Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User CejeroC disruptively editing

CejeroC (talk · contribs) has been inserting the parameter color_process into the infobox for multiple live-action film articles, and while it is a valid parameter, the documentation explicitly states, in fact in the first sentence of the description of the parameter, "For animated films only." I first notified Cejero of their misuse of the parameter in December of last year. On March 16 I became aware that they were continuing to misuse the parmeter and issued another warning that day. The following day I issued a final warning as they had continued to insert this parameter on live-action films. As far as I'm aware, neither any of my warnings nor any other messages left on their Talk page have been acknowledged, perhaps because they appear to be editing using a mobile device. I understand that as a result of that they may not even be aware that they are receiving notifications at their Talk page. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that leaves any options other than to block them until they acknowledge that they have read and understand that they are misusing the parameter in question. I would be happy to see them unblocked as soon as they indicated that they would stop applying that parameter for non-animated films, and am amenable to other options that will similarly result in their no longer making these disruptive edits.

Examples of misuse of parameter (all from March 17 or later):

• March 21 (after final warning) - [1]
• March 21 (after final warning) - [2]
• March 17 (precipitating final warning) - [3]

Thank you for your time. DonIago (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I have also observed no evidence of acknowledgement, apology or refutation argument from the user. The ability to acknowledge and either explain or apologise for disruptive editing (with merit or not) is essential. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 09:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

CejeroC appears to have always edited on mobile, and almost all their edits are tagged as being made with the WMF mobile app rather than mobile web. They do not appear to have ever edited either a user talk page or an article talk page. It is my understanding (I don't have a smartphone but have seen Iridescent raise this issue) that the mobile app gives editors no indication they have messages other than a number that they may well overlook or misinterpret, and no link to their talk page. This person may well have no idea they have been warned against doing this. Is there a page they have hit repeatedly where a hidden note could be left? I know this came up here concerning another editor recently, and I've seen disbelief expressed on a Wikipedia-criticism site that I should not name on-wiki (by, IIRC, a member of Arbcom), so please excuse me if I have this wrong, but we urgently need to develop heuristics for such situations, because the WMF is apparently not likely to fix this glaring problem that we can't communicate with a very large class of relatively new community members. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The only pattern I saw is that their edits have focused on articles for older films, articles that probably don't have a lot of eyes on them. Unfortunately they appear to go in, make their edits, and then don't revisit the same article for months at a time, likely assisted by the aforementioned limited-oversight on such articles (i.e. if an article on your watchlist never updates, why would you go back to it?). I undid a large number of their erroneous edits last week, which may get their attention, but that's speculation. Unfortunately, in the interests of getting their attention, given their unpredictable editing habits, I'm not sure there's any option other than to block them. It's not what I'd prefer; I just don't know any other way to flag them down at this point. DonIago (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

They don't have e-mail enabled either, so I took a radical step and plopped a big fat message to them at the top of Draft:List of Columbia Pictures films (1950–1959), which I saw they'd edited a couple of times recently. I'm not sure whether the app shows hidden messages, so I restricted my WP:IAR to disfiguring a draft. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the Android app (for me at least) gives logged-in users a very jarring and hard-to-ignore system-level alert. No idea how reliable that is, though. It's logged out users (on all apps and the mobile web), and all iOS app users who live in a bubble. See WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

That's interesting, thank you. I'm flying utterly blind here, I know almost nothing about using smartphones, so, a stupid question: after the ding and vibrate, can an Android app user then find the message? Is there a way to get to their talk page? IIRC Iridescent was laying a lot of the blame on the Minerva skin that's forced on mobile users by default? Yngvadottir (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Just tried a few more tests. Even with the app closed and the phone locked, I got a system-level push notification a few minutes after leaving a message on my alt's talk page. In it, there was a link to the talk page. I tried again with notifications for the app blocked (in Android settings), and of course got no push notification, as expected. But there was also no in-app notification, or at least it was so subtle that I missed it. I have no idea how many people block notifications for the app.

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T274359

Aside, I tried using the app to reply here. Put "wp:ani" into the search bar and clicked the first result. Got a copy of ANI from August 2020! Going to sign off for tonight. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm use the Wikipedia Beta app for browsing and found that it is showing me "Stayfree76" from 27 August 2020!! Vikram Vincent 14:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits continue. [4]. DonIago (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Would it be possible to issue a block to persuade them to look at their talk page? Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

That was my thinking. Block them so that they'll read their talk page, acknowledge that they've been misusing the color_process parameter and will stop doing so, and then unblock them unless there are other concerns as well. Some of the film info they've added has been erroneous as well, but I don't have enough examples to make a case for a block on that basis. DonIago (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

CejeroC is continuing to misuse the color_process parameter, as demonstrated by this edit as of March 28. DonIago (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I propose a WP:CIR block to persuade the user to look at their talk page and actually respond to messages since they do not appear to be aware of this discussion and their talk page in general. It seems to be the only option we have to get them to engage in discussion with the community. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

On second thought that might not work either since custom block notices are broken on the mobile app. Does anyone have any other ideas? Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah: dump the mobile apps. EEng 12:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

In terms of stopping their disruptive edits, I don't know that any other options are available. I'd certainly prefer an option other than a block, but needing to fix their edits every time they do this is getting old quickly. We can hope that if they couldn't edit via the mobile app then they'd take a look at their PC to try to figure out what was going on. DonIago (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• I no longer feel so alone and inadequate. I have never been able to make use of the phone for editing or even viewing current content. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I tried to view my Talk page using my phone and the Wikipedia app, IIRC, and I could see section headers but no text. I have some tricky coding on my page, but still... DonIago (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

User is reintroducing color_process after Doniago removed it. This is honestly getting frustrating at this point. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch! This implies that they either didn't notice that their previous addition had been reverted, or decided to reinsert the parameter regardless, without discussion. Perhaps it should be noted at this juncture that they also don't use edit summaries. DonIago (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

User is STILL inappropriately adding color_process after numerous attempts at communication and getting them to stop. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Another example of the user adding color_process after repeated warnings. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I think, after all this discussion, the only viable option is to block. People can't keep checking/correcting these edits while being unable to communicate with CejeroC. It's a poor solution but it will hopefully get their attention and an inquiry from them. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't look like anyone tried posting to his account on Meta so I did. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

1001st attempt at throwing spaghetti at the wall, Do we have any ability to log an editor out? If so, do we have any ability to alter the "Main Page" they see or any messaging they would get upon logging in? I'm guessing not, but spaghetti meet wall Slywriter (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It's a bit mind-blowing to me that he'd be a senior database administrator for WMF but never check his WP-EN Talk page... DonIago (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mark Ironie: What makes you think this case (CejeroC) is connected with JCrespo_(WMF)? Johnuniq (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Crap. At some point I got into the next section here, confused the names. Because there, editors were having difficulty reaching JCrespo_(WMF). I'm really off my game tonight. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• I replaced User talk:CejeroC with a simple warning. Their lengthy talk page looked like something that I would ignore if I were a new user so it seemed best to make it clear. I would prefer some uninvolved opinions on whether a block would be appropriate if this continues but I'm prepared to implement a block if needed as the time wasting cannot continue. Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  I think a block would be appropriate at this point. Maybe around 48h – they seem to be editing almost daily, so that should be enough to get them to notice –, with a block message that tries to direct them to use their talk page. I only just noticed someone said earlier those aren't displayed. Still, not like there are any other options. 22:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC) – Rummskartoffel (talk • contribs) 22:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to have worked- they're STILL doing the same thing! Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• And AGAIN. That old saying about the definition of insanity seems extremely relevant right now. I would hate to block this user since their edits have been generally constructive but I don't want to babysit and patrol their edits for the rest of my Wiki-editing career. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Relying on WP:IAR, I temporarily replaced Draft:List of Columbia Pictures films (1940–1949) with a message to CejeroC. They edited that page recently and frequently. Johnuniq (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your efforts to get their attention! DonIago (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

User has either not noticed or just doesn’t care- they’re still adding color_process. I’m afraid that the only viable option here might just be blocking them in the hope that they’ll check their talk page. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 13:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

They've figured out how to use the revert option now. Padgriffin (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Correction- they did a manual revert. Point still stands. Padgriffin (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• I've blocked for 48 hours as suggested above, given the evidence of continued disruptive editing. If the behavior continues right after the block expires, an indef will be appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  Looks like they're right back at it :/. Support re-block for longer duration or indef. – Rummskartoffel (talk • contribs) 13:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  I've indeffed and left a note that the block can be lifted as soon as they demonstrate that they can engage with other editors. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your help everyone. Unfortunate that it came to this, but it seems that without a better way to compel editors to review their Talk pages, blocks may be the best (though not great) tool available. DonIago (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Bad Faith accusations by NeutralHomer

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

---

I made a series of edits to List of stations owned or operated by Sinclair Broadcast Group to update the list of stations owned by Sinclair. As a source I use Sinclair's most recent 10-K filing which lists every station they own or operate. User:Neutralhomer insists without a source that they operate WDSI-TV. While Sinclair did purchase the assets of that station and transfer them to another station that they do own, they did not purchase the station itself and there is no proof that they operated it at anytime. It is is not part of their 10-K filing. NeutralHomer took the extreme step of reverting my entire series of edits and accusing me of vandalism. After I warned him that his bad faith behavior was borderline harassment, he reverted a second time and has now reported me for vandalism and demanding that I be blocked. His behavior is completely out of control and unacceptable. I made a good faith edit and accusing me of vandalism is straight-up WP:HARASSMENT. Aside from the fact that he is wrong about the disputed material, he is trying to weaponize what is a content dispute by calling my edits vandalism. There is no place for this behavior here.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, can we turn down the over-dramatics? Sinclair has a history of making "shell companies". The above user took this literally and shouldn't have. For a user who edits TV station pages, they should know this. Anyway, when I warned the user, I provided the sources needed, especially for WDSI. Their claim they had no proof, is wrong and a lie. It was provided to them before their created the above ANI post. They reverted, claiming "harrassment" (which is hysterical), and I reported them to AIV. Their revert to the WDSI page hilariously included the edit summary "you failed to provide a source", when I provided it on their talk page within the warning. Something I didn't have to do. I provided the source. They have claimed my report at AIV is "bad faith".

What we have here is a user who is wanting to operate within their own rules. 1) Do whatever they want. 2) If they get called out, complain with wild overly dramatic nonsense. Um...no? This isn't the way this works. We all follow the same set of rules. I didn't have to provide those sources (which took a two second Google search), but I did. That's not "bad faith", that's a paddling to a user who has been previously sanctioned and then handed something to continue editing....only to have it thrown back in my face. That's bullshit. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:06 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

Over-dramatics????? You're the one who came to my talk page and accused me of vandalism! That's one of the most offensive things you can do here! Not only that, you reverted a whole series of edits not just over the disputed material. I made a good faith edit, you are exhibiting WP:OWNERSHIP. Your two sources does not say what you think they say Source #1 does not even mention WDSI. If you read beyond the headline on source #2 it says Sinclair purchased the "purchased the programming and assets of WDSI-TV and WFLI-TV." They did not purchase the broadcast license and there's no mention of them operating the station. Why? Because they moved the Fox affiliate to their own station WTVC. It one thing to have a source, but you actually have to read the sources you're providing (and not just the headline). NeutralHomer is operating within his own rules. If he disagrees with someone's edit, he just accuses them of vandalism. No talk page discussion, nothing! More proof of NeutralHomer's ownership is in this other unpleasant interaction I just had with him. Um, who's been here for almost 16 years, has multiple GAs and an FA under his belt? Yeah, that'd be me....I know what a damned primary source is, ya damned fool! Finally, that's a paddling to a user who has been previously sanctioned and then handed something to continue editing What has I been sanctioned for? The only sanction imposed on me was quickly rescinded by the community, so please don't make even more false allegations (you've made enough already). I wouldn't have brought it up otherwise, but your own block log is already a mile long.--Rusf10 (talk) 08:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

This just keeps getting worse, now NeutralHomer edited his post to include more "sources" [5]. Problem is that none of these mention WDSI nor prove his allegation that New Age Media (the owner of WDSI) is just a Sinclair "shell company". Zero proof has been provided that WDSI was ever owned or operated by Sinclair. They purchased the programming assets, moved the Fox affiliation to their own station, that's it. They do not own or operate WDSI, never have.--Rusf10 (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

That's one of the most offensive things you can do here. = Over-dramatics. Trust me, after 16 years, that's the least offensive thing you can do here.

Now, what you got sanctioned for, no idea, I just can read your talk page. :) 1, 2, 3, and 4. I never said I was an angel. :) In fact, if asked, I would readily admit that I wasn't an angel. :) You don't get to be here for 16 years without going through a few pairs of horns. But I did something right, cause I'm still here. :)

By the way, we are verging on "content dispute" territory and "admins really aren't gonna care" and "take it to talk" territory. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:42 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

Every time someone brings me to ANI is not a sanction. And the actual sanction that was rescinded, I have no obligation to explain that to you, so please do not talk of things that you have no knowledge about. What is important here is that you cannot edit my comments as you did here. Please do not do it again. Yes, this would have otherwise been a content dispute, but in content disputes you don't make bad faith accusations of vandalism which is exactly what you did and why this is now at ANI. And yes it is offensive to have someone like yourself come to my talk page and accuse me of vandalism on a series of edits I made in good faith.--Rusf10 (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

You do understand that that is called an edit conflict. It happens. Usually the system catches it and throws an actual edit conflict warning up, but in this case, it actually copy/pasted my edit over yours. Calm down, wasn't intentional.

Now, to once again, show you this and this proving that, yes, indeed, Sinclair owned or at least operated WDSI-TV and has since at least 2015. You've known this for at least 2 hours now, though I suspect much longer....but at least two hours. Stop acting like you have no idea about this. You've known for at least 2 hours.

The bad faith is, and continues to be, entirely yours as long as you continue to act like this is totally unknown to you. You still have not addressed any of this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:11 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

Redirect: A "sanction" is not someone taking you to ANI. A sanction is someone placing a punishment against you. Especially when ArbCom is involved or a TopicBan. That's not just "[being] taken to ANI", that's a punishment. You did something wrong and you got punished for it. Also in this post, the "sanction placed on you...is now removed". Now, why would someone say you had a sanction placed on you or had one removeded, if you were just "being taken to ANI". That makes no coherent sense.

In this post, an admin, warns you (they say "you should still consider this a warning") that if you continued to "[file] vexatious requests for admin intervention against ideological opponents and recognize that if you continue to do so any admin is likely to hit you with a standard sanction like a topic ban." So, you have a history of receiving sanctions and being warned about coming damned close to getting them. Getting TopicBans and InteractionBans. Not cool, dude. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:22 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

First of all, don't call me dude. Second, what the hell that that have to do with anything? I am not going to waste time here explaining previous sanctions that were rescinded (and for good reason). None of this concerns you, all you need to know is I'm not under any sanctions currently. Repeatedly bringing up the topic is a WP:PERSONALATTACK and you should be blocked for it. Here is Neutralhomer's block log and you have what seem to be active sanctions, proving that your record is far worse than mine, so cut the crap.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

In some Class A hilarity, Rusf10 removed the source with the edit summary removing false information, source provided does not backup claim that Sinclair operates station (or ever did), they simply purchased station's assets and moved them to their own station. No mention of master service agreement either. Just wow! Nowhere in the source does it say that. They just made that up in their heads. Without showing any evidence to back it up...except one SEC filing, which I've proven isn't worth squat since Sinclair has a history of shell companies.

Sorry, dude (it's a non-gender conforming "beach" term to mean any human who's gender is unknown...otherwise I would use "Sir" or "Ma'am"), but you have taken out a reliable source (I can add another) because it doesn't confirm to your world view. Just cause you don't like it isn't a personal attack. Oh, and since you bring up my block log (nope, not under any active sanctions) and make accusations about me (yeah, you just did), I can do the same. That's not a personal attack, I have receipts, as the kids like to say.

Let's talk about my block log. The one in July 2018, I earned that, I was dick. The one later that year, that was an overzealous admin and was quickly overturned, still on my record. The one in 2020, definitely earned that one and I'm proud of it. Yes, that came with a topic ban, but a very "unethical" one in my and many other's opinions. I'll leave it up to you to find those discussions. But I'm proud of the issues we raised in that conversation and hopefully, one day, that topic ban will be lifted. If not, I'm OK with it. We did good work in raising attention to a major phobia and erasure here at Wikipedia.

So, yeah, pre-2012, I wasn't an angel....I readily admit it. Post-2018, I had blocks, but with I earned them in one way or another. Since you won't even discuss yours, consider my bringing them up a "personal attack", that says more about you than me. Says you'd rather distract from the real discussion, your actions, and spin it around on me, then actually deal with the problem. I'm not it....it's you. You haven't address multiple issues. Also notice, no admin has posted on this thread.....they don't care. They are letting us deal with this ourselves...or letting us "punch ourselves out". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:10 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

I've already explained the content dispute and why you didn't actually read your source.it doesn't confirm to your world view No, this is a simple matter of fact. Either Sinclair owns and/or operates this station (even through a shell company as you allege) or they don't. one SEC filing, which I've proven isn't worth squat Let me try to educate you. The SEC filing is highly reliable since there are legal consequences for putting false or misleading information on such filings. If you actually read it Sinclair not only lists every station it owns or operates (and doesn't own), but discloses its relationships with these other companies you are talking about (and New World, owner of WDSI is not one of them).

It would be a waste of everyone's time to explain my previous sanction which the community rescinded because they found it to be inappropriate. It is also not related to the issue here and your repeated mention of it is just a WP:PERSONALATTACK. The fact that you're proud of your sanctions shows you've learned nothing and I am not going to waste my time trying to research them because quite frankly I don't care.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

As I've explained to you, the fact it is not mentioned in your precious SEC filing is moot (and at this point not even worth mentioning...repeatedly), as Sinclair has shell companies. Shell companies that they operate as completely seperate entities from Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. (SBGI), making that SEC filing...pointless. They give two shits less about FCC consequences (seeing as they have been fined repeatedly), you think they care about the SEC?! Look at the sources, I provided proof on two of those fines. The fact you'd rather overlook that, speaks more to you than I. Also, the fact that an SEC reference is "highly reliable", but FCC sources aren't highly reliable is just hypocritcal...and funny. :)

As for WP:SANCTIONS and WP:BLOCKs, I think you need to read up on those. You seem to have an issue on tell which is which. Yes, I am proud of that 2020 block and TopicBan. It was "unethical", it was against the rules of Wikipedia, should never have been issued, and I will wear it like a badge of honor until it is removed and the articles that were vandalized by the same users are restored. I have a fairly large and vocal community behind me on this one, so we'll keep at it. :) Oh, and your calling everything a "personal attack" is removing all meaning of what a personal attack is. Calling you out on your hypocracy is not a personal attack, it is what it is, calling you out on publically available information. You do it to me, I'll do it to you. You did, I "returned fire". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:30 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

I never said the FCC was unreliable, I just said it didn't establish notability. That's two completely different things. I don't know what your personal beef is with Sinclair (I have no feeling on the company one way or the other, I just wanted an accurate list), but making the accusation that they are falsifying an SEC filing is very serious and I suggest you retract it. 10-K filings are not only are signed off on by company executives but are also reviewed by an independent registered public accounting firm (In this case Pwc). I have not personally attacked you, but you continue to do it to me. Accusing me of vandalism for a good faith edit and repeatedly bringing up unrelated (and rescinded) past sanctions are personal attacks.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually your words were "They are not even close to be 'highly notable'". I have no "personal beef" and if you wanted an "accurate list" you would use the references given to you instead of using only ONE source. Multiple sources are generally expected under GNG and RS for not only an article, but any sentence. When faced with new sources, you must change the article, not ignore them. Sorry, this is Wikipedia. We include...>EVERYTHING!

As for your harping on "personal attacks" where there aren't any, I'm beginning to feel personally attacked.

As for PricewaterhouseCoopers, Sinclair's Treasurer and Vice President Justin L. Bray, he used to work for them and in fact, still holds a senior management position with PwC. PwC isn't the most ethical company on the planet either (just this side of Deutsche Bank). So, they would definitely overlook Sinclair's shell companies. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:05 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer:, please strike this comment. As far as I can see, having looked at this, the SEC 10-K filed by Sinclair *does* capture stations where Sinclair operates (via an LMA) a station that is owned by a shell corporation (or a legitimate third party); those are the ones marked with "(d)" in the filing. I don't have a very high opinion of the truthfulness of executives, myself, but you've just alleged that a named, living person has engaged in a *particular* criminal action without adequate sourcing. This is a clear WP:BLP violation. There's now plenty of discussion on the article talk page that helps reconcile the apparent discrepancies in different sources about WDSI without invoking this sort of conspiracy theory. Please back it up before bad things happen. Choess (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Choess: Thank you for asking nicely. Honestly, in this mess of a discussion, I appreciate it and it's refreshing. :) I looked back on and yeah, you have a point. Never thought of the BLP aspect, so a definite point can be made there for a BLP violation (even though that person doesn't have an article), I'll admit to that. I'll take the ding for that one. So struck. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:28 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

• ADMINS: Would an admin or three mind putting their 2 cents in and bring this to a final conclusion? It would be appreciated. I'm getting a headache from banging my head against the wall and I'm running out of sticks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:40 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

I am not an admin. I am not even a particularly knowledgeable or experienced Wikipedian. I do know, however, that you two richly deserve one another. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: Dear God no. I'm just trying to beat sense into an already dead horse. I'd personally rather go stand in traffic in the middle of my local interstate, but I have a strong dislike for people who just don't get it. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:30 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

NeutralHomer, I am terrified to even ask this, but here we go. I understand Rusf10's logic here (not that I necessarily agree), but I am having trouble following your argument. Certainly shell companies exist, but what sources are you relying on with regard to this particular edit? Apologies if I am being dense, but let me know at your convenience. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: Why be terrified? These are the examples of Sinclair's history of "shell companies" including New Age Media. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:03 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, perhaps you should try WP:DRN? Apart from the personal vitriol between you (which could lead to both of you being topic-banned from the area) I don't see what ANI can do here. For the purpose of resolution, I will comment on the content dispute: while I'm not sure WDSI-TV even has a website, the co-owned WFLI-TV's website http://chattanoogacw.com/ has "© 2021 Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.". User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@力: The website would be part of the Master Service Agreement referenced here. As for further content dispute resolution, does the previous source and this one cover the New Age Media sources (like WDSI-TV and WFLI-TV) and these examples of Sinclair's history of "shell companies" further source the edits removed by Rusf10 on List of stations owned or operated by Sinclair Broadcast Group? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:35 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, perhaps you should try WP:DRN? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC) Actually, DRN won't take it. Both on the technicality that this thread is open, and because it appears neither of you have commented on any article talk page on this topic. Please post the sea-of-links on a talk page; if you can't prove your point in 2 links it's too complicated for ANI. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@力:New Age Media owns both WDSI and WFLI and Sinclair operates WFLI for them, that is not in dispute. Sinclair only purchased certain assets (the Fox affiliation, the studios, etc.) of WDSI, not the station itself. Then they moved the Fox affiliation to WTVC (a station they own). They never operated or owned WDSI. NeutralHomer is now pushing a conspiracy theory where Sinclair is able to falsify their 10-K filings with the SEC by exerting control over PriceWaterhouseCooper for the purpose of hiding their ownership in WDSI.
Understand that I wouldn't bring a content dispute to ANI. That's not why this is here. This is here because NeutralHomer asserts that not only am I wrong, but I intentionally vandalized a page. He first asserted this on my talk page and then filed a false report at WP:AIV (links above). We are here because of his unacceptable behavior. I either want an apology from him for accusing me of vandalism or if he refuses, I want a block. The choice is his. --Rusf10 (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rusf10: Aha, we do have something suitable for ANI. Content disputes are not vandalism, and Neutralhomer must refrain from claiming that they are in the future. (An apology might be nice, but I wouldn't expect one while you are arguing.) I must continue to insist that the content dispute be discussed on an article talk page, I will not respond to that part of your comment here. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@力: Yeah, not apologizing. I have no problem taking it to talk (expected and predicted above, also called the "content dispute"), we are going to need a mediator as nothing will get done. I make points, he ignores them and jumps up and down about how I've personally attacked him and all about this SEC filing. This precious SEC filing. We can take it to talk, no problem, but an admin mediator is going to need to be required or this will never be resolved. This was not a content dispuite, especially when the two sources were given within the warning I issued. But it devolved into one when Rusf10 brought it to ANI, spun this into something about me, ignored every source I brought up as if the SEC filing was the end all, be all. What it was and what it is were two totally different things. Talk page, fine. But I request a mediator, I request Rusf10 calm his accusations of "personal attacks" and demands of blocks down, I request the effected pages be temporarily locked during the discussion, else we have nothing to discuss. I have been quite polite, Rusf10 has been the aggressor in this. He brought this to ANI, I issued a warning and it was left at that. He chose to continue the behavior when he reverted. Talk page, mediator, fine. He chills out. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:37 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

I've started Talk:List of stations owned or operated by Sinclair Broadcast Group#Dispute regarding WDSI. Please take your content discussions there. Admins might be the same people that mediate content disputes, but that's not part of the "admin" job for ANI purposes. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@力:I understand, but you've seen how this has gone. If you think this has been a devolved nightmare, I'm fairly certain that will be just as worse. :( But, here we go. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:43 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

Continued false allegations

Neutralhomer continues to make false allegations about me. Let's set the facts straight.

• I request Rusf10 calm his accusations of "personal attacks" and demands of blocks down The first person to request a block was Neutralhomer [6] Requesting block
• Rusf10 has been the aggressor in this The first interaction was [7] where I was accused of vandalism. I think that qualifies as an act of aggression.
• I have been quite polite [8]Do NOT attempt another completely moronic amount of vandalism like this again. Repeat this action and I report your account for vandalism and assure it is blocked. I shouldn't have to find the sources for this FOR you. You should find this YOURSELF. DON'T let it happen again. Again, same post to my talk page , sounds real polite.
  

This is why we are here, not the content dispute.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• It's been a little over a year since you were last blocked for this kind of behavior, @Neutralhomer:. I'd kind of assumed you'd re-learned your lesson and put it all behind you. You are really in the wrong here (behavior-wise, I have no opinion on the content). I'm not sure you understand how close you (NH) are to being blocked here. This is not just a content dispute. I know you don't like me, but I've never given you bad advice. I really advise you to stop with the battleground behavior. Doubling down on it is the wrong move. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Actually, what I don't like is admins not responding two the actual issues. "I have no opinion on the content" is what I have gotten from 力 and now you. Now, this is what happened last time and that vandal was allowed to run around roughshot for a couple weeks before he was finally shut down. Unless we are talking about 2020 and I don't think anyone wants to bring up the Asexual Erasure discussion that lit ANI/AN and many other pages aflame, leading to me and several other editors getting blocked and topic banned, while the people doing the erasing got nothing. So, have an opinion, either one of you. Cause not having an opinion isn't helpful. Pouncing on me and yelling the ever convenient "content dispute" isn't helpful. There are plenty of topics here, plenty of content, plenty of points. I urge you to have an opinion on those and not like my opinion on you cloud that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:26 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

I do have an opinion, AND I WILL EXPRESS IT AT THE TALK PAGE. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@力: Actually, that was a reply to Floquenbeam, not you. Perhaps it would be best served if Floquenbeam, unassociated with the discussion, or someone who isn't so, um, hot tempered (?) takes over the moderating. I believe that would be best, because that, my friend, was unnecessary. <_<? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:11 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

• (1) Power~enwiki is not an admin, nor am I. (Floquenbeam is.) (2) This board is for dealing with behavioral problems. It does not settle content disputes, which must be settled on article talk pages or at WP:Dispute resolution. (3) When an admin tells you that you're close to being blocked for your behavior, it's probably best not to lash out at them. Just sayin'. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• An admin will need to respond to the thread at User_talk:Neutralhomer User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to Block Neutralhomer

Neutralhomer continues to personally attack me on an article talk page [9] and repeatedly restore the personal attack [10] and [11] after I removed the personal attacks citing WP:TPO. Other users have become involved in the content dispute discussion and it has been productive. Everyone else has been respectful except Neutralhomer. He has attacked my character, misrepresented previous ANI discussions that I have been involved in (saying I was put under sanctions even when it was the other party involved that actually was or the sanction was rescinded), and now called me incompetent. This is unacceptable WP:HARASSMENT. Based on the fact that his last block which was also for harassment occurred only about a year ago and was for 72 hours, I am proposing a one week block--Rusf10 (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. This will give myself and other users more than enough time to settle this content dispute peacefully. As I was about to post this proposal Neutralhomer unilaterally tried to close this thread [12]. He is out of control!--Rusf10 (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Response: User has previously reverted my edits for TPO violations, is engaged in an edit war over mysterious "personal attacks", because I dare mention his supposedly long expired "sanctions" (he did bring up my block log first...fair play). Now, because the user is basically being ignored in the discussion over at the WDSI-TV talk page and this ANI thread had been closed (or not), he is now engaging in his own harrassment.

Since Rusf10 wishes to bring up that block, but Cullen328 was heavily involved in a [Talk:Pauley_Perrette#Coming_out_on_Twitter massive discussion] regarding Pauley Perrette (actress, formerly on NCIS) and whether she came out as Asexual via her Twitter account. I was blocked by Cullen328 and topic-banned from the Pauley Perrette article. ArbCom, somehow, got involved and in a stunning display of Asexual Erasure and blocking, were allowed to place sanctions and topic bans on anyone who basically argued against what they were doing. I was subject to harrassment, both here and on Twitter, and anon's from the community basically demanded to answer their questions about her sexuality. A disgusting display all around. The entire Asexuality Community came together (which I wasn't apart of, but discussed the innerworkings of Wikipedia to that day and have formed friendships with) and fought against Wikipedia.

So, yes, I was blocked for "harrassment". Who I was "harrassing" remains unclear. I am proud of that block because I was on the right side of that block, I did my part, and we fought for what was right that day. We showed that Wikipedia isn't all Sunshines, Rainbows, Happiness, and Inclusion like they might want people to think. It's a LOT of erasure too. We might have lost that battle, but we fought, and they war against erasure sure as hell ain't over (on any platform) and I'll be there (I don't like bullies).

So, yeah, let's talk about my 2020 block. I'm more than happy to. I'm quite open about it. In fact, I share it with everyone. What I don't do is say it's a "personal attack" and "no one's business" and "they should be blocked" for bringing it up. Bring it up....I clearly don't have anything to hide. Does Rusf10? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:19 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

Oh and Speedy Close and SALT this entire discussion (top to bottom) and BURN IT from space. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:20 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

I was not involved in that 2020 matter when I blocked you, Neutralhomer, despite your repeated claims to the contrary. I acted strictly as an administrator enforcing BLP policy rather than as an editor advocating for content. You wrote at the time But since you did give me permission and since you have now violated another rule (WP:NOPUNISH, on top of INVOLVED) by continuing this block as it has now gone into the punitive state (I am topic banned from the page and the block is for "battlefield behavior at Talk:Pauley Perrette"), I will be more than happy to add this to the complaint I will file against you when the block concludes (remember, you did give me permission). I note for the record that you never filed a complaint against me as you said you would at the time. If you were to do so, I would defend myself vigorously. Yes, I gave you permission (not that you needed it) to file a complaint against me because I was fully confident that I had acted correctly and that your complaint would fail. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

To summarize the matter in a few words (rare at this noticeboard), your behavior regarding Pauley Perrette was way out of line, and your block and topic ban were entirely appropriate and proper. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh please Cullen, we can debate all day whether or not you were involved or not (you were, you know it, you shouldn't have blocked me, you know that too), but it doesn't matter. You all won. You got to erase everything from all those articles. Ned got to have his fun, everyone else got to have their fun.|

Yeah, I could have filed a complaint against you. Would it have done any good? No. Would it have gone anywhere? No. Would I have gotten immediate flack from a couple 3 dozen admin? Yes! But I had bigger fish to fry...microscopic fish.

Look at the timestamps. One year ago just about. What happened a couple weeks after that? Yeah, the world fell apart. I was getting over Bronchitis (and a wicked case of the Flu...we think) and trying to do my job and keep kids and teachers safe (I'm a custodian for a public school). I didn't have time to play pretend world with you and everyone else. I had a job to do and to do something extremely important. Keep everyone safe. That complaint was the last thing on my mind. At that time, we had rising Flu A and Flu B cases and I was trying to keep that entire school clean. We were doing a good job. You didn't factor in. Wikipedia didn't factor in. Personally, I didn't think about any of this for a couple weeks. My edits basically fell off for a month. What do you think I was doing? So, I didn't really care.

But you were involved and that was a year ago. This all has nothing to do with what is going on right now. Rusf10 is trying to deflect from his current behavior. So, focus on me...fine...or focus on the real issue....him. This time, have an opinion, you didn't before either. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:09 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

TL;DR? Malarkey! You were. Rusf10 is deflecting. Let's focus on the actual issue. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:09 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

• Neutralhomer does not get to continue to lie about me and attack me! He is the worst type of editor, he created this problem by attacking me and now he wants to be the victim. It doesn't work that way! #1 mysterious "personal attacks" no they're not mysterious, its all right here What we have here is a user, who is borderline CIR, and who has, been, repeatedly, sanctioned or topic/interaction banned (though he will call it a "personal attack" for me to even mention it and ask I be blocked, yet again pushing the rules. #2he did bring up my block log first...fair playNot true at all, its right here on this page. I already quoted it once, let's do it again [13] That's not "bad faith", that's a paddling to a user who has been previously sanctioned and then handed something to continue editing....only to have it thrown back in my face. That's bullshit. Bringing up years old sanctions that were quickly rescinded to attack my character and try to get his way in a content dispute.#3Now, because the user is basically being ignored in the discussion over at the WDSI-TV talk page No, I've been participating there and the others have mostly agreed with me that Sinclair does not own or operate the station with User:Sammi Brie doing an exceptional job with research and I thank her. #4and this ANI thread had been closed (or not), he is now engaging in his own harrassment. He closed the thread himself, he can't do that! (see WP:NACINV) Finally if Neutralhomer wants to re-litigate his dispute with user:Cullen328, he can do it elsewhere. Whether that past block was right or wrong, Neutralhomer still deserves a new block based solely on his unacceptable behavior here.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

You brought the block up. You are re-litigating it by bringing it up. If you didn't want it brought up, you shouldn't have brought it up. Dude, project much?!

Actually, no one has agreed with you and Sammi has agreed with neither of us. We were both wrong. New Age Media owns it (you were right) and Sinclair has some programming on the station and has some operating control (probably master control), I was right. No one was 100% correct. We were both wrong. I willing and perfectly able to admit that I am wrong. Yeah, I was wrong. But so were you.

You took all of this way too far. You had the sources in front of you, you were given them within the warning, you were given them in the ANI thread, and yet you turned this into a 2 day WP:ICANTHEARYOU-athon. Yes, it has become borderline CIR when someone is constantly telling you something over and over and over and over and over again ad naseum and you don't seem to get it in a spectacular display I'm not listening and I'm right, you're wrong!

Now, the two main points (the WDSI-TV article and the List of Sinclair stations) have been taken care of by the amazing Sammi Brie....who I owe a big thanks. I think that should end this entire thing and with that we shouldn't have to EVER speak to each other again. Now, I'm going to go over to this other side of the internet. If you want to continue this, that's up to you.

The ball is officially in your court. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:26 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

Just an uninvolved observer here to say- this is one of the most ridiculous, and yet entertaining threads I've seen in a day or two. You both look silly. My recomendation- walk away for 24-48 hours, then go to the article talk page and have an actual good faith discussion instead of this childish hissy fit. But what do I know.... Nightenbelle (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support: Yeah this does seem like a case of WP:Harassment. This does not seem like a constructive message Waqob (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: After reading the long thread, Neutralhomer seems to have a point. TBH, there's nothing personal when he warned Rusf10 despite going out of line with his warnings. Rusf10's edits may be in good faith, but he refuses to admit that he's wrong even if Neutralhomer provided the sources are there. Instead, he keeps on throwing hissyfits, making this situation worse. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 18:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

This is misrepresentation of what happened.If my edits were in good faith (as you say), then accusing me of vandalism is completely wrong (in other words, no warning should have been issued at all). He just reverted my edit and immediately accused me of vandalism, no discussion. I already laid out the content dispute above. Further research which was not done by NeutralHomer revealed a technicality where Sinclair provides master control operations, but does not own or program the station. His sources (which were only provided later) did not even show this. So if you're saying I was wrong on a technically, fine, but NeutralHomer was not even aware of that at the time. His argument was the station was being controlled by Sinclair though a shell company, which turned out not to be true.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Superastig Appreciated, but unfortunately, I am not allowed to comment on this further.

Floquenbeam It's been many days since your various "epilogue[s]" and I'm still getting hassled regarding this by Rusf10 (I got pinged). I haven't [[Special:Contributions/Neutralhomer|had any contact with him or issued any warnings (even when they were necessary)], but he sure wants to keep this going.....I'm not allowed to comment on anything per you and Drmies above. I'm not. I would ask you to kindly request Rusf10 to do the same and close this thread and any others. Thank you kindly. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:26 on April 5, 2021 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, you pinged me. I don't know why and I can't say I'm really interested. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, we can just close this thing out now, I don't see this going anywhere. I only responded today because someone called me out and I need to correct the facts. I've already explained the entire situation at length. I have no idea who pinged NeutralHomer, it wasn't me, so not sure how I'm being accused of hassling him. And trying to get Drmies (an admin that has been very hostile towards me in the past) involved is not going to help. Mies, don't think I didn't notice the shot you took at me by inserting a unnecessary second closing into the other thread and implying that I did something wrong. Unfortunately, that kind of behavior from you has become expected.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It has been asserted that I pinged NeutralHomer without any diff. I am confused as to why he would say such a thing. Maybe he's confused?--Rusf10 (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support an interaction ban, not a block. It looks like Neutralhomer (talk · contribs) is correct in their reading of the sources, and it looks like Rusf10 (talk · contribs) was operating in good faith. This doesn't really matter, though, because both of their behavior has escalated to an embarrassing point. They should step back and realize that at the end of the day, this is a website and not a life-or-death. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 22:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Close with No Action I thought this was already closed with a warning to Neutralhomer several days ago. As Neutralhomer has certainly already been warned at this point, the thread can just be closed. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• No Vote - but I think the longer this drones on, the closer it gets to tempting passing admins. to respond. NH can do some good work on the article side of the pie chart (Stephens City, Virginia, WINC (AM)), so if they could be lured back to that area, and away from "teh dramaz" - I suspect this little episode could be closed. (*hint, hint*) — Ched (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Blocked IP is back as Great Khaan

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

---

• Great Khaan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Santasa99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 109.165.152.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 109.165.153.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 109.165.155.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - new IP used in the meantime
• Talk:Duchy of St Sava (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Last time I made a report I was reprimanded for writing it too long, so I will try to put together report as short as possible. Few days ago I reported IP for extreme language and tone on the article Talk page, which resulted in blocking the IP. However, editor behind the IP immediately returned with the username Great Khaan, and resumed with more of the same - walls of ill-formatted text, full of statements like these, with lots of it in all caps:

First post today:

• What you are doing is pointless and will not pass. This is a Wikipedia editing, not a kindergarten.
• and you continue again. you INSULT US ALL WITH YOUR IGNORANCE)
• The only place on the planet where that term does not exist (more precisely - the term has been ignored) is extreme-right historiography in Croatia.
• And isn't it inappropriate for you to behave like a child whose toy has been taken away?
• You mention the Bosnian Wikipedia non-stop, and when someone else mentions that YOU ARE ACCUSED OF VANDALISM THERE (also you are trying to implement it here, on the same article), then it is inappropriate. AGAIN DOUBLE STANDARDS AND CONTRADCTIONS. (Needles to say I didn't mention Bosnian wikipedia)
• Since you started talking about religious affiliation (again without the necessary knowledge) I will list several Orthodox churches and monasteries that Kosače built (Completely misconstrued, off topic, nationalistic)

Second post today:

• I warn you once again - this is not a courtroom. There is no place for lawyer manipulations here.
• (I)n the articles you edited on Wikipedia, you referred to Flavius ​​Biondo (on the article Red Croatia). Despite the fact that he presented the information he copied from Dandolo (and Dandolo copied it from the Chronicle of the priest Dukljanin), you took it as relevant information. However, when the same Flavio Biondo mentions DUCATUS SANCTI SABAE, you ignore it, however, I have never put a comma at that article, nor referred to it in any way - things like these are norm every time editor attributes something to me!
• once again confirms that you do not know what you are talking about.

This is just a fraction from today.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

FYI

 – The following boxed content was deleted in this revision and has been restored per WP:TPO guidelines. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Santasa99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk:Duchy of St Sava (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Santasa speaks untruths and half-truths. He took a sharp and intolerant attitude towards anyone who did not want to obey his biased editing. He has been accused of VANDALISM on the Bosnian Wikipedia and is now trying to divert attention from it. Since he made a series of claims based on personal views (which can be seen in the TP discussion "The Duchy of St. Sava"), he tried in this way, by manipulation, to achieve some result. Whoever sees this should first look at the talk pages and see what it is about. Now he is trying to make a trial here and divert attention from his activities and biases. I proved on TP Duchy of Saint Sava that he does not know the topic he wants to write about well enough. And he perceives every correction as enmity despite the fact that they are supported by historical sources of the first and second order, as well as scientific papers. He is not interested in the truth AND approaches editing Wikipedia too personally.

As for the article "Red Croatia", the editors who edit the article Duchy of Saint Sava also edit Red Croatia. I saw the same names on both articles. I explained the whole problem around that article on TP Duchy of Saint Sava pointing out the inadmissible practice of DOUBLE STANDARDS. My desire is to improve Wikipedia as much as possible. With double standards, that is very difficult. BTW What I said can be seen in the article"s editing history. Few of them argue from the same positions on the article Duchy of Saint Sava. I can't always know who I'm talking to. It's like talking to the same person.

What I have noticed is that the same editors always appear on problematic articles. in this regard this stand my remarks on DOUBLE STANDARDS. All this needs to be examined.

If necessary, next time I will quote his inappropriate behavior more thoroughly. It will take more time to prepare it all. It would also be good to observe the TP discussion. Santana will not accept the arguments. The discussion always returns to the starting point trying to make it meaningless which can easily be seen from the very course of the TP discussion. No need to retell it here. Whoever is interested can look there. They are not interested in arguments at all. Even the books they refer to "speak" against their claims. Also, Santasa99 resents me when I quote quotes from Google books (although he does the same) and then he is bothered by photos of paper books.

P.S. One example of not telling the truth. Santasa says: "Needles to say I didn't mention Bosnian wikipedia"

I am quoting his accusation addressed to me (which is incorrect as can be verified by comparing IP addresses). Santasa wrote (14:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)):

"You are probably AnToni, which, if true, means that you are an admin of one of the WMF's project, namely Wikipedia in Bosnian language. That would put you in a position where you should know better how to keep decorum and personal conduct at tolerable minimum."

"since your first sudden appearance in English lang. wikipedia few days ago (after dispute at Bosnian language wikipedia)" (15:09, 29 March 2021 )

On the other hand, I would like to draw your attention to his inappropriate tone and belittling of respected scientists. - Mithad Kozličić, Mateo Bratanić, Sanda Uglešić - they analyzing old cartography in "THE DEMARCATION BETWEEN CROATIA AND BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA IN THE UNA REGION FROM THE 17th TO THE 20th CENTURY ACCORDING TO ORIGINAL CARTOGRAPHIC MATERIAL"

He quotes books (cheripicking) that he has not read and when those books confirm my claims then he gets angry. And then it starts discrediting writers and scientists. When he receives a warning about his contradictory behavior he pretends that nothing happened.

This is only a small part.

Great Khaan (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Note: I have placed a Discretionary Sanctions Alert for the Balkans and Eastern Europe on the talk page of Great Khan. Santasa99 received one in July 2020. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I really hope that someone is going to put an end to this (latest) kind of abuse of Talk page, aspersions and targeted wp:harassment, (U)ntil I started corresponding with you, I had no idea that people with prejudices could degrade the quality of articles on Wikipedia, so much. I am glad to contribute to solving this problem., commenting on my report with Is that your tactic? Choking discussion with procedural issues, attempting to intimidate by reporting to the administrator?, by a sock 109.165.155.47 (talk · contribs)-Great Khaan (talk · contribs), who has not put a one letter or comma into article space except four initial reverts without explanations as IP. After article got protected on my request same IP continued on TP, but as soon as IP range got blocked on my request (ANI linked above), they appeared as Great Khaan. No editor shouldn’t be put through the ordeal, and I haven't even respond let alone provoked them in any way - I asked once for more consideration with enormous ill-formatted posts, however, of 66 edits on TP as Great Khaan and 19 as IP in last fourteen days almost all came behind my reply-posts to other editors, completely choking my discussions with walls of text containing diatribes that are one step from insults. Actually, some are personal insults (you INSULT US ALL WITH YOUR IGNORANCE)--౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Santasa99 stifles the debate. He is unable to accept evidence to refute his claims. I am asking for the supervision of that article (more precisely, article and TP discussion) to assess the situation.

He cannot answer me with arguments and tries to make this TP discussion a problematic "case". What he is doing there is an insult to the logic. There is no source, scientific study (not even the ones he quoted and probably didn't even read) that will convince him that he is wrong.

I said in my previous post that he brought out a series of untruths and half-truths. He blames me for no reason for everything (btw he is,also, accused of vandalizing this article in other languages). Administrators must ask themselves why he is behaving this way. This is not about editing Wikipedia. This is obviously not about science, but about personal prejudices that he publishes on Wikipedia. He selectively quotes literature (cherry-picking) and when I prove to him by argument that he is mistaken, he gets angry. I suppose, he expects you to solve a problem he made himself.

He provokes with his ignoring all the facts that speak against his claim. He belittles all dissenters. He is bothered by quoting Google books, he is bothered by photos of ordinary books. This situation must be clarified. I post relevant historical sources and literature. He provoked a slightly sharper discussion by belittling highly esteemed names in the world of science. The reason - their scientific work does not agree with his view of the world.

And now he’s complaining trying to blame me for everything. If you pay attention, he has had conflicts with others before. He presents some conspiracy theories: tells me I'm an editor from another Wikipedia. He mentions various names of these editors, etc. If it’s not an insult and a malicious accusation I don’t know what is?

It is very important to make an assessment of the conversation on the talk page as well as the arguments. In this way (With these complaints to administrators) he is trying to prevent me from giving my contribution because I have started to expose double standards.

He despises all the highly regarded scientists I quote. Only for one reason because they do not support his delusions.This guy talks about things and events that he doesn't know enough about. on the other hand, He is probably trying to play the card - that he is very experienced on Wikipedia and will try to stop me from contributing to the improvement of Wikipedia with procedural issues. Since there are no arguments, he has no choice but to try this. I find it very bad to constantly complain about everything.

I think the misuse of these reports should be prevented.

Great Khaan (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Just to clear the air, I am not the only editor there who object their persistent abuse of the process and complete disregard for policies. These persistent misconstrue of words or actions is norm in their discussion.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Whoever looks at the debate there will understand what is happening. I'm posting arguments you're insulting scientists. As for the others you mention, the 2-3 editors from the controversial Croatian Wikipedia are participating there. I have pointed out double standards and a selective approach to editing articles. I have posted an abundance of unbiased sources and scientific studies from around the world, I have even quoted the scientific papers you have cited. And after that you started complaint. It is obvious what is happening here. It's your way of trying to censor the truth. I will continue to publish historical sources from all over Europe as well as scientific papers from all over the world.

https://balkaninsight.com/2018/03/26/how-croatian-wikipedia-made-a-concentration-camp-disappear-03-23-2018/

Great Khaan (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

At this point Great Khaan trying to solicit support for this ANI on the article Talk page [14]--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruption on Wikidata by Santasa 99 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Duchy_of_St_Sava#Disruption_on_Wikidata Great Khaan (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• This on my talk page appears to be WP:CANVASSING by Great Khaan. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken It's not. Didn't I get a message from you to discuss with you on your page? I don't get it. Great Khaan (talk) 03:42 01 April 2021 (UTC)

That was part of the DS Alert. I did not write it, it's part of the text of the alert. And, for that matter, you didn't discuss the alert or what Discretionary Sanctions means for you, you just pointed me to the dispute with Santasa99, which is not relevant to why you received the alert. I gave you the alert simply because you have edited in the DS subject area of the Balkans or Eastern Europe. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken It would be good to warn the user Santasa99 not to abuse the possibility of appeal. In case there are no arguments, he complains (as far as I have noticed, this is a common case here). In this way he tries to enforce censorship. Doesn't anyone see that? I did not know that there was a possibility of appeal, nor was I interested in that possibility. It's hilarious. But Such people must be answered with the same measure. Only such language do they understand.

P.S. I deal with facts, not complaints. ::Great Khaan (talk) 03:42 01 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, here are some facts:

• (1) Anyone can place a DS Alert on an editor's talk page, not just an admin.
• (2) I am not an admin, never have been, never will be.
• (3) I am not interested in becoming involved in your dispute with Santasa99, so I will not be warning them about anything, even if such a warning was justified, which I'm not sure it is.
• (4) However, that being said, I see no "abuse" of the "possibility of appeal" by Santas99.
• (5) On the other hand, your edits on this page have been very aggressive, which is odd for a brand-new editor with the best interests of Wikipedia at heart.
• (6) That leads me to think that it's possible that Santasa99's complaint about you being a previously blocked IP might have validity.
• (7) I see no "censorship"; please read WP:FREESPEECH, which basically says that you have no right of free speech on Wikipedia, which is a private website.
• (8) Your expressed philosophy "Such people must be answered with the same measure. Only such language do they understand" looks to be to be in violation of our WP:Civility policy, and if not, is certainly contradictory to the Wikipedia philosophy.
• (9) I am asking you not to ping me again. I am aware of this discussion and will come to it when I wish to, not at your beck and call.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken As for ping - like I said, I'm new here. I need time to understand all the wiki terminology.

I would like you to read this carefully but not to misunderstand. I don't know if I'm asking a lot? Aggr. are biased claims and accusations (5 and 6 + Canv.). You have an a priori hostile attitude towards me even though I am new here. You need to look at Santana99 aggressiveness on the TP . A whole new level of aggression.

I post the facts and when he saw that he was wrong, he started with "wiki-data disruption" →→(it was not me who noticed it but other editors)and he is trying to divert attention from his illegal activities with unfounded complaints←← (i.e. tries to make a "case" here). I have already proved that he is lying (this is the right word) when he said that he never mentioned the Bosnian Wikipedia (there are quotes above) which he tried to vandalize. And no, no one ever blocked me. I don't know what you're talking about. And as far as I can see, Santana99 blocks opponents when he has no other arguments. He acts from covert extremist positions (this is the right word). And he deals with some conspiracy theories while at the same time accusing others of it. I see that he has already had conflicts with other editors and that he even accused me (at the above-mentioned TP ) of being two or three of those editors. Hilarious. It's all easy to check. Conspiracy theories are always easier than thinking with your own head. And if aggression is →→insisting on scientifically based facts←← - wouldn't it be better for all of us to be more aggressive because those who place various conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and wider false news (like Santana99 and co.) do so very aggressively? We get tired of unimportant things and procedures while the world disappears in a sea of false news and claims. Pseudo-science, charlatans and extremists (left and right) are taking over the world.

→→Important NOTE←←

If I am ag., as you say, because I am →→fighting for scientifically based facts←← and I do not allow myself to be intimidated by any threats then I do not know where this world is going. Are sycophants a desirable type of person? I have never been and never will be like that. I am not able to pretend and act like Santasa99.

The CONCLUSION would be (and you correct me if I'm wrong): is it enough for someone to understand the procedure well (and abuse it) and to be right regardless of the fact that his claims have nothing to do with the truth? Aside from the fact that he is very, very aggressive (Santasa99 and co.).

As for you personally, if it's easier for you to block me by uncritically accepting Santana99 claims - feel free to do so. I will not be at a loss. I will save myself a lot of time that I have dedicated to editing Wikipedia.

→→Important NOTE←←

As for my "way of writing", I speak several languages ​​(and I use few classical ones). English is just one of them. And not the first language. Language determines the way we think and act. In my native language, things are called by their real names. I probably pass (subconsciously) those habits on to the foreign languages ​​I use. Besides, this is not malicious. I think it can be healing for everyone to understand that the world will be a much better place if people stop being hypocrites and sycophants.

If I'm not "suitable" for you (EW), then aggressive manipulators like Santana99 (and his co.) are the right guys for EW. In that case, this is not the place for me. So I have no problem with that. Wikipedia has a problem. Santasa99 has been editing Wikipedia from covert extremist positions for several years (with the support of editors who switched from the very NOTORIOUS Croatian Wikipedia to EW and none of you /administrators/ have noticed.

THEN, HE IS A CHAMPION. He can laugh in our faces. I can only tell him - well done master. Great Khaan (talk) 14:02 01 April 2021 (UTC)

Users latest ping, following my attempt to communicate with other editors (I refused to communicate with them from the beginning) is to inform me that: You will not pass falsification and aggression (practice from the Croatian Wikipedia). Just one look at the →→historical sources and literature that I publish is enough for any impartial observer to see that you are wrong←←. You are acting from an extreme right-wing position., and that they are going to continue "to publish the source" on TP, which is at this point almost unusable, as being completely overwhelmed by long posts with diatribes, such as here on ANI above, and even longer lists of irrelevant links of scraped key-words and key-phrases from the Internet and Google Books, which they believe are exactly what RS are all about.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Sycophant?! A frikin hypocrite and sycophant?!? I just read all the way through, and is there any slur that you somehow accidentally forgot and left-out when referring to me in the last 2+ weeks?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Just read through this thread. Didn’t know anything about the users/issues beforehand. Very puzzled by how Great khaan hasn’t been blocked already. I must be missing something. DeCausa (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't play victim Santasa 99. For 3 weeks, you have been insulting all the world's scientists and historians who are not to your liking. BTW I will refrain from all comments until the situation around Santasa99 "Wiki distruption" is resolved. Only then can we talk.

P.S. A sycophant is a general description of some people. When I wrote that, I had in mind the general picture. I didn't mention you. If you recognized yourself in those words - it's not my problem but yours. Great Khaan (talk) 22:17 03 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support indef block of Great Khaan for block evasion and for personal attacks and bludgeoning here and at Talk:Duchy of St Sava. Woodroar (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef per Woodroar. DeCausa (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• NOT Support any block of Great Khaan. It seems that the Santasa99 was the first to start insulting everyone who does not think like him. It seems that the Santasa99 himself started the conflict and "stretches" the debate indefinitely despite the arguments. On this occasion, I have to ask myself why is he doing this? Clementine2015.2015 (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• I have indef'ed Great Khaan, and the user above boldly, as this is rather obvious sockpuppetry going on. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Good call! Although Clementine2015.2015 posting here 6 minutes after creation wasn’t subtle! DeCausa (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I have  Confirmed Great Khaan (talk · contribs) to Clementine2015.2015 (talk · contribs) and MireyaThePrincess (talk · contribs) per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Great Khaan. No comment on any IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse block - You coulda knocked me over with a feather. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: As far as I am concerned this case can be closed now. I find its epilogue satisfactory as it solves the problem at TP, caused by the reported user, although it came as a consequence of their socking, not examination of their rather extreme conduct in TP discussions. Thanks to all and stay safe.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Acousmana uncivil, rude, and not WP:AGF

Hi there. The user in question has used uncivil language when talking with others. They have also been accused of personal attacks and I believe they have been rude to others. Here is evidence:

On the user's talk page:

• Under User talk:Acousmana#Techno, gentlecollapse6 in good faith leaves a warning message to which they reply with It's really lazy, and kinda juvenile actually when referring to gentlecollapse's actions.

• Actual quote - "stop leaving silly warning messages on user pages in lieu of consulting citations you have been provided with. It's really lazy, and kinda juvenile actually".

• Under User talk:Acousmana#May 2020, they reply with the somewhat rude comment You do know the English speaking world is not just America, right? to the good faith MrX.
• Under User talk:Acousmana#January 2021, they reply with the uncivil comment using the article talk page to respond to legitimate discussion is childish, does this type of activity arouse you or something? to the good faith Walrus Ji.

• Actual quote -"bombarding folk with notices like this rather than using the article talk page to respond to legitimate discussion is childish, does this type of activity arouse you or something?" Acousmana (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Under User talk:Acousmana#Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory they reply with the sarcastic and uncivil comment of welcome to the circle jerk: you agree, go you. which I believe refers to the sexual act of circle jerk (reading the article it appears to have metaphorical connotations but I was still unsure as to the exact meaning so I thought best to point this out).
• Under User talk:Acousmana#Personal attacks, they are accused of WP:NPA by Springee ([15])
• Under User talk:Acousmana#March 2021, most recently, they reply to VQuakr with are you aroused now after that display of authority?, which I find to be quite rude.

Elsewhere:

• [16] here, they use the terms plain stupid and Dumb. Uncivil language that doesn't help a discussion.
• At Talk:PragerU, the user was questioned by a number of users for their response to a good faith statement from Hipal. The user said don't be so dramatic, a comment which they later put a line through.

• Misrepresentation, the entire contribution to the discussion was struck to withdraw a content proposal, it was also in response to an accusation that "hand-waving and goal-post-moving going on here to push content" which is clearly not AGF. Acousmana (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Later at this talk page, under Talk:PragerU#Uneccisary Credits, they made the comments laughable, complaining it's a "hit-piece," gee, let me see, a nutty right-wing organization funded by fracking billionaires and old rich white folk who want to pay less tax while trying to indoctrinate gen-z's with their Judaeo-Christian zealotry - while attacking climate science, minority groups, women's rights, academia, etc. - and run by some dude who complains because "the left have made it impossible to say the n-word any longer." ROFL at the level the apologists are prepared to sink here. and so some old white dude is railing against the injustice of not being able to use a word... the injustice of it eh? the injustice of having to do something about racism, global warming, police brutality, women's rights, LGBT rights, [insert unjust cause here], that's some BS right there. And editors are happy to roll up here and defend this stuff. Speaks volumes.. While not uncivil or rude towards a particular editor, these comments aren't appropriate for a talk page and don't help the discussion in the slightest. EytanMelech then replies with Thank you for injecting these unrelated arguments into a conversation that didn't even need them.

• again, misrepresentation, an editor characterized a WP:RSP source as a "hit-piece," this reply summarizes substantive issues highlighted by source. Acousmana (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• More a note to self, but also feel free to discuss (I know the more appropriate place is RFD), the redirects of Post-modern conservatism and Postmodern conservatism seem inappropriate. striked as not place to discuss. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Inappropriate? see The Rise of Post-Modern Conservatism Neoliberalism, Post-Modern Culture, and Reactionary Politics, Palgrave Studies in Classical Liberalism, 2020. Acousmana (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I hope this is sufficient evidence for you to see a pattern of behaviour. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 23:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse a warning here: With the caveat that some of the content here is fairly stale, there is a pattern here that needs addressing. Acousmana, at a minimum these recurrent denigrating allusions to your rhetorical opposition feeling aroused need to stop absolutely immediately, as this sort of thing is easily taken to fall under the umbrella of harassment--and just plain weird and uncomfortable, to be frank. There are other additional notes of less than collaborative or respectful tone in the diffs as well. You seem to engage of largely contentious areas here, and if you are going to do so, I think you are going to run into problems if you can't moderate the heat-to-light ratio of some of your input. I wouldn't support a sanction at this juncture, but I think you're likely to end up back here if you can't augment your adoption of the considerations of WP:CIV a bit. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Something should be done. A warning is probably sufficient but I wouldn't object to a tban. That said, I am involved in a number of topics where Acousmana has become active and we typically do not agree on content questions. Willbb234 noted an attack against me at one of those. "the extent of your willingness to delude yourself knows no bounds," Perhaps such a comment was said in frustration but on their talk page they denied it was a personal attack [[17]]. Perhaps Acousmana's view was changed when another editor called it a clear NPA violation. Such incivility makes constructive edits on challenging topics that much more difficult. Springee (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• • OK, fair enough, an editor has a problem with my tone, so I'll dial it down. But I find it odd that this editor has clearly gone out of their way to string together out of context material, and actually misquote and misrepresent in the process, this is in itself not AGF. The motivation here is to my mind questionable. But, if the community sees it fit to place a ban, so be it. Acousmana (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I never misquoted you. As for misrepresentation, it would be inappropriate to copy and paste a whole comment or discussion onto ANI and the links to the discussions will suffice. This isn't misrepresentation. As for why I reported you here: I don't like seeing editors being uncivil and I will investigate even when it isn't directed at me and so I decided to gather some evidence. I don't see why this should be a problem. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    • You say an editor has a problem with my tone, so I'll dial it down. No, I have a real issue with the language you are using not just a problem with your tone. I also wouldn't like you to "dial it down"; I'd like you to stop altogether with being rude and uncivil. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• I apologise if were offended by my language, I can you assure that going forward you, or the community, will not be troubled by this. But, can I ask, and this is a genuine query, do you regularly report editors here for language usage you find disturbing?
• I also have to ask, what is it you find particularly problematic about this re-direct when it is sourced to academic literature? Acousmana (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• (non-admin comment) "I apologise if [you] were offended" is the classic non-apology apology. Narky Blert (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• not sure how casting aspersions helps any here, AGF. Acousmana (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'll strike my comment regarding the redirect as this isn't the place to discuss this. The reason I had concern was because a search for "postmodern conservatism" shows up nothing about the right-wing or right-wing populism. Also, simply put, conservatism isn't the right-wing. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• The community is fortunate enough to have users and administrators who are quick and effective at dealing with language that is disturbing and the policies have little tolerance for this. This means that I don't regularly report users for this behaviour although I do recall having done so in the past. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Are you willing to accept my assurances on this matter? Acousmana (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Acousmana has said they are going to avoid the editor focused comments in the future. I think this should be acceptable. Could we get an admin to close this as editor acknowledged. Springee (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate that there are editors here willing to offer a second chance, left scratching my head as to why the listing editor - who I've never, to my knowledge, previously engaged with - didn't simply raise their concerns on my talk page first. And, why they have refused to acknowledge an apology? Left with the impression that this was someone with an ideological bone to pick. But that's for others to assess. Acousmana (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Issues about your conduct were already raised on your talk page. These comments were not acted upon as you continued to act inappropriately as evidenced above. If you believe I started this thread because of some ideological differences, then you will need to present some more evidence other than a page I recently created were I list some hoaxes and lies from mainstream media. I also don't see how that changes anything.

As for this supposed apology, it felt empty as another editor pointed out. It wasn't "sorry for the comments" or "sorry, I'll be better in the future", but rather "I'll continue to do it in the future and you can piss off if you feel offended".

As for "ideological" conflicts, it might backfire: [18][19] considering your past comments.

Also what the fuck is this? Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Having already provided a sincere assurance, I would ask that you observe WP:AGF. Is there any particular reason you speedily deleted your user page before the conclusion of this ANI? Acousmana (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Why do you need to know why I speedily deleted my userpage. I thought this discussion was on your actions, not mine. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Willbb234, could you delete User:Willbb234/Mainstream media lies? It borders on WP:POLEMIC, especially the comments on race. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree. That being said, I'll delete it as, on second thought, perhaps it isn't the best place to compile such a list. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

User disallowing others' edits performed during their vacation

User Yaakov Wa. has been on a wikibreak (per this announcement). Upon return today, editor reverted to the last revision before this break, effectively rolling back all edits by other users during their absence. Following my reversion of this action, user repeated the rollback. I have attempted to discuss this with the editor at Talk:Messiah in Judaism#Suggestion and am unable to intervene further due to 3RR.

For context, this page has since 19 February been the venue for a high volume of tendentious editing by Yaakov Wa., largely without consensus or substantial discussion (notwithstanding Yaakov's attempts to contact other users via email and video conference). Exasperated attempts by Warshy at discussion in more appropriate venues led to one prior ANI report. Attempts by myself and Editor2020 to at least improve the quality of Yaakov's edits have led to the incident I am reporting here. Ibadibam (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted. Seems to be a bit of a WP:OWN situation going on here. — Czello 07:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• This is a fairly new editor. Ibadibam did mention why it wasn't a great idea, but there hasn't been real discussion of it. Technically, WP:BRD still applies and this is really a content issue, although his reverting twice in 24 hours isn't good. This really needs to be on the article talk page, with an attempt to resolve it there. Hopefully it won't have to have admin intervention, but at this time, it really isn't ripe for sanctions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Ibadibam, and any other editors,

Firstly, in regards to discussions where communication is paramount, I believe it is preferable to use verbal and visual communication. I am available for approximately 4 more hours from posted time. If any editor wishes to set up zoom meeting, please put message on User_talk:Yaakov_Wa. and this meeting will be open to all editors. Up until verbal/visual communication is achieved, I will do my best to understand and respond via non-verbal communication.

Now, in regards to situation:

I will lay out response in three parts. a)will lay out general background of editing Messiah in Judaism, b) then discuss edits over break. c) will discuss rational for keeping proposed structure until discussion at talk page.

a) In regards to general background, started editing feb 19. Was advised to discuss at talk page. I discussed proposal at talk page feb 21. Was given feedback on this proposal as well as support. and feedback discussed. After feedback was inputted and WP:consensus achieved, began overhaul on feb 23. With lots of discussion about content in edit history.

b) Up until the break, the page had the organization[20] along proposed overhaul, with exception of etymology which was discussed. Ibadibam, and other Editors chose to keep organization mainly along proposed overhaul.

Then, during the announced break, as Ibadibam mentioned above, major changes in organization were done. I found this peculiar because these changes in organization started during week when I announced I would not be editing. There were ample opportunity for editors to request changes in organization before the break.

c) Based on the above, I believe that the article should be temporarily kept according to prior consensus of overhaul (with exception of etymology). I am very open to discussion and feedback. Ibadibam appears competent(I have probably asked at least 10 users to give assistance and feedback to this article). I welcome Ibadibam's future discussions and contributions. I encourage any editors (preferably with hebrew and technical skills) to make proposals and edits to this article. However, as Dennis mentioned, we must go according to WP:BRD, which in this case requires us to temporarily have Messiah in Judaism at prior consensus.

Blessings,

Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

References

• the response above rather than alleviate concerns only increases them in particular that the editor is not familiar with WP:OWN and WP:NPOV. The editor is attempting to over-represent a one-sided accounting of the issue according to a particular religious sect. They also claim a consensus for an overhaul when really, one lightly active editor gave a message of support. Maybe this can be solved at the talk page but if nothing else, they should be warned that they are not to revert edits because they need time to personally review the edits before restoring the ones they find acceptable. This isn't a pending changes queue and they are not the sole arbitrator of what readers can see. Even now, they are expressing opinions on which editors are competent (and what skills sets are preferred to edit the article) and I am concerned that point c is a belief that WP:BRD gets their version restored and other editors will have to negotiate consensus around their preferences. Slywriter (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• BRD isn’t about giving an editor time to review edits before the public is *allowed* to see them. Reverts should be only for when an editor has a reason to disagree with an edit. (Never thought I would have to write that.) That and their tone in the above post seems to suggest they think they are the editor-in-chief for this article. But, given their newness, I suspect it’s more WP:NOCLUE than WP:OWN. Probably of greater concern is what appears to be their POV editing that’s already been referred to. DeCausa (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• I completely agree with Slywriter and DeCausa's comments above, and I would like to fill in some other details, if I can. Ibadibam, Editor2020 and myself have been so far the only regular, veteran editors who have edited the page since this completely biased, one-sided religious POV so-called "overhaul" was one-sidedly 'declared,' pretty much out-of-the-blue. I want to be on the record again here, as I have been consistently on the article's talk-page discussions, that the new one-sided declaration above, that a supposed "consensus" for this so-called "overhaul" was ever achieved with me is completely false and misleading. I continued to consistently oppose the "overhaul" up to the user's one-sidedly declared "break," and I am still opposed to it at this moment. I posted several more in-depth arguments against the basic motivation and the completely biased religious POV that this new user brings to the task, based on all the primary sources he is singularly using for the proposed task, and I also declared there that I was still considering going back to the article's last stable version, before this so-called one-sided "overhaul" started. I still have this version specified in the article's talk-page. My suggestion at this point would be to go back to that stable version, and allow the new editor to re-start his attempts at changing certain paragraphs or sections by proposing localized, limited changes on the talk-page first, and have this proposed localized, limited changes discussed and approved. Once every new localized, limited change is proposed, discussed, and approved by all involved editors, then it can be implemented. That is how I had originally suggested the new user goes about his intended task. He gave me a short reply at that point, which I did not bother to reply to, and he took it then one-sidedly to mean I was withdrawing my explicitly stated reservations about the entire "task." Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 23:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Warshy: Starting over seems like a good idea. I suggest you propose a revert to the stable version on the talk page and see what the other involved editors think. M.Bitton (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe it will be preferable for anyone with questions to join zoom meeting on my talk page. Non-verbal communication is not-very-effective communication.Yaakov Wa. (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

This isn't how we handle things on Wikipedia. We discuss articles on their talk page, not through a Zoom meeting. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I remember already explaining to Yaakov Wa that relevant talk pages should be used, so that WP:CONSENSUS can be assessed, not only by the article's history, but also by the talk archives. That is also where RFCs take place, etc. Wikipedia editors are free to refuse invitations to off-WP venues and the state of the article should not depend on their presence (or absence) there. Some editors may even consider such invitations suspicious. —PaleoNeonate – 03:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• I notice that Yaakov Wa has a habit of posting invites to multiple editors’ talk pages asking them to edit Messiah in Judaism. It’s been claimed on the article talk page that Yaakov Wa is editing to push a Chabad POV, and a cursory look at their edits seems to justify that claim. It’s not clear to me how he’s selecting these editors he contacts (he usually refers to seeing relevant ‘skills’ in their edits elsewhere) but what he said here, and this post to an editor with a Chabad user box, raises a question of an attempt at WP:CANVASSING. DeCausa (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• There is a branch of Chabad who does not acknowledge the existence of streams of thought different from their own regarding moshiach. NPOV is literally against their religion. if Yaakov Wa is part of that sect, he should probably be topic-banned until he gets a sense of how Wikipedia works and decides whether it's for him. 207.172.174.5 (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Yaakov Wa., you talk of non-verbal communication being ineffective, but that is what we use at Wikipedia. If it isn't effective for you, then this is the wrong hobby for you. I'm not going to Zoom with you (or anyone), and most other's aren't either. Besides, all discussion about an article are supposed to take place here so everyone can participate. Reverting to your favored version is still edit warring and WILL get you blocked. Read that last line twice, please. Read WP:BRD. Twice. You don't seem to understand how things work here. They don't work according to your preferences, there is an established set of guidelines and policies that you are expected to follow. Reading your replies, I don't have high hopes for your future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal (Yaakov Wa.)

Given the ongoing issues with Yaakov Wa.'s editing evidenced above and in prior ANI discussions, and taking into account this very recent response that suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of our policy concerning original research, I think that a topic ban from Jewish theology, broadly construed, for 1 month is appropriate. I also think that they should be formally warned against inviting editors to resolve editing disputes through off-Wikipedia venues. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Given the tone-deaf response, I would agree but would opt for 90 days. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support But could his return (whether 30 or 90 days) be conditional on satisfying an admin of his understanding of WP:OR, WP:PRIMARY, WP:NPOV and, well, basically what’s expected in writing full grammatical sentences when adding content? I’m not sure what’s going to change just through a period of absence. (Btw, I wasn’t even sure if he was replying to me (in Rosguill’s diff) or just carrying on with his original post as if my post was invisible. I think the latter. Either way I could see there was no point in saying anything else.) DeCausa (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support I have deep concerns about the insistence to take article development off of talk pages. This effectively creates an elite group who edit this one article and anyone who is unable or uncomfortable joining their clicque calls doesn't get to collaborate. WP is a place of written communication- which, by the way- is still verbal communication- it is purely verbal, where spoken communication actually includes more non-verbal with tone of voice, pitch, volume, and facial expressions coloring what is being said. WP is for everyone to contribute to- and in order for that to happen, previous discussions must be accessible to future editors- not a summary of what one person heard- but the actual words used. Anyone who tries to take away this fundamental facet of WP creation- is missing our purpose and what makes us special. And, I believe, is experiencing a serious case of WP:OWN. For this reason- I support a t-ban until the user can learn to collaborate using the appropriate tools and share knowledge and ownership among all editors. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support a topic-ban. The insistence on Zoom discussions violates various policies and guidelines, including article ownership, and has aspects of not being here to edit collaboratively. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Editor Alansohn

Came to my talk page today[21] to complain about my recent edits to Montclair State University where I removed multiple entries to the Notable alumni section because they were either not linked to WP articles and in the same post to my talk page, Alansohn also complained about a recent edit I made to Alpine, New Jersey where I removed a person from the NP section who had been citation needed tag on it for over 9 years.

Alansohn is both being a hypocrite and harassing me.

First, Montclair State College he has edited[22] to in the past with the edit summary 'remove individual from list of notables, who needs both a Wikipedia article **AND** independent reliable and verifiable sources establishing connection here, as specified by WP:NLIST' So he says a entry needs to have both and then criticizes me for taking out entries that fit his own criteria for removal.

Note- He has used that same edit summary many times at New Jersey articles. At Piscataway, New Jersey for example[23]

Second, the citation added tag was added[24] by Alansohn and allowed to remain for over 9 years on that page and with making approximately 85 edits[25] to the page since its addition. He has a clear history of requiring an entry have a reference and then complains when an editor removes just such an entry.

That's clearly hypocritical.

I want to point out two other things.

Alansohn was recently made to apologize to me after his making this ANI complaint[26] against me. Some of his complaining today about my editing closely parallels what he wrote then.

Recently in an edit[27] to 1966 World Series he restored descriptions to the article because I had removed them[28] due to them being unreferenced. He restored it with references that DIDN'T support what was being written. This is the kind of bogus edits that are seen far too much around here. A referenced sentence with a fact or statement in it that the reference doesn't corroborate.

Alansohn is harassing me. So I came here....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• We could deal with the very uncollegial exchange here, but I think that's treating the symptom rather than the problem. In fact, when I compare your talk page with Alansohn's, what I see is that your talk page is an incredibly hostile place from the passive-aggressive notices at the top right the way down to the bottom. I think that you're both highly active editors with long sanctions logs for edit warring and battlegrounding and this is going to smoulder on forever without a two-way iban.—S Marshall T/C 12:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

Two-way iban between Alansohn and WilliamJE.—S Marshall T/C 12:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support Both seem deficient in the willingness-to-drop-the-stick department. I suggest this is time-limited though. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • • WilliamJE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    • Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Support - As the above links show, these are both editors with very long block logs going back approximately a decade. They appear to be two editors who do not like each other. An interaction ban would be the least disruptive way of minimizing the disruption from these two editors. I respectfully disagree with Guy, in that it should not be limited as to time. Alternatives, such as one-month blocks, or topic bans, would be harsher, and so unnecessary. These editors should both be cautioned by this interaction ban that any further disruption may require an ArbCom case. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support a two-way i-ban, either indefinite (as first preference) or a 6-month duration. I think that in addition and independent of that, the thread at WilliamJE's user talk page that led to this ANI discussion as well as the opening ANI post itself are actionable in terms of violations of WP:CIVIL. Nsk92 (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Herostratus and Nathan Larson (politician)

Herostratus seems to have a bee in their bonnet about Nathan Larson (politician). Months ago, when Larson was arrested for kidnapping a 12 year old girl, I started a discussion on the biographies of living persons noticeboard about whether this should be added to the article. (I did not consider Larson a public figure and believed the arrest should be left out.) Herostratus redacted my question and put the article up for deletion with a wall of text rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Larson (politician). When Herostratus refused to stop redacting my BLPN comments, I ended up starting an ANI discussion. The consensus was that the redactions were contrary to our BLP policy. Since then, Herostratus has tried to have the article renamed despite a similar proposal failing a couple of months ago.

Today Herostratus redacted the word "pedophile" from the artcile's talk page ([29], [30]). His argument seems to be that despite multiple reliable sources used in the article referring to Larson as a "pedophile" based on Larson's own statements, the talk page is a different place and WP:BLP prevents us from using the word pedophile without sourcing. At least I think that's what he is saying. Herostratus needs to be blocked from this article, including the talk page, and be told to stop redacting other people's comments. Mo Billings (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm kind of worried when I read I absolutely and in all seriousness think that Nathan Larson (person who has a Wikipedia article) really is the best title. on a talk page. That said, there's clearly enough sourcing [31] [32] that discussing on the talk page whether he should be described as a pedophile is not a BLP issue. (as it involves an ongoing trial, it's not at all clear that the article should say that, but the meta-discussion on the talk page is certainly fine). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Mo Billings: I don't understand how you could think that a guy who has put himself up to the public numerous times as a candidate for various offices could not be a "public figure"? That boat sailed a long time ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Defendant here. I don't have a bee in my bonnet about Nathan Larson, I have a bee in my bonnet about WP:BLP. I've been the breath of hell on BLP stuff for private citizens (Nathan Larson is quite obscure) since the B____ P______ incident in I think 2004 before there was a WP:BLP. It's not a question of banning me from from Nathan Larson article, I've done this elsewhere and intend to continue, so you'll want a much broader topic ban (site ban, whatever) if you want me to stop.

WP:BLP says "Contentious material about living persons... that is unsourced or poorly sourced... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. (emphasis in original). I consider "oh the source is on another page somewhere" to be a poor source. We don't ref even anodyne facts in an article to a source in another article, we copy them over. Also note that there's no exemption for "unless a lot of people hate the guy" which in Nathan Larson's case appears to be in play.

Complainant's text above, which is now far removed from the refs (which need to be vetted anyway) and is liable to float around the internet on its own (I know it's not indexed, but anyone can copy and paste it or point to it) is egregious WP:BLP violation. This page is in the class "any Wikipedia page" and the first sentence of WP:BLP is "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" (emphasis in original) and then it talks about the need for proximate inline refs. I'll leave it an exercise for the reader to decide if complainan text looks like a dare-you-to-stop-me thing to make a point.

The complainant seems to be really determined to assert his and other editors' right to say extremely inflammatory things about obscure citizens based on refs that exist somewhere else in the Wikipedia. If the complainant's text above is allowed to stand, that pushes the de facto norms in a certain direction. I don't think its a path we want to go down. I'm pretty sure that the Foundation takes a keen interest in this subject, so we had better police ourselves lest we be policed.

I also think that rather than an ANI thread this'd better be taken up a much higher level, like a CENT RfC to modify WP:BLP.

I'd actually prefer that instead of sanctioning me, complainant himself was advised not do this sort of stuff. And I mean it's not necessary. It's easy enough to use vague language on stuff like this. It's not a question of "We really need to talk about such-and-so, should we put it in the article?" The thread complainant is exercised about (Talk:Nathan Larson (politician)#The short description) does not require the word "pedophile" to be used. I changed to [redacted] and complainant changed it back. Complainant just wants to say it, I guess. Whether that has to with complainant just really not liking the guy or he aims to do this wherever he goes, I don't know, but neither one is a good look I don't think. Anyway it's all in y'alls court and do what you think best. Sorry about this. Herostratus (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Herostratus You were told before that your redactions were against policy. You are going to be told again. You are not enforcing Wikipedia's policy on living people - you are enforcing your own views on what we should be doing. Those are not the same thing. I really don't want to be having this discussion and having to defend myself against your accusations that I hate Nathan Larson or that I am trying to push some agenda. You need to stop. Mo Billings (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: At the time, I was not aware that failed political candidates who have never held office are considered to be politicians. I am now. Mo Billings (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• This frankly strikes me as a difference of opinion on an editorial matter. I would suggest WP:DR of some form or a post at WP:BLPN rather than the sort of result expected from ANI.Beeblebrox (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a difference of opinion about policy and conduct based on that policy. It is not a content dispute. Herostratus did this redacting act before with the arrest (which made it very difficult to talk about the issue) and he's doing it again with the word pedophile on teh article talk page. Add to that his walls of text on the talk page and his attempts to move the or delete the page. This isn't an easy article - there's no reason to make it more problematic. Mo Billings (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Alright. So here's a couple solutions that might be in play, I think:

1. A clarification at WP:BLP. I have opened a request for one at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Proposal (not a formal RfC) re need for citations outside article space. As per my usual practice, I mostly described the case in favor of plaintiff's position, so hopefully no objection there. It's my guess that plaintiff's position will be widely popular, and problem solved. I'll abide by that -- have to. But if it goes against plaintiff, he'll abide by it. On this basis you consider closing this thread here, I guess.
2. Or, you could topic ban me from editing or talking about stuff related to WP:BLP. Because otherwise I'm going to carry on, absent a clear decision per #1 above. Maybe plaintiff is right -- you decide. I'm not requesting a topic ban. I don't want it (even tho it'd be a relief -- you think I enjoy doing this, and being an unpopular scold to boot? I hate it.) You decide.
3. Or something else, or punt, whatever, your call. Herostratus (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Herostratus Your interpretation of WP:BLP is contrary to common application of it. The policy does not need to be changed - your interpretation of it needs to be changed. Mo Billings (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Mo Billings, OK I hear you. That's a content dispute. ANI is behavioral issues. You brought one, and you have a reasonable point (I don't agree, and I think you're maybe kind of making drama on purpose and could take a chill pill instead of standing on your right to push the envelope in a kind of unhealthy direction here, but maybe I'm wrong). Maybe you'll get request (right now, I'm not seeing a lot of activity here, so I dunno). But anyway all this is pushing us over to the BLP talk page where I think the real action is going to be. We should have gone there first, but I didn't think of it either, so this whole thread has served a purpose, and that's fine. Herostratus (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Herostratus Please stop saying things like "take a chill pill instead of standing on your right to push the envelope in a kind of unhealthy direction". I'm perfectly chill, I'm not standing on my right to do anything except abide by policy without interference from you, and I am not "pushing the envelope" by objecting to your out-of-policy redactions to otherwise reasonable discussions. I understand that you object to people applying the word pedophile to someone who reliable sources literally call a pedophile in their headlines, but that "unhealthy direction" seems to be your issue, not mine or anyone else's. Please stop ascribing unpleasant motivations to my editing and focus on the actual issue. Thanks. Mo Billings (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I think both Mo Billings and Herostratus are overlooking something. Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder, not a criminal charge. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles: "Articles on medical conditions sometimes include lists of notable cases of the disease. For the person to be included in such a list there must be significant coverage of them having the condition, not simply a mention in passing or them self disclosing on social media."

• We can't call him a pedophile in Wikipedia's voice, unless he has been diagnosed as such by a competent authority.
• Pedophilia is not a synonym for child rape: "In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often applied to any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse. This use conflates the sexual attraction to prepubescent children with the act of child sexual abuse and fails to distinguish between attraction to prepubescent and pubescent or post-pubescent minors. Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided, because although some people who commit child sexual abuse are pedophiles, child sexual abuse offenders are not pedophiles unless they have a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children, and some pedophiles do not molest children." Dimadick (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Dimadick I don't know why you think it is helpful to drop a bunch of references here about "child rape", which is not what we are discussing. No one has said that Nathan Larson rapes children. As far as calling Larson a pedophile, I think there is a common, non-medical use of the term "pedophile" to mean someone with a sexual interest in children. That usage does not rely on a clinical diagnosis. Headlines such as "Congressional Candidate In Virginia Admits He's A Pedophile". "Nathan Larson is a pedophile and a white supremacist. And he's running for Congress". "Alleged pedophile, white supremacist arrested in kidnapping of 12-yr-old girl", "Virginia congressional candidate Nathan Larson admits he's a pedophile", "Pedophile And Hitler Fan Running For Congress Makes Ballot", and "This Hitler-loving Proud Pedophile Was Too Much of a Troll for Wikipedia, but Not for a Congressional Run" are using this less formal but most common usage. I'd be happy to continue the discussion elsewhere, but none of this has anything to do with Herostratus' redacting of the literal word "pedophile" in talk page discussions. Mo Billings (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I added the definition Wikipedia uses for pedophilia and the sources it uses, not the definition for child rape. "No one has said that Nathan Larson rapes children." His arrest is over sexual exploitation of a 12-year-old. Dimadick (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Why do you want to debate content issues here? Larson was indicted for, among other things, sexual exploitation of a minor. That is not "child rape", to use your phrase. No one has accused Larson of raping children. Mo Billings (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Everyone here seems to have missed the comments in the previous discussion referring to WP:BLPTALK, which reads: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate." (emphasis added) Whether or not to describe Larson as a pedophile is clearly a content matter, and the posts should not have been redacted. In my opinion this is a settled argument anyway: Larson describes himself as a pedophile and reliable sources agree. Removing this information from his biography is not enforcing any policy, it's plain censorship. Maybe "self-described pedophile" would be slightly more appropriate, but that's about it. We describe things how reliable sources describe them, not how we would like them to be described, nor do we hide information just because some readers might be offended. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• What Ivanvector said. WP:BLPTALK has specific criteria on what talk page comments should be redacted, and they obviously don't apply here. The accusations against Nathan Larson are well-sourced, and it is appropriate to discuss them on the talk page to determine whether or how they should be included in the article. Herostratus needs to stop redacting and editing other users' comments, as it is a violation of WP:TPO. If they cannot agree to that willingly, they should be forced to stop. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• The redactions are probably OTT but I'm not sure "pedophile" is well sourced. Per WP:HEADLINES the USA Today source doesn't support. Which leaves HuffPost, which is also what The Independent (and USA Today) are admittedly basing from. All the sourcing stems from the following: It’s a mix of both. When people go over the top, there’s a grain of truth to what they say. I don't think this is sufficient for saying he likes being described as a paedophile, or uses that term on himself. Probably fails WP:BLPSTYLE + MOS:LABEL imo. Not to mention the pending court case which only compounds these concerns. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • That's completely a content discussion, but if one wanted to know that "pedophile" was well sourced, one would have to look at the actual sources instead of just the headlines which I cherry-picked from the references used in the article. Feel free to start a discussion on the talk page. Be careful not to use the word "pedophile", though, because Herostratus may redact it. That is why I started the discussion here, not content issues. Mo Billings (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

    Let me link my comment back to this discussion: I think it's not a clear-cut case of inclusion (as some comments above say), and Hero's content concerns have some merit. A discussion should happen, and there's no grounds to redact such a discussion from happening. Ideally Hero can acknowledge that (Or, you could topic ban me ... Because otherwise I'm going to carry on, absent a clear decision per #1 above. does not seem like an acknowledgement) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

•  Note: Mo Billings is blocked as a sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/World's Lamest Critic. --Blablubbs|talk 23:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

User:BorisTheBulgar

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

---

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

User has several times attempted to remove well-sourced information on Afghan–Sikh Wars [33] [34] [35] [36], when trying to discuss with him, he resorts to personal attacks/aspersions and forum-like behaviour, as seen here:

The sources information is not relevant to the battle, when reviewing this page. I see that you tend to remove a large amount of information without actually adding anything to this article. Do you have a reason of why you only remove information from this article instead of adding any?

Please stop cyber bullying me. HistoryofIran -BorisTheBulgar

Again HistoryofIran adds nothing to the article just adds information relevant to himself. Explain your actions. Since you do not add information at your own behest on this article. I do not appreciate censoring of information.

Oh, more aspersions here, just in another place;

I put a lot of effort into it and he only keeps information relevent to himself, and does not make any contribution towards the article.

Have some compassion please. Very hurtful comments. HistoryofIran -BorisTheBulgar

When told he will reported for his actions if he continues, he said this; Feel free to report me. I will make another account and still edit regardless.

You think you are better than me because of the amount of rewards you have. You have said so before. HistoryofIran -BorisTheBulgar

--HistoryofIran (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

talk There is nothing personal. I spoke facts and in a normal manner. Please add the article if you feel like making changing. These are not personal attacks. I am sincerely sorry for my words or if I hurt your feelings with my words. Kind regards - BorisTheBulgar

Could you please add to the article if you are so concerned about it. I have spent hours of my time making the article look good with maps and other additions. You have also hurt me feelings. -BorisTheBulgar

I am a less experienced editor on wikipedia. Fylindfotberserk I hope my friend can help me out on this matter. -BorisTheBulgar

• Looking at the compelling evidence, the persistent attempts at changing/adding (unsourced) content, and replying to ANI notices as being part of a "cyber bully" campaign,[37] it can be concluded that user:BorisTheBulgar is here on a single purpose mission and not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

In response to this post. I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject matter. In my opinion, it should be discussed extensively in the talk page first, then perhaps WP:RFC and WP:DRN if no WP:CONSENSUS is reached. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocking now; this is a topic area where disruption like this needs to be cut off as quickly as possible, and the linked comment immediately above makes quite a case for blocking. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

"Feel free to report me. I will make another account and still edit regardless." Oh here we go again. Narky Blert (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I get the feeling that BorisTheBulgar was already a sock. The mere threat of making another account seems like the user has been blocked already with a previous account. Based on the article history of Afghan–Sikh Wars, CapChecker123 frequently edited the article as BorisTheBulgar. Jerm (talk) 05:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Controversial "genus" moves by Estopedist1

Recently, Estopedist1 has moved lots of "genus" articles citing their own user subpage as the reason. However, as the WP:RM/TR permalink to revision 1015788879 and Talk:Bellerophon (genus)#Requested move 1 April 2021 (also from a contested WP:RM/TR request) show, those moves are controversial and should be reverted. We should then ask that user to start an RfC on whether "(genus)" and other disambiguators are discouraged in article titles. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Peter coxhead and Plantdrew: could you help here and say that these moves are not controversial --Estopedist1 (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• It does seem that User:Estopedist1/Taxons and disambiguation#Related discussions already pointed you to several years of prior WikiProject discussion of this. Uncle G (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• (non-admin comment) As a DABfixer with scientific training who is not a biologist but who frequently comes across genus disambiguation problems (7 today by my count; an unusually high number), I understand where Estopedist1 is coming from. However: (1) a WP:RMTR with the rationale "disambiguator qualifier "(genus)" is generally not allowed. See explanation here: User:Estopedist1/Taxons and disambiguation" is hopelessly inadequate, and (2) this is a content dispute not an ANI matter. Botanists and zoologists have different rules for naming genera and species, and there may be no one-size-fits-all WP:CONSENSUS. Should a WP:RFC be opened, I would welcome a {{ping}} for the opportunity to comment. Narky Blert (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• (non-admin comment, responding to ping). Is this really something that needs to be addressed via ANI? I had advised Estopedist1 that I thought it would be worthwhile to make the disambiguation terms used for animal genera more WP:CONSISTENT. I wasn't expecting him to move quite so quickly in doing so. I haven't to respond to some of his pings in recent days seeking further feedback. The rationale ""(genus)" is generally not allowed" overstates the outcome of previous discussions on disambiguating with (genus) that had input from more than ~3 editors. However, Wikipedia has absolutely been increasingly move away from (genus) disambiguators. The single biggest source of ambiguity with the name of a plant/animal genus is a animal/plant genus with the same name. Plant and animal genus names are constructed in similar ways; sometimes they are named after people, so are a lot of genera of the form "SURNAME+ia"; genera are often named by creating compound Greek/Latin words that didn't necessarily exist as words in classical Greek/Latin. As Wikipedia adds more articles on genera over time, more cases of ambiguity between genera come up; (genus) simply isn't sustainable as consistent way to disambiguate articles on genera. Suggest Estopediast1 open an RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life to get consensus on the suggestion compiled on his subpage (I don't think there's any question at present that a majority of subject editors will not want to encourage (genus) going forward, but there hasn't been any discussion to establish what disambiguators should be used instead (particularly for some insects and various "worms")). Plantdrew (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Instead I'd recommend listing in batches (around 5–10 related articles) on WP:RM and seeing if there is opposition. (t · c) buidhe 04:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• There's nothing controversial about moving away from "(genus)" as a disambiguator for a genus article; Plantdrew has explained fully above why this term doesn't work (in short because the nomenclature codes allow the use of the same genus name for a plant and an animal). There is an issue about what to use instead for different groups of animals (plant genera use "(plant)"), but this is not an ANI matter. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • After reading some of the WikiProject discussions hyperlinked on that explanation page it does seem that yours is an accurate description of the state of affairs and that you've been roughly agreeing with one another about moving away for about 8 years now. It would be better to say "is problematic for the reasons given in the past 8 years of WikiProject discussions hyperlinked at User:Estopedist1/Taxons and disambiguation#Related discussions" rather than "is not allowed". Better still, one could make that page actually explain things, rather than making people unfamiliar with what one is doing, at whom one has waved this as a rationale, wade through broken lists and apparent gibberish to the actual explanations right at the bottom. Uncle G (talk) 09:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Is there a list of articles proposed to be moved where comments can be added? Peter James (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• I noticed the user is doing a mass redirect for Acantocephala genera that I have been working on bringing up to Featured Article. Since this field is so poorly represented (and little information exists at all for most species) it makes sense to group at a higher level than normal. I can give you an example. Should a reader see this stub? [38] with each link redirecting to the link you broke? Or should they see this Moniliformidae. Which is more useful for the reader? I feel that it is important not to apply policies without thinking critically about them. If in the future more information is gained, then for sure separate out specific genera. But I don't see the use of making a bunch of stub articles as the user has been doing. At the very least it's worth discussing before making more changes. Mattximus (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Please protect the current TFA due to ongoing vandalism

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

---

Siegfried Lederer's escape from Auschwitz thanks in advance. (t · c) buidhe 02:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Already protected by administrator Callanecc.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Please block User:Deus omnipotens sum

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

---

Please block Deus omnipotens sum (talk · contribs) per WP:OM, WP:GRATUITOUS and WP:NPA. He is vulgarry insulting me (in Czech language, though; you can translate it) and adding vulgar Czech word to Voiced glottal fricative. + I would agree to global ban from him, because his behaviour in his entire time on Wikipedia is very abusive, see [39] for example. Moson81 (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Specific diffs appear to be Special:Diff/996387707 and Special:Diff/1016020832, but also Special:Diff/1016080849. So xe has called you a dick and put the word " hovno" into article space and you've told xem that xe hasn't the IQ of a pumpkin. Other recent edits from that account appear to be copyediting, the only thing wrong about which I can find is that the editor wrongly believes that split infinitives are a bad thing in English. Uncle G (talk) 09:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I blocked for 31h, since the edit summary was a clear personal attack, and they knew what they were doing. Note however @Moson81: that you failed to inform them of this thread despite the requiremewnts. Please do so.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I will welcome opinions whether Moson81 needs to be blocked as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry for personaly attacking User:Deus omnipotens sum and not letting him know about this thread. This is not my home wiki (those are cswiki and hrwiki), and I have not much ideas about rules you have here. As of the personal attack, I got angry at him insulting me for absolutely no reason – I decently wrote about that vandalism and vulgarisms are not allowed on Wikipedia, when other words with voiced glottal fricative can be listed as they exist and as of WP:GRATUITOUS, and he just went on nothing than calling me vulgar words, so I couldn't maintain my emotions; I'm sorry for that. Please forgive me, this will not repeat in the future. Moson81 (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn’t see anything untoward in Moson81’s contribs other than Deus has the IQ of a pumpkin which is, as PA’s go, rather quaint. Maybe it sounds worse in Czech. They’ve apologised. Probably just warn Moson not to make derogatory comments about other editor’s IQ. DeCausa (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It looks like we are done here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Not quite @Ymblanter:. Considering that I was not informed of this thread, and then temporarily banned (perhaps rightly so), I didn't have the opportunity to defend myself, and I'd like to take the opportunity to do so now, for the record.

I thought hovno sounded more euphonious than hospoda on that page, so I changed it; hovno isn't even as vulgar as @Moson81: tries to make it sound, anyway. Yes, it can refer to the digestive by-product of man or animal, but it can also mean, quite simply, nothing or the concept of zero. If he thought it was gratuitous per WP:GRATUITOUS, he could have taken the initiative and silently reverted it, or asked me to do so, or informed me that he believed my edit not to be constructive, and that would be it, water under the bridge.

Instead, he imputed mens rea to me that I did not have, calling me out-and-out a vandal. I do not appreciate having my inner motivations "explained" to me, with no evidence (as you said, all my edits are copyediting, pretty much). There's a very important difference as you well know between "you killed that man" and "you MURDERER!" At that point I considered it a matter of honour and my temper did not permit me to refrain from calling him a nasty word. I'm willing to apologise to him and "take back" my comment, if he apologises as well for calling me a vandal without evidence of any kind, not even circumstantial, and serves out a ban for an equal length of time to myself. I think it's only fair. V opačném případě, není prostě kokot, ale kokot koňský. --Deus omnipotens sum (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Pardon me, I don't speak Czech so I have to use Google translate. Does that last part really translate to "Otherwise, it's not just a dick, but a horse dick"? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Yes, it is. He's insulting me again for no reason. Moson81 (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I can only assume that making rude insults in this thread is a request to be blocked from editing here for good. Wish granted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Uncivil and tendentious editing by User:Magnovvig

Hi, I think Magnovvig needs a good reminder (at the very least) of the basics of WP:CIV and WP:NPOV. The following is what I could observe in pages that I am interested in, and I have not reviewed the rest of their contributions.

1. Personal attacks in edit summaries

When I arrived to Archegos Capital Management, the article was tagged with WP:TONE maintenance template and had numerous issues [40]. At this point, the article had mostly been written by Magnovvig. I took it upon myself to fix the problems, mostly by removing the problematic content [41][42][43]. In response, Magnovvig started to attack me, writing stuff like a If the careless editor who deleted the sentence had read the article [44] and Maybe s/he confused this with her professional resume writing service [45].

Answer by Magnovvig:

• Did JBchrch read the article? JBchrch summarized the edit thus: "it is not customary to quote unnamed business executives" But the article does in fact name the source as Charles Delingpole:

“ Charles Delingpole, the chief executive of technology company ComplyAdvantage, believes that family office relationships with Wall Street "need to be revisited and further interrogated". "To have premier tier Wall Street investment banks acting as prime brokers to entities that have exhibited adverse behaviour in the past demonstrates that 'know your customer' policies are either becoming too lax or being improperly enforced," he said. Hwang was charged with illegal trading in 2012. ”

At what point does one assume bad faith? If anything, my edit summary "actually, he (Charles Delingpole) is named but I omitted his name because I thought it irrelevant. If the careless editor who deleted the sentence had read the article he would have seen the name." errs on the side of WP:CIV.

2. Attempt at intimidation through user warnings

Just after these attacks, Magnovigg went to my talk page and served me a {{uw-coi}} warning [46], prompting me to disclose whether I had an external relationship with FINMA, other regulators, Credit Suisse, Nomura, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, as well as private individuals linked to recent events.

Answer by Magnovvig:

• What "attacks"? Is JBchrch careless, or is JBchrch not careless? At this point, I thought it best that s/he identify possible WP:COI, because of the egregious false edit summary to which I advert above. This is in no way an "Attempt at intimidation through user warnings". How else does one verify, if one cannot ask the question? Here JBchrch attempts to distort reality. It is extremely distasteful to need to answer this type of slur.

3. Refusal to engage in constructive dialogue

Following our interactions at Archegos Capital Management, Magnovvig decided that it was a good idea to add to the leads of 27 articles about banks the information they they qualified as "G-SIBs". [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] I thought that this language was confusing, so I left a message on Magnovvig’s talk page explaining why and suggesting that we use the term "systematically important bank" instead [74]. Not only did Magnovvig not answer me at all (despite a reminder [75]), he continued to add the term "G-SIB" to the rest of the 27 articles without engaging in any form of dialogue.

Answer by Magnovvig:

• If s/he dislikes my edits s/he is free to change them. What does s/he misunderstand about Wikipedia:About?

“ Anyone is allowed to add or edit words, references, images, and other media here. What is contributed is more important than who contributes it. To remain, the content must be free of copyright restrictions and contentious material about living people. It must fit within Wikipedia's policies, including being verifiable against a published reliable source. Editors' opinions and beliefs and unreviewed research will not remain. Contributions cannot damage Wikipedia because the software allows easy reversal of mistakes, and many experienced editors are watching to ensure that edits are improvements. ”

• S/he is sore that I zigged when s/he thought I ought to have zagged. No, JBchrch, you do not have a monopoly on my time. It is clear that you have been in a position of power of your subordinates. Here at wiki everyone is equal. Instead of looking to see what you wrote on my talk page, I went ahead and added facts to wiki. That's all there was to it.

A similar attitude was displayed on the article List of systemically important banks. While reviewing the article, I made a bold edit [76][77], and Magnovvig reverted me, arguing that I needed to build consensus on the talk page. But he then refused to take part in the talk page discussion [78], despite me sending him - once again - a reminder [79].

Answer by Magnovvig:

• Here JBchrch dislikes the fact that I have priorities other than wiki.

4. General pattern of tendentious editing

From what I could see over the last few days (I haven't reviewed all of his contributions), Magnovvig is generally negligent of WP:NPOV and WP:WIKIVOICE and pushes an "anti-finance" POV. A few examples:

• On Archegos Capital Management

• Writing that the "Swiss financial watchdog" named FINMA had been called in to mop up the mess at Credit Suisse [80], which is obviously not what the source says.

Answer by Magnovvig:

• Why did a reputable source mention FINMA if the reporter and editor and publisher didn't think it important?
• JBchrch is free to alter my language but s/he might be a little more careful about wholesale deletions. Has it occurred to JBchrch that I sought to attract help by purposefully using provocative language? I was surprised that I was able to write an entire 2,116 character article without help of any sort whatsoever on a topic to which hundreds of thousands of readers were attracted in the last week.

• On List of systematically important banks

• Writing that the notion of "systematically important financial institutions" was replaced for unknown reasons by the notion of "systematically important banks", without citing any source or, really, doing any research [81].

Answer by Magnovvig:

• Actually, I did read the 2011 and 2012 FSB reports. They failed to identify the reasons for their shift in language. So I did do research and I wrote what I found. Will JBchrch retract this unfounded slur? It is clear from the above that JBchrch seeks to manipulate others with his or her choice to employ emotive language, which is a pity, really.

• On Family office:

• Calling the Family Office Council a lobby group without adding a reliable source… and summarizing the edit as "ce" (!!!) [82].

Answer by Magnovvig:

• What is the Family Office Council if not for a lobby group?

• Adding a report linking Leon Black to Jeffrey Epstein, which is completely irrelevant to the article [83].

Answer by Magnovvig:

• I disagree that it is irrelevant, and "ref name pleon" a Bloomberg reporter agrees with me. Who is JBchrch to disagree with a reputable source like Bloomberg?

• On GFG Alliance

• calling Credit Suisse the Swiss, saying they are on the hook and have been thwarted. Also, using words like evidently etc. [84] In this particular case, the edit is even factually wrong: as the WSJ article cited clearly explains, Greensill Capital did the "double trust" structure and not GFG Alliance.

Answer by Magnovvig:

• The "double trust" structure was no mystery to GFG. In fact, that is why Greensill was the only lender to GFG, or else GFG would have dealt with investment banks prima facie. This is in the reputable sources! Has JBchrch taken the time to read them?
• If s/he disagrees with my usage, s/he is free to change it. But then s/he would need to answer why the Financial Times reported "Credit Suisse thwarted in effort to access Gupta accounts". What part of thwarted does JBchrch not understand?

JBchrch (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Magnovvig (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I think the above indicates that Magnovvig is not willing to conform to the most basic Wikipedia policies and to collaborate with other editors.

• She/he claims to have been purposefully using provocative language on the mainspace.
  
• She/he adds information that is not in the sources.
  • On List of systemically important banks: Reasoning = They failed to identify the reasons for their shift in language --> Content = for unknown reasons.
  • On GFG Alliance: Reasoning = The "double trust" structure was no mystery to GFG. In fact, that is why Greensill was the only lender to GFG --> Content = The next day it came to light that GFG had split up... the loans into [a]... double trust structure.
• She/he ignores talk page messages (Instead of looking to see what you wrote on my talk page, I went ahead and added facts to wiki).
• When asked nicely and politely - including with reminders! - to discuss his edits on talk pages, she/he answers you do not have a monopoly on my time. It is clear that you have been in a position of power of your subordinates.
• She/he adds original research to articles (What is the Family Office Council if not for a lobby group?).

Finally, let me make it very clear that I do not have a COI regarding the institutions implicated in Archegos Capital Management.

Please let me know if I need to answer to her/his other comments. JBchrch (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Non admin comment here, but this sounds like POV and/or potential COI problems. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• I think that the behavior demonstrated in point #3 is tendentious editing. Continuing a pattern of edits after other editors have raised reasonable concerns about them without engaging in discussion is not ok. When it comes to reviewing the accusations in point #4, I'm honestly more concerned by Magnovig's responses in this thread than the original edits themselves. Has it occurred to JBchrch that I sought to attract help by purposefully using provocative language? turns what could be dismissed as accidentally using the wrong tone into a violation of WP:POINT. I've reread this section multiple times now and I can't see how It is clear from the above that JBchrch seeks to manipulate others with his or her choice to employ emotive language is anything other than an unfounded personal attack. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

162.83.185.45

162.83.185.45 keeps on resubmitting Universal Kids to Saturday-morning cartoon when It's not widely used as a Successor, So give me the link to the rules of edit warring. It will teach the unregistered user a lesson, and So as me and Trivialist. 13:53, 5 April 2021 LooneyTraceYT (talk)

WP:3RR is that way. Just a heads up, your signature definitely violates WP:CUSTOMSIG/P since it can easily cause confusion with User:Trace. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 13:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I definitely agree. Thank you for your care, Padgriffin! Trace (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I feel like we blocked someone who was here to 'teach someone a lesson' a couple years back. LooneyTraceYT, please declare if you have had past accounts here; we do not 'teach users' a lesson here when their edits are wrong, we guide them towards making proper edits. Nate • (chatter) 18:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

OP's behavior above matches up to MechMaster Katzenstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has used this same type of 'warning language' in the past against IPs; it makes sense why their editing patterns felt familiar to me. Pinging @Boing! said Zebedee: and @Yunshui:, who dealt with MMK's block in the past. If this is MMK, I'm very disappointed you haven't improved your editing behavior in the least. And please fix your signature; now it leads to Trace's page, not yours. Nate • (chatter) 18:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

(Yunshui has since retired/hung up the mop, so someone else will have to check contribs over) Nate • (chatter) 18:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, Nate and Padgriffin, I see that LooneyTraceYT has modified his signature. Thanks to you all! Trace (talk) 08:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Barrow1965

• Barrow1965 (talk · contribs)

I strongly suspect that this user previously edited as 81.101.15.25, which has been blocked more than once for disruptive editing, in addition to 2a00:23c6:5496:8800:e511:94b3:1350:8afa and, most recently, 2.96.102.189. Based on the common areas of interest (mainly Thunderbirds and other Gerry Anderson TV/film productions), similar use of edit summaries and all-round similar editing styles, I am convinced that Barrow1965 and these IPs are all the same person.

Barrow1965 is continuing the disruption for which they were blocked as an IP, appearing at various Anderson articles and changing in-universe dates to reflect what they consider to be the "correct" time setting. This typically involves swapping secondary sources for their own interpretation based on primary sources (example), accompanied by unhelpful or misleading edit summaries as well as edit‑warring to restore their POV when the changes are reverted ([85] and [86]; [87] and [88]).

Rather than follow the WP:BRD cycle and continue the talk page discussion here, they have gone back to making these disruptive mass changes without consensus, à la WP:IDHT. Given their prior disruption as an IP, I believe that Barrow1965 should be blocked indefinitely. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 14:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• This user continues to edit-war in their POV on multiple pages and has now extended their disruptive WP:OR tendency to article categories. Please could someone uninvolved issue a block? SuperMarioMan (Talk) 19:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• It is very likely that the IPs and Barrow1965 are the same based on behavior, which is different in some way I admit, but the overlap is pretty obvious. I've blocked 72 hours for now, hoping that will get his attention. I don't feel like I can indef without trying at least one or two steps in between first, although that is where it is heading if he doesn't take notice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Nationalistic edits by Semsûrî

• Semsûrî (talk · contribs)

This user keeps removing Laks/Lurs and adding Kurds instead on the article of Lorestan Province. People of this province in Iran speak Luri by 91.5% based on Iran's official claims.

Kurdish is almost non-existent in this province(0.5%) based on official survey in 2010.

Lurs in Iran, Lorestan province is 91.5% Lurish.

Kurds in Iran, Lorestan province is 0.5% Kurdish.

These images are from an official resource from Iran in 2010, Luri is majority of this province by 91.5%.

Based on this book from Erik John Anonby, It's says there's three theory on how Laki should be described, Luri, Kurdish or independent. But he changed Lak article many times to keep only Kurdish theory on the article. Also Britanica describes Laki as one of Lur people languages.

There was a long discussion on the talk page between him and Rizorius (talk · contribs) and Valereee (talk · contribs).

After this discussion, he stopped his disruptive edits for a while but he came back and continues to do the same edits.

Setenly (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Reading through the discussion at Talk:Lorestan_Province#Survey, it looks like other editors were told to find reliable, secondary sources, not primary sources. These maps were made from primary sources and aren't used anywhere on the English Wikipedia, because their sources aren't reliable. Woodroar (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The OP seems to be giving a less than honest readout of the talkpage discussion to which he linked, given that it backed the edits by Semsûrî as appropriate and determined that inclusion of the sources the OP is bringing up is inappropriate. Grandpallama (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding this survey... as I argued on the talkpage; 1) it is published by Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance thus a primary source and not reliable. Secondly, since it considers a Kurdish dialect (Laki) as part of the Luri language, the results of the survey become unreliable. The reliable Iranica Online puts the Kurdish-% in the province at 65% (a reference Setenly removed, why?), so why should we use a reference that puts the Kurdish-% at 0.5?%(!!!!!!) This is incredibly absurd and dishonest. Regarding, Britannica, it was deemed a non-RS on the Reliable Sources noticeboard. --Semsûrî (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Comparing first Semsûrî's edit on Lak article from 26 May 2019 to his last edit in 4th April(This is complete different article!!). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lak_%28tribe%29&type=revision&diff=1015947891&oldid=898872483

This is what Lak article was like on his first edit:

Laks are an Iranian group in southwestern Iran. They speak Laki (or Leki), an independent Iranian language, or a dialect of Kurdish or Luri languages.

Why did he removed all the sources and replaced it with what he liked??! Setenly (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The page Laki language needed a full revamp back in 2019 because of now-blocked Shadegan and his POV-push. --Semsûrî (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

This is your edit not his. this change was a POV-push by Semsûrî over time.

There's three theories on the Laki language. Laki should be called Laki. and in the article Lorestan province it should be Laki not Kurdish since it's representing only one POV. Setenly (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

In his works, Anonby puts Laki in the Kurdish group.(page 176)("Laki, a second major variety, is also part of the larger Kurdish language family. "). Sure, he gives three theories but he ultimately picks one himself. --Semsûrî (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Setenly, ANI is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. We don't decide content issues here. If Semsûrî has behavioral issues, then you need to prove that with diffs.

I don't know Semsûrî. I'm not Lurish or Kurdish or Iranian and I've never been to that region. I don't have a dog in this fight. But I do know that every year or so, someone shows up accusing Semsûrî of POV pushing without any evidence. And when we look into it, that person has usually been POV pushing themselves or they turn out to be a sockpuppet, often both. So excuse us for not taking your word for it here.

As far as I can tell, Semsûrî appears to be editing based on reliable, secondary sources. I see 10 other editors working on Laki language in that same ~2-year timeframe, but you're blaming only Semsûrî. Why is that? Woodroar (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

He's been adding Kurdish to many articles with vague references in other languages.

These are a few of them:

File:Screencapture-en-wikipedia-org-w-index-Semsûrî edits.png

Lorestan province is only one of these nationalistic edit campaigns he's been doing. some edits in the same minutes!! Who can confirm if the references are correct? Setenly (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Source have been given for these edits. Adding info on these settlements is suddenly a nationalistic edit? C'mon. Aşiretler raporu is a gem on this subject and you're more than welcome to check the book yourself. --Semsûrî (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Why this spam-like behavior should be tolerated?!! Who can confirm these references? He's doing these on many articles.Woodroar

Setenly (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Setenly, It looks like Semsûrî is adding sources and categories to articles, which is a normal part of the editing process. But it's impossible to tell from a screenshot. Again, if there is a behavioral problem, you need to provide diffs. Woodroar (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Why is adding info on the ethnic composition spam? This is going nowhere... Are you going to question all info on Wikipedia sourced with a reference not available online? --Semsûrî (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

He keeps removing texts from other ethnicities like Lurs and Assyrians! Why is that?! is it based on your POV those people should have weaker articles??!

I want admins to look at these diffs, Isn't this POV-pushing?:

Assyrian culture

Assyrians in Iraq

Assyrian cuisine

Abdanan Removes a lot of text about Lurs, Laks and Arabs. and just calls it "clean up!!"

Lurs

Ilam Province Yet another "clean up"! a clean up that removes Lurs from the article!!

Setenly (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I do frequently remove unsourced info and info based on bad references like blogs – also on Kurdish-related articles. Moreover, info that is off-topic. These reasons encompasses all of the links above. --Semsûrî (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

And this removes include half of a page and removing an ethnic altogether from that article?!Setenly (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Its that time of year again...someone accusing Semsuri of POV pushing while blatantly doing it themselves. There must be some forum out there dedicated to harassing Semsuri...this is just absurd at this point. Can't we let the fellow edit in peace? AdmiralEek (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

A random user bulit in 2020 says this time of the year?? how many years you have been here? are you Semsûrî's sockpuppet??! Setenly (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, given that their userpage declares that they are an alternative account of User:CaptainEek, who first edited in February 2014, let's call it seven years and change. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the reason adding such a comment under this section, and taking side. Setenly (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

You asked AdmiralEek how many years you have been here?. I'm answering your question. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know!Setenly (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• The long term harassment of Semsûrî is both obvious and pointless. +1 to letting Semsûrî edit in peace. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Setenly, I looked at those diffs. First one - removes unsourced material. Second one - removes contentious material sourced only to a POV blog. Third and fourth one - removes unsourced material. Fifth one - removes unsourced material (there is a source, but it apparently only cites the definition of Greater Iran, not the rest of the paragraph). The sixth one simply moves 99% of the material around the article. Feel free to let me know if Ive made any errors there. Black Kite (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Just search Lur on these articles, Abdanan and Ilam province.

Do you see any Lur in Semsuri's edit?? Why is it removed altogether and just called it clean-up?! Setenly (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

What info on Lurs did I remove in Abdanan? All I removed was the unsourced 'Geograhy', 'attractions', 'economy' and 'famous persons' sections. The only thing I changed on Lurs was making clear that the group was the minority in the city. --Semsûrî (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It's Ilam province. Why is that Lur was completely removed from article?Setenly (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Info on Lurs in Ilam Province has not been 'completely removed'. The info "For around a thousand years, Ilam was controlled by Kurds and Lurs: From 961 to 1140 CE, Kurds such as Hasanwayhid and Annazids dynasties ruled;..." was unsourced. The reference '=Sustainable Urban Development "Case Study of Ilam City"' had nothing about this subject. --Semsûrî (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Setenly, you have brought a content dispute to a behavior noticeboard, and you're the one behaving badly here by making unsupported accusations, which is not likely to help your case. Because you are very new here, others are trying to be patient with you, but you should stop now. I suggest you withdraw this case, and I also very strongly suggest you go edit in noncontentious areas until you understand Wikipedia's policies a lot better than you currently do. —valereee (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

A lot of references
References

User ignoring warnings about adding unsourced material

User:Chadply doesn't seem to have discovered talk pages, including their own. In the last couple of months User:RenatUK, User:M.boli and User:BilCat have warned them about adding unsourced material. Doug Weller talk 18:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems like classic WP:RADARbehavior. Blocking is usually the only thing that gets the attention of a user doing this, but I'll hold offf a minute in case they reply here. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Took another look today. This user has never, ever used a talk page of any kind. Their very first edit is the only time they have ever used an edit summary. They've been getting talk page messages about their editing for years and have simply ignored them. This shows both an apparent refusal to communicate and a refusal to adjust their editing to meet expected standards. Experience has shown that short blocks are usually just waited out by accounts like this, then they just go back to what they were doing, and this user often has months-long gaps between edits anyway. For all those reasons I have gone ahead and issued an indefinite block. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: thanks. I concur with your reasoning. Doug Weller talk 09:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Misquoting Office Action page on Meta

I do not know what is wrong with this user. (EDIT: Their name is Guy Macon. This person keeps changing my title [89][90] and I'm not here for a fight.) First they accuse me of being an LTA with no evidence, then they double down on their claims and then spews some more nonsense. All I have done was improve something per WP:BOLD and I have multiple users including them coming after me and I have done nothing wrong. I even asked some other person who accused me of block evasion for evidence and I have received no response. Could someone please do something? 2603:301D:22B2:4000:6077:DC40:801A:D27D (talk) 02:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Guy Macon. A IP editor shouldn't be editing Wikipedia:Office actions, and adding a {{blockquote}} for something that isn't actually a quote is problematic. You certainly sound like a WP:LTA, why else would you be complaining about rollback abuse when your problematic changes were rightly reverted? Also, Special:Contributions/2603:301D:22B2:4000:280A:11C3:33ED:D3E9/64 shows a history of problematic actions, maybe you're not "a sock" and are just a problematic an IP editor. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Did you not see the quotation marks on the second and third paragraphs? It was most certainly quoted. If that's all you got to call my edits "problematic", you are very mistaken. 2603:301D:22B2:4000:6077:DC40:801A:D27D (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why I'm bothering to respond to you, but sure. Part of it is a quote, but "Office actions are official changes ..." does not appear in the linked page. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

"Part of it is a quote" is a lie. It's quite clear you're biased for this person to support them calling me a long-term abuser. Just wow. 2603:301D:22B2:4000:6077:DC40:801A:D27D (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Now you're calling me a liar and biased. Are you saying that none of the material is a quote? Or are you saying the material I note is not in the cited source is in fact a quote? Or are you just trolling? I'm not going to reply further; if you make further personal attacks I must respond to I will simply delete your comment. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. More and more accusations against an IP editor in good faith. 2603:301D:22B2:4000:6077:DC40:801A:D27D (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Re: "It's quite clear you're biased for this person", I would like to take a moment to thank the many editors who have worked so hard to support my persecution of this poor, innocent IP editor. I couldn't have done it without you. You can all expect a little something extra in your Wikipedia paycheck this week. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

(←) The entire text is copied from the office actions page, but it's from two separate sections and should technically not be presented as a single quote. Also, yes, technically you inserted a small bit of new text that isn't present in the quote, as part of the quote. This may seem nitpicky, but no more nitpicky than you changing it for no reason in the first place. I'm not making any assumptions about you; I support the right of IPs to edit here, but an IP user has a snowball's chance in hell of being able to make arbitrary changes to policy pages, so this is really on you. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

You say that as if I should of expected this. I didn't. I was just trying to improve something I felt needed improving without performing anything major, but it seems I'm made to look like the bad guy. 2603:301D:22B2:4000:6077:DC40:801A:D27D (talk) 03:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Nonesense. I just compared [91] with [92] The alleged quote does not match the page it was supposedly quoted from.

"The office actions policy is a set of guidelines and procedures regarding official changes to or removals of content on the Wikimedia projects, or actions against specific individuals..."

"Office actions are official changes to or removals of content on the Wikimedia projects, or actions against specific individuals..."

If you are going to quote the W?F, the quote has to be 100% accurate, not a paraphrase. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

By "the W?F" do you mean the WMF or do you mean the WTF? – or are they one and the same? EEng 11:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I took it as being some ambiguity about whether it's still the "Wikimedia Foundation" or if it had gone ahead (as threatened) and changed its name to the "Wikipedia Foundation", but I like yours ("WTF") better. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Moving On With Brit

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

---

• Moving On With Brit (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia: Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User_Moving_On_With_Brit - admits to using her own website as a reference multiple times but sees no COI violation
• Wikipedia: Sockpuppet investigations/Brit On the Move
• Albert Goldman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - edit-warring to include the source she's added that's a copy of Lenny Bruce
• After asking that all her edits be removed [93], she's mostly done so (see her edits 02:14, 6 April 2021 through 03:07, 6 April 2021, other than at Albert Goldman.
• Threatening to involve a lawyer [94] I expect my account to be shut down - totally fine, but I will be getting a lawyer - I've done nothing wrong at all.

Though the COIN and SPI discussions are both still open, I think there's enough for a block at this point. --Hipal (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Moving On With Brit (talk) 04:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Of course, there is... In Hipal/Ronz' opinion, that would be perfect. Hipal/Ronz retaliates against me for my outing their disgusting behavior - the bully tactics (and fake profiles).

1. Did not admit to using her own website as a reference multiple times but sees no COI violation

I said I have an affiliation with a site that I linked to 3 times out of 70 PLUS edits. The verbiage was chosen by Hipal/Ronz - the multi-named user who is inaccurate and misleading. Throughout (he/she/it's) witch hunt of me, it's been apparent that the sole issue here is "do I have any affiliation to any site I ever linked to"? I do, and I clearly stated that when asked. However, I have also cited the policies numerous times to Hipal/Ronz that does not preclude me from doing such. If there is an error on my part, it was a lack of disclosure before the fact- AND I've been adequately schooled on since then.

2. Sockpuppet investigations/Brit On the Move

All initiated by Hipal/Ronz - a known spamming editor! SEE BELOW - a small sample.

REFERENCES: https://www.wikizero.com/en/User:Ronz

Advertisements up the wazo: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Wikipedia_talk:Stand-alone_lists/Archive_10#/should_everything_in_a_list_be_referenced

Ronz – aka Hipla https://nofelizz.com/2014/08/13/the-dark-side-of-wikipedia/ https://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hipal#top

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hipal#A_Script_You_Might_Find_Useful

We’ll take wrong info from a credible source vs. correct info?

Janet Dubois[edit] The sources may differ on the year of her birth, but if she had a child (Raj) who died in 1987 at age 36, Raj was born around 1951. So most likely, 1932 is the correct year because the odds of her giving birth at 19 is more realistic than at 13 or 6. Also, Raj must not have been the youngest of 4 kids (as listed) unless Janet had 4 kids by the age of 19. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:6A48:9700:1828:C6F4:CEE7:CB63 (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC) The place for this discussion is the article talk page, where you will see the same argument and the response that, as far as we know, he could have been adopted. But, yes, primary sources, which we should not be used alone, suggest 1932. Too bad the New York Times punted on her year of birth. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Personal Bias and personal “opinion.”

Andy Gross[edit] • Andy Gross (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | views) I am confused why you decided to revert my edit of this article to a misquoted and incomplete older edit. The page, as it currently stands, is not only far less informative of the events that transpired and made national media headlines but is also blatantly false, a fact you would have been able to determine by actually reviewing the sources I added. Everything on the page was properly cited and factual, again qualities that are not shared by your edits. I wish to settle this dispute in a civil of a manner as possible, which is why I am writing to you rather than simply reverting your edits.Nucleartaco123 (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Hi Nucleartaco123. Welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for following up with me on this. To me, it seemed like far too much coverage and detail for a single event that has apparently no lasting impact.

Can we agree to disengage mutually?[edit] Can we both please agree to mutually disengage? And take a break from each other? Thank you, Right cite (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC) If you need to take a break, go ahead. I suggested WP:COOL already. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC) Can you consider disengaging from articles I have worked to improve and/or new articles I have created from scratch? Can we both do that together, please? Right cite (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC) Can you? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC) Can we both? As a show of mutual good faith? Together? Right cite (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC) Please identify what articles you will disengage from. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC) Sure. These three -- Al Seckel, List of think tanks in the United States, List of hunger strikes. I created Paul Seckel from scratch -- you appeared there 4 minutes later before it was linked to anything on Wikipedia. I saved Casey Calvert and Alexis Texas from deletion at AFD. I would like for you to disengage from those 3. Agreed? Thanks, Right cite (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC) While I appreciate the offer, I have to decline. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC) Why? Right cite (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC) I hope you will respect my request that we end this discussion at this point. Thank you again. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC

That said, it certainly could be written better and the references formatted. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC) User: Ronz/Doubtful sources[edit] Nice list. We have been doing some other work about dubious reference material and its coordinated use at WP, some discussion about how we can work with this at User talk:Praxidicae/fakenews, and noting that I can do some of that configuration for COIBot reports. Let me ping @Vexations, Praxidicae, and ThatMontrealIP: to your build. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC) Thanks. I've been meaning to link any RSN discussion for each entry, but the list grew too fast. It's mostly scraping or publicity sites. --Ronz (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC) Moving comments out of an RfC

Hipal??[edit] What the t¿≠}{\¶‰¢¥”, Ronz? Bishonen | talk 11:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC). "Hip Al"? "Hi pal"? Does someone have a script to auto-rename renamed accounts so they look like the old account - all this account renaming is too confusing :-) ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC) I'm with Bish, fwiw. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 14:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC) LOL. Yes. I put this off way too long. I'm sure there's much more fun and confusion to come. X^P --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

MY PERSONAL COMMENT TO HIPAL - AKA Ronz: Hipal/Ronz (whatever you call yourself these days). How many claims do you have open? Is it that people don't typically challenge you? Or is it your change of name and consistent assertion of authority similar to that of Northern Korea that intimidates the average person from challenging you? I've stated MULTIPLE times - I have done nothing wrong, violated no rules as "legally written out here" and yet you continue to harass me. When will you stop? Seriously, this is enough...... You are a spam editor - let's investigate that.

3. After asking that all her edits be removed [95], she's mostly done so (see her edits)

Yes, I did. I've been attacked by Hipal/Ronz and harassed. I spent hours - hours cleaning up pages. Hipal/Ronz undid all that work along with one other editor and many of the undo's post this debate - see the timeline. I returned the gesture as taught and cleaned up the remaining citations. If my edits are unacceptable, then they are unacceptable. Hipal/Ronz do not get to wipe out TONS of edits and keep a small fraction. Let's not use double standards. And, let's be clear here. Hipal/Ronz initiated this claim upon undoing edits.

4. 02:14, 6 April 2021 through 03:07, 6 April 2021, other than at Albert Goldman.

And?

5. Threatening to involve a lawyer [96] I expect my account to be shut down - totally fine, but I will be getting a lawyer - I've done nothing wrong at all.

Not threatening, simply stating my next step. Hipal/Ronz have bullied and badgered me and many users with bias. Unless Wikipedia does something to stop Hipal/Ronz this is what is needed. One person, Hipal/Ronz, operating under personas who violate freedom of speech, facts, accuracy, and operates with bias needs to be challenged, period!

I am disgusted by the witch hunt - but be as it will.

Nikki - SIGNED Moving On With Brit (talk) 04:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:NLT, if you want to file a legal dispute, that's up to you. But you will be blocked while it or the threat of it is ongoing. I didn't read your long response in detail, but suffice to say if you evidence includes Conservapedia and some random person's blog you aren't likely to get anywhere. In that vein, please provide proper evidence for your accusations against Ronz or withdraw them, as they are personal attacks otherwise. Also whether you've added your website 3 times or 70 times, just stop doing it. Instead propose changes on article on the talk page making clear your connection to the website. Finally you have no freedom of speech on Wikipedia, see WP:NOTFREESPEECH. If you want freedom of speech, please go somewhere else. You already have a website so you could stick with that. Nil Einne (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Get a grip... That's exactly what is wrong with this moderate and highly biased platform. I know I will be blocked - so what? Some random person's blog? Comical....I've provided several sources of evidence - you chose not to read it. To quote you "I didn't read your long response in detail" - perhaps you should - then get back to me. And, if I personally have no freedom of speech or opinion then neither do you - nor the other editors that censor FACTS. Moving On With Brit (talk) 06:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Moving On With Brit: You're entirely right and that was my point. None of us have free speech here. I understand that, and I'm fairly sure Hipal does as well. And yes, I have no idea who runs nofelizz, but a quick check showed it is some random person's blog. Please provide evidence in the form of WP:DIFFs. That's what we need. No one gives a fuck about what Conservapedia of Nofelizz says. Until and unless you provide diffs, you have no evidence. It would be far better to provide one diff than 100 links to Conservapedia and Nofelizz. Nil Einne (talk) 06:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked Moving On With Brit as an obvious sock of Brit On the Move and closed the SPI. FWIW, I believe that the legal threads were also blockable, particularly since they have been given a number of opportunities to retract them but have instead doubled down on them. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Moving On With Brit: You're entirely right and that was my point. None of us have free speech here. I understand that, and I'm fairly sure Hipal does as well. The problem is you don't seem to since you explicitly mentioned "who violate freedom of speech", which is completely irrelevant since no one, not me, not Hipal, not Jimbo Wales, not Katherine Maher and of course not you, has any rights to freedom of speech here. So no one can violate freedom of speech here. And yes, I have no idea who runs nofelizz, but a quick check showed it is some random person's blog. (Even if it was the personal blog of António Guterres, it's still a random person's blog from my POV.) Please provide evidence in the form of WP:DIFFs. That's what we need. No one gives a fuck about what Conservapedia of Nofelizz says. Until and unless you provide diffs, you have no evidence. It would be far better to provide one diff than 100 links to Conservapedia and Nofelizz. Nil Einne (talk) 06:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Conservapedia??? I'm proud to be able to say that I got indefinitely rangeblocked after a single edit to that site, adding an incontrovertible fact (the definitions of two scientific units specified by IUPAC). I confess I was trolling. Narky Blert (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• I've now revoked TPA since they have continued to persist with the legal threats on talk; they have acknowledged that the earlier account was theirs. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

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

MowgliDm

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

---

I was originally going to post this to WP:EWN but the addition of an obvious sockpuppet has made me bring it here instead.

MowgliDm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a WP:SPA who has been edit-warring non stop on the Michael Farmer, Baron Farmer article. As was noted in his WP:EWN report, he has a possible COI on this subject. Nonetheless, he continued edit warring with a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude, as he has a total refusal to engage on the talk page. Consequently, he was blocked from editing. His first edit back has been to resume the exact same pattern. I reverted him and left a note on his talk page warning that this was a bad course of action. 20 minutes later a new account was made, Mate8888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which has resumed the edit warring[97][98]. This is such an obvious case of WP:QUACK that I request both accounts be indeffed as this guy is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. — Czello 11:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

having engaged on this, agree with above, have requested temp page protection. Acousmana 11:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Maltese football and User:Onel5969

I am deeply concerned that Onel5969 isn't helping out in a good way. He has firstly removed a load of content first and not even bothered to tag the content concerned for notability, this is followed by redirects. On Dingli Swallows F.C. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dingli_Swallows_F.C.&offset=&limit=500&action=history page history) he removed and redirected only to end up edit-warring with Apple20674. this somewhat disruptive edit-warring happened with Ta' Xbiex S.C., St. Venera Lightnings F.C., Birżebbuġa St. Peter's F.C. and Marsaskala F.C..

This was followed by sending the articles to AfD, now I am running through them having a good look for sources and I can find them, I feel I can show that Onel5969 has been wrong in his process and on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dingli Swallows F.C., that AfD, I don't feel he hasn't done a good job on WP:BEFORE, but I feel whats worse, is that he has bullied Apple20674 in this editing pattern, hasn't explained clear enough on that users talk page, instead just tagging it with templates, and that needs to be addressed the most. This process of his, it's concerning too me and felt it needed a broader look. Govvy (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Onel5969 is entirely correct in removing/redirecting uncited material; at Dingli Swallows F.C., the fault was in trying to restore this stuff without providing sources. The single source finally coughed up does not reference a fraction of the text. Onel5969 then had a choice of leaving unsourced material sitting in mainspace (since the author clearly wasn't going to bother about WP:ONUS), or kicking it up for a formal deletion discussion, and sensibly took the latter route. There's nothing to criticize in that. - As for the other clubs, my presumption would also have been that they don't meet WP:NFOOTY as being in the amateur league, but when unsure, open up discussion at AFD. Personally I avoid the sports club notability minefield whenever possible, but let's please not make it extra perilous for those reviewers who do dare to tangle with it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Having participated in all/most of the AFDs in question (some where I agree with deletion, others where I oppose) my view is as follows: yes, Onel5969 could have been more thorough in conducting WP:BEFORE searches, but that's about as far as it goes, and I am shocked that this is now at ANI with no prior attempt (as far as I can see) to discuss any concerns elsewhere? GiantSnowman 16:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Elmidae and GiantSnowman, I am sorry, and I do realize I was wrong in immediately restoring the content, however, I am at the moment rewriting the articles to be completely sourced, and Onel5969 is immediately readding a deletion request. Dingli Swallows F.C. is completely sourced at the moment as I have removed most of the currently unciteable material (for now, I am re adding more cited material later), however a deletion request has been put on it even though it does pass WP:FOOTYN, which is the user's claim to deletion. Sorry for wasting your time on this, Apple20674 (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

This is more about Onel5969 process and felt he bullied and edit-warred with Apple20674, that's not right for an experienced editor in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm really not seeing a process issue here. On the articles I've checked, it's gone something like:

1. Onel5969 redirects an article that is of questionable notability and is wholly uncited. This is fine under WP:V and WP:BOLD.
2. Apple20674 reverts the redirect, asserting that it's notable and in some cases providing some sourcing. This is also fine under WP:BRD.
3. Onel5969, apparently disagreeing with this, nominates the article at AfD. This is also fine, as that's beginning the "discuss" part of BRD.

Beyond that, there have been a few further reverts due to Apple20674 removing the AfD tag and being reverted - this is a minor process mistake, but not by Onel5969, and has already been acknowledged as a mistake by Apple20674. This is a notability dispute that has already been taken to the correct forum. Sure, I think Onel5969 could have been more personal in dealing with a new editor, but I'm just not sure what admin intervention you're expecting that warrants going straight to ANI with this. ~ mazca ^talk 17:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• I have found Onel5969 to be rather quick to nominate articles for deletion rather than look for sources, but I don't think that there's any fault in this instance that comes near to needing administrator intervention. I know that this is anecdotal WP:OR, but it's quite telling that someone close to me played in Division 3 of the Maltese League (very much as an amateur) and then, on returning to the UK in his twenties, joined a team in Division 3 of the South-West Hertfordshire League. The level of play was comparable. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Onel is a very experienced and responsive editor. I'm sure that he would respond positively to anyone approaching him in a constructive way to discuss issues around notability in particular areas. A report here, in the absence of such an approach, seems disproportionate. GirthSummit _(blether) 23:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Let me put it this way, you want to defend a guy who couldn't be bothered to verify the content, do a bit of research, actually read the article content he was deleting. Understand the policy he was deleting under. These are simply steps any editor can do to help build wikipedia content, wikipedia should be about the promotion of information, not eradication of it. Onel5969 has done everything wrong from my perspective. Govvy (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Ppdallo and the Hausa people

Ppdallo has been constantly trying to insert a source that requires registration to validate from ethnologue[99] into the Hausa people article to support the claim that the Hausa language is the second most popular afroasiatic language spoken.

I, and another editor (Esiymbro) have reverted him on this, but to no avail. Up front - and as is plainly visible from the history - I've reverted him most, but I maintain that based on the unreliability of the source, and the failure to address concerns raised on the talk page it falls into disruptive editing.

Article history is here.

Points to note - Ppdallo requested page protection of the article here, citing "Persistent vandalism – Edit war by other editors." - whilst neglecting to mention that by this point he had reverted six times on the article in question. Although I've just noticed that I was also at 4RR, so bad mark there for myself - I thought I'd stopped cleanly at 3RR, and said as much here.

I've tried to make the point that ethnologue requires registration, and when checked with wayback machine the available data didn't support the claim of second place - only the number of people who spoke it with no comment as to rankings.

Ppdallo has made mild accusations of bad faith, which I'm not concerned with in content, only in attitude - "Then you obviously are up to some mischief" - which he's brought up a few times on the talk page.

There is also the issue of communication - I was so puzzled by his behaviour I even went to the helpdesk to see if his lack of user page may be stopping him from receiving pings -Pinging a user page redlink? as he ignored invitations to join in discussion, then said he would join in - but didn't - and finally created his own talk page section inviting discussion - directly underneath the one I had created that pinged him in the first place: Hausa Language as Afroasiatic.

During all this, all I've really asked is that Ppdallo finds a reliable, verifiable source to support the language ranking claim (exactly as he did here] for the religious claim,) and finally he did so with this edit which was exactly as requested, albeit as an external link. I cleaned it up into a Cite, and then he promptly re-added the ethnologue reference again.

Looking back, I'm prepared to be trouted and humbled for my behaviour - it seems evident I should have stopped reverting sooner, but can somebody please have a word with Ppdallo about what is a reliable source, that can be verified without spending $480 a year - especially when he's finally provided one that serves exactly the required purpose?

I'm done with it now, I see no way of removing the reference without yet more reversions, and I'm not stoking the fire anymore there, it's just tit-for-tat which helps nobody in the end.

Final comment - Ppdallo has asked that I don't contact him, but as per policy I'll leave him a talk page message informing him of this discussion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Taking a look at some of the discussion regarding Ethnologue at the WP:RSN, it seems like it is considered a reliable source; WP:PAYWALL is a thing that can be overcome with Resource Request.

That being said, the edit summary does appear to be casting aspersions. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens. Have you read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access to sources? In part it says "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." So the cost of access to Ethnologue is just a red herring. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

References

CambridgeBayWeather, yes, I'm aware of that, but there is also the fact that ethnologue even when accessed doesn't support the claim that Hausa is the second most used language. All it does it state that x number of people speak it. Whether ethnologue is reliable or not doesn't matter if the claim isn't supported. As Ppdallo has finally supplied a source that completely supports his claim the inclusion of ethnologue is moot and unnecessary.

Also, it's not just about the source - it's about Ppdallo's behaviour and battleground mentality. Claims that I'm up to mischief, misleading edit summaries (when requesting PP - "Persistent vandalism – Edit war by other editors." & "see talk page for rationale" with no discussion until 24 hours later), disregard for BRD, and templating editors for unconstructive edits. They seems to have decided on a bulldozer method of editing with little attempt at real discussion or rationale. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

If you knew then why did you go on about it? The main point of your complaint seemed to be about the cost of Ethnologue. If you can't see Ethnologue then how do you know the source in't valid? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 10:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Because I found a wayback machine link that showed contents. Also the headings can be seen from the article without paying - there is no ranking view there. Ethnologue does not support the claim made. Also Ppdallo's editing pattern. All are issues of equal measure. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens I did not claim that the "the Hausa language is the second most popular afroasiatic language spoken". Please read again the very text that you have reverted me several times on. that was the claim and is well sourced.Ppdallo (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, that doesn't actually make sense, but yeah - you did:

1. "and the second largest language after Arabic in the Afroasiatic family of languages"[100]
2. "the second most widely spoken language after Arabic in the Afroasiatic family of languages.[[101]]"[102]
3. "the second most widely spoken language after Arabic in the Afroasiatic family of languages.[[103]]"[104]
4. "the second most widely spoken language after Arabic in the Afroasiatic family of languages.[105]"[106]
5. "the second most widely spoken language after Arabic in the Afroasiatic family of languages.[107]"[108]
6. "the second most widely spoken language after Arabic in the Afroasiatic family of languages.[109]"[110]

Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

from yours above, i clearly did not claim that "the Hausa language is the second most popular afroasiatic language spoken".The word "popular" is absent there.Ppdallo (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

If you think that the difference between "most popular" and "most widely spoken" is a critical point and grounds to dismiss the entire issue, then I'm really, really done here. Do what you will - I'm off to improve the project elsewhere, and have removed Hausa & Afroasiatic from my watchlist. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Bob drobbs flooding discussions

On March 5, Bob drobbs (talk · contribs) started a discussion on Talk:List of Middle Eastern superheroes claiming that all superheroes should be included if they are "ethnic Jews" (diff). Afterwards he started three more discussions on the same talk page: this one, this one, and this one, the latter two marked as RfCs. He also started this discussion at Talk:Middle Eastern Americans and took the issue to editor assistance, NPOVN, and DRN (where it was immeadiately rejected by a volunteer[111] who called it "forum shopping"). In total, he made about 60 (sic) edits in promotion of or related to the idea that Jews should be called Middle Eastern, mostly on talk pages. I tried to ignore him, but he threatens and executes small scale edit warring: Help come up with a fair, non-biased standard, that will be applied to people of all religions or I'll keep reverting[112]. After this edit, I put an uw-ew on his talk page. He then added a POV template (diff and again after I removed it, diff). In the hope to stop his flooding of talk pages, I started this FTN discussion. He got very little support there, but still carries on, his latest related action in main space being the addition of the POV-tag to Middle Eastern Americans on April 5, diff. He accused me of "bias" about ten times, and once of not acting in good faith[113]. Currently he stresses the difference between "all" Jews and "ethnic" Jews, but I don't think that's relevant to the question, since all contributions to the discussions apply to both concepts. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The List of Middle Eastern superheroes is almost certainly going to get deleted with overwhelming concensus, with the support of both you and Bob drobbs, which should settle the issue at least for that article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: put forth a Straw man proposition in FTN. Of course not ALL Jews are Middle Eastern; religious converts aren't. Congratulations, he's mostly successfully knocking down his own straw man. But the much more nuanced question whether or not ethnic Jews are Middle Eastern or of Middle Eastern ancestry. I'm not saying definitively either way, but RS support that the idea that they are. 1 2. And contrary to Rsk6400's comment, this is an important distinction. A Jew without any additional qualifiers isn't necessarily of Middle Eastern ancestry (like a random Muslim). But RS indicate that a Sephardic Jew does have Middle Eastern ancestry.

The vast majority of my recent edits have been on talk pages with the intent of trying to get inclusion criteria defined along with adding a couple of POV tags. My only motivation is that clear, non-biased, inclusion criteria needs to be used instead of individual editors applying their subjective bias, some of whom seem to be specifically targeting Jews. If Middle Eastern means "born in the Middle East", perfect. If Middle Eastern means "having ancestors from the Middle East", or being "ethnically from the Middle East" then there needs to be agreement about the definitions of these terms.

Meanwhile, in addition to heavily promoting (flooding?) his views all over wikipedia, and with no agreement on inclusion criteria, rsk6400 has been editing pages heavily in order to exclude Jews. Here's a change he made to a page's lede, with no consensus, where it seems clear his sole intent was to make sure Jews are not included. On the same page, he's made at least 9 different edits in order to remove Jews. So yes, I have questioned his bias.

While these pages remain in such a state, I believe the POV tags are absolutely appropriate, and I ask who's the problem here?

On a constructive note, I once again welcome rsk6400 to join me in defining clear inclusion criteria for "Middle East" pages which will be applied equally to people of all races, religions, and ethnicities. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

After making his comment above, Bob drobbs has re-added the POV tag to Middle Eastern Americans (diff) which had been removed by another user in the mean time, and has created a new sub-section on the talk page called "Vote here" (diff). Regarding the content dispute: A lot of editors rejected his theory on FTN, and I don't think any of them was "targeting Jews". --Rsk6400 (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: You are the only person who edited a page with the expressed intention of making sure Jews are excluded. You had no consensus to do this:

"Changed "ancestry" to "background" - some people might be tempted to show that Jewish "ancestry" comes from the M.E. of some 2000 years ago"

What you keep referring to as "my theory" is not my theory. If the page's inclusion criteria is "ancestry" and RS say that Sephardic Jews are of Middle Eastern ancestry, you CANNOT exclude them simply because you don't want them included. That's blatant bias, and that's why the POV tag is there.

Yes, I created a new section asking people to share their views on what the inclusion criteria should be. I encourage everyone to constructively participate. And I welcome advice from more experienced editors on how to get more input and achieve rough consensus there.

Rsk6400 seems nearly obsessed with trying to exclude Jews. But he has zero interest in expressing exactly what a Middle Easterner actually is. So, yes, I question his motivations and his bias. How much effort would it take him to just vote on that page? --- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• From reviewing the discussion at FTN and Middle Eastern Americans, it seems like there's a rough consensus against the changes Bob drobbs is proposing, and the addition of POV tags thus does appear to be somewhat tendentious. While I think that it would be fair game for Bob drobbs to continue discussion at Middle Eastern Americans, and potentially even convene an RfC if consensus cannot be reached, the POV tags do not seem warranted given the balance of the discussions at this time. This looks like it's shaping up to be a WP:1AM situation, which I strongly recommend Bob drobbs read. The claims that Rsk6400 has been nearly obsessed with trying to exclude Jews seem like an unfair characterization of their participation in the discussions and essentially amounts to a personal attack; remember to comment on content, not editors. If the aspersions do not stop, sanctions may be necessary. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I reject the characterization that this is a 1AM situation.There are a number of editors promoting the idea that Ethnic Jews are Middle Eastern and adding them to pages. Here's one example. And, for Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews, there are RS which support their claim.

And yet again, the FTN seems nearly irrelevant because it asks the totally absurd straw man if ALL Jews are Middle Eastern. That's obviously not true.

The net result of creating clear inclusion criteria might mean that ethnic Jews are included; It might mean that they're excluded, but a number of Muslims are removed too. I strongly believe that so long as subjective criteria are being used to include some people and exclude some people, and it is being done along ethnic lines, then that POV tag really must remain.. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

In the FTN discussion, you argued for the claim that all ethnic Jews are Middle Eastern (e.g.) There was extensive discussion that followed, where a consensus was formed that this claim is fringe. Claiming that the thread indulged in a strawman of all Jews by including non-ethnic Jews (i.e. converts) is misleading, as it does not engage with the substance of the arguments presented there, which specifically considered your arguments pertaining to the status of ethnic Jews, and rejected them. To this I'll add that I think that your suggestions of formalizing criteria for inclusion are fine in a vacuum, but come off as tendentious when coupled with edit warring over the NPOV template and repeated accusations that other editors are out to exclude people on the basis of their ethnicity. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion proposal comes off as even more tendentious when their proposal is to only categorize people as Middle Eastern Americans if they were born in the Middle East. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: All of the RS in the lead support the idea that the only people who are "Middle Eastern Americans" are foreigners born in the Middle East [e.g.]. I've put up a citation request, and I've asked editors to please share RS which provide some other definition for "Middle Eastern American", but as of yet, no one has. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: I have accused you to editing inclusion criteria solely to to exclude Jews because that's exactly what you said. There was no consensus for this edit and no purpose for edit, beyond you trying to exclude Jews:

"Changed "ancestry" to "background" - some people might be tempted to show that Jewish "ancestry" comes from the M.E. of some 2000 years ago"

Instead of deliberately trying to exclude Jews, you should be asking what does "ancestry" mean?

How much time and effort have you put into this debate? Wouldn't time be better spent by constructively working with me to define actual criteria? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

For those that don't want to click through to Bob drobbs' link, it's a US Census table specifically about the foreign-born population of the US.

@Bob drobbs:, do you have any argument for how that is a good faith attempt at evidence for the specific point you were making?

the only people who are "Middle Eastern Americans" are foreigners born in the Middle East

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: I've made a suggestion of how to resolve the immediate dispute at Middle Eastern Americans, so I'm going to recuse myself from taking any admin actions. That having been said, the repeated attempts to reframe this discussion as being about "correcting double standards around Jews" need to stop, and merit sanctions if they don't. Rsk6400's edits are understandable given the context that Bob drobbs was attempting to label all ethnic Jews as Middle Eastern and their apparent decision to not take a FTN discussion's "no" for an answer. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Encouraged by Rosguill's comments of 19:29 and 20:54, 7 April, I removed the POV tag, but Bob drobbs reverted me. (diff) --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by users Lithopsian and Narky Blert

I've been trying to eliminate the page Claudia Pulchra (disambiguation) due to there being only one person of that name, but these two are very keen on not allowing me to do that. Up til recently the disambiguation page had two articles, several redirects and several redlinks, and I got rid of all but one of those via prod. The two like to consistently edit-war without properly stating their reasons or clarifying their position; it's not even clear what they want.

First, it took a while (1, 2) for Blert to even realize that the page was full of redirects masking as articles. He then suggested I might've still been wrong, that there still was more than one person that would justify the disamb page's continued existence, and offered a source which, turns out, supported my position. I provided another source (here and here) to confirm. Blert then seemingly abandoned the cause and there was a lull in the discussion, during which the prod expired and one of the outstanding articles was deleted. Lithopsian then came out of nowhere and began laboring to undo everything I did, without offering any specific reason other than there still was a discussion (an abeyant one) ongoing. I reiterated my previous point, to which both Lithopsian and Blert responded by moving the goalposts and making this about disambiguating plausible search terms, however incorrect they are. I gave a similar reply to both Lithopsian and Narky Blert. The former, instead of answering, went on to claim to an administrator that my original prod was made under 'false premises' and demand its restitution. Blert said some nonsense which had nothing to do with the matter and then proceeded to undo a stop-gap compromise of mine and threaten me with 4RR.

To this moment, my last comments, both in the disambiguation page and in Blert's talk page, are not responded to. It's not clear what their grievances even are, but it doesn't look like the two will accept any reasoning whatsoever, it's clear they have no relevant knowledge of classical antiquity (or desire to obtain it) which would help resolve the problem, and my edit count for the day is expired. Avilich (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

All the relevant discussions I know of can be found (in chronological order) at Talk:Claudia Pulchra (disambiguation)#Name, User talk:Narky Blert#Claudia Pulchra and Talk:Claudia Pulchra (disambiguation)#The purpose of a disambiguation page (which I've only just seen, and haven't taken part in). For completeness, I add my {{uw-3rr}} notice}} at User talk:Avilich#6 April 2021 and my advisory post at User talk:Lithopsian#Claudia Pulchra (disambiguation)

Courtesy ping to Graeme Bartlett, who reverted a near-blanking edit by Avilich to the page in question on 4 April 2021.

For now, I will let those discussions speak for themselves. I will simply remark that (1) failure to respond instanter does not mean acceptance, (2) my WP:ES "One more revert by Avilich will be WP:4RR" was not a threat but a statement of fact, and (3) the original inhabitants of Australia are famed for their ingenious missile weapons. Narky Blert (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

You intentionally avoided responding the question which would have decided the issue, you didn't simply 'fail to respond instanter'. Avilich (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

No 3RR violations by my count, but right up to the line. Both sides should have been talking instead, of course. I looked at the request for undeletion. It is worth clarifying that Lithopsian asserts that speedy deletion of "redirects", not the prod, were made under "false premises". Lithopsian, what redirects do you mean? Dishonesty is a rather hurtful allegation if exaggerated or untrue. I have made some suggestions about how to move progress forward on the disambiguation page talk page. --Bsherr (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The redirects are all the other entries on the disamb page, whose deletion I requested under the same reasoning as the prod. Avilich (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, they were deleted as speedy deletion criterion G8. Of course, I can't see your original request and the criterion you selected. But presumably it's not the same as the article you put the prod on since, if it were, you would have similarly requested speedy deletion. --Bsherr (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

They were all dependent on a single article, so that when one was gone the rest followed. The prod justification seemed technically valid for all of them as search terms, though I can understand that Lithopsian would have preferred that I nominated each of the redirects indicvidually, so I apologize if such a bold move was unwarranted. Avilich (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The redirects referred to were all pointing to the PROD'd article (Claudia Pulchra Major), which has since been recreated by Avilich. A PROD is of course an entirely legitimate process, but using it as a mechanism to remove redirects without discussion seems over the line to me. For clarity, I have requested a refund of the PROD'd article (request outstanding as I write this), if only for its history, and recreated the redirects with hopefully better targets in existing articles. Lithopsian (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

So the article with the PROD was deleted, and then the redirects to that deleted page were tagged G8 and deleted? Do I have that right? If so, what's the supposed false premise in deleting the redirects? That seems entirely legitimate. --Bsherr (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

And then recreating the PROD'd article that the redirects depended on, albeit now as a redirect but still concerning the same subject? So back to square one, but the offending redirects are now gone. Might have looked good at every step along the way, but I don't think that's how redirects are supposed to be deleted. Lithopsian (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not an adnin, so I can't see the histories; but when I by chance fell across what is now Claudia Pulchra (disambiguation) a week or so ago, almost all of those redlinks were bluelinks. Narky Blert (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

You were also interested in the search history of a prod'd article of all things, for some reason. I wonder what is your interest in that, or in recovering incorrect stray search terms in general. From what I gather you only entered this dispute to begin with because you sensed some editwarring going on, which caused you to adopt a reactionary position by default, that is, returning to the status quo ante no matter the cost. Avilich (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lithopsian: But you weren't talking about the PROD or whatever was created in its place after it was deleted. You wrote that the redirects were speedily deleted "under false premises". That apparently was a false statement, WP:Casting aspersions on Avilich. Very unimpressed with that conduct. --Bsherr (talk) 06:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Notification posted at WT:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#An ANI case. Narky Blert (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any opinion on the claims of disruptive editing or the like, but on the substantive matter of whether anyone other than the wife of Varus was called Claudia Pulchra or is so-called in current scholarship, User:Avilich has provided a substantial range of sources and a search for "Claudia Pulchra" on Google Books seems to confirm: no one uses "Claudia Pulchra" for any other individual. Furius (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

So the one person actually referred by that name is the last line of a long list of non-notable maybe,possibly named the same who require a re-direct to establish them at that name and then in most cases re-direct to a single mention in an article about their husband? Certainly not doing a reader any favors there. Slywriter (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I will note that Avilich has been very argumentative. And Avilich has cause most of the disruption here. I have also restored one redirect that should not have been deleted as it was created due to renaming of a page that had been there for over 6 years. So that was not a "recently created" name. Disambiguation pages can contain many redlinks, and do not need to be deleted just because they do! There just needs to be a proper civil discussion about what is real, what is duplicate, and what will never be notable. That is not for this venue though. The prod can be reversed on request. So this is an administrator that someone can take. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

IMO this didn't need to be referred to ANI. This is an argument over how best to apply Wikipedia policy to a disambiguation page, and should have been resolved there or with community input at Classical Greece and Rome. With respect to the issue, I disagree with Avilich's interpretation of old and new scholarship: the DGRBM is dated, but still a vital source; I'm not going to argue that at length here, except to say that if important scholarship once did support a particular name—especially a plausible one like the one at issue here—then it makes perfect sense to have a disambiguation page, redirects, and hatnotes, even if current scholarship does not use that name (which, I point out, is not the same as refuting it). I think that was the principle upon which Narky Blert was standing, and what Lithopsian was getting at. But more importantly, skimming Narky Blert's arguments I don't see anything disruptive or provocative, and having interacted with him before I wouldn't expect to. I don't see disruptive editing. P Aculeius (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I only argued the DGRBM is unreliable before finding out it actually supports (pp. 761–62) my original point. Apparently believing the other party would read his own source is to expect too much. I couldn't find any instance in older scholarship of the name being used in the manner you speak, and the whole stash seems to be a mess created by a single editor 5 years ago. Avilich (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You may not have noticed but there was persistent editwarring and a very low willingness by the opposing party to actually engage in conversation. They ignored comments of mine, shamelessly gave some misdirecting or misleading reply to avoid having to provide a straight answer, and kept mass reverting my edits based on nothing else than the other having already done so previously. They felt zero need to give an actual, substantial reason why there should be a disambiguation page dedicated to listing redirects with invented names, and, judging by Lithopsian's final answer in the disamb talk page, WP:IDONTLIKEIT seems to have been the limit of their repertoire. Avilich (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Avilich: Mostly what I see in the discussions is good faith disagreement about how to apply our policies and guidelines to the specifics of this case. I do not see any real evidence of "misdirecting or misleading reply to avoid having to provide a straight answer" etc, not any real reluctance to engage in conversation beyond the apparent frustration with what they feel is the wrong way you went about this. As always, it's easily possible that both sides will continue to believe their preferred outcome is best supported by our policies and guidelines. And with so few participants achieving WP:consensus may be impossible. Therefore using some form of WP:Dispute resolution such as asking for feedback from a relevant Wikiproject may be necessary as recommended by others. But for this to properly succeed, it would require both side to accept there is good faith disagreement, and so frankly I agree with others that you Avilich seem to be the bigger problem since you don't seem to accept that per you comments I'm replying to. While Lithopsian and Narky Blert may be unhappy with how you went about this, and I make no comments on whether their views are fair, at least that's a process dispute unlike your complaints. Nil Einne (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You're not paying attention then. My comment immediately preceding this one offered a solution to the existing predicament, and Blert ignored it altogether by deciding to focus on my wording instead. Immediately after that he went on to revert a stop-gap compromise of mine and put a 4RR warning on my talk page. If you can find a single good-faith contribution by Blert or Lithopsian to the discussion, bring it to me please. Avilich (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you're making my point for me, though. The reliability of a source isn't determined by whether its conclusions agree with or disagree with the current scholarly majority on a particular issue. It's not reliable when it supports your position and unreliable when it doesn't. You may be right about the name, although frankly I suspect that "Claudia Pulchra" was a perfectly acceptable way for Romans to refer to any of the Claudiae in this family when distinguishing them from other women of the Claudia gens. It doesn't take a lot of examples to know that this was a logical construction for the Romans, even if they used it only when necessary. But I digress. As I skimmed the argument, I didn't see disruptive editing; I saw two editors refusing to consider each other's points, and admit that they could both be correct. And in my opinion you tend to be a bit inflexible when it comes to the "truth" (and I'm not trying to be mean; I know that I have a tendency to be stubborn about things myself). Since you must have seen that Narky Blert regularly consults with CGR when there are questions of disambiguation beyond his knowledge, and that he's always quite courteous in doing so, I'm surprised you aren't giving him the benefit of the doubt; reporting him to ANI seems extreme, when you could simply have asked the members of CGR for some input. This doesn't seem to be a situation requiring administrator intervention or some kind of formal reprimands or warnings. My advice is to take a deep breath, and look for ways to compromise, or determine a solution that will be satisfactory to each of you. P Aculeius (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Avilich: (EC) BTW, I assume you didn't intend to say that a source/DGRBM is unreliable if it does not support your PoV, but if it does then it's reliable. However this is what your comment says to me, and it's definitely not an argument supported by any policy or guideline. Indeed putting aside alignment with someone's personal PoV, it's generally a poor argument to say I though source X said A so it was unreliable but I found it says B so it's reliable. Sources being wrong about basic facts is a sign of unreliability but since a lot of the time basic facts are not easily established, it's generally better to concentrate on whether the author or publisher has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy on the subject matter etc. Nil Einne (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You ought to have realized by now that the reliability of this source is a red herring, and not relevant to this discussion. I'll repeat this as many times as I must: I only argued it was unreliable before realizing it supported my conclusions. Now I know it supports what I've been saying all along, so arguing what I think of its quality is pointless distraction.

With regards to whether this is the right place or not to discuss the matter. I still don't know what those two even want, and arguing in good faith with either has been a waste of time. Maybe if I had taken it to the Wikiproject it would have solved things, who knows. ANI's purpose is to solve 'chronic, intractable' problems, which is what this is. I don't care about inflicting sanctions or whatever, I'll rather just leave the issue here and let an administrator have the final say in it. If I'm right, case closed, I got what I came for. If I'm somehow wrong, I'll move on, and it will fall to some other unfortunate editor to fix the outstanding mess; I wish him luck. Avilich (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

"Although frankly I suspect that "Claudia Pulchra" was a perfectly acceptable way for Romans to refer to any of the Claudiae in this family when distinguishing them from other women of the Claudia gens." But do we have evidence that anyone outside wiki has ever done even this? So far I haven't seen any. Furius (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

We do not, and that quote is plain original research. I must've said this something like 4 times in the disambiguation talk page alone, but the source of the error seems to be one, at most two, editors doing some incorrect page moves and creating redirects 3 to 5 years ago. Although a general search on google returns not much of use (mostly wikipedia mirrors), google books and google scholar show no ambiguity with regards to who is meant by that name. Avilich (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, while I agree with your ultimate conclusion on the content issue to a substantial degree, let's nuance that point a little: we actually can pretty safely presume that some of those other women were likely to have been referenced as 'Claudia Pulchra' contemporaneous with their life, simply because this is pretty consistent with idiosyncrasies in Roman/latin familial onomastics, for the period of the relevant time spans. But the content determination just doesn't turn on that question. The real point of policy relevance is that, as a historiographic matter, only this one woman is known to history as Claudia Pulchara--or at least, we have not seen evidence of a source which contradicts this extrapolation. And note that in a sense we are doing a kind of light original research touch-over of the issue: because obviously we cannot, with mere absence of evidence, prove the negative that there is no other source out there that says otherwise, of any of our other Claudiea at subject here. But under the burden-shifting required of Wikipedia's relevant content policies, we generally prefer that kind of assumption over the the argument that "Well, someone may have called any of them this, so that justifies A, B, and C." This is really a straight forward read on WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:BURDEN, ultimately, and that is why you prevail on the content matter.

...Or rather I should say that is where you would probably prevail, if you weren't busy shooting yourself in the foot over the issue. Because I'm afraid to say that the above is the sum of where I agree with your approach to this dispute. Early in the go with the two editors who represented your opposition to some of your edits, you seem to have consistently adopted a tone that was more combative than it necessarily had to be. I appreciate that you are vexed by the issue, particularly insofar as you apparently had to litigate the content issue once with another editor. But that said, you seem to have imported some of your existing frustration on the matter over into more recent discussions. Indeed, from my review of the discussions raised here so far, I would say you need to be careful of throwing stones at a behavioural forum on this series of exchanges, insofar as some of your comments to the two editors you brought here have been less than polite in tone and verging on uncivil. You certainly at a minimum seem to be taking the matter rather personally: please remember that no one is setting out to "make life more difficult for you", to borrow your own wording--and at the point that you begin to view the dispute in those terms, you may be losing necessary perspective. These two editors, whether they are in error about the content/policy issue or not, seem to be following what they perceive to be the editorially/procedurally appropriate course--they do not seem to be trying to thwart you personally. And you are meant to WP:AGF with regard to them in that respect unless they have given you good reason to suspect a bad-faith motivation. Nor is it a good look to speculate at length about their relative command of the subject: on this project you are meant to argue the point of the policy, not try to frame things in terms of your observations about your rhetorical opponent.

You then compounded these issues by pretty much skipping over numerous community process options at your disposal (WP:RFC, WP:3O, WikiProject and Village Pump noticeboards) that could have brought a community consensus to the talk page to seal the deal on your efforts (that you obviously feel represent an important content correction); instead you brought essentially a content dispute to ANI and implied behavioural issues (if not misconduct) by two other editors. When my best read on the situation says that at most they were trying to slow the roll over concerns that may have been perfectly legitimate from their perspectives, considering the complex procedural history of the issue here. For that matter, the argument that sometimes disambigs are used to represent content groupings which do not map directly to sourced nomenclature is, although not the winning argument here in my opinion, at least a reasonably relevant and good faith perspective. In short, I would attempt to de-escalate the issue from here and maybe own up to your own contribution to the issues that arose in in the previous discussion. You seem like a person with a fairly orderly mind, so I think if you read over the history of your approach to discussion with the editors in question, you'll find you missed opportunities to potentially convert their perspective by being too aggressive. Of course, I can't make you concede to any of the above observation any more than Nil Einne or P Aucelius could when they touched on some of the same points, but I am giving you my frank opinion that, given the contrast between the approaches of the parties the community is being asked to look at here, I don't think a behavioural discussion is the field you want to pitch your camp on right now. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

That's putting it mildly, 'trying to slow the roll over concerns that may have been perfectly legitimate'; there was tons of obstruction, little engagement from their part. None of them came to my talk page to ask why I was doing what I did (only a 4RR warning after remaining aloof for most of the discussion). The overwhelming majority of arguments in the disamb talk page was authored by me, not them. The effort it took to have them understand or even read an answer or edit summary was astounding, and, when they did, they simply changed the subject and found another argument (which they had not bothered to mention previously) as an excuse to continue with their meddling. As for your 'missed opportunities', I went out of my way to reach out to Blert, whose petty objection started this all, in hopes of convincing him to consider an alternative approach, and he was mostly lazy and dismissive. In the midst of this, sure, I was uncivil, and that sucks, I guess...? Though I'm sure if you even read this reply you'll just roll your eyes, assume (like Aculeius) my tone and obstinacy just proves your point, and dismiss this as nothing more than embittered ranting. Avilich (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, me bringing this here isn't an escalation, it's simply a report of 'chronic, intractable' behavior, which is what editwarring on this scale constitutes. I'm done arguing what to do with that accursed disambiguation page, so what's required now is someone neutral with authority to assess the merits of each party and end this. Avilich (talk) 02:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

User:2600:1700:2950:3CD0:4477:7C16:B95C:5054

Four times now, this IP editor has attempted to force this content onto the Lock Martin article. I've removed the material several times as unsourced, and placed appropriate warnings on the IP editor's talk page. The IP editor has accused me of censorship despite my explanations on their talk page, and has refused to supply a source to support their claim. He's also accused me of being the "reason few people contribute anything worthwhile to Wikipedia!" As I noted on the article's talk page and on the IP editor's talk page, I've tried to find reliable sourcing for this claim and have not found it. Nevertheless, the IP editor has once again added the material without providing a source [114]. I'm not going to act as an administrator. Another set of eyes, please. The IP editor has been informed of this discussion. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 00:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• All of their edits are unsourced and they've run through the warnings. I've given them a short block. Black Kite (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

M-Mustapha

M-Mustapha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been using his rollback without warning users, see their contributions, trying to misrepresent user scripts, see this. I propose removal of rollback rights, as they do have prior warnings for misuse of rollback, upon other types of warnings from other users, and administrators. They may be hat collecting as well, see 1 and 2. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 02:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Zppix, I'm not aware of any requirement that an rollbacker needs to warn the offending editor, although the RedWarn thing was a little strange. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Zppix please provide your diffs regarding the misuse and the other types of warnings, I can provide a valid defence of all my revert actions here. Twinkle is not mobile friendly that's why I don't often warn users as it's a bit tedious to do it manually whenever I'm using my mobile phone to edit, I hope you know that twinkle doesn't work on mobile view. Thank God that's all you have seen from all the work I have been doing in fighting vandalism to keep Wikipedia safe. The Living love ^talk 04:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I would generally recommend using not-Minerva when you are working from mobile and need access to advanced tools. Since you're logged in, I might suggest using the desktop domain and either Monobook or Timeless, which both have a mobile-friendly (and fully functional) interface. Izno (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

M-Mustapha, Diff for prior warning for rollback usage, see 1 For other warnings that you have been issued in the past for various things, see 1, 2. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 16:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry Zppix! But apart from this Slip, I don't think these diffs are related to the use of my rollback in any way. Please make valid accusations and insist on the right. The Living love ^talk 17:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

M-Mustapha, Note, I never claimed they all had to do with rollback, I simply mentioned them to establish a history. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Zppix:! And those were all you could get to establish a history, not bad! History is always clear in good faith. The Living love ^talk 17:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Zppix: as others have said, there's zero requirement to warn people when using WP:Rollback. As the guideline says, due to the lack of a proper edit summary rollback should generally only be used for clear cut vandalism or other cases when the reason is clear, for blocked or banned editors, or when a reason is provided somewhere else (and 2 other cases not relevant for general usage). But I had a look at M-Mustapha's recent use and most of them seem clearly appropriate e.g. 1 was reverting an edit calling someone Nazi man, one was reverting an edit saying someone's little brother was a pain in the ass, and the third was an edit changing someone's name to Ritzcracker. The other 2 weren't so obvious with just the preview but if there is a problem you're the one who needs to provide evidence. Please remember that there's also zero requirement to warn vandals when reverting their vandalism. While I understand it can be frustrating for some since editor's often can't be blocked without a prior warning, for a variety of reasons plenty of editors do not warn. Nil Einne (talk) 07:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz & Nil Einne, sorry for the delay, but Wikipedia:Vandalism#Warnings even states warnings should be issued. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 15:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Zppix: right, but there is no requirement to do so, and it would be completely inappropriate to sanction someone for not issuing warnings. Nil Einne (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne, OK, maybe that part of what I said was a bit hasty, therefore i'm striking my proposal statement above, however, something should still happen, as I do believe it is problematic. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 16:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

IP user 2601:240:4180:6A50:4443:DBC7:C2FC:DCDB repeatedly breaking WP:V and WP:BIO

2601:240:4180:6A50:4443:DBC7:C2FC:DCDB (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is repeatedly adding information to articles, including biographical articles, without citing sources, breaking WP:V and WP:BIO. I engaged them on their talk page which ended with them saying they were marking Carl Hodges as dead because "I'm sick and tired of Carl Hodges living." This user has used at least one other IP to tedit List of Thomas & Friends voice actors: 2601:240:4180:6A50:608C:C7C8:F32E:315C (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - this IP was warned multiple times on their talk page before they switched to 2601:240:4180:6A50:4443:DBC7:C2FC:DCDB, where they were warned multiple times again. They clearly have no intention to follow WP:V which is especially problematic as they are editing a lot of biographical articles. Laplorfill (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

All unsourced wrestling content, all the time

Kingabyan91 (talk · contribs). A final warning days ago had no impact. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• It's helpful if you provide more context and diff links so we know what the actual complaint is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Everything, it seems: [115]; [116]; [117]; [118]; [119]; [120]; [121]; [122]; [123]. Standard wrestling fan 'I saw it on tv' stuff. WP:CIR appears relevant....more eyes at Mia Yim would be appreciated. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Agree, I saw the Edge edit when it was made; a lot of this could really be considered WP:OR. — Czello 14:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Blocked. I think they have good intentions, but it is causing a lot of work for others. I provided some instructions for them, and hopefully they will read and follow my directions. I've made it clear any admin can unblock without my permission. Sometimes it takes a block to just get their attention. They may not have read anything on that talk page, which is common for new users. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I note this user is using the mobile app to edit, which means they may not have even seen any warnings. I predict they will not see the block, let alone appeal it. Suffusion of Yellow's keeping a record of these here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Not seeing warnings is no reason to let disruption continue. GiantSnowman 11:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: They're using the mobile web interface actually. It's hard to say if they've seen the talk page messages. Logged in mobile users just get a little number in a red circle. It looks just like the system used by ten thousand other websites to tell you about spammy garbage that you don't care about, so they might not have realized that it's important. They will see the block message, though. But, there's no link to the their talk page in the block message, or any indication of how to appeal. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring on Panthera pardus saxicolor

The user @LPFCW: has repeatedly changed the page Panthera pardus tulliana to that of an old synonym, citing several outdated sources [124], and then going on a rant on their talk page (User talk:LPFCW) about how the editors of the page were censoring the information on the article. They have reverted edits more than 4 times in less than a day, and seemingly tried to edit the page in the same way before without an account: [125], [126], [127]. Also has no qualms with edit-warring when warned [128] and has even admitted to it [129]. I have done my best to correct their wrong edits without reverting, as I am currently on a no-revert period. I believe this user's talk page and edit history speaks for itself. I also hope @SilverTiger12: does not get blamed for edit-warring, they are trying their best to revert the user's edit warring. Ddum5347 (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I gave you scientific references while I knew you are not looking for that! You are the real warring editors! So, I will be back to you with my IT team! You are purposefully spreading false information and you do not have the right to do that! Change the title of the page otherwise this edit war will be forever!--LPFCW (talk) 03:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)LPFCW

^ I believe that should be enough for you, admins. He even changed the title of this complaint. Ddum5347 (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

If I come back tomorrow and I see tulliana is still instead of Persian leopard, I will hack this page! Now as you wish! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LPFCW (talk • contribs) 03:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@LPFCW: Your threats are meaningless, all this means is that you will get blocked faster. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Their edit history [130] reveals that they are only here to edit war surrounding this subspecies. Their suggestion that "this edit war will be forever" unless other editors accept their edits show that they are not here to build an encyclopedia. I recommend at least a temporary block, preferably an indef NOTHERE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Before you come to talk Hemiauchenia I gave several references why these editors purposefully spread wrong information using Wikipedia. You can read it before you say something! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LPFCW (talk • contribs) 03:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@LPFCW: You've threatened to "be back to you with my IT team" and "hack this page" (whatever the hell that means), you clearly don't care about the opinions of other editors, so why should we care about yours? Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Ddum. I tried to type out a longer paragraph but it was removed due to edit conflicts. Basically, the talk page and edit history of the article show what is happening clearly enough and the problem editor has poor hearing. I already warned them on their talk page. Also, the edit conflicts I have run into while trying to comment hear are really something. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

SilverTiger12 Your behavior is also obviously warring! That was not a threat! That was a real fact I will be back with IT team and will hack this page unless you correct the title! You should learn you do not have the right to change the historical names! Hemiauchenia I do not really care what you think! You are actually wasting my time! The reason that I am alone now s because here was midnight! But today is another day! For your information I was block all yesterday! I do not care about Wikipedia and you guys at all! I know your behaviors! You think you have all the rights to do anything! By the way, I said the word! If you are referencing to that newsletter should change the scientific name only from saxicolor to tulliana. Why did you change the Persian leopard in the page title?!! Change the title to Persian leopard and leave the tulliana while you are referencing to that newsletter! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LPFCW (talk • contribs) 03:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Huh? Your block record is clean. As are all the other accounts and IPs that have been recently edit warring. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

LPFCW has now reverted 10 times in a 24 four period, blowing right past the 3RR. Silvertiger12 has also gone way over the 3RR, but I don't think that they were familiar with the concept of the 3RR, so I've let them know on their talkpage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Hemiachenia, I admit to knowing what 3RR is, but was busy irl and forgot to keep track of how many times I was reverting him- a few were manual reverts which made counting doubly difficult. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't edit war! There is no point continuing in a situation like that—do you think one more revert is going to change their mind? Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:∞RR. Actually, I suppose that could be a redirect to the 3RR exemptions. --Aquillion (talk) 05:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• I blocked LPFCW for a short period due to the extreme edit warring. I had issued a polite warning at User talk:LPFCW#Procedures but then noticed the battle was continuing. Please let me know (perhaps with a ping from talk) if problems persist. If needed, the next block will be indefinite. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Johnuniq: Considering the talk of "hacking" and IT teams, I guess we shouldn't be surprised with block evasion [131] Nil Einne (talk) 04:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  Call me a wimp but I just semi-protected Panthera pardus tulliana so we don't have to waste more time in the next three days. An indef looks inevitable and if someone wants to do that now, fine by me. Johnuniq (talk) 05:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  When they are unblocked, they'll just go back to the same thing. I'd recommend indefing them now (but I'm not an admin :-) ). What a silly edit war. --Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 07:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  A candidate for WP:HALLOFLAME, perhaps? Narky Blert (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  Extreme edit-warring is right, that article is showing up in Hot Articles as having 91 revisions in the past three days. Also, I know that edit-warring is not right but thought that there were exceptions to 3RR for vandalism and such? And as I said, I was having a hard time keeping track of how many times I reverted him due to being busy IRL. Thanks for the semi-protection, I just hope it goes away and doesn't turn into a more persistent issue. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  Added to the WP:HALLOFLAME! :-) -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 22:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Shouldn't WP:NOHACKTHREAT be up there with WP:NLT as automatic block? I assume if nothing else it's intent to violate the Terms of Service. Slywriter (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi Community, The user:Nearlyevil665 is inappropriately flagging notable articles for deletion at a high speed. He sends email to the entity demanding for money to fix the articles back. Let’s check this asap.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎154.160.2.168 (talk)

You must notify users that you report here(see the top of this page). I'd suggest that you quickly provide the evidence you have of your accusation, or withdraw it. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The preposterous accusation aside, this anonymous user has no edits other than a 'poorly substantiated keep vote' for one of the dozens of Ghana-related articles I had tagged for deletion. To me, this smells of retaliation for tagging dozens of non-notable Ghanaian musicians and performers (all primarily authored by a single user) for deletion. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Notice: To add, the user Nearlyevil665 joined the community 8 months ago. Thanks 154.160.2.89 (talk) 09:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• I'd be interested to see what evidence, if any, the IP editor is able to provide to support this accusation. Having said that, I do see a lot of AfD nominations and G11 CSD tags in Nearlyevil665's recent contribution history, almost all relating to Ghanaian entertainment industry, for example: Djsky, Ajeezay, Stay Jay, Sista Afia, Afia Amankwaah Tamakloe, Mizter Okyere, Nu Afrika Records, Dead Peepol and Benedicta Gafah. None of these are new articles, so this has not come about through regular new page patrolling - without making any accusations of wrong-doing, I'd be interested to hear how Nearlyevil665 came across these articles, and what inspired what appears to be a sudden very intense interest in nominating articles in this subject area for deletion. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  I'll add that I've just reviewed the history of the articles I've linked to; I see that most, but not all of them, were either originally written by, or have been editing by, Geezygee. I will notify them of this discussion; also pinging Deb, who I see has been in touch with both of these users recently, perhaps she can shed some light on what's going on here. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• I clarified on that point earlier here. I will copy it here: "For what it's worth, I did nominate a couple of Ghana-related articles for G11 deletion, but I'm not sure how that could be interpreted as malicious intent. Upon stumbling on a non-notable Ghana-related entry I filtered the author's contributions to page creations and found that an absolute majority were a complete mess. Namely there was a pattern of creating pages for non-notable Ghanaian musicians and performers. To be clear, I'm not suggesting the author of those pages is anyhow involved with this slanderous accusation against me. I'm just saying you can confirm the pattern of deletion tags as they were restricted to one particular user's page contributions. See Special:Contributions/Geezygee for more. Or to rephrase: If I stumble upon on what seems like a promotional article I check the author's contributions for any other articles that are not in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. This approach works well to swiftly identify other non-notable subjects. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of nominations, but this seems not unreasonable given Geezygee's level of activity in this area. I have turned some of them down and actioned others. Possibly we don't need to look too far for the anon. Deb (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, I checked Geezygee's image upload history and voila. Many a image for various musicians and performers and companies uploaded as 'own work'. And I couldn't find some of these pictures in the public domain. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 11:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Is it worth consulting Wikipedia:List of paid editing companies#Fast Fingers Hype Team (FFHypeTEAM) at this point? Uncle G (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Uncivil language

I have warned user PRFAN13, because he keeps vandalasing List of Power Rangers Dino Fury episodes page. See what was his answer - User_talk:PRFAN13#Vandalism. Lado85 (talk) 08:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Lado85, that is clearly an uncivil response, but let's start at the beginning. You have accused them of vandalism - this isn't obvious to me, why do you say that their edits are vandalism? GirthSummit _(blether) 09:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

He and othera are adding unsourced information and making other wrong edits. Another user, Sentai Kamen Rangers, was banned for same edits. He ignores everything. Lado85 (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Lado85, Sentai Kamen Rangers was blocked for repeated copyright infringements. Adding unsourced content is problematic, but we don't usually categorise it as vandalism: WP:VANDALISM explains that we should only call things vandalism when the intent is clearly to cause damage to the project - is that what you think is happening here, can you present any diffs which make that clearer for me? (I know nothing at all about the subject matter.) GirthSummit _(blether) 12:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

PRFAN13 made same edits with copyright infringements (episodes overviews). One of them - COPYVIO Lado85 (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Lado85, hmm, OK, that's not good. It's not vandalism though unless it's obviously intended to damage the article - that looks to me like someone who was trying to expand the content, but didn't know about our copyvio policy. In the absence of any evidence that they are intentionally vandalising pages, I'd be inclined to give them a warning about copyvio and civility at this point and see if they are able to improve. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Notability and lack of knowledge of User:Onel5969

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

---

On the page of Latgalian ceramicist Jānis Limans, this user Onel5969 marked the article like it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. Since when an American knows and decides what is notable or what is not for the foreign countries and its regions? Ceramics is one of the historical trademarks for the Latgale region and its ceramicists have a special role in the region's culture. If you don't know the topic, explore it first, before you doubt its notability. - Januszjan88 (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

No, that’s not how notability on wikipedia works. Notability needs to be demonstrated in the article by referencing “significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.” Of the 4 citations in the article I was only able to access one and that doesn’t mention Jānis Limans. That doesn’t mean the other 3 don’t - but it’s a discussion you should have directly with Onel5969, but not here. DeCausa (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Januszjan88, your post here, Since when an American knows and decides what is notable or what is not for the foreign countries and its regions?, is an inappropriate violation of WP:NPA and WP:OWN. A basic principle of Wikipedia, WP:5P3, says that Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute. Any editor, regardless of their national origin or any other demographic characteristic has equal right to any other editor to edit any Wikipedia article and question its notability. Nsk92 (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• I would have made the exact same tag - enough there that I wouldn't send it to AfD at NPP, but the only accessible source doesn't appear to mention them (using a quick search-and-find on the first part of the name) meaning that the other sources in the article need to demonstrate notability. Onel5969's done nothing remotely sanctionable. SportingFlyer T·C 11:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  Yep. While the offline sources may do this, we don't know. Perhaps Januszjan88 could provide a short translated quotation of the offline sources to establish that they support the article's contents, and the subject's notability? Elli (talk | contribs) 13:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• I would also have added the notability tag as part of NPP. --John B123 (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I wanted to see if anyone replied to post I started above and saw this one. I really don't get this post, is it here because of the other one I posted above? Just feels like Januszjan88 is trying to "stir the pot". And on that note, someone should close this! Govvy (talk) 09:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Editor prompting an edit war on the basis of opinions vs fact

I've got a problem with user Zefr who is removing a cite I placed into Canola oil that references an article in a peer-reviewed health issues publication named "Healthline." Apparently the editor is of the opinion that the publication is substandard and not peer reviewed, but the publication itself states the exact opposite. "Healthline journal is a peer reviewed official publication of Indian Association of Preventive and Social Medicine (IAPSM). It is an indexed medical journal (in DOAJ, Index Copernicus, OPENJGATE, CABI and Index Medicus-SEAR) published biannually." The editor is also refusing to follow the normal process of discussing the issue on the article's talk page and instead keeps repeatedly trying to enforce his will on the edit, going so far as to make threats of removal of editing rights if he doesn't get his way. This is completely inappropriate. Flybd5 (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Flybd5, it takes two to edit war, but from the articles history it appears that you are the one who has ignored WP:BRD. You added a source; another editor reverted your addition. At that point, rather than reinstating your change, you should have started a discussion about the source on the article talk page, or at WP:RSN. I'd suggest that you self-revert and start that discussion. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and while ANI isn't the place to discuss content or sourcing - I don't know where you get the idea that Healthline is a peer reviewed official publication of the IAPSM. It doesn't say anything about that on their homepage. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Flybd5: I've figured it out. You are confusing two different sources. Healthline the IAPSM journal is one thing; the source you added is another. I'm sure this is just an honest mistake on your part, but it might be best for you to apologise and self-revert. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussed here on the canola oil talk page per WP:BRD. Zefr (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Rangeblock checks

Hi - could someone clever take a look at a couple of rangeblocks I just made in response to a report at AIV concerning recent vandalism to Larry Page. On inspecting some of the more recent IP contributions to the page, I found multiple IPs in the ranges 117.198.30.143/20 and 117.198.16.0/20 adding repetitive content to multiple different articles. Google translate seemed to struggle with it, but enough words jumped out at me to convince me that it was obvious vandalism, and since there didn't seem to be much collateral I've blocked both for three months. IP ranges aren't by strongest suite though - would anybody feel like checking to see if I've missed anything, or if a narrower range would work just as well? Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 14:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, In Hindi language, he is adding bad words to the articles of living people. 117.197.236.30 (talk · contribs) 59.92.74.64 (talk · contribs) 61.0.136.2 (talk · contribs) 59.92.73.140 (talk · contribs) 117.217.48.88 (talk · contribs) 157.41.109.82 (talk · contribs) 117.217.49.7 (talk · contribs) 59.92.74.234 (talk · contribs) If you see all these IP contributions, you will get to see the same words. If you want, I can list other IPs. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

So all these pages have to be semi protected. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Almgerdeu Block bypass. Open a new account

First, I am sorry for my bad Englsh. I am from Germany and I'm not sure I'm right here. In September 2019 Wikipedia blocked this two accounts Schami 1989 and Ekspertiza. A lot of nonsense was done. In June 2020, he created a new page. His language problems are still the same and much needs to be deleted. The same pages are processed in all accounts, mainly about German football. Is this allowed for a blocked user to create a new account? In Germany this is a (German Sperrumgehung) blocking bypass and not allowed. The other two former accounts are:

• Schami1989 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ekspertiza (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I have already submitted an application as a sock puppet.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Almgerdeu

Gscheidles (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for creating the sockpuppet investigation. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced edit of anonymous user

Hello, please block this user 2600:8806:4006:A800:2CF2:8C13:324:F6E8 (talk · contribs) as he/she edits on Baikal International Airport and Phnom Penh International Airport without adding a single reliable sources. I also tried to talk with him with warning, but he/she continuously edit without source. Hope y'all block this anonymous user to avoid WP:EW. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corner2002 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Undue promotion of self-created articles about women composers by T. E. Meeks

T. E. Meeks (talk · contribs) is acting virtually as a single-purpose account, creating and adding wikilinks to missing articles in reverse alphabetical order from a listing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/International encyclopedia of women composers. This itself might be admirable but the problem is that they are unduly promoting these composers by adding links to their new articles from extremely notable subjects where the composers are far less notable (as measured by such things as interwiki links and general fame) than existing entries in lists (e.g. of notable people in major cities with extremely long recorded histories, people who set their poetry to music). This behaviour has continued even after my warning in January (see my messages on their talk page). Recent examples include this edit to Munich, this one to Odessa, and this edit to Pablo Neruda. Of their earlier edits, these ones to Columbia University that I reverted are probably the most blatant; Satella Waterstone and An-Ming Wang are by no means in the same league as Rodgers and Hammerstein. I would like neutral editors to advise this user on proportionate linking of articles and perhaps, if they continue their problematic edits after this noticeboard thread, administrative actions might need to be enacted. (Gerda Arendt has been ably advising this user, but I think this situation needs fresh pairs of eyes). I know I said that I would refrain from posting on their talk page or checking their edits, but they recently reappeared on my watchlist with the same behaviour as last time. I have previously tried posting about this at the WikiProject Classical music talk page with no luck, so here I am. Graham87 19:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this isn't "promotion" in an encylopedic sense - it's not advertising. If you believe that these edits and articles are not well-supported or referenced, then you can either have a go at improving the references yourself, add a more citations needed tag to the article, or bring it up at Articles for Deletion, if you believe the newly-created articles aren't verifiable enough to be improved any further. I don't think it's "unduly promoting these composers" to fill in some verifiable redlinks, especially with the gender imbalance we see on Wikipedia. If the articles are well-supported to stay, then they're well-supported to stay. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I wish you hadn't use the word "promotion", as it implies something else that isn't here. As a random example, this edit reverts an addition of An-Ming Wang as "undue promotion". If the revert was because the entry was unsourced, or because articles about universities only contain extremely prominent alumni (that's what lists or categories are for), I would get that. But I think they're editing in good faith. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't doubt their good faith ... I meant promotion in the sense of making these people seem much more important (compared to the people around them in the text) than they actually are. The way I see it the more prominent an article subject is, the more selective editors should be in what to mention about it ... especially when it comes to tangentially related people/works. Maybe "misplaced additions" would be a better term? Graham87 21:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin commemt) This sounds like yet another content dispute.

It's a question of balance and good taste. I have a penchant for writing articles about obscure but notable people. One of the trickiest issues is deciding where such articles should be linked from. If they came from some village no-one's heard of - sure, mention them as a notable resident. If they were born in a metropolis - well, who cares? The first type of link might lead a reader towards something interesting; the second, hardly at all.

I recently wrote an article about a pioneering fight director. He worked on a film that I can guarantee everyone here has heard of. Is that interesting about him? yes. Is that fact worth adding to the article about the film? no way, unless a source about the film singled him out (I found none that did). Narky Blert (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, I saw this at WP:CM, but forgot to comment, this has been appearing on my watchlist as well. I don't know why users above are obsessing over the word "promotion", who cares, there's still an issue here. Meeks shouldn't be prolifically adding unsourced trivia of the some arrangement by a composer 400 years later ([132], [133]); if the work is notable enough to have its own article, sure maybe, but these are not... Other edits are less concerning, such as the Odessa, but the Columbia University one and the Munich ones I disagree with. These are huge places and we should keep the notability for inclusion high, if Meeks wants to add to List of Columbia University alumni and attendees, fine, but inserting two names in the middle of a sentence with four otherwise exceptionally prominent composers (and thereby making it appear as if one of those refs supports their names) is disingenuous at the very least. Aza24 (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

We somehow avoided an ec there. Another of my recent articles wax about a very obscure composer indeed. Did I add him to List of Baroque composers#Late Baroque era composers (born 1650–99)? yes. Did I add him to List of Baroque composers#Brief timeline? you must be joking, that's for people you might have heard of. Narky Blert (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Narky Blert and Aza24: Thanks, your comments sum up my feelings about T. E. Meeks's edits better than I ever could. I have no problem whatsoever with this edit to Canton, Pennsylvania, for example. Graham87 07:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Nor do I; that is exactly the sort of "notable people" entry I like. They should be notable in context, and adding a fifth person to that list is informative. (I say fifth, because I deleted two of the seven entries per the essay WP:NAMECHECK.) Narky Blert (talk) 10:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Vandalising thread

User Dughorm has been constantly vandalising the Emblem of the Republic of Albania article despite there being no resolution in the talk page. He keeps changing the title and contents of the article without providing an argument. Kj1595 (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Kj1595 has been vandalizing the page by reverting any and all changes made by me despite them being mostly cosmetic and corrections of terminology. They unilaterally moved the article for the coat of arms of Albania to call it an "emblem" in contradiction with the established Wikipedia practice of referring to heraldic symbols as coats of arms, and despite the naming having been previously decided to be "coat of arms of Albania", and made numerous edits over a short period of time in the past. I have provided all evidence on the talk page, which they dismissed claiming to be a native speaker, pointing me to Google Translate, which outputs results contradictory to their claims, and disregarding the heraldic context of the symbol, insisting that the word "stema" must be translated by emblem despite meaning "coat of arms" and, as is common in the languages of post-Socialist states, being used to refer to any kind of a state emblem. I have been unable to report them as I am only familiar with article and file editing, so I kept reverting their unilateral moderation of my contributions. I have also attempted to manually transfer the contents to "Coat of arms of Albania", but realized my mistake and reverted the changes immediately, as I only intend to restore the page to its original state before the user's numerous changes while maintaining their positive contributions. — Dughorm (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

How can I be vandalising the article when I created all the historical emblems in the article which you have removed? I created the Historical emblems section of the article as well. I urge the admins to look at my last edit and compare it with what Dughorm changed it to and decide who did the vandalism? Kj1595 (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

None of your contributions were removed. I have reformatted the section from the form of a table to the usual page format, and arranged numerous images in a gallery so that they would not disrupt the short pieces of text. Only your unilateral conviction-based changes have been changed to proper terminology. Please stop appealing to your authority of being a native speaker or having made constructive contributions in the past, and do not act as if you are an owner of the article. — Dughorm (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You removed most of the content in the Infobox as well as all the historical logos and replaced them with a gallery of fictional logos. So basically you ruined what was an already good article. You were called out on this in the talk page by another user and you accused that user of being biased and a nationalist. Kj1595 (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The infobox had no content in it except the unofficial "blazon", which an "emblem", as you claim, would not have. Who are you to decide whether or not sourced files are "fictional"? I have replaced one or two of them with higher quality vectorizations already present on Wikimedia Commons, as is the policy for visual symbols. Again, I have deleted none of the content and only improved some wording and translations you didn't even bother to double-check. You have also made changes while there is an ongoing dispute, so I expect you to undo them and go back to the exact version at the time of opening the dispute. There hasn't been any negative feedback from non-Albanians so far, so I have reasons to suspect nationalist brigading. — Dughorm (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Is this a content dispute? Are both of the editors Yelling Vandalism in order to "win" a content dispute? It appears that neither of the editors has made an actual case of vandalism. If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism. Can these editors be warned that continuing to yell "Vandalism" is a personal attack? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

It's more than content dispute. The user removed all historical emblems in the article thus changing a significant part of the article's identity. That is vandalism. Not only that, he also removed the sources in the article. And continuely keeps changing the title of the article without there being a resolution in the talk page. How is that not vandalism? Kj1595 (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism is a disruptive attempt to deface an article. These edits are good faith efforts to improve the article. You may not like them- and that's fine- but your disliking them does not make them vandalism. And insisting that every change you don't agree with is vandalism is a personal attack and also WP:OWN so- please go to the talk page of the article in question and both of you discuss the proposed changes with an open mind per WP:BRD, and if that doesn't work out- after an extended good faith discussion- you are welcome to come to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and I will volunteer to help mediate this. After you both give a good ole fashion discussion a try first. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Fair enough. Kj1595 (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS/Uncivil behaviour from USER:Lugnuts

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

---

Diffs as follows:
Canvassing for an AFD only with sympathetic editors: 1 2 3 4 (These are all editors that have previously expanded Lugnuts' Geostubs and/or previously expressed support for Lugnuts)
Uncivil behaviour to User:Dlthewave: 1
Lugnuts only JUST had an ANI discussion which was hatted because of extremely worrying messages that they posted on their talk page right as a strong consensus was formed to sanction them over their mass-creation of geostubs (that they have gone right back to creating). Surely now is the time finally for some actual sanctions as they really don't seem to be getting it. With a less experienced editor I mightn't have brought this but Lugnuts has been around long enough to know not to canvass, be uncivil, or simply ignore other users. At least a block or TBAN from Geo-related articles and/or AFD is called for. FOARP (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment: this is beginning to seem like hounding of Lugnuts, watching their every edit to find something to have them for and shouting for the strongest measures to be taken against them based on scant evidence. This makes me uncomfortable. ◦ Trey Maturin 20:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I found out about the AFD because I look at the daily AFD thread (I have over 500 AFD votes and regularly look there), and then found out about the WP:CANVASS behaviour when Uanfala raised it on the AFD thread - the WP:UNCIVIL behaviour I saw when I went to Lugnut's contributions to check whether Uanfala was telling the truth. No "hounding" was involved in this - this is the first ANI report I have ever raised and I genuinely don't recall ever interacting with Lugnuts prior to the AFD at which sanctions were moved against them. I wish Lugnuts well and sympathise with his problems, but these sympathies do not extend to simply behaving as though the rules do not apply. FOARP (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm a bit concerned that the previous ANI thread appeared to have a consensus to sanction Lugnuts, either by removing the autopatrolled flag or otherwise restrict the number of articles created, but the thread was hatted as "no point remaining open". I don't have any view on what should happen to Lugnuts, but that seems wrong. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

At the time it was the correct decision. Reopening the sanctions which were certain at that point is the correct decision now. FOARP (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• After sanctions were almost certain at the last ANI thread, Lugnuts took a 47-hour break from the site and started editing again. While they haven't been mass-creating articles, they have continued to create one or two-off stubs. The canvassing is just another thing altogether. I'd support implementing sanctions from the old ANI thread at the very least. SportingFlyer T·C 20:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• The problem isn't canvassing (that AFD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ağcakent, Aziziye), it's mass-creating articles while there's substantial support for not having those articles. I would support a one-article-creation per day limit for Lugnuts, with an exception for creating articles after there is consensus at a discussion specifically about Lugnuts mass-creating them. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• This is just speculation, but perhaps they are doing it to top this list? An editor went to the talk page of that list and opined that the list may encourage disruptive editing (and I agree with them) and Lugnuts responded first rather suspiciously. versacespaceleave a message! 01:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing

On List of equipment of the Hellenic Army an user called El Greco 45 reverting constantly article. While only army equipment is featured on the page, this user constantly re ADD navy equipment, and I reverted it three times but he/she keep re adding incorrect information, and wrote this as a comment; If you don't know don't delete ???.. I tried to explain it, but he/she continues without caring disruptive editing.Cengizsogutlu (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Pssst - you can just say 'they' instead of 'he/she' every time. Is there a corresponding Hellenic Navy article that information could be shoved into, or did the Hellenic Army constitute naval forces as well? --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Huasteca

Huasteca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been editing since the first of this year, and in that time has found their way over to COVID related articles with which they have a problem accepting WP:MEDRS and WP:DUE, as well as their continued attempts to either overstate what sources say, or make new information from combinations altogether. Their first talkpage post (here) was filled with accusations of propaganda, and they flat out lied about the sourcing in the article. They later venture into personal attacks territory, and continues even now to refuse to understand that consensus is against them.

To this user's credit, they did attempt to discuss this on a noticeboard instead of continuing to edit war... but after that discussion resulted in no support for their views/goals, they went right back to making large changes to attempt to push the negative information to the forefront. The user then today again provided two sources not compliant with MEDRS and attempted to synthesize information from them that wasn't really present in the original EMA announcement - which they conveniently ignored because if anyone here would like to read that announcement, it does not say that it is confirmed, it says it's still a "possible link" and being listed as a side effect - which is not the same as saying "we have confirmed a causal relationship with the vaccine" - yet Huasteca wants us to say that, and the user wants the information about the blood clots to be plastered front and center for people, when at most one or two sentences would be merited, just as for any other side effect.

All in all, I am unsure whether this user has some motive for this other than building an encyclopedia, but it is clear to me now that allowing this user to continue to edit in the COVID-19 vaccine topic area would be a time sink for other editors, and it is producing virtually no good discussion. As such, I'd like to start this discussion on perhaps applying the COVID-19 general sanctions to apply a topic ban on COVID-19 vaccinations. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Update, this response to an uninvolved editor trying to explain things has personal attacks, aspersions, and is overall unhelpful. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't even know how to respond. It seems User is deeply disturbed by the EMA's announcement today finding a link between Astrazeneca and cerebral thrombosis and continued suspensions of Astrazeneca vaccinations. He has been aggressively pushing the view, not only that there is no link between Astrazeneca and cerebral thrombosis but that no one has even hypothesized this link. Hard to believe but true. This is his position - he literally refuses to acknowledge the content of reliable sources. [134]. He even refuses to accept that numerous countries have suspended AZ vaccinations - with arguments on the line of "they were just temporary pauses". Funny thing is that I haven't even really engaged in an edit war with this editor - I just took this entire scenario to the relevant noticeboard where he promptly requested I was topic-banned. Perhaps this is the second of the Five stages of grief now that his position is even more untenable than before? God knows. He knows I have disengaged from the topic so I assume it is the product of a mixture of vindictiveness and frustration. Should not be wasting people's time here, though, including mine! Huasteca (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The EMA did not find a link, they found a "possible link", and you would know that if you clicked the link in my original post. I have not pushed any view one way or another - I have fought against presenting a viewpoint as "certain" based on non MEDRS and sources that don't say what you're trying to say, as we are not a crystal ball and it's better to wait than get it wrong in the meantime. This editor has not disengaged from the topic, or if they have done so, it has only come after this noticeboard filing. I'll note that this user has continued making aspersions and personal attacks even here - showing that they cannot edit in this topic area without personalizing things, and I remain convinced that a topic ban from COVID-19 vaccines would be beneficial to the project. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Since I was mentioned here, involved with the edits of the page in question, and asked for my opinion by an editor on my talk page, I will give my 2 cents. The issues raised by Huasteca are not entirely without merit, however, the objectionable material here is in how he chose to go about attempting to edit. While editing, he used primarily sources that did not meet the WP:MEDRS standard, and as such his edits were generally reverted. I attempted to explain that this was common, and that even I had had recent edits reverted on similar grounds recently, though I thought them to be passable for several reasons, and that trough discussion with the community we had come to a consensus. Moreover, there were some considerable WP:DUE issues with his writing, with unconfirmed reports being presented front and center, without clarification, in the lede. Some of these edits also left out important information from within his own sources, that was important for a reader to understand the entire situation. The primary issue, however, comes with his reaction to criticism. He has frequently accused other editors of colluding or conspiring to "push POV", and yet takes even very mild criticism levelled strictly against his work (as opposed to him as a person) as a personal attack, lauding phrases such as "a very serious personal attack" and "a torrent of abuse", when not a single insult or threat had been thrown his way, merely constructive criticism over his edits. His assumption that the AstraZeneca vaccine casual link to the few dozen blood clot cases would eventually be confirmed appears to now be proven correct by the EMA, but the issue is not really about that. We don't attempt to predict the future, and accusations of conspiracy, abuse and "British Propaganda" (his words, not mine) quickly derail the discussion instead of moving it forward. In addition, he appears to dismiss the MEDRS standard as some kind of excuse that other editors are using against him, rather than a standard that we should all hold each other by, especially on a topic as important as this. He repeatedly accused other editors of POV pushing, when he quite clearly held and promoted a POV himself. Ultimately, the inclusion of a lot of his content would not even have been a problem, especially now with the EMA's new statement, but the violation of WP:MEDRS, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:DUE were the primary reasons for the conflict. His decision to immediately take offence, rather than to attempt to discuss the mater impartially prevented the establishment of a stable consensus. Still, it is worth noting that he has expressed support for other vaccines, most notably Pfizer's, and does not appear to maintain a more broad anti-vaccination attitude and has, at least at times, appeared responsive to complaints (even if not in the most constructive way possible). Why this user is such a staunch opponent of this vaccine I do not know, but it wouldn't have been an issue if the discussion he had with us was more focused on facts and edits, and not on taking offense and accusations. I wish him all the best, but find this type of behaviour quite unhelpful. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Pure WP:BATTLEGROUND from Huasteca. They seem to be living out a fantasy in which they are a lone hero fighting against evil pharma shills. Unfortunately this means mischaracterizing what sources say (so: "There is no longer any doubt on the causal link between Astrazeneca and the clots"[135]) and concocting a bizarre story about what other editors are saying (so: "You guys can write AZ is magic and cures Aids and it won't have an impact on public perception"[136]). Probably some WP:ROPE is left to play out, but in a fraught medical topic subject to GS, these kinds of antics are the last thing the Project needs. Alexbrn (talk) 05:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  Alexbrn Guys, could you please just leave me alone? You have been proven wrong, yes I know its annoying but its what happens when you take WP:FRINGE views. Other editors are dealing with the article and I'm not involved anymore. Harassing me here is not going to change anything. Stop wasting people's times with your personal attacks, I'm not going to react in kind. Huasteca (talk) 10:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Huasteca. There are no personal attacks by Alexbrn. Given your message here I would ask if English isn't your first language as that would explain some of the problems you are having. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 12:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather There have indeed been a number of pretty nasty and uncalled for personal attacks by this user against me, as well as by other members of this odd cabal. If you want the diffs here, I will provide. And yes, you are correct, English is not my first language. It's my third language. But I'm still pretty certain I speak and write it better than you do. Thanks for your valuable input to this conversation. Huasteca (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes I would like some diffs and I so far all I see is you making personal attacks. Calling others an "odd cabal" is an attack. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather This is a personal attack, for example.[137] Saying that me raising concerns about the neutrality of an article is due to "malice or incompetence" is a completely uncalled for personal attack. I also consider you completely randomly questioning my ability to communicate effectively in English because I happen to speak other languages a personal attack. The Trump era is over. I'm not wasting more time on this, I'm sorry. Have a nice day. Huasteca (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Huasteca Yes that was a unnecessary attack by Alexbrn. However, that does not make it OK for you to make them as well. By the way asking if English is your first language is not a personal attack. Just a question. Not sure why you would bring up some foreign former president. Trump never had a "era" up here. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather It's fine. Sorry for taking it the wrong way then. These guys make me moody and defensive. Regards. Huasteca (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Shamonte.webster143 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Uploading images without proper license; sometimes claiming them as "own work". Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I've Blocked as a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPWTulsaOK1213.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Evansville rangeblock requested

• 2603:6010:7706:1A00:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Somebody in Evansville, Illinois, has been asserting false certification and sales figures at hip hop music articles. For instance, this edit asserted 2× Platinum sales despite the fact that RIAA says Gold. There's a ton more like that. Can we get a rangeblock?

The edit history is very, very much like Special:Contributions/74.129.99.106 from the same place, blocked for the same thing. That IP was blocked for 14 months a year ago. Binksternet (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that'll do it. I wonder what will happen when the IP4 block expires. Binksternet (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Mass-creating articles based on one unreliable source

 Administrator note The following discussion was improperly collapsed and closed by a non-admin as "pointless" while there were sanctions being actively discussed. At the minimum, it requires formal closure from an admin to assess the consensus, as revocation of a user right is one of the proposed sanctions. In the meantime, the community is welcome to provide additional feedback. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

---

User:Lugnuts has created hundreds (thousands?) of articles on Turkish villages based on one source, Koyumuz. There is no indication at all that this is a reliable site, it looks like one of these typical weather-predicting sites based on some dubious geographical source. This was raised here on ANI in the discussion about the mass-creation by Lugnuts of cricket stubs, and I again raised this today at WP:AN#Another case, this time Turkey. While the villages most likely all exist, the only additional information in it, the population, seems to be dubious. Examples:

• Elmadüzü, Oltu has a 2012 population of 64 on enwiki: the Turkish article gives a population of 302 in 2007, and 406 in 2014.
• Çengelli, Oltu; enwiki claims a population of 154 (2012), Turkish Wikipedia claims 307 in 2007, and 398 in 2014.
• Küçükorucuk, Oltu: enwiki 105 (2012), TRwiki 147 (2007) to 198 (2014)
• Savaşçılar, Narman: enwiki 22 (2012), TRwiki 175 (2007) to 204 (2014)

Now, it may be that TRwiki is wrong and ENwiki is right, but that should be based on some official or clearly reliable sources then, not on a random weather-predicting website. All these articles should either be corrected (a good source provided and the population checked), or moved to draftspace if the former can't be done swiftly. And creation of any new articles like this should stop. Fram (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Fram's m/o is, but he continues to bully and harras my work on here. Looking at the Turkish articles for these places, NONE of them actually source the populations quoted. These places do exist, as the source confirms. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Now, the flip side:

• Kanlıtaş, Refahiye, 65 EN, 65 Tur
• Şahaloğlu, Refahiye, 131 EN, 131 Tur
• Dallıca, Kemaliye, 13 EN, 13 Tur
• Beşikli, Kemah, 63 EN, 63 Tur

And all the Turkish articles have a source for these figures. And surprise, surprise, population figures do change year from year. I wonder why that is. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The question is whether the source you use is a reliable one or not. If you can show us that it is, fine, no problem. I guess you have researched this before setting out on a mass-creation spree, so you should have no problem showing us some evidence that it is a reliable source. That it sometimes matches trwiki, and sometimes doesn't, is an indication that there may be a problem with it. It is up to you to disprove this. Fram (talk) 09:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The Turkish Wikipedia articles appear to have no sources at all. I don't know why why there should be any attempt to correlate the information with unsourced material on another Wikipedia? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Creating articles based on unreliable sources is poor practice. When checking these, I noticed that TRwiki (which is also an unreliable source) has different numbers for these villages. This doesn't prove that our numbers are wrong, but is an extra indication that there might be a problem. Now, if a reliable source can be found which matches our numbers, then all that needs to be done is replacing the source in these articles with the reliable one, and use that one from now on. If no such source can be found, then the articles need more drastic action. Fram (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the RS (or otherwise), simply that we should take Turkish Wikipedia with its completely unreferenced material with a pinch of salt. It's in no way an indicator of problems on another Wikipedia when the information there is completely unsourced. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Batch delete needed, sanctions should be considered (at least remove Autopatrol) - A search for "Koyumuz" returns 4,452 hits. Scrolling through the first 500 results I see that most of them have the same length (22 words) and none is longer than 60 words. All seem to have been created in a ~16 day period from 11 March 2021 to 27 March 2021. Clicking on ten of them I see that all ten were created by Lugnuts. I agree that Koyumuz does not appear to be a reliable source - there is nothing indicating where its data comes form and it does appear to be some kind of weather mirror site. Moreover these articles are explicitly about neighbourhoods, which are not anyway automatic WP:GEOLAND passes. This is clearly a mass GEOFAIL situation, one that simply cannot be dealt with through PROD/AFD given it involves thousands of articles. There may be some WP:GEOLAND-passing articles in amongst those 4,452 articles and some may be duplicate hits so I think we're going to need some more analysis to get a proper delete list (Hog Farm - maybe another case where we could get an output of the kind being done for Carlos's Iranian articles).

This is particularly disappointing given that I had this discussion with Lugnuts on 19 March 2021 about this exact problem (mass-creation of WP:GEOLAND-failing articles done simply to boost article-creation stats, which is classic WP:NOTHERE behaviour). Lugnuts KNOWS this behaviour is not OK, that these articles are automatic WP:GEOLAND fails as written, but created them en masse (with an algorithm?) even so. FOARP (talk) 09:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you could show how you think this isn't a reliable source, rather than spouting it over and over again, the same with your bad-faith WP:NOTHERE comments. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

1) The burden is on you to show it is reliable, not on me to show it isn't. 2) The website doesn't say where its data comes from, the data clearly isn't created by a small website so the inference is its mirroring something else and/or creating its articles algorithmically - WP:V fail since we don't know what it is mirroring. 3) It appears from the contact form provided on each article that the website accepts user-created content. The accusation of bad faith - well, we talked about this exact issue, didn't we? You're response to another user doing exactly what you've just done was "Wow, what a mess!". And you then went ahead and did the same thing anyway? FOARP (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The articles I looked at pass WP:GEOLAND; the source was published but now seems to be unavailable, at least at its original URL. I checked for updated statistics and the map on the census website labels all places in a district with the population and the name of the district, but not the place name. I couldn't find anything below province level on the database page and I don't know if it includes villages or neighbourhoods but it was used as a source in the Turkish Wikipedia when the populations of the districts were updated. Wherever it is, it isn't under an obvious title; I asked about this at the WikiProject Turkey talk page. Peter James (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Fram: Are there any sources out there (I know nothing about Turkey outside of the "They Might Be Giants" song, it's named after a bird, and it's not in the Middle East, but it's also not in Asia) that could take the place of this one? Like how we use US Census data here, do they have their own form of that? Only reason I ask is I would hate to lose all those articles. If that's the only option, then I have to agree, batch delete...but let's try and explore all reference options first, please. Just in case these articles can be saved. Just sayin'. As for the user, yeah, he needs at least an article creation ban (is that a thing?) since this isn't a one-time issue, but the user has done this prior (ie: Cricket...yet another subject I know nothing about unless we are talking about the bug). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:55 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

Second the call for an article creation ban here as well. FOARP (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

You mean this thread where there was nothing wrong with my work? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comments I would suggest that the reference used from now on and which should replace koyumuz should be nufusune.com which is a reliable reference. I don't think we should delete any of these articles.--Semsûrî (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Disclaimer on that site: "Sitede yer alan bilgilerin doğruluğunu taahhüt etmiyoruz. Bu site bilgi ve eğlence sitesidir. Burada yer alan bilgiler Resmi amaçla kullanılmaz, delil olarak gösterilemez." which Google translates as "We do not guarantee the accuracy of the information on the site. This site is an information and entertainment site. The information contained herein is not used for official purposes, and cannot be shown as evidence." So perhaps not a reliable source either? Fram (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

    Thanks for your input Semsûrî. What Fram said, plus unofficial neighbourhoods are barred from the automatic presumption of notability under WP:GEOLAND, and the overwhelming majority of the 4,452 articles citing koyumuz are 22-word articles reading "X is a neighbourhood in the Y district of Z province, Turkey", apparently created using an algorithm. These appear to be census tracts? Census tracts are also not accepted as proof of legal recognition. At the very least another reference having WP:SIGCOV is needed for each. FOARP (talk) 10:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

    The Turkish gov. website has details of each village/neighbourhood. Happy to replace the existing source with that, and remove the population stat as I go. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

    Can you perhaps then start doing that first, instead of creating new articles? And perhaps stop insulting people on a regular basis? "appease the deletionist"[138] when what you are actually should say is "shit, you're right, I shouldn't have used that source, I'll clean it up now" really isn't an acceptable way to interact with people. Fram (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

    A disclaimer doesn't make it unreliable, it just means it is not definitive. It anything without a disclaimer is not reliable we would probably have to say the definitive map is the only reliable source of a public right of way in the UK, (anything else that fails to include a disclaimer would be even less reliable). Peter James (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Before I say anything else, I would like to comment that I do indeed believe that Koyumuz is an unreliable source. I would prefer if Lugnuts used Nufusune instead. However, these articles all do pass WP:GEOLAND. Originally, all of these neighborhoods were considered villages. However, in 2013, the Turkish government began classifying all villages from 30 provinces as neighborhoods. This means that some provinces have no vilages. Believe it or not, neighborhoods are actually classified at a higher level than villages, so WP:GEOLAND is clearly met. Scorpions13256 (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Scorps. It's clearly semantics about village/neighbourhood, and they're all populated places too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Scorpions13256, Nufusune indicates that they aren't a reliable site (as was already said above), so advising to use that one instead isn't really the best advice. Fram (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Fram. I didn't see that. Scorpions13256 (talk) 11:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Every district in Turkey has their own official page like haymana.gov.tr which does list the 2014 population of its villages (in this case administered as neighborhoods since its in Ankara Province)[139] but I can't say if all districts have such a population page. Perhaps, if we could check if the data is identical with Nufusune we could classify that site as reliable? --Semsûrî (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Why would we use Nusufune if we have the information from a reliable source in the first place? It is a mirror, it displays information taken from elsewhere without editorial oversight or checking. That the source they mirror or have scraped is a reliable site doesn't make Nusufune an acceptable source (although it would be at least better than what we have now, at least Nusufune indicates both the source they used, and the fact that they aren't reliable, which are both commendable). Fram (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The question is if all official sites for the 973 districts have such data like Haymana does. --Semsûrî (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Just to be clear here, because this seems to be getting lost: these articles are overwhelmingly one-sentence stubs apparently written by an algorithm sourced to a single unreliable source about neighbourhoods with no proven legal recognition with (according to the unreliable source used) tiny populations (e.g., Leylekköy, İspir, pop. 44). Lugnuts created hundreds of these each day over a two-week period, right after he was involved in a discussion about another editor doing exactly the same thing. There's no way that Lugnuts has done the work to show a WP:GEOLAND pass for any of these, even if some can be rescued by other editors. FOARP (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Leylekköy is a village in the traditional sense, but is considered a neighborhood administratively in Turkey. As mentioned above, mahalle/neighborhood in Turkey is the only administrative term used in the most populous provinces (see Metropolitan municipalities in Turkey). When a province in Turkey hits a specific population, settlements that are considered köy/village gets upgraded to mahalle/neighborhood status. The only thing Lugnuts has done is creating articles of what we would consider villages but Turkey officially considers neighborhoods. I still believe that none of these articles should be deleted and they DO PASS GEOLAND, but should be referenced better. --Semsûrî (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Like Scorpions13256 (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - I've started work on changing the reference, so down from 4,452 (quoted above) to just 4,396 to go. Some of them using Koyumuz won't be articles I started, as the ref had been used way before I started to use it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete all and remove autopatrol at the very least. Batch deletion is an appropriate response to improper mass creation even if some articles might be valid; if someone handed you a phone directory and told you it was a list of notable people, you would toss the whole thing rather than going through one-by-one to check notability.

Lugnuts should be expected to clean up the current mess (which they offered to do above) before mass creating more articles (which is what they're currently doing as we speak). It's a very bad practice, if not a violation of GEOLAND, to go through any sort of database or list and create an article for each place with no further research. One such article created by Lugnuts today is Saksı, Pasinler which consists of "Saksı is a neighbourhood in the Pasinler District of Erzurum Province in Turkey." I don't read Turkish and I'm not familiar with locality designations in Turkey (Is Lugnuts?), but the source is nothing more than a list of 72 neighborhoods within the larger district. What sort of neighborhood, village, etc is this? Where is it exactly? Why should we care about it? Lugnuts is leaving it up to others to figure out so they can focus boosting their own article creation count. This type of behavior by several editors (including an admin) has been a major source of disruption, a huge time sink and we need an overall ban on mass article creation as well as a change to the "officially recognized populated place" criteria at WP:GEOLAND which allows editors to claim notability. –dlthewave ☎ 13:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

How is that any different to this moth, for example? By coincidence, it is also from Turkey. Where is it exactly? Why should we care about it? etc, etc Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

1) Well that looks like an excellent candidate for deletion, why don't you nominate it for AFD? 2) WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. FOARP (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST is an essay - do you have a policy to link to instead? You seem to have an issue with its notability, I'll leave the AfD to you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

All species are notable per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES though admittedly that article is a Qbugbot level stub. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

OUTCOMES must be used very carefully. It does not say , for example, that all species are notable, but instead that it is very difficult to challenge the species article at AFD because there's a general presumption that all species are likely notable and can be proven that way when push comes to shove. If all species were considered truly notable, we'd have an SNG to cover that, but we don't. --Masem (t) 19:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

When's the last time a species was deleted for being non-notable? If there's a presumption of notability, how do you disprove that definitively? Elli (talk | contribs) 17:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• Even if Lugnuts is creating all these articles by hand, a serious question to ask is if they plan to go back to ever try to improve them beyond the one or two line stub they set them up as. That's the problem with mass article creation is that there's no assurance anyone is going to come along in the future to expand out, and it becomes much more work to clean up after this, even though in such mass-creation actions, the onus is on the editor undertaking the action. Even if the source here was legit (which may not be), the onus really should remain on Lugnuts to make sure this articles are taken to a point beyond the basic stub -- or simply stop making them altogether. --Masem (t) 13:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Could you link me to the policy that states anyone creating a stub MUST improve/expand it? Once you've found it, I'll get to work on them. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:GEOLAND. If you create articles that fail this standard as-written then expect for them to get deleted. If you create articles failing this standard en masse, in the knowledge that this is problematic (something you've criticised other editors such as Carlosuarrez46 for doing) then expect other editors to point out that you are knowingly engaging in the same kind of disruptive editing and apparently don't care what the effect is. Just how is this different to what DrBlowfeld/Encyclopedius did with their algorithm and got told to stop for? FOARP (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you highlight the exact bit of WP:GEOLAND for me that states a stub MUST be expanded by the article's creator? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I can, again, highlight the part of WP:GEOLAND that all of these articles fail for you, if that helps? As well as WP:V? Since they fail these, you should not be surprised to be having this conversation about deleting them all. If you pile up immense tasks for other editors here on Wiki don't be surprised if people just say WP:TNT is the solution. Additionally, don't be surprised if people point out that you are knowingly engaging in disruptive editing. FOARP (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

You've still not actually pointed to the precise text. Maybe WP:5 is wrong - "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." All these places pass WP:GEOLAND and WP:V. The difference between Carlosuarrez46 & "DrBlowfeld" (sic) is that I'm working through all the articles indentified, and fixing the source as I go. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there would be any consensus that anyone is obliged to improved past a stub. The issue is the mass creation part of it IMO (as below). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the mass creation facet is the larger part of this. We've all likely created a one-off stub, and no one is biting our heads off for that. It would be different if these mass-created stubs may be one or two fully fleshed out paragraphs, even if based on one source, that show far more potential for a larger article, than the single sentences we're getting now. I doubt we'd have an issue if someone was able to mass-create articles on villages/etc. that has 500+ words, complete infobox, and appropriate sourcing. Would still be stub, but at least that's a useable stub, and few would balk at an article of that size. --Masem (t) 15:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Mass stub creations can be useful (if they pass Wikipedia:Notability), it's documented in the book The Wikipedia Revolution how one person made thousands of articles for each county in the United States, all as stubs. But it allowed for other editors to more easily start editing/adding info, even years later. I do think mass editing needs to be done responsibly, and with extra care for sources. Shushugah (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem with mass creating articles like this is doing so without community consultation (if not consensus) first. "Hey I'd like to create a thousand stubs on villages based on this one source" would get the kind of input about source quality and the information drawn them them beforehand rather than afterwards at ANI (if anyone notices a problem or its pattern at all). I think it's a good thing that Lugnuts said they'd be willing to replace the source in question with another, but wouldn't it be even better if people had a chance to point that out beforehand? Beyond that, as I said in the cricket thread above, and at the risk of beating a dead horse, I'd like to see data-based mass creation require consensus first (along the lines of WP:MASSCREATION/WP:MEATBOT). I was under the impression it was a well-known best practice to do so, but the previous thread disabused me of that notion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

It is well known best practice. The problem is when it's mass-creation of stubs about footballers, NFOOTY shows up to defend it. When it's mass-creation of stubs about cricketers, NCRIC shows up to defend it (this was the last thread). When it's places in Turkey... well, perhaps NTURK isn't as active as these other wikiprojects... I think it's dangerous for an editor to confuse "not enough consensus to sanction" with "no problem with the creations". Sooner or later, we're going to end up with an article creation restriction, at which point I fear Lugnuts will quit. This reminds me of other high-volume editors from the past, I fear we're just a thread or two away from the final one. Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

What Levivich said. Additionally, they are very obviously doing this algorithmically without first having got consensus to do so, which is against WP:MASSCREATION. There is simply no way that anyone is creating so many hundreds of sports/location articles by hand each day - we're talking 400-500 EDIT:about 80 location articles each day alone. FOARP (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Wrong again. I'm not using any bot, algorithm or tools in ANY article creation. 400-500 per day?! Less than 80 per day, at best. Again, you've made many aspersions on my work, and provided ZERO evidence to back up what you say. Feel free to filter on my contributions, and if you find the day that I made 400-500 new articles, I'll eat my hat. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

But you're not typing each one out by hand either. Please don't be coy with us. Your user page boasts that you've created 88,000 new pages. Over 15 years that's still more than 5,800 mainspace pages per year, or 16 per day, every day. I'd bet you haven't even read them all. And if you have, it's proof positive of how short they all are. If you spent a half hour on each of them, that would be 8 hrs per day, 365 days per year, for 15 years, with no days off or even half days. Whatever tool you're using, whether it's a script or a template or whatever it may be, you're not typing out 5,800 articles per year by hand. And if you are, that would be really bizarre. Like that would be a medieval-monk-level of scribing. We can tell by the volume that you're spending no more than minutes on each page creation. You've got to come to appreciate that there are many editors here who do not want you to do this. I know you view this as building an encyclopedia, but in my view, it's spamming the encyclopedia—well intended spam, but spam nonetheless. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts - OK "about 80" then. Can you tell us how you create 80 articles in a single day without using "any bot, algorithm or tools"? I mean for reference, your first article cited to koyumuz on 28 March 2021 was created at 17:25 and the last at 18:35 - 70 minutes in which you created 47 near-identical articles, that's just under 90 seconds an article. FOARP (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Prior discussion would be helpful and also required by WP:MEATBOT. Some editors treat WP:GEOLAND as an entitlement/mandate to create a standalone article about every populated place that appears in a government table or database, when in fact it may be more useful to present them as a list until individual articles are built out. I would strongly support listing every village in Template:Pasinler_District in a section at Pasinler, Erzurum which would result in no loss of information.

It's also critical to vet the source being used. We've seen many instances of editors assuming that every entry in a particular census table or database automatically meets our notability standards for populated places, when in fact they're often made to serve a specific government function such as counting people or delivering the mail that doesn't necessarily reflect distinct settlements. The source used here is a list of Mukhtars (village leaders) within Pasinler District which provides no other information about these places. It appears to be at the better end of the reliability spectrum since they do reflect an official level of government administration, but it's also unclear why we would choose this source which provides so little information about these places and would need to be supplemented by other sources. Whether this mass creation is actually helpful would be a valid question to pose to the community before embarking on such an endeavor. –dlthewave ☎ 16:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

It is well known best practice - then I would like to hear from some of the admins who weighed in at the cricket discussion and here as to why this wasn't actionable. My sense is that while it's a best practice, the actual rules aren't clear about manual mass creation. As I see it we have three issues: whether this is a WP:MASSCREATE/WP:MEATBOT violation (and if it's unclear, how those policies should be changed to be clearer), the reliability of the source (IMO not particularly important here except insofar as it highlights the potentially negative impact of mass editing), and an SNG which allows (if not encourages) this. The SNG discussion is underway [again], the RS issue can be handled at RSN if it's not resolved already, and all that's left is to address MASSCREATE/MEATBOT. Lugnuts is hardly the only person to manually mass create stubs based on data or a single source, and if our rules aren't clear I see no reason to hold Lugnuts alone accountable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Rhododendrites - I agree that Lugnuts should not be the only person held to account for this. For this reason we also have an AN discussion ongoing against Carlosuarrez46 for doing exactly the same thing (mass creation of GEOStubs based on dubious sourcing). Lugnuts actually knew about this case and was critical of Carlos. Yet he carried on doing exactly the same thing. I am currently having a conversation with Encyclopedius (ex Dr. Blofeld) to see if we can come up with a solution to the problem of the articles their algorithm created in 2008, but he at least appears co-operative and his mass-creation was stopped years ago. FOARP (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Note that there are also older creations (from January 2021 or thereabouts) for Turkish villages which use only another source, Yerelnet, e.g. at Karapınar, Gölhisar or at Kınık, İnegöl. Unfortunately, Yerelnet doesn't have any information on these villages at the moment, so these articles as well will need checking. There are more than 2000 articles referencing Yerelnet, but not all of them are creations by Lugnuts. A requirement for any further mass creations to follow the spirit of WP:MASSCREATION (no matter if these are created (semi-)automatically or purely manually but in a way indsitinguishable from automated ones) seems to be the minimum that is necessary here to minimize the chance of future similar problems. Fram (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support AfC restriction and/or removal of autopatrol mass creation of stubs of doubtful notability is not helpful to the encyclopedia. (t · c) buidhe 16:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment from passerby. Lugnuts's burden-shifting reply of "what evidence do you have that Koyumuz isn't reliable" above is not acceptable. If this source really is reliable, the article creator should be able to easily provide (or link to) an affirmative case for why it is reliable, same as any challenged source (especially if it's the sole source!). If Lugnuts genuinely isn't sure whether Koyumuz is reliable or not, then they should go through the AfC process like newbies do so that someone more experienced can check for them, and be willing to accept a potential "no, this isn't good enough" reply. Those are the only two options, so Lugnuts should pick one. SnowFire (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

It was a geninue response to the claim made by that editor. I could say X source isn't reliable for a source they've provided, and get slapped with "you're not WP:AGF!" in reply. The alternative, which I'm now working on, is to replace cites to Koyumuz. I've removed about 150 today alone. I'll work on the rest and have that down to zero. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

A) Even when there's true bad-faith hounding by an editor afoot, statements on a noticeboard have a wider audience, so just state the case for why you think the source is fine (potentially with some mild snark in cases of hounding, e.g. "as I wrote in our earlier discussion (link), this source is reliable because...") B) But it sounds like you accept that this source isn't actually good? So why the heck didn't you just say so above, back down, and thank the other editors for pointing this out to you rather than argue with them and imply they were acting just to spite you? This doesn't speak well of any editor's judgment. Do you plan on mass-creating more stubs in the future based off a single source? If you accept that you picked a bad source for these Turkish neighborhoods, do you have some way of assuring the community that you will pick better sources in the future, will run questionable sources past others before going on an article creation spree, and thus don't need a must-go-through-AFC restriction? SnowFire (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• 'Passer-by comment Mass creation of articles is a red flag for me. Cricketers who are otherwise not notable is another example from this editor and the resulting controversy rages on. I do not believe that each and every single village and populated centre created could possibly be notable enough for Wikipedia. Mass creation on the basis of one flimsy source doesn't sit right with me. Is to chase a prize? Is it to gain kudos or cache? Is it to look good? I would consider reviewing if mass creation is really something we should be allowing as a community.. doktorb _words^deeds 23:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • doktorb, "The consensus is that Lugnuts' creation of cricketer stubs is within existing guidelines." Drmies (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • There have been recent issues with stubs about plant species, and I had been thinking about starting a discussion at the Village Pump on this general issue when some of the specific incidents have cooled down. There seems to be more appetite for curbing mass creation of notable substubs than I thought. Perhaps the least disruptive way to do so would be to require >1 source for these mass creations. I think what's really objectionable is not that people create many stubs, but unless the single source is very high-quality, mass creation transfers a large number of systematic errors into the encyclopedia. Detecting and removing them requires much more effort than the original article creation. Imposing some level of manual reconciliation between disparate sources could curb the worst of it. Choess (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Further comment - One issue that has come out above is whether or not Lugnuts is creating these articles algorithmically. Lugnuts denies using "any bot, algorithm or tools" in creating them. I present the following data based on this search (as far as I can determine Lugnuts was the only editor creating articles cited to this source on these days) without further comment:

• Between 17:25 and 18:35 on 28 March 2021 Lugnuts created 44 articles in 70 minutes. Time per article = 95.5 seconds.
• Between 18:42 and 19:12 on 27 March 2021 Lugnuts created 19 articles in 30 minutes. Time per article = 94.7 seconds.
• Between 12:32 and 13:48 on 27 March 2021 Lugnuts created 46 articles in 76 minutes. Time per article = 99.1 seconds.
• Between 18:30 and 19:13 on 26 March 2021 Lugnuts created 31 articles in 43 minutes. Time per article = 83.2 seconds.
• Between 13:10 and 14:01 on 26 March 2021 Lugnuts created 38 articles in 51 minutes. Time per article = 80.3 seconds.
  FOARP (talk) 12:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

  It could be just copying and pasting manually almost the same text with the substitution of different names/numbers etc. Whereas functionally it is hardly different from semi- and automatic tools, it is not prohibited.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Yep, exactly that - copy & paste. The only variable that changes in the place name. Again, for FOARP's benefit, I'm not using any any bot, algorithm or tools to do this. If I was, then your data analysis would show the 500 per day that you claimed before (amongst several other erroneous claims you've made directly about me). I can do about 400 to 500 edits a day, let alone 500 brand new articles. Thanks for adding the timespans, again this shows human manual creation. I spend about an hour doing a batch, as your evidence shows, then I move onto something else. Again, if this was all magically automated, the timespans would be much longer. For each new article, I also link it to its page on Wikidata, and create redirect/dab pages for the first half of the placename as needed. And I've also been replacing links from the koyumuz site, doing about 200 in the past 24hrs. Obviously I wont be replacing that source if someone else has added it. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

It's possible (though I note that there is relatively little variation in the time taken). But then isn't that basically WP:MEATBOT behaviour? FOARP (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

PS - also can I point out that, in spite of everything they said above about fixing things, Lugnuts is still creating these articles right now based on a bare link to a government website that does not appear to mention the "neighbourhood" they are writing about. I saw this article (and many others) just pop up at the WP:NPP feed, each with the green tick that indicates the user is auto-patrolled so no-one needs to check it. FOARP (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the "Muhtarliklar" tab on that page, but there's no way to link directly to the tab. It's number 61 on that page; the same place as http://www.geonames.org/745238/incecay.html. All villages in Erzurum Province are under "mahalle" ("neighbourhood") instead of "köy" in the census. Peter James (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

(ec)While I don't think creating new ones is a particularly good idea while there are still thousands of old ones that need cleaning, in the cases I looked at the neighborhood is mentioned in the linked source, it just isn't obvious: when you go to this, to the right of the map you'll see "Belediyeler (1)". To the right of this, in very pale grey, you can click on "Muhtarliklar (71)", and then a scrollable list of neighnorhoods appears. So this at least verifies their existence from a reliable source. Fram (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

A link to a government website that tells you the name of the neighbourhood and literally nothing else at all about it. WP:GEOLAND explicitly says "This guideline specifically excludes maps and tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject", and it might as well be talking about this source. FOARP (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

They don't establish notability, but they verify that the places have the presumed notability of WP:GEOLAND. Peter James (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Where does the source state that these are "Populated, legally recognized places"? The guide specifically says don't use sources like this and gives a reason why ("these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject") that is both valid and definitely applies to this source, which is nothing more than a labelled map. FOARP (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that simply appearing in a list meets the verifiability burden for WP:GEOLAND. We've had several instances where that assumption caused problems because an editor misunderstood the scope or purpose of the source and created thousands of articles that turned out to be GEOFAILS.

In any case, none of this guarantees a standalone article. WP:PAGEDECIDE explains that some information is better covered as part of a larger article; common sense would suggest that these "X is a village in Y district" articles could be a simple list within the district article until they can be expanded beyond stub stage. –dlthewave ☎ 16:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Just as a note - there are 35,000 EDIT:50,305 (thanks Peter) Mahelle/Köy (neighbourhoods/villages) in Turkey as a whole. Is the proposal really that we have an article for every single one of them that is a one-sentence permastub containing no real information? FOARP (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

This is really quite a larger issue than ANI. Do we need individual articles for every cricketer, every footballer, every village? Or would they be better covered in a list? I'd lean towards the latter (though I think I might be a bit biased here - I'm sure others wouldn't see the utility of 2020 Wyoming Democratic presidential caucuses). Elli (talk | contribs) 17:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• comment As someone who has dealt with several rounds of these geo-stubs, I am firmly opposed to any mass creation of them. There is simply too much work involved in verifying them, and too many problems are turned up in the verification. Mangoe (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. As a DABfixer, I find such permastubs almost useless, but would find "List of populated places in X district" articles very helpful. An editor has recently been creating well-sourced stubs about Ancient Greek archeological sites in modern Turkey. They helpfully contain coordinates, but less helpfully say "near the modern village of Y". After looking in vain at the enwiki DAB page and its trwiki equivalent (if any), where few if any of the articles have coordinates, I resort to Google Maps. Very often, none of the nearby villages has an article anywhere, and it can be a 10-20 minute struggle to determine the province let alone the district to create a redlink. Entries can always be split out of lists if there's something worth saying. Narky Blert (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I had brought up the mass creation and the apparent unreliability of the source used at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey#Mass creation of village articles on 24 March. Lugnuts did not reply. Unrelated to that, two months ago I asked them to stop creating placeholder disambiguation talk pages, and I wasn't the only one to do so. That time Lugnuts did respond, but with a bizarre excuse to ignore the existing consensus that such pages shouldn't be created. If I could extrapolate from these two incidents, it appears that Lugnuts is on a mission to create as many pages as humanely possible, and when people point out problems with each endeavour, Lugnuts ignores them until the moment it blows up big at ANI. If that's the case, then this pattern definitely needs to change. Lugnuts, if there's a big inheritance waiting for you on the condition that you create 100,000 articles here, then you should come clean and the community may actually be able to help you get there in a way that doesn't involve drama.
  As for the Turkish village articles, the people with topical expertise who have commented above believe them to be notable. If that's the case, then I believe the best course of action is to locate a water-tight source of data, and then get a bot to build short articles out of that, overwriting any existing content in those microstubs. That way the unreliable sources will be replaced by reliable ones, the articles will likely get expanded with some additional information (I'm hoping for coordinates, postal codes, historic populations, etc.), and the navigational infrastructure build by Lugnuts (redirects, dab entries, wikidata links) will be preserved. – Uanfala (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

  With the tracking category that was recently added to Template:WikiProject Disambiguation there is now a good reason to create the talk pages with that template. Peter James (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I get what's going on. The talk page post about the tracking category leaves the impression it is part of a test for an unrelated module. How does that affect the (lack of) need for placeholder dab talk pages? – Uanfala (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

  Category:Disambiguation pages not detected by Module:Disambiguation. It doesn't detect set index articles, or some redirects such as Template:Roaddis, but it's likely that they will be added eventually. There is Filter 837 but it only tags edits by new users. Peter James (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

  I wrote above that Lugnuts doesn't seem able to stop unless it all blows up big at ANI, but apparently even it all blowing up big at ANI isn't enough – they created another 60 microstubs just yesterday. It doesn't seem like anything short of a community sanction could help now. If there's any ban from (mass) creation, it shouldn't be restricted to articles, as that will likely only displace the problematic activities into other namespaces. – Uanfala (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Uanfala - I've asked this over at the Reviewer talk page but maybe someone here knows the answer: is it allowed/good practice to review your own articles? Every single one of these thousands of Koyumuz-sourced articles was self-reviewed by Lugnuts as OK. FOARP (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts has the autopatrol right, articles created by users with this right don't need reviewing. (If you intended to ping me above, that didn't work: a ping gets sent if you link a user's page, but not if you link their user talk.) – Uanfala (talk) 13:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Uanfala, and yeah, sorry about the bad ping! I hadn't known that Autopatrolled also came with the right to pop a review on the talk page. FOARP (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you referring to the creation of talk pages with project banners? Everybody's allowed to do that, and in fact, creators are encouraged to do that too. "Reviewing" in this context refers to the activity of WP:NPP, and unless I'm mistaken boils down to marking an article as reviewed in the Page curation log. Creations by autopatrolled editors are exempt from the need for this type of review. – Uanfala (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (Lugnuts mass-creation)

• Further comment. Since somehow Lugnuts is still at this creation of substubs... I think User:Dlthewave had the right idea - redirect these and create village lists in the district-level article ([140] ). If Lugnuts wants to add this data, fantastic, it can be some form of table that includes more than just a name at the already-quite-short district level articles (sure, throw in Lat/Long, population, whatever in the table too). But since Lugnuts reverted Dlthewave instead ([141]), this may somehow have come to the point of requiring actual community sanction + administrator attention, which would be ridiculous since adding information on this is great, just... not in the form of tens of thousands of stubs, but rather content for hundreds of district articles. Of course, the best and easiest solution would be for Lugnuts to simply agree and at least start with expanding the district level articles, but since he seems to be ignoring this conversation... SnowFire (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

  The pages were redirected to the town (which is only a small part of the district by area and population) because there is no separate article for the district. Redirect them and they are less likely to be expanded within the list. Also the links should go to the places not to the districts they are in. Peter James (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's be clear about this: there is no chance that the overwhelming majority of these units (50,000+!) will ever be expanded from the single-sentence micro-stubs that they are being created as. So, either we just say "OK, let her rip" to the creation of 50,000 or so permastubs by WP:MEATBOT copy/pasting (and can you see a consensus for doing so here?), or we actually write proper articles about the ones that are actually notable and write district articles with lists including the ones that aren't. FOARP (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

You're really selling Wikipedia short and not taking cognizance of the timeframes involved. Most of them will eventually become full articles. People take pride in where they live and it natural for them to want to expand the article when they see it on Wikipedia. It is a kind of latch, that they see and stuff gets added. I've seen it time and time again, the most obscure places becoming quite well known. The dataset used may be from the government. In the UK for example, geographic data comes from one only outfit, it may be the case in Turkey. scope_creep^Talk 12:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, but the vast majority of these places contain less than 100 people. versacespaceleave a message! 11:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no geographic information attached to the article. That is a major component that missing for 88000 articles. If a dataset could be sought, it could be added by a bot. Even the Turkish equivalent article doesn't have the coords. scope_creep^Talk 13:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd add that if the lists were created first, then it would be very logical to mass-create the redirects to that list for all the named entries, or expand the appropriate disambiguation pages. These names are still potential search terms, and by at least directing a user to the larger geoland entity that includes them, that's reasonable and still fulfills WP's function as a gazetteer. --Masem (t) 14:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not encyclopedic in the slightest, it is statistical errata. No different than Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#A_complaint_about_Fram (which isn't actually about admin Fram despite the title) above, yet one gets a block for WP:CIR, while the other here gets defenders. ValarianB (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Clearly different - that was not only about content, and where it was, it was about articles containing information that was not supported by the sources, this is about reliability of sources. Peter James (talk) Peter James (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support removal of autopatrolled, creation restriction, and apparently a block, too; can't believe Lugnuts is still mass creating articles while these threads are open. I can't wrap my head around the idea of someone who can't refrain from mass creation even for a week. Levivich ^harass/_hound 14:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal of auto patrolled rights and a topic ban on creating any new articles. I politely suggested to Lugnuts that they cease creating new and questionable stubs whilst this discussion was ongoing - they have ignored me (and others here) and continue to do so. As such this is the only option - well, that or a block. GiantSnowman 14:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Well I've addressed the original issue, and have begun to replace the unreilable source. I haven't created any more of these today, although everything I have done is clearly within the spirit of the guidelines for populated places, and per point 1 of WP:5P. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts, I am basically on your side and would oppose sanctions, but I think it would be a helpful show of good faith if you were to cease stub creation while people try to figure out the proper approach here. I think you're within the spirit of the guidelines, but guidelines can change. Just a thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't created any of these stubs in the past <24 hrs or so (although I'm sure someone will say I created X location 22hrs and 55 mins ago...). I've assumed a lot of good faith from the OP's concerns, despite the two of us not seeing eye to eye. The original issue being about the reliabilty of the koyumuz source. I updated a whole batch of them earlier today, and I've said I'll work through the rest. And if I'd gone and created 10,000 taxonomy stubs, I'd probably have a talkpage full of barnstars, along with a Knighthood... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

If those first replies were assuming good faith, I'ld hate to see you assume bad faith with anyone. Fram (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is the article creation log just in the time since this thread opened. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

That link shows that Lugnuts has created 12 stubs today alone...the fact they cannot differentiate between "those stubs" and all stubs is concerning. You cannot simply move to begin stubs about Swedish actors when somebody raises concerns about your stubs on Turkish neighbourhoods! GiantSnowman 16:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I, for one, volunteer to hand Lugnuts a barnstar for his talk page if he merely creates hundreds of list articles or otherwise expands content at the district level, with the exact same information if it's reliably sourced, rather than tens of thousands of microstubs. SnowFire (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support removal of auto-patrolled rights and some sort of limit on article creation for a time period (ideally it should be voluntarily. This will give them time to properly research their article creations and will save other people's time). Lugnuts has created more than 88,000 articles, many WP:KITTENS (for me they are already enough), but watchlisting them by a single user is simply unmanageable (a nightmare). Because of overwork (possibly burnout), they behave rudely to colleagues which is not good for them as it is evident from their block log. I hope they will come strong after the limit agreed by them and will continue to benefit Wikipedia. Störm (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support I proposed the loss of auto-patrolled rights at the last ANI thread which I started just last week on cricket articles, but apparently it's fine to mass-create cricket stubs. WP:GEOLAND is interesting, because we do want to catalogue populated places, and is probably part of the project where stubs are most welcome. However, as Mangoe said, we have to be very careful when we create these pages - US place cleanup continues and is very difficult, while article creation takes 90 seconds and is very easy. I strongly support requiring an AfC restriction and a restriction on the number of articles they can create in a day, and specifically the loss of auto-patrolled status as I suggested last week. SportingFlyer T·C 15:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support Some sort of strict numerical restriction. The mass-creation of Turkish places (and cricketers, and Olympic competitors, etc) would fall under WP:MASSCREATION and there is not approval for this methodically templated creation. Even if these small Turkish villages exist, it is concerning that the source used is such low quality, and thousands of substubs is inconsistent with community desires. The cricket creations continue to violate WP:SPORTCRIT: "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases." and "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline." Reywas92^Talk 17:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

There's no point to this anymore. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• (EC) Support removal of autopatrolled rights and sanctions on article creation. I'll copy-paste my comment in the Lugnuts cricket stubs thread: *Comment. I am 1000% on board with limiting mass creation of poorly-sourced BLP stubs that overwhelmingly fail at AfD (...shouldn't everyone be?). I get that articles don't need to demonstrate notability when they're first moved to mainspace, and that meeting a guideline that presumes GNG is technically fine, but come on -- if an experienced editor continues a behavior that they know is burdening the community and is genuinely considered disruptive by many, shouldn't that warrant some kind of warning? Or at least the editor's agreement to compromise or even acknowledge the problem? And I think it's just a little hypocritical to support equivalent sanctions on JPL (where there isn't even a BLP issue) using essentially identical arguments to the ones here (e.g., dozens of low-effort boilerplate contributions in a short amount of time, poor AfD track record, etc.). While I'd be disinclined to support sanctions in this case (for the same reasons people opposed them for JPL), perhaps it's worth considering something along the lines of the voluntary concessions JPL made in those most recent threads. Please also ping me whenever someone makes the proposal Levivich suggested. JoelleJay (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not going to revert the hatting of the discussion, but this should be properly closed so it gets archived. SportingFlyer T·C 00:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Break after re-opening

• I've reopened the discussion per WP:BADNAC and WP:NACEXP. It is technically not appropriate for a non-admin to force-close and collapse an entire discussion as "pointless", in which there is a potential developing consensus to revoke a user right or impose another sanction. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  Entirely independently of the virtue of reopening, reopening per BADNAC seems...insensitive considering why the close happened. Closing and hatting was the only appropriate move, for anyone, at the time. Creating an incentive system where people (regardless of mops) are encouraged to leave open conversations that have had potentially horrific consequences for the people at the wrong end of them, in defiance of decency to one's fellow man, is much worse than making a close that will eventually be reversed. (We are lucky this close is reversed; it is the best of all possible outcomes.) Vaticidalprophet 04:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC) context: diff with the exact wording I objected to (very big diff, it's the last section), as Swarm softened his wording after my comment Vaticidalprophet 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  Agree with your take. I have no intent to drag the closer, but it's now a week later and the close was technically improper and the discussion is in need of a formal closure as to the merits of the community's discussion, and more feedback if necessary. I have softened my wording a bit. However the NAC sections I've referenced are not meant to be some sort of condescension, they're merely the relevant principles as to why the close needs to be replaced with a formal one. My intent was to articulate a technical reasoning for reopening the discussion without prompting a rehashing of the previous closure. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• The situation is still the same - Lugnuts continues to create these stubs, albeit at a reduced rate, and in order to try to sway the outcome of an AFD regarding them engaged in WP:CANVASSing of sympathetic editors (see above report for difs) and has been uncivil to the AFD nom EDIT: and to me. Despite what they say, they simply have not learned their lesson which was not only about the bad sourcing they used initially, but about the bad source (a map/table excluded by WP:GEOLAND) they were using as a replacement. Agree that the hatting, given what was known at the time, was the best course of action - this is why no-one challenged it at the time. We were all concerned for Lugnuts well-being. I think, though, that we can now look at what has happened since and see events in a new light. FOARP (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Still in denial, I see - WP:6MILLION is yet another case of the community dredging up that Jimbo quote about "the sum of all human knowledge" to promote a dubious accomplishment. What does that really mean? One news article regurgitating the WMF's press release about this milestone also stated that a realistic sum of all human knowledge compromises 104 million articles. In other words, in twenty-plus years, this community has only accomplished a minute fraction of the total goal. Every time I view my watchlist, I see the reason why. Certain people show that they have tons of time for Wikipedia but are only interested in hiding out in project space, waiting for the next opportunity to pounce on someone for having the temerity to actually contribute encyclopedic content. I remember one discussion with an admin a decade ago about working towards achieving a realistic sum of all human knowledge in a particular topic area, which went nowhere because it was "too ambitious" in his opinion. In other words, in the admin view of things, we'll keep selling six million articles as "the sum of all human knowledge" because the readership will obediently accept whatever shit we shovel. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 08:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  RadioKAOS, I'm not sure that this is entirely helpful. This isn't about stopping someone from contributing encyclopedic content, this is about the very real risk that articles created using dubious sources might contain mistakes, or may even be entirely erroneous, and the simple fact that if thousands of articles are created very rapidly we have no capacity to check them for those errors. The case below demonstrates what I'm talking about - it after more than half an hour's investigation, I cannot satisfy myself that the subject of the article exists. I don't know what proportion of these articles would be similar - that's the only one I've looked at in any depth - but there is a problem here that goes beyond people looking to jump on someone.

  That being said, I'm gratified that Lugnuts has acknowledged that there may be an issue below, and I'm looking forward to hearing more on what they think. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  People may disagree on the benefit to the encyclopedia of creating several thousand articles whose content entirely consists of the sentence X is a neighbourhood in Y District of Z Province. However, people shouldn't have disagreements on the need for this content, however minimal, to be accurate. And inaccuracies are almost inevitable when an editor mass-creates content using sources in a language they have no knowledge of. Even a statement as simple as X is a neighbourhood is misleading, as the word "neighbourhood" is only one of several possible translations of the Turkish mahalle, and here it appears that those places are not neighbourhoods but villages or hamlets. – Uanfala (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  Couldn't have said it better myself. versacespaceleave a message! 13:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lugnuts An editor openly bragging this much about creating nearly a hundred thousand articles might be making articles for the wrong reason. Wikipedia is not a game where you get a high score. 2001:4898:80E8:7:107:A8F3:D47E:3DD9 (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi. The initial concern was the creation of populated places articles using an unreilable source. That has been recognised by myself, and I'm working through replacing said source. I think the original stats were 4,000+ articles with that source, the number is now just over 3,000. IE I've updated 1,000+ articles since the issue was flagged up. That's it. ONE mistake with a source, which is now being fixed. Everything I create is to the letter/spirit of the relevant notability guidelines/policy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Lugnuts, I'm new to this issue. FOARP has flagged up Yeni, Tavas, which you created on Monday. Now, I don't speak Turkish, but when I click on the source, I see a map labelled Tavas Kaymakamlığı, and a table headed Tavas Belediyesi. Searching for the word 'Yeni' didn't give me any results, and I spent a small amount of time zooming in and out of the map and panning around, looking for the word Yeni anywhere on it, but I couldn't find it. Maybe I'm missing something, can you explain how the source supports the content of the article? GirthSummit _(blether) 08:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: - thanks for this. If you click on the source, there's a link on the right (sort of grey'd out, but clickable) with the heading "Mutarliklar". Yeni is at the foot of that panel. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts, ah, OK gotcha. So, I can see that it's listed as 47, which seems to have no coordinates related to it so the map component is putting it at 0°0° off the African coast. I'm assuming that Mutarliklar means village? (Google translate gives me nothing). GirthSummit _(blether) 08:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I believe Muhtarliklar is an elongated term for Muhtar, which is head/leader of the local area. The URL has the term "mahalli-idareler" contained within it, which translates as "local administrations", and that is also the title of the third drop-down menu along the top of the page. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts, can we be sure from this then that there is really a village of this name? Might it not be some other sort of administration? I mean, I spent quite a bit of time looking over that map and couldn't find it (but I did find a lake called Yenidere Baraj Golu, which has got the word Yeni in it - that was the closest I could get). I can see why there might be a concern that we are making assumptions here. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeni just means "new" in Turkish, there are plenty of places / objects containing "yeni" in the name--Ymblanter (talk) 09:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I tried a Google Maps search for Yeni in that area (like this). It is giving me lots of places called Yeni nearby, one of which seems to be a subdivision of Denizli, others seem to be parts of smaller towns and villages, others are shops and so on. None of them seem to be in the Tavas District. Lugnuts, I am really not looking to give you a hard time, but I don't see how that source verifies the existence of the subject, or the information which is in the article about it. I've spent half an hour on this now, and I'm not convinced that the village exists. Can you see why people might be concerned about creations like this, if done on mass? ​GirthSummit _(blether) 09:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

No, I do see your point, and that's why I've stopped creating these places. But leave this one with me, I'll ask for further input about this specific place. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I've asked a couple of users for more input, and they were unable to find anything more about this one location. I think it's sod's law that one was chosen! Now I created that in good faith, based on the source from the Turkish gov. site. The .tr article is also pretty weak in this case, unlike the vast majority of places I created. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts, thanks for looking into this in more detail. I don't doubt for a moment that you created it in good faith, and I think that the speculation as to your motivations for creating thousands of articles are entirely inappropriate: we all edit here for our own purposes. Some people like getting barnstars, some people keep an eye on their number of edits, others compete in the Wikicup. If someone wants to top a particular list, that's entirely their own business - what matters is whether what they're doing is disruptive.

Having said that - it might be a case of sod's law, but I don't think that any article should be written in the way you did here. That source could be used to support an assertion that person X is the administrator of such and such a locale; while we can infer from that that such a locale exists, we can't say whether it's a village, a rural district, a subdivision of a town, or a proposed shopping complex that hasn't been built yet. Creating articles based on an inference with no additional sources seems intrinsically risky to me; errors like this are bound to occur, and the effort involved in verifying each and every one of thousands of articles is excessive. At a minimum, I think you ought to undertake not to create any more articles where the source implies that a subject exists but gives no more information about it. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks GS. Agreed, and I've stopped creating these now. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Not one mistake though. Before you created 4000+ articles with that bad source, you created a 1000 or so(?) other Turkish villages sourced to equally problematic Yerelnet, as was mentioned already in the above discussion. Fram (talk) 08:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

And call me old fashioned, but 5,000 bad articles is 5,000 mistakes. This is especially the case when, in all likelihood, someone will have to PROD/AFD/redirect them one-by-one in the face of being asked to satisfy WP:BEFORE on every single one of them. FOARP (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• I had written a small note to Lugnuts after they returned, expressing regret that they seemed to be caught in the middle of a larger dispute over mass stub creation. Their response after I nominated some of the stubs for deletion was "So this is quite obviously bullshit"[142], which leads me to question whether they're capable of distinguishing between a content dispute and a personal attack. This seems to be reinforced by a similar attitude from several other editors who view these nominations as some sort of attack on Lugnuts. I don't recall interacting with any of these editors previously, yet simply nominating articles for deletion was enough to trigger this:

• Rugbyfan22: Canvassing at Wikiproject Cricket - "Hi guys, we've got 10 new AfDs which just appear to be an attack on Lugnuts' articles. The one with the fewest games has played 25 games for example. Please can people take a look at them when they have time. Thanks." [143]; apparently it's inappropriate to send Lugnuts' Cricket stubs to AfD because of consensus at ANI - "The attack on Lugnuts is weird as well given the cricket related ANI closed with the consensus that he was editing within the current guidelines, which have yet to change, so there is nothing wrong with any of the articles at AfD." [144].
• Joseph2302: "These seem like bad faith nominations, especially when coupled with loads of deletions of Turkish places (also created by Lugnuts). Seems like a deletionist who's been reading ANI too much. [145]; "This editing pattern would suggest a vendetta against Lugnuts, and you seem to be jumping on the anti-Lugnuts bandwagon from the stupid ANI threads people keep raising." [146]. When I asked them to strike these personal attacks, the response was a talk page ban because "I don't like your deletionist attitude." [147].
• No Great Shaker: "As Joseph says, there is for some reason an anti-Lugnuts bandwagon on the roll." [148]

I feel like a warning, at the very least, is in order here. There's certainly a lot of opinions on mass-creation and we're not all going to agree on everything, but it really doesn't seem appropriate to accuse editors you disagree with of jumping on an anti-Lugnuts bandwagon. –dlthewave ☎ 17:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, there was an ANI previously on Lugnuts' cricket stub creations. That was closed with the view that Lugnuts was not doing any wrong because he was operating within the guidelines, which haven't changed. The 10 cricket articles that wen't to AfD were perfectly within the guidelines for creation, and all of them had played multiple games. No WP:BEFORE search had been properly done on these articles as it was very easy on some of them to find GNG material. Basically Lugnuts did nothing wrong (in terms of his cricket editing) and you just decided that his articles weren't acceptable and should be deleted. Seems like an attack to me. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Nomination of those articles was out of order and entirely based on "don't like it". No Great Shaker (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The consensus of that discussion was that he is allowed to mass-create those stub articles, not that they can't be taken to AfD. versacespaceleave a message! 18:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, but no proper WP:BEFORE search was done on the articles as sources were found in a simple search for them. There was also suitable redirects for some of them that could have been used but ignored. I find it strange that a user that has never edited on cricket articles before, and not really on sport before, would suddenly list 10 AfDs in a matter of minutes on a subject they're not usually involved in. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The consensus of that discussion was skewed by the fact many of the "opposes" were directly connected to the cricket WikiProject. SportingFlyer T·C 18:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

That was likely because it was directly related to cricket and about cricket stubs. There was still a consensus and the view that proposals were to be discussed at NSPORTS, which is what's happening. But the current view is that Lugnuts' cricket articles are fine until the guidelines change, I have no idea whether his village ones are notable and am not knowledgable in that area though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps, but this is the exact same issue as cricket - only the topic has changed. SportingFlyer T·C 20:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I see it as slightly different, the Turkish villages issue was due to whether the source was reliable wasn't it, whereas the cricket one has been due to a sourcing to a statistical database. The closing of the cricket one led to the opening of the NSPORTS discussion so the closer clearly believed that although Lugnuts actions were fine, he also took into consideration the arguments about his stubs. If there's a change in the guidelines meaning he has to link to a GNG source then fine, but as the guideline has yet to change these AfDs were jumping the gun. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Which AfDs were jumping the gun? Neither the cricket articles nor the geography articles clearly pass notability guidelines on their face. SportingFlyer T·C 15:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

That is so messed up. Are they even allowed to do that? versacespaceleave a message! 18:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Remarkable given you made this comment at AfD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

SportingFlyer mm...is making thousands upon thousands of permanent stub articles to make it to the top of this list not wretched? versacespaceleave a message! 20:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@VersaceSpace: I have no idea why you pinged me specifically, but your remark is pretty clearly WP:UNCIVIL. SportingFlyer T·C 20:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Is it wretched or not? And I clarified what I meant by the statement right next to that statement. versacespaceleave a message! 21:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: ahhh i pinged the wrong person. meant to ping Rugbyfan22. the latter statement is still directed to sporting.. versacespaceleave a message! 21:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

It's clearly WP:UNCIVIL behaviour. You could have also hidden or removed the comment when you made your apology but you've decided to leave it there at the top of the discussion. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rugbyfan22: If you felt there was a conduct issue on my part, why did you think it best to post at a Wikiproject instead of, say, ANI? Did it cross your mind that this may be percieved as canvassing? –dlthewave ☎ 01:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I decided as it was the first time you were involved in AfDs like this that at the time it didn't warrant taking any further. I messaged you on your talk page about the quantity of AfDs, and since there haven't been anymore. I then discussed CRICKET AfDs on the CRICKET WikiProject with other cricket editors (who are likely to be interested in them, especially due to the number of AfDs we're getting at the moment). Given they will all be listed on the project anyway in the task box, i'm not sure it's canvassing. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment since this was re-opened. I was just a random passerby on ANI and had zero stake in the outcome, and am a random passerby once more. But... "The initial concern was the creation of populated places articles using an unreilable source" from Lugnuts - this is not the case, okay? There were multiple concerns raised, of which unreliable source was just one. This is a fundamental matter of content organization afoot here as well. Lugnuts, as I said before, it's great that you want to add this information, but adding it over literally tens of thousands of one-sentence stubs is not the way it should be added. It's impossible to maintain. If somebody vandalizes one of these articles, will you be paying attention to revert it? If you want to add this information, you can keep the exact same content in some sort of List of populated places in XYZ district that creates a section for each one. Wouldn't it be simpler to defuse this whole debate by just doing it that way, as multiple editors have requested above? You've still done your good deed of adding the exact same information to Wikipedia, it will still be inviting for others to expand on, it will be marginally maintainable. I find it baffling that this debate has continued when such an easy, obvious fix exists - "both sides" should be happy. SnowFire (talk) 05:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

"If somebody vandalizes one of these articles, will you be paying attention to revert it?" - Yes. Everything I create is on my watchlist. It's a very weak case to say "don't create it, someone might vandalise it!" Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• There are a lot of people complaining because they don't like Lugnuts or the topics of his article creations. I see only one issue that would justify administrative action: Lugnuts creating articles faster than they can be discussed at AFD. If Lugnuts slows down page creations substantially, ensures multiple non-database references for creations, or gets prior affirmative consensus to pre-empt AFD threads, there shouldn't be any issue. If Lugnuts cannot do any of those, a per-day article creation limit will be needed. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• There was a point at time where article creation was occurring faster than they could be discussed at AfD, and that point in time was as recent as the day this thread was closed. Lugnuts continues to create articles at a rapid clip, too, albeit not as quickly as they were - today, they've created seven articles, including two cricket stubs sourced only to CricInfo that will probably have to go to AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 17:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Policy for creating stubs

Is there are any interest in drafting a policy which would determine when standalone stubs of locations are allowed, and when they must be bundled into lists? Does anybody knows whether such a policy has been attempted, and whether it is an evergreen proposal? Pinging @Iridescent: who might know this.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, list vs standalone articles is a very broad scope questions; I am now only talking about localities (which I guess has at least some chances to be considered seriously).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• We've been discussing this here: Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)#Mass-created village/neighbourhood Geostubs. FOARP (talk) 09:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Rangeblock for Ottawa music vandal again

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

---

• 2607:FEA8:BD41:0:0:0:0:0/46 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• March 2021: Challenging rangeblock for Ottawa music vandal

Again we have long-term abuse, hoaxing and vandalism from multiple Ottawa IPs, discussed last month, resulting in one IP blocked. The /46 has been active lately with vandalism in music articles. Isn't it time for a rangeblock? Binksternet (talk) 06:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I support this request. Not doing this myself because I have no idea how many Ips would be affected.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I blocked the range for a month based on this report and the fact that the 52 edits made in 2021 have almost all been reverted. Johnuniq (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing and Edit-warring by User:Strawberryseed08

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

---

Strawberryseed08 has been disrupting the List of best-selling music artists for days now by adding non-existent certifications. Despite all the warning on the user's talk page, he/she continue edit-warring and disruptions. I suspect this account is being operated by the same user as User:Никита-Родин-2002, which is the person who's been disrupting The Police related pages for years now. I have also opened up sockpuppet investigation, but admins there haven't gotten to it yet.--Harout72 (talk) 08:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Harout72, there's a big backlog at SPI. I've blocked as a duck and endorsed to look for sleepers. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Problems with User:Neverrainy

User:Neverrainy is someone who’ve I had trouble with before back when I used to focus on editing video game pages. He recently went onto a set of Game Show pages that I edited to follow infobox rules and changed them all back without an edit summary. His edits were adding modern distributors rather than the ones that existed during the show's air dates and removing the BBC as a production company, although unlike most broadcasters they do indeed produce shows in-house.

I then reverted them back and sent him a talk page message asking why he did so and included all of this. But he deleted it instead and reverted back his edits with the vague “No it’s not”. I tried again on his talk page, asking him to look at the infobox to show what I said was true, but once again he deleted it without an edit summary.

I would need some help with this person, and I’ve noticed he’s been blocked a small number of times for unsourced information, and from this I don’t think he’s even listening to any advice or criticism he gets given. I will need some help with this situation. Luigitehplumber (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Pinging NinjaRobotPirate who did the last block for "unsourced content". He's had two, and this sounds similar. The fact that he would just delete your two talk page posts, which were polite and proper, and not comment or use a summary, starts to sound like WP:Tendentious editing. Perhaps they will come here an explain, as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't really remember specifics about the previous block, but this does seem pretty tendentious. It looks like Neverrainy was previously removing citations and adding unsourced content. This is fairly common on pop culture topics because everyone is a subject matter expert on pop culture. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@LTPHarry: You are required to notify an editor regarding a discussion you start on this board regarding their editing. I've done so for you here. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Some context as another admin who has blocked/monitored Neverrainy over the years. Neverrainy rarely communicates and focuses on gnoming tasks related to templates and infoboxes. It can be difficult, but is possible, to get through to him regarding changes or misunderstanding he has on template/infobox documentation. Once he gets it though, he runs with it and applies it. Further context: I've long monitored LTPHarry as well as an editor who has operated in similar fashion to Neverrainy, and has required a lot of guidance in years past about proper use of infobox fields, such as misusing fields in Infobox company and Infobox video game. What I'm seeing here in this case is that the only guidance {{Infobox television}} gives for the Distributor field is "the original companies". I see a lot of the back and forth here is that LTPHarry is adding Company and Distributor to show infoboxes (apparently without any obvious sourcing) and Neverrainy subsequently removes it again (In response to his talkpage, saying it's "against wikipedia policy", which if he means WP:V could be true, but if he means the infobox doc is wrong). Both editors need to adjust what they are doing here. -- ferret (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • On regards to that, I am really strict on what the infobox rules say, so if it says "original distributor" and not "current distributor", then I go for that. Luigitehplumber (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    • But that doesn't seem to be what is happening here? In the set of reverts I reviewed, Neverrainy wasn't adding distributors at all (original or modern), he was removing it after you recently added them without any sourcing. Perhaps you need to provide some explicit diffs so we're all reviewing the same issues? For example, are you talking about a case like Special:Diff/1016167055? You were the one that added both the original AND current distributor, so the wrongness of the edit started with you. Neverrainy might not have been correct in removing the original and leaving the current, but it began with your edit. How about Special:Diff/1016405817 this one? Why did you add the "current" production and distribution companies? -- ferret (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
      • So, as for that... The show currently still airs, and BBC Scotland co-produced the series starting in 2010 until the BBC cancelled it and Channel 5 got the rights, this was already there to begin with. As for my additions, 12 Yard traded as a joint-venture company before ITV purchased them in 2007 and so they solely owned the IP and copyright. Now, when it comes to their earlier shows that didn't last long, like Dirty Money, that was produced in 2002, when 12 Yard was first formed up, so ITV had no involvement with distribution back then. This is all of that done as how I refer to it. I won't be reverting or re-editing any pages he reverted from me until this situation is cleared out. Luigitehplumber (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
        • So where did you bother explaining any of this? I'm not convinced this explanation works with the infobox's directive of "original only, not current", but let's pretend it does. It's not in your edit notes. Your first message to Neverrainy at Special:Diff/1016405630 doesn't, in your edit to that at Special:Diff/1016407157 you add a little vague insulting that he doesn't understand infoboxes but give him no further rationale on why later subsequent companies are treated as "original", and in your final message at Special:Diff/1016575959 you ABF that he didn't read or check the infobox, again don't explain how/why subsequence companies would be "original", and use his block log as a threat. -- ferret (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
          • I'll be honest, maybe I did take what I said to him a little too much, but still. He doesn’t need to be blocked or anything, I just want him to know next time about what the infobox says, although he'll likely still delete my talk page posts to him.Luigitehplumber (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
            • Right so, that's kinda my point. Neverrainy's reverts, while not well communicated, are more inline with the infobox documentation than the edits you were making. You cannot tell him "The infobox says ONLY original" then complain when he reverts your edits that are listing multiple companies with sequential year ranges, which means ONE of them is non-original. I don't think he lacks understanding of the infobox at all. And I don't really want to defend his typical lack of communication either, he certainly has an issue there. But you've dragged him to ANI when he was, technically, correct. -- ferret (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
              • So, what should I do now? I do want to re-add everything, but he won’t take all of that and just turn it back to how he wanted it before. Luigitehplumber (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
                • But why would you re-add everything? You were putting non-original companies into those fields in many cases, and in all cases not providing any sourcing. His reverts are, for the most part, in line with Infobox Television and WP:V. This can probably continue elsewhere, on your talk page or if you want, mine. -- ferret (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
                  • Okay then, we'll finish this all now. Luigitehplumber (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

User:XiAdonis keeps reverting against consensus

On the article Rising sun flag, there has been a consensus by multiple editors to include in the introduction that the flag is controversial in parts of East Asia. XiAdonis refuses to accept this consensus, continuing to revert the article against the consensus. In particular, the user seems to think that adding another argument to the talk page after the discussion has run its full course is sufficient to set aside the consensus.

The user's talk page shows that this is not the first time the user has been disruptive on articles related to Japan. RisingStar (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Since XiAdonis has chosen to delete it from their talk page, I'm adding the diff of XiAdonis's talk page where User:Binksternet gave XiAdonis a final warning for being disruptive on another Japan-related article. RisingStar (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

There was no consensus against me, I presented my arguments which have gone unanswered for months, on the basis of stale discussion and due to no one being to assuage the concerns raised I decided to revert the page back to the stable version. XiAdonis (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

There was a consensus, and the article has been edited accordingly in January. That version is the stable version. I've taken care to address the feedback from other editors, but you did not provide any feedback besides giving arguments against the inclusion of the sentence in question, and I have addressed these arguments at length. Consensus does not mean that every single editor has to agree with the consensus. RisingStar (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

And now XiAdonis has the gall to revert again. RisingStar (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• comment Rather than edit war- since 3 to 2 is really not a clear consensus either way- the appropriate thing to do would be to stop editing and open an WP:RFC to get more eyes on this. Rather than continuing this super-slow and unproductive edit war. Just my two cents. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that there are not 2 editors against, as I addressed SLIMHANNYA's concern through my edits, but I will open an RFC. RisingStar (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from 176.221.121.64

• 176.221.121.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• What's in It for Me (Amy Diamond song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• This Is Me Now (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This IP has been constantly changing release dates without sources on the two articles listed above as well as several other articles, including removing an entire Release History section from Express (Christina Aguilera song) for no reason. They have been warned multiple times to stop. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 16:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Citation bot "fixing" non-deprecated parameters

Edits such as this fly in the face of stuff like Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RFC: Citation Style 1 parameter naming convention and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Closure_review_request_for_"Citation_Style_1_parameter_naming_convention"_RfC. Considering a similar task by Monkbot was suspended pending the outcome of that RfC, I strongly suggest someone do something about the bot until this non-consensus task can be deactivated. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Smith609: Your bot. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

He's abrogated responsibility for CB—he's edited once this year and his last 50 edits go back 13 months—someone else may have taken over the operation. Echoing @Kaldari and AManWithNoPlan:. ——Serial 17:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The edit in question is not cosmetic. It removed |ref=harv, thereby removing a redundant parameter and a tracking category. The RFC close linked above specifically says any editor should feel free to manually or semi-automatically change unhyphenated parameters into their hyphenated forms while they're doing something else on a page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The close is clearly challenged so please don't do any action based on that until it is resolved. Removing ref=harv doesn't change anything display wise, and anyway that does not justify changing the hyphenated parameters. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Speaking as BAG here, it has long been held that if there is a non-cosmetic edit made to a page, there is zero issue with other cosmetic edits being made at the same time. The RFC does not overturn this precedent. It has also been held that tracking parameters (and thus the removal/fixing of them) is not considered cosmetic. Primefac (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

As a way to test the bot, I ran it on this version of Geotextile, which has the empty unknown parameter |coauthors= and instances of |accessdate=. The bot conservatively refused to make any changes to the article. RandomCanadian, if you find an actual bug in this bot's behavior, there is a place to report it at the bot's talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended content

Output from the bot on Geotextile. Note that it recommended a list of changes and then decided not to take action. [19:07:50] Processing page 'Geotextile' — edit—history >Remedial work to prepare citations ~replaced with access-date (common mistakes list) ~replaced with access-date (common mistakes list) ~Renamed "last" -> "last1" ~Renamed "first" -> "first1" ~Unrecognised parameter accessdate ~replaced with access-date (common mistakes list) ~Unrecognised parameter accessdate ~replaced with access-date (common mistakes list) >Consult APIs to expand templates >Checking that DOI 10.1088/1468-6996/16/3/034605 is operational... DOI ok. >Using pubmed API to retrieve publication details: >Found match for pubmed identifier 27877792 >Using Zotero translation server to retrieve details from URLs. >Expand individual templates by API calls >Checking CrossRef database for doi. >Searching PubMed... nothing found. >Checking AdsAbs database no record retrieved. >Checking CrossRef database for doi. >Searching PubMed... no results. nothing found. >Checking AdsAbs database no record retrieved. >Checking CrossRef database for doi. >Searching PubMed... nothing found. >Checking AdsAbs database no record retrieved. >Remedial work to clean up templates >No changes required.

@Primefac: I may be mistaken here, but "accessdate" at the moment doesn't generate tracking parameters (you mean tracking categories?) and doesn't need fixing. "Cosmetic edits" are only allowed if they are considered genfixes, not whatever cosmetic edit one likes (e.g. changing whitespace in headers or in lists to your liking is not allowed in bot edits, even if you make other substantial edits at the same time). I wouldn't be allowed to change "access-date" to "accessdate" if I did an AWB run with something substantial in it (and rightly so), and there is no reason why the reverse would be acceptable either. So I don't see why you defend this edit, it doesn't seem to match the "allowed" parameters. Fram (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Bot continues doing this[149], even though it shouldn't according to its own documentation: both "accessdate" and "access-date" are in the CS1 whitelist[150]; which should guide the bot. The Github list they use[151] also doesn't seem to make this change. So why does it do this? No idea. If the bot owner isn't available, shutting down the bot until this is corrected may be wanted. Something like this is a purely cosmetic edit (removing one empty parameter plus converting lots of accessdates), which no bot should make. Fram (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

(non admin comment) I've had pointless changes of |accessdate= to |access-date= and similar turn up in my watchlist. It's a WP:TIMESINK to check them, even without spending time wondering "Why?" This is a WP:NOTBROKEN-like "fix". Narky Blert (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive and uncivil IP user, including vandalism

There is an IP editor whose main focus seems to be obsessively making sure that current UK MPs do not have unsourced DOBs, which has been an ongoing source of contention amongst some users who edit articles relating to British politics. Some of the user's edits in discussions, notably the one on the RS noticeboard, display a degree of unnecessary bad attitude. That discussion is a case in point. Their tone is quite snappy and curt, and was highlighted by another editor as "Trolling, abusive language."

I am assuming the multiple IP users are the same person, because they seem to edit similar articles and the IP address usually belongs to a Sky Broadband account in the North East of England or East London. The tone is usually similar, too. The editor recently left another snarky message at my Talk page.

I've raised their behaviour at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom page, with regard to the DOB issue. I don't agree with User:Bondegezou there, but at least their input has been somewhat polite; the latest comment by the IP editor seems to be challenging me as if trying to goad me into an argument. I am ignoring it. Their general attitude seems to be "I am right, you are wrong" ("trolling" perhaps being an accurate description).

If you see their edits to the article on Conservative MP Nigel Evans at the account below, they reverted two of my edits, simply writing that one was "not necessary" - when I added the Post-Nominals template to the intro of the article. They also reverted the edit in which I moved the arrest and trial of Evans to a new section, from his "Personal life" - I assume they objected to that, but in the process, also reverted a load of grammatical and formatting related edits I had made. I undid the reversions, noting "Only revert when necessary". That ended that dispute. See here.

The editor also reverted my edit to the article on Conservative MP Christian Wakeford - in this instance, I would assume they objected to me adding the DOB, although it was referenced (I've added a number of DOBs for MPs citing Politics.co.uk, which is presumably why they decided to raise the reliability of the source elsewhere: they are fiercely guarding the insertion of DOBs which don't meet their verifiability requirements, which I don't believe are as black-and-white as they insist). But again, the edit I made to this article also included a number of improvements to the formatting, grammar, structure of the text, so reverting it completely was unnecessary. I undid the reversion, and again that seemed to leave it. See here.

Their recent edit at the WikiProject page, however, highlighted to me an incident of vandalism. See this DIFF for Mike Hill, a former British Labour MP who has recently resigned, and will be facing legal proceedings, as the article notes: "He is due to face an employment tribunal later in the year relating to allegations of sexual harassment and victimisation."

This reversion appears to be replacing the word "politician" with "pervert" - it's tagged "reverted", but as well as a reversion, they also replaced that word. This vandalism was speedily reverted by a registered user. This kind of thing is clearly not on. Editors should not defame subjects or articles prior to legal proceedings - even if the accusations against Hill were upheld though, the language the IP editor used would be completely inappropriate.

Now, I know that interacting with other editors in a hostile manner may not be a serious violation of policies, but the IP user clearly has a pattern of being argumentative for the sake of it. They reverted my edits despite the edits in question including improvements so the articles conformed to the WP MOS.

I notice that one of their accounts has previously been blocked, although the decision was reversed.

I personally am inclined to agree with Alex, who suggested not removing the DOBs, but adding a "Better source needed or Citation needed template". In any case, the way the IP user has obsessively carried out the task of removing unsourced DOBs strikes me as overly fastidious; not only doing that, but then questioning the validity of the source. The user also seems somewhat partisan: protecting articles about Conservative MPs from being reorganised, and vandalising an article on a Labour MP. I think articles about currently serving politicians need a level of automatic protection, but that's another subject I guess.

The known IP user accounts:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:B416:3000:D435:A5A9:3725:34EA
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2a02:c7f:b416:3000:83f:be8:1cfb:39be
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2a02:c7f:b416:3000:318b:2630:294:1df2
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:B416:3000:5138:3B45:CB01:5B99
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:B416:3000:54C2:B625:37B3:FA9A
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:B416:3000:406C:FFD7:660:B013
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2a02:c7f:b416:3000:cd4c:9d2e:9149:ddd4

There are some common features of the IP accounts - chiefly, that it's a Sky Broadband account, and often located in Washington, Sunderland, United Kingdom. Some of the accounts have been located in East London, but I am sure they all relate to the same person.

I would appreciate some assistance from Administrators with this user. Their behaviour isn't helpful to Wikipedia overall, I feel.--TrottieTrue (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

As I was mentioned... If an editor is making sure that current UK MPs do not have unsourced DOBs, they should be thanked for their work as per WP:BLP, rather than being sanctioned. A lot of the above appears to be a content dispute that has been discussed at length elsewhere. The Mike Hill edit is vandalism, but it's not clear to me that that is the work of the same editor. There are some further examples of impoliteness: I'm not an admin, but they don't look like severe cases to me. If I see more of the same, I'll try to encourage more constructive engagement. Bondegezou (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

In my view, hastily removing all DOBs - assuming they come from a particular source - is unhelpful, and there seems to be a rather strict interpretation of the guidelines on BLP by many editors. From what I've seen, some editors are quite open to the idea of using so-called "primary sources" for a DOB. In any case, the way the IP user has gone about it, and reverted other edits for little or no reason, is what concerns me. And IMO, they shouldn't be "thanked" for policing the publication of information which has been made available (albeit in a roundabout way) by the UK Parliament website. I accepted their initial post on my Talk page about not using Companies House as a DOB source, but the editor in question has since appeared to have an obsessive fixation on this issue, and responds to myself and others in a rude, abrupt tone, as if they are in a position of authority. If you don't think the Mike Hill edit is the same editor, I suspect you're being overly generous. It isn't "clear", but hiding behind an IP address means such users can evade footprints of their activities being readily obvious. No, these aren't severe cases, but it isn't helpful for them to focus on one small part of WP Policy and resort to ad hominem attacks on me or others, either when discussing RS, or when another editor has merely pointed out that they aren't signing their posts. It points to the wider issues with unregistered users making edits.--TrottieTrue (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Some editors are entitled to be open to the idea of using so-called "primary sources" for a DOB. However until they change the policy at WP:BLPPRIMARY specifically prohibiting them, they don't have a leg to stand on. I've had plenty of experience with this IP editor. They initially starting out reverting any attempt to remove a dubious reference for the dates of birth of UK politicians. However when they realised that the reference was indeed dubious, and on multiple cases demonstrably incorrect, they stopped being disruptive and followed policy. FDW777 (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, yes, from what I've read, the IP editor's stance was originally the opposite - but in both cases, it sounds like they've been over-zealous. Once they have a position, they seem to stick religiously to it. WP policy isn't law, or permanently set in stone - the spirit of the project should be evolving discussion as things change. So questioning a policy shouldn't be dismissed with "they don't have a leg to stand on". But again, my complaints about this IP editor are being answered by an editor who, like the IP editor, has a strong position on removing the DOBs. I recall FDW777 reverting my inclusion of a DOB from Companies House on an MP's article. Both this user and Bondegezou miss the point, which is A) the IP editor's way of going about it is heavy-handed and counter-productive; B) they are uncivil; and C) their activity is often disruptive. It's as if once they learn a policy, they are then determined to police it. Not the most worthwhile contribution, IMO.--TrottieTrue (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Admin threatening to block me for attempting to get an article reassessed

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

---

Hi, @Ferret: threatened to block me for attempting to get the article League of Legends reassessed, which he claimed as "WP:DISRUPTIVE" ostensibly because the article had been a WP:FA recently. Looking at the users talk page it appears that users appear to be unsatisfied with this editor's blocks recently as well. I'd like to be able to request a re-evaluation without risk of my editing privileges being revoked.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Quite frankly, Prisencolin should probably be considered for one or more TBANs (from video games, at least) or CBAN. His attempt to GAR (Not FAR) this FA relates to his long history with the topic area, one that has constantly resulted in fancruft and unnecessary article forks, many contested and deleted at AFD, strange DELREV lawyering, etc. It'd take a while to compile all of it. The short answer is this article languished for a long time under his clear WP:OWNERSHIP, and another editor then took it to GA then FA. His repeated ANI topics of late relating to lists and categories in the ethnic spaces should also be reviewed again. As for the aspirations casted about "users appear to be unsatified" with my blocks on my user talk, he's referring to an IP that was mad they were blocked for disruptive edit requests and vandalism, who has subsequently been reblocked for harassing other editors in that same case. That IP was at ANI already and no one raised concern with my blocks. -- ferret (talk)
  • For the record, I'm not sure why Ferret is accusing me of attempting WP:OWNERSHIP of the League of Legends article, and it certainly an overstatement to say the article was languishing. The reason why I added a lot of the content that was labeled as "bloat" (Talk:League_of_Legends#bloat) in the first place was at the behest of another editor (I believe it was buried in some AFD thread but I can't find it anymore).--Prisencolin (talk) 01:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) For starters, as a talk page watcher, I can assure you that the recent complaints about his blocks are baseless and wrong, so don't attempt to use that as an attempt to smear or conflate issues. Secondly, I'm pretty sure the community has had some serious WP:DROPTHESTICK complaints against your in your efforts in the video game and League of Legends subject areas, so your report certainly only captures one side of things. Sergecross73 msg me 20:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  I'm striking out the allegation of misinformed blocking so disregard this. All I'm asking is that the article be reassessed for criteria 3. "Broad in its coverage" In fact, I'm not even asking to edit the article myself. If my contributions upsets the community so much I'm asking for someone else to fill in information in the areas I think are missing. Anyways the only thing I'm asking for is to be granted a reevaluation request. --Prisencolin (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support TBAN at minimum, upgrade to a vanilla ban if Prisencolin doesn't change his behavior fast. Prisencolin, ferret was trying to help you out by politely informing you that GAR is the incorrect process with which to register a complaint with a FA (try the talk page, or FAR at absolute worst, for future reference - your edit was Just Wrong). The fact that rather than accept his revert + advice you instead took this to ANI, which is literally the place where there is a risk of "your editing privileges being revoked", suggests a deep misreading of the situation and a lack of competence. If you want to keep editing Wikipedia, you need to learn who is on your side and who isn't; ferret has if anything been light in his treatment of you, so he's far from your "enemy" on this. (And for the record, I even agree with some of your concerns as far as content... I think that hitting featured may have hit the LoL article's comprehensiveness a bit by leaving out some of the "fancrufty" yet relevant aspects that were harder to reference. So this is in spite of some mild agreement.) Anyway, the VG topic area has tolerated Prisencolin long enough I think, whatever positives he's added has been weighed down by behavioral issues as ferret notes from previous blocks. The community's patience isn't infinite. SnowFire (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think he was trying to "help" me when he literally threatened to ban me in the same statement.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    • And yet ferret's advice was accurate? You are indeed about to get banned because you're persisting in this insane scheme to send a recently promoted FA to... GAR or something via talk page edit war. If somebody tells you that you need to turn around or you're about to drive off a cliff, and there actually is a cliff in front of you, that is helpful if tough information. If you drive off the cliff anyway, it's not the person telling you that's fault. It's your fault! SnowFire (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
      • For the record there is no "edit war" by WP:3RV standards, the tag was placed by me, then reverted by Ferret, and then reverted back by me, then finally reverted to its current state by Ferret.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
        • See below, but upgrading this comment to support a full CBAN. SnowFire (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
          • You are misjudging my intentions if you think I was trying to wikilawyer my way out of this. I've never been subject to a topic ban before so I was asking legitimate question and I have dyslexia so I couldn't read the entire page of information without having a nervous breakdown in light of the accusations against me.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Not sure where this discussion is heading, but if the answer is "Featured Articles can't be objected to if they have achieved community concensus" then I'd like to request that this discussion be closed.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  The correct location would be Featured article reassessment, not good article reassessment. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  Looks like it's cruising towards a WP:BOOMERANG. And I think it's less about "community consensus", and more about you just making some bad calls. The situation, the ANI report, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 20:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not aware of the history here, but from the only relevant activity that I can see in recent days, it looks bad on both sides. Prisencolin, consensus about featured status can always change, but the article had an FA assessment that ran for one month and took up 80,000 bytes, and then you come along and your challenge consists entirely in the slapping of a template [152], without any explanation or even an edit summary. If you believe that the substantial assessment from two month ago was wrong, you need to make a substantial argument, and at least seek feedback from other people before going for the red button.
  On the other hand, I'm struggling to see the good side of ferret's reaction. Yes, telling Prisencolin off was good, and then doing that with visible annoyance was not unacceptable, but then threatening them with a block? What grounds can a block have? There are no discretionary sanctions in the area, Prisencolin's template addition and then their single revert, though unhelpful, are light years away from what anyone would consider disruptive, and if a block were placed then it would have had to be done by someone who wasn't involved. No matter how annoying the people who edit in your area may be, you can't threaten them like that. – Uanfala (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• He's received many warnings regarding the topic area around League of Legend, from multiple admins. This is not out of the blue, the history is important. It's fair enough though that no, ultimately I should not place the block. Annoyance got the better of me after years of this. If he'd have persisted, I'd have come to ANI myself. I'll certainly take the admonishment to keep my annoyance under better control though. -- ferret (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• This is in fact, out of the blue. I'm not deserving of a block threat (and now vote) just because I tried to pursue some different avenue of discussion (that is GAR nomination), many months since I last touched the topic.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• To add to this, as far as what grounds could it be for a block: if the nomination was done in bad faith (disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT), that's certainly blockable. This particular nomination was so malformed that it's reasonably possible it was done in bad faith, although it's hard to tell, since as noted Prisencolin really is clueless enough to have potentially done this in good faith... although that raises competence questions then considering how long he's been on Wikipedia, and that he was directly told the proper proedure. Note also that Prisencolin has made weird edits like "This nomination has nothing to do with the upcoming appearance on the front page" out of nowhere... if this nom really was just an attempt to derail the front page appearance for no stated policy reason, that's certainly not collegial behavior. That said, I don't think it's productive to analyze this point too deeply, the general point is that Prisencolin's behavior has been problematic regardless of the reasons behind it. SnowFire (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Hi, Uanfala. I'm the editor who took the article in question through the GA and FA processes. 80,000 bytes is an understatement! If you have a look at the Talk page for the nomination, you'll see that we had to remove things because it was kinda breaking the main FA project page because it was so big. Eddie891 conducted a really, really rigorous review, checking basically every citation on the page. I've never properly interacted with Prinsecollin himself, but I was alerted quite early into editing it that he had a long and problematic history with the subject. I understand why you were questioning ferret's actions but, at the same time, we are only human, and ferret has been dealing with issues from this user for a long time. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Uanfala, I don't see anything wrong with ferret's note. It's a final warning. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support TBAN for Prisenconlin, from video games or at least from League of Legends, and even perhaps support community ban – Years of disruption is enough time wasted. If y'all want diffs, here's the tip of the iceberg for disruption since 2014+: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of League of Legends champions (2nd nomination), DRV'ed twice, which the editor then bypassed and ended up at AfD again under another title Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Champion (League of Legends). And one barely has to scratch the surface to find the unending issues that keep occuring around this editor, just search the AN/ANI archives or their talk page; a warning by Bishonen even went unheeded (unsurprisingly) and led to a block. This isn't a new issue. That the mere mention of the name Prisencolin elicits instant annoyance amongst or large swath of the community does not reflect brightly on the situation. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉
  • There was nothing wrong with the Champion (League of Legends) article as it wasn't a strict recreation of any content. I recall spending quite a bit of time finding new sources that for an article that consistently entirely of many more paragraphs full of new prose, whereas the last article deleted was just a table with a few paragraphs of prose. I personally disagree with the WP:G7 speedy closure but a deletion outcome was still obvious.
  • I have no idea what happened with the Bshonen warning, this was during a period of my life when I was significantly busier than I was now and I'm guessing I lost interest in the project at that time, anyways I do apologize that particular incident, however late this may be.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support TBAN for Prisencolin I honestly want nothing to do with this anymore, but anything to do with FA shouldn't have subpar levels of content and research, which is why I'm requesting GA reassessment.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Community ban for Prisenconlin (first choice) or topic ban from video games (second choice). I just looked over their editing history and the disruption has been a major time sink for veteran editors and discourages newbie editors (many of them children) who really want to do the right thing but need a little help learning how things work. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from video games with the usual offer to appeal in 6 months. This is clearly the way the consensus is leaning and I am fine with that. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support TBAN on video game-related articles for Prisenconlin for exhausting the community's patience in this area. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support TBAN - for exhausting the video game communities patience for this sort of WP:STICK stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 00:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Upgrade recommendation to community ban (originally commented above). Diffs like this and this suggest that Prisencolin intends to wikilawyer the exact restraints his topic ban has. Considering that this entire dispute was over this, why would Prisencolin think for a second the remedy wouldn't cover the exact same matter? Maybe a simple community ban would be easier to parse. SnowFire (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support TBan from video games broadly construed for at least 3 months. Obstinate behavior is not conducive to collaborative editing. (still thinking on the CBan and watching in hopes that this all sinks in and we can salvage an editor that wants to be here.) — Ched (talk) 04:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from video games broadly construed. I would not oppose a community ban if consensus emerges for that. This seems to be an editor who refuses to "get the message" and abandon disruptive editing no matter how many times the need to do so is explained. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite topic ban from video games broadly construed.The two new diffs provided by SnowFire above indicate that a Tban may not be sufficient but let's start there. Nsk92 (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Just a note that the 2018 block had nothing to do with video games (ANI thread). I haven't reviewed the recent edits in detail. The specific report looks like it was largely due to a misunderstanding, but it would be easier to assume this if Prisencolin actually spelled out their concerns with the article (if there are any concerns other than those comments they made on the talk page in February during the FA review). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• As an uninvolved admin aware of this discussion, it's becoming clear that a topic ban from video games, broadly construed, is in the cards. Seems clear there is no widespread appetite for a site ban, and only a minority think it could be solved by a ban just from LoL. Ched mentions 3 months, a couple mention indef. Assuming a video game topic ban is going to be the result, any thoughts from others on length? I'm usually inclined to go for indef with an appeal in 6 months, but if anyone thinks this isn't fitting in this case, now's the time. (also, obviously, if you think a topic ban from video games is too harsh or too lenient, now's the time too). I'll likely close this at the end of the day, if someone else doesn't do it first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  I tend towards indef with an appeal in 6 months, as well. -- ferret (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  Same. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  I was also planning to close this when the 24-hour period is up, and unless there was a big change in the the way the wind is blowing, was intending to go for 'indef, appealable after six months' - my impression is that has always been the default setting, and I don't see any consensus for anything else. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Girth Summit: I am extraordinarily confident that I'm not Involved, since my only action was an administrative one last night after seeing this thread, but for avoidance of any complications, from any avenue - even unreasonable ones - maybe it's better that you close it when the time comes, GS. It's incrementally cleaner. My main concern was this languishing, and if you're uninvolved and have your eye on it too, that's fine. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam, no worries - I'll try to look in later this evening, and will close it if nobody else has already done it. If anyone feels strongly that an indef TBan from video games, broadly construed (and yes, that would include initiating a GAR or FAR process in the topic area), appealable in 6 months, is not the right call - now is the time to speak up. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  I can't close this because I spoke to them about this dispute off-wiki, but I would recommend closing this sooner rather than later. They seemed quite upset at how this whole thing played out after their overreaction to the block threat on their talk page. They also said that they preferred that this was closed since the consensus for the indefinite TBan from video games had clearly reached WP:PILEON levels. I don't see how the consensus can be interpreted any other way and I don't have an issue with the "indef, appealable after six months" proposal above. I know they can be productive in the area when keeping a clear head, and would personally prefer something shorter such as 6 months, but since Prisencolin has indicated acceptance of the community sanction, apparently is proactively taking time off Wikipedia[153] and has explained the worst of SnowFire's diffs, there's no reason to keep this discussion open any longer when the outcome is abundantly clear. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Unfair behaviour happening with me.

Hi Admins, I've been subject to unfair and uncivil behaviour with me on wikipedia. I don't know if this is the correct venue to discuss this. Please see Draft_talk:Zeyan_Shafiq, I have been repeatedly called as Paid Editor and accused of sockpuppetry, i do completely know that according to wikipedia's policies i am a paid editor and i have always followed those guidelines. Since my start i've just been reading the wikipedia policies about everything, When i joined wikipedia i thought my only task would be to watch my organisation's page but being an active editor on liquipedia(which is another wiki for esports) i gained interest for this wikipedia as well. I started contributing to the Esports here, and after reading the policies i decided to work on Shafiq's article since as per my research i thought it meets wikipedia's policies and would be a good addition here. I Followed all the due policies, I Raised a Deletion Review request, I Created an improved draft, I made it neutral, Trimmed the promotional content, I Tried my best to resolve all the queries that were addressed in the AfD earlier, The AfD was stormed badly by sockpuppets, and no one addressed the queries raised there properly. But i was today again accused of the same things, i was accused of sockpuppetry even after a Checkuser was done. I'm writing it here to understand how do i respond to such things. If i respond in an Uncivil or bad-faith manner i am sure i will get blocked within no time. But these things certainly affect me, I Feel as if i am doing something wrong. Just tell me one wikipedia's policy that i am violating. And if this isn't stopped how would new editors be encouraged to join wikipedia? I apologise in advance if this is the wrong venue but i couldn't think of any other venue. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 21:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Abhayesports, would it really have been that difficult to actually read the multiple large banners telling you that when you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page? I have done so for you this time, but please learn how to comprehend basic instructions if you desire to contribute here. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 21:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

M Imtiaz, I did not accuse any single person that's why didn't notify anyone. I've been subject to this since the start and my only reason to post it here was to seek any resolution if i encounter this again. I have no grudges with anyone because we are all here to contribute and build. There should be no place for grudges but i'm unable to understand why so many people have grudges with me. I am always ready for a rational discussion for anything that i say but unfortunately i never get that fair chance because i'm a new editor. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 21:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

M Imtiaz, haha, you've done the same what I mentioned just above, accusing me of sock puppetry here lol User_talk:TheAafi I should notify you that the sockfarm has posted yet another thread about you at ANI how did you figure out? Can you care to explain it? Also just for your kind information User TheAafi isn't involved in this at all if I would’ve done something like this and accused you of false allegation I’d have been blocked by now and you shouldn't be making assumptions on your own and you should rather read the thread fully once and maybe you would come to know about the issue that i am addressing here, also what policy on wikipedia authorises you to accuse me of sockpuppetry? Please share the relevant document, Now please don't ask me to follow WP:AGF, i have always followed it and that’s the reason why everyone talks to me rudely lol, give and take respect isn’t the rule here. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 21:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - This is a spillover from a Deletion Review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 April 2. It appears to me that Abhay's client first hired an undisclosed paid editor, and that an article was speedy-deleted, and so now they have hired Abhay as a disclosed Paid Editor to try to get their article accepted. And Abhay isn't happy that some volunteer editors don't like paid editors. I haven't reviewed the article, but I think that is what the case is. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

It’s not just limited to this, even after a SPI case against me, after a check user against me I’ve been accused of sock puppetry and threats of being blocked, I mean i am no one to stop anyone from filing another case, you can surely proceed and file another SPI but don’t directly accuse me of something that I haven’t done. I don’t want to take the blame for what others have done. Why should i be blamed for it? And I’ve repeated this many times, i am not being paid for this but Let’s assume i am a paid editor, i have already disclosed everything in advance, why don’t i deserve respect? Aren’t paid-editor’s humans? Don’t they deserve respect? Certainly if i do something against the wikipedia’s policies, don’t give me any mercy, block me but if i am following everything, why do i get dis-respected always? Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 00:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Racist and highly abusive IP

The IP that was reported here a few weeks ago (and which an unclosed discussion was unanimously in favour of banning) keeps returning at different IP addresses (in the last week they have popped up as 93.137.2.23 (talk · contribs), 93.140.132.141 (talk · contribs), 93.143.123.165 (talk · contribs) and 93.143.108.84 (talk · contribs) ( each of which I have blocked) and probably a few others I haven't spotted. They have also left messages on my mediawiki talk page, and their latest message on my en.wiki talk page,[154] is particularly abusive (read it phonetically). Can an an effective rangeblock be put in place? Cheers, Number 57 21:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Those four IPs span a /13 range, which is too large to rangeblock. We might be able to target smaller subranges. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Ohnoitsjamie, you beat me to it with your rangeblock; thanks. There's close to a dozen IPs operated by the same person in that range. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

User Vilmeenkodi

Vilmeenkodi (talk · contribs) has over several years added content to specific pages related to the Malayalam language - unreferenced, original research material. The user also tries to present unreliable historical primary sources like Keralalpathi as reference sources. The user received multiple warnings and final warnings for creating this type of content (1, 2, 3) which don't seem to bother them at all. I personally don't believe the user is here to create encyclopedic content or that they really understand what an encyclopedia is and it has become tiresome to revert their edits.ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits and hounding

The editor Wretchskull is Wiki-Stalking me through my edit history. He is currently reverting my edits to the article List of most-wanted Nazi war criminals. The sentence I have added is concise and supported by two reliable sources, yet Wretchskull continues to revert my addition. I left a warning on the editors talk page to discontinue hounding me, but he states he is allowed to hound me if he deems it necessary. Would you please block this editors account for thirty-days, to stop the nonsense.

Reverts:

• Revert one: 1
• Revert two: 2
• Revert three: 3

Thank you Blockhouse321 (talk) 09:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I cannot take this stubborn editor seriously anymore.. just read what I wrote on my talk page (this has happened in two different instances, see both: User talk:Wretchskull#Big Bang and User talk:Wretchskull#Stop Wiki-Stalking). Wretchskull (talk) 09:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Blockhouse321 An accusation of hounding would normally be supported by diffs showing that someone had followed you to multiple pages; all I see here is three reverts on a single page. You're both edit warring, but you'd need to present more evidence to demonstrate that this is a case of hounding. Wretchskull - I don't know what the background is here, but on the face of it you are repeatedly reverting content which appears to be supported by CBC News, which I imagine is an RS - I can see why someone would find that annoying. It might help if you were to set out your specific concerns over the content/sourcing on the talk page rather than edit warring to remove them. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

attention needed at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/COVID-19#RfC on use of COVID-19 editnotice

This really needs sorting out. Not only is it unclosed, I'm not convinced it makes sense. It says the old template was replaced by a new one, but Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/COVID-19 only mentions - and prescribes - the old one. Doug Weller talk 11:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk page block for user:98.100.138.40

98.100.138.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was blocked yesterday and is now vandalizing their talkpage. --FF-11 (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Along with what look very much like three knitted foot coverings, one already indeffed. Narky Blert (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk page block for user:170.78.161.22

170.78.161.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Also needs a talkpage block. --FF-11 (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Shortscircuit at LowTierGod

Shortscircuit (talk · contribs)
LowTierGod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Shortsitcuit registered his account solely to request speedy deletion of an article created, vetted, and published through the WP:Articles for Creation process, then deleting major article content and turning the page into a WP:Battleground after failing. Given the subject's nature as a controversial figure, I've requested page protection. Further, given this user's particular history (seemingly using his IP to sockpuppet) and making one innocuous edit before diving into the battleground, this user is clearly personally invested in the article's deletion and may be the subject himself. A WP:Topic ban may be in order. --BananaYesterday (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

BananaYesterday, whether or not Shortscircuit has a COI or is socking here, those appear to be good edits. The article is supported by numerous sources considered unreliable by WP:VG/RS, like Event Hubs, Niche Gamer, Game Skinny, One Angry Gamer, etc. Much of the content was unsourced as well. Any content about living persons needs to be supported by high-quality reliable sources, and this isn't it. Woodroar (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

For me there is a big concern that this editor is calling good faith edits vandalism in his edit summaries. that isn't helping the matter along with his unwillingness to use the talk page to hash things like that out. --JohnnyFiveHole (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

JohnnyFiveHole, I agree that Shortscircuit needs to stop reverting and calling people vandals, and to use the Talk page. But you should consider not restoring WP:BLP violations as well. Woodroar (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The subject of the page LowTierGod is a person with a large troll community. There have been trolls vandalising the page by adding false and malicious statements and claims about the subject. These statements added to the article by trolls have no valid references for backup. Some statements have "references" that actually do not contain what is claimed in the article. I removed these statements. The trolls are reverting the changes and claiming that it was "vandalism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shortscircuit (talk • contribs) 15:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

This above statement (which is a copy/paste of the user's recent edit summaries) is what I imagine the above user is referring to (User:JohnnyFiveHole). Removing what you think isn't reliably sourced? Please, do so and talk about it at the talk page. Calling everything you remove an instance of vandalism and those who added it trolls? Absolute nonsense and WP:Bad faith. There have been demonstrable instances of vandalism on the page, which I and others have reverted myself, but tellingly none of them have been reverted by this new account who is deriding others' contributions. --BananaYesterday (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Shortscircuit, calling editors "trolls" or their edits "vandalism" are both considered personal attacks on Wikipedia, so please stop that. See WP:VANDAL if you have any questions. These appear to be good faith edits, though they do fall short of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Woodroar (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

we definitely need to rewrite certain parts of the article, especially the part about the cult following. i am working on that now. I do think shortsircuit now just violated 3rr and edit war policy. JohnnyFiveHole (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

User:JohnnyFiveHole, User:Woodroar I am willing to hash it out in the talk page of the article. The main thing about these contested edits is that references and sources are nowhere to be found. If you look at the references given for these statements, the references themselves actually do not contain the information that are being added to the article. In other words, there are no actual sources for these edits. I read through all of the provided "references" to check. Not to mention these sources are not very well known or reputable. If you consider the nature of these contested edits, it is quite possible that these edits are made in bad faith. This is also considering that the subject of this article has a large community of internet trolls. I also just want to point out that I was not the one who started using the word "vandalism" first. Shortscircuit (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

that's definitely not true for everything you've been deleting... i see new sources being added for subject name for example but you kind of keep getting lost in the big picture and reverting new edits that try to add content with reputable source... this is why the general tenor of you edit warring and violating 3rr with your new account is so problematic. i'm not trying to insult you or anything but talking about who said "vandalism" first is kind of childish and i only asked for page protection about vandalism in relation to ip edits calling him "chicken legs" and other things... JohnnyFiveHole (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, some of the edits made by other people (such as Greyjoy - 10:23, 9 April 2021 and also Arjayay - 12:24, 9 April 2021) are good edits. For example Greyjoy actually added a reference for the subject name. Unfortunately, User:BananaYesterday subsequently made his own edits/reverts, specifically, he made the contested edits. Just to be clear, I am not talking about good faith edits like 10:23, 9 April 2021. I am talking about bad faith edits that have no actual (accurate) references. For example, people were adding names like "aka Chicken Legs", fake birth dates, and even another name. These claims/statements had no actual referencing. Just from edits like these, you can see there are certain people trying to add unfounded and negative edits to the page. Shortscircuit (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Glad you've returned to this page. I never called you a vandal (while you demonstrably have attacked me as such, including on the article's talk page). I did say that I fear you have a WP:Conflict of interest given that you made this account and immediately turned the page into a WP:Battleground, which I was not alone in being startled by. --BananaYesterday (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

You did indeed call me a vandal. When you first reverted my edit of the page, in your edit summary you wrote "revert vandalism"... this was the first time either of us mentioned "vandalism" Shortscircuit (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

i would add that for me it makes it hard not to see shortsircuit's edits as coming from a conflict of interest given that he requested speedy deletion twice before calling you a vandal for making the page at all... JohnnyFiveHole (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

All the editors working on this article must familiarize themselves with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons because they are obligated to follow that policy. Do not accuse people of vandalism lightly. That's disruptive. Do not accuse someone of having a conflict of interest based on speculation and without providing solid evidence. It is not COI to support deleting an article and then to work to eliminate BLP violations if the article is kept. Good editors do that all the time. The source for every statement in that article should be checked for reliability and then whether the source actually supports the statement. Every statement that fails that test should be swiftly removed. Restoring contested unreferenced or poorly referenced content to a BLP is a policy violation. I checked one statement and found that the source does not back up the statement. Nowhere close. I noted that at Talk: LowTierGod along with a BLP policy warning. So, all of you interested in that article: please work together to clean it up and do it promptly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

lowercase sigmabot III malfunction?

Look at Talk:Parler/Archive 3: Difference between revisions April 5, +114,139‎ bytes. The diff shows that there was a section "== Part of a series on Antisemitism ==" starting with the words "This discussion is focused". Now search for "Part of a series on Antisemitism" in the table of contents or for "This discussion is focused" in the text. Those words are not there. It appears that the bot only added the bits in "Part of a series on Antisemitism" that begin with the words "Additionally, Parler ...".

Look at Talk:Parler/Archive 3: Difference between revisions April 1. Notice that it contains, within the section Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2021, the words "Parler is the solution to problems". Now go back to the April 5 version. Those words are not there. It appears that the bot wiped out part of a previous section.

The User:lowercase sigmabot III page says reports should go here.

Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I am personally not a fan of archive bots, they seem to break, a lot. One click archiving is super easy and less prone to this sort of thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

That being said, I'm not sure what the issue is here exactly, but it doesn't appear to be the bot. The header and the missing content are there in the edit window, just not displaying on the live page. I tried a few cheap tricks in preview and none of them worked, not sure what the deal is but WP:VPT might be able to help. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#coding error?. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Repeated breaches of WP:5P4 by VersaceSpace

VersaceSpace joined the site on 1 December 2020 and has made nearly 1,700 edits. On 7 December, he was blocked indefinitely for vandalism after this edit. However, he apologised immediately and was reinstated. His talk page has attracted several other complaints and warnings that he nearly always deleted until he was warned about it recently.

On 3 April, the editor breached WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA with an unwarranted and disrespectful reference to Lugnuts. He was warned about this by Celestina007, to whom he was also rude and disrespectful – see here and here. He joined the ANI about Lugnuts on 8 April but his edit there was one of those suppressed. Only ten minutes later, he made this edit at AFD which casts a scurrilous aspersion on Lugnuts' motives as an editor. He was asked a few hours later to retract but did not respond. Instead, he later repeated the aspersion here (btw, it seems he pinged the wrong person there). His edit at the Shahid Ilyas‎ AFD has also been condemned by both AssociateAffiliate and myself but there has been no response to either of us.

Action needs to be taken against this editor for his disrespectful behaviour and I have brought the case to ANI for that reason, but there is also a strong suspicion of sockpuppetry. Could you please let me know if you want me to outline that case here or take it separately to SPI? Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I would comment that VersaceSpace appears very confident for such a new user, and very ready to correct others for someone who already has a block log. However, I can't see justification for another block at this moment. I would suggest that a watching brief is adequate. Deb (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

No Great Shaker thanks for the ping. I find this user very uncivil, though my condemnation of his comment wasn't exactly civil back!!! I do wonder though given an obvious vendetta against Lugnuts by VersaceSpace and Dlthewave an SPI might be warranted, just given the similairty in their behaviour and general uncivilness? StickyWicket (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate: @No Great Shaker: @Deb: hi. Thanks for noticing my confidence, I guess. I don't believe the vandalism should've been brought up because I had not made any good contributions at that point? I want to respond to the sockpuppetry accusations first. Me and that editor have completely different interests. I enjoy editing things related to Doja Cat, and other female rappers and singers, among other topics. I don't know nor care what the other editor likes, but it's certainly not that. I have other things to do, so I'll address the other things later. versacespaceleave a message! 17:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Deb beat me to it, FWIW I have always been able to tell a new editor from a banned/blocked editor evading their block by virtue of their Tone and I too believe the editor to be too bold for a relatively new editor. I do not see the incivility issues to be too egregious as to warranting a block. But if there are suspicion of sock puppetry (which I believe may be at play here) then an WP:SPI should be launched at the appropriate venue. Celestina007 (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, it looks to me like an outright admission of sockpuppetry because I haven't said a word anywhere about my suspicions. Doja Cat, however, is certainly part of the evidence. I will go to SPI and thanks for that advice, Celestina. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for logging this NGS. The personal attack against me certainly raised a red-flag, and at best (for them), it's highlighted this to the community. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker: what??? looking through the user's edits I see no edits to Doja Cat. I only said what I enjoy editing because that editor does not edit those topics, contrary to me. versacespaceleave a message! 18:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you go to SPI where you will see that User:Billiekhalidfan and User:Dojazervas are the suspect accounts. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Done. I've replied there. versacespaceleave a message! 18:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)