at Jan Koutný. BilledMammal (talk) 10:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Related discussion at WT:AFD

It seems to me that batch AfD nominations tend to cause a lot of headache -- we don't really have a good process for dealing with dozens (or hundreds) of articles in a single go. Basically, we only have two ways to do this.

1. The first method is to make nominations one at a time, which causes a lot of redundant effort from participants, who must make a large number of identical arguments across many pages (as well as monitor all the discussions individually, which is difficult even if you use your own AfD stats page to get a current list).
2. The second method is to make one nomination which includes many articles. This practice of "batch nomination" was created as an alternative to the first method, but it still leaves much to be desired. For example, the AfD format lends itself to a single thread of discussion; people who don't have the same opinion about every article in the batch end up having to make awkward comments (to say nothing of the huge task for closers). It's hard to discuss things in a batch AfD, because there are several conversations happening simultaneously on the same page. Also, batch AfDs are listed by the same procedures as normal ones, which makes no sense to me -- if we agree that it takes seven days to discuss one article, why the hell would it also take seven days to discuss a dozen articles?

Because of this, I think it may be worth contemplating some kind of supplemental guideline (or even a new process) for batch nominations. I've created a section at WT:AFD (here). jp×g 05:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Owing to overlap with proposed remedy 12 from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing/Proposed decision, may I suggest pausing the discussion on this facet of the problem until Arbcom's deliberations have crystallized into something actionable?—S Marshall T/C 16:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I think you might have intended to link to proposed remedy 11. At any rate, I am not confident in my understanding of the process, but from what I can tell, all it would mean (if passed) is that the Committee opens an RfC to solicit proposals such as this. I don't think that really conflicts with the existence of the proposal itself. jp×g 19:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, confusing. It's the 12th remedy in the order, but numbered 11, because there are two 9s.—S Marshall T/C 22:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Don’t forget that we also have a massive problem with mass-created Geostubs. FOARP (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Related discussion on mass creations

To prevent the problem of mass created articles from expanding I have also been looking at editors currently engaged in mass creations and asking them to determine if there is a community consensus for the actions. In some cases, this may be forthcoming; in others it might not.

Today, one of these editors was kind enough to do so, and has opened a discussion at the bots noticeboard. Interested editors may contribute to this test case there. Note that this discussion should focus solely on content, not conduct; the editor is clearly acting in good faith and has done nothing wrong, even if there isn't a consensus for this mass creation. BilledMammal (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

BerkBerk68

BerkBerk68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In the talk page sections of Talk:Turkic history [5] [6] [7], concerns were made against its neutrality, including the addition of groups of disputed origin (the Xiongnu and Huns), with the only person being an advocate for inclusion of these groups being BerkBerk68. However, 4 users opposed this, and thus mention of those groups were removed. What does he later do? Completely ignores all the discussions there, and proceeds to make the article even less neutral, restoring mention of the Xiongnu and Huns, as well as other stuff [8]. For example, recently at the Talk:Timurid Empire, he showed his dissatisfaction with the word 'Turco-Mongol', only wanting it to say 'Turkic' instead. I responded to him, showing that WP:RS says otherwise, etc. In his addition, he added the very proposal he had made in the talk page, completely disregarding my reply as well as WP:RS. Let me just show some few examples of what the main articles say versus his own additions;

Qajar Iran; "Qajar Iran was an Iranian state[9] ruled by the Qajar dynasty, which was of Turkic origin"

BerkBerk68's addition; "The Qajars were a Persianate Turkic royal dynasty,"

Sultanate of Rum; "The Sultanate of Rum[a] was a Turco-Persian Sunni Muslim state"

BerkBerk68's addition; "Seljuk Sultanate of Rum was a Turkish state founded by Oghuz Turks following Turks’ entrance to Anatolia"

Mughal Empire: "The Mughal Empire was an early-modern empire that controlled much of South Asia between the 16th and 19th centuries."

BerkBerk68's addition; "Mughal Empire was an early-modern Persianate empire with Turkic origins"

Khwarazmian Empire: "The Khwarazmian or Khwarezmian Empire[note 2] (English: /kwəˈræzmiən/)[7] was a Turko-Persian[8] Sunni Muslim empire"

BerkBerk68's addition; "The Khwarazmian Empire was a Sunni Muslim state located in present-day Iran and some parts of Central Asia, ruled by the Khwarazm-Shah dynasty, which was of Turkic origin."

As you can see, he tried to reduce the non-Turkic mentions and/or increase Turkic mentions, i.e. WP:POV and WP:TENDENTIOUS editing.

Other concerning stuff;

[9] Here he proposes to add 'Turco-Iranian' instead of 'Iranian' in the lede... using a source that says 'Persian dynasty'. Right before then, he was shown multiple sources in another thread, that 'Iranian/Persian' was the used term in WP:RS [10], but once again he didn't care.

[11] Wanted to minimize the use of the term 'Turco-Persian' here, completely disregarding the vast WP:RS in the article that supported this very term. He also ignored this and proceeded add a even more POVish version in Turkic history: "The Seljuk Empire was a Turkic[31][32] Sunni Muslim empire"

[12] Tried to portray a political tactic as some sort of "early Pan-Turkism", completely disregarding a vital piece of information in the very WP:RS source he used [13]. Even now he is still completely disregarding WP:RS and following his own personal conjectures/opinions [14]

Based on all this, it seems that BerkBerk68 is here on a mission to Turkify articles rather than build an encyclopedia. I'm gonna be blunt here; I suggest a topic-ban in all Iranian and Turkic related articles. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to mention that I have not noticed his comment on the main article of the Timurids and I have told that already at the Turkic history talk page. I even told him that he can fix Timurids and openly imply that I am agreeing with him [15].

About Xiongnu and Hun situation at the lastest version written by me, I utterly reject that I am trying to Turkify them, I have never claimed that Xiongnu or Huns were Turkic, I just added the claims (with underlining that they are claim/theory), genetic researches and the non-primary sources about Chinese historical records, similiar with the Turkic peoples model. I have not also pushed or reverted the calendrical history deletions after the calendrical deletions got the majority on talk page (including a deletion without achieving consensus here [16], I even tried to save the lastest version of calendrical informations (that the disputed subjects are already deleted) by opening a new article [17] and opened a talk page discussion [18] instead of rewriting it.

I thought that "Turco-Iranian" would fit better for Afsharids because the reference itself says Empire's origins are based on a Turkic tribe,[19] and Afsharids used Turkic language as official military language just like many other Turco-Iranian civilizations. I didn't even make an edit, I just expressed my thought on the talk page.

I didn't even understand what exactly is the problem with Nader Shah's Turkmen policy, reference is Iranica there.[20] ("Nāder departed substantially from Safavid precedent by redefining Shiʿism as the Jaʿfari maḏhab of Sunni Islam and promoting the common Turkmen descent of the contemporary Muslim rulers as a basis for international relations." "Nāder’s focus on common Turkmen descent likewise was designed to establish a broad political framework that could tie him, more closely than his Safavid predecessors, to both Ottomans and Mughals." "Nāder recalled how he, Ottomans, Uzbeks, and Mughals shared a common Turkmen heritage. This concept for him resembled, in broad terms, the origin myths of 15th century Anatolian Turkmen dynasties. However, since he also addressed the Mughal emperor as a “Turkmen” ruler, Nāder implicitly extended the word “Turkmen” to refer, not only to progeny of the twenty-four Ḡozz tribes, but to Timur’s descendants as well." )

I also mentioned that I am trying to support the encyclopedia, [21] I am just interested in Turkic topics just like how HistoryofIran is interested on Iranian topics. BerkBerk68^talk 20:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

HistoryofIran is here on a mission to Iranify articles. All of them are sourced informations. Also we reached consensus on that page. But as we can see in Reddit or Twitter HistoryofIran is ruining Turkic related articles and try to ban newcomers here to build encyclopedia users with his policy knowledge. Belugan (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

HistoryofIran isn't here on a mission to Iranify articles. Patachonica (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Right? My goverment, right Belugan (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Down below you were already told twice that off-wiki links are not helpful in this situation. Also, I'm not sure how a link of someone being dissatisfied with me and accusing me of loads of stuff is helpful. However, it's clear that you have been stalking me for a very long time, which is concerning. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

This is about the article Turkic history

Firstly, if one has disputes about certain sections of an article, they are free to talk about it on the talk page. Reverting an ENTIRE edit just because one disagrees with what is written in SOME parts of the edit is not feasible. A consensus must be reached in the talk page if one is going to reverse a 50,000 byte edit just because they disagree with SOME parts of the article. It is uncivil and is bound to lead to edit warring, which will lead to grudges. All of this has been seen in this particular case, as evidenced by the talk page of the article (specifically the thread titled "Calendrical Timeline") and the locking of the article.

Onto the concerns stressed by HistoryofIran . Quotations come directly from the edit. There were two main concerns; the Xiongnu and Huns. It isn't pushed forward by the edit that the Huns and the Xiongnu were Turkic. Instead, BerkBerk68 states that Chinese Han sources *CLAIMED* that the Xiongnu spoke a proto-turkic language ("It was even claimed in Chinese Han records that the Xiongnu spoke a Proto-Turkic language"), and also provides the opinions of other scholars;

"It is also a popular thought among scholars that Xiongnu is most likely to be a confederation of different ethnic and linguistic groups"

The concern here has been addressed. Nothing is definitively pushed forward, and multiple ideas of differing scholars have been presented.

Now onto the Hun section;

"Hunnic armies led by Attila, who had conquered most of Europe, *MAY* have been at least partially of Turkic and Xiongnu origin.

"Huns were *ALSO* considered as Proto-Mongolic and/or Yeniseian by some scholars*"

Again, multiple viewpoints stated, nothing definitively pushed, thus is not contradicting the Hun page. No concerns to be held here.

However, since I am not biased, I sided with HistoryofIran on their concern with multiple parts of the article, and have, for example, amended the Timurids section and stated that the Timurid Empire was a "Persianate Turkic-Mongol" Empire, instead of "Persianate-Turkic" Empire, as it is written in the original article.

• I was about to amend nearly all of their concerns stated in their now archived post in ANI when I had finished reading them, but was unable to because of the article being locked due to edit warring.

• IT IS ALSO TO BE STRESSED THAT THIS IS A NEW EDIT

Thus, the previous concerns are not really valid anymore as the previous article is COMPLETELY different to the new edit, which contains claims of differing scholars which are are sourced with new, reliable, and arguably unbiased sources since they are not Turkish & thus there's no chance of there being pan-Turkist biases. It is also NO LONGER pushed forward in the edit that the Xiongnu and Huns were Turkic, unlike the original version of the article. The previous concerns are months-old, I have read them. The additions are very similar to what is written in the main articles of the Huns and Xiongnu - that the origins of both people's are disputed, and that scholars state they COULD be Turkic. Nowhere in the article is it claimed that they ARE Turkic. And this is further stressed by the inclusion of differing opinions on the origins of both peoples from many different scholars.

The article is no longer as biased like it was before (the previous edit was a carbon copy of the Turkish article. There's bound to be bias, and thus concerns were raised in the talk page about Xiongnu and the Huns. This has been eliminated with the new edit, though).

It is to be acknowledged that there are parts of the edit which are inconsistent with the original articles of some topics, which is why I support and suggest that admins restore the edit made by BerkBerk68 since it is the closest to what we will get of a detailed article on Turkic history, and amending it where necessary. Thanks. zenzyyx_^talk

Nothing has been addressed, you are simply sweeping it under the rug. You are repeating the same old points you made earlier, which has already been replied to [22]. One of the many concerns is that the Xiougnu and Huns origins are still disputed, and thus shouldn't be there no matter how you spin it, hence why it was removed in the first place. BerkBerk ignored that and went on to restore it. As you've already been told various times, we have a rule named WP:ONUS. Also, see WP:TLDR. I'll let the admins take over. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Your answers were inadequate as you did not acknowledge that the edit solved the question of whether the Huns/Xiongnu should be mentioned in the article - it should as it isn't being pushed forward that they were Turkic, but that they could be. Thank you for admitting that you did not read how the edit solved this issue, this just proves you've been blabbering on about "concerns" without even reading how the Xiongnu/Hun problem in particular has been solved. Yes, let's leave it to the admins. zenzyyx_^talk

Sigh, even the fact that they could be Turkic was also rejected, I’m not sure how many times you to have be told that. Pretty rich of you saying that I am the one blabbering. HistoryofIran (talk)

The fact they could be Turkic is NOT rejected and is still pushed by many scholars of the West, as evidenced by the sources provided in the new edit, and in the main articles of the Xiongnu and the Huns. Ignorance really isn't bliss. zenzyyx_^talk

Youre not even following. It was rejected to be in the article by 4 (veteran) users in the previous discussions just this month - you know, an actual community discussing, i.e. WP:CONSENSUS. Ignorance truly isnt a bliss. HistoryofIran (talk)

In the original article, it was pushed forward that the Xiongu and the Huns were Turkic. This is what is talked about in the talk page. The new edit introduces multiple perspectives and does not state that they are Turkic, but that there are scholars who believe they are. Mentioning this doesn't contrast anything - and even if a few people came together and decided that it shouldn't be mentioned, nothing is set and stone. Wikipedia is a hub for debates, and thus views of multiple scholars on issues are required. The only thing correct in your statement is the last sentence. zenzyyx_^talk

Let myself repeat myself for the 6th time: 4 users were against inclusion of those two groups no matter what. Why? Because their origins are disputed. Also, the original version which was removed also mentioned other perspectives, at least for the Xiougnu. WP:CIR. HistoryofIran (talk)

Let "myself repeat myself" for the billionth time (might want to read WP:CIR yourself), their origins are disputed, and this is stressed in the new edit which provides multiple perspectives to their ethnic origins. We're going around in circles at this point. Again, nothing is set and stone, Wikipedia is a place where debate is facilitated, and thus a consensus reached by 4 editors can be challenged. zenzyyx_^talk

It can be challenged indeed, but that should be in the talk page first, just like the first time (WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS, which you keep ignoring), not by forcing it onto the article, which you participated in. HistoryofIran (talk)

I constantly told you to create another section in the talk page about your disagreements with solely mentioning the Xiongu and Huns instead of reverting the ENTIRE edit, but of course, since you're biased against the Turks (as evidenced by all your edit wars in Turkish-related articles), that never happened. Anyways, there's no point continuing the discussion any further. It will only lead to more ad homs being used. I suggest we end the conversation here and leave the ultimate choice to the admins as we've cluttered this ANI. zenzyyx_^talk

You lose the argument and proceed to accuse me of being biased against Turks, classic. As for the rest of your comment, you just keep proving me right about your WP:CIR issues. HistoryofIran (talk)

You've got it all wrong. The fact that you see this as an argument is just sad and proves what kind of an editor you are. Again, you've got it all wrong. I'm not accusing you of anything, I know for sure that you have an anti-Turk bias, as evidenced by all your edit wars relating to Turkish/Turkic articles. zenzyyx_^talk

So edit warring in Turkic articles = anti-Turk? Thanks for proving that you shouldnt be taken seriously. HistoryofIran (talk)

Haha, no. It proves that you're obsessed with erasing anything Turkic and replacing it with Iranian (as seen in the Hun article, which you have heavily edited). Anything Turkic seems to bother you for some reason, as evidenced by your numerous edit wars in Turkic-related articles. So I can comfortably come to the conclusion that you have great bias against the Turks and the Turkic people. zenzyyx_^talk

For the record:

Belugan's first comment at ANI was made at 20:43, 26 July 2022[23]; BerkBerk first commented at 20:43, 26 July 2022[24]; Zenzyxx first commented at 20:45, 26 July 2022.[25] All three are newly registed "accounts" with a pro-Turkish irredentist POV and a strong axe to grind with veteran editor HistoryofIran. Coincidence calling?

I have checked edits of User:Zenzyyx on Turkish Wikipedia, he doesn't have much edits, his first edit was a letter replacement on Alexander's article. He changed "varisi" (successor) to "varişi", which is not a Turkish word, he probably thought that the proper word was "varışı" (arrival), which is completely irrelevant to the section. He also doesn't know the "i/ı" difference, which is a major difference on the Turkish vocal. We have talked about a song in Turkish Wikipedia yesterday, he expressed that he is Sephardic Jew (He had major grammatical errors there too) and that is pretty consistent considering these datas.

Calling people that has different opinions "Turkish irredentist", There is obvious WP:ASPERSIONS at the comment unsigned by User:LouisAragon[26]. BerkBerk68^talk 17:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

My account is 4 years old. It really is funny how you accuse me of being a Turkish irrendist when I'm not even a Turk. How sad (for you). zenzyyx_^talk

• "But as we can see in Reddit or Twitter HistoryofIran is ruining Turkic related articles and try to ban newcomers here to build encyclopedia users with his policy knowledge."

Thanks for admitting that this is an IRL-related grievance, and thanks for admitting that you are trying to import these IRL-related grievances (Sevres Syndrome?) into Wikipdia. That's the problem with people swallowing state funded negationism by authoritarian states; they believe everything is a conspiracy.

- LouisAragon (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

"swallowing state funded negationism by authoritarian states" = like '4000 years old Iranian state' propaganda by Dictatorship of Iran? that you spread. Belugan (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

State funded negationism? And "we" (I don't even know who is us) believe in conspiracy theories? Oh please, Turkish government banned Wikipedia and blocked Turkish Wikipedians to contribute on the development of the encyclopedia for years. I seriously hope that you don't have any stereotypes on people according to their ethnic origin. BerkBerk68^talk 21:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Zenzyyx and @Belugan participated at the Turkic history debate on talk page, they would ofcourse be aware of the ANI. The absurdness of this argument is that you have made your first comment at 21:09, 26 July 2022‎ [27] right after HistoryofIran's one at 21:06, 26 July 2022‎ [28] and you have not even participated on talk page. I do not claim anything, I am just telling that the argument mentioned can be used with different perspectives. BerkBerk68^talk 21:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Highlighting the bias of an editor who persistently gets into edit wars in articles anything-Turkish/Turkic isn't an IRL grievance, is it now? Biased editors ruin Wikipedia, and thus deserve to be exposed on here. Hope to see a Wikipedia without them - but, of course, that is not possible. zenzyyx_^talk

You have not presented any evidence of off-wiki Reddit or Twitter threads that prove HistoryOfIran is biased, and even if you did, we are not interested in any off-wiki disputes. Only diffs here on Wikipedia are acceptable as evidence. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 22:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that Zenzyyx's comment is related with Belugan's claims. BerkBerk68^talk 19:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

one of his false accusation from a Persian user Belugan (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, off wiki disputes matter nothing here. In fact, neither you nor zenzyyx have provided any diffs at all, as far as I can tell. If you cannot bring any evidence to the table at all, then this report is without merit. If you think that is in error, then reply with an actual diff link, rather than having to resort to off-wiki links because you literally have no evidence. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting that this is an IRL-related grievance Cherrypicking nonsense, I didn't admit anything. You can easily find sone Arabic or Turkish people complain about HistoryofIran's bias edits in anywhere of social media and you can also find meatpuppeting by some (hmm guess who :)) in Wikipedia community with Telegram groups. Don't try to manipulate community with these nonsense arguments. Belugan (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

We aren't interested in what off-wiki users on social media have to say; you must provide evidence of bias within Wikipedia itself, not on other unrelated sites. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 22:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) "hmm guess who :)" No, you tell us - with evidence - or (...) No-one here is interested in your insinuations. Narky Blert (talk) 01:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess he was just a banned trolling user that created a new account. BerkBerk68^talk 19:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Note that Belugan (talk · contribs) has been blocked for being not here to edit Wikipedia, per the thread above. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Not surprising, thanks. BerkBerk68^talk 12:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Back to topic

This report has steered too much into the direction of off-topic as a result of excessive bickering, some of it instigated by a now indeffed account. I'll make a quick TLDR of the most relevant bits of my report; BerkBerk68 completely disregarded the WP:CONSENSUS in Talk:Turkic history (everything was discussed here [29] [30] [31]) by re-adding groups of disputed origin (the Xiongnu and Huns) [32], a edit which also added several entities, however now with more Turkic/less non-Turkic mentions compared to its (well-sourced) main article counterpart (which I demonstrated in the initial report). I would appreciate it if someone would look into this mess. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I pretty much agree, this case turned into a defamation mess especially when @LouisAragon called a Sephardic Jewish user (@Zenzyyx) a "Turkish irredentist who is influenced by Turkish government propaganda" at his unsigned comment [33][34] (WP:ASPERSIONS).

I've already mentioned that the Huns and Xiongnu sections of the edit written by me doesn't violate WP:POV since nothing has been claimed definitively; rather, it contains differing points of views by different academics. Theories, Chinese historical records and recent genetic researches were mentioned with the emphasis of the controversial situation. Let me also add that I have always supported that Huns and Xiongnu should be included on the article, not just because of the controversial claims about them being Turkic but also because of their influence on Turkic history, culture and civilization. I have already explained how and why several times (can be seen at the talk page @HistoryofIran mentioned).

Since the article was unsuitable for Wikipedia's standard (WP:MOS), and with the lack of consensus, I wanted to introduce a new, much more detailed and properly sourced edit. I put the Huns and Xiongnu in their own sections ("Early historical affiliations") to further emphasise their controversial origins and did not state that they are Turkic.

I again have to reject all claims positing that I am Turkifying the Huns and the Xuongnu. I just added their affiliation within Turkic history and included related theories, alongside multiple other theories relating to their origins, clearly expressing that nothing was definitive.

Regards, BerkBerk68^talk 11:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• "I pretty much agree, this case turned into a defamation mess especially when @LouisAragon called a Sephardic Jewish user..."

I said: "All three are newly registed "accounts" with a pro-Turkish irredentist POV and a strong axe to grind with veteran editor HistoryofIran. Coincidence calling?"[35] As usual, your edits are loaded with nonsense making stuff up. Good you brought this up though; more evidence of your disruptive edits for admins to see.

• "WP:ASPERSIONS"

Nope. If you'd only read the policies you are so keen to cite: " If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums." The ANI case here is littered with verifiable, egregious misconduct on your behalf. So no, zero "aspersions". Its a verifiable fact that all three of you are pursuing such an editorial pattern. Belugan already got indeffed for it based on solid policy judgement. As user:Black Kite sensibly stated: "There are far too many red flags, from familiarity with obscure Wikispeak from the get-go, to the use of "we", to the reference to off-wiki collusion with like minded editors."[36]

• "...at his unsigned comment"

It wasn't "unsigned"; I adjusted part of my comment[37] that I had already placed and signed.[38] More WP:NOTHERE.

- LouisAragon (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@BerkBerk68; Yes, you have multiple times stated that you did not present the origin of the Xiongnu and Huns as definite Turkic. That was also what you stated the previous time. We get that, however consensus was still that they shouldn't be there no matter how it would be spinned, which you were told countless times (here for example [39]). What do you then do? Proceed to re-add them and repeat the very same old argument (WP:REHASH) which was already rejected. Frankly, it seems that you simply dont care about community input, and only follow your own personal opinion. And I am certainly not the first person to notice that [40]. And thus I have reported you, because time and time you have proven that words (whether its from scholars or users) dont get through to you. Wikipedia is a collaborate effort, not a individual one. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that Wikipedia is a collaborate effort, that's why editors had to improve the new appropriate version together instead of deleting it completely when three different users were supporting the new version on the talk page while you were the only one who didn't support the new version. I am open to discuss the article to develop the encyclopedia together, I openly supported you on Timurids topic. As it's mentioned above, I wanted to write a new version and introduce it to the editors of Wikipedia due to lack of consensus (especially about Xiongnu and Huns) and I actually got positive feedbacks more than I thought. However, you just kept reverting the version. Let me also remind that I haven't reverted any of the edits, just discussed it on the talk page.

Regards, BerkBerk68^talk 17:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Sigh, even still now words are not getting through to you. You shouldn't have added that version in the first place before discussing, as there was indeed a consensus, which you even now keep ignoring. Yes, as I've already told you at least 6 times, I reverted you because it violated the previous consensus as well as WP:POV (per the diffs) even more this time (there is also WP:ONUS which you have been told of multiple times). And no, it is not my job to fix your mess, as you also have been told [41]. Either fix it yourself, or expect it to get reverted. There are no guidelines that says I have to hold your hand. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Could you please explain which consensus are you talking about? I don't think a consensus was achieved, every recent sections ended up with endless conflicts.

"it is not my job to fix your mess" The new version was more suitable for the encyclopedia (WP:MOS) and it's written by one editor, if you are not willing to develop the article together, then you should leave it to the other users of the community. BerkBerk68^talk 09:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't have added that version in the first place, as you've been told countless times. The fact that you still think like that and consider a version riddled with WP:POV as more "suitable" says it all really. I'm tired of explaining stuff to you, one may begin to ask whether there are underlying WP:CIR issues as well. I'll wait for an admin. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Well it's your decision [42] to participate or not, I have already informed you about all my edits and openly called to participate on developing the article. Again, it's your decision, it doesn't bother me at all. BerkBerk68^talk 14:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Belugan was an obvious troll, I have already expressed that [43], his actions doesn't bother actual editors who want to develop the encyclopedia. Calling editors "irredentist" or "swallowing state funded negationism" just because they have different opinions than you is not WP:CIVIL, and again, WP:ASPERSIONS.

Ironic, because you did the same with Belugan, said "No worries, we'll get to the bottom of it" on a threatening language, [44] and you didn't answer my questions when I asked about the situation. From your language it seems like there is an "off-wiki collusion with like minded editors" just like how Black Kite described, especially considering you did not participate on the lastest section of Turkic history talk page. @Black Kite, I believe that this information should be considered at the case.

Regards, BerkBerk68^talk 18:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh please, you didn't say anything about Belugan's problematic behaviour till he got indeffed. In fact, even after his block you were still supporting him (just like he had been supporting you), writing a unhelpful comment in a thread that was closed [45]. But now he's suddenly a problematic troll? Also, if you're planning on accusing someone, I sure do hope you have diffs, otherwise you are being no different than Belugan in violating WP:ASPERSIONS yourself. Anyways, let's not deviate again, the only users which should be talked about are you and me. If someone has other concerns, please take it somewhere else. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I writed that comment because of the absurdness of the claimed conspiracy. I have never defended Belugan's arguments, my only comment on his case is related to Afsharid Empire since it was the topic. But what Louis doing here is accusing editors with misbehavior without evidence, and his threatening comment at the talk page increases the confusion.

He told "No worries, we'll get to the bottom of it" while he did not even participate at the talk page discussion, only user that participated on his side of arguments was @HistoryofIran and now he is actively siding with him here. I am not claiming anything, I just want a clarification to the community to end the confusions just as I did 2 days ago [46][47][48].

Additionally, this subject is directly related to the case and it's my right to ask these questions. A clarification is necessary.

Regards, BerkBerk68^talk 21:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

You are literally insuating that I am doing something fishy - you are the third user in this report to accuse me of something alike, and the third to do so without any form of evidence. I could also very easily point out even more questionable stuff regarding you, but I rather stick to direct evidence in the form of diffs, as seen up above. This is nothing but WP:ASPERSIONS. As for your comments in relation to Belugan, I’ll the admins be the judge of that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not insuating anything, I just express my confusion and ask for a clarification from @LouisAragon since days. Threatening other editors using "we" phrase is confusing and not WP:CIVIL. BerkBerk68^talk 08:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

As someone who just skimmed through the conversation here may I suggest a way of short circuiting a prolonged conversation that runs the risk of getting out of control? The talk page has a large amount of discussion with differing views which can make it hard to see exactly what is going on and which bits need to be changed. This may be one of the times when a formal RfC with a closure on the talk page is the best way forward as it would allow for precision when it comes to exactly what changes to make and would open it up to an uninvolved editor to close the RfC to help with any concerns about bias. As always, feel free to ignore my advice. Gusfriend (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, he doesn't react. Just as I expected. BerkBerk68^talk 07:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Request closure

I know this report is hard to follow, especially due to much of it having roots in another talk page, as well as due to the excessive amounts of unnecessary bickering (myself included, sorry for that), but can an admin please check and close this? It would be much appreciated. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

FYI: there is a PERM request to restore extendedconfirmed open at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Extended_confirmed#User:BerkBerk68 - I'm inclined to grant it unless there is some exceptional reason not to from this discussion. If so, please leave a note there when closing this. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Case is inactive since over a week, it would be nice if an administrator takes a decision. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 11:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Alsoriano97 (Long Term Violations of Edit Warring, WP:CIVIL & Tedentious Editing)

Alsoriano97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Portal:Current Events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Alsoriano97's edit log at Portal:Current Events (overview of deletions and uncivil comments)

Alsoriano97 has engaged in persistent and habitual edit warring (including violations of WP:3RR), WP:CIVIL & tendentious editing over an extended period of time.

Alsoriano97 frequently edits at Portal:Current Events, primarily removing content added by other editors. The majority of Alsoriano97’s removals relate to news on Anglophone countries, with a specific emphasis on the USA. These removals frequently relate to news that, while occurring in the US, are widely reported globally in many RS's.

Alsoriano97 frequently uses uncivil language when challenged by other editors over removals. Attempts to discuss the removals in edit summaries and talk pages have failed to reach a resolution, due to the aggressive tone and reluctance to address the issue. Much of the longer explanations for this behavior are incoherent ranting, mixed with gross incivility.

While removal of content does occur at Portal:Current Events on occasion, with a range of editors doing so (myself included), the removals are usually for content which are clearly unnotable, relevant only locally, or reported in very few RS's. Such removals are rarely challenged by those who originally added the content.

In contrast, Alsoriano97's removals are frequently challenged by a range of editors who originally added the content. As per Alsoriano97's reasoning, such removals are made due to the belief that the Anglophone countries and the US in particular, is overrepresented on the page. A common comment made by Alsoriano97 is to use the country category page instead. However, this is usually contentious in relation to the entries posted.

Given the apparent consensus with Alsoriano97's faulty reasoning when removing content, the onus should be on Alsoriano97 to begin discussions to reach a further consensus to justify these content removals. However, no such attempts have been made, with no talk page topics started by Alsoriano97 to address any revert or the overarching issue. Instead, Alsoriano97 has resorted to unilateral enforcement of opinions through disruptive reverting of items that are disagreed with. When others start talk page entries to discuss the removals, Alsoriano97's replies do not address the issue, while frequently violating WP:CIVIL.

Alsoriano97 is fully aware of the restrictions relating to 3RR. He has previously been banned for 24 hours for a 3RR violation. Reference to the policy is also made on his Userpage. It should also be noted that Alsoriano97 has on many occasions cited 3RR against other editors.

Violations of WP:3RR

Alsoriano97 has previously been blocked for violating 3RR on 20 September 2020

1. 16 July 2022 [49] [50] [51] [52]
2. 12 May 2021 [53] [54] [55] [56]

Warnings & Talk Page

Significant

1. Portal_talk:Current_events/Archive_12#Multi-Revert_Issue_with_Alsoriano97
2. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Use the summary box before making an edit!
3. User_talk:Alsoriano97#May 2021
4. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Your use of the word "Domestic"
5. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Revert of Current Events
6. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Your revert about Dwayne Haskins
7. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Matt Gaetz
8. ANI Report

Routine

1. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Vandalism
2. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Artemi Panarin
3. User_talk:Alsoriano97#NYC Mandate
4. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Personal comments at ITNC
5. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Exclusion of Harry Reid from 2021 Deaths List
6. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
7. User_talk:Alsoriano97#About Buccaneers
8. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Explanation wanted
9. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Warning
10. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Question on notability
11. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Removal of Current Event.

WP:CIVIL Violations

Talk Page

In general, almost all interactions on talk pages made by this user is ranting and uncivil, which can be clearly seen on upon a cursory inspection.

Some quotes are presented below.

1 Multi-Revert Issue with Alsoriano97

• Do you think that after more than a year editing Current Events I act arbitrarily and according to how I want?
• "trying to decide what represents "relevant" based on their own interests"....Jesus Christ!
• This is not a page of The Seattle Times where to put any news that has to do especially with the United States.
• t's very dangerous for Wikipedia when editors in this community make decisions and arguments against other users in a partisan, threatening and non-conciliatory manner.
• This way the concept of "community" is dynamited, and this comment speaks more about you, than about me. "he is quite an ideological person" SURPRISE! I AM A LIVING HUMAN WHO IS LIVING LIFE IN A VITAL WAY. Does that concern you?
• How dare you question my neutrality if you don't even know more than 90% of the edits I have made?

2 Your revert about Dwayne Haskins

• You admit that Portal Current Events is not an American newspaper but you still act as if it is. Can you simply follow the rule of.... Like everyone else does? This is exhausting.
• You should know that international coverage ≠ international notability. Everyone knows that.
• Let it be clear that if you add news related to the USA and I don't remove them (the vast majority) is because I consider that have the level of notability that this Portal deserves.
• I'll stop debating obvious things like this.
• When I say international coverage ≠ international notability, means international coverage ≠ international notability. That means that international coverage ≠ international notability.
• And I hope, I just hope, that you are not comparing an accident with 16 DEATHS with a collision of a vehicle with a train (which IS HABITUAL) that has caused the death of ONE PERSON. I really hope you are pulling my leg and this is a joke. If more people had died, including Haskins, I would understand. But stop. It's being ridiculous and you're acting vandalistic.

Diffs of Uncivil Edit Summaries

• [57] This is a clear US-centric bias. They are so globally popular that the explosion has been reported by hundreds of international RS! It is a pity that this is a lie and is covered by newspapers of little national or international circulation. Do the work yourself and you will see. Its site is at 2022 in the United States
• [58] Hes, culturally significant but local. Can you please check if any international newsites are talking about this? It’s not even a popular monument! This id ridicolous
• [59] But what are you talking about? I don't "get mad" because I have more important things in my life, but I only delete trivial news related to the USA that you would delete if it happened in another country. Not a regional election. Next time, delete also regional elections in Nigeria, USA, Germany that you see, so you don't look like a redneck to many people. Franco? Come on man, how old are you? Grow up.
• [60] Don’t be childish, boy. I’ve ever respected regional elections in ‘merica.
• [61] "bias"? lol nice joke. It doesn't work like that, sorry. Two very famous people fighting over slurs has neither encyclopedic nor informative value. This is not a tabloid and you should know that. Much less a local newspaper.
• [62]If he doesn't even have a wikipedia article, do you really think his murder is notorious? It's not that hard to understand!! People are murdered EVERY day.

Alsoriano97 also seems to regularly patronize people for not including the name of a country in an entry. The usual procedure for such minor technical issues is to amend it with a polite edit summary, as others who have cleaned up such mistakes have done.

• [63] Daily updatings of the fires are not necessary. At least name the country
• [64] Iowa is a new country???
• [65] rewrite it adding the country where it happened. it doesn't cost that much to do it yourselves. Learn.
• [66] Is Louisiana a new country????????
• [67] Is Idaho a new country?
• [68] Once again some users cannot mention the country....this is not a local newspaper!
• [69] Is Virginia a new country?
• [70] At least you will be able to locate the news in a country, right? Northern Virginia is a new country? This is not a local newspaper. And that you take away from the notability of a minister's murder....
• [71] country?????????????????????????? It's not hard to mention it!
• [72] Ontario what? A country?

Carter00000 (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Carter00000, on a purely procedural note: in your very long post above, you make claims about uncivil comments but provide no diffs. As filer, it's your responsibility to provide evidence, not expect others to go find it. Please note this is not a comment one way or the other on the merit of your report, just an invitation to improve it. Jeppiz (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Jeppiz, thank you for your suggestion, I will add some diffs as per your comment. Carter00000 (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Go to contributions for namespace Portal and they jump out at you left and right. Some choice ones: "Stop being a jerk and using American bias. Stop doing vandalism."; calls edit-warring opponent "racist"; calls edit-warring opponent "boy" (!); "redneck", "grow up" - way over the top even provoked as it was; variants of "Country?????????????????" - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. —Cryptic 13:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I have added a partial list of uncvil comments. Some may overlap with what has already been written. Carter00000 (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to see a pattern of uncivil comments; the only ones I can see are on Portal:Current events/2022 June 19 where the IP deleting the information was not exactly civil either. As a more general point I see Alsoriano97, in the main, deleting minor, local or trivial stories from the portals - which is of course correct. Recent removals have included multiple minor updates on COVID and monkeypox stories, politicians visiting other countries, routine local political stories (including statements by politicians and unimportant elections like primaries), someone without a Wikipedia article being murdered, minor shootings in the USA (there are dozens of those a day) a fight amongst fans at an ice hockey match, a hockey team hiring a new manager, random other sports results, etc. There might well be a few debatable ones, but I certainly don't see him removing anything that should definitely be there. Black Kite (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite, on the subject of your blocks on the protal, as mentioned in your comment, I want to raise an incident for the record.

In this Talk Page Discussion that I started after I was reverted 4 times by Alsoriano97, and where I stated in the lead sentence of such reverts, you later commented to defend Alsoriano97’s rationale.

Given your familiarity with the portal and Alsoriano97, I was very surprised that you took no action; given that 3RR is a “bright line” as stated in WP regulations. I also note you seem to have no issues with blocking others on the portal for similar issues. Carter00000 (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I took no action because your edits were not improving the encyclopedia. It was story about the murder of someone who was so non-notable that they don't even have a Wikipedia article. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I would like to note that "edits were not improving the encyclopedia" does not fall under the exemptions for the 3RR per the WP:3RRNO policy. This was a content dispute, where the content in your opinion was not worth adding to the portal, which does not justify your inaction. Such a dispute should have been resolved through consensus, and not edit warring, hence why I started a entry on Alsoriano97's talk page. Carter00000 (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

It should have been resolved by you ceasing to insert non-notable material into the page. I was certainly not going to "reward" you for edit-warring that material back in, which is why I didn't block A97. Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that what material is considered "non-notable" is a dispute of content, and thus is subject to the normal dispute resolution channels, which does not include edit warring. You characterization of enforcing a "bright-line" rule for a clear violation as a "reward" seems to be faulty. Carter00000 (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Alsoriano97#Warning isn't "routine"; it's a straight-up refusal to accept warnings from non-admins, with the inevitable result that non-admins don't warn or at least warn less, and hurried admins don't take action because there haven't been warnings. It's 100% of the reason why I went straight to a block in that 3RR block linked above, instead of warning him like I did the user he was edit-warring against. —Cryptic 13:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The warning appears to be about this edit, which appears to be a content dispute. I don't believe it would fit the description of WP: VANDALISM. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The point isn't what that specific warning was about; it's his statement that "I only admit warnings from admins, not from angry editors." —Cryptic 13:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Separately, this user's block log would be much, much longer if I was willing to make 3RR blocks for edit wars I observe that aren't actively in progress. Just this year, I see 3RR breaches on the Jan 1, Mar 11, Apr 9, Apr 28, May 6, Jun 1, Jun 30, Jul 6 (7 reverts!), Jul 14, Jul 26, and Jul 27 current event pages. —Cryptic 13:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps, as a suggestion for A97, it would be better if they did not revert every addition of trivia, but waited for a while until the activity on the daily page had died down, and then removed all the stuff that doesn't belong in one edit. Either that or we need more people patrolling the pages. Black Kite (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the issue here is not the timing of when Alsoriano97 removes the entries, but the actual act of the removals themselves. With respect, given the context, your suggestion almost sounds like WP:GAMING.

In relation to "patrolling" the pages, we currently do have people removing items of trivia on a live basis, as mentioned in my original post. Such actions are almost always accepted, with very few times when the reverts are challenged. Carter00000 (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

That's not what I see. i see a lot of people reverting when their particular bit of trivia gets removed. Which is understandable, but it's mainly because they think that thing they think is important is actually important in an international sense ... when most of the time it isn't. Black Kite (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that some back-and-forth reverts does happen, but these reverts are usually resolved in the edit summaries, and do not involve 4RR (or even 3RR) or uncivil comments. Carter00000 (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• I use to interact with this user a lot when I only worked in the Portal:Current events (ie, 2019–2020), but I was also a fairly bad editor at the time (as shown in some of the diffs linked above). The really only recent interaction I had with Alsoriano97 was during the Georgia Guidestone bombing so, I am only going to comment toward that interaction and one specific interaction linked above. Would like to note, I am not sure this went alerted as it was between multiple editors, but Alsoriano97 did violate WP:3RR with 6 reverts in an attempt to prevent that news from being listed on the Portal. [73][74][75][76][77][78] In the 5th diff I just provided, Alsoriano97 said, “This is a clear US-centric bias. They are so globally popular that the explosion has been reported by hundreds of international RS! It is a pity that this is a lie and is covered by newspapers of little national or international circulation. Do the work yourself and you will see.. This was after my interactions with them that day, but today I “did the work” via a Google search of “Georgia Guidestones bombing” and I found tons of national level WP:RS including (USA Today), (NBC News), (The Wall Street Journal) & (BCC News), so Alsoriano97 did state all those were “little national or international circulation”, which might mean a slight refresher in WP:RS is needed ontop of a significant warning for violating WP:3RR which might mean being warned/blocked for 6 reverts in a few hours from various editors. I am not here to talk about the bombing, so I will stop on that and move to the one link provided above by Carter00000, which is # User_talk:Alsoriano97#Warning. This was an interaction between myself and Alsoriano97 back in 2020, so to me it alone cannot show anything because editors can change, but in it, Alsoriano97 said, “I only admit warnings from admins, not from angry editors. Back in 2020, I was still learning what was and was not notable for the Portal:CE, so Alsoriano97 wasn’t really “wrong” for not accepting the warning, but I would like Alsoriano97 to state whether or not that statement is still true today, because that could become a serious issue down the line if a non-admin editor calls out any WP:3RR violations or even general warning/alerts. Again, most of my interactions with Alsoriano97 were months to years ago, so I cannot really comment on those, but the recent incident from earlier this month of a 6 revert violation of WP:3RR is significant and needs to be dealt with, maybe even by a post-revert event block. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Funny enough, I just had another interaction with Alsoriano97 on today's Portal:CE. Nothing worth noting for ANI as it was just an interaction, but noting the fact it happens since I haven't had much interactions with them and this happened within like an hour of my big text block post. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• Per Alsoriano97: Vandalism? You've got to be kidding me. Vandalism is breaking the 3RR rule. (User talk:Alsoriano97#Vandalism) — So to Alsoriano97, he openly “vandalized” Wikipedia numerous times by breaking the 3RR rule (as shown in the various diffs above). Elijahandskip (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • But see Wikipedia:Edit warring#Exemptions, especially no 4. Deb (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

    I don't think this point applies to the original comment by Elijahandskip, given that almost all of the content Alsoriano97 removes are actual legitimate entries and not vandalism. Carter00000 (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  They're not vandalism, many are even good faith, but they don't belong there. That's why I made the suggestion that they be removed in one edit at a later date. Black Kite (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with Black Kite that they are almost all in good faith and majority should be in discussion sections to avoid the 3RR rule, nevertheless, Alsoriano97 is fully aware of the rule, even mentioning it to other editors, but still broke it more than a few times. I would say maybe a 24 hour block to get their attention (especially since they have been blocked previously for it and broke it numerous times), but then also suggest removing all the edits one time and emphasize on discussing before a 2nd or 3rd revert to avoid the 3RR rule breaking again. I honestly don’t know how a 6 reverts in a few hours went unnoticed, but nevertheless, as I have learned, no matter how much the edits are in good faith, if you break the rules, there will be consequences. It should not be a significant consequence (hence my suggestion of a 24 hour block), but some level of block is fully justified for the numerous unalerted 3RR violations discussed. Elijahandskip (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Carter00000 Thank you for the reference on talk. Attempted to report this issue in October, 2021 with apparently no result [noticeboard/Edit warring - Diff, Oct 2nd, 2021] (top result in diff). The list of proof provided was:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_September_19&type=revision&diff=1045432916&oldid=1045430468
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_September_19&type=revision&diff=1045400547&oldid=1045399945
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_September_19&type=revision&diff=1045375066&oldid=1045366985
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_September_19&type=revision&diff=1045303309&oldid=1045302097
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_September_19&type=revision&diff=1045272572&oldid=1045271722

Second example of 3RR from 10/1/2021

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_October_1&type=revision&diff=1047642463&oldid=1047637998
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_October_1&type=revision&diff=1047643131&oldid=1047642752
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_October_1&type=revision&diff=1047649964&oldid=1047649055

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_May_12&type=revision&diff=1022949962&oldid=1022925020%7C

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Portal_talk:Current_events&oldid=1023348929

As noted in the attempt to resolve dispute page above, @GWA88 also attempted to raise this issue almost a year prior to when I started discussing and encountering this issue in ~April-May of 2021. The "....Jesus Christ!" and "LIVING LIFE IN A VITAL WAY. Does that concern you?" quotes are from our talk discussion. I attempted to be civil and received those responses. Araesmojo (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Today, Alsoriano97 said, “Stop with this American bias of Current Events[79] during the removal of an ITN Nominated historic US flood event. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• ... which had already been posted the day before at Portal:Current_events/2022_July_31 ... Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  I would like to note that your reply above does not address the underlying issues expressed in the original entry, nor the topic of this filing. The original comment cited an example of Alsoriano97's typical comments, which violates both WP:CIVIL and WP:TENDENTIOUS, relevant to the topic of this filing. Carter00000 (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned above by Carter00000 and Elijahandskip, I have had multiple disagreements with Alsoriano97 over these past several years. From my own experience in dealing with him, I can say that he seems to be obsessed with removing anything "domestic" related to the United States, UK and to a lesser extent Canada and Australia from the current events portal, while seemingly not having an issue with "domestic" news from anywhere else in the world. He's often reverted by multiple different editors and when I've pulled him on this he just accuses me of being "Anglocentric". I find it quite concerning that his editing of the portal appears to be mostly motivated by ideology. And again, as mentioned above, he often ignores the 3RR and uses the edit summary box to make insults or in other cases, not bothering to use it all. As someone who has been editing the portal for 8 years now, pretty much on a regular basis, I'd have to be say that Alsoriano97 has been one of if not the most disruptive editor on the portal. GWA88 (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• I note that over 450 of your last 500 edits have been adding information to Current Event Portals. It is unsurprising that some of them (a very small amount, I suspect) would have been reverted. Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  You appear to be purposely missing the point, and then making the equivalent of ad hominem arguments. How does GWA88 being a regular and long term contributor and then noting that the user may have had "some" reverted add anything? Personal reverts were not even mentioned.

  Main issues, "reverted by multiple different editors", often responds with accusations, "motivated by ideology", "ignores the 3RR", "uses the edit summary box to make insults", "one of if not the most disruptive editor on the portal."

  Personal view, obviously contentious, and has motivated significant discussion. People are literally filing 3RR violations and block requests every year. Cryptic noted (11) eleven violations of 3RR...? Don't have enough personal experience with these issues for a punishment recommendation. Just keeping A97 off Portal:Current events would work for me. Araesmojo (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Carter00000

Meanwhile, is it only me that is somewhat suspicious of an account whose very first edit was on a Portal/Current Events page, was aware of obscurities like WP:MINORASPECT by edit 16, was filing at WP:ANI by edit 44, and was filing ArbCom cases by edit 56? Black Kite (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

As I've explained to users in that previous incident, I spent quite a lot of time reading WP articles and their related talk pages prior to editing WP the first time, so picked up some WP speak. I also talk some time to look up policies when replying. I understand my initial actions on WP were not acceptable, and I've walked away for now on the disputed sections which caused the incident. I've spent the past month trying to be productive on the Current Events Portal and ITN.

I ask that you refrain from casting doubt on my character by digging up past events unrelated to this filing. It would seem that the general consensus thus far is that my complaint is justified.

This is what I previously wrote to Ad Orientem [80]

I started reading Wikipedia regularly because of the current events page. I found that it provided a more global overview of the news on a given day.

One thing I later discovered was that each article on Wikipedia had a "Talk Page" where content on a page were discussed. It was quite interesting for me to see the discussions, since there were times when I felt the content on pages were not justified, and the discussions allowed me to see how the content had been decided.

After some time, it became a habit to just read the talk page with the main article, since it gave a degree of context to almost all articles. Over time, I started to pick up some of the abbreviations used, since they came up so much. That's why I've been able to use them sometimes when I edit.

Maybe you think what I've said is just a made-up story. I wouldn't blame you for thinking that, given my actions in the past few days. But if you use the technical tools that you detect sockpuppets and ban evaders with, you'll find that my profile will come up clean.

You may also consider the fact that I'd probably not have drawn attention like I've had if I really was trying to evade or avoid anyone, since that would have clearly been counterproductive. Carter00000 (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that because competence is required, the ability of an editor to understand Wiki policy and procedure early in their career wouldn't necessarily be suspicious. Not everyone immediately jumps in and starts editing, the policies and procedures exist to learn far in advance of a first edit. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• • Black Kite has every right, and in fact an obligation to mention if something doesn't add up. It doesn't mean Carter must be a sock, but it is highly, highly unusual and it isn't uncivil to ask or investigate. That is what the community wants us to do. Most of the time, someone in that circumstance is a sock. Whether you are or not, I have no idea, but time will tell. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

    @Dennis Brown I agree that it is a obligation to raise-out information if something doesn't add up. However, I feel that in the context of @Black Kite's above comments thus far, and my scrutiny of his actions, such a comment could be seen as divisionary.

    I also note that I've been closely scrutinized previously relating to the above allegations, and evidence of such scrutiny is readily available, so it seems a bit unfair to now present it again, like its never been mentioned before on WP. Carter00000 (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

    Is there behavioral evidence of socking? If so, I would imagine this ANI would be a quick close if an SPI revealed Carter was a sock. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

    As I stated in the previous incident, this is my only account. I invite any CU or admin to verify this themselves if needed. Carter00000 (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

    Black Kite and I are both admins. That's why I'm saying it is fine to ask. I don't have an opinion at this time, I'm just pointing out it's his job to ask the tough questions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

    @Dennis Brown To reiterate, I agree with your comments on the role of Admins on WP. However, in this case, I believe that Black Kite's role in the matter would fall under WP:INVOLVED. As you mentioned that you "did not have a opinion at this time", I assume you have not reviewed the case in detail, but only wanted to make a comment on the specific point of admin roles.

    I would like to note that Black Kite only started this section after I asked him to account for some of his actions above, hence my characterization of this section as divisionary. In addition, he was involved in some of the content disputes which are the topic of this case.

    I further note that I don't see the point of making this section in the first place. It would seem that the standard procedure would be to contact a CU or do a SPI if sock puppetry is genuinely suspected. Carter00000 (talk) 13:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  Being a new editor, I get why you don't understand, but I do. We can keep jabbering on about it if you like, but it is kind of pointless. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  I would like to register my objection to your characterization of this discussion as "jabbering", along with the general patronizing tone of your last reply. Let me be clear that I am asking for clarification of the abovementioned admin actions, something that each admin is obligated to provide upon request per WP:ADMINACCT.

  So, let me ask my question again. I would like clarification on the point of making this section. As I mentioned previously, It would seem that the standard procedure would be to contact a CU or conduct a SPI if an admin has genuine and legitimate suspicions that an account is a sock puppet, given that the aim should be to efficiently resolve the issue. I really don't see what this post serves to do, since it does not address the actual issue.

  As previously mentioned, I note that Black Kite only started this section after I asked him to account for some of his actions above, hence my characterization of this section as divisionary. I also noted that I've been closely scrutinized previously relating to the above allegations, and evidence of such scrutiny is readily available. Given that Black Kite has taken the time to number the edits he presented from my edit log, I assume that he is aware of the previous scrutiny

  It seems a bit unfair to now present it again, like its never been mentioned before on WP. Furthermore, I don't think its very fair that just because I'm a new editor, and happen to be well informed, that it entitles admins such as yourself and Black Kite to cast doubt on my character, especially during a AN/I filing proceeding. It very much seems like a scenario where if you're new, you either know nothing and don't get taken seriously, or you know something, but will be labeled a sock puppet, and still not be taken seriously. To be honest, this very much seems like a case ofWP:ASPERSIONS. Carter00000 (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  Jabbering is this subthread, and applied to all parties, not you. You seem to be going out of your way to be a victim here. As for accountability, exactly what admin action did I take that needs explaining? That doesn't apply to simple comments that anyone can make. I didn't read the rest. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  My intention in pointing out the phrase "Jabbering" was to highlight my objection to the patronizing tone of your previous reply.

  "Being a new editor, I get why you don't understand, but I do. We can keep jabbering on about it if you like, but it is kind of pointless."

  If you don't see how that reply is patronizing, then I guess I have nothing more to comment on the matter. Carter00000 (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  Separately, my request for explanation is for Black Kites actions, as I think I made clear in my reply. Given that you jumped into the conversation, I thought you might have further comment. If not, then I think you may leave it to Black Kite to answer. For me, either of you answering is fine. Both of you answering is fine as well. Carter00000 (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  There's nothing to "answer". He expressed a concern. The jabbering, again, was obviously referring to you and I equally. I have no idea what is so hard to understand, again, unless you automatically assume the worst in people. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown, upon reviewing the previous incident cited above (declined RFAR [81]), I noticed that you were in fact one of those who commented. You comments were "This feels like we are being punked by an LTA." & "A CU should feel free to poke around, I would think... ".

  Given your comments, I believe that your are WP:INVOLVED in relation to myself. I formally request you to recuse yourself from this ANI filing, and cease all activities relating to the filing. While I realize I cannot force you to do so, I ask you to seriously consider this based on the standards of which are expected of administrators such as yourself. Carter00000 (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  No. First, you are misunderstanding WP:INVOLVED. Second, I haven't used the admin tools in either situation, so WP:INVOLVED is meaningless. Third, I have had no stake in the outcome with either report nor had any extensive interactions with you or the reported party in articles or previous actions, so I can't be INVOLVED. The fact that I commented as a disinterested bystander more than once doesn't make me involved in anything. So no, I'm 100% free to participate or act in an administrative or bystander capacity and shall. You're free to get all the second opinions you like, policy is quite clear on this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Remedies

Pinging other involved editors who have commented on this filing to add their opinion for this section: Araesmojo, Black Kite, Cryptic, GWA88. Carter00000 (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I am starting this section because too many opinions and editor replies too keep track of the actual remedies being suggested. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• I suggest a 24-hour block only because it appears too many 3RR violations have occurred from Alsoriano97, who has been blocked for 3RR violations in the past and is fully aware of the rule, even mentioning it to other editors. I do believe all the 3RR violations were in good faith; however, due to their previous block & fully aware violations, a block would be the best course over a warning. As to all the other issues mentioned, I believe the blocking admin should do a message to Alsoriano97 to be more open to discussions on talk pages, not just in edit summaries, especially before that 3rd revert would occur. I believe bringing the 3RR violations to Alsoriano97's attention should lessen or hopefully eliminate the amount of NPOV edit summaries/"incivility". But no matter what, a block, even a short 24 hour block, is fully justified and warranted, especially as I have been told numerous times that if you break the rules, no matter how much good faith they were made in, there will be consequences. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

As discussion has begun on the remedies, I would like to make my viewpoints known as well, being the original filer. I note that @Elijahandskip has suggested above that a 24 hour block be used as a warning.

• My opinion is that Alsoriano97 should be indefinitely banned from WP. As can be seen from the above submissions, Alsoriano97 has committed numerous violations of WP:3RR and WP:CIVIL, to many different editors, over a period of many years. Such conduct clearly shows that Alsoriano97 feels that he is above both the rules and other editors. More critically, Alsoriano97 believes that he is above the consensus forming process, a pillar which WP is built on. His disregard for the process has caused significant disruption, as mentioned many times in the above submissions.

Much of the issues relating to Alsoriano97's editing arises from his extreme viewpoints relating to the Anglosphere & USA, and its place in world affairs. Such flaws have been noted by a number of editors. Attempts to reason with his pattern of tendentious editing have failed, and has been met with hostility. Given WP's commitment to NPOV, such flawed reasoning and editing is of significant damage to the project. While I am aware that Alsoriano97 has contributed to other areas, I am unable to assess his actions in those areas, given my unfamiliarity with those areas.

Alsoriano97's response to warnings merely reiterates the above points. Despite being blocked 24 hours for 3RR once already, such a ban seems to have had no impact on him. Numerous other warnings from editors are met with hostile and uncivil responses. Alsoriano97 has also stated that he does not admit warnings from non-administrators on one occasion. Despite his attitude towards warnings, he himself constantly issues warnings to others relating to 3RR, civility and other issues.

The point of warnings and administrative sanctions is to modify an editors behavior to become acceptable to the community. It is my opinion that Alsoriano97's behavior will not be changed by warnings or other administrative sanctions. As evidenced in the previous paragraph, numerous warnings of different types, from different users, have failed to have any impact on him, and his conduct has only gotten worse overtime. It is due to the intractability of these issues that I ask for a indefinite ban in the interest of stopping the damage he continues to cause to the overall project.

Carter00000 (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Although I haven’t posted much recently, I have been watching the current events page for a long time and almost every day. As stated above, the user clearly understands WP policies, has been temp banned for 3RR before, and warns other users for the same breach of policy. I feel that something more than a warning is necessary. ( Augu  Maugu ♨ 06:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC))

• There is a lot of moderate incivility, but we usually don't start out with blocks for this, if we can get them to explain. I left a short note inviting them here, I would prefer they participate before handing out sanctions, as maybe one can be avoided. Not that it excuses the rudeness, but I can see how this is a high stress area, and maybe they just need to spend more time elsewhere. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Have to agree with the sentiments mentioned by Carter00000 and AuguMaugu above. I too feel like a warning in this case would be unsatisfactory. I would recommend indefinitey blocking Alsoriano97 from editing the current events portal, or at least a lengthy block, say six months or a year. It should also be noted that Alsoriano97 has continued this pattern of behaviour on the current events portal even during this discussion about him, only yesterday in fact, and once again pushing the whole "American bias" thing. Indeed, apparently people dying from floods in Kentucky and Virginia aren't as important as flood victims in other countries. He clearly had no issue with the news about flood victims in Iran mentioned here on July 29. Again, yet another example of Alsoriano97's own biases. GWA88 (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with Elijahandskip. I cannot see any grounds for a lengthy block - the suggestion appears unnecessarily vengeful. Denying that there is any US-centricity in Wikipedia articles is to be blind to the obvious, and Alsoriano97 is not wrong to point it out when it occurs; he just needs to do it more politely. Deb (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Deb, I agree that a permanent ban on the current events page (or even a 6 month ban) might not be productive. I also agree that there are many US local news articles posted that need to be removed from the page. However, Alsoriano97 consistently removes internationally published Anglo-topic events (which appears as bias).  Augu  Maugu ♨ 07:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown, @Deb

Please note that while incivility is one component of the filing, it far from covers the whole scope of the filing. Issues relating to intractable violations of WP:3RR & WP:TENDENTIOUS also form major parts of the filing. Looking at your responses, it would seem that you have completely disregarded these sections of the filing.

I also object to the characterization of Alsoriano97's incivility issues as "moderate". As can be seen from the above discussion and presented diffs, the consensus is that Alsoriano97's's incivility issues are both severe and habitual.

I would further note my concern with your assessment that Alsoriano97's actions as described in this filing can be resolved with warnings or minor sanction's. Of the three main issues described, WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR & WP:TENDENTIOUS, Alsoriano97's violations in each issue has occurred frequently, over the course of many years. It is my opinion that Alsoriano97's pattern of behavior in any of the three sections alone would have warranted a indefinite block, let alone all three simultaneously.

I would also note that Alsoriano97 is not "starting out" in any sense of the phrase. Alsoriano97 has been warned by many editors and administrators of his actions, but to no avail. He has been blocked once for 3RR and edit warring by @Cryptic. It is my understanding that edit warring warrants a firm response given that it is a "bright line rule", with repeated violations even more so. With Alsoriano97, edit warring occurs on a near daily basis, at an extreme level, with an editor citing seven reverts in a single day of a single sections of an article. While pointing out US bias may be reasonable, such action should take the form civil talk page discussion, not unilateral enforcement through edit warring and uncivil comments.

It is highly recommended to familiarize yourself with at least the basic points of a filing prior to attempting to summarize it's status and shortcomings. It is also recommended to note the consensus among editors who regularly edit at current events and their cited experiences working with Alsoriano97. Carter00000 (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I would highly recommend that you stop trying to tell the rest of the community what their opinion should be on this matter. Individuals will decide which approach they favour, based on their own judgement. Administrators have a lot of experience in dealing with such cases. Deb (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

What Deb said. And as I stated above, no, I'm not WP:INVOLVED. Your behavior in this report is slowly but surely declining. I count 21 times you have responded in this thread. Unless you are introducing new evidence, it would seem that 21 is enough. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown, @Deb Noted on the WP:BLUDGEON policy and will strive to follow its principles. I was not aware such a policy existed until you pointed it out, but agree with the logic of the content in the policy. Carter00000 (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, this As can be seen from the above submissions, Alsoriano97 has committed numerous violations of WP:3RR and WP:CIVIL, at a rate of multiple times per day, to many different editors, over a period of many years. is simply false, this Alsoriano97's viewpoint of the world is deeply flawed. and this Attempts to reason with his pattern of tendentious editing have failed, and has been met with hostile and incoherent ranting. are WP:NPA violations and I would suggest you withdraw the whole lot before it results in a WP:BOOMERANG. Oh, and while we're talking about ranting, bold underlined text gives the impression of exactly that. Black Kite (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Amended my sections to remove the content as per your comment above + other content which may potentially violate NPA. Please let me know if there is any further content which you feel falls under the category. Carter00000 (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Alsoriano97 has said that he has been on vacation and will reply later today. Dennis Brown - 2¢

Response from Alsoriano97

Well, I see I missed a lot while I was out of signal and on vacation. The truth is that I find the exhaustive analysis of my activity a bit creepy, especially by editors who have recently collaborated with Wikipedia. But let's get to the important stuff. And I will be brief.

I apologize for my manners and for my uncivil comments (although some of those mentioned here aren't even offensive). I insist, my manners sometimes fail me (we already know that written language is often misinterpreted), but not the content of my contributions in Actualidad. I explain myself in the following subsection.

About the alleged "anti-Anglo-Saxonism" that "inspires" my contributions

Groundhog day. And I refer to what I've said countless times. The problem is not there (entirely). Wikipedia is a victim of a clear Anglo-Saxon-centrism that needs to be corrected and is seen in: Current Events, Years in Topic (births and death sections), the existence of many articles about American personalities of any branch, such as subnational politicians (which I don't think is wrong, let's be clear) and the deletion of those who are from other countries, articles of world leaders in which only (or the great majority) of photos that appear is with an American president or the SofState of the day. To give a few examples. Yes, this is a Wikipedia in English and it's natural that there should be a higher incidence of articles and biographies related to English-speaking countries, but if that language is considered the priority for its international use, we have to believe it. And this is a global enciclopedia, let's not forget it.

But you are incapable of seeing that there is an American bias that needs to be corrected. And who corrects it, is the evil one that needs to be kicked out of WP. You really don't realize it? Do you really? Really?

When I've included news about any country that I doubted of its notoriety, I've always accepted its removal if another user would remove it up. Is it so hard for you to do this exercise? If you don't do it, it's because of just what I say: patriotic pride. Centrism. Bubble. It's fine to think like that, but when someone refuses to be like that, don't bash him. If the deadly floods had been in Spain, would I have made a daily (I repeat, daily) update of the number of deaths in Current Events? No. Would I've included that the vice-president of an Autonomous Community tested positive for COVID? No. Would I have included any official trip of Prime Minister Sñanchez? No. Would it have included that the Spanish government approved a package of infrastructure measures? For God's sake, obviously not. The problem is that you believe (fortunately only some editors, I insist) that if this happens in the United States it is untouchable. And that when someone from outside those countries questions it, you think it jeopardizes the dominance of news about those countries because you think it must be so. And that is the kind of bias that should be unacceptable on Wikipedia. Just as any kind of Hispano-centrism, Franco-centrism or Micronesian-centrism should be unacceptable. You think that because you are English, American or Canadian you are above others and that any information included in Current Evenets is untouchable. For that there is 2022 in the United States.

You also recklessly ignore (being reckless is not an insult, by the way) when I remove news included that are not notorious when it happens in other countries. Even when it happens in mine. In the same way that you recklessly ignore when I don't remove news related to Anglo-Saxon countries because they are sufficiently notorious. Therefore, I'm certain that the accusations against me are, in part, arbitrary and personal.

Fortunately I participate in other articles and portals, being my attitude peaceful, neutral, without centrism, constructive, of consensus. And do you know why I've no problems with other editors, but a good (and in some cases very good) relationship? Because they are also like that and everything works better. As in Years in Topic or Candidates. I won't mention them because frankly I don't want to, nor do I think I should, bring more editors into this dissuasion. It's also seen that my contributions to Wikipedia are positive when I create new articles in good condition, improve others and participate in discussions to improve the pages.

About remedies

I think it's important that, when possible action is taken against me, it's not done from the gut. What isn't fair is that the work of more than six years (and which has been in favor of Wikipedia and recognized by many editors) that I've done here is thrown away because of my recklessness and certainties. But be that as it may, I ask that it be taken with proportionality, responsibility and rationality. I'm sure it will be taken that way. I'll assume the one that will be taken. As I've always done.

About other aspects

• Carter0000, is it necessary that you had to inform almost all Current Evenets editors that you have opened this ANI against me? What is unconstructive is to promote a kind of coven against me to try to have undoubted support for your intentions. Black Kite is partly right in what he states. You're new, that's great, welcome and I'd love to hear that you're enjoying Wikipedia. Nor is it constructive for you to state this, "While I am aware that Alsoriano97 has contributed in other areas, I cannot assess his performance in them, given my lack of knowledge of them." Do. Familiarize yourself and, then, you can judge my contributions. You are quite wrong. And yes, "international coverage ≠ international notability". That's the way it's always been.

• I've also been criticized for not intervening in other ANI (as if it were a daily or weekly thing...) or warnings; I don't have time to enter into extensive discussions and on matters on which I've already expressed myself in the past. A wise man once said: it's no use arguing if one of us doesn't want to listen. And that is how I have felt in discussions with Elijah, GW, Mount Patagonia, etc.

• GW, Elijah, Carter. You have also been rude, you have violated the 3RR rule, you have been unconstructive. What legitimacy do you have? You are not untouchable

Conclusions

I insist, I rectify (and I have done it many times) of the forms, never of the substance. But many of you don't even do that. Some of you are not even capable of trying to understand me (and us). Make the decision you think is best. I will respect it. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Questions to Alsoriano97

Starting this section because Alsoriano97‘s response is long and contains different sections. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with Alsoriano97 that I have been rude and have also violated 3RR in the past. (In fact, I got called out for violating it yesterday). There is a reason I did not ask for you to be perm blocked/tbanned. I fully do agree that you do amazing work cleaning up the Portal:Current events. But, like I said and have personally been told/experienced: If you break the rules, there will be consequences. I was told that after a tban violation months ago that actually was added back just after a self-revert (for the violation), because it improved the article. My main question to you is: Why do you think you should or should not receive some level of a block for all the 3RR violations discussed in the discussion? In my mind (and from personal experiences), edits never go away (hence why I actually still had an editor saying I was not capable to edit Wikipedia a few months ago from edits I made 2 years ago.) If you can give an honest explanation or reason as to why you understand the 3RR rule and will strive to not violate it again, then I will reconsider my 24-hour block suggestion, which would be more of a 24-hour block warning to not violate 3RR again. I believe a violation of the 3RR rule should not always lead to a block, but it appeared that it was violated numerous times (and unless I am mistaken) they went unwarned/unchecked prior to this AN/I. So the 24-hour block would sort of be the compounded consequence for all the violations. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'm a very regulatory person and if my conduct of repeated breaches of the 3RR implies some type of blockade for 24 hours, that must be applied. I would not like it, obviously, but if it must be so, so be it. I don't want to break that rule again, but we all have to do our part. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Alsoriano97, your incivility, which I labelled as moderate (but way, way too common) is more than a burden to those you are throwing those comments to. They waste MY time, EVERYONE's time, because we have to deal with these long, drawn out dramafests at ANI. So the consequences of your inability to rein yourself in a bit reach out farther than the page you are editing. There are plenty of examples to block you or consider a topic ban. It isn't about punishing you, it's about restoring order to that area of the encyclopedia. Universally, that is why we block/tban users, to quieten down an area of the encyclopedia so we don't have to keep hearing complaints. At the end of the day, we don't like complaints, it wastes time, and if you give us no other choice, that is the path we WILL take. What I want to see is clear, concise steps you would take if you weren't blocked/tbanned. I want a reason to not block you, or only block a short time. A reason to not pursue a topic ban. You owe me a couple of hours of my time, and hours of other users time. What are you offering in return? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  I offer you the following: do not be disrespectful in the edit summary and try not to break the 3RR rule. But as I said, the other users must do their part... _-_Alsor (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Of course others are responsible for their actions, but even if they are rude, that doesn't give you a license to be rude back. It has to stop somewhere. As I've said to many others, if you are in a contentious area, do us a favor and make it EASY for us to see who is in the wrong. If you don't edit war (not just 3RR) and you aren't rude, then obviously it isn't you and would be the other guy. That makes it possible to just act without these long, ANI reports. It isn't enough to say "I won't if they won't". That doesn't fly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yes yes, this is clear. I try not to act like they do with me, but I just wanted to point out that I'm not the only irresponsible one here either. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Do you still think being reverted by an ip is reason to label them with multiple ethnic slurs? —Cryptic 19:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  What exactly are "multiple ethnic slurs"? The ones I received from that user when he called me "Franco"? It's clear that calling him "redneck" was not correct, but from there to talk about "multiple ethnic slurs".... _-_Alsor (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  You seem to be very badly underestimating how offensive it is to call an adult American "boy". It doesn't mean "you should grow up"; it means "you should be a slave". —Cryptic 01:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think it's almost obvious that since I'm not American, by no means does "boy" or "grow up" have a racist connotation. I didn't even know this double meaning. _-_Alsor09:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  and taking into special consideration that in Wikipedia the ethnicity of the editors is unknown... _-_Alsor (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  I’m sorry but in that same edit post you did say “‘merica” as if you understood some culture references or were just insulting Americans.  Augu  Maugu ♨ 09:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  I’m not insulting, come on. I know references, but very few. Should I apologize for not being an American? _-_Alsor (talk) 11:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Alsoriano97, I’m also not American, but I don’t understand how you would expect “boys” (racial or not) to use wikipedia to issue complaints to admins against you. The only way I can see that word used against another user is derogatory.  Augu  Maugu ♨ 04:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Alsoriano97, why do you believe that "trying" to act appropriately is a satisfactory reason to not be blocked/tbanned? Given that you have been 24hr blocked before, how have you "tried" to fix the issue for that block?  Augu  Maugu ♨ 00:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Alsoriano97, you have responded to other questions yet you decline to answer this one. Why is that?  Augu  Maugu ♨ 03:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Frankly I think you are having a very unconstructive and superb attitude. You haven't responded to mine either, by the way. My attitude changed in several ways, such as the use of edit summaries to justify my edits and a more conciliatory attitude. I have a life beyond Wikipedia and this discussion, I guess you will understand that I don't spend as much time on it as you would like me to. _-_Alsor (talk) 04:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Alsoriano97, I am not in anyway acting in the way that you feel. I just look at CE every day. Your conduct has been against policy and also “unconstructive” (your words).

  As regards to the question I asked, you have still not given an answer.  Augu  Maugu ♨ 04:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  ” My attitude changed in several ways, such as the use of edit summaries to justify my edits and a more conciliatory attitude” is the answer. And in my country we don't use "boy" as a derogatory term, but to indicate vehemence. It’s not the same as insulting. _-_Alsor (talk) 04:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Why are you oblivious to the fact that the Current Events Portal is watched by so many people with different ideas and backgrounds that you can't just act as you feel is right? Please reduce the amount of your activity there until you have gained more experience as a Wikipedian. Nxavar (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Editor making rapid, nonsense !votes at AfD and refusing to accept new sports SNG

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

---

User StAnselm has been making rapid-fire copy-pasted Keep !votes in sports AfDs, citing WP:NEXIST with no apparent consideration of the article or effort to confirm that sources actually exist. I've already warned them twice [82][83] about not following the updated NSPORTS criteria, however they continue to claim that the guideline change does not change the notability of Cricketers.

• 09:26 31 July 2022 - "Keep per the strong consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanjeeva Rao. The fact that sports notability criteria have changed does not affect the notability of this cricketer. Note that per WP:NEXIST sources do not need to be present in the article." (No SIGCOV sources have been shown to exist)
• 09:27 31 July 2022 - "Keep per the strong consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinkar Deshpande. The fact that sports notability criteria have changed does not affect the notability of this cricketer. Note that per WP:NEXIST sources do not need to be present in the article. (No SIGCOV sources have been shown to exist)
• 09:28 31 July 2022 - "Keep per the strong consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sachin Dholpure. The fact that sports notability criteria have changed does not affect the notability of this cricketer. Note that per WP:NEXIST sources do not need to be present in the article." (No SIGCOV sources have been shown to exist)
• 09:36 31 July 2022 - "Keep per the strong consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subodh Saxena. The fact that sports notability criteria have changed does not affect the notability of this cricketer. Note that per WP:NEXIST sources do not need to be present in the article." (No SIGCOV sources have been shown to exist)

This pattern of claiming the existence of sources without evidence and ignoring the new guideline is disruptive and only serves to spread misinformation and confusion over the applicability of NSPORTS. –dlthewave ☎ 15:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• Editors are free to disagree with policies and guidelines, but so long as there isn't a consensus to remove that policy or guideline they are required to follow them (except in exceptional circumstances where IAR's applies). This applies as much to discussions as it does to articles, and failing to do so in either is disruptive WP:IDHT behaviour.

In this case, with WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 setting an explicit requirement it is clear that StAnselm is failing to follow them at AfD; this disruption needs to stop. BilledMammal (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Without expressing an opinion about this filing, I do happen to note a lot of activity on Wikipedia:Notability (sports), including a claim of undiscussed changes. The Banner talk 16:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

There was some BRD activity around two weeks again, no edits since then and no active discussions on the talk page so I really don't see what relevant point you are making. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Two more examples:

• 09:37 31 July 2022 "Keep per the strong consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mukesh Sahni. The fact that sports notability criteria have changed does not affect the notability of this cricketer. Note that per WP:NEXIST sources do not need to be present in the article." (No SIGCOV sources have been shown to exist)
• 09:39 31 July 2022 "Keep per the strong consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amitabh Vijayvargiya. The fact that sports notability criteria have changed does not affect the notability of this cricketer. Note that per WP:NEXIST sources do not need to be present in the article." (No SIGCOV sources have been shown to exist)

Again, NEXIST requires that sources must be shown to exist. –dlthewave ☎ 16:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• Not that I am stoked to crack open whatever kind of weird iceberg of AfD drama this is the tip of, but looking through the user's contribs gives this:

2022-07-31T08:39:11 diff | thank hist +409‎ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amitabh Vijayvargiya (2nd nomination) ‎ →‎Amitabh Vijayvargiya
2022-07-31T08:37:29 diff | thank hist +401‎ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mukesh Sahni (2nd nomination) ‎ keep
2022-07-31T08:36:12 diff | thank hist +402‎ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subodh Saxena (2nd nomination) ‎ keep
2022-07-31T08:33:09 diff | thank hist +208‎ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kishore Mahato (2nd nomination) ‎ keep
2022-07-31T08:28:50 diff | thank hist +404‎ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sachin Dholpure (2nd nomination) ‎ keep
2022-07-31T08:27:39 diff | thank hist +405‎ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinkar Deshpande (2nd nomination) ‎No edit summary
2022-07-31T08:26:56 diff | thank hist +401‎ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanjeeva Rao (2nd nomination) ‎ →‎Sanjeeva Rao: keep 

This is a little excessive on StAnselm's part. A lot of these edits are only a minute apart! But what kind of nominations are we talking about? It seems that all of them were created by Dlthewave.

2022-07-31T08:34:59 diff hist +1,854‎ N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amitabh Vijayvargiya (2nd nomination) ‎ Creating deletion discussion page for Amitabh Vijayvargiya. Tag: Twinkle
2022-07-31T08:29:19 diff hist +1,682‎ N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subodh Saxena (2nd nomination) ‎ Creating deletion discussion page for Subodh Saxena. Tag: Twinkle
2022-07-31T08:25:40 diff hist +1,744‎ N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mukesh Sahni (2nd nomination) ‎ Creating deletion discussion page for Mukesh Sahni. Tag: Twinkle
2022-07-31T08:22:27 diff hist +1,476‎ N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanjeeva Rao (2nd nomination) ‎ Creating deletion discussion page for Sanjeeva Rao. Tag: Twinkle
2022-07-31T06:01:27 diff hist +1,409‎ N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sachin Dholpure (2nd nomination) ‎ Creating deletion discussion page for Sachin Dholpure. Tag: Twinkle
2022-07-31T05:57:43 diff hist +1,374‎ N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinkar Deshpande (2nd nomination) ‎ Creating deletion discussion page for Dinkar Deshpande. Tag: Twinkle 

It seems that, not only was StAnselm !voting on an AfD every couple minutes, just moments before, dlthewave was creating an AfD every couple minutes. Personally, my opinion is that both of these behaviors are quite irritating, because they cause AfD to be clogged up with a bunch of low-quality driveby participation. I'm not about to go fully investigate six separate nominations, but if there was really so little distinction between them that they could be nominated (and !voted on) in a couple minutes each, couldn't they have just been batched? Then there would be only one edit for each party. jp×g 03:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I wanted to point out what I just did on those AfDs; I looked at all four, reviewed all four articles, and tried to search for sources for each of them before commenting at any of the AfDs. Given the lack of sources, all four are functionally identical in terms of justification for or against deletion. Therefore I made the same comment at all four AfDs quickly back-to-back. If you were to just look at my contrib timestamps for the four AfDs it looks like I made them quickly without considering the merits of each, but what actually happened is that I did them all before making any edits to any of them. It is possible that StAnselm and dlthewave did the same in terms of looking at all four before rapidly making identical comments. I do think the four articles should have been a multi-nominated AfD (very evident by the fact that the discussions are functionally identical for each one) but what's done is done in that regard. I just wanted to point out that maybe they did do their due diligence, but it's just not reflected if you go only by timestamps. - Aoidh (talk) 04:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, this makes sense. Another thing I should note is that a lot of people (including me) will open a few edit windows at the same time, write comments (each over the course of a few minutes), and then save them all at once (or close to all at once), which looks like spamming but isn't. I guess what I'm trying to say here is more that that any assumptions we make about about StAnselm dlthewave apply equally to dlthewave in this situation. jp×g 05:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I believe the real issue here is the WP:IDHT behaviour. As for bundling, I find those almost always get rejected on procedural grounds, but it might have been worth trying a couple of small groups. BilledMammal (talk) 05:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the consensus here is not as solid as the complainants are making it out to be, nor is the guideline being applied as clear cut. @BilledMammal's statement that "Editors are free to disagree with policies and guidelines, but so long as there isn't a consensus to remove that policy or guideline they are required to follow them" is clearly erroneous. The entire point of having both policies and guidelines is that a policy has a higher level of authority than a guideline. WP:Policies makes clear that policies should normally be followed (but WP:IAR), but that guidelines admit exceptions. @StAnselm's behavior at AFD seems to me far below the level that requires or even suggests ANI intervention. Jahaza (talk) 01:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:POLICIES says, regarding guidelines, that occasional exceptions may apply (I would consider that to be an IAR exception), and if StAnselm was arguing for an occasional exception that would be fine, but that is not what they are doing. Instead, they reject the guideline entirely, as seen in the diffs presented by dlthewave, and per WP:IDHT that is disruptive behaviour. BilledMammal (talk) 01:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

No, WP:Policies cites IAR for exceptions to policies. Guidelines are more malleable than policies or it wouldn't make sense to have two categories.

If you want to pursue disruptive behavior on AFD, there are a lot more disruptive behaviors you could be focusing on.--Jahaza (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

This strikes me as a level of ownership assertion over the sport notability guidelines that risks WP:CTDAPE.Jahaza (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, any occasional exceptions need to be exceptions, rather than broadly rejecting the guideline which is what is happening here. BilledMammal (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. ... Per "ignore all rules", a local consensus can suspend a guideline in a particular case where suspension is in the encyclopedia's best interests, but this should be no less exceptional in deletion than in any other area. Guidelines are allowed to be suspended occasionally, policies are not. The issue at hand is St Anselm deliberately and repeatedly refusing to acknowledge an extremely well-attended global consensus without offering the robust arguments expected for IAR. JoelleJay (talk) 05:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Policies are allowed to be suspended occasionally, actually. That's the point of WP:IAR and it's why the word "normally" links to WP:IAR in WP:POLICIES: "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards all users should normally follow."

The policies that the passage you've quoted, @JoelleJay, refers to as "non-negotiable" are the core content policies. Those are not at issue here, where the concern is about a notability guideline, not a policy, let alone a core content policy. Whether it's really the case that WP:IAR can never apply to any of the core content policies thankfully isn't something that has to be hashed out here as, again, no policy is at issue. Jahaza (talk) 06:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The more relevant part of what I quoted was the fact that IAR should be no more exceptional in deletion than any other avenue. That's the point of this discussion: repeatedly attempting to "suspend" a guideline without making a valid argument as to why it's in the encyclopedia's best interest, or even invoking IAR at all, is disruptive. JoelleJay (talk) 07:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

This argument seems to me a violation of WP:BURO, which actually is a policy. StAnselm's's !votes aren't actually disruptive per any evidence we've seen, they haven't consumed all our limited bandwidth or caused administrators to erroneously close as keep AFDs that should have resulted in deletion. There's no need to discipline a user for a violation of a guideline when the violation doesn't do any harm. If the votes really are so far out of consensus and "nonsense" as the complaint alleges, the closing administrator will just ignore them. Jahaza (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

They absolutely did contribute to erroneous guideline-non-compliant closes, and making such !votes forces other participants to rebut them over and over specifically because not doing so leads to such erroneous closes. Most closing admins are either unaware of the specifics of NSPORT or are reluctant to close against numerical majority, even when it means violating a guideline, if no one explicitly addresses the guideline-rejecting argument. JoelleJay (talk) 07:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

"They absolutely did contribute to erroneous guideline-non-compliant closes" Which ones? Jahaza (talk) 08:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Jahaza, in the context of this report you need to be aware that this has been going on for some time. User:Dlthewave has nominated a lot of cricket articles for deletion. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mamata Kanojia (nominated in May) closed with a snow keep and was renominated a month later (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mamata Kanojia (2nd nomination)), also closing as keep, and then taken to a deletion review (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 July 14), where the close was endorsed. That might be what JoelleJay means by "erroneous closes". StAnselm (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

When you say "an extremely well-attended global consensus" I'm confused as to whether you mean a policy or a guideline. And exactly which consensus you are referring to. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure JoelleJay is referring to the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability RfC. StAnselm (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm still at loss to work out what the objection to these edits actually is: is it making the same argument on multiple pages, or is it the argument itself? If it's the argument, is it the appeal to WP:NEXIST (which seemingly contradicts WP:SPORTCRIT) or is it the appeal to the previous AfDs? StAnselm (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

NEXIST doesn't contradict SPORTCRIT, because NSPORT doesn't confer notability in the first place, it just suggests what topics are likely to have received SIGCOV. But for this presumption to be applied, the topic has to meet particular criteria, including the SIGCOV requirement in SPORTCRIT. We don't presume sources exist for every subject, otherwise we would not have CSD/AfC/NPP options for rejecting/deleting articles without a claim to notability. Would you argue sources are likely to exist at an AfD for a high school cricketer? NEXIST says (emphasis mine) If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. Where SPORTCRIT #5 applies is at the level of likelihood that GNG can be met; per the RfC, the community decided that several broad criteria that were in NSPORT no longer established this "likelihood", and that evidence of one SIGCOV source was now necessary for a subject to meet a sport-specific guideline (and therefore be "likely" to meet GNG). JoelleJay (talk) 07:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

"But for this presumption to be applied, the topic has to meet particular criteria, including the SIGCOV requirement in SPORTCRIT." That doesn't make any sense. If a topic has proven SIGCOV there would be no point in a presumption of SIGCOV --Jahaza (talk) 08:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Once you have proven one SIGCOV, you can presume the multiple required by GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

It is extremely interesting that when we look at the old deletion discussions - e.g. the first one mentioned, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanjeeva Rao - cricket (or even sport) notability guidelines are not mentioned at all. So I have two questions: (1) Did the community get it wrong in the original discussion? (2) If not, has the subject's notability changed since that discussion? StAnselm (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

All of the keep !voters are clearly basing their arguments off of NCRIC, as evidenced by the fact that none of them actually produced any SIGCOV sources. Since NCRIC was subsequently determined not to be an effective predictor of GNG, then yes, the first AfD did get it wrong. JoelleJay (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

This is, incidentally, not limited to sports. St. Anselm has been weighing in on other discussions such as this one, where they said that an article being "not notable" was not a deletion criterion - a statement I fail to comprehend, because that seems like a central if not the principle deletion criterion. User seems to cite policy when it suits them, ignore it when it doesn't. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

That is worrying... Either they don't understand WP:SKCRIT #1 or they don't understand WP:N... either way they shouldn't be participating in deletion discussions until they've demonstrated such an understanding. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, it's not the appeal to WP:NEXIST that is concerning (although this seems to ignore the WP:SPORTBASIC #5 sourcing requirement). It's doing so when neither you nor anyone else has demonstrated that sources actually exist. –dlthewave ☎ 01:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Add to the list most of the keep voters at WP:Articles for deletion/Shabana Kausar and WP:Articles for deletion/Shabana Kausar (2nd nomination), both closers, and many cricket project members currently active in AfD. A recent RfC reached a consensus that sportspeople must have received significant coverage to be considered notable. This is simple enough, and it should be trivial not to advance or take seriously such arguments as "international cricketer"; "there is probably an abundance of sources"; delete voters should "extraordinarily look into all offline medias and then claim non existence of significant coverage" (a real quote); and others. Yet, as recent AfD experience shows, there's still a way to go. Avilich (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you're going to drag all those people into this discussion, they probably need to be informed. I have gone ahead and notified them. StAnselm (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

StAnselm's questionable approach to notability questions clearly isn't confined to sports biographies. See e.g. their participation in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andersonville Theological Seminary, which included the following: * Keep on the presumption of significant coverage. It's certainly a very real seminary (as opposed to a diploma mill) and lots of hits in both GBooks and GNews. Now, most of these are of the form "xxx attended Andersonville" but it makes me thing significant coverage exists if only I went through enough pages of Google results. So, basically "keep because I imagine something exists, though I can't be bothered to look". Which was followed later, after one of the other participants (now blocked indefinitely) asked Wikipedia to cut these... seminaries a break, by a suggestion from StAnselm that we apply WP:IAR to do so. No explanation of how ignoring Wikipedia policy would benefit the encyclopaedia, just a proposal that we ignore said policy... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the reference to IAR was in response to your statement that "policy doesn't permit cutting breaks". StAnselm (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that 'cutting breaks' through IAR should become normal procedure when notability cannot be demonstrated during AfD discussions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that - what I was suggesting is that any statement that begins "policy doesn't permit..." is wrong. StAnselm (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, I'll take your word for it that you weren't proposing IAR be applied for the article in question. Which leads me to conclude that the comment served no useful purpose at all. Beyond possibly inflaming the situation further, in a context where the contributor had already described Wikipedia as 'fascist' once. Really helpful, that... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

If your understanding is that IAR gives blanket permission to bypass all policies, you are sadly mistaken. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that the expectation and the way that AFD works is that a respondent reads the AFD, looks at the article, and makes a comment that is based on that. Even if it not an explicit rule. IMO they have certainly violated that. Somehow this behavior needs to be changed. North8000 (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you're saying. Do you mean not to look at previous AfDs for the article? StAnselm (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal - topic ban from deletion discussions

You only have to look at this discussion to see two things. Firstly StAnselm clearly doesn’t contribute to discussions with policy based arguments so isn’t adding any value to the process and secondly, this behaviour is disruptive and makes finding consensus harder. On that basis I feel we should impose a community sanction to topic ban them from deletion discussions, broadly defined. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

That escalated quickly. StAnselm (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I've been biting my tongue as the admins step in, hoping you would catch on yourself, but I hope you know that your recent trend of writing down snide, unconstructive comments (i.e. comments that add absolutely nothing to a discussion), here and other controversial pages, is unproductive at best, and can uncharitably be considered WP:BLUDGEON at worst. Particularly the last-wordism. This isn't a warning, nor am I trying to be condescending, this is my attempt at a friendly bit of advice from one stranger to another. GabberFlasted (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Point taken. Thank you. StAnselm (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support I randomly came across StAnselm's edits today and was concerned for a variety of reasons, including their inappropriate "declines" of speedies (you can contest them and remove them on that basis, but definitely not outright decline.) But they've demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of how deletion and discussions work, among other things. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

No, the creator may contest the speedy on the article talk page; any other editor may decline the speedy and remove the template. StAnselm (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

You can remove it, but no, you shouldn't be saying decline but that's not my point. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:SPEEDY suggests that admins utilise the {{speedy-decline}} template to inform nominators. That's what it's called. StAnselm (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Also their completely transparent attempt to canvas other editors here is laughable. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Those who know me will know that I definitely fall on the deletionist side, but I don't see that St.Anselm has done anything so disruptive as to be topic banned. It also appears that User:dlthewave is not performing WP:BEFORE properly on a number of their AfD nominations. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see that dlthewave has done anything objectionable, since BEFORE is not specifically mandated by any policy or guideline, but NSPORT and SIGCOV are guidelines which should be followed and enforced unless a plausible exception exists. Avilich (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE is part of the instructions on how to create an AfD. Black Kite (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Which isn't a policy or guideline...and anyway, we don't have evidence that dlthewave didn't do BEFOREs; it's not like obvious GNG coverage has actually been found for these subjects. JoelleJay (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I’m sorry but this false equivilence is why afd is becoming nonoperative. We need to hold to better standards if we want to make this process less shit. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, which makes it a suggestion; those instructions are technical in nature and not binding. WP:BURDEN, on the other hand, is core policy, and unambiguously places the entire burden to find sources solely and exclusively on the people who create or want to retain material, where it belongs. There is no requirement to do a source-search before nominating an article for deletion. None. Not even a tiny one, not even a little bit; no requirement whatsoever. Nor can there ever be, given the wording of WP:BURDEN. And the people trying to turn an obscure line in a page dedicated to advice about creating AFDs into such a requirement need to stop - it will never, ever be compatible with WP:BURDEN, so it will never be acceptable to try and seek sanctions against someone because you believe they should be doing your source-search for you. If you want to retain something that has been AFDed, you have the sole requirement to find sources, and IMHO people who attempt to falsely push that requirement onto the nominator are the ones who ought to be getting sanctioned. --Aquillion (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  "There is no requirement to do a source-search before nominating an article for deletion. None. Not even a tiny one, not even a little bit; no requirement whatsoever." There's at least one exception to this, which is that if there are sources in the article the nominator shouldn't write that there aren't any. I've seen this recently!

  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mission sui juris of I-li: "Does not have any sources," has in fact had sources since 2017.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1966 Dartmouth Literacy Conference "is sourced entirely to its own proceedings and publications," was in fact extensively cited to a 2022 article by University of Pittsburgh professor Annette Vee that was not a proceeding or publication of the conference. Jahaza (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Black Kite, I'm not sure what you're implying since I don't recall you mentioning any BEFORE issues to me. Could you provide a few examples and explain how they relate to the proposed t-ban for StAnselm? –dlthewave ☎ 01:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Per my and others' comments above. Disruptive AfD participation needs to be called out. JoelleJay (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose In my opinion there's probably not enough here for a topic ban, and certainly hasn't been acting any differently to other users at AfD who vote either way with short comments with no reasoning or policy on AfDs in quick succession, such as John Pack Lambert or others. While StAnselm could be more productive in his views at AfD, he's entitled to his opinion, and I don't see how he's disrupting the processes, given a closing admin would just ignore it if it was invalid. Tensions are high when it comes to sports AfDs at the moment, and while I also have concerns about dlthewave's WP:BEFORE process (with no evidence admittedly) and failure to look for valid WP:ATDs before the AfD process along with a couple of issues over renominating articles for AfD in a short period of time, he again is entitled to his view on these articles. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Before is irrelevant. Nothing to stop sources being introduced but that’s irrelevant to whether this user is disrupting afd with irrelvant unhelpful comment. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support not because of the timing but because of the repeated nonsense rationales. They're disruptive, in that they waste the time of everyone who has to read them, participants and closers alike. I see no indication that a warning or anything is going to improve the quality of the rationales. It's one thing to disagree, or advocate for changing policy; it's another thing to vote with rationales like "Keep on the presumption of significant coverage". That's just nonsense. Levivich 21:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Struck my support per StAnselm's commitment below. Levivich 02:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - I do not see that they have done anything wrong. Their arguments/logic might occasionally be flawed, but it is the job of the AFD closer to evaluate the arguments and ignore ones that add nothing. Banning is a slippery slope. GiantSnowman 21:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Consensus doesn't move as quickly and absolutely as the proposers/complainants think, nor is Wikipedia a bureaucracy where dissension from guidelines is the greatest of sins. The level of disruption here is low and specific cases where it has led to bad outcomes haven't been pointed to.--Jahaza (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support. If an editor was rejecting guidelines when editing articles then there would be no dispute; either the editor would agree to abide by guidelines, or they would face some sort of sanction. It should be no different in formal discussions.

I note that I would switch to "oppose" if StAnselm commits to following guidelines, only deviating in exceptional circumstances.BilledMammal (talk) 00:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I hereby commit to do so in the future. StAnselm (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Then Oppose as the issue has been resolved to my satisfaction; with StAnselm voluntarily committing to adjust their behaviour I don't believe sanctions are warranted. BilledMammal (talk) 06:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Disruptive behaviour needs to be stopped. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support - I'm willing to give quite a bit of leeway to editors who are still adapting to NSPORTS changes, but the larger issue of claiming NEXIST when nobody has provided any evidence that sources exist has nothing to do with NSPORTS and tells me that StAnselm is either acting in bad faith or grossly incompetent and has no business participating at AfD. –dlthewave ☎ 01:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - sledgehammer/nut. The "problem", if it is one, is nothing like as bad as is being asserted, and certainly does not warrant any kind of ban or lesser action. User:Jahaza mentioned WP:CTDAPE and from the tone of the above exchanges was probably not wrong to do so. On WP:BEFORE, it's a required part of nominating to AfD and editors who make a habit of neglecting it are themselves "either acting in bad faith or grossly incompetent and [have] no business participating at AfD". Ingratis (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Just a point on WP:BEFORE, which has nothing to do with this proposal, it is not in fact required. Good practice? Yes. Should be done? Yes. Required? Where is that a requirement? More importantly though, while there are a lot of insinuations on the main discussion based on timestamps and the like, there is no evidence that WP:BEFORE has been ignored by anyone. There were prior cricket AfDs that were kept, but if you look at them half the keep arguments were made by editors who were later blocked because they were sockpuppets, mixed in with a few "I'm sure sources exist I just can't get around to finding any" comments, so not exactly compelling evidence that the nominator did or did not do their due diligence before nominating an article for deletion. That any one editor has made a habit of ignoring WP:BEFORE is nothing more than a claim, one that is sorely lacking in evidence. - Aoidh (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that we agree on this proposal, at any rate. On BEFORE, I don't agree that following instructions is somehow optional: BEFORE is part of the procedure for making an AfD nomination, whoever the nominator. I also wonder what you would think an appropriate sanction for (evidenced) failure to carry out BEFORE, or - worse - of lying about having carried out a BEFORE (which is quite easy to demonstrate). No need to continue this here: it seems likely that BEFORE will feature in the great big shit-show of an RFC on AfDs coming down the line.Ingratis (talk) 09:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ingratis: WP:BEFORE asks that you please do the tasks it lists; it is not a requirement. ArbCom apparently unanimously agrees at with this Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing#Proposed deletion, saying that WP:BEFORE ..is not required but considered good practice when the main concern is lack of notability or sources. If we want to change that process and make WP:BEFORE a required part of the process then I think that might be a discussion worth having, but as it currently stands it is not required, though I do want to stress that I would consider it a best practice and highly recommended. - Aoidh (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

No, that's talking about PRODs, not AfD. StAnselm (talk) 03:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

No, that's talking about WP:BEFORE, specifically in the context of the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. It just happens to be in the section about PRODs which then goes into detail about the deletion policy and what should be done before deletion, but the wording is clearly and unambiguously about WP:BEFORE. That the sentence before it is about PRODS before going into the deletion policy and WP:BEFORE itself does not mean it is talking only about PRODs. - Aoidh (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose This is an overreaction. Sports AFD discussions are numerous. StAnselm has far from the most disruptive behavior right now. It is much more disruptive to launch dozens of similar AFD discussions which require those who support "Delete" to just say "Doesn't meet WP:GNG" and requires those wanting to Keep these articles to spend time tracking down obscure references. The volume of these nominations results in a lopsided burden on those who advocate keeping these articles and there are editors on both sides of this ongoing dispute who are basically phoning it in.

I say this as an admin who has closed many of these AFD discussion as "Delete" because that's what the consensus has been. But it's undeniable that the burden of proof lies with those who want to Keep the article to PROVE that an individual is notable while some, not all but some, of those wanting to Delete just have to deny an article subject is notable. While it's clear some of those advocating Deletion do search for sources but it's also obvious that others are not and the volume of nominations that has occurred doesn't seem to indicate that WP:BEFORE has been done on many of these nominations.

I'm not supporting StAnselm's behavior, I'm just pointing out that for months this area has been a minefield and there is a reason there was an arbitration case about AFDs that just closed today. You might take a few minutes out of your day to read that closure over today as it involved topic bans from deletion discussions that are based in evidence and over a month-long deliberation (rather than 24 hours of ANI discussion). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Liz, I hear you and agree that StAnselm is far from the only or even the worst disruptor at AfD. I brought this to ANI because of the sheer unproductiveness of their comments: A vote citing NEXIST when no SIGCOV source has been shown to exist is useless at best and potentially misleading to other editors who may assume that a source has indeed been found. This stands regardless of any other disruption that may be happening and is not mitigated in the least by any ongoing conflicts. Your comment also assumes that editors are coming into these discussions "wanting" to keep or delete the article, when in fact I've come across many who clearly approach it with an open mind and arrive at a "keep" or "delete" conclusion based on the existence (or lack thereof) of significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 04:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Dlthewave: I think you might want to re-read Liz's post (particularly the fourth sentence of the first paragraph that begins It is much more disruptive ...) again since she seems to be stating (please correct me if I'm wrong Liz) that fault can be found on both sides of this fence, and the rapid pace in which the nominations are being made is more of a problem. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - This seems like overkill. To be clear, I think in the past handful of AfDs where StAnselm and I have both commented we had very different conclusions on whether an article should be kept or deleted, and I was not particularly swayed but his arguments, but making a subjectively "bad" point does not warrant a ban from being able to make such a point. In my experience, especially here lately, AfDs need more discussion and differing viewpoints, not less. In my opinion StAnselm has not reached the point where a ban is the answer to any problems created, if problems they indeed are. - Aoidh (talk) 02:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - With the recent closing of the Arbcom case on AfDs. I would imagine that the 'bar' has been risen for all of us, concerning behaviour at deletion discussions. GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Liz, who said it much better than I could have. I will also note that for several participants in this discussion, I only need to look at the signature, and I already know the argument. We need a much better quality participation from all perspectives. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The same old faces stirring the pot. Considering the questionability of many of their noms, perhaps we should propose a ban for them? Or if they're on about copy and paste AfD votes, I wonder if they'd support a ban on JPL? Furthermore, the instigator here is well known for renominating articles right after they've been closed as keep. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. StickyWicket (talk) 06:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I note that this editor, with 66000 contribs, has retired after being blocked by NinjaRobotPirate, apparently for this loss of temper over the situation. Black Kite (talk) 08:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  "has announced retirement", and rather "during" than "for". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Liz makes excellent points. I am looking forward to the RfC coming out of the Arbcom case and hope that that will help with the AfD process overall. Gusfriend (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Liz who said everything that anyone needs to say on this area right now. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

.Oppose Behaviour at AfD needs to improve, and I don't just mean this instance. If this had included objectionable asperions against other editors it would be different, however this sanction seems a bit to early. AfD is not a vote so continually adding comments that have no effect on the outcome could be seen as disruptive, as the closer has to wade through them, but hopefully the tenor of this thread should be warning enough. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 08:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time. Contributions at AFD certainly need to improve; the hope is that StAnselm (and others) takes on board what has been said here, in various AFDs, and at Arbcom. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Oppose per Liz. Ultimately, all editors must take care not to place an unreasonable burden on other editors and must be prepared to accept some pushback (at minimum) if they fail to do so. StAnselm's actions are a reasonable (if not ideal) pushback to the unreasonable burden being placed on those with views different to the prolific nominators. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Endorse. Over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klippe (coin) which I nominated, this user argued that klippe is "an important type of coin". How so? NotReallyMoniak (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Please do not quote people out of context, their full comment was: an important type of coin. Deletion is not cleanup. In any case, it has an entry in Coins and Currency: An Historical Encyclopedia, 2d ed. (2019). Note also the detail and references in the German article. which fully explains why they believe it is an important type of coin. Thryduulf (talk) 11:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I forgot to re-read the comment for context, so thank you, Thryduulf. While I still endorse the suggestion, I retracted my vote (barring new evidence) since my only rationale is moot. Thanks again. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per the reasons given by Liz and Thryduulf above. Maybe slowing the pace of the nominations down a bit will help things cool down. Maybe also before nominating any articles, it might help to at least post something on the relevant WikiProject's talk page first. I know that's not required, but it might help keep things from becoming a WP:USTHEM. Seeking some input before starting an AfD might make the process more inclusive and could also be seen as a type of BEFORE. If nobody responds or is able to find the sources you feel are needed, then you can at least say you tried to find a way to keep the article but an AfD is the only thing left to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per GiantSnowman above. Nothing wrong with opposes or supports in any form. The closer has to make those determinations and what best fits the given argument. Really, nominating everything that's not nailed down is more disruptive and clogs up the system. With limited contributors we need to focus on highly problematic articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Liz and Thryduulf. Wikipedia would be a much better place if we all knew how to recognize when we are too personally invested in a disagreement to evaluate it objectively. When in doubt, leave it up to the closing admin instead of coming here to try to silence the opposing viewpoint. In this particular case, I'm not even convinced that the editor has done anything wrong. This proposal was egregiously premature. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  That would be another topic to see if administrator Spartaz overstepped their boundaries in starting this proposal which may have actually caused undue escalation of this issue. We count on administrators to stop us idiots from carrying things too far and creating un-needed battlegrounds, and from what I see this is pretty frivolous and is overwhelmingly opposed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  I believe the proposal was appropriate, and I note that the consensus was trending in favour of a topic ban until StAnselm committed to voluntarily changing their behaviour. BilledMammal (talk) 03:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think it was clearly trending one way or another. While it's true that StAnselm's post did cause you and one other person to change their !votes, it's not clear how much StAnselm's post affected any of the subsequent !votes. If anything, it seems that what Liz posted had more of an impact on those subsequent !votes than what StAnselm had posted. FWIW, it seems like someone should be able to figure out better way to try and resolve all of this than goes beyond banning users or driving them into retirement. Trying to find a more collaborative approach to try and resolve things seems a more productive use of time than butting heads in a cycle of endless confrontation. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Marchjuly, what would be a more collaborative approach for these situations? Conducting an RfC to settle where the community stands on the guideline issues in question? Politely asking the editor to please observe the RfC outcome when they !vote with a guideline-rejecting or policy-mischaracterizing argument? The AfD closers who understand/are aware of the guideline changes explicitly noting such !votes are disregarded (although how effective can this be if there are other closers who don't give less weight to such arguments, either because they aren't familiar with the guideline or because they also opposed the changes)? JoelleJay (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't buy that copy-paste drive-by !voters (not necessarily StAnselm, and certainly including many other editors) are a product of or reaction to the current rate of nominations. If that were the case, we would have a history of these editors making productive, GNG-based arguments on the same types of AfDs back before there were so many noms. But no, what we have is these editors producing a lot of "keep, meets NFOOTY" !votes and also numerous !votes and nominations(!) boiling down to "delete, doesn't meet NCRIC" (which is an infinitely worse rationale than "doesn't meet GNG" since not meeting NSPORT criteria is never grounds for deletion).
  Meanwhile, delete !voters (who don't just base their decision on not meeting NSPORT SSGs) at sportsperson AfDs have always (been expected to) put in the work of demonstrating GNG isn't met. So what we're running into here is keep !voters complaining about suddenly having a level playing field, when in the past they could rely on (very poor, evidently) low-effort proxies to achieve the same argument weight as delete !voters (or keep !voters for subjects that don't have a privileged presumption-based SNG). We're getting a lot of editors who are only now encountering the frustrating reality that many topics they think should be notable do not actually have SIGCOV (or even evidence thereof) in any known media, a situation that uncontroversially prevents untold numbers of articles from being created in fields governed solely by GNG. What's more, some of these editors refuse to accept that their topic does not merit a standalone article, and instead attribute their inability to find sources to those sources actually just existing offline or in different untranslatable alphabets or whatever even when there's no proof this is a possibility. And once they've convinced themselves of this, they use it as evidence that topics of this type cannot be assessed through simple BEFORE searches and therefore are exempt from immediate notability sourcing requirements...thereby essentially recreating the deprecated presumption proxies. The exhaustion with keeping up with the nom rate in some cases may very well be due to spending so much time looking through loads of newspaper articles in an attempt to find SIGCOV, when in reality it wouldn't be discoverable with any amount of time or travel. JoelleJay (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Seconded. The amount of work "deleters" are expected to perform has always been high, and yet the bar for a keep !vote seems to significantly lower. The problem is that the closers often seem to lack the desire to actually see what is policy-compliant and enforce it. This is compounded by IDHT behavior from !voters who refuse to be educated on what the applicable policies/guidelines actually say. Generally speaking, people who demonstrate IDHT behavior in deletion discussions should be topic banned. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

    Actually very few of these things come down to policy-compliancy. Very few. They certainly come down to guidelines and consensus a lot. And that high bar for deletion requests isn't consistent at all. There are plenty of fly-by-night deletion requests where an editor doesn't really check to see if they can help the article before asking for a deletion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

    • Of course poor deletion requests are initiated, but I've very rarely seen an article deleted due to entirely careless, BS delete !votes, because the expectation is higher. I've seen more reasonable deletion requests derailed by mindless keep !votes. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

      • As another example, we've got three DRVs on 14 July for articles that each survived two AfDs and a DRV despite having zero SIGCOV sources (although one of them had a source that someone added during DRV). Editors seemed to be under the impression that procedurally, the closers had no choice but to close as Keep and that the Keep !votes were somehow legitimate and made in good faith despite having zero grounding in policy. The whole "!vote as you will and et the closer assess strength of argument" idea isn't working, and many closers clearly don't see it as their job to assess anything other than local consensus. –dlthewave ☎ 12:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

        Because the editors who make the articles are the same editors who cast the non-policy-based keep !votes at AFD and then also !vote to endorse it at DRV. Closers do not discount non-policy-based votes, not at AFD, not at DRV, not anywhere, with very few exceptions, and those few brave closers get a ton of flak and very little support for it. Levivich 13:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

        +1 Valereee (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Weak support. On one hand, repetitive nominations (a point made by JPxG) somewhat warrants repetitive opinions. On the other hand, I am not sure whether StAnselm's repetitive "keep" opinions for several AfDs truly reflect the worthiness of the article to stay on Wikipedia. However, what truly pushed me (back) into supporting the proposal is their decision to notify every editor of this discussion even if they are only tangentially involved with this thread (see the comment starting "Well, if you're going to drag all those people into this discussion..."). Courtesy-pinging Thryduulf (due to my struck-out opinion, above). Thanks. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. Quality participation at AfD is extremely time consuming. "Automatic" !keep and !delete votes gum up the works procedurally. We need to call them out, as has been done here. At the same time, it is often difficult to tell whether a !vote is the result of careful consideration or just a knee-jerk response to deletion/creation in general. Jacona (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, per User:Liz, but this sort of discussion needs to occur on a regular basis to improve the AfD process. Low-quality nominations, such as a recent one with a one-word rationale need to be discouraged, as do rote, non-policy based responses, such as "per nom" and references to gutted guidelines like NSCHOOL. Jacona (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Heads-up about cross-wiki abuse by socks of disinfo agency 'Avisa Partners'; with links to fr-wiki

Tl;dr: No action required, but please be aware of paid socking going on at fr-wiki by or on behalf of Avisa Partners, a private company and publisher of disinformation for their foreign-state clients. As a result of collaboration among fr-wiki users and investigative reporters at Mediapart in France, fr-wiki admins have blocked five Avisa COI socks, and are investigating further. One has been blocked here for cross-wiki abuse. Adding this in the interest of cross-wiki collaboration and awareness.

 Courtesy link: fr:Wikipédia:Bulletin des administrateurs/2022/Semaine 29 (in French;^[English])

In March, several fr-wiki socks attempted to delete the fr:Avisa Partners article on fr-wiki. In June, respected French investigative journal Mediapart published this article (in French;^[English]) about Avisa. French user fr:Jules* (talk · contribs) had been looking into Avisa as well, and contacted a journalist at Mediapart; they eventually got together and exchanged information. Mediapart published the result of their investigation into Avisa's targeting of Wikipedia,^[English] as well as a blog article explaining how Wikipedia's collaborative platform combats agents of disinformation.^[English]

Fast forward to July 21: Jules* has summarized the whole story at French ANI (same as courtesy link at top). As a result, French admins have blocked five users and suspect others:

The following have been blocked by JohnNewton8 (= French admin fr:JohnNewton8 (talk · contribs)): confirmed Avisa COI agents: fr:Melv75 (talk · contribs), fr:Rapatoast (talk · contribs); and also implicated COIs fr:Tocrahc (talk · contribs), fr:Ithaque Odysseus (talk · contribs), fr:Jaffredo (talk · contribs). (Of the five, only Jaffredo^[noping] has any contributions at en-wiki, and has already been indeffed by Blablubbs for cross-wiki abuse.)

I'll link this from French ANI and ask users there to comment here directly, if they have anything specifically related to en-wiki. Otherwise, please keep an eye out for the fr-blocked users, or check the French ANI discussion for further updates if interested. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I think this may be justification for a discussion on formally banning the company and its agents from en.wp so as to avoid them doing the same crap Igor Bogdanov did (i.e. jump ship to en.wp when it was clear their fr.wp efforts were counterproductive). We should have absolutely zero tolerance for known bullshit-peddlers. This would not be the first time we've banned firms from Wikipedia for complete and total disregard of the project's policies. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 02:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support The proposal to formally community ban them before they begin larger-scale cross-wiki abuse. Their behavior on frWiki has already eliminated any goodwill one may have for the firm, and their goals are directly opposite from the project's in the first place. Best to just nip it in the bud. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 03:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi. (I don't know if I can write here as I'm not sysop; delete my message if needed.) Please excuse my poor english.

I would like to let you know of two developments.

• Avisa Partners (ex-iStrat) has close ties with another company, Nativiz: founders of Nativiz (Henri and François Tillinac) were before executive for Avisa Partners; Avisa Partners is currently one of several clients of Nativiz; the last Tillinac brother, Jean, is still working as manager for Avisa Partners; source). Both companies created dozens of false information sites/blogs (mostly in french), in order to promote their clients, as documented by several French journalists, OSINT experts... and wikipedians. (And, there again, some of these websites have in their legal notice "Nativiz" but were registered by founders and current executives of Avisa Partners!). Some of these websites had dozens of citation as sources on fr-wp; we are currently cleaning all of this. Everything is about that matter is there: fr:Discussion Wikipédia:Observatoire des sources#Sites (d'infox) liés à Avisa Partners ou Nativiz.
• Looking for users who introduced in articles links to these websites, we found already known and blocked UPE accounts, accounts we already suspected, and also new UPE accounts. A few of them edited en-wp. See fr:Discussion Projet:Antipub#Faux sites d'info liés à Avisa Partners, Nativiz, etc. on this matter.

Investigation is still ongoing. Best, — Jules* ^talk 08:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I did a quick search for one of their black-listed sites and found it in Yubo (planete-business.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com ). Probably worthwhile to do a full investigation. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 09:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes @Rsjaffe, as fr:Yubo has been edited by an UPE account (and also, then, a disclosed paid edit account).

You can also take a look at en:Steeve Khawly (Louise12B (talk · contribs)) and en:Lignereux (only a suspicion, cf. Plotinus (talk · contribs)).

And definitely review contribs of Coccico2345 (talk · contribs), used a few years ago by Avisa Partners and that you can block. — Jules* ^talk 09:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Jules*: you are welcome to comment here. (I am not an admin either.)

Clarifying: his mention of UPE is en-wiki's shortcut, WP:UPE (equivalent to WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE). The French "Antipub" discussion about fake information sites related to "Avisa" can be read in automatic English translation here. Mathglot (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Another site: nextnews.fr: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com in Evolis. Another probable UPE case. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 09:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jules*: You wrote: Il est cependant à noter que certains des comptes ici visés (Melv75 en est un bon exemple) consacrent beaucoup de temps à brouiller les pistes par des contributions anodines ainsi qu'en s'investissant dans la communauté (DDA, patrouille, et même dépubage !). C'est un aspect à garder à l'esprit, sans basculer dans la paranoïa. At Avisa Partners here at en.Wikipedia, we have an editor who mostly seems to have been invested in the en community since 2018, especially as a patroller, mostly doing reverts (I haven't checked how valid they are) and user page warnings, and yesterday doing a complete reversal of the initial en.Wikipedia version of Avisa Partners and making edit descriptions and talk page comments that sound reasonable at a superficial glance, but don't quite make sense; my concerns are listed on the talk page, and we'll see if the discussion that follows is rational and based on Wikipedia policy and the content of the sources, and constructive. Since I'm now a heavily involved editor, independent judgment from mine on this is needed. Boud (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Boud: I took a look at his contributions list and didn't find anything suspicious (but I may have missed something). Best, — Jules* ^talk 11:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks for checking. Boud (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I really don't want to start a flame war, but your response to my page change has been completely out of proportion. Rather than acknowledge the very flawed way in which your version of the page is written, filled with NPOV, BLP, Recentism violations and an all around un-encyclopedic tone, you immediately reverted the page to your version and WP:BLUDGEON your way through it. I’m also astonished that you accuse me of being a sockpuppet just because you didn't agree with my edit.

As I said in the comment I made after the edit, the French version of the page, even trimmed down, is far from being perfect, but it's a definite upgrade over your version. I never shied away from corporate criticism on Wikipedia, my history that you seem so familiar with can vouch for that, but Wikipedia is not an investigative journalism outlet (per WP:NOR)

I would rather not engage with you on this topic too much out of fear of turning this into a flame war, but I'm open to any sort of arbitration, perhaps an RfC or just generally more people weighing in on this. Curious as well to hear @Jules*’ thoughts on the version I proposed yesterday, as I tried to hew very closely to the French version.

In the meantime, I'm going to take another look at the page in its current form and review it based on credible French/English sources. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Once again, WP:NPOV is a Wikipedia guideline. NPOV is a good thing, not a bad thing. The fr.Wikipedia version is based on editing that is known to have been heavily edited by editors with a severe conflict of interest, so trying to start with that version would make it very difficult to converge on an article based on RS without any concerns about COI. I am happy to assume good faith, even though I have not seen significant amounts of content that you have created before. I propose that you respond in a modular way on the talk page and via edits with clear edit summaries. Please understand that in the current context, we have to have an algorithm with a fair chance of achieving consensus: modularity is a key to this. Please do not claim that NPOV is a bad thing in Wikipedia. Boud (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I prefer not to interfere with editorial matter regarding this article (I'm almost in a COI, as I worked a lot to find this agency operations on Wikipedia, helping journalists that are cited as a source in the WP article), and I don't feel legitimate to really intervene on en-wp, so it will be my sole comment on the subject. After reviewing the article historic, your version, @Boud, seems a bit POV to me: § about investigations regarding the agency seem mostly consistent to WP:NPOV (I didn't find BLP violations, but I may be wrong), but only writting on that is probably WP:UNDUE as —without underestimating the importance of recent investigations in quality newspapers— there also secondary sources about other "sides" of this company (owners, history, purchases of other companies, etc.). The PraiseVivec version, derivated from fr-wp version, seems less WP:UNDUE, but there is probably room for improvement. I would assume PraiseVivec good faith and I think that you could (should?) both collaborate to improve this article, with the help of other experimented en-wp editors. Best, — Jules* ^talk 14:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I now see that PraiseVivec meant NPOV ... violations - I misread that, sorry. In any case, the response to missing POVs is to add those missing POVs, not to delete content. I agree that my version did not include everything, such as the history of purchases, but that's a subtopic that can be expanded, since there's already some history of the company's growth; it's not a reason to delete my contributions. Regarding WP:DUE, again, adding material is the response to this, not deletion. I would also think that what the organisation actually does, apart from buying other companies, is significant. In any case, I propose that we continue regarding specific issues on the talk page, rather than reverting to the translation of the conflict-of-interest-edited version. Boud (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC) I'll just add: WP:NOTPAPER. Boud (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder that this page is about raising incidents that Administrators of en-wiki may need to examine, or take action on. Discussions about content disagreements at articles including NPOV and other issues should be confined to the talk page of the article concerned, and seek other dispute resolution methods if needed. Concerns about user conduct such as whether editors may be engaging in COI or other improper behavior should begin at the user's talk page with good faith all around. Repeating the very first sentence at the top of this page: "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

This is also a valid venue for banning users or organisations whose behaviour has exhausted the patience of the community. You're the one who plopped an active disinfo op into our lap, one that has the potential to expand past fr.wp and over onto the (much more heavily-viewed) en.wp. Hence why I'm advocating we ban them before they have a chance to do anything here; their presence would either inflame existing powderkeg topic-areas (such as Eastern Europe, the Balkans or Nagoro-Karabakh) or end up creating an entirely new one. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 21:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I have looked at the en.wiki article. It is not a BLP violation to included accurate and well-sourced information. I feel that PraiseVivec (talk · contribs) went a great deal too far with their edit, and should have discussed the changes first, especially given the sources. Elinruby (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Jéské, maybe I wasn't clear: I have no problem with you or anyone proposing banning users or organisations here, and I favor it. That's why the discussion was plopped in the first place. I'll go you one better: a m:Global ban should be considered, if it turns out that the conditions for m:Cross-wiki abuse are substantiated. But shy of that, we can certainly advocate for blocks or community bans at en-wiki. This is not the first time that a fr-wiki investigation into organized abuse^{[English summary]} has had cross-wiki implications and resulted in an ANI investigation and action here. Mathglot (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Please see my latest message on meta: several old (2010-2015) edits linked to Avisa/Nativiz. Best, — Jules* ^talk 20:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Long-term disruption by Dan Koehl on topics related to Vikings

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

---

Dan Koehl has been on a one-man crusade against the common use of the word Viking since at least 2004. Every few months or every few years or so he starts a new topic at talk:Vikings about how the word is offensive to his ancestors, as can be seen here. The arguments repeat themselves almost exactly, as can be seen by this random selection through the years:

1. I am sorry, I cant see that it may be right to say that modern swedes are descendants of wikings, because this is what the present english meaning of the word is. (I know this is going very far in argument, but similair arguments could be used to state that all germans are descendants from nazis...) [84] (2004)
2. Please, why changing the meaning of the word, using it as term on people who already have name for their etnical group, and leaving a gap for term of the people who actually were vikings...? [85] (2006)
3. How SOME english speaking people today interpretes the word today, is irrelevent in thise circumstance, because it was not words that travelled over the sea it was people, and they were obviously NOT named as vikings? [86] (2008)
4. Example text [87] (2011)
5. For over 1 000 years viking was just a translation of the word pirat until the fifties, when Americans wanted to call everything Scandinavian viking. And very MUCH simplifying thing with that, and later making it complicated. [88] (2016)
6. theres just a little problem with that, namely its not true, and we shall not spread lies on Wikipedia. Not one single prime source claim that "Vikings were seafaring people of primarily Norse origin". [89] (2021)

Beyond this, Dan Koehl has regularly disrupted Wikipedia by trying to change or remove any mention of or link to Viking on related articles, as can be seen from this random selection: [90], [91], [92], [93], [94].

This all came to a head last year when Dan Koehl was blocked for disruptive editing at both Viking and Norsemen (for context, see [95] and [96]), as well as bludgeoning talk page discussions [97]. Now he's back at it again Talk:Vikings#Sceience instead of Donald Duck history dating back to 1799. He has also continued his crusade against the term in other articles: [98], [99], [100].

In my opinion, enough is enough. This is a long term behavioral problem and shows no signs of improving. He even claims he was blocked for no reason before [101]. The editors of the article Vikings and related ones should be spared the WP:WALLOFTEXT posts that Dan Koehl continuously produces on this subject and the trouble of reverting every time he removes the word Viking from an article.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

See also the previous ANI discussion [102].--Ermenrich (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I have never interacted with the Viking page so I went to see if maybe I could offer an outside opinion, and after reading the discussion and going back through past discussions I can absolutely see why he was blocked from editing the Swedish Wikipedia. There is a serious WP:LISTEN issue, as he comes back every so often to bring up the same already refuted points ad nauseam as if they don't know or understand the already addressed issues with what they're saying (for example). It also approaches a WP:CIR issue when you get blocked and think it was because you were "just adding sourced material." I don't think we're at a point where an indefinite block is needed, but if we wanted to discuss topic banning Dan Koehl from discussing Vikings on Wikipedia, broadly construed, I would absolutely support that, as it would hopefully curtail this disruptive behavior. - Aoidh (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• I would support a topic ban over a block certainly.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I'll start by saying that I like Dan. He's very intelligent, so I am in no way implying he's incompetent. I just think he's too caught up in his original logic to look at it objectively, which happens to all of us from time to time. The problem, as I see it, is one that plagues everyone from scientists to philosophers to police investigations, that is, confirmation bias. The problem with Dan's logic is that no matter how much evidence he finds to support that we're all using the term wrong, it's based on a flawed premise, the details of which are not necessary here but you can find on the talk page and throughout the archives. Despite being told this by multiple people on multiple articles --across multiple Wikipedias-- he cannot seem to accept that consensus is and has always been against him. Not just here, but at Swedish Wikipedia, Norwegian Wikipedia, and likely others. It's a long-term problem that has gotten to the point of being disruptive, in my opinion, because we just keep going over and over the same things ad nauseum. The horse has been dead for a long time now. I don't like the idea of blocking either unless absolutely necessary, and I'll note the Swedish block seemed to have more to do with self promotion than their Viking article (I don't know the details, just surmising), but at this point a topic ban does seem a logical alternative in order to stop the disruption. Zaereth (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

There seems to be a rough agreement above for a topic ban, so per the above discussion I am proposing a topic ban for Dan Koehl (talk · contribs) from the topic of Vikings, broadly construed.

• Support - As proposer. - Aoidh (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support, per above discussion.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support for WP:LISTEN issues --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support per WP:LISTEN -- Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 19:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support They probably haven't figured out that we're talking about the common meaning of an English word in English Wikipedia.North8000 (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support 18 years is well more than enough time to have understood the concept of consensus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support with modification I support a main page topic ban of Viking related pages and talk page access excluding formal RfC discussions which they are allowed to create. Whilst their approach hasn't been helpful thus far I feel that this is an area that they are interested in and if they can articulate it properly as a RfC then there is potential for improving pages. As always I am just a single editor and happy to accept that my approach does not gain consensus. Gusfriend (talk) 01:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support - I guess I'll add my name to the list, for the reasons stated above. I also agree with North and Hemi, but would add that there is a failure to distinguish past meanings of a word from present meanings, which is actually not an uncommon problem. Meanings change for a variety of reasons. Younger generations take them more literally than their parents. Non-native speakers take things very literally, as are the meanings of words borrowed from other languages. Meanings narrow or broaden; ameliorate or pejorate. Metaphor. Metonym. Hyperbole. Or in this case semantic drift, where a meaning changes completely. Our reliable sources on the meanings of words are the dictionaries, and all of this could easily be explained to Dan (or anyone else) by simply reading the dictionary. Not just the definition of "Viking", but the front of the book where they tell you about all this stuff, how the language changes, and how they collect their information. Oxford has an entire English department devoted to it. To Dan and anyone else looking to change society, I have said this before, if you want to change how people think and speak, it will never work from Wikipedia. Society has always been influenced most by the arts. Bambi, for example, had more effect on how people view sport hunting than any thing else in the world. Zaereth (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Style warrior

A significant proportion of User:Aonbheannaigh’s edits regards their evident personal, style-only preference for the usage of the Oxford comma. These are largely or entirely in instances where its absence is an equally valid style choice, there is no issue of ambiguity to address or the use actively goes against the consistency of style used in the given article. No meaningful explanation of any supposed necessity for the change is given in edit summaries. Requests to desist and warnings that the campaign has become disruptive have, after initial inaccurate responses, been ignored. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

As stated at the top of this page in red, an ANI Discussion Notification must be posted to the talk page of a user when an incident regarding them is posted. Please be aware that this is not optional. I have posted one to their talk page as a courtesy to you both but please be attentive in the future. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, my oversight entirely. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Off-topic commentary. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No, thank you for reacting so well to such a condescending "bollocking" for a simple oversight. Not everyone posts at ANI all the time, and the matter could just as easily have been raised on your talkpage without the tedious and very public "mall cop" routine which honestly makes my blood boil just a little every time I see it. Why don't we just fix ANI so that folks don't have to police other people about their compliance or otherwise with the "red box"? Just saying (and apologies for any offence to anyone on this specific occasion - I'm sure everyone was acting with the best intentions...) Begoon 14:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC) If you take issue with what I say or do, it would benefit everyone to contact me directly, instead of an unrelated ANI thread. Or if you think it is a grand enough issue to complain about on an ANI thread and believe contacting me directly won't be productive, consider making an ANI ticket. Regardless, this is quite the lambast for someone who is supposedly assuming good faith. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

They have continued to add Oxford commas since this report was started. I suggested to them that they should be part of the conversation here. Gusfriend (talk) 11:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

And they are continuing to add Oxford commas and mark their edits as minor. Gusfriend (talk) 10:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

And again today, on both counts. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

They made two responses to posts about their editing on 27th July with nothing at all since, despite numerous attempts by multiple editors to elicit a dialogue. They are evidently determined to continue their edits in like manner. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

We just went through this, and in fact are still going through this, with the passive-voice obsessive (see tail end of WT:Manual_of_Style#Fallout_from_ANI). This kind of obsessive style-warrioring (if that's a word) needs to be nipped in the bud. EEng 18:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Competence of User:Hildreth gazzard and copyright concerns.

Hildreth gazzard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Per Wikipedia:Competence is required, I think User:Hildreth gazzard's repeated mass creation of biography stubs is creating too many issues. For starters most, if not all of their creations only cites references using bare URL's, which is a problem as it can lead to rink rot. This user has been asked before to not use bare URL's [103]. I had warned them in June 2021, that their repeated mass creations had misspelled words and bare URL's [104], yet they refuse to engage at all with any sort of criticism from their work. Moreover, most of the prose of this user's article creations is paraphrased or copy pasted from actual source, which violates copyright. Using three of their most recent article creations as examples:

1) Daniel Powell, has placed the wrong place of birth (Sutton Coldfield). As per one of the sources in the article [105] has the correct place of birth (Walsall). I don't want to carry over copyrighted prose, but the start of the second line is a direct copy paste from [106]. Some phrasing is also used directly from this source [107].

2) Ezekiel Nathaniel, again start of second line is directly copy pasted from this source [108]. The last is mainly copied from this source [109].

3) Lachlan Moorhead, the second paragraph is quoted directly from this source [110].

This user continues to insist on creating stub biographies with bare url's and copyright concerns. There needs to be some sort of intervention here before things get out of hand. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Not sure what the guidelines for this are, but I would like to second this if possible. As a new page reviewer, I have seen dozens of articles with all sorts of careless mistakes being thrown into the New Page Feed by this user. It is left to us to clean up. It seems like they just care about being the first to create new articles, such as recent gold medallists, with no regard to quality or copyright concerns. JTtheOG (talk) 01:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Good heavens, well we don’t want things to get out of hand. As I have said before, but Sportsfan 1234 may not have noticed, I don’t have all my sight and anything beyond the the bare URL is too awkward for me so instead I tag the pages as needing a citation bot. I’m not sure inclusivity is the domain of Wikipedia but I am thankful for the opportunities I have had so far, it has been a real privilege. As for the insinuations of my intention by JTtheOG, I am very grateful for all their work as a new page reviewer and it was never my intention to deliberately cause extra work for them or anyone. The answer to my intention is much simpler than maybe they imagine. If there was someone I was personally interested in reading about and they didn’t have a page I would try and throw something together in case someone else was in my position and also looking for that information. It’s really as simple as that. No one tries to make cosmetic errors, I just took to heart the notion of “if in doubt, edit” that I heard Jimmy Wales espouse on an interview a couple of years ago, and I do hope that any errors I may have made have been ironed out by other users within this wonderful tool. We mustn’t lose sight of what a wonderful thing wikipedia is and how much it enriches the lives of millions of people every day. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hildreth gazzard (talk • contribs)
  • Erm. I submit that if you are too impaired to properly cite your contributions -- especially with you not being hesitant to admit that you're leaving the work to be done by others -- then that does call into question whether you're too impaired to make mainspace edits, never mind creating new articles. Ravenswing 14:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

    I strongly object to the idea that it should be impermissible to use bare URLs as references when creating articles. --JBL (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

    Same here. We have bots to fix such things. XOR'easter (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

    This is not the main issue at hand. A lot of this user's edits have copyright violations. The references couples with copyright issues leads me to believe there is no competence here. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

    And it is not "impermissible" to use bare URLs. It's just lazy practice. (Nor, by the bye, can we rely on bots to get it right.) If that was the only issue, this would never be at ANI, and neither of you are ANI rookies to need to be told that. Ravenswing 16:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

    I don't want to understate the importance of copyright, but I looked at the three articles (and rewrote and expanded one of them, Lachlan Moorhead) and I see some exaggeration of the extent of the problem in all three. In view of Sportsfan 1234's concern about carry[ing] over copyrighted prose, I will entirely understand if an admin finds it necessary to rev-delete the following comparisons (I've used the text as last edited by Hildreth gazzard, but other than my work on one, I didn't notice any other editor changing the wording) and I'm going to try to put them under a cut.

The examples cited, and my evaluations

::::*At Daniel Powell (judoka), the claim that the second line is a direct carryover refers to "Powell, from Sutton Coldfield, trains in Judo at the University of Wolverhampton’s Walsall Campus" being taken from "Powell, from Sutton Coldfield, is one of 14 judokas from the University of Wolverhampton’s Walsall Campus ...". Only the opening 4 words are copied. Some phrasing is also used directly from ... refers to "after stepping up to senior judo won a silver medal at the Sarajevo European Open" from: "won a silver medal at the Sarajevo European Open four years after making the step up from junior competition.", and "Powell won six medals in the European Junior Cup between 2015 and 2017" from: "winning six medals in European Junior Cup between 2015 and 2017". Both of these are overly close paraphrasing, but they are not entirely copied. At Ezekiel Nathaniel, the claim start of second line is directly copy pasted refers to "Running for Baylor University, Nathaniel broke a 35 year old national record of his fellow compatriot Henry Amike when he ran 48.42 for the 400m hurdles to win the big 12 title in May, 2022." being taken from: "Running for Baylor at his first Big 12 Championships since moving to the US, Ezekiele Nathaniel was absolutely in an amazing form, storming to a massive Personal Best (PB) of 48.42s and breaking Henry Amike’s National Record (NR) that was set in 1987!" In my judgement this is not copyvio at all. Only "Running for Baylor" repeats, and the necessary clarification word "University" has been added, while the rest has been selected from and transformed, including making it neutral. The last is mainly copied from this source refers to "Nathaniel become the fourth Nigerian man after Daniel Ogidi in 1983, Amike in 1987 and Rilwan Alowonle in 2019 to qualify for the semifinal of the 400m hurdles in the history of the World Championships." from: "Nathaniel has now become the fourth Nigerian man after Daniel Ogidi (1983), Amike (1987) and Rilwan Alowonle (2019) to qualify for the semifinal of the 400m hurdles in the history of the championships." This, too, is overly close paraphrasing, but "mainly copied" is an overstatement. At Lachlan Moorhead, the second paragraph is quoted directly from this source refers to "As well as studying business management at the University of Birmingham, Lachlan is an ambassador for charity If U Care Share which raises awareness of male suicide and mental health issues." from "From Yorkshire, Moorhead studies business management at the University of Birmingham, and is an ambassador for charity If U Care Share which raises awareness of male suicide and mental health issues." This could have been done better—I separated the university studies from the charity activity, and "From Yorkshire" is completely unnecessary given his birthplace and the club he is a member of—but it is far from "quoted directly". Only "business management at the University of Birmingham" (which is in my view not transformable) and "male suicide and mental health issues" have been left unchanged.

Hildreth gazzard should do better. I see instances of overly close paraphrasing. But I personally don't see a massive copyvio problem, and I don't believe the history of the articles requires any revision deletion. (Others may disagree, hence both the examples and the attempted cut.) What I do notice is that Hildreth gazzard hasn't used the tables of wins and medals in some of the sources to fill out the previous career, and filling out the article is the best way to avoid close paraphrasing, because it dolutes the information taken from a particular prose source and the prose added from tables is by definition your own prose. Hildreth gazzard, you say above that you have vision problems. Can you see tables such as those in this source?

Alternatively, I'm wondering whether the problem with covering the references is partly caused either by the defects of the mobile app—all edits appear to be tagged "Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, Advanced mobile edit"—or with typing [ and ] so as to add the title of the reference? If the square brackets and other stuff is available, then perhaps the advice at User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing regarding using the desktop interface on a mobile phone would be helpful? I understand that you have to select the desktop interface again each session, it's not possible to change the default, but it's an option many users on smartphones and tablets don't appear to be aware of. More basically, I've run into editors who aren't aware that the citation templates are not required. You can use any format you wish for references (except MLA-style parentheticals, I believe). I personally prefer not to use the templates; they are crotchety things and their output is a bit strange. But even just the title and the name of the newspaper can be a lifesaver when trying to find an old newspaper reference; it's often there in the archive at a changed URL.

More fundamentally still, there's a bit of ABF in JTtheOG's It seems like they just care about being the first to create new articles, such as recent gold medallists, with no regard to quality or copyright concerns. I do think Hildreth gizzard could do a better job, and he does need to stop close paraphrasing. But even though sports people are not my cup of tea, covering gold medallists at major international events is pretty central to our mission of having a useful and up to date encyclopaedia, and contributes to our avoiding systemic bias. There's a link on his user page to a Guardian article that explains his motivation quite adequately, as it happens. His stubs are neither horribly short nor, in my view, terribly copyvio'd ... although yes, Hildreth gazzard, you shouldn't be getting places of birth wrong, especially on a BLP. I'd like to see you craft these articles better. For one thing, in continuing testament to the decay of WP:SOFIXIT, other than category work and someone running a bot to fill in bare references here and there (most of them; the bot apparently chokes on the Team England site), I don't see people stepping up to help shape up these BLPs. I consider myself a wikignome; we gnomes can do better. As for NPP: I'm sorry, I know it's a firehose, but the problem there partly stems from artificial scarcity of reviewers: only admins, who have the right bundled, and those willing to not only go through training to get the right but also download some tool can help out by reviewing articles. Those who do volunteer to work there and accept those requirements, please remember that nobody required you to do that, our readers do deserve to have articles on Olympic and Commonwealth Games athletes, and there's no guarantee someone else would write them. In my view, Hg's articles are neither a flood nor as bad as they're here implied to be. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Yngvadottir for taking the time to give a considered response. I won’t pretend to understand all the wiki-acronyms but I’ll study the bits that concern me, take it on board, and strive for improvement. I am quite sure I was previously unaware of the things you suggest. As for the disputed place of birth, in future if sources appear to be contradicting I shall just leave it blank. The sources seemed to be in agreement that he is studying at the University of Wolverhampton’s Walsall campus but the local newspaper website, as you indeed noted, said he was from Sutton Coldfield - hence my usage of it. But as I say, in future I shall not make such a judgment call. The fact you can drive from Walsall to Sutton Coldfield in less than 20 minutes is neither here nor there and should his career continue more sources will no doubt provide us with greater clarity. Hildreth gazzard (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

More disruptive editing from WP:SEVERE

User:Elijahandskip is trying to discredit damage totals on 2021-22 North American winter, and when called out for it, he edit warred over the warning, all of a sudden changed his stance on an RFC ([111]), and also is calling me a troll. There is an ongoing RFC he is trying to violate consensus against. 159.118.230.50 (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh cool. I was in the process of making my own AN/I for this reporter. Revert on my talk page saying that me deleting a message on my talk page was ANI worthy material. I think that is considered vandalism/troll behavior if I am not mistaken. Either way, I am requesting an interaction block be put in place between myself and this user over all of our interactions. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Twisting the truth, as usual. 159.118.230.50 (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, deleting a talk page message is not disruptive, but ignoring the message and continuing your behavior is. God. 159.118.230.50 (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

To any editors or admins who see this, I have publicly denied recognition to the reporter, who then readded a message onto my talk page after I did so. I did violate WP:3RR, but due to other editors also saying previously that NOAA is used over Aon, I considered it the #4 exception for vandalism. One editor ([112]) had almost all of their edits reverted today by myself or other users. I was doing reverts for damage totals without sources being linked or any communication whatsoever. There are no edit summaries, talk page discussions, or user talk page discussions, even with me trying all 3 options. The reporter began defending said user and called me out for vandalism/disruptive editing. As far as I understood, previous standards always exist during an ongoing RfC, at least until the RfC decides for it to be different. If I am wrong, an admin can correct me, but if I am right, then this whole situation stemmed from the reporter (or group defending/adding these edits) are in the wrong. No matter what, I am requesting either a user interaction block be put in place or a warning/block for both parties (3 if you count the editor which almost all edits reverted today) involved. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Well, first off, I'm at a loss as to what policy changing one's mind in a RfC violates. RfCs are, after all, to form a consensus, so if you're not participating in one with the intent of changing people's minds to your way of thinking, you're doing it wrong. Secondly, before the RfC is closed, there IS no formal consensus to be violated. If this is indeed the RfC in question [113] then claiming a consensus for a RfC open for just six days is absurd; stop that. Thirdly, come on, Elijahandskip. Are you seriously claiming that using a source you personally don't happen to like constitutes "obvious" vandalism permitting you to violate 3RR? Stop that. Ravenswing 04:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Prior RS with general consensus (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 375#Aon). Elijahandskip (talk) 04:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing any sort of formal consensus there. I'm seeing as many editors agreeing that a full-on RfC should be started over it -- preferably with the Tropical Cyclones WikiProject clued in -- as otherwise. Nor do I see a solid consensus that Aon is a bad source; more than some people feel that the NOAA is a better one. Nope, that's a damn shaky underpinning to blithely violate 3RR over. (Speaking of poor understandings that put an editor's competence in question.) Ravenswing 04:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand the 3RR rule, and in my mind, I was exempt from it in the 3RR violations. It appears that was wrong, so as I admitted earlier, I did violate 3RR. I know what I did wrong and as I have stated, I am done with the whole RfC and debate in general. In the morning, I hope to go back to my long work-in-progress draft or the Monkeypox outbreak task force, so I hope an admin can see that I am apologizing for my mistakes and understand them and I will not be interfering with anything related to that RfC again. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

(EC) Also, acknowledged on stopping the reverts, hence why I began WP:DFTT as a hope to just get out of the situation. I hoped to delete the warning on my talk page and sleep after two comments on the RfC. Next thing I know, I get my talk page reverted (see below) and have an AN/I started, so yeah, I want to start and have stopped. Their persistence is why I declared the DFTT, but apparently, that didn't work to get out of it, so if it is ok with everyone, I'm going to back away from this AN/I and RfC and all those pages being questioned. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I've notified the project as I saw no notice on their talk page. Slywriter (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Elijahandskip (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Question for User:159.118.230.50 or an admin: I certainly have interacted with this user in the past, but I am unaware of which other anonymous editor this person was. If this is truly someone I have not interacted with, then one of this was one of their first edits. Based on [114] that edit, it appears they are not User:97.79.222.14, who I interacted with today. I am assuming this is User:96.91.3.165, who I last interacted with on July 28th due to the knowledge of the RfC. Any way to know (or any confirmation from User:159.118.230.50) exactly which previous user I am interacting with? Elijahandskip (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

159.118.230.50 geolocates to Prescott, AZ. 97.79.222.14 geolocates to south central Texas. 96.91.3.165 geolocates to Charleston, SC. For what it's worth. Ravenswing 04:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Good to know. I guess I had never interacted with this user prior to today, so my DFTT was not called for. Strange how they knew about AN/I and an RfC that wasn't mentioned on talk pages really before today. My apologies to User:159.118.230.50 for making an assumption that appears to be untrue. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Based on everything, both myself and User:159.118.230.50 made mistakes. Whole mess, to a degree, got started because I made a wrongful assumption, but as it appears to be a wrongful assumption, I am going to assume good faith here and hope User:159.118.230.50 understand their mistake (revert on my talk page) and I hope they can assume good faith toward me that I will not revert them again nor edit in the RfC realm again. If we both can do that, then this AN/I can close for both of us. This will be my last message in the AN/I unless directly asked a question. Elijahandskip (talk) 05:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• 159 since you provided no diffs and I can't be bothered looking myself, can you explain how someone can 'edit war' over a warning? A warning should be given directly to a use via their talk page. A warning should not generally be given on an article talk page, and if you did so, I can understand why this cause concern. I personally would not encourage Elijahandskip to remove warning inappropriately placed on other pages themselves, however it's a bit of a wash. OTOH, if the warning was left on Elijahandskip's talk page then the warning was fine (assuming it was reasonable), then they are entitled to remove it per WP:OWNTALK. While this is not exempt from the bright line WP:3RR, any editor inappropriately trying to add back the warning is the one clearly in the wrong, indeed it's basically WP:HARASSMENT and so the editor should be sanctioned if they keep at it. Provided Elihajandskip did not break 3RR, when removing the warning the their edit warring can be ignored since they were entitled to remove the warning and no one should be forcing them to keep it. Preferably they should have linked to OWNTALK or similar when removing the warning at least the second time, but really any editor who is edit warring to add back a warning needs to take responsibility for their actions first and foremost. Nil Einne (talk) 06:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Nil E., the warning was posted on Elijahandskip’s talk page. In which E&S deleted as per WP:OWNTALK. Reviewing the 2021-22 North American winter history page, it appears to be more of an editing war that occurred more than a 3RR. But they are more or less the same thing.

  It appears that E&S has decided to leave things as they are, which I think is for the best. However, some input from IP159 would be appreciated. ( Augu  Maugu ♨ 06:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC))

  For clarity I was referring only to the edit warring of the warning which the IP alleged in their opening statement. There may be problems with edit warring elsewhere, but it's not something that the IP referred to in their opening statement. The edit warring over a warning is weird since as I said, it's not something that should ever happen. Not because the target of the warning should never do that but instead because there should never be an opportunity to edit war over a warning. If an editor is edit warring over a warning it suggests someone else has done something wrong which it's not clear the IP understands this. The IP's opening statement makes it sound to me like they think Elijahandskip did something majorly wrong by edit warring over the warning but I'd say not really, at most it's a minor thing. And if the edit warring was happening on Elijahandskip's talk page, their whoever was trying to add the warning back is the one majorly at fault for their harassment. Nil Einne (talk) 06:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, I understand your post more clearly now. Sorry for the misunderstanding.  Augu  Maugu ♨ 06:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  I was the same IP, and I admitted I got too heated (as did Elijahandskip), and I shouldn’t have edit warred over a warning but done something else. That being said, I want to draw attention to a frivolous comment by United States Man, who is now proposing to ban IPs from WP Weather, which is 15 times more ridiculous then this entire ANI was before. 12.153.230.177 (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  What's certainly ridiculous is construing "I wish we could just ban anon users from WP:Weather completely" on his talk page as being a genuine proposal. Do you really think that throwing out more overblown hysteria on this ANI filing is likely to do you any good? Ravenswing 14:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

User:159.118.230.50

In this edit, User:159.118.230.50 says, "Also, deleting a talk page message is not disruptive, but ignoring the message and continuing your behavior is.. The edit they are referring to is this revert on my talk page, where User:159.118.230.50 reverted my deletion of their message to me on my talk page. Based on that edit and their statement on the AN/I, I am having questions about their ability to edit Wikipedia (CIR). Elijahandskip (talk) 04:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Based on the geolocation in the section above, it appears this is the first interactions I have had with this user, so CIR does play a role with their comment as it appears to be from one of their very first edits on Wikipedia. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, E&S, not sure what you're asking for here? You appear to be having a content dispute with this editor because you aren't happy with the sources they're using. My interpretation of the edits they're referring to are the ones at the article in question, where the two of you appear to be edit-warring over cn/bsn tags and you've just left an edit summary reading (Adding better source after every Aon damage total due to it not being classified an official damage total and was made by an insurance company. Removal of this will be considered disruptive editing due to all the past conflicts with this specific user adding Aon damage totals after numerous WP Weather members said we do not use them. In short, removal of this and I will start WP:DFTT)? Sorry if I'm misinterpreting, having a hard time following this. On a side note, what does "I will start WP:DFTT" mean? Valereee (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

”I will start WP:DFTT is saying that I will begin to deny recognition to them, but as started above, it appears the whole thing was a huge misunderstanding and bad faith assumption on my end, due to all the IP editors I have interacted with on the same subject. Either way, this section was started for a Re-addition/revert on my talk page and the user saying reverting something on my talk page was not disruptive, which showed a lack of knowledge and denial of WP:OWNTALK, which, now that this whole situation started in their first few edits, CIR seemed to be something I considered. If you refer to my edit in the section above this, I apologized for my bad faith assumption and agreed to not edit in the realm of that RfC again or revert the user, in return, they understand that they cannot revert my edits on my talk page. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Just making a brief log for any future references to this AN/I (This should not alter anything mentioned here previously), but User:192.251.69.4 is also this same editor per this edit confirmation/behaviour. Noting they were previously blocked for vandalism (June 2022). Again, this should not change the outcome of this AN/I, however, with the amount of anonymous accounts being referenced/confirmed to be the same user, I think mentioning it here was a good idea. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

User:TylerDurden8823, mass changes, introducing factual errors

User:TylerDurden8823 mass changes the term "alcohol abuse" to "alcohol use disorder", even though they are different things. Wikipedia has two seperate articles for it. The article Alcohol use disorder says, "This article is about chronic alcohol abuse that results in significant health problems. For alcohol abuse in general, see Alcohol abuse." So basically, the user assumes everone who (ab)uses alcohol has a disorder which is factually wrong. Even if it was correct in certain cases, it would be an unsourced change. A previous talk page discussion was blanked (Special:Diff/1101915733#"Alcohol_abuse"_to_"alcohol_use_disorder") and an ongoing one ignored (Talk:Stevie_Ray_Vaughan#"Alcohol_abuse"_vs._alcohol_use_disorder). Even if you interpret both terms as synonyms (which wikipedia doesn't do, as again, we have two seperate articles), it would still be an unnecessary change as "alcohol abuse" is a perfectly fine term to use, and it would be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT -- FMSky (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not because "I don't like it". The discussion was over and my talk page had become very lengthy (people had asked me to archive my page for some time and it was becoming burdensome). There is no reason to regularly use the term alcohol abuse since it is stigmatizing when a perfectly reasonable less stigmatizing alternative exists. I'm not sure how you decided that Wikipedia doesn't interpret both as synonyms, the dictionary does, but regardless of whether you see it as an "unnecessary change," is merely your own opinion, but there's nothing wrong with it. Even if Wikipedia has two separate articles for it, that doesn't make it factually true. As below, you have acknowledged that it is a synonym and contradicted yourself. You were unable to provide a compelling case for why the term "alcohol abuse" is necessary over alcohol use disorder before too and remain unable to do so. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I regularly abuse alcohol, but do not have a disorder? Good point. I agree, these are not the same. We aren't all teetotalers.PrisonerB (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I never said that I am a teetotaler nor that everyone should be. I am sorry to hear that you regularly abuse alcohol though I'm not sure how that's relevant. Your opinion here about whether these terms are synonymous is irrelevant. High-quality sources say they are (see below). Wikipedia reflect what high-quality sources say. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that these are NOT synonyms, and @TylerDurden8823: should NOT be making such changes. Use disorder is not the same thing as abuse, and we should strive to reflect what the sources themselves say. If the source says something is "________ abuse" we should use that phrasing, and if the source says something is "________ use disorder" we should use that phrasing. They are different things, and should not be used interchangeably. --Jayron32 12:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Really? See the following quote from alcoholism: "Because there is disagreement on the definition of the word alcoholism, it is not a recognized diagnostic entity. Predominant diagnostic classifications are alcohol use disorder[2] (DSM-5)[4] or alcohol dependence (ICD-11); these are defined in their respective sources.[15]" The NIAAA also says you're wrong here with a direct quote: [115] "It encompasses the conditions that some people refer to as alcohol abuse, alcohol dependence, alcohol addiction, and the colloquial term, alcoholism." Merriam Webster agrees too, FYI [116] "NOTE: Alcohol use disorder ranges from mild to severe and is typically considered to encompass conditions also referred to as alcohol dependence, alcohol abuse, alcohol addiction, and alcoholism." TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• I warned him about this previously (probably 2 years ago) and was basically given the impression I needed to piss off, I just hadn't gotten around to following up. But this is a very long time problem. It would take a lot of time to go through and fix everything he has done. But they aren't the same, and he has been extraordinarily disruptive with it, to the point it will take someone going through his edits to fix it. I can't see just letting this slide. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, because your warning and conduct were inappropriate and you didn't interact well and come across as disrespectful. I have not been disruptive about it and you seem to misunderstand the differences here. Please see the quotations from very strong sources below. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

just looked it up, yikes: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TylerDurden8823&diff=1018259691&oldid=1018215721 --this is a bigger problem than i'd originally thought --FMSky (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and your objections are all inappropriate. They are appropriate substitutions. It is the name for the disorder. As I have discussed in several places, it is backed up by numerous sources. I think you may need a hobby rather than wikistalking me. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes great thats a name for the disorder. What does this have to do with people having abused alcohol on occasion? --FMSky (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

There are clearly defined criteria for what constitutes alcohol use disorder. A person can qualify even if it's periodic. So, you're admitting then that it's a name for the disorder and thus a synonym. Great, that's progress. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

A name (not even the name, that would be "alcoholism") for the disorder yes, synonym to alcohol/substance abuse obviously not. --FMSky (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Are you really going to try and debate what constitutes a synonym with a nonsensical semantics argument? Please see the dictionary's definition of a synonym here [117]. I do not see why you are clinging so desperately to unnecessary stigmatizing language when you have acknowledged on more than one occasion that alcohol use disorder is a synonym, even in this thread. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

not a synonym. the end --FMSky (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself and flying in the face of the dictionary and other strong sources, FYI. This now just seems like stubborn refusal because you don't like it. Seems hypocritical to me to cast aspersions of WP:IDONTLIKEIT when this is the display I'm seeing. How about you address the actual sources I have provided? You have now acknowledged that they are synonyms twice [118] [119] and then backpedaled [120] and contradicted yourself [121] both times.(talk) 21:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Don't forget to focus on content. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I haven't, but it doesn't prevent me from pointing out contradictions and a pattern of behavior directly aimed at me since they decided to open this can of worms back up and aren't leaving me alone.(talk) 22:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Didn't someone called 'TylerBurden' just get ARBCOM banned? Is TylerDurden a second cousin or something? 🤔  Tewdar  21:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I have no clue. Unrelated. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

My apologies then, just a coincidence.  Tewdar  21:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to make it clear that there's no connection there, Tyler Durden is a character from the novel (and movie) Fight Club. Tyler Burden is just a play on the name Durden, but both are (presumably) named after that character, one just decided to make a play on words with it. There are at least 6 editors that contain TylerDurden or Tyler Durden at the beginning of the name (which is honestly way fewer than I expected), but it's a popular character in certain circles so it's very much just a coincidence that two different editors happen to have a similar name around that theme. - Aoidh (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• In light of Tyler's comment about being a physician who has treated many people with this disorder, as well as his objection to the 'stigmatizing' nature of the term 'alcohol abuse', I suspect we might be in WP:RGW territory. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Nonsense and I don't appreciate the focus on character. Please focus on the content. As I have said, I have yet to hear a compelling argument for the stigmatizing term nor seen it disproved that alcohol use disorder is a synonym. The facts remain what they are. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Let me ask you this way: is it possible for a person without an alcohol use disorder to abuse alcohol? Dumuzid (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I refer you back to the definitions provided. But yes, if it has been under a year since alcohol use disorder refers to a slightly more longstanding pattern of this kind of alcohol consumption. Nevertheless, based on how we use this term on Wikipedia and widely in other sources, they are largely considered synonymous (see the many sources I have provided). If someone abused alcohol and then stopped for a few months and never did it again, I suppose that would be the exception to the rule. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that one is a disorder and the other an activity; I understand your argument here, but there is a sense in which they are synonymous (understanding "abuse" as a habit or ongoing activity) and one in which they are not (understanding "abuse" as an independent incident). By my lights, it is worth preserving that distinction for encyclopedic purposes. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

No, the disorder encompasses that. I still have yet to see you address the sources provided. Please do. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

So, if I were to say "we have to stop alcohol abuse at fraternity parties," you would understand that I was making a mental health plea? Dumuzid (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

What is your point? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

My point is that the phrase "alcohol abuse" can indeed be used as a substitute for "alcohol use disorder," but it can also be used to refer to discrete activities. In my "fraternity" example above, I would understand the phrase to refer to overconsumption at said parties without reference to the mental state of those involved. Dumuzid (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Please read the comments above carefully. I didn't say that they can't though others have and that's the point. Even though I would understand what you're saying in the sentence above, it would be more correct to say binge drinking or high-risk alcohol use. Again, this really seems like splitting hairs. Out of the articles I edited, I have a feeling that examples that your specific example would apply to here, if any, would likely be in a very small minority at best. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Taking a quick gander, the only recent example I find is Stevie Ray Vaughn's father, and while I certainly understand your point, for me, anyway, I would slightly prefer the "abuse" language. It strikes me as something closer to an objective, observable fact. "Alcohol use disorder" strikes me as more like a diagnosis from afar, even if it is one that makes a great deal of sense. In everyday life and common parlance, I think you are right, but on Wikipedia where I believe in epistemic humility, it strikes me as just a bit too far. It's like some (admittedly obvious) WP:OR. I'll be the first to say that medicine is not my forte, but I think this is an instance where we need to hew closely to the sources. Reasonable minds may differ, of course. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• This is a common misunderstanding I see, even sometimes among experienced editors, where someone thinks that some sources equating two things in the general case mean that we can do so in each specific case. This may be true for terms that are strictly synonymous. Like if RS agree that a wrench and a spanner are the same thing, and one source says "The Queen always carries a spanner", it might be acceptable to state that the Queen always carries a wrench. But for academic terms like these, not defined the same way by everyone, with meanings that have evolved over time, that doesn't work. If you're going to say someone has alcohol use disorder, you need a citation saying that they, specifically, do. Anything less is WP:SYNTH. If Tyler can't see that, then I'm inclined to support a TBAN. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  I disagree that you have to have the source use that exact terminology when that is the name for the disorder. Please address the specific sources specifically saying that these are direct synonyms and the massive contradiction that we use the term "use disorder" for every other substance other than alcohol (despite many sources in the laypress continuing to use archaic stigmatizing terms-it's a mixed world out there and addiction medicine remains very misunderstood). We have used plenty of sources that probably say "opioid abuse" or abused opioids yet say they have an opioid use disorder. Your internal logic here has some major holes in it. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  We have used plenty of sources that probably say "opioid abuse" or abused opioids yet say they have an opioid use disorder. That's not acceptable either. Neither is saying that someone has major depressive disorder based on sources saying they're depressed, antisocial personality disorder based on sources saying they're a sociopath, etc. If you don't understand that, I worry that a TBAN from alcohol might not go far enough. And it's not my "internal logic". It's the logic of this community in creating SYNTH. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I 100% disagree with your premise and it falls afoul of the reductio ad absurdum logical fallacy. I'll tell you what though-I think I've had enough of the malignant policies and people on Wikipedia. I think I'll just stop editing altogether. You may do what you wish. You'll continue to lose veteran editors if you keep this up. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Tamzin, to be honest I would go a step further to say that Wikipedia's psychology articles have an especially hard time distinguishing psychopathy/sociopathy from antisocial personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder. I agree it's not acceptable, and this is only made harder by the overlap between criminal psychology and clinical psychology and their real-world disagreements that are in my experience difficult to represent with due weight in-article. Darcyisverycute (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Not commenting on this discussion but clerically noting that I have fixed the links in the original message (they were broken raw links as the last parenthesis was being treated as part of the link) and made them wikilinks to the intended destinations. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• I will point out that academically speaking the words are not synonymous. According to [122], Alcohol misuse is a broad term that incorporates a spectrum of severity, ranging from hazardous use that exceeds guideline limits to misuse severe enough to meet criteria for an alcohol use disorder (AUD) ie. they are not synonymous, and do not even overlap as far as defitions go since alcohol abuse/misuse refers to subclinical AUD. In the interest of a less biased term, I would suggest "alcohol misuse" and "alcohol abuse" are synonyms, and I think the first is less stigmatising (this is just my opinion though - I don't know what other people think). AFIAK, the term "alcohol abuse" has fallen out in academia in preference for "alcohol misuse", and I believe it is probably to try and dodge the stigma, although I haven't seen any evidence it's actually achieved this. Thanks Darcyisverycute (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• I have not done an exhaustive check, just a dozen or so recent edits from TylerDurden8823's recent contributions. I do not see a mass of inappropriate changes. Most of the changes I looked at appeared reasonable, if not necessarily necessary, and were associated with a large number of minor copy edit improvements during the same edits. This does not tick the boxes of "mass edits" for me, considering that there were other edits interspersed. Also, most of the reversions also removed all the improvements as collateral damage. I would say the reversions I looked at did more harm than good. I do not know how many of the other people commenting here have inspected the actual changes under dispute, or how many they have checked, or how many of the cases of changing alcohol abuse or alcoholism to alcohol use disorder were actually inappropriate, taking into consideration that I also think that there is a difference between alcohol abuse as an activity and alcohol use disorder as a medical condition and alcoholism as a poorly defined non-medical term. To those of you who have not personally checked, I suggest that you do so. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Topic ban proposals

I'm proposing a topic ban from all topics regarding alcohol, broadly construed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support As proposer. This is a long time problem that won't get fixed any other way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

That's way overkill and not appropriate. The edits I have made are completely appropriate and have not introduced factual errors. I wholly disagree with your assessment and sense a clear ax to grind. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

That you can't understand the problem is why a topic ban is necessary. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• • Adding support for psychiatric disorders due to new evidence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support for obvious reason. Or just never making that edit again, but that would be hard to monitor --FMSky (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

For anyone reviewing this, I again refer you to the aforementioned sources showing that Dennis, Prisoner, and FMSky are wrong. Here are just a few more showing that they are, in fact, synonyms by definition: [123], [124], [125] (suggesting these terms can be used interchangeably from a very strong source, NIDA), [126], [127] (analogous to how we use opioid use disorder, not "opioid abuse"-we literally do this for basically every other substance use disorder and appropriately so).

While I haven't thoroughly analyzed all of those sources, I wouldn't put too much stock in the Dictionary.com definition. While it says that the disorder is 'characterized by alcohol abuse or or dependence', I do not interpret that to mean that all forms of alcohol abuse are necessarily connected to the disorder. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

That's up to you but that's the weakest of the sources provided. Merriam Webster is a much stronger source and says the same as do sources like the NIAAA. Your argument sounds like a pedantic one that misses the intention behind the definition you're quoting. Cleveland Clinic disagrees with you [128] as does UPenn [129]. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm making an honest effort to help sort out this dispute, and it's requiring a little bit of extra effort to fully understand what these terms mean and whether they can be used interchangeably. You may deal with these issues on a regular basis, but the rest of us don't. If you could actually answer Dumuzid's question, that would help all of us to better understand your point of view. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Based on how you originally entered the discussion, I did not get that impression since it felt like you immediately started commenting on character. If that's the impression you want others to have, then perhaps consider a different approach next time. I did answer Dumuzid's question. If you could read the sources I have provided (most of them are not that long) before commenting further and seeing that there are numerous examples that are directly saying that they're synonymous, that would be great. That would be more helpful to truly trying to sort out the issue. Thanks. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I will peruse the sources when I return to Wikipedia later this evening. Or perhaps not. Talking down to me is not the best way to get me to do extra reading, and I think you'll find most other people here are similarly unimpressed. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Talking down to you? I think you need to re-read your initial comment and really decide who spoke down to whom here. I just don't buy this feigned I just wanted to help innocent comment after opening with a comment on me. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from psychiatric disorders. The discussion above does not leave me with faith that Tyler is able to edit in line with out policies and guidelines in this topic area. I actually don't know if a topic ban from alcohol in particular is necessary, if this topic ban is enacted; color me neutral. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support TBAN on alcohol, broadly construed - Conflating alcohol abuse with alcohol use disorder is problematic WP:SYNTH. It's worsened by the fact that such conflation could lead to something like a BLP being described as having a mental disorder (alcohol use disorder) when the really don't have it. It also appears as though Tyler is not willing to acknowledge he is wrong or even agree to stop doing this, which is WP:IDHT. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 23:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on alcohol, broadly construed We do not need tenacious axe grinders misbehaving for years in a certain topic area. If the disruption spreads elsewhere, I will support a sitewide block. Cullen328 (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support TBAN on alcohol and drug use issues, broadly construed. I would expand the TBAN beyond the OP. Tyler hasn't limited this to alcohol, this is representative, not exhaustive, and if we narrow this TBAN to alcohol, it will continue for other issues as well. As a side note, they have taken their ball and gone home, though I think the TBAN discussion should continue since they could return at any time. --Jayron32 01:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on alcohol, broadly construed - I have no opinion about a topic ban on the broader drug issue or psychiatric disorders (though the above comments from Durden are not reassuring that there won't be an AN/I discussion later about these things in a broader sense) but what is well demonstrated is that there is an ongoing issue with alcohol that needs to be addressed, and a topic ban is the most narrow solution which will solve that without having to resort to flat out blocks or bans. - Aoidh (talk) 01:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from psychiatric disorders even if it will be moot as long as Tyler stays retired, which is certainly his prerogative. It's a shame to see a veteran editor leave on such terms, but nobody forced him to insist that everyone else was wrong. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Well ... I'm not supporting because there's plenty of pile on without me, but if I had a dollar for everyone at ANI who slaps "RETIRED" on his or her user page in the wake of a filing not going their way (most of whom slink back after a few days or weeks), I could go to the corner pub and get thoroughly hammered. Ravenswing 14:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support because of the continuing problems.PrisonerB (talk) 10:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from medicals as a whole. There is clear evidence of disruption more than just alcohol. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  I feel like this whole discussion is overkill. We're dealing with a situation in which terms have multiple meanings; also, we're frequently dealing with lower-quality sources (e.g., journalists who toss in whichever term they're familiar with, or whichever term a family member used, without verifying that this is, in fact, the completely and precisely correct term). And since some editors believe that term X means whatever Miss Snodgrass told them, and some editors believe, as an article of faith, that we should blindly follow the sources right off a cliff even if we know the source is wrong (or at least not so precise that we should rely on it for fine distinctions between closely related, overlapping, and sometimes contested terminology), and yet other editors believe that term Y is highly preferable because some other sources say to normally prefer Y over X, we are... going to topic ban someone who turned several highly viewed medical articles, including one on a serious and common psychiatric condition, into Wikipedia:Good articles?

  This might not be a proportionate response to a reasonable difference of opinion.

  In case folks haven't reviewed the edits in question, let me step you through two:

  The disputed change in MicroRNA is about whether we should say "Alcoholism" to "Alcohol use disorder". The cited source mentions:

  • "alcoholism" four times (not counting two mentions of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; counting one mention of specially bred animals for lab testing)
  • "chronic alcohol abuse" five times
  • "long-term alcohol abuse" once
  • "alcohol abuse" once (again, not counting NIAAA's name)

  If the goal were to stick strictly to the sources, then chronic alcohol abuse is the winner. That's a red link. What's the nearest term? Well, reasonable people could disagree, but alcohol use disorder sounds like a plausible option to me. AIUI everyone who "abuses" "alcohol" "chronically" actually does have AUD.

  This disputed change took a sentence that's probably got a Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing problem, and changed the plain-text words "teen drug and alcohol abuse" to a link to the nearest relevant article, "teen substance use disorder". Is this perfect? Maybe not. Is the cited source (in which the author says things like "I guess what they say is true: Everything is bigger in Texas, including their ignorance on the effects of such laws") perfect? Definitely not. Is there a material gap between "teen drug and alcohol abuse" and "teen substance use disorder"? Reasonable people could disagree, but the statement is going to be factually true (i.e., in the real world) regardless of whether you link to Substance abuse or Substance use disorder, and the reader's IMO best served by having a link to one of those pages, instead of having no links, which is what the reversion created. (Also, Wikipedia is best if we could please avoid copyright problems, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing, and reverting back to the prior too-close-for-comfort version is Not Actually Helping on that score. I'm going to assume here that the reverter didn't bother to look at the source, because the alternative is worse [i.e., that the reverter either doesn't understand our copyvio standards or doesn't mind violating them].)

  I think this dispute might have reached a productive resolution if the editors involved had tried contacting editors who know something about these subjects (e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine) before trying to process this as an alleged rule-breaking incident. I wonder whether that might still be possible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  This is a reasonable suggestion. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• agree as well w/ WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Me too. I'm also interested in precisely what the scale of this mass editing is. The editor could have made three edits or three thousand from the evidence provided. I'm also very interested if there has a detailed discussion of the distinction between the terms... and how much the editor was involved in this discussion. I'm aware that content discussion can take a long time, and I'm not sure this is the correct forum, but it does rather feel like people have come to a conclusion here without much reference discussion of wht is right and wrong. It also strikes me that the terms "use" and "abuse" are very likely to be used within the literature for "political" purposes, so it's unlikely to be an open and shut case. Darcyiscute's source above seems like a good source on this [130], it has a summary of the terms in Table1... which does make things a little open and shut, but I wonder if this is simplification or editorializing on the part of the author. Talpedia (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

That is a good point about to what extent that source editorializes the terms. So I've had a closer look at the 2016 review, which says which says: This table is adapted with permission from [...] and uses terminology from the DSM-IV for alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence, and from the DSM5 for [alcohol use disorder]. The source table was abbreviated and updated to reflect the DSM-5 terminology for this report in collaboration with Dr. Jonas. If this is a faithfully reproduced table, then I have no reason to believe the review editorialized the definitions. The [...] is referring to [131], which is a standards recommendation by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, so for at least the US I believe this is a secondary source faithfully reproducing these 2013 standards and representing academic consensus on definitions, which in turn were largely based on the DSM-5 and ICD-10 at the time.

They mention a more detailed report of their methods is described at [132], which says: The operational definition of drinking limit guidelines varied across studies. Studies typically defined limits by a weekly total of standard drinks (eg, <20). (More detail on page 33).

There are a few nontrivial questions which I think would be best established at RfC (I do not think ANI is the right venue for this):

1. What term should articles use for referring to "consuming excessive alcohol"? Can editors use the USPSTF guidelines to determine if alcohol consumption is excessive?

2. (using placeholder "alcohol misuse") Does not following a USPSTF guideline constitute alcohol misuse? Is it original research for us to say x person has alcohol misuse based on this logic if it's not stated in a reliable source?

3. Is it libelous to claim on a BLP article that a person has "alcohol misuse" if this is not directly stated by reliable sources? (I haven't looked at all the editors' changes, but I think this is relevant)

Thanks Darcyisverycute (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

In a way quoting the DSM makes me *less* sure about the terminology - since the DSM will be prescriptive rather than descriptive of how researchers talk... but I agree let's chase this up somewhere else if we are going to dig into it.

On 2. I almost feel as if alcohol misuse has a distinct meaning with lower standards of evidence in biographies. If a lot of newspapers talk about alcohol misuse then perhaps we should use the "lay" meaning and not try to be specific. To be clearer we would need to have access to someone's medical records!

On 3. I suspect that if someone is shown to be repeatedly drinking to excess with negative results in reliable sources it would be reasonable to describe them as "misusing alcohol". On the other hand saying that someone has "alcohol use disorder" may well be libelous (depending on context) because it's more specific and it sort of implies that a doctor has agreed to this (and so, presumably, this information is more reliable). Talpedia (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I am tempted to add to this conversation, but I think we need to have the conversation elsewhere. I suspect that we need a conversation on stigmatizing language in general plus a separate one for alcohol specifically. Additionally, some of the disputed articles might need individual discussions.

Talpedia, I find 95 instances of FMSKy reverting TylerDurden's edits, so presumably, if we assume that 100% of those involved these terms, that means the "mass edits" is on the order of 100 edits. (They aren't all about alcohol; I don't see those terms in either this or this, both in the same article [the only one I checked], and the word alcohol doesn't appear on the page. But, still, as a rough approximation, it's probably closer to 100 than to 10 or to 1,000.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban per WhatamIdoing. Tyler has helped get articles to Good Article status. The changes Tyler has been making seem reasonable and the problem seems to surround nuanced disagreements between terminology e.g., alcoholism vs. alcohol use disorder, misuse vs. abuse. Such disagreements exist in the academic literature, professional bodies and treatment/recovery groups/organisations. This is a pure content dispute and this specific content dispute has arisen before on Wikipedia over the years. It is inappropriate to topic ban a user to settle a content dispute when there is no convincing behavioural issues.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  Is there an official process for suspending or otherwise giving up on this discussion, at least until the content question can be discussed at other/suitable pages? I'm sure that nobody here wants to issue a topic ban when there's any significant chance that subsequent RFCs would prove the disputed edits correct, and it would be preferable to have this editor free to join in the content discussions (if he's willing, which is uncertain). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Why would that be needed? We currently have over 10 people in favor of a topic ban and only one against. Case seems pretty clear to me --FMSky (talk) 05:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Btw here again the source that the terms are not synonyms https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4837467/ --FMSky (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Ο Ροζ Πάνθηρας, single-purpose account on a revert spree

• Ο Ροζ Πάνθηρας (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, the single-purpose account account Ο Ροζ Πάνθηρας (talk · contribs), which began editing one week ago, began making non-content edits to stable articles and initiating discussions on a couple others seeking input for some changes. The user has changed course in past hours. After naming me "officially ignored", the user made multiple reverts at Doiran Lake, Geography of North Macedonia, and Western Macedonia. The latter article is not one which this user had edited previously, so it seems the user may be beginning to target my edits in general. Also regarding that edit, I was simply completing a reversion of the page to a stable version. In edit summaries, the user has told me twice to "find another hobby". I have warned the user twice on the user's talk page ([133] [134]), but was reverted each time. The user then copy-pasted the exact wording of my warnings to my own talkpage.

WP:MOSMAC is the relevant policy in this area. The user is seeking to change stable articles to include the "North Macedonian" adjectival form. In some instances the user sought input on talkpages, while in others the user just made the edits. On Geography of North Macedonia, for instance, I accepted most of the changes in good faith but applied a neutral wording adjustment. Now, it seems the user has devolved into revert warring, with which I won't engage.

Revert diffs:

• Doiran Lake
• Doiran Lake
• Western Macedonia
• Geography of North Macedonia
• Geography of North Macedonia

Thanks. --Local hero ^talk 22:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Local hero If someone looks at the history of your edits will notice that you always target all users who implement WP:MOSMAC. Here you try to pretend that you protect stable versions of wikipedia but you don't say the truth which is written on the talk pages Talk:Demographics_of_North_Macedonia and Talk:Doiran_Lake. Every sentence you write is against the decisions of this community, your only goal is to avoid using North Macedonian. If you look at all my edits, they don't add North Macedonian, they improve the text that nobody tried to improve. You are the one who reverted only those edits that add North Macedonian although I have already explained you the reason in Talk:Doiran_Lake. Everybody can read the truth there. You explicitly stated that you try to avoid using North Macedonian, which is against the decisions of our community. It's clear that the decisions of our community are not implemented after 3 years because of some people like you who block any change that adds the new name of the country. If this is the goal of wikipedia, then I want to know that by the other users here. Your personal goal is very clear to everyone.

WP:MOSMAC clearly states:

However, in line with the reliable sources, adjectives may still be used when referring to such institutions in generic terms (e.g. the Greek and North Macedonian prime ministers), especially where the possessive form would be grammatically cumbersome or unnatural. While reliable sources continue to use both plain "Macedonian" and "North Macedonian" in such contexts, the majority opinion in the RfC favored the fuller form, "North Macedonian".

Moreover, WP:MOSMAC says: In the absence of a clearer consensus on which of the two to prefer, it is recommended to use the longer form' where ambiguity might be an issue (especially on first introducing the topic).

I showed you those sentences multiple times under Talk:Doiran_Lake, and you always run out of arguments and you re-wrote the sentence in any possible way with one goal, TO AVOID NORTH MACEDONIAN, and you explicitly admitted, although WP:MOSMAC says we should use the full from North Macedonian in cases of ambiguity. WP:MOSMAC doesn't say that we should rewrite the sentence in any possible way to avoid using North Macedonian which is your own interpretation.

Local hero everybody here knows the truth. Jingiby is another victim of your special way of acting about the same issue Talk:Geography_of_North_Macedonia.

Do you feel like the owner of those pages? You always talk about consensus, but that's why we have WP:MOSMAC, and you constantly ignore it. Ο Ροζ Πάνθηρας

@Ο Ροζ Πάνθηρας: As an aside, your signature doesn't link to your user page, talk page or contributions. For the sake of easy communication, could I politely ask you to add such a link to your custom signature? Zudo ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

They were informed but just deleted the statement without changing the signature. They’ve been informed again on their talk page by a third user. So hopefully they change it. Canterbury Tail talk 11:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Zudo, Canterbury Tail I am really sorry for that. I am new here and didn't understand your message. Hopefully, my signature is correct now. Ο Ροζ Πάνθηρας(^t_a^l_k)

The editor Ο Ροζ Πάνθηρας (talk · contribs) has already been alerted to the ARBEE sanctions but has removed the notice. I hope that we don't see an outbreak of edit warring at Geography of North Macedonia. It raises concerns when a brand new editor starts modifying terms about nationality that have been carefully negotiated in the past. Since the editor already knows about WP:MOSMAC I hope they are willing to say if they have had a previous Wikipedia account. EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes I had one in the Greek wikipedia a few years ago, but I am active the last five years without an account in the english wikipedia. Indeed I have carefully studied WP:MOSMAC, and it's really sad that is completely ignored from editors.

EdJohnston Please check all my edits and you will see that they are in line with WP:MOSMAC. The edit war with Local hero was caused because s/he explicitly admitted that s/he doesn't want to implement the decisions of WP:MOSMAC as you can confirm https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doiran_Lake&diff=1102194512&oldid=1102192699.

For example, in the case of Doiran Lake, the sentence uses Macedonian to refer to a side of the lake, but every side of the lake is Macedonian, because the lake lies in Macedonia (region), and the term Macedonian is used with a different meaning (than that of North Macedonian) in two other places of the same page. So I tried to explain to Local hero in any possible way that the sentence is completely ambiguous, and the adjective North Macedonian is suitable to resolve the ambiguity according to WP:MOSMAC that clearly handles this case with the following:

In all other contexts, both "North Macedonian" and "Macedonian" may be used on Wikipedia in reference to the country (e.g. a North Macedonian company, or the Macedonian economy). In the absence of a clearer consensus on which of the two to prefer, it is recommended to use the longer form where ambiguity might be an issue (especially on first introducing the topic).

The answer of Local hero was that s/he added "Macedonian (western)" to solve the ambiguity, since he tried to avoid using "North Macedonian" which is the decision reported in WP:MOSMAC.

Everything is very clear here. Local hero explicitly states that s/he doesn't care about the decisions of this community and ignores WP:MOSMAC. How do we handle such a behaviour? If we need the permission of Local hero for every single change on a page that is clearly handled my WP:MOSMAC, my question is why do we have WP:MOSMAC? Ο Ροζ Πάνθηρας(^t_a^l_k)

Do you equally oppose edits that remove all mentions "Macedonian" for no good reason, such as this one? You claim to be such a staunch defender of MOSMAC so I presume you would. Strange that this single-purpose account began editing around the same time as you and exclusively focuses on erasing "Macedonian" where it's perfectly fine or implementing "North Macedonian" where it isn't needed. --Local hero ^talk 16:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes I will equally treat any page that violates WP:MOSMAC. All my edits confirm that and all the discussions between the two of us are supported by arguments. How does the edit you are worried about violates WP:MOSMAC? I don't see North Macedonian used anywhere on this page, and I see real improvements made by the user. It would be great if you can show me at least one edit of yourself the last three years that adds "North Macedonian" in any wikipedia page to implement WP:MOSMAC. It would be great to know, in your opinion, in which cases "North Macedonian" should be clearly added based on WP:MOSMAC. I want to have some concrete examples. Please. Ο Ροζ Πάνθηρας(^t_a^l_k) — Preceding undated comment added 20:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Roads4117 copy-and-paste merging long-standing articles into road articles

User:Roads4117 has had a track record of (poorly) performing copy-and-paste merges of long-standing articles into road articles without discussion and ignoring WP:COPYWITHIN.[135][136][137] This user has made no attempt to communicate with other users despite warnings left on their talk page and a previous ANI discussion and continues to cause disruption on articles. While WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU may apply in this case, their refusal (or inability) to communicate is creating a mess and something needs to be done about it. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 07:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Ritchie333:, who started the last thread on this user. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 08:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I've since clashed with Roads4117 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A2212 road so I'd probably consider myself WP:INVOLVED now and hence another admin will need to make the judgement call. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I admit I have made a mess on the A2216 page. However, I propose to revert these changes. User:Roads4117 06:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted my changes. User:Roads4117 06:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Date-changing vandal from Brazil

Someone in Brazil persistently vandalizes music articles by changing to wrong dates. Here's the latest example. The problem is larger than putting a few articles into protection; I'm looking for any ideas regarding how to prevent this person's disruption. Very wide IP6 range. A list of involved IPs is below. Binksternet (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Involved IPs

• 2804:D4B:2236:180B:C5BC:A6F0:A368:F1DC (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2804:D49:22DF:B00:AD0F:C328:BD42:A431 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2804:D49:22AC:500:19FD:E208:1A14:B80E (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2804:D49:22BA:D600:9011:31C:DE03:141A (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2804:D49:22F3:C500:CC49:1C67:DF50:E75D (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2804:D49:22F3:C500:C14D:30:5822:53A0 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 187.41.93.118 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 187.41.84.149 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 187.41.95.72 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 187.41.92.141 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 187.41.84.108 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Binksternet, do you think it's contained to 2804:* and 187.* and how often do they vandalize daily or monthly..? -- GreenC 04:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The IP4 range Special:Contributions/187.41.80.0/20 made 17 edits in the last 2.5 years, every one of which is vandalism. The edits are clustered a few at a time. Regarding the IP6 range, I don't really know how to classify it. The edits are very widely spaced out, unless I'm missing some of them. Binksternet (talk) 05:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Does Special:Contributions/2804:D49:2200:0:0:0:0:0/40 look good? -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, blocking that IP range would be ideal. Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

O.K. Binksternet. This meddling with dates and numbers has been happening on and off since May 2020. There seems very little collateral damage so I’ve blocked for one year. The CIDR for this ISP is very wide so it’s possible they'll pop up somewhere else, we'll have to see. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Zarvonov

Is edit-warring to insert "alleged" [138] [139] [140] concerning Lee Harvey Oswald and is now melting down on their talkpage. [141] Could someone do the honors? Acroterion (talk) 01:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Assuming this is an isolated outburst from what appears to be an otherwise productive contributor, this seems like a golden opportunity to apply one of those nifty new page blocks We can start with Lee Harvey Oswald (indefinite), but not the corresponding Talk, and see how it goes. EEng 01:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

A block from the page, but not the talkpage. A trial basis if you will. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I will refrain from acting, having incurred their ire by disputing their edits. Acroterion (talk) 01:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• I've got to say, this seems incredibly lenient to me. They have contributed gems like 'dumb ass cunt', 'stupid baatard', and multiple 'fuck you's, in edit summaries and in talk page posts - if I see one more outburst like that, I will be replacing Cullen328's p-block with an indef sitewide block. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  If you look at Z's contribution history, he edits only on cycling, apparently, but for some random reason wandered recently into the Oswald article, which seems to have sent him round the bend. If shooing him away from there ends the trouble and gets him back to his previously useful (I'm assuming -- no indication of trouble on his talk page) pursuits, then we keep an editor instead of losing one. I'm sure Acroterion's been called a @#$@% *&#@<>^ !@^$#@*$ many times before, so no harm done. EEng 11:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  I've been called much worse, and was a little surprised by the outburst, given their unexceptionable editing up to that point. It certainly didn't ruin my evening. After 15 years it would take much more than a cranky editor to bother me. Acroterion (talk) 12:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'm sure experienced Acro can take it, but they shouldn't have to. I hope this was a one-off, and that Zarnovov returns to uneventful editing about cycling. They need to be clear that outbursts like that are not tolerated, and this one needs to be their last. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed, it is rather surprising how it (the topics) went from cycling pages, to Oswald. Had Oswald tried to escape on a bicycle? then we'd have a connection there. GoodDay (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Girth Summit, Hello I am an uninvolved editor I have been following Zarvonov's work in the cycling world and it has been good unfortunately I have just seen he has edited User talk:Skyring with [142]. I thought I should report it to you. Regards Paulpat99 (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  That goes in the meltdown hall of fame. EEng 00:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  • • I just noticed that. I take exception at being labelled American when I am obviously - as per my user page - not. How rude! --Pete (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

      As an American, I take exception to you taking exception to being labeled American. A clearcut case of American exceptionalism. EEng 06:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Get him to throw the f-bombs at me, next time. I'll take the body blows for ya. GoodDay (talk) 12:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I pageblocked Zarnovov from Lee Harvey Oswald and then got distracted by real life and forgot to notify the editor. I thank Girth Summit for doing so for me. Cullen328 (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

FYI, they've now posted on the talk page, and in this post included the following statement: Is the LA TIMES incorrect also, or is the institutionalized bias and ignorance of some amateur Wikipedia editors better than the LA TIMES? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Well that rude comment left on @Skyring:'s talkpage, is going too far. That's at least two editors now, who've been subject to OTT language. I reckon the Zarvonov requires a bit of a forced wiki-break. GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Due to the vile and contemptible personal attacks, I have indefinitely blocked Zarnovov sitewide, and revoked talk page access. Cullen328 (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Reckon he got caught socking. Sorta made it easy for himself to get caught. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

97.88.151.165 making personal attacks and vandalizing

97.88.151.165 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

[97.88.151.165] This user left personal attacks against me in a talk page. In addition, this user uses excessive manual reverts in order to disrupt editing. [143] — Preceding unsigned comment added by NetHelper (talk • contribs) 07:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

As the instructions say: "Include diffs demonstrating the problem". Meters (talk) 07:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for going through the proper channels on this NetHelper, but I think you forgot to leave a notice on that user's talk page! Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@NetHelper: Please read Wikipedia:Simplest_diff_guide. The link you have now added is just a link to the talk page, not diffs to specific edits. Apparently some posts have been deleted and I'm not going to dig through the page history to find what's missing. All I see on the talk page now is that the IP called some of your edits vandalism. Yes, that's a personal attack (if the edits were not vandalism, and I have not checked to see if that is the case), but it's nowhere near enough to warrant a trip to ANI, particularly when you have not even warned the IP. As for "excessive manual reverts in order to disrupt editing", again, show us the diffs for the edits you think warrant a trip to ANI without any warnings. Meters (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Legal threat by KurmiKing42

KurmiKing42 (talk · contribs), on his talk page said I should be "ready to face the Indian High Court" KurmiKing42 is removing sourced content from Mahto. Adakiko (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a legal threat, indeed. GoodDay (talk) 07:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

It looks like there's a sock farm active on Kurmali language and Mahto involving Mahato King and Donunder11. I'm pretty sure those are the same person. There's more, too, if you look at Hindi Wikipedia and skim over the articles. Several more accounts are going on blanking sprees in their articles and have been blocked for harassment over there. It looks like a bit of a rabbit hole if anyone is courageous enough to dig deeper (and hopefully can read Hindi – I can't). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Unacceptable threats by Phwriter20

Phwriter20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I understand their frustration, but these threats, empty as they are, are unacceptable. --Muhandes (talk) 08:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:Phwriter20#Indefinite_block. El_C 08:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from user:CABF45

Reported user is actively disrupting the Ice cream article trying to push Chinese contribution to the history of that food. They refuse to achieve consensus on the talk.

• Reported user adds content with unreliable sources
• reported user is reverted for copy vio by another user
• Reported user begins with an aggressive tone a discussion on the talk page of the user who reverted them and threatened to add back the content [144] while being said that this content is not improving the article [145].
• Other users said that the content added by the reported user is not relevant for the article [146]
• Reported user seems unable to find out if a source has expertise for a topic or not and refuses to listen when other users try to inform them about that (several times) [147], [148], [149], [150], [151]
• Reported user added again some content while claiming that the source for their edit is a food historian, i reverted them with an explanation on why their source isn't reliable and left a message on the talk about that and finally warned the user, their reaction was to ignore WP:BRD and to revert my edit and post two warnings on my talk [152], [153].

All in all, when i look at CABF45's contributions, i don't see any will of improving the article and, more generally, the project.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Since when is the BBC News an "unreliable source"? After clarifying that this was the children site of BBC News I didn't add back the content.
• I was accused of copyright violation. Please check the link and the edit summary and make up your mind whether it was warranted or not. Also reverting editor calls me a halfwit while trying to discuss. I "threatened to add back the content" after further tweaking it which is what we do when accused with CopyVio.
• I added ABC-CLIO and Royal Society of Chemistry sources, which weren't good enough, because they were not so-called "food historians".
• Now I'm adding a historian (published by John Wiley & Sons) who wrote seventeen(!) books on history, cuisine and the French regional culture, but he reverts it again, because Maguelonne Toussaint-Samat is still not food historian enough.
• Several reliable and relevant references claim a Chinese origin of ice cream, but User:Wikaviani only accepts the Iranian origin of it.
• Do we really want to be in disagreement with Encyclopædia Britannica as they too seem to favor the Chinese origin of ice cream.
• However, User:Wikaviani accepts a book published by none other than RW Press only because it supports the "Iranian origin" narrative.

CABF45 (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Britannica does not claim a "Chinese origin" of ice cream, it only says that iced desserts were introduced to Europe from the east. Besides, it has been said unreliable as a source by an admin, Doug Weller. Last but not least, as explained to you many times, Wikipedia works with consensus and i don't see any for your edits.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Britannica says:

Iced desserts were introduced into Europe from the East. Marco Polo brought back descriptions of fruit ices from his travels in China.

That's fair enough for me: Would you keep it or would you disruptively remove it?

When did Doug Weller say that Britannica is unreliable? CABF45 (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I rest my case, i leave it to the admins. Best.~~ ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to answer to your above comments, firstly, "when did Doug Weller say that Britannica is unreliable ?", here.

"However, User:Wikaviani accepts a book published by none other than RW Press only because it supports the "Iranian origin" narrative." odd how you seem to ignore the other source written by a food historian, Gil Marks and also this edit of mines where i say that i don't support any sharp claim like X or Y invented ice cream ... I usually assume good faith, but i confess that in your case, it doesn't seem obvious to me.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

So Doug Weller treated Britannica as an unreliable source in 2017. First, how should I know that? Second, he still thinks that way and all of Wikipedia should throw out Britannica from now on?

(On the Gil Marks source see more below.) CABF45 (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Many articles from Britannica are written by the editors of Britannica (like the one you cited by the way), this makes that encyclopedia unreliable, some articles are written by expert sources, they are generally considered reliable, but this is not our point here, this report is about your disruptive editing and inability to find out if a source is reliable or not along with POV pushing and refusal to listen what other editors tell you. Just one example, i said i disagree with your last edit at Ice cream and so did Spudlace below, if you were here to build an encyclopedia, you would have self reverted and tried to achieve consensus on the article's talk page.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I engaged in discussion on the talk page throughout the process even if you're trying to give the impression that I didn't.

You only accept sources that support the Iranian origin of ice cream. Remember when Spudlace tried to remove the history section and export it into frozen desserts, you simply reverted him (without seeking concensus). CABF45 (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I reverted Spudlace and i stand for that by WP:ONUS, the onus is on the editor who makes new edits to achieve consensus (in other words, Spudlace) and i did so because they did a terrible job, leaving the section without historical informations and with many cites errors, i told them that and i feel like they got me, but this report is not about Spudlace, it's about you.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

And another editor also had problems with the history section, there's still Template:Self-contradictory placed on the history section for a reason. So "concensus" seems more and more like the will of User:Wikaviani. CABF45 (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The template has nothing to do with my edits or Spudlace's edits, Andy explained the reason for it on the article's talk page, your comment sounds like a nonsense. Also, that editor had a clash with you and your edits, you seem to ignore that, once more.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I do agree with Andy on the usage of the Template:Self-contradictory at the history section even if we had an unrelated "clash". I don't know what you consider nonsense, just read Andy's explanation of why he thinks much of the history section should be redone.

Again: the present "concensus" version means the will of User:Wikaviani, neither AndytheGrump nor Spudlace wanted to keep it as it is. CABF45 (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

When User:Wikaviani is warned (and again) that the Gil Marks source he pushes is not exactly relevant, he simply ignores it and forces it into the article anyway.
He also tries to create above the impression that I didn't listen to the discussion and just went on editing. I abandoned several above mentioned references even when I considered them reliable and relevant.
User:Spudlace effectively begged User:Wikaviani to stop guarding this article. CABF45 (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I've had disagreements with User:Wikaviani on this article but not pertaining to this new dispute. I did mention on the talk page that I think some of these sources pass reliability, but I don't support inclusion of CABF45's contested edit, as it is currently written. CABF45 has chosen to ignore my input, which I don't take personally. From what I can see, the content about China is still in article. So far, I think all the editors are sincere by trying to improve the article. Spudlace (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment : at the end of the day, Spudlace recognised the relevance of the source and my edits [154].---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Dear Spudlace and Wikaviani, as to the solution of the content dispute, could you live with this proposal per WP:Balance:

Multiple sources claim the ice cream is of Chinese origin, while multiple other references suggest an Iranian origin.

Adding references respectively, and done. CABF45 (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

No, because ice cream is not either Chinese or Iranian, it's the result of a long and multicultural process that is quite well explained in the article (at least, before your last edit). This noticeboard is not the article's talk page, thus, not the relevant place for this discussion.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that for you "this long and multicultural process" always starts with Iran even when multiple reliable sources claim it started in China. That's why I cited WP:Balance. CABF45 (talk) 03:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

No, the problem is that so far, not a single editor has agreed with any of your edits at Ice cream, yet you keep pushing your POV with unreliable sources, refuse to listen to what other editors say, ignore Wikipedia guidelines even when other editors remind you about that. I rest my case. Goodnight.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I used more reliable sources than the ones you're pushing. Spudlace agreed with using the ABC-CLIO source, it was you who went against concensus, but I didn't want an edit war.

I would agree with Spudlace's proposal to completely remove most of the history section, and only deal with the modern history of ice cream, I just didn't want to start an edit war with you.

I also perfectly understand why Andy placed the Template:Self-contradictory on the history section, it was you who wanted to remove that template. CABF45 (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@ Closing admin: Please read Talk:Ice_cream carefully as some of the diffs provided by User:Wikaviani are quite misleading. Thank you. CABF45 (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Since my brief involvement in this nonsense has been brought up here, I might as well express an opinion on the problems with this article. And start by repeating what I wrote earlier on my talk page: ...I don't think that we should necessarily hold one contributor solely responsible for the mess in the ice cream article history section. Sadly, content concerning the history of food tends to attract all sorts of POV-pushers (often motivated by nationalism), and to be based around questionable sources written more for entertainment than accuracy... It seems to me that contributors to the article are working under a false premise: that it is possible to state who 'invented ice cream' in any definitive manner. One can certainly find sources that make such definitive claims, but them doing so does little to inspire confidence in their validity as sources. When does 'frozen dessert' (which presumably dates back to when some enterprising, or possibly lost, hominid first gathered fruit in frozen regions) become 'ice cream'? And even if there was a single agreed definition of exactly what constitutes ice cream (I've not seen one), how likely is it that such an event would be recorded for posterity? The most that credible historians can say about the subject is that frozen desserts of one form or another were reported in place X or Y at date Z. And maybe suggest that some such descriptions seem to match what would now resemble 'ice cream'. That isn't an assertion that said dessert was 'invented' anywhere in particular, merely that it was described. Wikipedia contributors shouldn't engage themselves in trying to provide definitive answers to 'historical questions' that actual historians should know better than to try to answer. Trying to do so so is not only a disservice to readers, but a fool's errand, since it inevitably results in the sort of ongoing disagreements we see here, usually only 'resolved' by seeing who can make the most stubborn pig-headed and repetitive arguments, and drive anyone else away from the debate. If 'winning' that way is what matters, frankly Wikipedia could do better without such contributors. And said contributors might do well to ask themselves whether they could find better things to do with their lives... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

That's a mature comment, my 2 cents...

I offered a compromise per WP:Balance, I also offered the removal of the "ancient history of ice cream" like Spudlace did earlier.

User:Wikaviani rejected both of those solutions in the name of the Iranian origin narrative... CABF45 (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I have explained my reasons above and they have nothing to do with "the Iranian origin narrative" ... ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Weird behaviors from User:LightProof1995

This user kept tries to legitimize weird conspiracy theories, seen at Barbro Karlén at 5 August, even though they have been reminded not to do so at the fringe theories noticeboard a few days ago. Seen at their contributions, LightProof1995 have a lot of edits to Transgender and Reincarnation reverted and oversighted, probably due to fringe issues. LightProof1995 also made a lot of edits to pages of our internal Vital articles project, usually without consensus (which is very specifically stated required at the talk page), and even opened a huge thread here that is really overwhelming to other editors. This is a really weird WP:NOTHERE case, and based on their behavior I think LightProof1995 is a sockpuppet of an LTA, though I'm not sure who's the sockmaster. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Wow. I am not a sock puppet of anyone. I only made one change without consensus because there was a rule change, I just didn’t see the fact 5 people were required to pass… to say my edits were "usually" without consensus is entirely wrong. In fact, *all* of my edits, I thought, were made with consensus. See below.

CactiStaccingCrane, I see you felt attacked personally by my "Suffrage" edit so I will explain. When I saw the vote for it, I thought it had passed. That's why I wrote, "PASSED" under that discussion and then made the edits. When you undid my edits, I asked myself, "Why is this Wikipedian undoing my edits when there was consensus?" and looked through the other discussions and found the one on the rule change. However, I suspect the rules always stated 5 were needed, and I just did not see the fact that 5 votes were needed for a change -- I only saw the "15 days" and "2/3" rules so that's why I thought it had already passed. No one was trying to take away your "vital articles" authority or go against consensus. That's why when you said it had, in fact, not passed, I struck though the word "PASSED" and didn't make the change until there were 5 votes.

I will add this because I keep thinking about it, because I'm really sad I was listed here. I am a new editor. When I discovered the "vital" article idea, I became excited and wanted to get the list to 100, so I made recommendations. I think what happened was as I was making my edits to the talk page, I saw Interstellarity's comment saying "one vote required" without thoroughly reading the discussion and must have subconsciously concluded that was the rule change implemented. Then I read the requirements as "15 days"... and "2/3 vote" and literally just missed the "5 !votes required" I think just because of the ! in front of the word vote. So I was excited something had passed, was waiting for someone to change it and no one did, I wrote "PASSED" and said "how do we change...?" and no one responded, so I thought no one was paying attention and did it myself. I am sorry for the confusion it has caused. LightProof1995 (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

My "overwhelming" edit to the Vital-3 talk page is clearly proof I am here to build an encyclopedia and not specifically to put forth "conspiracy theories".

Also, my "conspiracy-theory" propagating was not from Wikipedia's voice on the Barbro Karlén talk page, it was my own opinion, as a response to someone that asked on the talk page, because another user had also left an opinion that was not reincarnation-friendly.

What is an LTA?

LightProof1995 (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@LightProof1995: an LTA stands for "long term abuser". -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 20:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

User:74.94.101.141 fails to engage in the discussion in Atsumi Tanezaki

Resolved

 – Withdraw. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga discussed reducing the list on the "notable_works" parameter in {{Infobox person}} (see here). The article Atsumi Tanezaki is one of the articles that have a reduced list. The article also discusses what works for this actress that should be listed (see here) since July 24, 2022. Apparently, 74.94.101.141 made some changes to the parameter (see the IP's first interaction with the parameter). At first, I assumed that he/she missed the current discussion so I told him/her to check the article's talk page (see my edit summary advising him/her to check the discussion). But beginning in August, this IP ignores it three times and posted inappropriately on the article's talk page. Gave him already a disruptive warning three times. Centcom08 (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Likely 98.52.83.38 and 73.247.56.118 are the same person. The problem is, I don't see a link to a formal discussion, RFC, whatever, that set this as the accepted consensus. If there isn't a formal consensus somewhere, then it is just you and them edit warring. Do you have a link to a discussion that was well attended and establishes the shorter listings as consensus? Otherwise, it is just a content dispute and there is nothing we can do except warn you and them to stop edit warring, and instead discuss it. I see you started a discussion on the talk page of this article, but no one has bothered to reply, meaning you need to advertise the discussion more broadly to get enough participation that a consensus means something. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

There is a link on my report that redirects you to the discussion on WikiProject Anime and manga, which handles related to Japanese voice actors. If you have trouble clicking the link then kindly use this bare URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_75#The_use_of_the_%22notable_works%22_parameter_in_the_infobox. I'm concerned to the point that the edit on the article might reach 3RR, but luckily the IP returns a few days later. Centcom08 (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

My point was, that really isn't enough discussion to claim a "global consensus". That is more akin to "3 people making 5 edits in a discussion". I can't really use that as a clear demonstration of a prior consensus. You need broader involvement from more people. Until then, either of you could be blocked for edit warring, whether or not you hit 3RR. You need to start an RFC at the project, advertise it without canvassing (don't give your opinion in the ads), and get a real consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Kindly withdraw my report. Another IP already engage me in the article's discussion, which helped me understand the situation. Centcom08 (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Alexbrn non-collaborative behavior and personal attacks

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

I am experiencing continued bad faith and non-collaborative allegations from this user:

[155] Bad faith, suggesting I am making 'demands'(this one is pretty mild but I've included it for context).

[156] Personal attack--allegation that I am a 'profringe' editor.

[157] Implication that my view is not 'worth anything at all'.

[158] Personal attack--allegation of 'antivax rant', suggestion that I will be 'removed from the project'.

[159] Personal attack--allegation of 'antivax rhetoric', 'pompous apology for it', noncollaborative 'this thread should be closed'.
-SmolBrane (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• (scritches his head) That's a lot of relatively mild and certainly indirect third-person diffs for an ANI complaint. Only the fourth diff is an unambiguous personal threat. (With that, since you speak of the deductive skills of Wikipedia readers, I'm sure you can understand how people might perceive your seeming support of a use for a drug over which there was so much organized disinformation and chicanery.) Ravenswing 16:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Editors can perceive what they like, they cannot make comments/edits based on their perception that my comments are rooted in supporting disinformation and chicanery, this is textbook bad faith. SmolBrane (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think "bad faith" is the issue with you. I trust you believe what you write. Alexbrn (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  All of my comments surrounding these diffs are regarding sources and whether wiki is utilizing them correctly. That's where I'm focused; on content. If you believe I am a profringe editor engaging in antivax rants, you need to keep it to yourself. SmolBrane (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Not really. When you show up at article talk pages writing[160] irrelevantly about how the "FDA doesn't do a great job" because they fail to weigh the "speculative utility" of eating horse paste against the "poor efficacy of the vaccines" (this is all fringe nonsense of course) – then you can expect to get pushback. WP:CPUSH is a thing. Not sure yet what the solution might be. WP:BOOMERANG time maybe? Alexbrn (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  My criticism of the FDA is well within wiki behavioral limitations, especially when the subject is regarding whether their tweet was a joke or not; making personal attacks is not justifiable regardless of my opinions of the FDA. SmolBrane (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  "My criticism of the FDA is well within wiki behavioral limitations" ← how is an article Talk page an appropriate place for you to air your "criticism of the FDA", especially when that criticism is WP:PROFRINGE? Alexbrn (talk) 06:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  If it's not apparent that the FDA is joking or not, as suggested by the editors in the section, it's certainly not fringe to suggest this tarnishes their image--criticisms of public health organizations cannot be regarded wholesale as fringe. I feel like you're not getting the message here--continuing with your profringe implications. SmolBrane (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  It doesn't really matter what The Truth™ is about the FDA. If you want to tell people that you think the FDA did a bad job when the reliable sources say that they did a good job, then please post that on social media or on your own website, not on a Wikipedia article talk page.
  I am concerned about your statement at Talk:Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic that "The issue is deeper though, wiki defers to sources... Readers have deductive skills, luckily". Are you hoping that Covid-related articles will be written so that readers will "deduce" that talk show hosts and YouTubers know more about the safety and efficacy of medical treatments than the reliable sources published by bona fide medical researchers? If so, Wikipedia is probably not the right place for you. If not, maybe you should consider whether your approach to communicating with other editors is lacking the necessary level of clarity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• The 4th one is not acceptable as it both attacks the editor and threats of sanctions shouldn't be made on the article talk page. Even if all were as bad as #4 I don't see this as sanctionable manterial. That said, one can be firm in a disagreement and use a conciliatory tone. Overly harsh tone doesn't improve policy based arguments but can make editors want to dig into their respective sides vs reach a mutually satisfactory resolution (even in the case where the resolution is 100% of the questionable content stays out). Springee (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think that harshness is also a function of prolificness, the more prolific an editor, the more of a chilling effect that harshness has. SmolBrane (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thats oddly phrased but if I understand you correctly it is a good point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• @Alexbrn: Let's try to keep on the good side of the ol' "comment on content, not editors", especially in a subject area which often has very polarised views. @SmolBrane: It's clear you have a strong point of view here given your editing history, so do be careful not to push that POV in your edits. Is there anything else that really needs doing here? — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 17:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  @TheresNoTime The DS alerts on SmolBrane's talk page have expired, if you have concerns about POV pushing it might be a good idea to renew them? 163.1.15.238 (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Is it clear that I have a strong POV, and that that is at risk of POV pushing? Why did I create an entire section on vaccination in Europe[161] if I am at risk of antivax POV? SmolBrane (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Really silly complaint that should be ignored. - Roxy the English speaking dog 17:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Not seeing much here. I think Alexbrn should be more weary of WP:CIVIL and be cautious with making accusations of user misconduct in a talk page. I don't believe any sanctions are needed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 18:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Re the comment, "WP:PROFRINGE editors push sources which promote fringe views, instead of finding the good sources. It's always been true." [Alexbrn 16:38, 22 April 2022][162] This is a clear personal attack: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Instead of replying to the other editor's comment, Alexbrn criticizes the other edtior.

Criticizing the competence or integrity of another editor is not a persuasive argument that their position is wrong and discourages rational discussion. The only place to bring it up is at ANI or similar fora for the discussion of editor behavior.

However, when deciding what should be done at ANI, the circumstances should be examined. SmolBrane's civil POV pushing can provoke even the most patient editors into angry responses. (I consider SmolBrane a POV editor because they appear to want articles to cast doubt on expert positions on COVID-19, which is a violation of neutral point of view.) Some POV editors even use this approach as a tactic to trap opponents. I would have had more sympathy for SmolBrane had the PAs been unprovoked. The other issue is that this particular edit was made over three months ago. The more recent examples of edits are all relatively minor.

I think though that SmolBrane's pushing of fringe views should be examined. They were blocked 48 hours last monthyear for "egregious and repeated bad-faith assumptions."[163] Maybe it's time for a longer block.

TFD (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

That block is from a year ago, not from last month--please strike or correct your statement, and I have improved my behavior since, and learned to be much more collaborative. Can you please demonstrate evidence of my alleged civil POV pushing? SmolBrane (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• After looking at each of the diffs, I'm seeing gruffness rather than anything that violates policy. The "not on the contributor" issues are apparent to me, but they are borderline, and not particularly troubling when taken in context. I don't think that's ANI-actionable. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• Alexbrn, even though you are right on the merits, #4 is a bit too much. Please don't do that again. I would suggest SmolBrane read WP:FORUM. I would have just closed it myself, but the thread is kind of fresh. Realistically, what I just said is how it is going to be closed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  I am prepared to commit to less FORUM-like comments, and to avoid POV pushing. I would appreciate if a similar corrective acknowledgement would be produced by Alexbrn--so far it appears that he regards his behavior as 'pushback', which is neither accurate or appropriate. Correct me if I'm wrong, but personal attacks are far more forbidden than my transgression, especially given my relative lack of experience. SmolBrane (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think you are wrong, because you are using a personal definition of a personal attack. What you have experienced is just normal reaction to POV editing, repeated again and again. (EDIT. By that, I mean that you are editing in your POV again and again.) You should learn from this. - Roxy the English speaking dog 20:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Not sure where to take this, but Ip is adding “political ideologies” to cats and articles inappropriately

[164]. Doug Weller talk 17:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 48 hours and reverted all their edits that hadn't already been reverted.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23 Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I gave the IP a welcome warning message, should they return. All stick and no carrot can't be ideal. WP:NOBITING! --Animalparty! (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

And I was reverted. @Bbb23: Are we supposed to tell newbies to piss off for not knowing the rules, and not even give them a manual? Why would anyone contribute to Wikipedia if they get instantly blocked or banned? --Animalparty! (talk) 04:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

He might have seen your message as an attempt to gravedance, perhaps. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 08:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I did not think it was gravedancing. There were a couple of problems with the Welcome message. First, it did not give the IP any further information than the block notice. If Animalparty wished to provide the IP with specific advice, that would have been okay. Second, regardless of the timestamp, Ap placed the Welcome message at the top of the IP's Talk page before the block notice, making it look like the IP was welcomed and then blocked instead of the other way around.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23 And this has been done again by User:Malerooster. This seems totally inappropriate, especially as it was done two hours after you posted with no attempt to suggest anything but that their contributions were welcome.. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, at least it's at the bottom of the page after the block notice; I'm certainly not going to edit-war over something like this. Thanks for the ping, Doug.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's not worth it unless it becomes a regular thing. Doug Weller talk 16:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. I was a little disappointed when I looked at the edits Doug Weller, I was imagining something more like “The tabby cat is known for Marxism”.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  Ditto. I was imagining more along the lines of "The Siamese cat is known for anarchy". Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 16:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  All cats are libertarians. Completely dependent on others, but fully convinced of their own independence. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• @Bbb23 and Doug Weller: Far from gravedancing, I only think that WP:DONTBITE is being completely ignored, while you two apparently object to the person even being welcomed? This is all bite, with no effort to credibly inform the offending IP as to the malfeasance they were found guilty of (remember, IPs are people who might become productive contributors with account names, not lesser people who should be shunned). I think {{Welcome-anon-unconstructive}} has plenty of helpful information. As for the top of the Talk page placement, that's where Wikipedia:Twinkle deposited it, and I think it's makes more senses there, even if it irks some time-stamp purists. I have no more to say on this. Please make sure that your actions do not create (or exacerbate) a toxic environment for newcomers. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I will try to use that template instead of the generic one but due not guarantee that action. Cheers, --Malerooster (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Povfork article

Continuation of [165]. Kaghassi went on to create Assyrian Mastiff which was a povfork of Kurdish Mastiff. I went on to clean the article as the Assyrian Mastiff refers to an ancient dog but all my edits were reverted and I was called a vandal.[166]. Kaghassi has previously been disruptive on Kurdish Mastiff and kept reverted consensus versions of the article. Semsûrî (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The article can stay but it should be clear that the Assyrian dog is an ancient dog as discussed here[167] and there should be no attempt to link the two dog species. Semsûrî (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Kaghassi is ignoring the consensus reached at Talk:Kurdish_Mastiff#RfC_on_Assyrian_mastiff_vs_Kurdish_mastiff, and is accusing people of vandalism who are trying to fix Assyrian Mastiff to comply with consensus (e.g., [168]). The only person in that RFC who !voted for Assyrian mastiff was Kaghassi. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

There are prominent sources for an Assyrian Mastiff. It was me who suggested Kaghassi to create the Assyrian article as they were reverted when they tried to include info concerning the Assyrian Mastiff in the article. Semsuri created the Assyrian mastiff redirect with the edit summary nothing substantial on google. Assyrian relics and statues depicting the Assyrian Mastiff or Dog have prominent hits on google, I guess google must have updated their algorithm regarding the Assyrian mastiff since the 8 May. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Right, but that’s for the historical animal. The problem is not the existence of the article, rather it is Kahhassi’s insistence that it is also the current dog in the region. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I have just adverted them on the DS on Kurds and Kurdistan on which they have not been notified before. Kaghassi has 25 edits, give them some time before opening an ANI thread. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The editor has been warned on their talkpage more than once but continued to disrupt. Semsûrî (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Semsûrî, you need to provide the clickable userename of the person you are reporting. And since the name you referred to is not mentioned in the old ANI thread you linked to, you need to explain how these issues are related. Softlavender (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Kaghassi is mentioned briefly in the old ANI thread. Semsûrî (talk) 07:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Now we have potential sockpuppetry (based on the accusations of vandalism)[169]. Semsûrî (talk) 10:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I filed the SPI investigation. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Blocked as sockpuppeteeer/puppet combo. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Trade is falsely accusing me for an LTA and User:Slywriter is requesting rather unnecessary full create protection

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

As the title suggests, the first user was falsely accusing me of a sockpuppet of User:LiliaMiller2002 and the latter one was overzealously requesting salting of Draft:Bobik Platz, which is to me unnecessary. 36.74.40.153 (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea for the IP to be starting this thread, but for some context, see the first section at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 August 4.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure you're the same as User:180.252.25.15. This thread is just forum shopping / trolling, since it is being delete reviewed, and there is fair evidence this is indeed a hoax. In fact, this kinda makes you look like an LTA. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Your IP address 36.74.40.153 is flagging up for me as a proxy. Are you using a proxy? -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• • You beat me to it. I just scanned and found it is a proxy. I didn't see that for the 180 address, which was down. That may explain why the geo is different than the LiliaMiller2002 socks (spain). Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

    The IP 36.74.42.66 (the OP at DRV) is also flagging as a proxy. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

    I don't use proxies, therefore it is a false-positive but it doesn't excuse that I created two draft pages, which was deleted under G3 criterion and the latter one has additional G5, which indicates the page was created by a banned user. 36.74.40.153 (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Both IPs claim same junk link as a reference 180:Special:Diff/1099375119 vs current ip: Special:Diff/1102374706. Other similarities in first post to DR and TEA. Slywriter (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  The very first edit this IP makes is to defend being a sock? WP:BOOMERANG incoming. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Whenever we are tired of wasting our time, please delete and salt Draft:SM_Billiards which uses the same non-existent IGN links and archive.org confirms never existed as anything other than 404. Slywriter (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Well, it doesn't excuse the fact that all three pages only belongs to Fanon Wiki. Oh well, sorry for being WP:POINTy but at least hope that it serves as a lesson for not misrepresenting fanon pages as a real one, even if the page is not originated from main fanon wiki. 36.74.40.153 (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• This needs a range block for proxy, and that is getting a little over my head. The 180 needs to be monitored or blocked, it was just completely down after an intensive no ping scan, but it is obviously the same person, same geolocation, same edits. May need a range block as well. Very likely, the person is in spain, and bouncing through here, ie: LiliaMiller2002 sock. Will get that draft in a sec. EDIT: RickinB was showing off and beat me to it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Took care of that draft for you. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Can someone block those ranges please? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Can we please cut this troll off already? They still going including my talk page. Slywriter (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  • • Yes please. The three ranges. I would attempt, but honestly, my IT skills are a bit rusty and I just don't want to screw it up. Perhaps  Checkuser needed can find us someone more competent with IP ranges. They are all related, and we need the IT skills more than connecting dots, which are already connected. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
      • My range block-fu skills are not strong, otherwise I would. I'd love someone to explain it easily though so I could help in the future. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

        From a purely technical perspective 36.74.40.0/21 and 180.252.16.0/20 look to be the ranges to consider. --Jack Frost (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

        • Figuring out netmasks in your head (except for the easy /8 /16 /24 corresponding to individual numbers in ipv4) never gets intuitive. Fortunately, you don't have to! WP:RANGE links to handy tools to do it for you. Now including {{rangecalc}}, which I hadn't seen before and which seems especially nifty. —Cryptic 04:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
• Just a heads up that while y'all are yakking about range blocks, I've blocked Special:contributions/36.74.40.153 for 48 hours. Their latest crap was to report Slywriter to WP:AIV.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

2601:8D:8700:567C:9438:1257:B85F:E14D talk page abuse

2601:8D:8700:567C:9438:1257:B85F:E14D (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

This IP address is abusing his talk page after being blocked on Wikipedia, begging to be unblocked. It appears that this IP came from Fandom after being blocked globally there. Kaseng55 (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

That was quite enough, talk page access shut down for the reminder of the block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Canvassing goes on

Skylax30 doubles down his canvassing effords. Since his last reporting at ANI [170] went unnoticed, he informs editors in greek WP about his new battles against "albanian and turkish propaganda at en.WP". (For article Song of Marko Boçari).[171] His whole rhetoric sounds as a call to greek users to join his campaign agaist what he sees as albanian and turkish propaganda in en.WP. Subtle canvassing for controversial topics is his method risking to make WP a battleground. translation of his last 2 edits "I deleted the "early 19th century" joke, but apparently they'll bring it back [3]. They guard in shifts.)--Skylax30 ( talk ) 20:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC) That's is organization. Brought it back in 30 seconds-Skylax30 (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)" Cinadon36 22:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Omni Maximum Promoting and Gaming the System

• Omni Maximum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Draft:Kew OhSo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kew OhSo (artist)

This editor ("the largest of all?") seems to be a self-promoter seeking to create an article on Kew OhSo (himself?). That title has been twice deleted as G11 and ECP-create-protected, so the editor renamed the title with an unnecessary disambiguation as Kew OhSo (artist). I nominated it for deletion, and then it was also speedily deleted. So the editor created it again, and this time it has been draftified. The author's comment at the AFD: How can I fix the errors; if they keep removing the article? Every time I try to fix the article, the Wikipedia search for its existence says its not there...so how can I fix those errors, if whoever keeps removing it? is amusing. (Maybe the existence of the article was an error.)

A block from article space seems like a reasonable minimum sanction. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Are you serious? What in that response is deserving a block? Now your saying I'm doing an article on myself? When there's specifically a feature that shows "Move"; where you can simply make the article your making a "Article" and putting a title, about who or what your writing. What am doing is this bad that's making you see me, this negative? When all I'm doing is just asking to highlight what is wrong, so I can change it in the article, while the article is up. Wikipedia is meant to edit things and upgrade, stuff that are off or needs updating; I can't even do that cause the article is removed, which means I have start over and correct what is off; how is correcting what I believe is off and publishing it, to see if everything is okay, a bad thing?

" You need to work on this to remove the promotional language and find citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:15, 6 August 2022 "

He didn't claim I needed to be block; all I need to do is remove "promotional language" and I'm fine. Omni Maximum (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Editor blocked and draft deleted (again).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  Now with TPA revoked. It's interesting how they claim that Wikipedia is not a suitable place for promotional material when in fact, due to our high rank in search engines, we very much are. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Airport disruption by IP

2607:FEA8:6999:AA00:BC4E:3CAD:A538:9039 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seem to be the current IP of an editor that continually causes disruption to airport and airline articles, making changes that go against consensus. They are editing from this IP today, and ignoring warnings on their TP, which they have seen because they put a sarcastic comment there. They add strikeout text contrary to MOS:NOSTRIKE, overlink contrary to MOS:SEAOFBLUE. Today, they are mostly adding clutter to infoboxes by changing {{start date}} to {{start date and age}} - the documentation for {{infobox airport}} says to just use start date - but this IP just doesn't care. MB 02:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Here is a discussion with BilCat from just over a week ago about a series of edits from 2607:FEA8:6999:AA00:749C:292:561A:144C (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that appear similar. MB 03:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:6999:AA00::/64 for one week. Let me know if the problem continues. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Possible spambot?

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

---

At User talk:Alpha India Group, the account posted what appears to be automated spam edits. Later, at User talk:The Alpha India Group, which appears to be a sock, similar seemingly automated edits were made. Mori Calliope fan talk 03:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Alpha India Group (talk · contribs)
• The Alpha India Group (talk · contribs)

Thanks. Another admin has blocked these. Johnuniq (talk) 09:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

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

97.116. IPs

There has been persistent vandalism since 2018 from the Twin Cities IP range 97.116.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), which sadly has a bit of collateral. The edits vandalize song track lengths, altering them to arbitrary lengths which typically contradict all verifiable primary sources. User also occasionally edits animation articles, and never communicates when warned on their talk page. I estimate there to be at least 50 IPs I have witnessed over time which appear to be connected to this vandal. Their most recent IP is 97.116.184.236 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) whih has been warned 3 times for vandalism, with their third warning being ignored and them again vandalizing the same article within ten minutes of first being reverted and given a final warning. Οἶδα (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Dpugh520 and celebrity birth dates

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

---

• Dpugh520 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dpugh520 started by adding unsourced birth dates to BLPs (for example: Special:Diff/1084013648/1084383102, Special:Diff/1084385615, Special:Diff/1092368613) and has now moved on to edit warring to restore poorly-sourced birth dates from the IMDb (Special:Diff/1095055061), Startiger.com (Special:Diff/1100377122/1100426638), Voice123.com (Special:Diff/1102634283), Filmbug.com (Special:Diff/1102640022), and Takemeback.to (Special:Diff/1102646208). At this point, I don't think Dpugh520 is going to put any effort in vetting sources, and I think it's time for a block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Their response on their talk is... appallingly tone-deaf. Would support a CIR block, it's pretty obvious that they're not planning on changing their behavior nor understand why their behavior is problematic. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 13:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Doxing threat

Would an admin please look at this? special:diff/1102658889 at the end of the rant. Thank you Adakiko (talk) 09:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Not sure if it's a doxing threat, but it's certainly a legal threat.  Done Reverted, blocked without TPA, revision deleted. Black Kite (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Yogeshpahade9 making cut paste moves despite multiple warnings

User:Yogeshpahade9 has been making cut paste moves [172] [173] [174] [175] time to time in 'Hoshangabad' related articles despite multiple warnings in their talk page. They have done it in other articles as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

SPA block request - #1

Moved from Wikipedia talk:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Reposted with some edits for clarity (see previous revisions).

Anonymous contributor claimed Pororo the Little Penguin aired on PBS Kids and was a production by Cookie Jar Group, but someone already undid it. They also repeatedly do some minor tweaks, from what I see. Strange editing choice, nonetheless. --WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 09:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

They were warned and did not return after the warning. Let us wait for what happens next.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it's best to block if they continue to do this. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: check the editor's contributions, suspicious behavior when they keep editing false information into articles. They have a fixation on some kids' shows, including Dragon Tales and obscure ones like Pororo and Franny's Feet. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Nishidani

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

---

Nishidani wrote a comment at Talk:Gaza Strip in which he referred to Gaza as "a concentration camp of Israel's making". I asked him on his user talk page to remove it and he declined (doubled down, actually). I hope we're not at the point where accusing Israel of making concentration camps is permitted on article talk pages. Levivich 12:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Resolved. Feel free to <redact> the offending section. 30 day WP:AE block. I toyed with the idea of a tban, but I'm hoping it won't come to that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

How did this result in a one-month block without even waiting for a statement from Nishidani? Gaza Strip is regularly referred to as a concentration camp in sources, see for example Norman Finkelstein calling it the "world's largest concentration camp" here, or Amira Hass saying The concentration camp that is Gaza has existed under ever harsher conditions for almost three decades. How does this merit a 1 month block User:Dennis Brown? You going to block anybody who refers to the people killed in Gaza yesterday as "terrorists"? You going to perform this thought-police role for anything that Levivich doesnt find objectionable? What happens when I put reliable sourced material accusing Israel of making concentration camps in article space. Because that is super easy to source to unimpeachable sources. This is a terrible block and should be reversed, and you should actually hear from the person being reported before taking such a drastic action after a one-sided and misleading report. nableezy - 12:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x 2 It became a one month block because they were approached in a polite way, and they refused to redact their comment. There is no obligation to hear from someone before using sanctions, so I'm not sure why you are asking that. Admin block editors (AE and regular) all the time without sitting down and discussing it. I might have waited if they hadn't already been asked to remove it in a polite manner, but they were asked and refused. We don't need this kind of vitriol in the Israel/Palestinian topic area, which is why it is setup under AE to begin with. And they have been blocked many times and topic banned for this exact kind of activity, so this is certainly not something new, something they didn't know was at risk. If this was their first offense, the sanction would have been different. And this is a logged WP:AE action, so they can appeal to AE or Arb if they choose. I almost, just almost did a full topic ban instead, this is the lesser of the two sanctions, as it is unlikely they would ever get it removed, since they've been tbanned and blocked before and have a history of problems. And your last comment should be struck. If you think I'm favoring Levivich, you might want to check his block log. This block wasn't for his thought, it was for his actions. Take it to AE if you think it is too harsh, that is the proper venue for AE actions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Appallingly bad block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes I saw you marked it as an AE block, despite there being no report and no response and you having refused to have made Levivivh's 3 reverts in a 1RR article an AE block with the explicit reason of helping him out. But the report is here, youre here, Levivich is here, the only person not here is the one you blocked for a month without even hearing his response. There is no obligation that somebody redact something that is easily sourced to hundreds of sources just because Levivich is uncomfortable. This is based on one editor being unaware of how common a comparison is and then being upset at seeing it. That is absurd. You think accusing Israel of making concentration camps is [not] permitted on article talk pages? Watch me do it in article space. And no, I do not think youre favoring Levivich, I actually think you are an excellent admin, which is why this block is so maddening. nableezy - 12:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Whoa, I'm not sure I've ever disagreed with Dennis Brown before, but that's a bad block (largely per Nableezy). Yes, this is a horrible subject area to manage, but this strays too far to the "You must not criticize Israel" end of the spectrum in my opinion. Nishidani's opinion/comment is shared by a lot of respectable thinkers. Shame, Dennis, on the knee-jerk reaction here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Seriously Boing? What does NOTFORUM mean to you? That diff complies? Levivich 13:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
    • If it had been presented as a NOTFORUM issue, I could have easily accepted a reminder along those lines - but not a one-month block for simply echoing a common opinion, and certainly not based on a complaint by an obviously partisan contributor without full investigating the background. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Being partisan is not a sanctionable offense. While baseless allegations of partisanship may be sanctionable, the request for evidence has been met, regardless of whether Levivich (or anyone else) agrees with the evidence supporting that conclusion. We could debate further whether it does, but again, being partisan is not a sanctionable offense. As no one has done anything sanctionable, and reconciliation seems sadly unlikely, this portion of the discussion is out-of-scope for AN/I. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That is exactly how I framed the complaint on Nishidani's talk page, I even linked to it, and what the fuck do you mean by obviously partisan? Levivich 13:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC) All I really mean is that you have generally presented a pro-Israel postion. I'm not saying that's wrong, I'm just suggesting that when a complaint about an anti-Israel comment comes from a pro-Israel editor, it requires extra care from those acting on it. My criticism here is about the reaction to your complaint, not the complaint itself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC) Levivich. Of course you are very partisan in the I/P area. I've said to you often in the past that generally in these forums dealing with non-IP topics you show excellent judgment, but that studied neutrality tends to disappear whenever Israeli-related issues arise. I would have thought you excellent admin 'material' but for this, I believe, fatal flaw in neutrality (as I have said before). That you posted a note on my page with a request or suggestion, and scarcely waited a minute after I diligently, point by point, replied to the gravamen and implications of your remarks, to report me suggests as much. I knew you'd take my remark as further evidence for an eventual report, but you fairly raced to get a sanction without deliberation. This has been an unfortunate waste of everyone's time. Nishidani (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC) Boing, I have not "genberally presented a pro-Israel postion here" and I challenge you to provide three diffs, or even one diff, of me doing that, or strike your statement. That's nonsense. It's a lie. Levivich 14:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC) Even before I posted that I thought "I'm going to be asked for diffs". I don't need to provide diffs if I'm not asking for any action. I just offered my take on the way you have generally presented yourself over the time I've been aware of your contributions, in the hope that it might offer a little enlightenment though third-party observation. It's simply the way you come over, to me. If you can't see what I see (or what Nishidani sees), maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe you are weak in the self-reflection department. I'll leave that as an open question that you might care to ponder. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC) You're full of it. I can't believe you just slander me like that and refuse to back it up with diffs. For your information, personally, I believe Israel is an apartheid state, so I take the accusation of being pro-Israeli as quite offensive. You have absolutely no basis for accusing me of having any kind of partisanship on this issue, and there are no diffs to back that up, I certainly have never edited that way, never said anything that would give anyone that impression, I have not presented myself that way. It's 100% made up bullshit. Honestly: fuck you. Levivich 14:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC) And you have a nice day too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC) Oh, and as a parting comment, I'll just add that I fully agree with Nishidani's opinion that "generally in these forums dealing with non-IP topics you show excellent judgment". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC) I show the same exact level of judgment in IP-related topics as I do in non-IP related topics and you are unable to produce even one point of data or evidence suggesting otherwise. In fact I bet you can't even produce a diff of "my judgment" in the IP-related topic area because I don't edit that topic area. It's 100% made up. It's a scurrilous accusation that damages my reputation. It's just like when I first got here and a certain admin accused me of being a sock, and then for years other editors accused me of being a sock. No evidence whatsoever, totally fake news, but it sticks because of who says it. Do you see anyone else on this page who is obviously partisan? Or is it just me? If you had any real decency, you'd either recant the accusation or prove it. Not just engage in what is a whisper campaign against me. And if you had the same integrity I did, you would evaluate this complaint on its merits, not based on your personal biases against the filer. I can't tell you how much respect I've just lost for you here. You're the first and only person I've ever actually said "FU" to on this website: congrats. Levivich 14:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC) Although I may be missing context here, a one-month AE block with no warning is certainly not the usual way to handle WP:NOTFORUM violations. A 30-day block like this would only make sense if it was a repeated issue (which you'd usually expect to demonstrate at AE) or if they were talking about an individual who falls under WP:BLP, introducing the possibility of harm. It's not even a clear-cut NOTFORUM violation because it's in the context of evaluating a source, and saying "I think their results are dubious because they're ignoring the effect of Israel's policies on Gaza" (followed by sources fleshing out that aspect) is a reasonable argument to make. Certainly telling them to tone it down a notch would be reasonable - it maybe falls afoul of WP:CIVIL's recommendation to try not to get too intense; there were less inflammatory ways to make the same point. And "this source is wrong because [argument against the source's conclusions]" isn't a strong argument for OR reasons... but it's fair to use as a starting point; certainly we don't generally block people just for that, especially when they're also making more reasonable points (ie. the possibility of bias by devoting an entire paragraph to a source with a clear agenda, without noting that agenda.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC) That was very big of you, Dennis. Reversing your block & admitting you may have been in error. As I've mentioned before, you're just about the most level-headed administrator on the project. GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC) We are dealing with impressions, Lev. To call an impression a 'lie' is inappropriate, particularly here. 'Lie', as you know, means to assert something deliberately, knowing it to be untrue, which is a very serious accusation on Wikipedia. An impression is neither true or false. I'm sure one could, if one had time and was obsessive about such things, cite a dozen instances which gave people like myself a sense that your judgment is partisan. I live in a community where even the best of conscious intentions are often construed negatively. Quite often I learn something about myself from that kind of feedback.Nishidani (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC) Diffs of my being partisan or shut up. Levivich 14:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC) Because it is a lie, because the people who say it know it's not true. They know they have no evidence to back up such character assassination. It's complete fabrication. I don't even edit in the topic area. There is ZERO basis for such an accusation. Levivich 14:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC) Now now. There is an epistemological distinction you are failing to see. I don't 'know' (objective) if you are 'partisan'. My consistent impression (subjective) is that you are. When I get this impression I don't put the editor on my watchlist, and relentlessly hunt for proof and stack diffs that might lead to incrimination. That bores me. Were I intent on 'character assassination' I would not state what is obviously in your favour, that your judgment generally, in a wide range of issues, is very informed, fair and even-handed, but not, I gather, in the I/P area. This needless seizing upon a trivial point of language to get a sanction against me underlines that impression. One cannot 'fabricate' an impression. One either has it or one doesn't. When you write:'personally, I believe Israel is an apartheid state', I can accept that as your true opinion. I disagree thoroughly, and, I might add, this doesn't tell me where your judgment one way or the other lies. I know of South African Jewish expats in Australia who would concur, but take that in a positive, not critical way. In any case, I don't want to know. No one is getting at you here, and above all, it is dangerous to entertain the idea that one is (here uniquely) always impartial. Man is not hard-wired that way, and the exercise of judgment towards objective ends requires that the judge in question question themselves as they prepare their opinion.Nishidani (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC) Youve shown a consistency in who you ask for sanctions from and who you defend. Here and here you obfuscate in defense of Icewhiz, here you go to an individual admin to seek sanctions against a long-time Icewhiz target (Malik Shabazz, hey he left thanks to that, awesome), here you seek sanctions against Huldra, another long-time Icewhiz target. Content side, Here is you attempting to downplay a critical altname, here you are editing alongside NoCal100 to remove material on historical land ownership. That enough diffs? nableezy - 15:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC) "Partisan" means "disagreed with me." Levivich 15:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC) No. You're not on trial here, by the way. Anyone with experience in the I/P area knows that it is infested with socks. From my experience, and I don't think I am alone, one can get a feel for whether someone drifting in is a sock or, thankfully, a newbie attracted to the topic area, within a day or two. Since this is only an 'impression' based on 'feel', 'intuition' and a certain sensitivity to the thumbprint of individual styles, one doesn't act on this until real evidence is forthcoming. In the meantime, one is obliged to treat a suspected sock with the proper form, analyzing their contributions strictly on their merits regardless of personal suspicions. Usually after a month or several, they give the game away by some slip, are reported, and banned. What Nableezy diffed is a pattern of unawareness that you appear to regularly concur with editors whom, in those contexts, most of 'us' recognize to be probable socks. You don't apparently see that. You can see, if my perception is correct, the 'sidedness' of those identified as 'pro-Palestinian' (stupid phrase) editors, but less so that of decidedly pro-Israeli editors, at least that is the impression. But again, this is not an arbitration about you, and we have no need to waste each other's time here.Nishidani (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Self-revert

I've noted in the log the consensus, unblocked, struck the template and apologized. I will need to review to fully get the mistake, but I'm reversing myself now as to not prolong what is likely inevitable, ie: a consensus that I misread the case. It happens, and for that I'm sorry. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

And that reminds me why I respect you so much, Dennis! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I can see why, to quick eyes perhaps not fully au courant with I/P discourse, why Dennis did act vigorously. There is a lot of anti-Israeli attitudinizing around, and we should not tolerate it. (I think the same of the obverse, of course) To repeat, arbitrators are heavily overworked and do much of the sheer grind of maintaining order here that editors should neither overreact, nor trouble them with frivolous complaints. Nishidani (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Dennis, Admitting your mistake rather than digging your heels in shows integrity. Keep up the excellent work. Zero^talk 13:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

That's a shame, as it was a good action. What possible value is there in "a concentration camp of Israel's making" ? What does it add to the discussion, other than incitement? Zaathras (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear. Someone needs to write a wiki article on the use of the word 'incitement' in this area. Any opinion on Facebook/Twitter/ critical of some Israeli occupational policy has, technically in Israeli law, the possibility of having the writer arraigned for the indictable offense of 'incitement'. 'Incitement' to what? t's a muzzling device.Nishidani (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I guess they can start here: 77% of Incitement Charges in Israel Filed Against Arabs, Study Reveals. Didn't know about this. Lese majeste-style. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

So the "possible value" is in fact "none", since you declined to defend it. Gotcha. Zaathras (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Close please

Recommend this report be closed, as Nishidani's block has been reversed & we don't want things to get overly heated 'here'. GoodDay (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes please, I think that would be wise. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Let's demonstrate that Wikipedia thinks it's ok for an editor to say that Gaza is a concentration camp of Israel's making on the Gaza Strip talk page. Let's not even remove it, let's just close this, cuz eff Levivich, he's partisan. Levivich 15:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Everyone is partisan. It's part of being human. The ability to recognise this, and accept the consequences - which may include other people repeating frequently-held opinions, even if you don't agree with them - is something we all have to live with. Either that, or accept the consequences of operating in an environment where only approved opinions are tolerated. Not a happy place... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Levivich. That is my considered view on a talk page as a corrective to an editor. Your considered view is that 'Israel is an apartheid state' on this talk page, a view I have consistently contested on the relevant wiki pages. You are offended by my endorsement of a widely held view. I am not offended by your widely held view. I just think it analytically wrong and certainly not grounds for a grievance call for sanctions.Nishidani (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

This is an issue of controversial content and pertains more to WP:NOTCENSORED than it does to ANI/AE. Not a cardinal sin, as noted, he he. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• I think there's still some discussion to be had, myself. Dennis responded too quickly and maybe too strongly (and he's to be commended for his response to those criticisms), but the original problem remains that what was said was problematic. Valereee (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

If what Nishidani said was 'problematic', I'd say that the circumstances which led him to say it were more so. The comment didn't come out of thin air, but during a discussion regarding an appallingly-sourced bit of partisan politicking that had been added to the article. [176] Wikipedia should not be citing pro-Israeli think tanks for the opinions of Palestinians. Even more so, when the source has been cherry-picked entirely out of context. Personally, when I see this sort of dubious POV-pushing in articles, I tend to get irate, regardless of the article subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I think AndyTheGrump has it right. That would make me irate. Doug Weller talk 17:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Just going to say that I don't agree with Levivich taking this to ANI (and think the unblock was a good call, even if Nishidani's comment did increase the temperature a bit in an already heated topic area), but I get their aggrieved reaction in this thread. Ad hominems without evidence aren't usually looked upon favorably around these parts, especially if challenged repeatedly. IP isn't an area I'm very involved with, so maybe it's one of those "it's so obvious everyone knows it" sort of scenarios, but Levivich sounds pretty sure it was off-base. Meh. I wouldn't be happy if someone dismissed my ANI report because I was partisan in an area I didn't feel in any way partisan in. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I have to say I was really quite surprised by the strength of the reaction to my comments - I really thought I was just echoing what was indeed a "so obvious everyone knows it" thing. Oh, and I'll just add that I never meant to suggest that the ANI report should be dismissed because of it, just that any admin considering action should take it into account. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:15, 7 2022 (UTC)

It's in no one's interest to go there, Rhododendrites. Wikipedia is an impersonal encyclopedia written by people who don't know each other. The only thing that counts at the end of the day is not our perceptions of each other, or self-esteem, but only whether or not the outcome of our collective interactions is a better page. Focusing on our respective foibles or lapses is a last resort, and one that should be used in extremis, always in consideration of whether or not the quality of contributions consistently improves the texts or not. Surely this unfortunate contretemps can now be now archived?Nishidani (talk) 08:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• According to Defining Antisemitism on State.gov, "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis." is one of the "Contemporary examples of antisemitism". Why isn't this statement removed from the talk page?Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Because concentration camps existed long before Nazism and persist to this day long after the demise of Nazism. Let's close this.Nishidani (talk) 08:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Exactly. There's nothing inherently Nazi about the concept of concentration camps, and the comment made no Nazi comparison. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

When I read concentration camp I think of Nazis, but reading Internment which Concentration camp redirects to, you may have a point here.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Juice3kh still at it, now with legal threats too

Juice3kh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Unfortunately no action was taken following my last report of this user [177]. The disruption of this user is still rampant.

They have been told in the past to refrain from adding unsourced information (such as very recently) [178] [179]. What do they do? Continue doing it [180]. Naturally I reverted them [181], which led to a barrage of disruptive actions by this user. First, they accuse me of stalking and threatens to call the police on me [182] (WP:NLT). Then they remove tons of information in the article in a WP:POINT manner [183]. And last but not least, they comment on my talk page with this grim comment;

"Guys, I urge you all to avoid this person. Ever since he lost a wiki edit war with me where I provided a more accurate source that backed my point up further than his, @HistoryofIran has constantly harassed me on anything I do since. I am very likely to make a new account due to his obsession. It is getting ridiculous. Not to add his alleged hate and biases towards Islam, Arabs and muslims. We very likely have a biased ethno-nationalist on our hands who tries to monopolise any edits on Iran related topics."

I have had several troubles with this user now, and based on this report and the previous, I honestly don't see how they are to build an encyclopedia. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Juice3kh for the legal threat. Cullen328 (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, if you see any new accounts engaging in a similar pattern of disruptive editing, let me know, since Juice3kh threatened to set up a sockpuppet account. Cullen328 (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Kosovo at the Olympics

POV editing. Milutin Šoškić, Fahrudin Jusufi, and Vladimir Durković, those soccer players and other mentioned athletes were born in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and took part as Yugoslav citizens. They had nothing to do with the Olympic Committee of Kosovo. What does Kosovan descent even mean?--Kozarac (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

This seems like a content dispute. Have you raised it on the article talk page? Follow the steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the content dispute, but the IP is evading a block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes indeed this is our friend @Xoni98 I'm guessing semi expired recently but someone else can figure out whether there's a range block that would help Star Mississippi 19:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I've chimed in on the content dispute, but I find it very curious that Kozarac -- an editor with precisely seven articlespace edits outside of this nationalist dispute (and his recent edits are in a dispute over the nationality of a German referee -- somehow found his way to ANI. Ravenswing 02:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

They’ve been active on de.wiki for 10 years so it’s not really surprising that they know of the existence of drama boards (even if they've mistakenly brought a content issue here). -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Yae4, brought by 84.250.14.116 (talk)

Yae4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I did not want to bring up User:Yae4 to ANI here because I have been an involved editor and User:Yae4 assumes good faith in many things for the best of a well referenced encyclopedia, but occasionally their chronic behaviors, requests for administrative actions and maintenance tagging upsets and frustrates many (involved) editors. What finally prompted me to start this ANI case was an uninvolved editor 1's comment about User:Yae4's behaviors, about an article I have never edited. Below is an excerpt.

Comment: Usually I would completely WP:AGF and not even check your Diffs and summaries, but something smelled fishy by "IP editor 7", so I'm making an exception. "IP editor 7" is you, 84.250.14.116. That's misleading to call a "7th editor". If you don't mind, I'll add some notes and comments inline. Reminder: I have been editing GrapheneOS since before published, helped it get published and in WP:DYK. I miss the days of cooperative collaboration and polite disagreemnts with Newslinger. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1102095113/1102120554

Editor 1, addressing User:Yae4: Your behaviour is contrary to assume good faith and I consider it direct attack against editors. ​

GreatDer. I thank them for their less promotional approach, but on balance, they do seem to ignore obvious rules, most recently on Murena disambiguation where they wish to include "Murena" phones before there is an article. Please read the full exchange; this summary is very one-sided. As I responded there, Special:Diff/1102136403 "Great, you personal attack then you mention of WP:AGF. See WP:CYCLE. It is unfortunate the leaders of /e/ and associated shell companies have abused Wikipedia for many years: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Indidea/Archive and continue by recruiting." -- Yae4 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1095874907/1096398509

IP editor 2, suspected undisclosed connections (COI) and IP sock of a stale Wikipedia account I can't disclose due to WP:OUTING. Not the most civil example of discussion in a dispute, but lays out problematic issues with User:Yae4's behaviors.

142.126.170.15: Another IP and likely sock, from Toronto, home of GrapheneOS. False accusations with zero basis should carry zero weight. Maybe their behavior deserves the sanctions, but Admins did not see it, or explain why not. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Special:Diff/975693856

Editor 3, but stale (August 2020). You're repeatedly making unsupported changes based on your incorrect interpretations and assumptions. You keep accusing others of doing what you are doing which is writing content not matching the sources. ​

Pitchcurve: example of editors who "know" the truth for sure, but don't bring sources. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1096634558

Editor 4: I have zero intentions on "causing confusion" and suddenly jumping to such a conclusion doesn't really appear to be you trying to WP:AGF and assume I'm somehow trying to cause issues. It would be nice if you could come at me with a less demeaning tone. ​

EndariV (see their comments below). I warned them for promotional edits and unhelpfully sticking Talk comments in a random place. They responded badly. Note: in Special:Diff/1099615786, you warned them for "Battlegrounding" changed to "Edit warring". -- Yae4 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1101770944

IP editor 5: Disputed, though I agree as an involved editor with this comment and the consensus exists. What on Earth? No, interpretations of statements that may or may not have been made by the project lead are not "basic facts" in the vein layed out by WP:PRIMARY. Besides, I thought the broad consensus of this talk page, and particularly the "open source" label discussion, has been that you do not have WP:NPOV on this point.

98.97.32.199, and they said also 71.212.97.11 and 75.172.38.252, over short times, leading to confusion as they acknowledged at their Talk. I warned about WP:COI. They responded badly. You said to them: I too was about to ask if you have undisclosed connections to GrapheneOS (you seem to have a lot of knowledge from involvement or a device with GrapheneOS installed for expressing statements and deeper knowledge of the subject on the talk page" -- Yae4 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1102580184

IP editor 5 commenting on User:Yae4 derailing discussions: I find it strange you're so holed up on this point. This is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Multiple IP user again: You again selectively quote to make it look worse. They also thanked me: "Thanks for catching the republishers, I've removed those sources."

There is an open, unresolved content dispute regarding what primary-source statements will be included, from GrapheneOS website, from GrapheneOS and Micay GitHub posts, and for completeness but little discussed, from GrapheneOS and Micay Twitter, with due respect to WP:RSPTWITTER requirements. GrapheneOS promoters want to include all the one-sided claims of excellence, but ignore all the difficulties with other projects, and statements that other projects are not welcome to use GrapheneOS sources. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1101089878, Special:Diff/1101359618/1101443894

Editor 6 (SPA), while not the most civil, accuses of bias, WP:NPOV and hints WP:CIR.

Again, false accusations with zero basis from WP:COI SPAs should carry zero weight. Regarding WP:CIR: With all due respect, I've had a feeling English is not your first language, and is a potential source of our misunderstandings. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1094629670

IP editor 7: Dispute, but summarizing statements and sources given by User:Yae4: That's not what the three user-generated sources you added said.

"7" 84.250.14.116 Were you trying to make this look like an additional, independent complaint? This is also, and a good, typical example of how you deal with content discussions - vaguely, leaving difficulty understanding what you really favor. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Several administrative cases have been raised by User:Yae4 they've been in dispute with, but none with administrative action taken against the accused (the editors User:Yae4 has been in dispute with). These discussions also involve frustrated editors (some by nature), and greatly waste editors' (and administrators') time and attention away from improving articles.

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive415#User:Pitchcurve reported by User:Yae4 (Result: )

2020 (Stale) -- Yae4 (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive456#User:84.250.14.116 reported by User:Yae4 (Result: )

As discussed above, 84.250.14.116 continues reverting and otherwise undoing other editors with little restraint. Warning them was the immediate precursor to them coming here. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1103#Editor 84.250.14.116 behavior
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1103#Editors EndariV and "Jann ruhe" behavior, and Yae4

Really one recent Incident. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2022/06#GrapheneOS, in response to (most likely) IP editor 7's edits. Result: User:Yae4 partially blocked for 1 week for edit-warring, no page protection increase.

EndariV comment below also supports page protection for GrapheneOS (though not sure they understand what it means). -- Yae4 (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Resonantia/Archive

Two sockpuppets, Anonymous526 and Anonymous874 were blocked; one was unblocked after promising to stop puppeting. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Strcat/Archive

2020 (Stale), but also had admission of WP:COI by Anupritaisno1: Special:Diff/975735744, and Strcat (Micay alias) "abandoned" that account, noted by Admin. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm quite certain User:Yae4 is well versed and aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and should have been instructed several times how to behave, either on article talk namespaces or on their user talk page directly. I don't know what the most appropriate corrective action could be taken here to address User:Yae4 behavior.

As a side-mention, User:Yae4 has been previously banned from climate change topics in 2020, due to arbitration enforcement.

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive265#Yae4

Reasons for arbitration included, invalid tags, Addition of synthesis, disruptive article edits and talk space activism promoting idiosyncratic and non-mainstream views which I concern is still happening to-date in other article(s) (which I've been involved in). The latest example of the "talk page activism" may be found at Talk:GrapheneOS, focusing their talk page discussions and views on "not to use sources" in several unrelated discussions, despite editors disagreeing with the view (although I think some of his points warrant some due weight, but better sourcing), although there are also several good examples of editing, discussion and criticism from User:Yae4.

I try to learn from the bad experiences and improve my sourcing. Yes, GrapheneOS had some poor sources, and I have accepted blame and tried to correct the mistakes. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Please keep comments on-topic and civil here. If you have a complaint about my behavior, please discuss it in a new section.

Pinging @Yae4 for awareness of ANI, because they have requested me to not personally leave messages or {{subst:AN-notice}} on their talk page. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I've moved on from attempting to edit GrapheneOS well over two weeks ago purely because Yae4's behavior is so mentally tiring and there needs to be some admin intervention here.

If Yae4 is not going to get any restrictions, GrapheneOS needs to be semi-protected at minimum because their behavior has driven away plenty of other editors and they have an awfully obvious non-neutral POV including some blatantly obvious offenses such as Special:Diff/1102122284 (I don't even know what this has to do with the article and seems extremely cherrypicked just to make people scared of GrapheneOS, but I'm not wasting my energy on Yae4's draining behavior) with very twisted and editorialized wording which only paints the article a bad image to newcomers. And Yae4 is very revert-happy on neutral, informative things about the topic of GrapheneOS which even another IP editor pointed out in Special:Diff/1102574120 which was an absurd amount of content removed for no valid reason even when much effort was put in at Talk:GrapheneOS for a lot of that content. (P.S. I'm only replying here because Wikipedia notified me of a ping here...) EndariV (talk) 01:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I think 84.250.14.116 also supports removing most of the material, as we were trying to minimize primary sources and summarize secondary sources, not cherry-pick selected info' from sources. As said above, sometimes they are vague on what they support, so yes, you are correct, it does waste a lot of energy. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Yae4 response

This is because I politely informed

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

they appeared to be routinely violating WP:3RR at GrapheneOS. They not only made a joke of it,[184] but responded by bringing us here, again; falsely accusing me of "adding invalid information".[185], and only lastly discussing it at Talk:GrapheneOS where content discussion belongs. If you wish, I can add a list of sockpuppets blocked because I brought them to attention, or a list "difficulties" involved with 84.250.14.116 and their many claimed other IPs, but it seems like a waste of time. -- Yae4 (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

84.250.14.116

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

This IP became, in essence, a very active WP:SPA at GrapheneOS around the time Micay/GrapheneOS tweeted about Wikipedia.[186]

Looking at their global activities,[187] they also edited several GrapheneOS wikidata properties, including their other communication channels - IRC and Matrix.[188][189] On the one hand, it could be random coincidence, and a suddenly very interested editor digging into details. On the other hand, it is consistent with responding to "a call" recruiting editors to GrapheneOS. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Who's on first?

Yae4, don't interlard your responses within others' posts, because it makes it impossible to tell who's saying what. Undo what you did and respond below the original post. EEng 00:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

User:NewsAndEventsGuy

This incident involves User:NewsAndEventsGuy ("NAE" for short). I've just pinged NAE, and will also provide the required notification at his talk page (NAE has asked that I not visit his user talk page but I subsequently asked the same of him which he then disregarded so I have no problem giving him the notice now). This complaint is about NAE's behavior today at 2021 United States Capitol attack. That article is controversial of course, and NAE has gone way over the line.

The article talk page gives lots of warnings, including this one: "The Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, including this article." NAE is aware and familiar with those discretionary sanctions, as he has templated both himself and me too on this subject. The article talk page section corresponding to this complaint is archived here, and includes extensive explanations by me.

• 22:12 on 6 Aug, NAE inserts new content into the lead: "In his hour-long speechm [sic] Trump said 'fight' 23 times and 'peacefully' just once."

• 22:59 on 6 Aug, new content reverted by me with edit summary "Removing original research, see WP:OR, also see talk page as to why this original research is extremely misleading".

• 23:24 on 6 Aug, new content jammed back into the lead by NAE, with misleading edit summary.

• 00:22 & 00:25, I attempted in-text attribution while making clear I opposed the whole sentence in the lead.

• 00:45 on 7 Aug, NAE deletes in-text attribution (while omitting deletion from edit summary).

The new content that was jammed back in remains in (as of the time of this ANI request). Contrary to the discretionary sanctions, he insists on putting his OR into the lead in wikivoice without consensus, jamming it back in after reversion, also insisting his number ("22") is more correct than the number ("20") asserted by the member of Congress who is the only cited source who has said anything about this subject. But there's much more aside from the above article edits....

• 00:34 on 7 Aug, NAE thinks it proper to use that article's talk page as a soapbox and forum, to discuss "your block-log, and prior history as user:Ferrylodge, and partial outting to the NYT as being a lawyer...." NAE also falsely states "You have not tried to revert...." Of course, I had reverted at 22:59 on 6 Aug. (only to have my revert reverted by NAE).

• 00:47 on 7 Aug, NAE uses a dummy artricle edit to say, "@AYW, you wanna make a change, convince us at talk" which is exactly what NAE refuses to do here. This is disruptive obfuscation.

• 1:31 on 7 Aug, NAE responds to my comment linking my own revert and his reinsertion of the disputed content by saying incorrectly "if you have problems with my article edit, please change it...." I had already tried reverting at 22:59 on 6 Aug, and failing that tried to insert in-text attribution at 00:22 & 00:25 on 7 Aug, and pointed out all of this carefully at the talk page. This is more disruptive obfuscation by NAE.

So that's the basic problem. Disruptive obfuscation, violation of discretionary sanctions, soapboxing, etc. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The matter is being discussed at the article talk page. What is so urgent about the situation that administrator intervention is necessary, when it appears that normal editor discussion is handling the matter sufficiently? Zaathras (talk) 05:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Because this editor should not jam new content into the article that has already been removed, and then pretend it was never removed, and then starting discussing my personal business profession that he discovered offline. I submitted this ANI request long before other editors happily showed up to help deal with this matter, I was stuck trying to deal with this BS for hours. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

We're volunteers, not on a timeclock. Zaathras (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

No one says otherwise. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I would first like to mention that since this thread has been open, I've been involved in the discussion of concern. However, I do think some of NAE's behavior here is concerning. It's not appropriate to mention someone's block history in a content discussion or aspects of a users personal life; such behavior is not WP:CIVIL and the latter could violate WP:PRIVACY. Also NAE reinstating a challenged edit they made within 24 hours IMO would constitute edit warring on a controversial article with Arbitration restrictions such as 2021 United States Capitol attack. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 05:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

reply by NewsAndEventsGuy

I will self impose a full project ban until I draft my full reply, but the accusation of improper outing requires immediate rebuttal. I did not discover AYW's law degree off wiki but by reviewing their turbulent on wiki history. (Placeholder... insert diff of the talk page thread congratulating Ferrylodge at time of their NYT interview.) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC) UPDATE, I will provide the promised wikilinks after AYW's attempted walk-back below. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn’t say anything here about “outing”, improper or otherwise. I said you were using the article talk page as a “soapbox and forum” by discussing my profession, my block log, et cetera. But if someone wants to show your soapboxing was more than that, feel free. Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

AYW accused me above of "discover(ing) offline" the fact s/he's an attorney. OUTTING is serious business so for the record....

• In 2007 three years into AYW's Wikipedia history, as their prior name "Ferrylodge", they boldly stated "I'm a patent attorney in Conneticut" [190]
• In 2008, still as Ferrylodge, AYW gave their NYT interview which I discovered onwiki, not off, in threads at ANI [191] and usertalk [192]
• Also in 2008, still as Ferrylodge and announcing a wikibreak, AYW said "I've got to get out of here or I won't be a lawyer much longer (at least not an employed one)" [193]

I will now resume my self imposed project ban while I prep my full reply; and BTW I have not looked at the or article talk since this filing popped up on my feed, so things here may have been overtaken by events over there, I don't know. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

None of those links point to an article talk page. Discussing other editors’ block logs, professions, et cetera at article talk pages is not appropriate because they aren’t forums or soapboxes. And of course you already said you got this professional info about me from a NYT article rather from the pages you now link, I quoted you above (and you gave the link to the NYT here). I don’t want you digging into my background on-wiki or off-wiki and then sharing your findings at article talk pages where it’s irrelevant. Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

So... is this resolved? Can we close? GoodDay (talk) 11:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The problems will recur, there’s no acknowledgment of error or fault or anything. Is it okay for me to now start jamming my personal opinions back into high-profile leads after they’ve already been reverted? Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not alright for anyone to do that. GoodDay (talk) 11:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree we should keep it open, pending my BOOMERANG request to reimpose AYW's US Politics topic ban. With two elder deaths in the fam on two continents, I'm a bit busy in real life so I'll just stay away until we deal with this, but yeah... let's keep it open. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Absent any acknowledgment of error, I support prompt administrator action, the situation is clear. It doesn’t make much difference though, this user will undoubtedly start a new retaliatory section at ANI. Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

As you both wish. GoodDay (talk) 12:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

If you share personal details of yourself on-wikipedia, you have no expectation of being able to demand other users not mention these details. Zaathras (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Not on article talk pages. What relevance does my block log have on article talk pages? Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The deaths in my family are inlaws and I've zero emotional impact, but I may be called to travel or do other logistical support so it may be awhile until I have my reply ready. In addition, my reply will attempt to show a pattern of low level LTA gaming and those are inherently difficult to research and document. I will resume a self-imposed project ban so there is no risk of disruption on my account. Er go, there is no reason we can't just leave this open until I can deal with it, and I'm working on it today. In the meantime, if AYW wants to withdraw this for some OTHER reason, that is AYW's perogative. But having been on the receiving end of their accusations, my preference is to keep it open and deal with the BOOMERANG I intend to file. I'll do it anyway as a standalone later but since AYW opened Pandora's Box, I'd rather just do it here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I withdrew and closed this thread, and then NEA has unilaterally reopened it without so much as pinging me, while also deleting my closing comment and signature. I’ll leave it up to ANI whether that action by NEA was proper or should be reverted, I stand by the closure and do not retract it. If this matter does proceed here, I hope that frivolous and/or bad faith allegations against me will be treated just like any other personal attacks if not more severely, and I can also dredge up historical diffs to corroborate and supplement my initial post here. It would be helpful if this matter proceeds here for user:NewsAndEventsGuy to let me know here whether he wants to focus on interactions between us, or intends to have a broader focus. Then I will know which I should do as well. My position is that NAE should restore my closing comment and closure, and start a new section at ANI if he wants to. Messing around with other users’ comments is not proper. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

(A) If you want to re-close, go for it, just cite yourself as the reason, rather than the deaths in my wife's family

(B) re your desire to know whether I want "to focus on interactions between us, or intends to have a broader focus", that's easy. On May 22, 2022, you swore I fully and sincerely support the five pillars and promise to do everything I can to help support them. (See your request to lift your 4-year US politics Tban at [194]) If you believe you have done that, then as my offspring say..."chill-axe"...because there is nothing to worry about.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I would have to know what kind of case to make against you, as you are subject to BOOMERANG too. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Demanded ping given [195]. if you still want to close without blaming me or my wife or our family situation, that's fine. Just say so. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn’t blame your wife for a damn thing. NAE invited me to re-close (see above), I did so in the manner he requested, and again he reverts while deleting my comment and signature, deleting another comment of mine, and also posting at my talk page which I’ve already requested he not do (see first paragraph in this ANI section regarding his ban from my user talk). This guy is a gamer, and this thread stays open. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Now he apologizes for deleting my comment, while deleting another comment of mine. This is an experienced longstanding editor. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Simple edit conflicts, nothing more, as anyone can see by looking at the virtually simultaneous time stamps. I tried to fix it myself but a third party [196] was seconds faster than me.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

In an edit conflict, I find it impossible to comment and have to start over. During the last hour, you’ve deleted two separate comments by me in separate edits (putting aside your deletion of my closing comments), you’ve posted at my talk page (against your ban from my user talk) when pinging is all I requested, you’ve falsely accused me of blaming your wife, you’ve asked me to re-close in a manner that you then immediately rejected. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

why the histrionics? If you wanna withdraw your accusations about me in the opening post here, just withdraw 'em and give reasons that are about you, not others. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I closed this thread twice for you, not a third time. How about you throw your BOOMERANG instead of dragging this out indefinitely? After you throw your BOOMERANG, I will need equal time to prepare mine, and defend against yours. Jamming your personal opinions back into high-profile leads after they’ve already been reverted is not appropriate especially where discretionary sanctions apply. IMHO, your activity here today shows that you’ve already had plenty of time to give your response to my initial post above. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

What's the hurry or worry? If you've been doing the 5Ps I'm full of bullshit and can be ignored. As a real life attorney, you know that cross pleadings are allowed for several days after the plaintiff fires their cannon, and research during discovery can take a very long time. I'm self imposing a project ban, so if you're halo is aglow, just carry on and worry not. Or with draw this for your own reasons that are about you, not others. Either way is fine with me. But my work has been delayed one day because you haven't allowed me the courtesy of silence so I can do my work. That, of course, is a lawyer gaming tactic which I'll point out when I do come back with my full reply. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Would you both like me to close/hat the entire thing, with no comment? GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I have no comment now about that. As a technical matter, if an experienced user gets an “edit conflict” notice, is it correct that he has two choices? He can go back to his prior screen display and re-post, thus deleting all the edits he was conflicting with and deleting all subsequent edits, or alternatively he can start a new edit. That’s correct, correct? Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

No, you have only one choice: start all over again to post your material.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

That’s what I always do, and it never results in anyone else’s comment being deleted. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

edit conflict, ironically....

Thanks, Bbb23, and that's what I try to do, and then I try to verify that I did it correctly, and when I'm aware I screwed up, I try to fix it. But when worked-up eds are cross-posting in blizzard conditions the white out that results impedes clear vision and the road gets slippery. So the smart eds slow way the hell down and quadruple the braking distance, and if there is a fender bender after all, there are always a few who will immediately scream "I'm gonna sue your ass" instead of asking "Hey, man, are you OK?" So relax, and try not to manufacture reasons to crucify others is my motto. Maybe I should write an essay on that theme. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I’m not trying to crucify you, Jesus. I would gladly close this thread a third time if you’d acknowledge that you could have done better with respect to the article edits I linked. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay: thanks for offering to do a nonadmin closure, but no thanks. If an admin, in their admin capacity, closes so be it. Otherwise, I believe Anythingyouwant needs to take ownership of their accusations against me. If they want to close, citing their own second thoughts or something else that is about them, I have no objection. But your nonadmin close will just kick a can of behavioral issues down the road, and it really needs to be addressed and resolved, in my opinion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I purposely have not (yet) presented evidence regarding other incidents involving NAE, so that this ANI experience would be quick and painless rather than blizzard conditions. However, the prospect of blizzard conditions will not deter me here; perhaps I won't scour Wikipedia for NAE's errors but I'll defend against any bogus accusations, and may even admit to some mistakes. I'll admit to a mistake right now, which is all I'm asking from NAE: in this edit of mine on 22 July, I jammed some material back into an article without consensus, I was wrong, and I promptly said so at the article talk page: "I try to abide by WP:BRD. I got provoked by the edit summary 'Removing editor POV insinuated into External Links list'. Such groundless personal attacks really get me annoyed. They’re no substitute for reasonable arguments. But I should have resisted the 'undo' button." The problem here with NAE is that he doesn't see anything wrong with jamming his personal opinions back into a lead after it was already rejected. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk page flame warrior not learning anything

User:J1DW was previously blocked for incivility and has continued to be uncivil (https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deep_state_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1073917568) and generally disrupt talk pages with not even wrong nonsense (https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1102613760). I think this is pretty clearly WP:NOTHERE behavior. Dronebogus (talk) 05:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• I disagree that it is WP:NOTHERE behavior. He can be overly aggressive, but the contribs that I've looked at, he is talking about improving the articles, he is raising issues that arguably have merit. The way he is doing it can be abrasive, but I'm not sure it is uncivil. He would benefit from dialing back the intensity and verbosity. There are some issues, but I think you may be overstating it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree with Dennis, I think he's making valid points. Arguments getting heated is to be expected when working in topics such as these, but it doesn't rise to the level of sanctionable incivility. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 20:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

    Calling people “jackass” and promoting ludicrous conspiracy theories after being sanctioned once isn’t WP:NOTHERE? Dronebogus (talk) 09:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Anyone have the time for a bunch of rev/deletes?

[197] all advertising their twitter feed in their edit summary. Maybe we need a filter to stop this sort of thing from happening? I doubt there is often a legitimate reason to use Twitter in an edit summary. Doug Weller talk 06:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I’ll take a look at the rev del, Doug. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

They also started spamming commons. <voice=Clouseau>Nut any meur</voice>. DMacks (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I took out a few. I can recommend User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRevdel.js for mass rev-deletions. It's relatively unobtrusive when not needed. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew something existed but couldn't recall what it is. I'll get it. Doug Weller talk 10:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Smorkach 24's not-so-subtle vandalism

First of all, I know that this discussion is about a vandal user, but after reporting said user over at WP:AIV, an admin told me to report them here (see [198]).

User:Smorkach 24 started editing with some unmitigated vandalism, and their tactic of choice was (and still is) to modify some numbers while keeping the references for the previous numbers (see [199], [200], [201], and [202] for example).

After two warnings, issued by myself in quick succession and culminating in a level 4 warning, Smorkach 24 started to make a few non-disruptive or "half-disruptive" edits (like [203], [204], [205], [206] and [207] for example). However, they also keep making some unsourced additions/modifications, like these ones: [208], [209], and [210]. BilletsMauves^€500 12:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

They appear to have had several warnings, so I've blocked them for a fortnight. If they come back and repeat this nonsense, they'll be permanently blocked. Deb (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

He has to spend a night in a fort? EEng 01:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Unprovoked personal attack

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

---

I'd like to report a personal attack made by NorthBySouthBaranof[211]. Please remove the uncivil comment and investigate if they are making a habit out of it. 2A02:A420:45:2D66:A802:2A15:6E4D:BA4D (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC) (Edit: My notice on the users talkpage has been read [212]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A420:45:2D66:A802:2A15:6E4D:BA4D (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Not even remotely a personal attack. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It is, however, an intentionally condescending comment, and somewhat unnecessary. I feel sure that NorthBySouthBaranof will think better of his approach. Deb (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Quote: "Your attempt to microscopically nitpick...suggests an overdose of copium". That is ad hominem and a childish insult. Such uncivil comments should be removed. Such comments serve no other purposes than trying to discredit other users. 2A02:A420:45:2D66:A802:2A15:6E4D:BA4D (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Hold on here. An IP that started editing Wikipedia mere hours ago, knows about WP:ANI? GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

How is that even relevant? Does the fact that I'm not logged in justify an unprovoked attack? Or did I provoke the other user by not logging in? 2A02:A420:45:2D66:A802:2A15:6E4D:BA4D (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The point is that this isn't typically a page frequented by new users. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Then they don't have a point, cause the age of one's account or whether they are logged in or not shouldn't provoke such an attack. 2A02:A420:45:2D66:A802:2A15:6E4D:BA4D (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying you're an established editor who's logged out? GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

(ec) No one has said otherwise, but it is unusual for new users to find their way here without prior knowledge. Have you edited Wikipedia before today? 331dot (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It shouldn't make any difference. 2A02:A420:45:2D66:A802:2A15:6E4D:BA4D (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It does make a difference & will you please indent your posts, properly? GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

(ec) I will take that reply as a yes. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a bit snarky, and unworthy of NBSB; but if you think that's a meaningful "unprovoked personal attack" you'd better crawl back into your shell, because you have an incredibly low pain threshold. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Have we met?2A02:A420:45:2D66:A802:2A15:6E4D:BA4D (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

In my experience, it's better not to remove personal attacks unless they are blatant, targeted and/or obscene. They serve as a reminder to future editors. Deb (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• A single snarky comment. I wouldn't call this a personal attack. You need to have thick skin to work in a collaborative project. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
• If you're going to open a discussion by alleging something is "highly biased," [213] at an article about a racist conspiracy theory, you should be prepared to take some heat. Acroterion (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Taking some heat is fine, ad hominem attacks are not. They should keep it civilized. Wikipedia is not Britannica so I think it is safe to assume they are not the same editor and therefor the attack was unprovoked. 2A02:A420:45:2D66:A802:2A15:6E4D:BA4D (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• I'd be inclined to dismiss out of hand an ANI complaint by an anon IP with precisely four edits (all to the talk page about which they're complaining), all taking place today. This is absolutely a sockpuppet, and should receive no more due consideration than any other. Ravenswing 14:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from any further false acquisitions as they too are personal attacks. 2A02:A420:45:2D66:A802:2A15:6E4D:BA4D (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I too, am suspecting that this is an WP:EVADE situation. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Generally, when looking at an IPv6, you should assume that it is likely to be dynamic. Oftentimes people are assigned a static /64 range; sometimes they get bumped around wider ranges like a /32. This user appears to have been on their current /64 for a few days - I have no doubt that this recent comment, which actually is a personal attack, was them. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

That's only the biggest mobile operator in the country. 2A02:A420:45:2D66:A802:2A15:6E4D:BA4D (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Huh. Gee, wonder what the chances are that someone nattering on at the Great Replacement talk page flings insults about being "woke" and pushes MAGA POVs on a fruit page, for pity's sake? Ravenswing 14:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

ad hominem much? 2A02:A420:45:2D66:A802:2A15:6E4D:BA4D (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Why, yes, we are quite likely to discuss the character and motivations of the parties in an ANI filing. That's often the point. Do you feel that being combative here is likely to work to your advantage? Ravenswing 15:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

No, this is not about me. Please start a new notice if you want to make this about me. 2A02:A420:45:2D66:A802:2A15:6E4D:BA4D (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Your refusal to indent your posts properly, is becoming disruptive. Not to mention, your approach to this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

This is you too, isn't it? Antandrus (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely not. And accusing me of anti-antisemitism is a personal attack I will not accept. I'd like to report that as well, but I'm not sure if it necessary to make a separate notice? 2A02:A420:45:2D66:A802:2A15:6E4D:BA4D (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked Special:contributions/2A02:A420:45:2D66:0:0:0:0/64 for one week. The anti-semitic range, no doubt the same person, isn't worth blocking at this point as they've only used it for two edits, the last of which was on August 5.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Horse Eye's Back

Horse Eye's Back (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not sure what to do here. This user is on a campaign to remove almost every citation to Jason Colavito in Wikipedia. I warned him yesterday to stop which started a heated but, I thought, at least no longer disruptive to mainspace discussion at WP:FTN and WP:BLPN. Then I come to see that he has returned to his campaign [214], [215]. Can an admin review this activity? It seems pretty problematic and hard to track. Serial removal of citations and content in WP:FRINGE articles is a pretty difficult thing to accept as a reasonable activity, IMHO. I want to assume good faith here, but it looks like a WP:PROFRINGE WP:POVPUSH from what I can tell. jps (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

They removed a link to a personal tripod.com web page and to an OpEd, respectively. Seems that they are in the right on both. Zaathras (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The review was published in Skeptic Magazine. That it was hosted at the author's personal website is fairly beside the point. I can confirm it is the same review. I think that arguing that an OpEd right-of-response to a WP:FRINGE claim is something that needs to be removed is controversial at best. Do you disagree? jps (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Then it should be cited to Skeptic Magazine, not to the author's personal website. Skeptic Magazine is a reliable source. Personal websites are not. Ravenswing 16:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Right. The point is that this is a matter for WP:CLEANUP. The citation was to Skeptic Magazine. The URL just pointed to a copy of the article. But what happened was a wholesale removal of the citation and the uncontroversial text in exactly the way that Elizium23 warned is a problematic practice. jps (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Then surely the answer was to correct the citation, not remove it? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The first removal is fine. There's already a much better quality source rebutting, so the PARITY argument is moot. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. There was content that was removed here about precision which is very valuable for the reader. jps (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes the classic spurious report to ANI immediately after being kicked off the user's talk page[216]... Not in anyway transparent or disruptive. You will be lucky to survive this without a boomerang to the bum. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

If you would just agree to stop your campaign, we could close this ANI filing. But you seem to be committed to treating Wikipedia as a battleground in articlespace. I don't see how to continue without escalation. jps (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

"If you just stopping making edits I disagree with, I wouldn't have to take you to ANI." This is content, not conduct. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

When someone stubbornly continues a campaign that has been identified by kBs of text as being at least controversial, you better believe this is conduct I'm worried about. jps (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Its interesting to see the arguments I made with you earlier get parroted back at me, I'm not treating this as a battleground and TBH I'm still bewildered at the opposition to what should have been a zero controversy removal of a non-notable blog written by a non-expert. Do you still stand by your accusations that I'm engaged in collusion with other editors in my "campaign" specifically "That it happens to be a campaign by you and a few others to remove Colavito's incisive criticism of the current UFO craze just happens to be this particular time." [217]? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Simply asserting that all you are doing is removing "non-notable blog written by a non-expert" does not make it so. You seem convinced of the righteousness of your actions. I'm asking you to stop and at least propose your changes on the talkpage first. jps (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Well it certainly isn't because I have a "misguided personal vendetta"[218] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish@Zaathras ] removed material sources to The New Republic's "Soapbox" section. The design company Pentagram says "As part of the redesign, TNR launched four new editorial verticals that each feature a specialized focus and in-depth reporting: The Soapbox, on politics; Apocalypse Soon, on climate change; Sold Short, on inequality; and Critical Mass, on culture."[https://www.pentagram.com/work/the-new-republic/story TNR calls it their "politics vertical".[219] There's no indication that's an opinion sections. Doug Weller talk 16:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

"editorial" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Even granting that it is an OpEd, I see no policy-based justification for removing such from the article. WP:BLPSPS says nothing about "no op-ed"s and the paragraph(!) was in compliance with WP:ITA. jps (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I see no evidence that it is editorial, only that it is investigative reporting. Horse Eye's Back's opinion isn't sufficient. Doug Weller talk 16:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

You literally provided the quote saying it was editorial... "TNR launched four new editorial verticals that each feature a specialized focus and in-depth reporting" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

you are glossing over the more important part of that quotation: "in-depth reporting." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

In-depth reporting in a commentary or editorial piece doesn't change anything about its nature, its still treated as an opinion piece because it still is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't object to the New Republic source, that's properly a content issue. My problem with the other is that there is already a better quality source rebutting it, so an SPS isn't needed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

My beef is not with you, ScottishFinnishRadish. I have no doubt you would be willing to discuss these matters calmly and politely at the talkpage (I think that the source you want removed contains additional prominent information that deserves inclusion, but let's go to the talkpage). My beef is with someone who is continuing to remove sources in articlespace after being warned that this is pretty disruptive. And I see no chance of this letting up without some sort of third-party intervention. jps (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• This just seems like a content dispute; it would make far more sense to let WP:FRINGEN or WP:RSN handle it rather than here. Whether you're right or not about those sources being usable, removing them from a handful of pages (and that's all I'm seeing from the links you've provided) is not a conduct issue. Also, you should know better than to use a template like this for a content dispute with an established editor - come on. Those are for warning editors unfamiliar with policy when their edits are unequivocal vandalism, not for starting a discussion with an established editor over removals you simply disagree with. (The "first and only warning" template in particular is for edits that do things like replacing an entire page with "cocks cocks cocks cocks", not for something like this.) Also, it looks like the discussion at WP:FRINGEN on this source is trending generally against your position (am I correct in my understanding that these are the same dispute?), which makes bringing it here feel like WP:FORUMSHOP. Horse Eye's Back is right that you need to tone it down or risk a WP:BOOMERANG - Horse Eye's Black isn't going to get banned just because they disagree with you on the usability of a source or because they removed it on a handful of articles when you wish they wouldn't. Constantly accusing them of WP:PROFRINGE behavior also borders on WP:ASPERSIONS - you need more than just "they've removed a source I feel is necessary for WP:PARITY" to make that sort of accusation. It's fine to feel that the source needs to be used, but tone it down and focus on the sources and content, and not the editors involved. Or at least find better evidence that there's a serious long-term problem here rather than just one disagreement over a single author! --Aquillion (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Did you want a list of all the diffs from yesterday where they removed Colavito sources from many, many different articles? My complaint is not with removing sources from a handful of pages. My complaint is with the sustained campaign. I don't use templates like that often, but when I see WP:ADVOCACY like what I saw, I think it demands that you call attention to it in some way or another. Also, whether you like it or not, removing content from Wikipedia that helps characterize FRINGE positions is WP:PROFRINGE advocacy. We do have WP:DUCK/WP:SPADE tests for a reason. There is no use dancing around the issue. This is a question of disrupting the encyclopedia into making it a WP:POVPUSH towards the fringe theories Colavito is critiquing whether that is the intention or not. jps (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree that removing inappropriate self-published sources on personal websites and blogs, means that we are pushing a POV in favor of fringe theories. I haven't made the edits myself, but I do think it is proper to remove self-published sources. We should ALSO remove the fringe theories they are debunking if those theories are similarly poorly sourced or otherwise problematic. RS and BLP don't go out of the window just because it's a fringe area. Andre🚐 17:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Intention does not matter. The outcome is to de-emphasize mainstream assessment of fringe theories. That is a POV-push in favor of fringe theories. It doesn't matter your motivation nor how you feel about what you are doing. jps (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The outcome is that some self-published blog sources that are not RS from a non-expert will be removed, which improves the encyclopedia. I'm not categorically endorsing the action, but I do think it is good faith and an attempt to improve things, and you are assuming bad faith by equating it with a POV push for fringe. Andre🚐 03:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Did you want a list of all the diffs from yesterday where they removed Colavito sources from many, many different articles? Well, yes. When you come to AE you're asking administrators to take action, and it's on you to make the case for that. If you just wave vaguely at someone's edit history, then it's less likely that anything will happen unless the problem is glaringly obvious at a glance... and it's easy to overestimate how deep a perceived problem is when you're knee-deep in it. If you think that the source is being removed from so many articles without consensus that it qualifies as WP:FAIT, you should demonstrate that. Either way, though, given the split at WP:FRINGEN - which doesn't seem, at a glance, to support your position - I would suggest just starting an RFC there or at WP:RSN to settle the underlying dispute. And if you feel that an editor's editing is so unreasonable as to be a WP:POVPUSH / WP:PROFRINGE, you should be able to point to a consensus that Colavito is obviously and unequivocally a high-quality or necessary source to the point where nobody can disagree in good faith, or to a broader history of issues outside of just this one dispute over one person. I'm not really seeing any possibility of you successfully making either argument at this point - the WP:FRINGEN discussion is full of people saying, in apparent good faith, that Colavito's blog isn't a great source - so it doesn't seem like something for WP:AE. That doesn't mean Horse Eye Black is necessarily right, and maybe if they've removed it from a bunch of articles with no prior consensus you could make a WP:FAIT argument but I'm just not seeing how you can successfully make the argument that their removals are so clearly bad as to represent a WP:POVPUSH / WP:PROFRINGE issue rather than a content dispute. --Aquillion (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, Aquillion, here you go: the targeted removal by HEB of Colavito-sourced material has happened here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and perhaps in other places I have missed. This is not simply a content issue, but rather a behavioral pattern of disruptive, seemingly WP:PROFRINGE WP:ADVOCACY editing. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Check again. Theres no material removed in a lot of those... Just the (generally redundant) citation to a non-RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Your desire to eradicate all citations to Colavito from Wikipedia should have been floated at WP:RSN first. By first discussing your intentions to undertake such a large scale campaign, you could have avoided problematic edits like this as well as speculation from other editors that you intend WP:FRINGE ideas to be uncriticized. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I had no such desire, that wasn't a large scale campaign or a campaign at all it was barely a dozen edits. I do not believe that we should eradicate all citations to Colavito from Wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I would say 13 is technically "barely a dozen" but that doesn't make it an acceptable amount of unilateral changes wrt this source. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Removing all that material (yes, citations qualify as article material) from multiple articles within a brief period, and without any discussion, certainly looks like a Gatling gun-ish campaign to eradicate a source you do not like. If you are truly not advocating a pro-fringe pov, HEB, going forward perhaps it would be best to stop doing that and engage in discussions about your desired edits. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

You said "Colavito-sourced material" not just material. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Yup, that poor phrasing is on me. Seems really, really minor compared to the disruptive behavior that initiated this ANI report, though. Will you agree to stop those rapid-fire, discussion-free removals of citations to Colavito? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not currently engaging in "rapid-fire, discussion-free removals of citations to Colavito" so it is not possible for me to do that. Does that answer your question? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

What you believe is a non-RS, disputed by many multiple other editors. The proper course of action here is an RfC on WP:RSN, not the wholesale removal of the source from everywhere it appears on the project. I can see that as an uninvolved editor, that this was bound to create more dispute, not less... — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

On the other hand, if a Colavito ref is being used as a redundant citation, it should be removed per SPS. JoelleJay (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Of these, I think the SPLC and the TNR are fine to keep in. Some of them are valid removals, usage of personal blog/personal website without a clear application of self-published expertise. I don't buy the argument that Colavito is an expert on all these random historical topics like conquistadors and ancient Rome. Andre🚐 19:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't remove SPLC, its just a weird looking diff[220]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah yup. Good catch, sorry. Andre🚐 19:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

This sounds like an argument we should be having at RSN, not an argument we should be having after an editor removes every mention of the citation. I don't think this is particularly actionable, but it definitely isn't the approach I would have taken. We should strive for less dispute and disruption, and removing many multiple citations because one believes it is a just action when others disagree is not the right call. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I did not "[remove] every mention of the citation" that is wild and I would never do that. Even if for nothing else theres still WP:ABOUTSELF so its really hard to see a situation in which that would be the right call. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Horse Eye was bold, he was partially reverted or disputed, and now we are discussing it. In several places now. Andre🚐 20:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Davidbhd

User devoted single-mindedly to sanitising the lead on Italian right-wing cartoonist Ghisberto. Starts by removing citations (including academic) on any details of the artists ideology [221], then goes more subtle by just removing the artist's opposition to immigration [222] or his sourced description as a populist [223]. Notwithstanding all of the reliable sources, I don't know anyone can say that this isn't anti-migrant right-wing populism, even if you can't understand Italian. [224] User has never left an edit summary and has two warnings (from users other than myself) for removing content about Ghisberto. I would recommend a topic ban from the Ghisberto page and then escalating consequences if the user repeats such behaviour on other pages (edit warring, lack of communication, removing reliable sources, sanitising) Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Trolling-only account

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

Sole purpose of this account: adding nonsense.[225]-[226]-[227] - LouisAragon (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeffed per WP:NOTHERE. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: for future reference, you'll often get a much quicker response for normal vandals like this at WP:AIV — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 19:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

PrinceStingySpoilero and Norway IPs

• PrinceStingySpoilero (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 2A01:799:B27:4600:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

PrinceStingySpoilero is a rather uncommunicative editor who makes minor style adjustments to many music articles. Some of the style adjustments are against policy, but PrinceStingySpoilero doesn't use talk pages and has not changed their habits in response to notices from me or The Keymaster. The first communication I ever saw from them is this angry comment today in an edit summary.

We are here because of edit-warring violations of WP:MULTIPLE, with PrinceStingySpoilero teaming with Norway IP range Special:Contributions/2A01:799:B27:4600:0:0:0:0/64 to continue reverting my reverts. Example A.[228][229] Example B.[230][231]

If I could get this person's attention, I would first tell them that commas are fine for lists of two or three items in an infobox, and that going around changing away from commas[232] is a violation of WP:STYLEVAR. Another point I would make would be about not adding small fonts to the infobox per MOS:SMALLFONT. Otherwise, some of the editor's work is useful. Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Blocked one week for disruptive editing, with no comment on the IP — one hopes this not only prevents the ongoing disruption, but catches their attention and promotes some discussion. — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 19:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The IP range is continuing the edit war. Binksternet (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for a week as well. Black Kite (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! We're done here. Binksternet (talk)

Troublesome IP editors in articles about Mesopotamian deities

In a number of articles about Mesopotamian deities, including Nergal (got locked until the end of August due to this activity), Hadad, Resheph, Ištaran, Nindara, Anat and more, a range of IPs (which might belong to a single user but I cannot verify this; the pattern of action is always similar, though) engage in disruptive editing, mostly involving attempts to force original research into them, though sometimes also rendering the infoboxes difficult to use by adding images through means other than the infobox template (see the Anat article earlier today for a recent example). The edits usually involve attempts at proving completely unrelated deities are identical (the fact it ultimately always boils down to the same two deities is what made me suspect this might be a single person at work), and typically twist sources already provided in the article to support the opposite of what they actually say (for a very recent and rathet blatant example, see the Anat article again, where they try to prove an article by a well established expert in the field, Jo Ann Hackett, explicitly advising researchers to avoid describing goddesses as interchangeable, actually justifies their own "research" relying on this very assumption). Often they attribute own thoughts to credible authors, the content of whose publications is easy to verify. They also randomly copy paste references from articles without adding the corresponding entry to the bibliography, and without crediting the article they copy pasted from appropriately. In some cases, this makes actual work which needs to be carried out (which there is a lot of, many articles about this topic are stubs or rely on fringe or outdated sources) incredibly difficult. Their additions typically have little to do with the section of the article they add their original research to, as well (for example in the Nergal article they added their ideas about cities of Marad and Kish, both in historical Babylonia, to a section discussing Nergal's relation to deities outside Mesopotamia altogether). Furthermore, these anonymous users (or user) appear to never use the talk page, and instead will randomly edit articles in inconsequential ways (ex. changing punctuation) to leave notes for other users in the edit summary. The notes are often rude but that's beside the point, my key issue is meritorical. I avoid bothering Wikipedia higher ups most of the time and simply contribute silently, but this problem has been ongoing since early summer and it is getting difficult to deal with. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@HaniwaEnthusiast: Please provide the specific IP ranges and diffs; you must also notify the IP users ot their talk page using {{subst:ANI notice}}.

The most recent IP editors to the Anat article were 93.35.64.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 93.44.2.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 93.35.64.63 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 93.36.40.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); the last of whom left several complaints about you at their talk page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that's the same person, I see they have been notified on one of their numerous talk pages by anoher user (well, you) already, thanks. Their complaint boils down to being unable to add unsourced or poorly sourced information (typically lifted from articles over a century old, or obtained by completely misinterpreting sources - see the Anat article, they quite literally try to make Hackett's article say the opposite of what it does) to articles into which others poured, at times, weeks of work. I should also note they appear to operate on the assumption I am male which is not true and I would prefer to not be labeled this way. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Jeirjrnem

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

---

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

Please nip, in the bud. Thanks! ---Sluzzelin talk 20:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Nipped. Acroterion (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

🙏 ---Sluzzelin talk 21:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

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

BBoyNeptune06, NPA, legal threats

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

---

I was going to make a thread discussing the behavior and personal attacks by BBoyNeptune06 but now they've started with silly legal threats: WikiBullying only appropriate path if unresolved is a class action lawsuit. I can't believe how toxic this platform has become with Administrators abusing people. It's like the inmates took over the prison. and continued, baseless aspersions and personal attacks. This doesn't even begin to address the obvious undisclosed COI either, but there's enough here to warrant an outright block at this point and that's ignoring the egregious WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS on Athaenara's talk page. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

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

PA by new SPA

Could someone take a look at this exchange on my TP to see if it crosses a boundary. I guess they are overreacting to an edit conflict on their end. MB 23:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

warned. I don't think it's block worthy (yet), but unclear if it's a lack of English skills or general disruptive editing. It's late here so if someone needs to take it further, feel free. Star Mississippi 00:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Requesting to delete my personal Wikipedia page

I Naveen Jain with User:Cecellixcd wishes to delete my personal Wikipedia article. I mistakenly edited my Wikipedia article but later I realized the issue of COI. After some months, I learned numerous things on Wikipedia, and I found that Wikipedia is an independent foundation where anyone can make constructive edit, suggest and lay a complain to editors & administrators.

I am not interested in having a Wikipedia article because there are some haters who are using a single-sourced hate article in a local newspaper to spread false rumors. I am worried that this has started hurting my kids or numerous people in my family. Please delete the page as soon as possible to avoid causing accidental harm to my family in this environment of people finding a reason to hurt others but as Wikipedia is an independent foundation they will considered my request immediately. Hope my above request will be considered.Here is the link of my personal Wikipedia article;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naveen_Jain Cecellixcd l (talk) 02:03, 08 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Cecellixcd. The article Naveen Jain is not going to be deleted because Jain is a notable person and this is an encyclopedia. You can make a formal Edit request at Talk: Naveen Jain identifying the source spreading false rumors. If that is correct, then the source and the content it supports will be removed from the article. Do not edit the article yourself, because you have a Conflict of interest. Cullen328 (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Isn't that proxy editing, you're requesting? GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The biographies of public figures are generally not deleted from Wikipedia because of complaints from the subject. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE. The best you can do is start a new discussion at Talk:Naveen Jain and suggest a treatment of the negative material. If there is some pushback, you will need to convince multiple editors and achieve consensus for change. Binksternet (talk) 02:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

This page could really stand to have a few more active watchers. There's been an unusually persistent push since literally days after it was created fifteen years ago to remove any whiff of criticism, which culminated in a horde of sockpuppets actually managing to get the article deleted this past February to make way for a freshly-written hagiographic stub ready to take its place. On the plus side, it goes through long periods of inactivity, so watching it isn't much of a burden. —Cryptic 02:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Beyond the above comments ... if you really are Naveen Jain, you can't imagine that a public figure of your notoriety is immune to being discussed on social media. Nor does a "think of the children!" argument carry any merit (not when your children are in their twenties and thirties, anyway, and presumably are quite capable of avoiding your Wikipedia article if it suits them to do so). Nor is it conceivable that "haters" using a "local newspaper" is of unusual concern when your doings are discussed by CNBC, Forbes, Business Insider and major metropolitan dailies. Nor are you a marginal figure who has chosen to withdraw from public life, which is the only real criterion to accept such a request. Ravenswing 03:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

We're gonna need a broader block

Of this IP range [233]. The partial block issued by Tamzin appears insufficient, with the user now trolling multiple articles and talk pages such as Community, Group, Social group, Government and Government (disambiguation). 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oh. I just glanced at the edit history going back a week. This is a deeply disruptive range. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Remarkably sleepy /16. Going to be conservative now with a week's siteblock, given the size of the range, but it looks like this could conceivably be blocked much longer without significant collateral damage. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  I've done another round of revdels. (Just treating any version of that mixed-language/mixed-script rant as presumptively revdellable since it usually contains BLPvio and always is of no encyclopedic value.) If I missed anything, anyone is welcome to let me know off-wiki. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you, Tamzin. Is there any reason not to revert the mishegoss they left at multiple article talk pages? I'm not going to do it tonight. And yeah, the harassment of Zinnober9 is more fodder for a lengthy block. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  I've blanked some stuff. Feel free to get more if I've missed anything. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Full support of a full block. I had just reported them to AIV here before 2601:19E... informed me of this incident report. I'll add that in addition to those edits by the problematic range, that they left a mostly incoherent comment on my talk page accusing me of "working against humanity to be unconstitutional" [234], and followed it up with (using IP 106.67.103.236, rather than ‎106.67.56.10) a false accusation claiming I was conducting "private illegal business to gain individual benefits" [235] and demanding I prove to them I'm an admin. I have no administrative powers, and I am not conducting any business here, illegal or otherwise. Zinnober9 (talk) 04:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Continued Harassment, Personal Attacks and Uncivil comments, restoring removed threats on my talk page again and again by User:Hongqilim

It's been more than One and half days now, User:Hongqilim crossed the whole limits and putting all the energy on personal attacks, harassment, vandalising my talk page. This has been gone to a whole different level now! Every 5 minutes after, I get a threat and I am totally frustrated now! See, WP:DRRC, it has now gone beyond that!

*Everytime I remove threats, User:Hongqilim post it again and again and again. It is now frustrating to see such User exists! Here is my talk page history [236]

*And still now, User:Hongqilim is posting these Special:Diff/1103067110, Special:Diff/1103066036, Special:Diff/1103065049

*Reverting my revert on my Talk page Special:Diff/1103065049, Special:Diff/1103068406

*Restoring removed threats

*Using loads of derogatory comments and loads of personal attacks on me.

*Commenting on different sections of Talk page which is completely different from this issue!

*WP:ADMINSHOPPING with using references by restoring previously removed sections of my talk page and rephrasing words and then teaming up with editors who had a different issue addressed on my talk page.

Following WP:RPA I removed all threats again and again but my talk page vandalism continues. Put warning on User talk:Hongqilim but this is continuing like a rollercoaster now.

All of the incident start with a revert of this edit Special:Diff/763184178, which I labelled as Vandalism because User:Hongqilim deliberately introduced wrong numbers which I calculated and the prev version stands out to be correct and the wrong version kept on adding in each year like a Chain reaction, I reverted it Special:Diff/1102841903 with an edit summary which is mandatory to put to explain the changes I have done, quoting "(reverted vandalism by User:Hongqilim, Special:Contributions/103.169.215.63)" I could use rv/v instead but the meaning remains the same.

I didn't put any warning template because this edit was almost 5 yrs back so I refrained form doing so! Now, it comes User:Hongqilim with this Section on my talk page User talk:Sneha04#Vandalism on Commonwealth Games articles, (although now the limit is crossed, User:Hongqilim using multiple section and restoring previously removed section of my talk page, and commenting on them.) I replied with enough clarify that Users making such deliberate vandalism blatantly should have no room to speak on! I welcome co-operation and already collaborating with some more editors under Wikiproject Commonwealth to reverify pages, but I call out this edit as obvious vandalism on edit summary which is different from disruptive editing as it made more than enough blatant disruption to Project's purpose! But things doesn't stop here, User:Hongqilim continues to put energy to make new section and continue harassments.

Now,

• "he has already started to act as if he is an admin.", I don't know which part of my reply seemed to be like an Admin yet not clarified by User:Hongqilim, (BTW, I don't like to get presumption of my gender that's why I myself use neutral phrase instead of gender pronouns something like this WP:GENDER)
• "Think you are a powerful user? Prove to the admins you are! Don't say I didn't tell you, You cannot take my freedoms away! I am not convinced you are the powerful user you claim yourself to be.", I don't know why to establish myself as "powerful user"
• "Why bother other people's business when you can mind your own?"
• "Remember that you are not mighty and like me" I don't want to be mighty, Wikipedia is collaborative platform and not a place of introducing deliberate disruption!
• "Do you need help? What is your problem? If old edits can be labelled as vandalism, then what am I even doing here?" I already clarified the reason for calling it vandalism so no reason to ask it again and again!

And a loads of comments are there!

• Questioning whether my gender can face like a man. See here
• Showing experience criteria, See here "Are you living in a world of fantasy? Why are you fantasising yourself as an admin when you are just a less than a year User."

After all these, User:Hongqilim went on to WP:FORUMSHOPPING to get a favour from two different Admin's talk page, User talk:Abecedare#Commonwealth Games Vandalism and User talk:Moneytrees#Commonwealth Games Vandalism! Using evidences by restoring different deleted section from my talk page history which have whole different issue and then rephrasing those words for teaming up and meatpuppeting with User:Silverdragon3002 to go on a campaign against me. And the endless threats and WP:HUSH on my talk page goes on.
Sneha04 ^💬 08:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I tried to talk to you, but the only words you said were insisting that I was wrong!--Hongqilim (talk) 08:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think your reasons that I have vandalised the articles were valid.--Hongqilim (talk) 08:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

That was my last resort, because I don't believe I have done such a thing.--Hongqilim (talk) 09:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Why did you said random changing the numbers on 1998 Commonwealth Games was an act of vandalism?--Hongqilim (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Only after 5 years of editing you said that I was vandalising the article, that was ridiculous!--Hongqilim (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I have removed what I said earlier to the admins, which I also admit I was wrong, because I want to talk to you politely.--Hongqilim (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't do it on purpose, why accuse me? Wouldn't it be as simple as just replace those numbers, if you think your figure was correct?--Hongqilim (talk) 09:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, I have been editing on Wikipedia for 7 years, but never had anyone like Sneha04 accused me of vandalising articles.--Hongqilim (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

What did you mean by teaming up and meatpuppeting with Silverdragon3002? I don't remember I've ever did that.--Hongqilim (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't remember I have done any such thing as randomly changing numbers.--Hongqilim (talk) 09:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Why was it you that found out my wrongdoing and not anyone else, if I ever did it?--Hongqilim (talk) 09:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• @Hongqilim: Can you stay off Sneha04's talk page please? @Sneha04: Can you use the undo option with a descriptive edit summary rather than a revert marked 'vandalism' for these kind of edits please? On the content issue, what do the sources say? -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Removed it. Hongqilim (talk) 10:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)