Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lourdes (talk | contribs) at 11:24, 23 July 2023 (→‎User:Elinruby and making everything about me: close). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    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

    HazaraHistorian

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

    I believe I've given this user more than enough WP:ROPE.

    I suspect it's mainly thanks to their false belief (this is not even close to the mainstream consensus in scholarship, not sure where they're getting it from) that the Hazaras are basically "Turks" [1] which have led to much of this disruption.

    • Yesterday they added that this Hazara tribe was descended from the Karluk Turks under the guise of a citation, except the citation mentioned no such thing. I.e. they inserted their own personal opinion/interpretation.[2]. They previously attempted to the same here without a source even [3]. Simultaneously, a random IP tried to do the same here [4]. That same IP tried more or less to add the same WP:OR POV edit of HazaraHistorian [5] here [6], trying to connect the Hazara to the Khazar Turks. Moreover, a mere day after I reverted HazaraHistorian for inserting a primary source [7], the IP conveniently knew of the rule, removing info about the Mongol connection of the Hazara [8]. In other words, that IP is probably theirs.
    • [9] Once again their own words under the guise of a citation.
    • [10] Removed info that was heavily sourced in the body of the article.

    Based on this, I would wager there are probably more edits where they have mixed sources with their own words.

    And here are some of their grim remarks (WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS):

    When I told them (again) to stop attacking me [11], they acted like any other mature and collaborative Wiki user and responded with a head exploding emoji [12] --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll wait for HazaraHistory to respond to this thread, but I'm not seeing much which inspires confidence. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The book I cited literally mentions some Hazaras being Karluk, it don’t know if you can tell, but Qarluk is Karluk but with a q, without any sources you can see the connection. I also have DNA prove from Vaha duo distancing but idk if Wikipedia allows them to be uploaded. He adds that the Ghurid Dynasty is of Tajik origin, which is really disputed and there are many sources that say it is a Turkic Dynasty, I can provide them too. HazaraHistorian (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Another thing is I only have/use 1 IP address, I never used a different ip to make edits. I even didn’t use a different ip when I was banned earlier. HazaraHistorian (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For the Ghaznavid edit I’m not sure if I did anything wrong about the Middle East part, but I’m sure I didn’t do anything wrong with the Karluk part since I cited 2 sources of Ghaznavids being Karluk, if he doesn’t know that it’s clear that Ghaznavids were of Kalruk slave origin. HazaraHistorian (talk) 03:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you also ask him why he put the deletion request template on the Karakhanid-Sassanid War page, other than the reason of it being against what he likes. HazaraHistorian (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before Bloop was sock blocked, the interaction between them and Hazara was triggering my spidey sense. Dropping the analyzer if helpful to anyone assessing. Note, I'm not saying HIstorian is a sock, I just think there was shenanigans present before Bloop was IDed as a sock. Star Mississippi 20:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      IK bloop, he has a TikTok account that makes racist vidoes against Hazaras, (Redacted). HazaraHistorian (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Today was yet another WP:OR POV addition made by HazaraHistorian, continuing their attempt to connect the Hazaras to certain Turkic groups and vice-versa [13] --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Did you even see the picture? You keep saying tried to connect which is funny. You clearly have no understanding of Hazara tribes and their origin. HazaraHistorian (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet you were reverted again by another user for WP:OR and non-WP:RS [14]. I would advise you to stop commenting on me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You advise me not to comment on you but you comment on me HazaraHistorian (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    HoI is commenting on your behavior. And you're doing a great job of demonstrating that your behavior is in conflict with Wikipedia's policies. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @HazaraHistorian The matter at hand is whether you understand Wikipedia policies such as WP:Reliable sources and WP:No original research. Your edits appear to demonstrate that you do not. —C.Fred (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    HazaraHistorian's recent addition of "Origins" to the Ghaznavid article. The talk page discussion received no response, after I quoted from the source they provided(which made no mention of the middle east) and then I provided sources stating unequivocally the origins of Sabuktigin(ie. Ghaznavids). I would have to say HazaraHistorian does not understand original research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HiLo48 and incivility

    Hello. A few days ago, I opened a requested move at Talk:Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). While I have seen some valid arguments opposing my proposed move to Bill O'Reilly and the idea of it being a primary topic (the only other page that exists under this name is one about an Australian cricketer), one user at the talk page, User:HiLo48, has felt the need to make fun of others who disagree with them, making comments about how they will "mock any comment that shows an ignorance of cricket," as well as calling those who lack knowledge about cricket "parochial Americans." Personally, I believe this is unacceptable and violates the core policy of WP:CIVILITY, and while I have tried to explain to them that they should be commenting specifically on why the move itself wouldn't work, and not make fun of others who disagree, they seem to be set in their ways about mocking the sentiments of those who disagree with them. I didn't want to take this here, but their comments about how, among other things, American contributors should "learn more about the world outside of [their] borders" seem unnecessarily rude, and they certainly have no place in a page move discussion, regardless of how "ridiculous" it might be to them. JeffSpaceman (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    JeffSpaceman, I'd just rise above HiLo48's potshots, as tedious as they may be. Continuing to engage with this person will waste your time because, unlike you, HiLo48 is probably enjoying this fight and your discomfort on some level.
    The page move decision will be on consensus, not the volume or tenor or one person's posts.
    I'm not an admin; they may decide otherwise. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 13:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your advice -- I think I will take it and stop engaging with them. I am trying to get through to them and assume good faith (as I try to with a lot of people on here), but that clearly just isn't working. Thank you for your kind words. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "HiLo48 is probably enjoying this fight and your discomfort on some level." Basically, HiLo48 is behaving like a troll, intentionally trying to provoke you. Please try not to answer in kind, because emotional outbursts never end well in Wikipedia. Dimadick (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment JeffSpaceman has also fallen for the classic trap of not checking the archives before proposing a move that has been shot down on multiple occasions. HiLo48 may be slightly glib at talk but the truth is that the American newsreader Bill O'Reilly simply isn't globally relevant enough to make this move. At best he's a washed up former debate partner to Jon Stewart and a generally disgraced journalist. Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I will admit fault at not checking the archives, since I tend to just check whatever is currently on the talk page (something that typically works for me on pages that aren't updated as relatively regularly as O'Reilly's, but clearly didn't work this time). At the same time, I don't believe that HiLo48's snarking is a good way to go about it, since civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Personally, I think that there are better ways of getting the opinion that they hold across (including in ways that other users who have opposed have used as reasoning). JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While I doubt that this thread will result in any sort of formal action being taken, it would be nice if an uninvolved admin could go to Hilo's talk page and explain why it is not appropriate for them to mock any comment that shows an ignorance of cricket or refer to other editors as parochial Americans. These are bright-line violations of our civility policy and they clearly run afoul of the collaborative spirit required here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm willing to block people for bludgeoning, incivility, or discrimination based on where someone is from. I don't really see that here, though. I just see someone threatening to do that. If that happens, I'll block or topic ban. I'm tired of dramamongering in articles related to American politics, and I think maybe the topic area needs to be cleared out. If anyone is tempted to engage in dramamongering, they should consider this before posting. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NinjaRobotPirate, are you saying that HiLo48’s comments are OK and that JeffSpaceman is to blame? His proposal, even if ultimately not the best, certainly is within the realm of reasonable. It seems tendered in good faith. His reactions to HiLo48 seem civil. HiLo48’s don’t. As for American politics, I’m sure the majority of Americans would also like the drama dialed down in the U.S.
    As for your comment, ”I think maybe the topic area [American politics] needs to be cleared out” - what are your intentions? A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Great. More dramamongering. Did JeffSpaceman threaten to bludgeon or mock anyone? If not, what I wrote probably doesn't apply. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @NinjaRobotPirate: No; but they don't seem too fond of being reminded of their own responsibilities in the area; I imagine it's more satisfying getting one's opponents hung out to dry at ANI. While they can do what they like with AC/DS notices, of course, it's always interesting to see how positive a response is. Or not, as the case might be. SN54129 16:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they did snap back on Simonm223's talk page, and I interpreted "I am not going to explain this a second time" as enough of a threat to check whether or not they were an administrator (to see if they would or could follow through on such a threat), but I agree that none of this rises to the level of warranting action. While "parochial" (as in Wiktionary's description, "characterized by an unsophisticated focus on local concerns to the exclusion of wider contexts") is absolutely a correct descriptor for Americans of the belief that their pet newsbarker exceeds in notability a top athlete in a sport of intense popularity pretty well everywhere else on the planet, it's still an insult even if in jest, and Wikipedians should not be throwing it at other Wikipedians for any reason. All of that being said, calling attention to drama is rarely a suitable approach to squelching it. Can we all agree to go do something else? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will say that I shouldn't have said the "I am not going to explain this a second time." I think I was just angry with what you correctly point out is an insult that should not be used against other users on here. I appreciate your forthright approach here, Ivanvector. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I left Hilo a note and I hope they'll consider it. Mackensen (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Here's a question I have to ask though - and I know it's irrelevant to the general policies at a RM discussion, but this sort of thing always bugs me. When someone types "Bill O'Reilly" into Wikipedia, looking for the (incredibly famous) cricketer or one of the other people at the dab page - do we really want to say to them "no, the one you're looking for is this guy who if you don't live in the USA you've probably never heard of, and who is best known for inventing sensational news stories and abusing women"? I'd say we probably don't. Black Kite (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "" "I'm tired of dramamongering in articles related to American politics" O'Reilly is not particularly relevant to politics, American or otherwise. He is just a former television presenter and a notorious hack writer, whose main claim to fame is a series of scandals concerning non-consensual sex. Dimadick (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I accept the premise. I have no stake in the RM, but you're asserting without proving that the cricketer is more famous than the media personality. Leaving aside any question of morality (e.g. who should be better known), how do we know that? The page views point the other way. The media personality article exists in 32 languages, against 9 for the cricketer. If this speaks to the outsize influence of American media on the rest of the world, then I apologize, but we have to take the world as we find it. Mackensen (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      However, are we a popularity site or a work of reference? As I asked in the RM, should a musical act that lasted all of seven years be the primary topic over a millennia-old foundational spiritual concept, just because of pageviews? Zaathras (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, you said it yourself. I don't think anyone would make that argument. If they did, I don't think it would convince many people. The example is inapposite. Mackensen (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Editors are literally making that argument now, to rename the article based only on pageview arguments. Zaathras (talk) 00:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      With Bill O'Reilly yes, we're speaking of two men, one alive, one dead, who lived within a few decades of each other. Pageviews may well be relevant since we can't evaluate lasting importance. Your analogy, involving a millennia-old foundational spiritual concept and a recent rock band, doesn't speak to this issue, and that's what I was responding to. By all means, if Nirvana gets moved on the strength of pageviews I'll reconsider. Mackensen (talk) 03:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, in a way we can. The cricketer last played an international match 77 years ago and is still talked about as one of the best players in the second-most popular sport in the world. I'd be very surprised if the "political commentator" that has more pageviews (because controversy and being American) is likely to be remembered 77 years after his last rant on the Internet - wouldn't you? Indeed, if pageviews weren't being taken into account here, I'd say the cricketer should be at the base article name. Black Kite (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Ehh we’ll cross that bridge in c. 77 years Dronebogus (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      In 77 years, I hope someone still remembers Bill O'Reilly's exceptional performance in the field of falafel-based sexual harassment. --JBL (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      ...I don't even want to ask. SnowRise let's rap 06:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Snow Rise: Oh, this is so worth knowing about :). See the end of section 78 of the first harassment lawsuit (NSFW) against him. --17:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC) JBL (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Mackensen: I'm fairly sure I've heard a number of people making arguments that the programming language should be the primary topic for Java based mostly on page view type arguments. At the very least people have said there is no primary topic. Edit: I initially posted this on my phone so didn't bother to check the history but now I'm not I checked and sure enough it was about 14 months ago that a move was proposed on that premise [18]. True the specific claim of the programming language being the primary topic got FWIW no support (the closer said "Pretty much a snowball close", I don't actually see anyone other than the proposer who supported it). There was however a bit more support there being no primary topic (albeit at least some was abandoned) and you can see the several previous proposals listed in the history which again were mostly of the no primary topic variety but with some the programming language is the primary topic variety. While you might argue the failure of these RMs proves that the community will get it right, I'd argue that the persistence of these good faith but clearly flawed proposals does demonstrate why people tend to get annoyed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC) 08:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Nil Einne Yes. An assumption of good faith means that a clearly flawed RM springs from ignorance, not malice. It's an opportunity to educate, not belittle, and the community generally gets move requests right, or at least not wrong. Mackensen (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Mackensen: I don't disagree on the need to educate. OTOH, it's also true that editors, especially editors with some experience, really need to consider some variant of WP:BEFORE, so when making a proposal that common sense would suggest has surely been made before, really should look into the previous discussions and consider how likely it is is things will be different this time. And if they can't find them, perhaps rather than jumping straight into an RM, first asking hey am I missing something, why are our articles titled this way? More importantly though IMO your earlier comment makes it sounds like such things never happen, no one ever proposes them and they will never pass. In reality we have IMO clear evidence they are at least proposed. And actually I'm fairly sure some cases involving more minor examples have passed. Some of these may have eventually been fixed. Some of them are probably still like that and may one day be fixed but haven't been yet. There's no reason to think the contrary since flawed community decisions happen all the time especially when there is low participation and the significance may not be obvious. Or to put it a different way while HiLo48's comments were IMO way way over the line (as unfortunately they often are) and exceedingly unhelpful, your comments here were IMO far less extreme but at least partly in the same vein. I mean if you want to argue that the Bill O'Reilly case is dissimilar, that's fine you're entitled to make such an argument. But to be so dismissive of the good faith concerns of others as you did above is also unhelpful when experience with Wikipedia should tell you even before I provided an IMO reasonably equivalent example that it has happened before, and will happen again. Nil Einne (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, that's why I said my comment is probably irrelevant to policy, I was more theorising about an IAR "what should we do" scenario. Having said that, looking at the RM the status quo is likely to be upheld anyway. Black Kite (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Generally speaking, yes, we do want that. We're not here to judge (and especially not to influence) what are the most likely to be searched topics; our role is, once the most likely topic is reasonably determined, to get the most readers to the information they're looking for with the least amount of effort. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC already covers the hypothetical case that Bill O'Reilly the Fox News personality is a much more (like, a lot more) likely topic amongst readers globally than Bill O'Reilly the accomplished cricketer, but that's not the case here. Disregarding the guideline over a morality panic would not be a good use of IAR. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I've both disagreed with and defended HiLo48 on and off for about 14 years. It may be cultural for them to have rough-and-tumble conversations, including with friends. I find them to be refreshingly blunt without all of the underlying vitrol and clever wiki-warfare that underlies most of our drama situations. Not saying that that should make anything OK, but it's useful to understand it in that context. North8000 (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Conversely, IMHO HiLo48 should also calibrate. Understand that what may be OK routine rough and tumble conversation in other venues might be the equivalent of tossing hand grenades in the Wikipedia venue. North8000 (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (Personal attack removed)
    An interesting, unusual dynamic in this dispute: each Bill O'Reilly is very important and noteworthy to a passionate, large group (hundreds of millions). Almost every member of one group has no interest in or even knows of the other Bill O'Reilly. The circles in the Venn Diagram are huge, flamboyantly colored and barely touch, let alone overlap.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that William Joseph O'Reilly is deceased (and therefore incapable of political commentary), obviously the best resolution here would be for Wikipedia editors to convince William James O'Reilly Jr. to take up cricket. --JBL (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    How many times does this topic come up? Surely at some point we need to do something. I've dealt with this editor many times and although I can get a little dry in my humour, at least I play the ball and not the man. I find wikipolicy generally settles disputes, not raising one's voice and making discussion so unpleasant that the abuser wins by default.

    If we use this sort of procedure to create our encyclopaedia then it shows and well-meaning newbies are scared off. On that point, HiLo seems to take a particular delight in "welcoming" new editors by making comments about their mistakes, often using some sort of passive aggression to boot home the message and making assumptions about motives, if not morals.

    I appreciate the sort of wikignome work he does tirelessly and without complaint but perhaps a little more tolerance of fellow editors wouldn't hurt. Can we get a commitment to be nicer, or are we going to be reading the same old anti-American diatribes again and again? Doesn't that come under the heading of racism? Do we tolerate that sort of thing? --Pete (talk) 10:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I said somewhere in the sea of words above that throwing fuel on the fire is a poor way to deal with drama, and calling anything that happened here "racism" is exactly that. It is a very long way off from racism to note the documented tendency of the archetypal American to be disinterested or entirely unaware of the world happening outside of their own borders, as discussed for example in The Hill, The benefits of American disinterest in world affairs; Washington Post, Do Americans care about the rest of the world?; The University of Buffalo, Researcher says Americans are "deluded" regarding what they know about the rest of the world; Pew Research Center, The problem of American exceptionalism; Council on Foreign Relations, Americans lack knowledge of international issues yet consider them important; or Forbes, The American public's indifference to foreign affairs. It is also not racism, and frankly not a personal attack, to challenge an argument on the basis of it being grounded in this noted American parochialism, though as I said using it as an ad hominem crosses a very bright line. That said: calling this incident racism is just inflammatory rhetoric, whether you intended it or not, and not only does it not help to solve anything happening here, it also cheapens genuine discussions about real, systemic, institutionalized oppression. That is in fact an incredibly serious issue, and the term deserves not to be thrown around casually and haphazardly like this. I must also note here that baselessly accusing editors of racism crosses that same very bright line.
    As for HiLo48, they're aware of this discussion, and hopefully will absorb the criticism of their approach (although their most recent responses seem to indicate they instead feel justified in their "blunt" approach, which this non-American administrator suggests they should not). If they're also causing problems for new editors I have not seen evidence of it, but if they are they need to knock it off yesterday. Many an editor who felt their collection of contributions outweighed the civility policy have had that opinion noted in their block log. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps we should just sweep it all under the carpet. Again. Until some well-meaning editor runs afoul of some harsh comments. Again.
    I chose that word carefully. Here is an extract from WP:NPA:
    Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.
    The colour of one's skin or the colour of one's passport; in the eyes of Wikipedia it is all one when derogatory remarks are directed against another editor. This is one of our fundamental pillars.
    Americans are a diverse bunch. I have many American friends and family and for every one of them who disagrees with my politics there are others who are shoulder to shoulder. Some are insular, some are well-versed in the world, some are this and some are that.
    I make the point that Americans who are also Wikipedia editors might be reasonably accepted as having views and attitudes that are broader and better-informed than the average. I'll accept that many Americans are insular and ignorant of the wider world. But that is definitely not true of many Americans of my acquaintance and I suggest that American Wikipedians are more open to other views, other eyes, other minds than the mass, simply by being part of the project. There is a degree of self-selection in play.
    I am chided for adding fuel to the fire. A valid point, but if so, then just what has HiLo been doing for years and years but just exactly that? There seems to be no capacity for acceptance and repentance and understanding on just how hurtful his remarks might be. Passions rise, discussion becomes inflamed, and we end up dealing with the fire here on a regular basis.
    I'm not seeking to raise the temperature here with ill-advised comments. I'm looking to find out the truth and I think a big part of the truth in general Wikipedia editing is disruption caused by heated personal attacks. What goes on in this forum is - by definition - out of the main stream of routine editing. Can we at least work towards making Wikipedia a safer, more welcoming, cooperative place for editors of all levels of experience and nationality? --Pete (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that HiLo’s comments are obnoxious and casually xenophobic, but they barelyrise to the level of offensive conduct. What are we even supposed to do here? Dronebogus (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the long term behaviour. Offensive to other editors, unable to accept there is a problem, unwilling to accept that there is a community setting the standards and enforcing the rules.
    We accept all manner of views and reasons for editing and styles of participation. That's fine. His participation is as welcome as anyone else's.
    But we can't have someone ignoring one of our basics - WP:NPA - if they also set themselves up as a sort of wikipoliceman as this guy does with his "welcomes" to new editors who offend him for whatever reason.
    He's not participating here in this forum because he knows that if he says nothing, it will all go away and he can keep on driving his own bus the same way it's happened dozens of times before. Until it happens again.
    I'd like to see a commitment to lift his game, and I'd like to see that backed up by the community of editors who don't want to see the disruptive behaviour continue.
    I don't know how that's going to happen, though. Look at his user page. He is one of those people who melts down when shown that the facts contradict their opinions and it is just heartbreaking to see such anguish.
    I don't have the deft touch to steer him calmly into safe waters. As a diplomat I make a good hockey player. --Pete (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    HiLo's behavior at the requested move was pretty uncivil. He said that Jeff has a "standard American lack of knowledge of cricket and lack of respect for history", as well as is a "parochial American". Directly aimed at Jeff. He called Jeff lacking in knowledge because he's an American. That's a personal attack. HiLo treats the discussion as if having deep knowledge of a subject gives your !vote more weight, and when Iamreallygoodatcheckers said subject knowledge wasn't relevant, he called that "wikilawyering". SWinxy (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    HiLo48: courtesy break

    Before we go running off and closing this thread as no action taken, I want to attest to HiLo's behavior being extremely difficult to work with at WP:ITN. He seems completely incapable of having any sort of civil discussion where he doesn't immediately erupt into bursts of all-caps and shouting. A difference in user conduct is to be expected given differing cultural backgrounds, but some of these diffs go beyond the pale:
    [19]You clearly cannot read!!!! My opposition is NOT because the event is only relating to a single country. It's because it's about one PARTICULAR country, the USA!!!! I simply cannot imagine this getting any support at all if it happened in any other country. It's pure and blatant US-centrism. - Edit summary: "Stupid argument!!! Can't you read????"
    [20]Not another one!!!!! We are getting blurb nominations every few days at present. WE NEED BETTER RULES!!!!!
    [21]IT CANNOT BE PROVEN!!!!!! You have been told why. You are asking for the impossible. You are proving nothing with that demand. Read what others say carefully please, think about it, then bugger off!!! - Edit summary reads likewise
    [22]WHY ARE THE ADMINS IGNORING THIS??? Several Admin actions have occurred since the most recent comment above. My question is a serious one.
    [23]In a time critical environment, ignoring it for that long simply isn't good enough. You want the glory of being an Admin? Do your job!!!! If you can't do it, something really needs to change.
    Just a few examples. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s pretty embarrassing conduct that would get a newbie blocked. I think a topic ban from ITN might be necessary. Dronebogus (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean yes, ITN/C has its problems. Yes, lots of people don't like ITN and think it ought to be removed from the Main Page. Yes, you can argue there's just as much a civil POV pushing problem going on that page as there is with HiLo's incivility. However, if you look back in history to when he was previously topic banned from ITN for similar comments, this rises to the level of chronic activity. Or is this actually allowable as long as he's telling someone to "bugger off" and not actually calling them a slur? Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I read HiLo’s talk page reply anc rant archive userpage and it’s pretty clear that, despite assertions to the contrary, they hold some chauvinistic views towards Americans. Their overall attitude seems combative an incomparable with Wikipedia. Dronebogus (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @WaltCip: I looked in the usual places but don't see any record of HiLo48 having been banned from ITN in the past. Do you have a link for that sanction? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here you go. It was a very long time ago, admittedly, back in 2012 and I had thought it was sooner than that. I'm not certain whether this would lessen the significance of it. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing that has changed is he is no longer calling people "fucking morons" so in that sense, this current behavior a significant improvement as it no longer includes direct personal attacks. --Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I also found these:
    Note that these incidents were all within a span of roughly 3 years between 2011-2014, and their block log also mirrors this period. A common theme in these is a closing admin noting the problematic behaviour but referring the discussion to RFC/U, which was a handy catch-22 as RFC/U would not consider complaints if the user being discussed did not participate, and so in many of these cases action should have been taken but was not. However, there have been no other discussions (other than one which was frivolous, and this one) and no more blocks since December 2014, which suggests either that HiLo48 learned something from being reported so many times, or that the community got tired of reporting an unblockable and having admins pass the buck.
    Their recent behaviour at ITN (from WaltCip's diffs) suggests they're returning to their decade-past disruptive outbursts, but it would be a stretch to call this a pattern based on four edits over three months (one of the diffs is a duplicate). I think all that's warranted here is a warning that civility is required regardless of who your opponent is or what you believe their motivations are, and that further incidents will result in blocks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In general long-term productive editors are given a lot of leeway for obvious bad-faith lashings-out compared to newbies who might get an insta-indef. while in some ways this is understandable (thousands of good edits to one personal attack is a net positive; 100 edits entirely of angry POV warring isn’t) it’s also disturbing that we’re starting to let things like literal vandalism slide from experienced users Dronebogus (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That edit was 7 months ago, but if you wanted to bring it up there's already a thread about that editor on this page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    …and as you can see it’s closed. I was bringing it up as an example of the abysmal standards we have for behavior from well-established editors. Dronebogus (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That example was instantly self-reverted. Do you have other examples? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn’t matter that it was self-reverted, in fact that’s basically system gaming because an experienced (or even novice) editor would know there is zero tolerance for vandalism on WP. So vandalism and subsequent “lol just kidding” is still vandalism. Dronebogus (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This goes back for a while. I only posted those as a current example, but HiLo has recently been posting on and off on ITN for more than a year. This is a sample of some of his behavior and absolutely does not represent the totality of his behavior at ITN/C, which I could certainly compile if I had the time in the day to do so. But if you think a warning - a FIRM warning - will do then so be it. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that they keep editing while this discussion continues, but they did not show up here. I am afraid all wishes that they take the criticism onboard are wishful thinking until they show up here and acknowledge the existence of the issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that HiLo48 is watching this. Maybe they're too humiliated to participate? I could sure see why. Their peers are wondering out loud if their future contributions are worth the aggravation of any further bad behaviour.
    In any event, if they like editing Wikipedia, they should understand that many people are now aware of their negative behaviour and watching. They should understand they've just had their "last bite at the apple" before serious sanctions, even an indefinite block.
    They've played their last remaining "but they're a productive editor" pass.
    On the plus side, nobody's asking them to do anything exceptional -- just be polite like most everyone else. That's all. They can even secretly despise each one of the 335 million Americas alive on the planet -- they just have to keep it to themselves and treat them like everyone else. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course he's watching this discussion. He doesn't participate for two reasons:
    1. If he doesn't say anything, it will get set aside with no action taken. Like always.
    2. He's pants at polite discussion. If someone contradicts him - like with facts and diffs and stuff - he blows up and melts down and lashes out. That sort of behaviour doesn't help when people are discussing his behaviour.
    Perhaps he might be induced to make a statement on his talk page or similar protected area where he can feel secure in simply removing responses he feels are upsetting him? -- Pete (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was introduced to the move discussion through this ANI and I have to agree that HiLo48's general attitude towards those with whom they disagree is problematic.[24] It's weird to me that a simple move discussion is contentious, but HiLo48's comments certainly haven't helped the tone despite multiple editors asking for people to tone it down. This behavior shouldn't be ignored. Nemov (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Well that’s… (sunglasses) just not cricket. Dronebogus (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just want to highlight this comment in particular, which was made after most of this ANI discussion. I know this is a foreign concept to most Americans, so they need to defer to people who do know about it. I don't know if this is HiLo's intent, but I read this as saying certain people shouldn't be allowed to participate in a discussion or that their input is less valuable on the basis of their nationality, which would be a bright red line on xenophobia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      He didn't say they couldn't participate or that their input is less valuable, just that American editors need to acknowledge their limitations. Like trying to impose the American concept of a "bright red line"; most will recognise this as a gaff, inadvertently proving Hilo's point, but many people around the would would see it as an example of American cultural imperialism. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah I agree, I would personally not have tried to evoke the silly concept of a "bright red line", which to me evokes thoughts of some recent events that happened on the international stage when America was playing world police. If there is a case to be made against HiLo, this isn't it. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 11:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      ...What limitations? --RockstoneSend me a message! 03:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That most of them don't know about a global sport. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      A global sport that’s only played in the commonwealth because Britain introduced it. Let’s drop the “imperialism” natter. Dronebogus (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure what you mean by your second sentence, and the commonwealth is still all over the world and quite significant; I don't get your point here. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The second part was kind of a response to Hawkeye7, it was admittedly kind of unclear. But I think we’re digressing too much over whether it’s socially acceptable to be ignorant of cricket and not focusing on the fact that this user is frequently uncivil and combative. Dronebogus (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    HiLo: How to fix

    HiLo hasn't commented; presumably he thinks it's fine to abuse other editors based on nationality.

    Because we never do anything about it. --Pete (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I was prepared to say that I too was of two minds on this when reading the initial portion of the thread. On the one hand, context is king, as the old saying goes, and I can see some circumstances in which the comments that are quoted by the OP could be taken in a affable light. But then I actually went and looked at the context. First HiLo apparently said "standard American lack of respect for history" followed up by "That too is a standard response from parochial Americans. It's NOT an insult. It's an invitation to you to learn more about the world outside your borders" I'm sorry, but how is this not a textbook WP:PA of one of the worst sorts? This is literaly item number one on the list of "types of comments that are never acceptable" (emphasis in original), according to the section of the policy "What is considered to be a personal attack?":
    "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race ... ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors."
    This is not sassy "glibness", or blunt straight talk: it's just plain small-minded, bigoted regurgitation of tired stereotypes that serve no function other than to incite outrage in others and signal the speaker's general small-mindedness and willingness to reach for the most offensive representation of another editor's motives: that is a presumption of sheer ignorance on the part of your rhetorical opponent. This kind of behaviour has no place on this project and editors (American or otherwise) are very right to be upset with this and concerned about what it says that we are not nipping this sort of thing in the bud the second the first pair of community eyes falls on it. Do we really not have a single admin here willing to block such a brightline violation of WP:CIV? That surprises me, because there are names attached to mops that I respect in this discussion already. SnowRise let's rap 07:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And let me add that such would be my opinion if I was basing it just upon those comments initially alluded to by the OP. To see it followed by those additional diffs that can only be described as histrionic meltdowns? This seems to be an editor with tonal and self control issues that should have been addressed a long time ago. Indeed, I'm also pretty certain this is not nearly HiLo's first time here when it comes to this kind of thing; I did not participate in previous occasions his conduct was brought here, that I can recall, but I do feel confident in saying I've seen something like "HiLo and civility" in a discussion header here at least a dozen times over the years. Stopping to look at the conduct this time, it's clear why.
    I'm not familiar enough with the overall conduct to feel comfortable making a proposal for an appropriate preventative sanction, but if someone else does and it's reasonable, I am prepared to strongly consider support. HiLo could have shown up to defend this cluster of behaviour: their choice not to means I have to assume the pattern will persist if we don't do something. A block, TBANS...something seems called for. We can't let our editors/community members run around making these kinds of comments, stoking nationalistic rhetoric and division, in plain view of everyone. I try to avoid emotive appeals whenever possible, especially in a context like ANI, but honestly, it's an embarrassment that we even have to debate this. If these kinds of comments don't get an administrative or community response, I don't know what the point of having WP:CIV and WP:PA are. I really was starting to feel the community was turning a corner on "popularity armor" when it came to these kinds of issues, but the fact that this hasn't been acted on in the last couple of weeks makes me wonder.
    So if an admin is not willing to step in on this on their own onus, let's have an !vote, and we'll see what the community thinks about the idea of casually dismissing another editor by talking about "ignorant/myopic Americans" (or "loud Italians" or "drunken Irish" or "defeatist French" or "violent Africans" or "calculating Asians" or any other easy, stupid, hateful stereotype that we might slot in there). SnowRise let's rap 07:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a random community opinion for you. I don't think much of the idea of casually dismissing an entire race of people in words like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stolen_Generations&diff=prev&oldid=853625286. This is from an editor who later tried to shoehorn a poor quality source into the Stolen Generations article: [[25]].
    Yes, anyone who's been around for a while knows that HiLo and Skyring don't get on. It looks to me like this is dragging on because of Skyring's agitation to get HiLo censured by any means possible. Good on HiLo for not taking the bait.
    The notion that Americans have little interest in the world outside their borders is a cheap stereotype but isn't racist. It's well known that Americans are one of the tiniest minnows in international cricket. It's no more racist to point that out than it is to point out the absence of an even vaguely competitive gridiron team in Australia.
    But basically we have two editors to contend with here. HiLo is blunt, abrasive and a net positive to Wikipedia. Skyring is polite, calm and a net negative to Wikipedia. Are we here to build an encylopaedia, or are we here to have a dinner party? Daveosaurus (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NPA is a policy, you don't just dismiss with with "are we here to have a dinner party?" and excuse poor behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've heard about Skyring (btw why is his sig "Pete"?)—'s poor behavior, but I have not seen why they are a net negative while HiLo is a net positive. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Some people have too much “fun” creating screwy signatures. Hence why mine has always been the default. Dronebogus (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm more asking why it doesn't violate WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It pretty clearly does but that’s the least of our concerns here Dronebogus (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can’t we just censure both for casual racism/xenophobia? Dronebogus (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, or if there is no appetite for that for this particular user at this moment in time (which is unfortunate but not entirely unheard of a when a long term editor acts in a thoroughly unacceptable way but makes the conservative tactical choice not to comment here), then the least that should be done is to give a final warning, so the next time it happens, the community's lack of tolerance for any further such is a matter of record. That shouldn't be necessary, mind you, when we are talking about a bigoted screed, but it's better to get half the job done in this thread than nothing at all. (Bearing in mind that I for one would still consider supporting a limited and tailored sanction to get HiLo's attention, but don't get the feeling that's where this is headed). SnowRise let's rap 21:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's a consensus above to treat this as a final warning. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope the closer reaches the same conclusion. I'm still pretty concerned about the milktoast response from the community here, given the specifics of the conduct. SnowRise let's rap 21:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is the final warning it must be logged in at the talk page of the user as such. (Not sure why this is final since they have been blocked before, but fine). If it is not logged we will be back here in a couple of months. Ymblanter (talk) 07:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Daveosaurus, that reasoning is flawed in numerous ways. First off, it's a false choice to suggest we can't address the conduct of both editors in a situation like this. Second, I don't see the value in the suggestion that we should downgrade one editor's clear pattern of abusive language for another--least of all in this kind of area--because it happened to coexist with similar policy violations. Further, as a purely rhetorical/policy matter, it doesn't matter that most Americans take little interest in cricket: the argumentation techniques employed by HiLo here are clearly just stirring the shit: you are meant to comment on the content, the sources, and the policy factors when discussing work on the encyclopedia, not opining on what you perceive to be your rhetorical opponent's failings or gaps in knowledge: even if he had just kept his comments to "Americans know nothing about cricket", that would still be a weak, unconvincing, and problematic discussion style under our policies that should be immediately discouraged. These kinds of comments can do nothing to resolve the content issue and only serve to drag out and personalize things.
    But further, and crucially, HiLo went well beyond such unwanted dead-end comments straight into the territory of nationalistic invective. What he said was unambiguously unacceptable: again, it is literally the first, paradigmatic example given at WP:PA for comments that are never acceptable. I don't see the point in arguing whether this is Racist with a capital R; for what it's worth, that's not the first descriptor I would use either (though it's certainly in the same family of observation, make no mistake). It's bigotry, no matter how you slice the rest of the semantic label: the ascribing of supposed personal flaws to a monolithic group. Regardless, it suffices that it is unambiguously against policy, unquestionably a bad faith behaviour, and clearly WP:disruptive. We regularly block on sight new users exhibiting this exact conduct, and I never see any hand-wringing about whether their behaviour was "that bad" when we do.
    This combined with the other demonstrations here of a longtime pattern of incivility and losing his cool in a frankly childish manner when confronted with opposition paint the picture of someone who does not respect our community behavioural guidelines, in that the shortfalls between their conduct and what is expected of them has clearly been pointed out to them numerous times. Inaction is clearly enabling this to persist, and the community has recently had declining patience for the "net positive" argument for doing nothing in cases of brightline behavioural issues, for very understandable reasons. If Skyring has done anything nearly as bad as we've seen presented here for HiLo, by all means, let us look at that and consider action there. As to HiLo, I am convinced: this user needs to hear from the community that under no uncertain terms will this trading in comments about the supposed shortcomings of the people of X country be tolerated. It has no place in an open project like this, where inclusion is a mandate and your comments are meant to be avoiding personalizing discussion anyway. SnowRise let's rap 21:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Daveosaurus, Ben Roberts-Smith was awarded the Victoria Cross for gallantry but it has subsequently emerged he committed a number of atrocious war crimes. By your argument we should overlook the latter because of the former. 1.136.105.123 (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC).[reply]
    I love a good analogy, but it is very easy to slip into reductio ad absurdum with them, as you’ve just proven, IP. — Trey Maturin™ 21:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Inclined to agree: an example from such another universe of misdeed that it can only really inflame and muddy the waters. Nevertheless, the underlying point that existed before the IP's hyperbolic example remains: we don't give community members free passes on violations of pillar policies just because they've been here long enough to accrue a body of positive mainspace edits. ...Well, actually, as a community we routinely have in the past, but we shouldn't. SnowRise let's rap 21:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Possibly Confused Comments

    I made the mistake of reading this series of posts, and I either have missed the request for administrative action, or have concluded that there isn't a request for administrative action. This isn't as much of a tentacled monster as the discussion about BHG and her enemies and categories, but it is at least as confusing, because I can't see the call for administrative action. I see that the discussion is mostly about:

    • Insults to Americans. (Many Americans ignore national insults.)
    • Two people with the same name, a great Australian sportsman, and an American who should be forgotten.
    • National differences in sports and in interests in sports.

    As soon as User:HiLo48 is mentioned, it seems that the subject gets changed back either to someone else or some other thing about nations.

    There are several mostly valid reasons to insult Americans. Ignorance of cricket is not one of them. That sport is international, but is not worldwide. Americans play a different game that has an almost lost common ancestor with cricket, and is also international but not worldwide. It is reasonable to insult an American who is ignorant of another sport of British origin that is worldwide. This month and next, an American who expresses a lack of interest in the worldwide game is probably not so much ignorant as misogynistic.

    Is there a request for administrative action, or should this discussion be moved to a subpage or archived or closed? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    How in the world does misogyny come into it??? EEng 21:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Most American sports fans do not usually follow association football as much as other sports, but will be watching the defending champion United States women's national soccer team in the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup, unless they don't care for women's sports. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah... about that. As much as I'm a big fan of UConn Huskies women's basketball (about as much as the men's team, this year was a mirror image of the more common outcome for each team), if you want a decent summary of my attitude (which is very representative of Americans) towards women's soccer this should do the trick. I only know anything about it because I heard Sue Bird was on the cover of SI, and... did not know it was the Body Issue (I've never understood the appeal) or that she was married to Megan Rapinoe. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is going nowhere except on a grand tour of prejudices and their intersection with sports. Can we just get into the inevitable transphobia and get it over with, or better yet actually discuss the topic at hand? Dronebogus (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a discussion below I think Aaron Liu (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure there's a request to give HiLo a final warning for their insults. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the community has mostly been discussing the side issues, maybe an administrator should give HiLo a final warning as a normal administrative action, and then close this before it becomes another giant squid. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be honest Robert, I'm having a hard time understanding what you are saying here. There's no need for some kind of formal "request for administrative action" in order for the community to discuss behavioural issues, and if there was, I would say that it was satisfied by the OPs bringing the matter here in the first place. And while there have been short divergences here and there, the bulk of the above discussion is clearly focused on HiLo's poor record for civility in general and the recent unacceptable PAs in particular: the discussion does not look very "confused" to me at all. further, I think your summary of the conduct a) leaves out a lot of the more problematic language, thereby minimizing the community's concerns, and b) just generally does not align with the rough (if non-unanimous) consensus above that this behaviour is in fact not "reasonable" but rather quite serious violations of policy. It's possible I am misunderstanding you, though, because your comments seem to me to go back and forth on whether this is a serious issue or not.
    All that said, while heavily disagreeing with your analysis of the situation, I do find that I am agreement with your suggested course of action. Speaking as one community member (un-involved in the underlying disputes but kinda aghast at the behaviour here and the inaction of multiple admins who watched this unfold) I'd be happier if the community sent a more unified message in the form of a sanction for HiLo (even a slap on the wrist half day block or a narrow TBAN would be something), but it doesn't look like that it is going to happen. An admin issuing a formal warning would certainly be better than nothing--ideally it would be logged/relayed to HiLo via his TP and put in the formal close here. But I think I have to agree that the writing is on the wall here: there's not sufficient community will for a sanction here. That mystifies me, personally, but there's insufficient justification in keeping the discussion open indefinitely if it is not leading to a useful conclusion. So let's hope an admin is willing to make the warning and close the thread. SnowRise let's rap 21:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:SnowRise - I wasn't really commenting on the seriousness of the nationalistic attacks by HiLo. I was reading the discussion here in the possibly futile hope that it would enlighten me as to what the offense was. It didn't enlighten me, so I was and still am confused as to what the details of the main issue are, if the main issue is the conduct of HiLo. I will admit that I don't normally get upset by non-Americans who say stupid things about Americans. Either the stupid things are true, or they are not true, and citizens of a big country can ignore stupid comments. I didn't see any specific evidence of a civility problem by HiLo here, although I am aware that there is such a problem. I thought that the discussion here was mostly tangential, which is why I said it was about other things. Maybe I was expected to read several months of archives, but I am not doing that. I didn't see evidence presented here that amounted to a real case against HiLo. Do you want to show me where it is? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Robert. Like you, I believe it is a dubious use of time to go digging through historical reports for past misdeeds. I do believe that a large and consistent enough pattern of behaviour is worth noting after a time, and I think one exists here, but more to the point, I don't think you need look at anything more than what has already been reported here to be able to appreciate the depth of the problems. That includes some comments that you are clearly aware of but (if I am reading you correctly) are largely dismissing, suggesting the gap between our perspectives is one of philosophy about what is appropriate conduct and speech on this project, rather than a difference in the facts we are working from.
    For example, I still feel you are underrating the severity and the damage done by the nationalistic people-bashing comments in question. First off, even if HiLo's comments had been restricted to the message of "you clearly don't know anything about cricket because you are American--therefore get out of my way", that in itself would be a major issue. That's not how we discuss or form consensus on this project, and as someone positioned as an ADR guru on this project, that's something I'm surprised you don't readily agree with me about, and take more seriously. It's a brightline WP:CIR issue when an editor decides to take potshots trying to tear down their rhetorical opposition personally, rather than arguing a priori from the sources, content, and policy.
    But HiLo then went far beyond this, beginning to opine more broadly about ignorant Americans with no vision or interest beyond their borders. There is no question that in doing so they leapt straight across any dubious plausible deniability they had for their prejudice and straight into nationalistic WP:PA territory. I respect that you (and probably many of our American editors) have thick enough skin that you can shrug this kind of comment off. That's a character strength. It does not, however, change how unacceptable this kind of comment is, and we don't need you or any one particular American editor to take offense at it before it is a massive problem. Even if the OP had taken no issue with, it would still be a serious violation of core (even pillar) policies, and needing addressing.
    Then also in this thread we have a number of diffs of this user losing their ever-loving mind on people in ways that I can only really classify as "TEMPER TANTRUMS, OMG why can't people see what a problem this guy is!!!!!!!!!", to ape the form of these posts. This is somebody who is not exercising the minimum we expect (or at least I thought we expected) for communication in a productive and civil fashion on en.Wikipedia. Worse yet, if you look at this editor's user page, you will see that they themselves have documented that these kinds of observations have been incoming for them for years and years, and yet they have dismissed all such efforts at community intervention (regarding what are clear basic competency issues with regard to discussion) as they themselves being harassed by the "niceness police" or "civility police". This is clear WP:IDHT that, from all indicators, has been going on for well over a decade. Their block log further reflects this.
    So, this seems to be a community member who has had more than fair warning that they are falling short of community standards, and yet interprets it consistently as whinging from editors who just don't get how important their contributions are and why they can't be expected to adhere to the normal rules, which they consider an unfair burden. Well, respectfully, at least with regard to this recent wave of behaviour, I think they have been let off lightly up until now. This inaction is not helping the situation with this user, and it's not a good look for us to continue to enable the status quo, simply because of the resistance in this space to sanctioning and established user, relative to a new one. From jut the details established in this thread, HiLo's arguments are often not valid policy arguments, and even cross the line into bigoted invective. What is the argument for tolerating any of this, when it could not be more clearly a violation of WP:PA, WP:CIV, and WP:DISRUPTIVE? SnowRise let's rap 09:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All that said, this is the end of my contributions to this thread: after four sizeable posts, I don't have anything more novel to add, or better ways to say it. And even as an uninvolved party to the underlying dispute, there comes a time where one more comment begins to look out of proportion. Indeed, I'm only adding these last two posts to respond to your inquiry, clearly made in good faith. I recognize there is not an appetite for a sanction here. I'll repeat that this confuses and worries me. But there should be no doubt that the problems here are real and substantial, whatever our collective response to it. SnowRise let's rap 09:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Snow Rise - You refer to me as an ADR guru. What is ADR? Is it Alternative Dispute Resolution? I don't think it has to do with footnotes. When I mediate disputes, I try to encourage the parties to ignore any personal attacks and will collapse them. Sometimes ignoring any unpleasant comments may make it possible to solve a content dispute. But the reason that I am ignoring the "impersonal attacks", that is, attacks on my nation, is mainly that I haven't seen them, and I don't want to see them. So if I am ignoring the attacks, it is because I am ignoring the attacks, not because I don't think that they are serious. I haven't seen them to assess whether they are serious. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even just a warning would be sufficient. A thread like this closing with no action sends a message to contributors (and not incidentally, also to admins) that the community has decided violations like these are tolerable because they are not against an unacceptable target and because nothing was done about it in the past. I for one won't stand by idly if disruption like this continues at WP:ITNC, however. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I come to this thread after I was thinking of leaving a message at HiLo's talkpage (put it at the article talk instead). From being in the same place as HiLo in various corners of Wikipedia, I think that HiLo is a generally a well-meaning editor but knows their own mind; does not like being challenged on those well-held beliefs (from big, like injustice, to small, like word placement - the reaction is the same); and does not like the idea that others may perceive them negatively, tending to say it is those others' fault somehow. This last one was very much confirmed for me (though not in a Wikipedia context) recently through a discussion about haka, though comments above suggest they've also acknowledged (but relished in) it.
    I think that HiLo has got away with such editing attitudes at ITNC, where I see them most, for so long because of how short those discussions last. Regular contributors can expect an erratically-capitalised, strongly-worded, anti-American !vote from HiLo, and possibly some follow-ups if a newbie dare interact with HiLo's comments. But these comments don't warrant response and disappear within a week; they can be easy to ignore (not in the sense of not considering them, if apt, but that they're so routine and fleeting that the fact it's uncooperative no longer affects regulars). Of course, the issue there is that it makes ITNC unwelcoming for newbies, being alarmed both by such comments and the passive attitude towards them. A similar phenomenon may be happening across Wikipedia - that users are familiar with HiLo's MO and don't engage with it, thinking trying to fix it would be fruitless and being so accustomed that it has no effect.
    This situation could probably continue, even though it requires concessions from the editing community at large to allow HiLo to continue with the absolutism. However, for the benefit of newer editors who are not accustomed and may feel bullied or such when first interacting, I would agree that the community should probably try to address this. Kingsif (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there anything stopping us from having an admin go to HiLo's talk page, give them a formal final warning, and then just close this? IMO this has been in closing territory for nearly a week Aaron Liu (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, I don't think that'll fix it. In among it all, HiLo does make useful contributions. The attitude is something deeply entrenched with their editing. I do not think they will be able to immediately change it, certainly not everywhere, and then they'll have gone past their final warning and be gone. Maybe some people want that, but perhaps different steps should be taken. An ITNC TBAN could be useful, or to encourage HiLo to use variations on a standard response in their ITNC !votes. Asking them to drop the all caps would help. Users familiar with HiLo's editing and presence could brainstorm measures to help curb the ... lack of bedside manner, for want of a better short way of describing it. Kingsif (talk) 01:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How about we combine these and give a final warning before TBAN? Aaron Liu (talk) 01:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah that could be recommended. I meant that, in addition, we could find ways to either encourage or enforce better manner, rather than just say "do it or be banned". I'm not sure it would be effective, but worth a try? Though I understand if everyone thinks that's too much effort. Kingsif (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Early on in this discussion, Mackensen left some polite advice on HiLo's talk page to which HiLo responded here.
    So far as I know this is his only response to his action and far from expressing regret or remorse at the disruption caused, he blames the targets of his personal attacks as being irrational and ignorant and opinionated. He sees his abuse as serving some sort of corrective purpose because his opinion is always informed, correct, objective, and measured.
    His final words on the contributions of other editors are instructive: "I get rather sick of that sort of bullshit."
    He has not commented here, he has not made any commitment to improve, he has made no admission of error whatsoever.
    This attitude persists through numerous complaints and interactions extending back over a long history here. It is always the other guy, or the entire Wikipedia community at fault.
    He doubtless views himself as the victim, and the complaint an ANI discussion as weaponising wikiprocedure against his blameless self.
    If he says nothing, then nothing will happen to him - except maybe a warning which may be ignore along with all the others over the years - and his behaviour will not change.
    It is one thing to offer correction and advice to those in error or ignorance, but to attack other editors on the basis of nationality or political affiliation or any other personal characteristic is a direct breach of one of our fundamental pillars.
    I don't think a "final warning" will have any more effect than the numerous prior warnings, some of them given in rather strict and unambiguous terms.
    I think that either HiLo should
    1. acknowledge the problem, own his behaviour, and make some firm commitment to improve, or
    2. a short block would be something that would focus his attention.
    It doesn't mean that we don't want him or his contributions are not welcome, just that he needs to accept that making personal attacks on other editors is something that the community views dimly and they must stop. There is no justification for incivility. --Pete (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If they goes past the final warning to continue their behavior then there will be a block or TBAN, that will get their attention for sure. I don't think we need to go past a final warning right now though. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Footwiks, competence is required, and copyvio

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

    • Copyvio Copying within Wikipedia without attribution, I apologize :3 F4U (they/it) 11:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC) - Here, copied from here without attribution[reply]
    • More copyvio - [26]
    • [27] No diff because Footwiks makes talk page comments across ... many edits, each of the many comments there are 20-40 edits each, so I'm not really able to provide a single edit (They have made 424 of the last 475 edits to that talk page). There's WP:OWN, not understanding Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines despite multiple explanations, etc.
    • Discussion on my talk page Again, I see here a lack of ability/want to understand English Wikipedia policy

    Footwiks was previously blocked for competency is required reasons in 2013 after edit warring in football articles against consensus and failing to understand what other editors were telling them. Unblock request here In 2022, Footwiks was brough to ANI again following a copyright violation, where editors tried to explain to Footwiks what they did wrong, and to which Footwiks failed to understand them. (Other ANI incidents: 2012, 2012, 2013, 2021,) What I see here is that despite many many editors trying to explain to Footwiks (who now has amassed over 60,000 edits) basic Wikipedia policy on copyvio, citing sources, etc., Footwiks has demonstrated that it is too difficult for them to read/understand what they are being told. :3 F4U (they/it) 10:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • (1) Please check out United Kingdom in the Korean War. Memorial section is the tiny part. All contents in the United Kingdom in the Korean War are my own contributions.
    • (2) Please check out South Korea in the Korean War. I created this article 10 July 2023, Timeline section, Caualties section, Main Battles section are my own contributions. I copied Order of Battle section from Korean War order of battle. But this Order of Battle don't have ROK Navy, ROK Air Force, ROK Marine Corps. So this weekend, I have a plan to expand this article including Order of Battle section with various statistics soon. Today (14 July 2023), I was expanding the article - South Korea in the Korean War. But other users didn't wait my contributions. Currently, This article is redirected to Korean War article. So I also don't want to wast my precious time to expand this article - South Korea in the Korean War
    • (3) F4U is a native Korean Speaker, I'm a South Korean. So I left a message in Korean on talk page. What is the problem?
    In my opinion, I didn't breach WP policy to report here.
    Footwiks (talk) 11:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My issue is that editors, including myself, are pointing you towards policy, but I do not see any sign that you are understanding what they are saying. I have no doubt your edits are in good faith, but I find it difficult to find that you can be a productive member on English Wikipedia if you have difficulty understanding what other editors are saying and when they point you towards English Wikipedia policy. I told you on my talk page that in its current state, South Korea in the Korean War was not suitable for article space and that I would be willing to move it to draft state. You responded by telling me to leave it alone. Your messages in Talk:List of military special forces units also demonstrate a lack of ability to provide comprehensible messages that other editors can understand and respond to. And the copyvio demonstrates that previous discussions about disruptive behavior seemingly did not have an impact. :3 F4U (they/it) 11:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You moved article to draft status. But I politely asked you to keep the status.
    So you voluntarily reverted to the original status and I left a thank you message on your talk page.
    Please check out conversatons on your talk page. What is the problem? You and me didn't have any disputes.
    I really don't understand why you report my actions to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    • Talk with Freedom4u
    • Footwiks: 안녕하세요? 혹시 한국인이신가요? South Korea in the Korean War 지금 이 문서 7월 10일에 만들어서 계속 확장 중인데 왜 삭제를 신청하신거죠? 느긋하게 지켜 봐 주시길 부탁드리고 영어와 한국어 네이티브급이라고 쓰여져 있던데 문서 확장하는데 동참해 주시면 더더욱 감사하겠습니다.
    (Hello, Are You Korean? I created this article on 10 July, I'm now expanding article. Why do you attach deletion tag?
    Please wait and I think that your English is native level, If you expand together, I'll appreciate your contributions.)
    • Freedom4u: 아 알겠습니다. 아직 확장 중이라면 Draft: namespace에 넣고 준비가 되면 제출할 수 있습니다.
    (I understand what you mean, If you are still expanding this article, Let's move Draft: namespace.)
    • Footwiks: 지금 문서 수준이 드래프트 상태는 아닙니다. 제가 계속 업데이트 할 것이고 외국인 유저들도 기여를 할 수 있으니까 그냥 가만히 두시면 감사하겠습니다.
    (I think that this article is not draft status. I'm now expanding this article and other foreign user can expand this article, Please keep current status.)
    In the middle of this converstaion, Freedom4u moved this article to draft status but he reverted to original status.
    • Footwiks: 제 부탁을 들어 주셔서 진심으로 감사합니다.
    (Thanks for your favor.)
    • Freedom4u: 이 상태에서 이 문서는 WP:Articles for deletion 토론에서 살아나물 가능성이 없습니다. Articles for Creation으로 이동하면 원하는 속도로 적고 Mainspace로 이동할 준비가 되면 다시 이동할 수 있습니다.
    (South Korea in the Korean War article can be delete after discussion in WP:Articles for deletion. So I recommend the Articles for Creation.)
    End of the talk
    Footwiks (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support a WP:CIR block of Footwiks. After reading the evidence above and Talk:List of military special forces units, it's clear that Footwiks either doesn't read, doesn't understand, or simply ignores what they're being told. At that Talk page, they repeatedly insist on South Korean sources over Western sources (because apparently the SK sources are correct and the Western sources aren't), then they have the gall to cite Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth and criticize User:Thewolfchild for attempting to compromise. A competent editor would recognize that this version of an article is clearly not ready for mainspace. Then there's the copyright violations, ownership, edit warring, etc. Woodroar (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Their reply to me below is a perfect encapsulation of the CIR issue with Footwiks. I mentioned that I had read Talk:List of military special forces units, then Footwiks asked if I'd read it and pasted comments from the Talk page. It's like talking with a brick wall. That they wrote Please Please listen carefully is ironic when it's evident that they can't or won't do the same. Adjusted and bolded my !vote above. Woodroar (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also this 2022 ANI in which Footwiks repeatedly struggled to understand why their copyvio was copyvio (including: believing the only issue was an article title, believing the issue was the source used and not the copying of content from that source, and believing the issue was grammar related). Given that they're still struggling with copyvio after those explanations, I support at least a block that can be lifted with a clear explanation from them, in their own words, that demonstrates a solid understanding of copyright policy. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 16:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Woodroar: Did you check out thoroughly the long discussion of the Talk:List of military special forces units?
    But these Western sources announced that Spartan 3000 is a Special Force Unit or Spartan 3000's main task is the Special Operation and these western news outlet's articles are now using as the sources in the List of military special forces units
    • (3) New York Times (2017-09-12) NY Times source absolutely didn't have any terms "Spartan 3000" or ROK Marine Corps. NY Times source was definitely not about the "Spartan 3000", NY Times source was about other South Korean Special Force Unit.
    In conclusion, "Telegraph and Diplomat sources made a translation errors or intentional journalistic exaggeration, NY Times source are not relevant source about 'Spartan 3000 Unit."
    I hope that you understand the issue of this discussion and why I didn't accept compromise in this discussion.
    :Discussion participant "Buckshot06" also pointed out the flaws of Western Sources.
    I and Buckshot06, We are planning to open discuss again in order to correct wrong information in the List of military special forces units soon.
    You were not a participant of this this long discussion and You didn't check out this long discussion throughly. Please don't comment this discussion here.Footwiks (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)I was notified of this and then pinged here, so I suppose I should add something. In regards to the comments above, this is not really the place to try and relitigate the specific Spartan 3000 dispute. If people want to know about that, they can read the assosciated talk page discussion, or the subsequent discussion at DRN. On these pages are numerous examples of why people may have difficulties with Footwiks and why Footwiks may have difficulties with Wikipedia, issues that have already been noted by others here. What is not evident, unless you had tried to follow/watchlist these disussions at the time, or unless you check the histories, is Footwiks' refusal to simply use the preview function. For participants this can be problematic, (re: at the DRN, Footwiks made over 470 edits... I made 17). In the Spartan 3000 thread, Footwiks lengthy and often posted repetitive comments that would regularly take up to 30 consecutive edits or more before being complete. They made a total of 424 edits in that one discussion alone... that is a lot of notifications, and often leads to numerous edit conflicts, not to mention the blowing up of related page histories. (Fyi: their final post to that thread was 38,000+kb in size and took 55+ consecutive edits to complete.) I did try to notify this user of the preview function, which one of WP's widely accepted norms, but that just largely ended up like other attempted discussions with them. In closing, I will say that I was initially under the impression that this was a new user, and was surprised to find that (at the time) they had been here for over 13 years and had made 62,000+ edits (this does not count their experience at the ko.wp or others). At this point, I'm not sure what can be done to resolve these issues. - wolf

    @Freedom4U: Did you check out thoroughly the long discussion of the Talk:List of military special forces units?
    If you read the South Korean sources - "Korean newspaper and official answer from Republic of Korea Marine Corps in this discussion."
    You can understand issue of this discussion. In order to finish discussion rapidly. I asked for official answer from Republic of Korea Marine Corps and received it.
    But unfortunately, discussion lengthened. In this situation, There is WP:OWN and I don't understanding Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines?
    Please check out thoroughly the long discussion of the Talk:List of military special forces units, Especially, You are a native Korean Speaker,
    Please South Korean sources - "Korean newspaper and official answer from Republic of Korea Marine Corps in this discussion thoroughly.
    I really understand the sourcing guidelines, Do you know the below the sourcing guidelines?
    I discussed in accordance with common this sourcing guidelines.
    Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages
    You were not a participant of this this long discussion and You didn't check out this long discussion throughly. Please don't comment this discussion here.Footwiks (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We cannot accept official answers from the marine corps, or anything similar. Secretlondon (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Official answers is primary sources. I know that Wikipedia prefer secondary source.
    Please read this sourcing guideline.
    • Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages
    Footwiks (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dylnuge: Please check out my all contributions From 7 to 14 July.
    As you see, I created 3 articles about Korean War and I spended so much my precious time for development of English Wikipedia.
    • Belows are sources and I provided new informatin about Korean War in English Wikipedia. That is to say, Most information in my 3 articles are the new information which don't have in existing English Wikipedia article about Korean War.
    I immersed myself in creating articles with new information for 7 days for development of WP. But tiny part is copyvio, Yes, It's my mistake, Wikipedia want to block me? I am deeply disappointed.Footwiks (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that your intentions are good. The problem is that copyvio can't be a "tiny part" of your contributions. It should be none of them. I'm not an admin, so I can't see the deleted diffs from 14 July, but it sounds like you're not contesting that those edits included copyvio. Between this and the warnings you got in December, I support a block indefinitely with any unblock being contingent on (at the least) your ability to demonstrate a clear understanding of the copyright policy. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 00:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    A Wikipedia exists in Korean. See this. Perhaps you’ll be more ‘at home’ there. MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 17:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Matticusmadness I don't think that this comment is necessary, as they are also a prolific creator on there with around 70k edits. :3 F4U (they/it) 17:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to mediate the dispute over List of military special forces units. User:thewolfchild has provided a link to that proceeding, and I will provide it again for the convenience of editors taking part in this inconvenient case: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_232#List_of_military_special_forces_units. If an editor tries to read it and concludes that they can't understand what the problem was because User:Footwiks's posts are so long and unfocused, they do understand what a major part of the problem was, which is that User:Footwiks was unable to comply with my instruction to be concise. I do not think that User:Footwiks understood the nature of DRN, because they, more than once, appealed to my editorial judgment and common sense. I try to mediate using common sense, but at DRN I am not an editorial judge. It was sometimes impossible to follow the lengthy posts by Footwiks that too often were a confusing mix of Korean and English translation, and made heavy use of bold face in a way that did not provide emphasis so much as distraction.
    The mediation almost didn't happen, because I told Footwiks to notify the other editors, and they said first that they had notified them, and then that they decided not to post to the talk page of thewolfchild because they seemed angry or about to be made angry. Again, they didn't seem to understand.
    Unfortunately, this editor seems to be a time sink. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I really apologize for my mistake of copyvio. If administrators give me a chance to contribute on Wikipedia, I'll strictly comply with the rules of Wikipedia:Copyright violations
    But I have something to tell all Administrators about breach of sourcing guidelines. Freedom4U misunderstood the situations in the [Spartan 3000 Unit discussion
    user:Freedom4U reported here as belows
    "There's WP:OWN, not understanding Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines despite multiple explanations, etc."
    I absolutely can't accept this report of user:Freedom4U.
    Currently, ROK Marine Corps 'Spartan 3000 Unit' is on the List of military special forces units and User:thewolfchild attached Western sources.
    Let's check out below 2 sources which attached by User:thewolfchild
    (1) Telegraph source (2016-03-21) - Telegraph source have a follow sentence: "South Korea has formed an elite force of 3,000 marines which is poised to carry out raids inside North Korea (in 2016)
    (2) New York Times (2017-09-12) - NY Times source have a follow sentence: the South Korean defense minister, Song Young-moo, told lawmakers in Seoul that a special forces brigade defense officials described as a decapitation unit" would be established by the end of the year (end of the 2017).
    If NY Times source is really about ROK Marine Corps "Spartan 3000" Unit, How can ROKMC establish the unit (brigade-level) with by the end of 2017?, "Spartan 3000" was already fully formed in March 2016 (based on Telegraph). Actually, South Korean Defense Minister Song Young-moo told creation of Decapitation Unit (참수부대) on 4 September 2017 ([source]) and other ROK Army Special Force Unit - "13th Special Mission Brigade / Decapitation Unit (참수부대)" was really formed in December 2017 ([source]
    In chronological order, two sources are saying contradicting facts, also, Please find the term "Spartan 3000" in the whole prose from NY Times sourse.
    NY Times source didn't have the term "Spartan 3000" or ROK Marine Corps.
    This don't need the good editorial judgment. This is about the just reading comprehension ability of English newspaper article. I'm not an English native speaker. But I founded this flow in the NY Times source.
    I think that Administrators of English Wikipedia are English native Speakers, Please throughly read and compare two newspaper articles - Telegraph source (2016-03-21) and New York Times (2017-09-12)
    At that time, I pointed out flaw of NY Times source and I asked User:thewolfchild a question about this flaw twice.
    But User:thewolfchild didn't reply.
    Attaching of the irrelevant source and source with translation errors , Is this the compliance with the sourcing guidelines of Wikipedia?
    I think that providing appropriate sources is duty of users in the Wikipedia.
    Who did breach the sourcing guidelines of Wikipedia? me and User:thewolfchild?
    User:Freedom4U was not the participant of 'Spartan 3000 discussion, It appears that User:Freedom4U TL;DR about all posts in the long discussion. User:Freedom4U didn't explain about my breach of sourcing guidelines in a concrete way.
    About below accusations by User:Freedom4U. This is the definitely allegation and Wikipedia:Wikilawyering
    • There's WP:OWN, not understanding Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines despite multiple explanations, etc.
    • Discussion on my talk page Again, I see here a lack of ability/want to understand English Wikipedia policy
    About breach of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia accused by User:Freedom4U
    (1) Memorial section, I copied from Battle of the Imjin River#Memorial
    In my defense, I just forgot to link to the source article in my edit summary.
    (2) Order of Battle section, I copied from Korean War order of battle#Pro-Southern forces: United Nations and Republic of Korea
    In my defense, My Korean War History Book also had same ROK Army structure chart, This is not the sentence or description. I was planning to improve order of Battle section including ROK Navy, ROK Air Force, ROK Marine Corps. But South Korea in the Korean War article are redirected to Korean War article by some user. So I couldn't improve order of Battle section.
    FYI, Structure of the Republic of Korea Army, I created this articles. If I have enough time, I can improve order of Battle section.
    Anyways, I really apologize for my mistake of copyvio again and I really apologize for all the trouble in the Wikipedia Community.
    I am sincerely trying to provide better information in Wikipedia, I throw myself on the mercy of the ANI and beg for light punishment.
    Thanks for your reading.Footwiks (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, the above post by Footwiks is informative in an unintended way. I had wondered whether Footwiks is able to take part usefully in collaborative editing of the encyclopedia. I no longer wonder. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I really appreciate your mediation and Sorry for long post in the DRN. I understand TL;DR trend in the Wikipedia. At that time, I focused the flaws of Western Sources but I think that you didn't read key western sources which cause dispute. Additionally, I also asked a question about flaw of NY Times source on your talk page. But you didn't reply. I think that long post in the DRN is not entirely my fault.Footwiks (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Footwiks; You say you understand the "TL:DR trend" on WP, yet you continue to post these giant walls of text that completely drown out any possibility of a coherent discussion thread. Furthermore, this ANI is your behaviour, and your competence to edit this project and interact with other editors, yet all you're doing here is trying to re-litigate a specific content dispute from the past, that doesn't even involve the OP. You're just focused on arguing (ad nauseum) about the ROKMC entry and the sources supporting it, but this is not the time and place for that. I have to agree with the others here that there is a CIR issue that needs to be addressed. Whether it's through mentorship or a block, something needs to be done. - wolf 17:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    When I failed the DRN, I said that maybe an interaction ban between User:Footwiks and User:Thewolfchild might be necessary. That question still needs to be answered if the community thinks that Footwiks is otherwise a net positive to the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Um... what? Other than a single content dispute, that led to that DRN, Footwiks and I haven't interacted in over a month, and certainly not to the level of an IBAN. I didn't start this ANI, I was notified about it by the OP, and like several others here, including yourself, I posted concerns about Fw's editing. (Just above you referred to Fw as a "timesink", should there be an IBAN between Fw and you?) This is just a... strange and unsupported request to make, and an abrupt left turn in this report. - wolf 22:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Thewolfchild - I'm striking my comment about an IBAN. You did walk away from the WP:dead horse, and they didn't. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have had encounters with Footwiks for a number of years, as we sometimes edit the same football-related articles. They can make good edits, and I have no doubt they are here to be a positive, but they have been here a long time and still don't know basics. I have told them TLDR multiple times and they still insist on posting walls of texts.
    Are they a net positive? Yes, but probably only just at this stage from a cursory look above. Would a topic ban from military stuff be a (hopefully) more beneficial step before any kind of block/site ban? GiantSnowman 21:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ps their conduct has been raised multiple times at ANI previously, including by myself in June 2021. GiantSnowman 21:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue brought up here is a repeated and consistent failure to communicate with other editors, and doesn't uniquely apply to military articles or football articles. :3 F4U (they/it) 21:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm concerned that a topic ban is insufficient to handle the recurring copyvio issues. I have no opinion on the suitability or unsuitability of an iban between Footwiks and Thewolfchild (there's a lot to unpack there, and I haven't done it), but I second Thewolfchild's recommendation that Footwiks focus on the behavioral concerns here and not the content dispute. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 22:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And copyvio is just one instance among many where Footwiks has been explained Wikipedia policy by other editors and they have demonstrated that they either don't understand or don't want to understand. :3 F4U (they/it) 22:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Freedom4U: I admitted my fault about accusation of copyvio. But I think that below accusations you reported here are definitely allegations and Wikipedia:Wikilawyering
    • There's WP:OWN, not understanding Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines despite multiple explanations, etc.
    • Discussion on my talk page Again, I see here a lack of ability/want to understand English Wikipedia policy
    Firstly,
    You were not the participant of 'Spartan 3000' unit discussion and Before report here, you didn't check out thoroughly contents of long discussion.
    You are a Korean native Speaker, Please search the ROK Marine Corps 'Spartan 3000' unit / ('해병대 스파르탄 3000') on the South Korean internet - Naver and so on.
    According to the result of search on the South Korean internet, Is 'Spartan 3000' unit / (해병대 스파르탄 3000)' the current Special Force Unit in South Korea?
    So Do we have to add 'Spartan 3000 on the List of military special forces units in order to provide better information in WP?
    We can't find out any recent sources about 'Spartan 3000' unit in South Korea sources and Western sources.
    Because "Spartan 3000' was a just a nickname (used only March 2016) of ROK Marine Corps Quick Maneuver Force (신속기동부대), not Special Force Unit and Currently, ROK Marine Corps don't have any units with the name - "Spartan 3000'
    If you search '해병대 스파르탄 3000' on the South Korean internet, You can understand this dispute about Spartan 3000 - Special Force Unit.
    According to the reliable South Korean sources, Definitely, we have to remove 'Spartan 3000 on the List of military special forces units.
    Therefore, In order to correct wrong information about South Korean military, I opened the discussion and pointed out the flaws - translation errors or intentional journalistic exaggeration of current 4 Western Sources which currently attached (Telegraph, Diplomat, NY Times and New Zealand Herald) in compliance with Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines.
    Please put yourself in my position, If some users added wrong information on article about South Korean region - 'Gangnam' which you created and improved.
    References are Westerns sources based on South Korean News Outlet sources - Yonhap News Agency and so on. But These Western sources have translation errors and journalistic exaggerations and some sources are even irrelevant source about Gangnam, actually, source is about Gangbuk.
    So In order to correct wrong information on article Gangnam, You open a discussion and you point out the flaws of Western sources - translation errors and journalistic exaggerations and irrelevant sources about Gangnam. But unfortunately dispute occur, then discussion become a very long discussion.
    If you open a discussion about 'Spartan 3000' unit instead of me in the near future, I think that you will also have a dispute and long discussion.
    In conclusion, I don't accept your accusation - There's WP:OWN, not to understand Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines in the 'Spartan 3000' unit discussion
    Secondly,
    In discussion on your talk page, What is the problem about CIR?
    You moved article to draft status. But I politely asked you to keep the current article status.
    So you voluntarily reverted to the original article status and I left a thank you message on your talk page.
    That's all, We didn't have any dispute.
    Is this a lack of ability/want to understand English Wikipedia policy?
    I'd like to hear your opinions about my two counterarguments.Footwiks (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:TLDR, again - read the room mate! GiantSnowman 18:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @GiantSnowman: Sorry, My question included example - South Korean article which Freedom4U created. So I can't explain shortly. I'm South Korean and Maybe Freedom4U is also South Korean. We South Koreans know what the problem is in this issue. I just want to hear Freedom4U's opinions about my two counterarguments.
    • Support CIR block. The user's inability to comprehend basic editing and discussion standards would be evident in this thread even without a single diff. That they can't even understand other editors' advice/explanations when provided in their native language shows the problem is not one of language competency. JoelleJay (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Support for competence Block - As I mentioned just above, they haven't shown that they can engage in useful discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support CIR block' my interactions with the editor at Talk:Association football culture led me to contemplate coming to ANI myself; I didn't at the time, but if the issues still persist, I really think it would be a benefit for the encyclopedia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • They have now disregarded Firefangledfeathers's third opinon at the above talk page, all while claiming "I think that Commemoration Section don't have problem. Other users polished this section" (ha!). They show clear WP:OWNership behaviour and do not hesitate to lie. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Firefangledfeathers said that "Footwiks can try and fix it up themselves, or ask for help from other editors."
      If I am blocked soon. You can resolve a dispute involving me easily . Because I can't fix it or ask for help from other editors, and I can't open or participate in discussion again. I think that this is not the fair play and this is the Wikipedia:Gaming the system.
      I opened the discussion at the WikiProject Football. Let's wait for opinions of various users with football expertise.Footwiks (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      <sigh> Yet more evidence of Footwiks' inability or refusal to understand and work collaboratively with others. A third opinion recognized a problem with Footwiks' content; one of their suggestions includes Footwiks working on the content, but on the talk page or in userspace. Footwiks adds it back to the article, without any meaningful changes to address the problem. When AirshipJungleman29 objects, Footwiks accuses them of not listening to the third opinion. Woodroar (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Footwiks as several people have explained to you now, ANI is a forum about user conduct, not article content. People are reviewing your behavior, which does not require expertise in football, military history, or any other content area. And I'm gonna be completely honest—your replies here are not helping you. They demonstrate an issue with ignoring criticisms you don't agree with and derailing conversations with walls of text.
      As a note to admins (since the bludgeoning makes this a mess to read), as of this comment:
      • Five editors (Woodroar, myself, JoelleJay, Robert McClenon, AirshipJungleman) have expressed support for some sort of block
      • Three editors (Freedom4U, Thewolfchild and GiantSnowman) have noted repeated conduct issues that require some remedy but (as far as I can see) not explicitly supported a block
      • Only Footwiks themselves has expressed opposition to a block
      I think it's clear some action is required here and that discussion alone isn't working. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 21:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since third opinions are informal and non-binding, there's nothing wrong per se with Footwiks ignoring mine at Talk:Association football culture. Considered as a small part of the pattern of conduct described and evidenced above, I do think their actions there since the opinion have demonstrated misunderstanding of editing and collaboration norms. Among the issues is their accusation above that AirshipJungleman29 is supporting a sanction in order to game the system and win a content dispute. I'm not sure how the project can hope for improvement in conduct when criticism is met with such bad faith assumption. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor behavior at Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

    As many know, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a vaccine skeptic and pusher of medical misinformation. This is sourced in RS. Over the past few days, discussion in Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.#Incredibly biased article has gone off the rails. I have given final warnings to three individual editors in the hopes of avoiding an ANI thread, in which I've told them to AGF and focus on content, not contributors. One of the three has ceased, but the other two persist.

    NewEditor101101001 joined the discussion by saying, in part "It's sad that the Admins here seem to prefer biased hit pieces", and further talk posts such as "you're clearly risking the credibility of wikipedia as a whole", "Wikipedia isn't a dictatorship of @Ser!. It's supposed a collaboration", "there seems to be a filibuster going on by people who were able to make biased changes early and then locked down the page in what seems to be a desperate attempt to help Biden", and after my final warning to focus on content, "It is interesting that some of the people arguing most adamantly against any change like @Ser!, @Hob Gadling, @M.boli, and @Valjean are the same ones who have been actively editing the article to be more negative over the last 45 days regardless of consensus views" and "there is stonewalling. How do you address that by ignoring stonewalling/stonewallers?"

    Opok2021 said "The problem in this case is not the sources, it is the editors", "I cannot assume good faith for some of this article as it is clearly bias as stated above". After my warning, this user seemed to straighten out a bit, but then said that they still see "deliberate editor bias (unconfirmed)".

    I tried to avoid bringing this here. At a minimum, I'd like someone uninvolved to close down this thread, which is going nowhere and mooted by the ongoing RfC anyway. As for NewEditor101101001 and Opok2021, they need to learn to assume good faith on the part other contributors and drop their sticks. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I hatted that hot mess of accusations against good editors. Wikipedia's credibility is indeed on the line, but not as those editors think.
    Research shows that Wikipedia's credibility immediately increases when those types of editors leave the project, so don't hesitate to block and ban them now rather than later. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That talk page has been a dumpster fire for a while, though thankfully now only due to a few editors thanks to TP semi-protection. Support warnings/temp blocks. It's in four CTOPs and, at least before semi-protection, saw frequent canvassing, so I really hope a few admins will add it to their watchlists and keep things cool. DFlhb (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Having been pinged here, I'd just like to reply to back up Muboshgu's report about these users engaging entirely in bad faith, particularly NewEditor101101001. As you'll see in the above post, NewEditor101101001 accused me of "actively editing the article to be more negative", which when you look at my actual edits to the page is demonstrably a lie as my edits consist only of copyedits. The user has also been soapboxing on the talk page, describing reliable sources as being "far-left" and accusing editors of having an "irrational dislike" for the subject and pushing "political propaganda" for just two examples. Between these posts in demonstrably bad faith and the litany of examples Muboshgu has provided above, it's increasingly clear that this user is WP:NOTHERE. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 00:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve introduced NewEditor101101001 to the door, citing NOTHERE. I’ll add the article to my watchlist. Courcelles (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some editors or readers may be upset, and why not? The article's short first paragraph, which is seen on Google and other search engines, mentions or hints at being anti-vaccine three times with very little else in sight (and if seen on Wikipedia by readers they also read the short summary "American attorney and anti-vaccine activist (born 1954)" - so make it four times). Kennedy has defended himself against these charges many times. The fact that he is running for president of the United States? Way down in the lead, many paragraphs away, as the last line. Wikipedia has often been accused of bias and slanting, but this is almost a textbook example that those accusers can point to as a direct form of this bias. Not a good look and it's hard, objectively, to argue with them. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Kennedy's primary notability for decades has been for his anti-vaccine and general anti-science stances. That is what he has consistently been reported on in reliable sources. Running for a political position doesn't change that. In fact, almost all reliable sources reporting on him and his campaign will still mention his anti-science background, because that is where his notability lies. As I noted on the talk page there, would we be expected to sterilize Alex Jones lede if he ran for President as well just because the factual notable background is negative for the subject? SilverserenC 01:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia can say it once, maybe twice, in the short lead paragraph which is seen and read on search engines, and maybe an argument for non-bias editing can be made. But four times? Randy Kryn (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't, actually. You're conflating different things. There is a single sentence in the first paragraph that mentions his long-standing anti-vaccine stances, his more recent focus on specifically Covid vaccine fearmongering, and his more general conspiracy stances on public health topics. It only discusses vaccines once, with a single additional specific mention of Covid vaccines. Conspiracy theories on public health may include vaccines, but that part in this case is referring to his broader anti-science claims on other issues, including his AIDS denialism. SilverserenC 01:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the short descriptor and lead paragraph: Short descriptor: "American attorney and anti-vaccine activist (born 1954)", then "...is an American environmental lawyer and author who is known for promoting anti-vaccine propaganda, debunked claims about COVID-19 vaccines, and public health–related conspiracy theories." Editors can judge that for themselves, and the constant commotion on the talk page shows that readers already are. I'll leave it at that. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They can judge that those descriptors are entirely accurate? He is a lawyer and anti-vaccine propagandist. That is what his notability has been for decades. Without it, we likely wouldn't have an article on him even with his campaign happening. SilverserenC 02:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He is also an author, which could probably be mentioned there. Let'srun (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with the above. He satisfied WP:AUTHOR and the lead should mention that. Of course, writing is not what is he most known for. CT55555(talk) 23:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like an accurate summary to me. Cullen328 (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, he's not known only for anti-vaccine propaganda, debunked claims about vaccines, and public health related conspiracy theories. He's also been in the news recently [28] for the racist direction his public health related conspiracy theories have taken. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Plus, of course, the polemic farting. EEng 07:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh. I feel the need to point out the large amount of seemingly single-purpose accounts on that talk page. Perhaps a temporary blue lock is in order for the talk page. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that would be a logical step. It's also amusing how this dispute has blossomed on the same day that Kennedy suggests that COVID-19 may have been engineered to spare Jewish people from getting sick with it. BD2412 T 03:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what to say concerning that information. "Ah, tabarnak" comes to mind. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 07:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A blue lock sounds like an excellent idea. Bon courage (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. Too much time being wasted. DFlhb (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As the protecting admin, will do. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Jtbobwaysf has also been a disruptive presence in these discussions, which includes making vague insinuations that his opponents are paid editors [29] something that I think can charitably be described as preposterous. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because Jtbobways is an experienced editor, their behavior is much more egregious, so take the sanctions meted out to the others and apply it double for Jtbobways. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering the sanctions I've seen so far are NOTHERE blocks... you can't double block someone, right? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Liliana, a topic ban would protect Wikipedia from their tendentious editing and discussing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but it's not really something that is double the sanctions handed out to others. Nil Einne (talk) 09:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but that was a bit of hyperbole. My point was that experience carries more culpability. We expect experienced editors to know better and to avoid these types of basic CIR issues. Jtbobwaysf is not a newbie, so their behavior is not good. They should know that bias from sources is allowed in articles, and that the "neutral" in NPOV does not mean "neutral" in the normal sense. It applies more to editorial neutrality than content neutrality. Editors should neutrally and faithfully document biased content from sources without interfering by censoring or neutralizing the wordings from RS. Editors should not use loaded terms of their own, but should not hesitate to accurately use the loaded terms used by RS, and then, if it's a quote or likely to be questioned, attribute it. We often have two choices: leave it out or attribute it. The first is censorship, so we should lean toward inclusion and just attribute it. I am not referring to borderline cases here, but cases where good RS are making clear statements and allegations. They should be allowed to speak without editors muzzling them. RS bias always trumps editorial bias. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The RfC that Muboshgu mentioned is nearing a reasonable time for closure, having been open since 17 June. XOR'easter (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've filed a request for closure. XOR'easter (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors whose behaviors are under scrutiny here require to be notified as per the notice at the top of this page. SmolBrane (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Genre warring User:SpaceHelmetX1

    We take them for their word, and archiving for now likewise. Lourdes 05:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SpaceHelmetX1

    genre warring in dozens of articles. basically every edit is genre-change related. already blocked twice. will regularly go into articles, blank out genres that have been there for years and then demand sources when someone reverts --FMSky (talk) 06:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    And am I wrong for that? Am I wrong for removing an unsourced information? Am I wrong when I say that genres should be sourced? Am I wrong when I restore a sourced genre removed without any reason? Am I wrong to ask for sources? Do I change articles to the way I want? I respect the genres. I don't need to try change an article even when I know I'm not wrong. If, in order not to lose my account or be temporarily blocked, I need to abandon some articles, I can do that. Am I to blame for feeling uncomfortable when I see something clearly wrong going on? If the answer is yes, I apologize and promise to stop. There is a user bullying me on this website for months, it was this user who reported me here. And I'm being accused of "edit warring" when I'm just trying to do the right thing. I am an ordinary user. I do not add unsourced genres or unsourced content as a whole. I just want to collaborate, do the right thing, but I thought this site here wasn't a dictatorship. Finally, of the three times I appeared here, it was the same user who reported me. If I'm this monster, why is only one user chasing me? SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    have you noticed that every single entry on your talk page is a complaint about your editing? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SpaceHelmetX1&action=history not only by me but also by other users --FMSky (talk) 07:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are the main reason I'm here. You put me here! SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please stop with the wailing and moaning and please read the explanatory essay regarding consensus at Wikipedia:Silence and consensus? Cheers. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 09:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • SpaceHelmetX1, will you voluntarily agree to not revert/delete any existing genres on any article unless there is consensus on the talk page of the article? Lourdes 11:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to admit I don't think SpaceHelmetX1 is entirely unjustified in their edits. Challenging unsourced material and removing it is a fair contribution (although edit warring of course should be stopped quickly - especially when they've been blocked for it before). I've not studied the edit histories of each article, but I don't see any reasons given for reverting SpaceHelmetX1 (other than mentioning genre warring). In other words, what's the reason for undoing their edits? I suppose there's a debate to be had that when no sources exist it's fair for an album to reflect the band's genres, but that's all I can see. — Czello (music) 11:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Applying genre to something, can indeed be a subjective assessment. And without references can be WP:OR.
    But I think the concern here is "how" this is going about. I would suggest going forward that if they remove (or modify) a genre of an article that they copy it to the article talk page and start a discussion thread. If there are references for its applicability from verifiable, reliable sources, I think that's something that can be found out fairly quickly. But edit-warring obviously needs to stop. (Or in other words, per Lourdes.)- jc37 13:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    so is anything gonna happen now? --FMSky (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Not much. If they continue reverting without responding to this ANI discussion, it might lead to a block (might, depending on the circumstances). We'll wait for them to respond. Thank you, Lourdes 03:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree to search for consensus on the article's talk page. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Block evasion

    Blocked and archiving. Lourdes 20:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    GakugeiU was blocked for WP:ORGNAME. They have an open unblock request and were getting assistance from other editors. Nonetheless, the account TGUwiki was registered a few hours ago, and their userspace page User:TGUwiki/testsandbox is a copy of User:GakugeiU. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:SPI might be good to confirm if they are the same person. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to go into that.... These are just students trying to test out Wikipedia and they don't seem to be disruptive. I have left a request on their talk page. Thanks, Lourdes 04:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? Are they making disruptive edits? No, then leave them the hell alone, man. Jesus H Christ GeneralHamster (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess not everyone has problems with a promotional username account making promotional edits. @Lourdes: has taken the high ground and has warned about the promotional user name instead of blocking. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess block evasion is OK too. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Point noted my friend. I have soft blocked them. You or any other administrator may hard block them in case you may so deem fit. Thanks, Lourdes 03:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Reporting User: Pufferfishe for 3rr

    Hello all! I am reporting User:Pufferfishe for making six reverts at 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States over a six minute period. One of the edits was a minor reversion intended to allow further reverts. Difs: 1, 2,3,4,5,6. Googleguy007 (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Six consecutive edits, which counts as a single revert in terms of WP:3RR ("a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert", emphasis mine). DanCherek (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention those reverts happened four days ago... Courcelles (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My goal when making these edits was to revert a series of major changes made by @Recobben, which were biased, did not cite sources, and no consensus was reached on a talk page. I tried to revert them all with one edit, but that didn’t work, so I had to revert all of them individually. I am rather new to editing Wikipedia, so if there was an easier way, I wasn’t aware of it. Pufferfishe (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pufferfishe You can select a range for the reversions from the history page and undo them at once. Though reversions dont work if the material was edited again later on (meaning outside of the range you selected) and then it has to be done manually. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Googleguy007, why not just take this matter to the article talk page, per WP:BRD? ANI should be your last stop after all other efforts at addressing the editorial impasse have failed, and you are certain that it is because of significant behavioural issues with an involved editor. Instead you are using it to report routine edits which do not give any evidence of being anything other than good faith and are at least potentially valid under policy, without any prior discussion. I can see you're relatively new in terms of edit count, so chalking this up to inexperience with ANI, but please utilize a more fulsome approach to discussion before bringing editorial disputes here: this space is for serious, entractable behavioural problems. SnowRise let's rap 21:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent WP:NPOV and violations: specifically, bias in sources

    I am requesting admin action against Alltan (talk · contribs) for persistent violations against WP:NPOV for over a year on contentious pages under Balkan/Eastern European discretionary sanctions. The violations specifically relate to removing and keeping sources on pages based on their own arbitrary rules that push a particular POV narrative. In addition to removing sourced text on contentious pages without engaging in a talk page discussion:

    March/April 2022:

    • Alltan removed significant amounts of text on Attacks on Serbs during the Serbian–Ottoman War (1876–1878) as their opinion was that they had to remove sourced work as their belief of the sources was that The Saint Sava society was a NGO responsible for disseminating Serbian propaganda in "Old Serbia". (as per their article in English).[30]
    • Alltan removed significant amounts of text on 1901 massacres of Serbs as their personal opinion was that they had to remove sourced work as the sources were Milosevic era, when many Serbian academics produced works with nationalist and exaggerated claims of victimization that suited the government's nationalistic narrative.[31]. Alltan was subsequently warned by an administrator on their talk page that The idea that Serbian sources are "nationalist" and "exaggerated" just because they are Serbian, while non-Serbian sources are good, is very dangerous. Please, do not make such radical edits without prior discussion.[32]

    June 2022

    • Alltan was made aware of the Balkan/Eastern European discretionary sanctions on their talk page.[33]

    March 2023

    • After a revert of their initial removal by another user, Alltan returned to the page Attacks on Serbs during the Serbian–Ottoman War (1876–1878) and once again removed the aforementioned sourced content as their opinion was that rv, I have stated my reasons already The Saint Sava society was a NGO responsible for disseminating Serbian propaganda in "Old Serbia".[34]

    July 2023

    • Alltan removed sourced text from the Northern Epirus page without even a summary.[35]
    • I removed content on the page Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars as the sources did not meet WP:RS, specifically the sources were internet blog page citations, in addition one source stemmed from a thesis, violating WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Alltan reverted my removal as they were of the belief that the internet blog page I removed was Albanianhistory.net is RS[36]. Alltan followed up with another rv stating that Albanianhistory is RS, start a RSN.[37] What is interesting is that Alltan has previously removed a Greek internet blog citation on the page Varympompi without a RSN[38], removed a thesis on the page

    Euboea under WP:SCHOLARSHIP[39] and removed a citation based on WP:TERTIARY on the Northern Epirus page.[40]

    Summary: Alltan is applying a double standard personal rulebook to Balkan/Eastern European pages. They remove citations on Greek and Serbian affiliated pages under the banner WP:RS, while stepping in to stop the same actions being done on Albanian affiliated pages. For all of the aforementioned edits, Alltan has not engaged with anybody on a talk page and despite administrator warnings, their behaviour has not changed. Based on this evidence, I believe their is a violation of WP:NPOV and assistance is needed to curtail this. Thank you for your consideration. ElderZamzam (talk) 02:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, the Balkans. These look like content disputes, have you gone to the talkpages of any of these articles? If so, link to the discussions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2. At Psara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), they repeatedly remove the word "small" [41] [42], even though it is sourced to a top notch source, the quote is provided, and no source contradicts this. The source is in Greek, but this is easily translated with Google Translate, and Alltan has shown no problem using Greek sources in the past [43]. No attempts to discuss at the talkpage.
    • 3. At Northern Epirus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), they remove 17 kb of text and source [44] [45] claiming the removed sources "do not mention Northern Epirus", which is easily disproven [46]. When I painstakingly re-add the material using different sources, they claim WP:TERTIARY to remove it [47], even it's a perfectly good source. They also remove more text claiming "dead source" [48], even though it is easily fixed [49]. Alltan's contribs history at that article speaks for itself [50].
    • Looking at Alltan (talk · contribs)'s overall recent contribs, we see a lot of reverts and removals, and very little talkpage participation. Khirurg (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I looked at 2 since it seemed simple as you said there was a quote. But FWICT, although it is true Alltan remove the word "small" this doesn't seem to be the locus of the dispute. Instead the locus of the dispute seems to be whether to simply describe them as "Arvanites" or say they are "Albanians" who established an "Arvanite" community. The removal of the word small seems more incidental than anything. Perhaps most importantly though, the quote you refer to is in Greek. Does Alltan, understand Greek? If they don't, then it seems to me they could have easily missed this quote. The quote which has been translated doesn't say anything about small. Nil Einne (talk) 03:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      As for the talk page thing, well perhaps the overall pattern is problematic, but for this particular edit Talk:Psara only has a bot message from 5 years ago so it's a pot kettle black situation however you look at it. Nil Einne (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry I misread the dispute and will re-write my comment. Nil Einne (talk) 03:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I looked at 2 since it seemed simple as you said there was a quote. But it seems to be more than a dispute over the word small although that seems to be one specific focus of the dispute. More importantly though when I first looked I didn't see this quote. The only quote I saw didn't say anything about small. Looking more carefully, I did find there is a quote in Greek and a machine translation does suggest this says "small". Does Alltan understand Greek? Because if not, it seems to me they could have easily missed this quote like me. Sure it would have helped if they had asked on the talk page, but likewise someone else could have posted on the talk page which hasn't been touched since a bot over 5 years ago. Or at least, translate the quote so it's harder to miss in the article. I.E. Any talk page complaints in this situation are basically a pot, kettle, black situation. I'd note that in your edit summary [64] you said "sources". Which one of the other three sources also says small? It isn't in the other quote which has been translated, although it's possible it's somewhere else in the source. There's no way for anyone looking at this dispute from afar to know, since again there was no further explanation on the talk page. Sure someone could look into each source, two of which aren't in English, and find out. But since you already know, you could have explained on the talk page so it's clearer to anyone who comes into this dispute that you are indeed in the right rather than just doing the same thing you're correctly faulting Alltan for namely trying to explain your edits in a dispute in a CTOP area solely via edit summaries. It may be there's a wider pattern of lack of use of talk pages by Alltan not shared by you, and that would be a concern. However when you come to ANI it's really unhelpful to show cases when all we can see is no one seems to know how to use talk pages. Nil Einne (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi Nil, unlike you, Alltan is heavily involved in the topic area and has been for a long time, and besides he has no problem using Greek sources in the past ([65]). The behavior at Psara fits in with a broader pattern of playing fast and loose with the source, as at Aegina (and that source is in English). In the last month I have ~80 talkpage contribs, Alltan has 36 (and most of them extremely brief). Khirurg (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I should note that my reply was largely based on this version [66] as I didn't notice the changes, which was also why I initially missed that Alltan has specifically removed the word small (which was significant, since it was unclear to me if Alltan was specifically disputing the word small or simply trying to change something else and inadvertently removed the word small). If Alltan has used Greek sources before, then I do hope they understand Greek since using a machine translation to add content is generally not acceptable, and this does make them missing the quotation because of not understanding it not an issue. I'd note though the fact that it can be simply checked by machine translation is not that important, since while true and something I did, it's also easy to miss if you don't speak Greek. So it's far better if when there is a dispute rather than expecting other people to work out what source supports the claim being made, someone explains on the talk page this source say this which supports the statement so please don't remove it. And of course if someone continues to revert without joining the discussion then it's easier to see yeah that editor does seem to be disruptive. In other words IMO this a a lot less of a clear example of Alltan being in the wrong than it should be because it's still a case where both sides refused to discuss their preferred version. It does seem on the whole Alltan uses the talk page a lot less than you (considering they also seems to have more edits than you in the past month) which is a concern and they need to do better, but so do you even if you might be closer to what we need. Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Our only interaction
    • Botushë[70]: On this page, Alltan removed cited content as Kalezic is an archpriest-staurophore of the Serbian Orthodox Church, not RS, Novak was a an Pan-Yugoslav nationalist writer, wording[71] On the talk page, I asked Alltan for a link to a ruling on this, in response I was directed by Alltan to WP:RS and no link to a ruling.[72] ElderZamzam (talk) 03:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So it sounds like what you're saying is sometimes one of you goes to the talk page and the other one refuses to, sometimes neither of you go to the talk page and when we're lucky sometimes both of you do actually engage on the talk page? Nil Einne (talk) 04:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In the example on Attacks on Serbs during the Serbian–Ottoman War (1876–1878), the only instance where Alltan initiated a talkpage discussion (and even then just a paste of his edit-summary), ElderZamZam was not involved at all. I have also updated my evidence with several examples of Alltan edit-warring without discussing. Khirurg (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne there are only three pages where we have crossed over in terms of disputed edits. I do my upmost to add requests to go to the TP in my edit summaries, opened up a discussion on a talk page and have interacted with Alltan on the talk page. These attempts have not led to any consensus building and a look at Alltan's history and current behavior shows that they have had warnings and ample opportunity to change their behavior, but have not. Alltan is in most cases making the dramatic changes to the pages so the onus is on them to open up a talk page to explain their sudden and significant changes. ElderZamzam (talk) 07:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alltan: I want to be clear that although I've criticised the lack of talk page usage by those complaining about you, it's clear that you too are failing to use the talk page. You need to do better. The key point IMO as in a lot of these ANIs is that no side should be waiting for the other party to initiate discussion on the talk page. Once you get into an edit war, it's incumbent on all parties involved to start discussion. In other words, someone needs to just do it rather than expecting the other party to start it. Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, @Nil Einne:. Thanks for checking all aspects of the issues under discussion. There's no doubt that in the examples which have been brought forth, I have not engaged in the talkpage as much as I should. I have had discussions about such topics with EZ and Kh. many times in the last two years. It wouldn't be an exaggeration if I said that I have had a monthly discussions like the ones mentioned with either Kh. or EZ.
    Many of the edits which I removed involve baseline interpretation of WP:RS and I didn't believe that I have to explain again to experienced editors why some sources are not reliable. This is the case regarding Attacks on Serbs during the Serbian–Ottoman War (1876–1878), where in fact I'm the only one who used the talkpage [73] to explain to experienced users like EZ that the 1928 publication of an interwar nationalist organization is not RS. I've had a similar experience with EZ many times where I have to explain basic requirements of reliable sources and sometimes because I've posted the same explanation over and over again, I just don't engage in the talkpage as much as I should.
    In Psara, I placed the first edit and then my edit was followed by intervention by IPs and other users including Kh.. The first edit which I added was based on this quote Albanians also settled on the islands of Psara, Kynthos, Kea, Samos, Aegina and Skopelos, but were soon assimilated by the local Greeks. by an expert historian from Greece on the subject. Later edits added the word "small" based on another source and excluded the source which I had added from the formulation of the sentence. I didn't start another debate in the talkpage but I reverted and just wrote NPOV in the summary as the exact phrasing used should reflect multiple sources, not just one. Kh. reverted and his summary is rv POV-pushing, the sources say "small", but only the source used by Khirurg claims so and not the one which I added. In fact, Kh. ignored the source which I added and claims something which is factually wrong in his summary as only the source he supports uses the word "small". Fundamentally, this is an issue of how to reflect what multiple sources write about a subject without doing so by way of WP:SYNTH and I've explained many times to Khirurg that no reliable source should be excluded in favor of another source which may be more preferable to some users.
    If you need me to I can explain in detail how the other diffs which were brought forth are linked to past discussions where I have been involved. In the diffs brought forth, I recognize that I should use the talkpage more often and I will do so in the future even in cases where I've discussed the same issue in other talkpage. As a "closing statement" to a comment which was intended to be much shorter, I feel the need to mention that when someone is confronted with the same situation over and over again by some users it can be quite exhausting and even overwhelming and this leads to not following required procedures properly.Alltan (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not quite as simple as "I'm sorry, I'll do better in future". In addition to the lack of discussion, there is misuse of sources (the Aegina example) and the casual edit-warring across multiple articles. At a minimum a formal logged warning is due. Khirurg (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't seem to me like any admin is interested in looking into this further. If I'm right, I would suggest next time it's taken to WP:ARE. I assume everyone here is already aware of WP:CTOP for Eastern Europe and the Balkans. If not, I suggest someone give the appropriate alert. I would emphasise again that I expect a requests at ARE is likely to be far more successful if what admins can see if that everyone besides whoever you're complaining about always tries to the discuss but the editor your complaining about often does not. And if the discussion reaches an impasse, you look at ways i.e. WP:Dispute resolution to resolve this and come to a consensus. If all admins see is both sides often fail to discuss or at least there is no consensus which demonstrates one editor is clearly in the wrong, then you might get no result, or perhaps just both sides will be sanctioned which I assume isn't the intention. Nil Einne (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ettrig mass addition of longer leads.

    Ettrig has been systematically and rapidly addressing "Lead is too short" templates with low-quality summaries. They have been asked if they are using large language models on their talk page and not wanted to respond. Whatever their methodology may be, it is resulting in subpar quality additions. While Ettrig maintains they are high enough quality to be constructive, I find the removal of maintenance templates (which draws editors attention to areas of concern) after the addition of consistently low-quality additions to be non-constructive. This rises above content dispute: Ettrig is unwilling to engage with concerns over their edits, and is leaving a huge collection of unmarked problems for other editors to clean up.

    Issues include:

    1. Parroting unsourced information in the body of a BLP, reinforcing it's presence in the article.
    2. Completely disregarding formatting, such as italics for titles of works
    3. Refusing to add wikilinks
    4. Bizarre non-phrases that sound meaningful at first but fall apart when you actually try to read them.

    Some examples of their poor additions and my attempts to fix them:

    1. [74][75] The film was criticized for being loud, busy, and dull, but Jim Carrey's performance as The Riddler was divisive. His iconic green spandex Riddler suit and his character have been recognized in Batman legacy, with references in subsequent Batman media and adaptations. The first sentence is not two contrasting phrases, so the "but" makes no sense. "Have been recognized in Batman legacy"...?
    2. [76][77]
    3. [78][79]
    4. [80][81]
    5. [82][83] Includes a summary of an example in the article that becomes meaningless when described the way it was.
    6. [84][85]
    7. [86][87] The game's weaponry is diverse, ranging from flamethrowers to acid guns, and weapons give off heat, making cooling upgrades crucial. Missiles and bombs, however, don't generate heat but have their limitations.
    8. [88][89]

    While many of these problems are subtle, and some of the leads are mostly fine, in their sum total, they are an issue that becomes bigger the more Ettrig refuses to engage with concerns.

    Previous discussions here: [90][91][92][93] Cerebral726 (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Their response to why their low-quality AI-generated intro replacements don't include wikilinks or formatting: "My very rough estimate is that that would require 200% more time. In other words: I would then produce one third as many summaries. I would then feel less productive. This work is extremely boring. What makes me do it anyway is that I feel I get a lot of work done."
    So... they're comfortable making Wikipedia worse if it means they can feel more productive in doing so. Shocked to see someone struggling with this level of WP:CIR after 15 years. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:8D1A:E4D3:C12C:9620 (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    They have made 1000s of edits in the same vein, starting with this one it seems, with the descriptor intro by Chat GPT. The edit contains multiple problems including the line He played in the Walker Cup three times and won the English Amateur for a second time in 1953; This falsely states Gerald Micklem either competed in the Walker Tournament 3 times in one year, or competed in the Walker Tournament 3 times total (which is false, it was 4 times). This is the exact kind of subtle falsehoods that make this type of editing so problematic. --Cerebral726 (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay so if they're admitting to using chatbots to generate very poor quality edits, we should end this now. I've looked at them and a lot of their edits are still standing but yes the quality is pretty bad and most would need a lot of work or outright removal. And it's clear it's what they're doing from their edit times. So we should block the account now until they agree to not use AI tools to write garbage. At the end of the day this will take longer to clean up than they're spending "writing" it all. This is not a net benefit. Canterbury Tail talk 19:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact I've gone ahead and done so. Their edits are a net negative, no matter how they're built. Net negative means no editing privileges, AI or not. Anyone up for doing a mass revert? Canterbury Tail talk 19:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ettrig has had similar issues before involving unilaterally moving maintenance edits against community consensus:
    See this draft article:
    Look at their talk page; starting in about 2017, exchanges reflect a "my way or the highway" mentality:
    This long-term editor has clearly become a liability, not an asset.
    - A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See also:
    @Crowsus
    - A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Canterbury Tail, @Cerebral726, this is going to be huge and painful. I started doing some reverts -- there are several thousand of these. The easiest are the rollbacks and the simple undos. Less recent edits can't simply be undone and have to be done by going into the page history. In some cases, the lead has already been partially edited since Ettrig's big addition -- should I keep the lead or throw the whole thing out? Maybe I have to leave a talk page message.
    This is a serious reliability issue.
    How do we organize this to get it all done?
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm concerned that the errors can go undetected too easily to not just mass revert them. The Gerald Micklem example shows how easily something can appear correct while being subtly wrong. Therefore, we have to presumably work through them, trying not to undo constructive work unrelated to the lead that's been done in the meantime. Even if the lead has been edited a bit, it's too easy for something to slip by. It'd probably be best to leave a link to this thread on the talk page, with the advise that anyone who wishes to use the lead created by Ettrig as a basis should be extremely cautious and should make sure to fix the formatting, wikilinks, and factual errors before reintroducing the content. Cerebral726 (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur. The easy ones are the easy ones, the other ones are the precise reason I blocked them. Hard to review and requiring a lot of manual oversight that the editor didn't make when they inserted them. I'm honestly not sure what the best solution is. As you say we risk removing valid data, but there's so much poor quality edits and potentially false information that could slip through. Due to the effort and risks to do otherwise I'd advocate just removing the paragraphs they inserted, putting the maintenance tags back and letting normal article development take its course. But I'd also support hearing other ideas. It sounds a lot like the Ardfern situation where hundreds of articles were hit to remove the paragraphs they'd inserted due to potential copyright issues. Canterbury Tail talk 11:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mako001 you perform mass rollbacks. Can I get your opinion on this? Canterbury Tail talk 11:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Kill-It-With-Fire might be helpful. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the most appropriate way to approach it to revert the whole lot (all their expansions to the lead since they started messing about with LLMs), and anyone who wishes to salvage anything can then reinstate whatever they are willing to take responsibility for. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would endorse that. The sooner it's done, the better, so that additional edits have less time to accumulate on top. XOR'easter (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Same here.—Alalch E. 00:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Canterbury Tail: with around 97% of their edits semi/automated, Mako001 doesn't need any encouragement playing the MMORPG. SN54129 12:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you just drop in to a duscussion which you had no prior involvement in, just to make an unnecessary, questionably relevant and unhelpful personal comment? 🤨 How I choose to contribute is my business. I am aware that others have contributed far more with far fewer edits. I know we started off on the wrong foot, but that was well over 18 months ago, and I apologised at the time for my conduct in that instance. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 00:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Blast, Mako001, I'm going to have to apologise again! SN54129 11:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No problems, all forgiven. 😁 Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 23:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support a mass rollback of their edits. Paul August ☎ 18:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    RodRabelo7 misconduct

    They'll be back. Lourdes 08:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello. 17 July I wrote a message for RodRabelo7 regarding his thanks spam, which they have sent me ten within a minute. They also edited my userpage few days ago. Vanthorn also has attempted to make contact with them, but we were reverted with the provocative summary "cleaning up bs". Today, I've made another attempt to dialogue with them, but I was reverted again. Looking over their contribs, I've noticed that they created a lot of implausible redirects, which clearly meet WP:R3. I've requested the deletion of a few, but they undid my request, clearly disrespecting the advice on the notice: "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself" Ertrinken 22:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

     Comment: Before I even try to defend myself, it should be highlighted that the account “Ertrinken” was banned on Portuguese-language Wikipedia due to being a sockpuppet of long-term abuser and troll Pórokhov (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email).
    Pórokhov is considered a long-term abuser for more than a decade now, and is globally locked. RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @RodRabelo7: What are you talking about? I'm not this person at all. You've been blocked there too. We are both blocked on Portuguese Wikipedia, this fact doesn't allow you to send me this blatant spam of 10 thanks within a minute. Ertrinken 22:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How about instead of mudslinging, you address the OP? This is not the Portuguese Wikipedia, and it is certainly not the venue to litigate misbehavior there. Ravenswing 23:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I followed the case of the sockpuppet accusation involving Ertrinken on ptwiki, and I expressed my opinion against the accusation since no concrete evidence was presented, only suspicion. The checkusers only pointed to a probable relationship between the Porokhov and Ertrinken accounts, not a confirmation. However, the ptwiki administrators decided to accept the block on "suspicion" that the account belongs to Porokhov. Additionally, the tag they put on the Ertrinken ptwiki page states that it was blocked due to "suspicion." I understand that one should not indefinitely block someone based on suspicion, at the risk of punishing bona fide editors. But it is up to the enwiki administrators to verify whether or not it is fair to adopt such a measure too. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    RodRabelo7 Ertrinken My recommendation to the two editors is that they stop writing on each other's pages. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @A.WagnerC: Thank you for coming to defend me here as well, but you didn't understand the issue. No one is interested in the Portuguese Wikipedia's paranoia; both RodRabelo7 and I were indefinitely blocked there. What I would like is for this user to stop bothering me, this is a matter regarding specifically English Wikipedia. Ertrinken 01:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think both of you have done something wrong. Thanking someone 10 times in a minute is certainly strange conduct, and proceeding to revert any discussion about it was the incorrect thing to do. Proper discussion would likely have prevented this AN/I thread. On the other hand, Ertrinken did not assume good faith when leaving a talk page message. Calling the thanks harassment is going way too far, and is certainly not in good faith. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • RodRabelo7, if you repeat this thanks-spam behaviour once again, and if we receive another complaint of you going wild with the thanks button, you will be blocked.
    • Ertrinken, you can take up their redirects discussions to RfD. In case you believe there is a case for creating disruptive redirects, unarchive this discussion and show example diffs. Alternately, I am closing this discussion with these remarks. Thank you, Lourdes 08:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WP:CANVASSING and aspersions by Stephan rostie

    Stephan rostie blocked for going against existing CT restriction and no acknowledgement that this will not continue. Lourdes 09:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    After Stephan rostie was partially blocked from editing the Arabs article (the contentious topics procedure applies to it), they started a non-neutral RfC on the article's talk page, bludgeoned it to death and canvassed two editors with messages that speak for themselves (see Diff and Diff). Your assistance on this matter will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all, I didn’t know what canvassing is or that it was a thing. I just received that i was under some sort of “investigation” and now i am here.
    secondly, user @Largoplazo came to the talk before i even invited him, the invitation in the diff M.Bitton attached was after he already came and commented in the talk, you can check edit histories and dates for that. I sent him the invitation to encourage him to stay and contribute in the talks rather than flying away. For user @Iskandar323 i did invite him to join the talk, i don’t know him nor had any previous talk with him and he seemed to have edits and knowledge about the region so i invited him, so I still don’t get where the problem is. In both cases i sent invitations to attract more users because the article Arabs edits history is almost hijacked by only these three users M.Bitton, skitash, and sara schneiderCH alone (check it’s history). So i wanted to attract third parties unrelated who could give an objective view and judgement about the topic, is that wrong ?
    i also want to note that user M.Bitton removed significant amount of sourced content after being WP:EDITCONSENSUS which was even unrelated to the topic of debate.
    lastly: After Stephan rostie was partially blocked from editing the Arabs article (the contentious topics procedure applies to it). The contentious topic he is talking about doesn’t allow him to make more than one revert per 24 hours, whereas he did it three times (check the edits history). Not to mention his sarcastic comments in the RfC rather than seriously discussing the topic. Regarding the “contentious topics” I personally thought it was a bug in the website or something tbh because the warning said that the topic was “related to the israeli-arab conflict” while the article was just purely about arabs and nothing about israel or jews, adding to this that it was openly available for everyone to edit and even many anonymous IPs were freely making minor edits. Stephan rostie (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The main thing you are doing wrong here is A) this talk of personalization, and B) casting aspersions on other editors (and thereby, ironically, personalizing it yourself). You are never going to build a consensus with other editors by treating them like the other and engaging in low level personal attacks. This will just get you blocked, per WP:NPA. You need to learn to take a step back if thinks get heated. You can learn by yourself, or learn the hard way, via blocks. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim that you canvassed Iskandar323 by pure coincidence doesn't hold much water given that you've shown a great interest in editing the articles that are related to the Arab–Israeli conflict conflict and as such, you are fully aware of their views. M.Bitton (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They started a less than optimal RFC and pinged a few users. Lots of new editors, and even experienced editors, aren't fantastic at creating their first RFCs. As for the pinging, it was fairly limited and open, but obviously not neutral, so yes, not ideal. However, we must AGF that they were unaware of WP:CANVASS. We know they are aware now. (For me, it was in any case redundant, since I already watch the page.) Overall, as a general principle, I think WP:DBTN broadly applies. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who has been canvassed, you are free to assume whatever you want. As far as I'm concerned, WP:DBTN doesn't apply to highly disruptive editors who go around biting other editors, edit warring and casting aspersions. I will take this this opportunity to ping Skitash since their name has been mentioned by the reported editor. M.Bitton (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Ignorance of the rules is not a justification for breaking them. Even if they had not read the policy itself, trying to gather editors to support their POV and then bludgeoning in that discussion is obvious misconduct. They have been around for a few months, and have edited exclusively in controversial areas. If they are still not aware of the guidelines, the need to take a break from editing.
    Also noting they are currently blocked for edit warring, perhaps that block needs to be extended.
    Note - This was open when I wrote the reply, and didnt show an edit conflict. Anyway, reasonable block. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Unreferenced articles by User:Abdel hamid67

    Blocked till they talk. And for other editors, please continue issues about content referencing in relevant articles. Or take up DR. Thanks, Lourdes 19:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello all. This is my first time at ANI, so apologies if I do anything wrong. Abdel hamid67 has been repeatedly creating unreferenced articles (examples are Algeria at the 1987 World Championships in Athletics, Algeria at the 2001 World Championships in Athletics, Algeria at the 1995 World Championships in Athletics, Algeria at the 1987 World Championships in Athletics and more). Concerns over these pages have been repeatedly expressed on their talk page by Sportsfan 1234, Hey man im josh, SunDawn and myself. Tonight, I draftified more of these unreferenced articles and left a final warning on their talk page, following on from the disruptive editing warnings of others in the same scenario (Special:diff/1166192024). Abdel hamid67 then proceeded to move all of these articles back to mainspace, even after the express last warning (see move log). This shows a blatant disregard for our verifiability policy, as well as a failure to listen to the concerns of others. Thanks, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 00:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked through Abdel hamid67's contributions and it looks like they have never made a Talk page or User talk page comment. In cases like this, I question their ability to communicate in English or perhaps they only use the mobile interface where it is more difficult to be aware of User talk page messages. I have posted a comment on their User talk page asking them to participate here but I doubt they will come over to ANI. Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The articles I have dealt with from Abdel hamid67 do have references, but are not sufficient for main space. Which is why I drafted them. Without any improvement, Abdel Hamid67 moved them back! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've noticed this issue through the new pages feed, and I strongly doubt any of these articles are notable. I'll make a mass nomination at AfD. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They've continued to edit without responding here, so I've blocked them from mainspace for a day. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 01:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the information in the articles incorrect, or just unreferenced. There's nothing wrong with adding information to an article, and leaving it for others to add references. See the WP:IMPERFECT policy, which only notes the requirement for references for verafibility for BLPs. Nfitz (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      From what I have seen, the information doesn't appear to be incorrect. However, the references cited do not mention anything in the article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That hardly seems sanctionable. Nfitz (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Nfitz There's nothing wrong with adding information to an article, and leaving it for others to add references WP:BURDEN tends to disagree, because adding unreferenced content is in essence asking other people to redo the research oneself (hopefully) has done. I personally think that paragrah of WP:IMPERFECT is more aimed at the 452,915 existing unverifyable as-is because un(der)referenced articles. Victor Schmidt (talk) 05:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      BURDEN doesn't opine at all, other than for BLP or organizations. BURDEN is aimed at editing disagreements - not as a standard for inclusion of material. If there's no further evidence, then the user should be unblocked with an apology. Nfitz (talk) 06:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      BURDEN does apply to all unreferenced material that has been challenged, which is certainly true in this case. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 07:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was true for their initial edits; as you said, BURDEN is for after material is challenged, and WP:V likewise says that all quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the material. However, when they moved a draftified article back to mainspace without discussion, they were ignoring those requirements - at that point they weren't just adding unsourced but uncontroversial material, they were ignoring (and trying to override) a challenge to that material. That isn't allowed. That said, since the main issue seems to be communication, I would suggest waiting and seeing if the short block got their attention. --Aquillion (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      So you think adding references that do not cite the information in the article is okay? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    74.101.173.194

    resolved.Lourdes 08:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    74.101.173.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This editor has been editing for almost 3 months, mostly making small grammatical, wording and punctuation changes. While some of their edits have been good, the majority are problematic. This includes

    • WP:ENGVAR issues: editing articles about British or other non-US topics to change the language and spelling to US English (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,7).
    • WP:OVERLINK issues: adding wikilinks to well-known country names (1, 2, 3, 4).
    • Changing section headings to title case contrary to MOS:SECTIONHEAD (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).
    • Other miscellaneous issues like changing the spelling of a person's name incorrectly (here), removing necessary footnote letters (here) and breaking formatting (here).

    They have been warned about these edits on their talk page by several editors, but have been completely unresponsive, and have continued the behavior that they were warned about. I specifically asked them to respond to verify that they are aware of these warnings but they have not done so. Perhaps a block is needed to get their attention? CodeTalker (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Ivyredpixie repeatedly removing content from Ahmed Khan (choreographer) article

    Op has supported the suggestion; warning left on Ivy's page. Lourdes 19:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Ivyredpixie has repeatedly been removing content from the Ahmed Khan (choreographer) article since July 15, 2023, as seen in the recent history [94]. I have left them a warning, which has gone unheeded, and no response was provided. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Why do you want to reinstate challenged material about the brother of Ahmed Khan and the brother's estranged wife in an article about the choreographer? You might be antagonising either of the individuals by including material that is irrelevant to a BLP, even if it were true. I would suggest you revert your reinstating this material and let's move on from here. If you don't remove the material yourself, I will. Please action this. Thanks, Lourdes 06:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Himalaya Jet

    resolved. Lourdes 08:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Himalaya Jet is being made into the company's about page. I have reverted multiple times, and warned the users. I came back today to see the content reinstated again. Since they don't edit any other topic, and make no effort to modify the unacceptable content before reinstating, I believe enough time and effort has been spent on them. Please block the KG IT account for UPE and/or NOTHERE. If they are to learn a lesson, they can do so from behind the block wall, since they don't stop to learn before reinstating utterly unacceptable content. HJ is also the same user but may not edit again. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I have deleted the article and blocked the accounts. Let us know if it is recreated or further spamming comes up. Thanks, Lourdes 06:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:DaleEarnhardt292001

    Blocked till they walk our talk. Lourdes 19:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Editor has had several advisements of not updating athlete articles before transactions are officially announced. I warned the editor a final time on the 18th after doing it again, to which the editor replied "Whatever give a warning because I'm not gonna stop". It's kind of strange because the edits do appear in good faith, the editor just is openly refusing to the follow the rules in regards to sports transactions.--Rockchalk717 16:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Elinruby and making everything about me

    Elinruby is partially CT blocked from the article for 3 months. Lourdes 11:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I constantly attacking me, and making the talk page over at Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy about me and my edits (and this seems to be a grudge they have held for a while). Personalizing every dispute.

    [[95]]

    Even when I have not commented in a thread yet

    [[96]]

    This has been going on a for a few days

    [[97]]

    [[98]]

    [[99]]

    PA's (I am unsure when I supposedly made ABF).

    [[100]]

    They are also (though to be fair I am kind of guilty of it as well, though with a lot less text) of trying to bludgeon the discussion.

    I have asked them to stop making it about me, their response was [[101]] (PA's again, and I have no idea what " defamatory remarks" they are talking about. and a threat to start striking my comments, [[102]], no idea what "false statements" they are talking about. Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    And here

    [[103]]

    [[104]]

    Which was closed due to it being cocked up. Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Slatersteven keeps injecting himself. He shuts down discussions and and makes nonsensical statements. I don't have time to go through his diffs right now, but I think that a reading of his posts at my talk page and talk page history, and the recent talk page threads at Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy would speak for itself. He was mentioned in a thread he hadn't commented on yet since it was clearly a response to his accusation that I engage in original research. For the record, the article was almost completely uncited when I came to it post-Grabowski, which was apparently fine with Slatersteven, since he'd been reverting people there for years.
    So. As the person who added the majority of the sources now in the article, I object to being insulted by Slatersteven, and I also object to his most recent contention that we need to remove the sources (!) that Arbcom (!) objected to (!) as a profound misunderstanding of what Arbcom did, what Arbcom *is* and what that editor was proposing. I said he was beside the point and out of line and I stand by that statement. If he thinks that is an attack I don't know what to tell him. I asked him to strike his assertion about original research, and I don't think that"s an attack either.
    For the record, I do not have a grudge against Slatersteven. I do not even consider him an opponent. I see him as an obstacle. A rock in the road. An unresponsive entity that I am required to reason with despite the difficulties involved. If he doesn't want me to mention his name ever, he can stop trying to police content work that he doesn't understand. Shrug. I certainly never think of him when he isn't derailing talk page discussions.
    I have previously announced a short wikibreak until the temperature returns to something reasonable, since I intend to spend the next couple of days in a tub of cold water. Given this post I will periodically check for pings, however, in case anyone has any questions. Elinruby (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Peacemaker67, Scope creep, Piotrus, Mathglot, there's something off but I won't write it here off-the-cuff. Given their tenure here, I want to request your comments to clarify this first... Thanks, Lourdes 21:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Sigh... unfortunate situation between two highly competent and productive editors. I'll go back into it and study it a bit to see if there's anything productive I can add here, but in the meantime, is there any way we can short-circuit what could end up being a long thread which will distract both editors from productively contributing elsewhere and maybe cause some hurt feelings, with no real resolution at the end? I mean, I have good relations with both of you, and I'd hate to see you two bloody each other here, what a waste. Is there any way you can both just lick your wounds respectively on each side, mutter something under your breath, you take your ball, and you take your bat, and go home?
    I will go look into it, but best outcome in my view, is that by the time I get back, you've both somehow managed to end this. Slatersteven, as the originator, I don't want in any way to shut down what you feel strongly enough is a grievance to bring here; what would be necessary and sufficient for you to hear to end this? Elinruby, as the subject of this, can you self-monitor for the words you or Slatersteven in Talk page comments, and if you seem them rendering on the page in preview mode, change them to something else? I *really* don't want to see this escalate. C'mon guys, can we just do this, and leave the nice folks at ANI to remain busy with editors that are hurting the encyclopedia, instead of having to come here and deal with you two, who are doing so much to improve it, and have been for so long? Make my day: end this. Mathglot (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I took *mine* to dispute resolution as I dunno, it really feels like he thinks he is doing the right thing and I was hoping someone would explain things to him if the problem was a misunderstanding of policy. I did in fact self-monitor, but maybe not well-enough for the word "you". It is very difficult to tell what he is even saying, but he just tried again and so did I, shrug, but in the meantime yet another discussion stalled and became explaining Arbcom to Slatersteven, who as far as I can tell still thinks he is enforcing an Abcom decision (!) that deprecated sources (!) that we failed in some way to comply with (!), and is being that confused in a thread about something else. If anyone can figure out what he is actually on about, like I said the other day to another confused editor, if the sources are good, we'll probably adopt it. If as I suspect he objects to my announced plan to delete the badly-cited Channel Islands section, he could cite it? Otherwise, I dunno. This seems like a time sink to me, and I have no idea what Slatersteven thinks he is doing. Elinruby (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be honest, half the time I don't even know what Slatersteven is talking about and I have the discussion on my watchlist and check it regularly. For weeks we've been mulling the definition of collaboration and recently found an article that I was planning to write, which pushed us forward a bit. That is what we have been looking at for weeks, but he seems to be talking policy, arbcom and so on and not really following the gist of the dicussion or trying to contribute. I certainly agree with Mathglot, it would be the ideal. scope_creepTalk 22:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Mathglot. They are both productive editors and need to find a way to work together. However, if Elinruby's recent snark to me is to be considered an indication of their behaviour towards editors that don't immediately adopt their views, I think they need to take a break from this topic. After not commenting much at all for some time due to the TLDR posts and personalisation of commentary, I made a neutral comment pointing to sources on the definition of collaboration, and Elinruby's response started with "Cough, I will say again", and followed that with an invitation to "actually work on the page". I have a very thick skin after a decade dealing with POV pushers and abuse on WWII Yugoslavia articles, so I could care less about snark, but this is hardly an approach likely to make anyone feel welcome to contribute. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize if I made you feel unwelcome. If I am the impediment to you working on the article, I am happy to put it in your hands, but you have until now shown no desire to do so. I did not however see your remarks as neutral, but as an uncritical acceptance of the idea that the article needs sources, which is nonsense.
    What is *there* is well-sourced. The problem with the article as I see now it is that it was written piecemeal one country at a time, and some are vastly better covered than others. Yugoslavia in particular needs help, and you appear to have expertise in this area, as I have mentioned to you before. I have zero emotional involvement with the article, except that I would like it to not be the embarrassment to wikipedia that it was in February. For those who don't realize this, this is one of the articles mocked by Grabowski. It's improved considerably since then, but what I see here is four editors getting stuff done, plus a newbie who might contribute, being lectured about sources for some reason by someone who is completely unaware of the article's current condition, and then a well-meaning suggestion from someone who has the talk page watchlisted. I don't need a break, I need Slatersteven to either work on the article or stop interrupting the people who are working on it. Speaking of people who actually work on the article, we might as well hear from Shakescene, who has done a lot of the architectural work in the article reorganization, and Transylvania1916, the newbie Slatersteven was biting the other day. Elinruby (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I was pinged, I could offer to mediate a bit, if both parties ping me where there is disagreement? I think in the past I worked positively with both editors (more recently, I recall doing so with Elinruby, whom I found civil enough in interactions with me). I'd certainly stress to both parties to mind CIV and AGF, and I find Elinruby's apology above a very good indicator that things can be resolved peacefully, without the need for community sanctions beyond reminders to everyone about CIV/AGF and like. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: I don't actually know. My complaint is that he keeps interrupting talk page discussions about reorganizing the Collaboration in x articles by saying that collaboration is whatever the sources say it is. I have already talked too much here so I'll just say that as well you know this is not helpful. Which sources? Apparently not IPN sources, right? Anyway. since he started this right after I said I was going to delete the badly-sourced Channel Islands section, and said something in one of his pronouncements about not deleting entire sections, I have speculated that the real problem was my proposal to delete some original research there. That *is* speculation though. He didn't grace me with an explanation, just told me he was going to report me for not following the sourcing policy. Since I have put hundreds of hours into soucing that article, I found that ridiculous and much as I am trying to make allowances for Slatersteven, I hear enough of that from the Signpost thank you very much. Figuring out what he is actually upset about would be a start. If it is the Channel Islands, Shakescene has helpfully located some sources, which only need to be added. DUE is another question, but they are in fact a special case that deserves at least a mention, even though there are already two articles that cover this. HTH, good luck, and thanks. Elinruby (talk) 06:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, what I said was we go by what RS say (others have as well, pointing out that user defines inclusion criteria do not trump policies such as OR and V) when deciding content inclusion. Secondly, I has no idea when I objected to the removal of the channel islands, and this may be part of the problem, Elinruby seems to be holding some grudge and will not let go. Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think she is holding a grudge against you. I've worked with Elinruby for a couple of years now and I've never had any problem about collaborating on any article. Everybody here seems to be an experienced editor and understands what WP:RS is and what the policy is around using good academic sources. Everybody strives for that. You seem to be repeating the same kind of mesage and its inhibiting the conversation without actually helping or moving the discussion forward. scope_creepTalk 11:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This does not explain them accusing me of not allowing any change to the article (which is demonstrably not true, as it has been changed since the last time I edited it). That is what I am objecting to. Nor the fact that others felt the need to also point out that a talk page consensus does not override policy. Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    sigh. In the most recent exchange I said you derail discussions. You do. Since apparently you insist on pursuing this well diffs it is:

    recent newbie biting:12>

    From May 2020 to February 2023 SL did not edit the talk page then surfaced to lecture me about RS. More cognitive dissonance here: Request to provide page numbers called uncivil

    As for the sources: yes Grabowski was correct, the article was awful. At the time if I had edited the article at all it would have been solely to the France section. Peacemaker67 also parachuted in the explain what is RS, perhaps believing that the editors there at the time were those responsible. However PM was talking to Smallchief, another longstanding editor who has definitely heard of RS: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?[diff=1140320315&oldid=1140319064&title=Talk:Collaboration_with_Nazi_Germany_and_Fascist_Italy They noted that the article was mostly uncited.] SL doubled down talking about COI also for some reason

    Since February Slatersteven has

    Fwiw I don't hold grudges. I am not asking for CiR or even a trouting. I just want him to try to understand discussions before he tells editors they should't be discussing. I still don't understand why he thought Scope creep was talking about Arbcom. Scope creep didn't mention Arbcom, and Arbcom didn't mention the article lede. Arbcom accepted my rewrite of the lede into evidence without comment and specifically without reproof, warning or sanction. That said, the two sources I left in from the old lede are in fact old, although I am under the impression that they are not just RS, but reputed thinkers. The source with a quote, which I added because it seemed like a good summary, may or not be widely-cited. I support Scope creep rewiting the definition and updating the sourcing. What we were discussing when interrupted was whether there was consensus to expand on the definition(s) in what should probably be a parent article, even though it is currently much smaller.

    But here we are. Elinruby (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • My thoughts after skimming the articles talk page: Of the last 500 edits on that talk page, 223 of them (~44%) were by Elinruby. That's a lot! For comparison, Slatersteven has 39 of those 500 edits. Additionally, Elinruby's comments tended to be proposing fairly significant changes to the article, while Slatersteven's tended to be brief objections along the lines of "we need to follow [policy X]", usually related to reflecting what the sources say; and his objections are at least at a glance not groundless. I can understand how that can be frustrating, but overall this gives me the impression that Elinruby may have WP:OWN and possibly WP:BLUDGEON issues with the page. There's nothing wrong with being very active about proposing stuff, but once you've put an idea about how to improve stuff on the table it's sometimes best to let other people discuss it a bit and, if there's a clear locus of disagreement or discussion seems to be dying down without an obvious consensus, to post a note on an appropriate messageboard or start an RFC or some other dispute-resolution mechanism to call in additional voices so it isn't just one or two people talking. I do want to also point out the somewhat amusing statement Elinruby made above that Slatersteven keeps injecting himself - for someone who has dominated conversations on that talk page so much to say that an editor who has made just 39 of the past 500 edits "keeps injecting himself" strikes me as somewhat WP:OWNy thinking. When you post a lot of suggestions on a talk page, people are supposed to post any objections they have, that's how a talk page works - the solution is to focus on building a consensus, not to focus on Slatersteven. --Aquillion (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      there is a difference. I have reiterated proposals multiple times, often originally made by others, which seem to have consensus scattered across the sections, in hopes of getting a critical mass of editors to agree in a given section that can be pointed to. The many talk page posts actually stem from a concern for consensus.
      What *I* am complaining of is for example: in a.discusdion of adopting Wartime collaboration as a parent article -- which will require significant reorganization of material but seems like the thing to do and apparently does have consensus -- Slatersteven interjects that we have to get rid of the sources Arbcom said not to use. Superficially, yes, this is based on policy, Then he complains when I say I don't know what he is talking about and want to delete unsourced material he has previously defended but never cited. I'll add a couple of convenience links later. Meanwhile, if people think I have wanted to OWN the article vs. other editors not wanting to work on it lest they too get drawn into the Arbcom case, I am happy to let the article talk page proceed on its own without me for a while. An editor we hadn't heard from in a while just came. back and has made some good suggestions, and Slatersteven is speaking in complete sentences on topic today.
      I am not sure what the other editors who were working on this article with me think of all this, but I am working on other articles with each of the three of them, and guess will go build out Gallo-Roman ruins and the civil law legal system for a while, shrug, if people here think I am a problem there. I doubt it, but the article is going to take a long time and a lot of work to fix no matter what, and I do have other stuff to do. Elinruby (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That not what happened another use suggested deletion whole section on the grounds that some of it fell foul of an arb com ruling, I said "no if that is the issue only remove the stuff that falls foul. Slatersteven (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? On the article talk page somebody said this? Diffs or it didn't happen. Possibly just maybe are you tall ng about this???: What does this mean? You're the one making the complaint here. I shouldn't have to guess what it is. Also, are you aware that due to Section 230 Arbcom religiously avoids pronouncing on the reliability of sources????

    If that's not what we are talking about, then I am back to not understanding what the problem is that you are trying to solve. Please make your point about Arbcom. Elinruby (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    [[105]] "but I suggest we just delete that section, which repeats some of the PoV pushing the Arbcom case was about, ie "there wasn't much collaboration in Poland"." my response [[106]], you responded [[107]]. Slatersteven (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (trying again) have you processed yet that we were talking about making Wartime collaboration the parent article for Collaboration with Nazi Germany? and Fascist Italy]]? The Poland section of the former has a lot of the problems that the Poland section of the latter used to have. This *will* need to be TNTed whether Slatersteven approves or not, but my point *was* that while you really need to talk about the Holocaust in Poland when discussing World War II, this isn't necessarily the case for wartime collaboration in general. We need examples but there is no reason that one of them needs to be Poland or even in World War Ii at all since there will be such an extensive subarticle. Maybe next time you could do a reality check and ask a question before randomly scolding people about policies that they know quite well? Not to mention complaining about alleged incivility when someone fails to acknowledge the awesomeness of your admonitions? Scope creep didn't deserve that and neither for that matter did I. Painful as it is to rxplain everything to you three times, I would prefer to do so on the article talk page. Elinruby (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You did not seem to know it violated policy until I suggested we only remove the stuff that violated it (by the way, not a policy, an arbcom ruling). If "Arbcom per se didn't object to ANYTHING" it can't be invoked to remove any content (surely?). Also, we can't discuss content in another article, that should be for that article's talk page (I should not have to tell you this either). Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I will tell you what I will do to defuse this, I will stop going out on the talk page about how a certain suggestion violates policy (in my opinion), instead (and per BRD) I will revert any such edit to the article. Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think that is ideal as it will stall the development. I would suggest that you put your objections in a seperate section on the talk, particularly your objections to the Wartime collaboration section(s), so we can examine them in detail, and try and understand them, because at the moment I'm still unsure. scope_creepTalk 15:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How many ways can I say "this violates policy" without being accused of staling discussion? Look at the recent Romania thread, and how I have already had to break my above statement to tell someone we do not engage in OR? If something is a breach of policy (be it wp:or and wp:fringe or a breach of wp:rs) what do I say other than "this breaches policy"? Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your incessant focus on policy at every turn, is killing the creative process on the talk page and is not allowing the discussion to develop. I suspect folk will leave and move on to something else. Two days has passed and you have offered no solution on how to fix it. I suggest you withdraw, until the article is completed and then you can check it. If there is any problems with policy, they will be fixed at peer review or WP:GA. I doubt there will be any, as every editor working there, is highly experienced and understand policy. FWIW, I've worked with Elinruby for about 16 months on several complex articles and I've never see her get into a dispute about anything. scope_creepTalk 18:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, because our fiove pillars are policy-based. In essence this seems to be an admission that , yes this is about ignoring policy. OK, if the admins are OK with that so am I, are they? Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am seeing a glimmer here. @Slatersteven:, it's not so much how *often* you say it, it's *how*. Tell people *how* something violates policy if you think it does. For example, you keep saying that the changes that I made to the definition in the lede were OR, yet it replaced an uncited statement about occupying forces, for which I could not find a reference, with a quote that does not mention occupying forces but *is* cited and a good summary. Months later I am still baffled as to how this isn't just that you don't LIKE it. How is that OR or a violation of the RS policy? Scope creep has a good idea about separate sections, and indeed more of that from all of us, including me, would reduce some of the confusion. See, this is a specific actionable critique that does not call long-time editors ignorant of policy. Look at the diffs I posted above. Those editors didn't come back. Maybe they wouldn't have anyway, but we don't know that, and they made an effort to contribute but got shut down. The Romanian newbie did indeed seem... young, and had some unusual ideas, but those ideas were somewhat valid for someone focused on Transnitria, and the editor cited the edit they made. A discussion of DUEness for the lede would have been much more appropriate than reverting and mocking him. I think you bring an anti-vandalism mentality to discussions that are not vandalism. So while I appreciate that you are trying to address this now (after dragging me to ANI) but no, unexplained reverts would not be an improvement over unexplained confusing pronouncements. HtH.

    Elinruby (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    When? I am unsure I have reverted in 6 months. And people wonder why I say they are holding a grudge. Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Elinruby, you have self-notified that you are aware that this is a contentious topic. In continuation of your two earlier formal, logged CT-related warnings here and here, and as a CT notification, I am formally advising you to stop addressing Slatersteven tendentiously, as is evident at the diffs posted right at the start of this thread by Slatersteven. Putting myself into your shoes, I can imagine the frustration in attempting to hear out opposing parties, who are as experienced as you are. However, you are not allowed to accuse other editors of "ABF", schooling them to "read before they police", accusing them of giving "thought-terminating cliches", accusing them of "repeatedly disrupting discussions", and of "repeatedly violating policy". and place on DR that you believe (sarcastically, of course), that Slatersteven is "defending Wikipedia". While this is not your tone over the lifetime of your contributions to the page, you have regularly been uncivil to Slatersteven with these statements. A simple poll or RfC can perhaps achieve more for assessing consensus than picking on one editor, whatever be his pet peeve of one-liners. I am unsure of whether you have considered attempting these -- there may be reasons that editors on the talk page might not prefer these simple yet effective modes of assessing consensus. I leave editorial judgements and choice of processes to you and other editors. However, in conclusion, and as a part of a formal contentious topic notification before I take (or don't take) any action, please confirm you will not continue the tone of addressing Slatersteven. Thank you, Lourdes 05:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Lourdes, I was not being sarcastic. I actually believe that he thinks he is defending Wikipedia. That is why I went to DR not ANI with my own complaint, and have accepted the other two offers of mediation. He has not accepted those however, or expressed a desire for Dispute Resolution, which is one of the reasons that case closed. The is no issue with consensus or hearing people out. I have no issue hearing *Slatersteven* out and have frequently asked him to explain. Consensus has not been with Slatersteven, is all, in part because he does *not* explain. His unexplained accusations of policy violations make it difficult to retain editors and to document consensus since we have to repeatedly stop and ask ourselves what he is talking about. I think my diffs speak for themselves and have nothing more to say. Given than the issue of OWN has been raised, I have already moved off for a while, and have been and will continue doing other things for a time, if people believe I am somehow preventing Slatersteven from improving the article. Let him do that then; I have plenty else to do. Elinruby (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggested an RFC here [[108]] I did in fact post in the (badly formatted) DR (which was closed as you had in fact not listed any involved parties [[109]]). I did not request dispute resolution as it was badly formed. If you want to launch DR again (as you were told you could) do so, but stop blaming me. Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Elinruby, in the light of absence of confirmation from you that you will stop your tendentious discussions, you are being partially blocked from the page in question as a contentious topics' restriction. You may appeal the same as per the directions given on your talk page. Thank you, Lourdes 11:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    SPAs and IPs used for political purposes

    Not touching stale IPs; current IPs blocked with Dirceu for a week for pa; page ec protected for some time. Rest, please follow talk page discussions and necessarily use reliable sources. The page will stabilise in due course. Lourdes 20:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    User:Erfan2017 engaging in intentional misrepresentation of a source on a supposed 'cancer cure' through cherry-picking

    Erfan2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Essiac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    A few days ago, Erfan2017 made an edit to Essiac, an article on a herbal tea promoted as a supposed 'alternative treatment for cancer'. [118] It took only the briefest inspection of the source cited to determine that the source had been cherry-picked in an entirely inappropriate manner, in order to misrepresent what the source the NIH had to say on the subject. Accordingly, I reverted the edit, advising the contributor to read WP:MEDRS, along with WP:COPYPASTE, since the text in question was almost word-for-word from the source cited. Erfan2017 responded to this by starting a conversation with me on my talk page (User Talk:AndyTheGrump#Essiac) where I attempted to explain the issues with the edit, to again advise reading WP:MEDRS, and to make it entirely clear that it was in no manner remotely acceptable to pick an isolated phrase from a source - "Laboratory and animal experiments have shown that some of the chemicals in the herbs used to make Essiac and Flor Essence have antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, estrogenic, or anticancer activity." - to imply that the NIH might support the use of the substance, when the same paragraph ends with a statement - "Whether equivalent concentrations of relevant molecules can be achieved in the bloodstream of individuals who consume Essiac or Flor Essence in the amounts recommended by their manufacturers has not been determined. An uncharacterized Flor Essence commercial product was dosed at amounts lower than those recommended by the manufacturers for humans, and there was an increase in tumor incidence in this model") - that makes it abundantly clear that the opposite is true. After some too-and-fro discussion I though I had succeeded in making Wikipedia policy clear, and advised Erfan2017 that if any WP:MEDRS-compliant sources could be found which supported amending the article, they should start a discussion on the article talk page, providing full citations and a proposed text.

    Sadly though, rather that do as I suggested, Erfan2017 instead elected to post a statement on my talk page basically saying they were going to ignore my advice, and shortly after, before I had a chance to respond, restored the disputed material to the article. [119] Given this knowing, intentional, and deliberate misrepresentation of the source concerned it seems entirely clear that Erfan2017 needs to be sanctioned - at minimum to be blocked from editing the article, though there may well be grounds for suggesting that more is needed. In my opinion (and that of a great many other contributors, I suspect) there are few things more harmful to the project than such wilful misuse of sources, as a breach of trust entirely incompatible with Wikipedia ethos. Even more so when involving purported 'cancer cures' with documented harmful effects. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Firstly, User AndyTheGrump removed a scientifically well-referenced fact from the article. The added text consisted of 29 words, taken directly from a highly reliable and relevant source. Although there was a concern about copy and paste, the issue was resolved by rephrasing the content.
    Secondly, User AndyTheGrump appears to be avoiding constructive discussion and imposing their own views. Despite being reminded twice about the importance of maintaining a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), they continue to assert their ideas and direct the discussion to the talk page of the article.
    Thirdly, upon rephrasing the content and including it in the article, the user escalated the matter to the notice board, seeking sanctions against me. I find it perplexing that we hold different views on the article's neutrality, where I believe it lacks balance in presenting information about the herbal substance, while the user disagrees. Therefore, I also request for the sanction of the User AndyTheGrump who insists on unbalanced article.
    The current article fails to cover all aspects of Essiac, as evidenced by various studies, including those supporting the positive effects of Essiac tea (e.g., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16274521/ and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11365626/). There are numerous other references I can provide if needed.
    It is disheartening to observe an experienced Wikipedia editor who seems unwilling to engage in constructive discussions and appears to restrict others' editing abilities. Open dialogue and collaboration are essential for creating a balanced and informative article. Erfan2017 (talk) 01:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Erfan, I think Andy could have been a little bit more constructive and collaborative in the tone of his responses to you, but in the essential, brass tacks details of how to apply the relevant policies, I must tell you that he is essentially completely correct and you are quite mistaken about those policies, insofar as how they read and how community consensus tells us to apply them.
    First off, Andy was completely entitled to revert you, RS or no RS, if he felt in good faith that your edit added factual inaccuracies (see WP:BRD). Once reverted, the WP:ONUS fell upon you to get WP:CONSENSUS that the claim was WP:verifiable and appropriate for inclusion. You should have taken the matter to the article talk page and tried to work past the editorial impasse, and then (after a reasonable effort to persuade Andy and any others there, or work out a compromise version), if you failed to gain support, you could have availed yourself of a community process (such as WP:RfC) to get further eyes on the issue. Instead, it seems you are WP:edit warring over the matter, which in the long run will not get the content into the article, I assure you.
    Getting to the substantive content issues, I also agree with Andy that you have an inaccurate understanding of what "neutral point of view" means on this project. It does not mean that we try to give every argument it's fair shake and be minimally welcoming to every assertion or every subject--herbal supplements most assuredly included. Rather it means we shape our content based on the WP:WEIGHT ascribed to them in the corpus of overall sources for a subject. (See also WP:FALSEBALANCE). Some claims with very weak support may not be discussed at all, WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims require an exceptional threshold of support in sources, and there are special considerations when it comes biomedical and scientific topics and to areas which are prone to promotional spin and misinformation (see WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE).
    I note that almost all of the above policy considerations were supplied to you by Andy (if somewhat...well, grumpily) and you don't seem to have engaged with those points really at all, which is beginning to look like WP:IDHT. I suggest your best course of action here is to go back to the article talk page and discuss this matter in more detail. I will tell you frankly that I don't think you are going to prevail on the merits of your argument here, but you will at least come out the other side with a better understanding of our editorial guidelines, which (assuming you are WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia and not to promote a particular product) will be a useful experience anyway. Or you can just drop the matter: your call. What you can't do is try to edit war your preferred version into the article.
    And no, I think I can say with some certainty that Andy is not going to get sanctioned here. His response to you was a little on the acerbic-toned side, but also well, well below anything disruptive or otherwise sanctionable. In fact, I will go farther and say I am glad he had his eyes on this situation. SnowRise let's rap 02:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I'm not sure we're at sanction territory yet, but I've followed up on the involved discussions and can confirm that ATG's summary of events is essentially accurate: Erfan does seem to have a confused understanding of what NPOV involves (i.e. the seem to think we should present all competing positive and negative narratives, rather than presenting perspectives consistent with their relative WP:WEIGHT in RS), and could benefit from looking at WP:FALSEBALANCE in particular (which Andy has already directed them to. Their somewhat single-minded drive and idiosyncratic perspectives on what should be presented in such cases suggests to me that they are either be a big proponent of herbal supplements as alternative medicine, or quite possibly someone who has a more direct COI with this product. Regardless, they don't seem to be hearing what Andy is laying down.
    To be fair, some of that might be due to Andy's delivery, honestly: this user did approach Andy with a highly polite attitude and saying that they are looking to contribute within Wikipedia's guidelines, and Andy's responses have been a little on the curt side from the beginning--and shortly into the back and forth Andy was making outright claims of operating in bad faith. I do understand Andy's frustration with Erfan's slowly building IDHT, as well as Andy's concerns about the particular area of misinformation. But I would remind Andy that it is a lot easier for community members in this space to endorse a stronger sanction earlier when a new user is given a more constructive / "let's work through this shall we?" response, rather than meeting a very surly wall as soon as they attempt to navigate our (afterall, somewhat complicated and sometimes even obtuse) sourcing guidelines.
    That said, it's also possible Andy is accurately calling a spade for a spade. I don't think a block (even a page block) can be justified on the conduct displayed by Erfan so far. But I'd be lying if I said I didn't have my suspicion's that this could end up in a WP:NOTHERE indef eventually, based on what seem to the Erfan's priorities. But we just can't sanction on suspicions alone. I recommend reverting the edit based on the NIH source in the meantime (per WP:BRD), taking the matter to the article talk page, and leaving a notice at WP:FTN. If Erfan continues to edit war to get this content in without establishing such a consensus, then I think a block would be fully justified. SnowRise let's rap 01:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I sincerely appreciate your time and considerate response, "Snow Rise." I have learned how to argue and where to look to become a better editor. Moving forward, I will take any further discussions to the talk page if I have any. Regarding the Essiac article, I must clarify that I'm not sure how I ended up on it initially, but upon a quick glance, I noticed that the article seems to portray Essiac in a completely negative light. However, I have come across scientific articles supporting Essiac's positive impact and even case studies in medical journals reporting remission, such as "Spontaneous regression in advanced non-small cell lung cancer" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3029413/).
    I felt it was unfair for Wikipedia to present only one side of the story, so I added just two lines (29 words) to the article, which currently has about 600 words. My intention was to provide a more balanced perspective. Nevertheless, if the Wikipedia community of experts believes that the current version is accurate and comprehensive enough, I won't pursue the matter any further. Erfan2017 (talk) 03:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When accused of cherry-picking sources, it is generally unwise to provide further evidence of the same. The article you cite allegedly 'supporting Essiac's positive impact' does nothing of the sort, and to the contrary states that multiple scientific investigations have yet to yield any evidence for the supposed effects being claimed.AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to express my gratitude to you, Andy, for your time, and I apologize for any misunderstandings that may have occurred during our discussion. Speaking generally about the issue of cherry-picking, as you pointed out, when condensing a substantial amount of information into a single Wikipedia article, the selection of the most relevant facts is crucial to provide readers with a comprehensive understanding of the person, event, medication, or any other subject.
    However, it's essential to recognize that the concept of "cherry-picking" is subjective since what one person considers important may differ from another's perspective. As editors, we may gather and select certain facts that we believe are the most relevant, but someone else may choose different ones, resulting in different interpretations of the subject matter. This subjectivity can lead to accusations of cherry-picking between editors who have different viewpoints on what information should be included in an article. This becomes a matter of expertise in the subject matter and the level of scientific knowledge and writing skills, which can determine which approach provides a more comprehensive article and covers all aspects thoroughly. Erfan2017 (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to debate with you here. If you really can't understand why you cannot selectively quote from a source in order to imply that it supports the use of a supposed 'anti-cancer' product it expressly states has been shown to increase tumor incidence in a test, you shouldn't be editing article on such topics at all. This doesn't require scientific expertise, it requires nothing beyond basic comprehension skills, and the ability to honestly reflect what sources actually say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm willing to gather and share well-supported published articles from medical journals about Essiac or its individual components if you genuinely want a comprehensive understanding. However, I won't engage in a debate here either. I assure you that I fully comprehend my previous statements, but it seems I might not have expressed them in a way that resonates with your understanding of the current article version. Nonetheless, I'd like to point out that Wikipedia isn't a medical journal, and I won't be considering any further corrections to the article. Erfan2017 (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Erfan--you're most welcome: it's good to hear that your motive for editing the article is good faith and incidental. Unfortunately, medical topics and alternative medicine just happens to be an area that combines a lot of somewhat complicated and nuanced policy provisions with regard to sourcing, so you just kind of stepped in to a difficult area to cut your teeth on. If you think it's better to leave that particular issue/article be for the time being, that's probably not the worst idea in the world (at least until you're a little more well versed in those policies).
    That said, if you happen to have questions as you are digesting these policies, you'll find that people are generally very indulgent of questions on the relevant talk pages for the article you are working on (although some have much slower activity than others), or the talk page for the policy you are trying to understand. There's also the WP:Teahouse and WP:HelpDesk, which field questions, and the WP:Reference Desk for help in finding new sources. And since I do a fair bit of editing in the MEDRS space (or at least have, historically), I'll extend to you a personal invitation to drop by my talk page if you are trying to parse a sourcing issue on medical/scientific topics in the future. SnowRise let's rap 05:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for your kind offer. I would be delighted to engage in further discussions with you. Erfan2017 (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Any time--you know where to find me! SnowRise let's rap 23:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to be clearly a fringe or pseudoscience issue so covered by WP:CTOP so I've given Erfan2017 an appropriate first alert. I'm not sure any admin action is forthcoming so IMO if it reoccurs taking it to WP:ARE instead is worth considering. Nil Einne (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Steven Walling

    This admin made accusations of bad faith and when called on it here and here, doubled and tripled and quadrupled down, finally refusing to discuss further. Just completely doesn’t see that commenting on another editor’s motivations is not okay.

    This is not just an admin but a former WMF staffer, and I just think someone with this level of experience and influence should be recognizing they need to AGF and be willing to do some self reflection when someone calls them on their behavior. I’m also concerned that they really just don’t see what they said as an accusation of bad faith. Valereee (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The fifth and sixth diffs are the same ("tripled and quadrupled").—Alalch E. 13:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Was about to comment that. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    DOH. Thanks, if I've just screwed it up worse, LMK! Valereee (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Arbcom-levels of good faith, to be exact  :) SN54129 13:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Valeree, you are fundamentally confusing "assume good faith" with "don't ever say anything about someone's intentions and actions". The very first line of the policy is "Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia". I have said that the proposal BilledMammal is making is against policy and that they have a pattern of trying to delete stubs. It is not an assumption of bad faith to say that someone wants to delete articles, and others in the discussion also commented that there is such a pattern. Many people, including myself given that I've nominated things for CSD and AFD, think that deleting articles can protect and improve Wikipedia when done so in accordance with content policy. I even directly said in the thread "I am sure they think they are trying to improve Wikipedia". You are not understanding my point at all. Steven Walling • talk 15:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You literally said, BilledMammal is doing this because they know that mass AFDs would never pass, but they can pretend each draft will get considered before being eventually deleted. [Emphasis yours.] You accused them of pretending something false was true in order to achieve their own hidden goals. That is ABF. Valereee (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @BilledMammal since I've now mentioned them. Valereee (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You insinuated in the diff labeled "doubled" above that there was obvious evidence that BilledMammal was not acting in good faith. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am going to be slow to respond the rest of today because I am at work (not at WMF, where I haven't worked for almost a decade) but suffice it to say I do not agree. Accusing someone of trying to delete articles is not like saying they are a sockpuppet or a vandal trying to harm Wikipedia. Steven Walling • talk 16:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Take your time. Valereee (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When someone asked you to strike your statement, you quoted a line from AGF that said that you don't have to assume good faith if there's obvious evidence they're acting in bad faith. Why did you quote this specific line? What relevance does this line have to BilledMammal? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To add to the question above, do you have a diff where BilledMammal makes it obvious this is their intent? --ARoseWolf 18:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As tempting as it is to reply with more, I'm going to resist the temptation to beat a dead horse. Steven Walling • talk 20:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So only a few hours ago, it was that a response may be slow in coming due to work priorities, but now you're ducking out entirely? Seems like a willful WP:ADMINACCT violation. ValarianB (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? I came back and replied when I had a break. In terms of an overall reply, please see what I said below. Steven Walling • talk 20:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I think Steven's level of responsiveness is more than adequate: the discussion only just opened, his claim that he is working is entirely feasible, and I see no evidence that he is trying to frustrate or delay community oversight or feedback. Indeed, given the borderline nature of the ABF comments this report is based upon, I would say that his concession below that "if folks don't like the tone I appreciate the feedback and will take that under sincere consideration in future discussions." is about as good as we can expect in the circumstances, and we should probably close this before hyper-analysis leads to an erosion of what limited agreement which has been reached here. SnowRise let's rap 23:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW, I think Steven's comments are substantially correct. I would say that:

    1. BilledMammal is acting in good faith and trying to improve the encyclopedia.
    2. I would tentatively agree with his tactical choice of going the mass-draftification route rather than individual AfDs, and I think it is probably a better way of determining the consensus of the whole community in this case, even if it's not the way we normally do things.
    3. Most people in the mass-draftification discussion are pretending to some extent, whether they're arguing that the drafts will be carefully scrutinized (they won't be) or whether they would be improved if we just let them aestivate in mainspace for a decade (they won't be).
    4. I don't think statements like the above assume bad faith to such a degree that we need to tone-police them when they don't occur in a broader context of problematic behavior. Choess (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's actually fine to believe someone is pretending something. What it's not okay to do is accuse them of pretending something false is true in order to achieve their own goals, and then when the not-okayness of that is pointed out, to double down repeatedly, not provide any diffs supporting the accusation, and refuse to continue to discuss. We're here because SW refused, multiple times, a simple request to strike a sentence. Valereee (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (Well, to be fair, we're also here because you decided it was important enough to start an ANI thread about it. It isn't like SW forced you to do this.) I think Choess has pretty wisely and succinctly summarized the situation, including the opinion that - while imperfect - SW's comment in isolation doesn't rise to the level of reviewing it here. Something can be bad without being ANI-worthy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Floq, fair enough: if it hadn't been an admin doubling down multiple times on ABF over a request to strike a sentence, we wouldn't be here. To be clear: my greater concern is that an admin thinks this is not just okay but absolutely okay and does not even see the problem. I tried multiple times to handle it at the discussion, and they called an end to the discussion. Valereee (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Whilst I don't agree with Steven (I'm pretty sure somewhere in this clusterfuck of a discussion I opined in favour of draftification) I don't think it rises to that level either. Black Kite (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an admin who doesn't see that accusing someone without evidence of bad faith is a problem. It wouldn't be at ANI if I could still be discussing it there. Valereee (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course SW's comments aren't made in isolation; it's not like WP:LUGSTUBS2 was the first time. In WP:LUGSTUBS, in his second comment, Steven accused BM of "bad faith." Before that, in WP:FR2022RFC, he said BM "wants to start a holy war." Those are just the ones I remember, I don't know if there are others. Steven's comments are ad hominem; instead of discussing the RFC proposal, he attacks the RFC proposer. I think we can all agree that Steven's comments are not cool. Steven needs to hear that from everyone, so that he knows to adjust his behavior. So, everybody say it with me now:
    Not cool.
    If, instead of telling Steven "not cool," we tell Val not to bring this to ANI, Steven will continue making comments like this, and nobody will take it to ANI. The strategy of "say nothing until it becomes sanctionable" is a really poor strategy. So, say something, say it now, say it to the person who is doing something that we don't want them to do, and then the problem might be solved and it might never rise to sanctionable behavior. Win-win. Levivich (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not cool. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Levivich, and I appreciate Valereee's efforts to address the issue. When other editors see discussions in which remarks like Steven Walling's are made and nobody pushing back, they learn that approach is condoned and feel emboldened to behave likewise. Schazjmd (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The diffs of Steven's comments are here: [120] [121]. I am not sure that they support the explicit and implicit construction Levivich has put on them, but I obviously don't see eye to eye with others here, so editors can make up there own minds. Choess (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why was this wording needed at all? "Every year some group of editors wants to start a holy war over the wording or style of the banners."(emphasis mine) Steven couldn't get his point across without this degree of ABF? I think Levivich is spot on in that, at the very least, SW has displayed extremely poor judgement in the wording he has used. We've all been there. The answer is not to double down on your approach when faced with it. The fact is he assumed bad faith. He said that he did. He just claimed a Wikipeida policy gave him the okay to do so but hasn't provided a single diff that expressly shows BilledMammal obviously intended bad faith. His BF position is one you even disagree with in your initial comment above (#1). If BilledMammal did not obviously intend bad faith then SW has no policy which to stand upon in order to not assume the good faith of a fellow editor. Whether or not anything actionable occurred, I do believe a strong reminder that we don't do this and that SW needs to take a little more time to choose their words wisely is in order. I think that was Levivich's attempt above. Also, Not cool. --ARoseWolf 18:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ARoseWolf, I would love it if you'd look at my comment below and tell me whether you believe that using language like "holy war" means "I believe that person is intentionally trying to hurt Wikipedia" (which is my understanding of what "assuming bad faith" means – see the first sentence of Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and maybe the article Bad faith as well). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Decidedly not cool. The definition of "bad faith" is NOT "making edits/taking stances of which I disapprove." Ravenswing 18:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As you might guess, I feel very strongly about the possibility of deleting or draftifying a mass number of Wikipedia articles. Removing hundreds or thousands of articles at once is a very serious thing given how sweeping a precedent it creates. That said, if folks don't like the tone I appreciate the feedback and will take that under sincere consideration in future discussions. Steven Walling • talk 19:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not cool. Levivich is right - as hominem comments in discussions of that nature are really unhelpful, and unbecoming of an admin. Girth Summit (blether) 18:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Not cool" warning (and we might consider making this a regular piece of ANI diction: feels like it fills a role). I think various community members have already very capably summarized the relevant factors of this dispute above: yes the immediate conduct in question is an example of ABF, despite Steven's protestations to the contrary; no, I can't imagine that I (or most community members) would have escalated response to this exchange to an ANI filing--these are pretty tepid examples of tonal issues, all things considered; on the other hand, we are (understandably) inclined to hold admins to a particular standard for deescalatory (rather than needlessly accusatory) approaches to such such situations, and examples have been supplied here to suggest that the choice to do the opposite may be a little bit of a pattern for Steven (hard emphasis on 'may' there, given the amount of evidence supplied).
    I also think Choess' summary is particularly apt: I don't think that the process that BM chose to employ here is all that disruptive or that it is likely to convey an unfair advantage or process-dodging result. If anything, discussions taking place at the pump are likely to get broader scrutiny. That may result in less eyes on the particulars of this or that article, but probably results in substantially similar (or even more) oversight and feedback on the whole. Regardless, it's clearly taking place under numerous community eyes, the presumable majority of whom are actually approaching the issues fresh and with less built-in bias. I have noticed that BilledMammal does tend to be a little WP:BOLD in policy spaces of late, and does approach some procedural and policy issues in a rather idiosyncratic fashion. But this instance does not strike me as particularly problematic, and I certainly don't think there is cause for assuming the chosen approach to be an intentional effort to subvert community expectations. SnowRise let's rap 19:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have noticed that BilledMammal does tend to be a little WP:BOLD in policy spaces of late, and does approach some procedural and policy issues in a rather idiosyncratic fashion. Thank you for bringing that up; I'll keep it in mind, and try to tone back the boldness. BilledMammal (talk) 05:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee, I do wish sometimes that we all had a clearer understanding of what certain words mean. So, for the sake of clarity, here are the definitions I'm using, and I'd be curious how that differs from the definitions you're using:
    • good faith: Someone may have destroyed the whole wiki, but they were trying to help Wikipedia. Compare: "Toddler tries to help wash the dishes but accidentally breaks some" and "Friend tries to sympathize but actually says something really stupid and hurtful".
    • bad faith: Someone is intentionally trying to hurt Wikipedia. See also: Wikipedia:Vandalism. Note that, just like people who try to help can accidentally hurt Wikipedia, people who try to hurt Wikipedia might accidentally improve it (e.g., by blanking text that was confusing, redundant, or inappropriate).
    What isn't bad faith, according to my definition: Trying to (according to your own best judgment, which might differ from mine) help Wikipedia by choosing the process that is most likely to accomplish your goal of improving Wikipedia. For example: Trying your best to get rid of thousands of very short, poorly sourced articles, because you genuinely believe that getting rid of these articles would improve Wikipedia. Reasonable people can (and do) disagree about whether that would actually improve Wikipedia (e.g., according to their own judgement or according the judgment of some hypothetical outside observer), but if you believe it would be an improvement, then it's not bad faith for you to pursue that goal.
    What isn't assuming bad faith, according to my definition: Saying out loud that someone else has a goal that seems helpful to them but not to you (e.g., getting rid of thousands of very short, poorly sourced articles) that realistically can't be accomplished through the standard process (e.g., AFD) but might be possible through an alternative process (e.g., repeated RFCs proposing draftification of "just" hundreds of articles each), and that they are pursuing their improvement efforts through the process that seems to have a chance of working.
    In other words, this isn't a case of "ABF" – according to my definition. I grant that it might make supporters unhappy to have someone pointing out that draftifying-to-inevitable-deletion is a rather unusual use of RFCs, and it might make supporters fear awkward questions like exactly how many more of these RFCs are expected, affecting how many articles? (Based on my previous conversations with the OP, I'd guess about one RFC per sport and a few tens of thousands of articles.) It might even make supporters believe that some other editors think that that removing these articles is actually harming Wikipedia instead of helping it. But nowhere in there does anyone say that anyone thinks BilledMammal is trying to harm Wikipedia, and therefore this is not a case of "ABF" at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to agree, but I will say that the way Steve framed those comments as a whole, there is at least an implication of misuse of process / gaming the system. Or at least, I think that's a very reasonable read. Either way, I really feel that the comments in question straddle the line between legitimate interpretation of another user's conduct and something that could be reasonably interpreted as a refusal to AGF. That said, for me personally, given the ambiguities here, I feel like Steve has made a reasonable level of concession, saying he will take the input on board. Kinda feels like the most we are going to get here, anyway. SnowRise let's rap 03:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear: yes, I think the proposal is gaming the system by circumventing deletion policy and our normal processes. I directly said that in my original comment on the survey. Deletion policy on moving articles to draft space is super clear on this and says "Older articles—as a rule of thumb those older than 90 days—should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD". BilledMammal and other editors are directly trying to edit the policy to allow for using "other venues" than AFD, which there is no consensus for, at least yet. Pushing for edits to policy pages at the same time you're making a proposal that is in contradiction to the current policy is a huge red flag to me. As WhatamIdoing says, I have absolutely no doubt these editors truly believe they are trying to make Wikipedia better in this attempt (i.e. acting in good faith), but it is an inappropriate way of going about it, which is why I have commented repeatedly on the effort. Steven Walling • talk 05:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Pushing for edits to policy pages at the same time you're making a proposal that is in contradiction to the current policy is a huge red flag to me. You missed some context here; the change to WP:ATD-I was originally done on the 22nd of May, per WP:LUGSTUBS and on the basis that policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. Joe Roe than modified it on the 9th of June. It was in place in that form, without objection, for over a month before the current proposal started.
    Only after the current proposal was opened did BeanieFan11 object, prompting the current discussion. To characterize this as a "red flag" is a rather uncharitable interpretation of the history of that discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 05:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your candor with regard to all of this, Steven. That said, if that was your intention, I do need to pull back my support (at least partially) for the notion that this was a grey area and maybe an acceptable comment. Because while your rhetoric in this instance may technically align with the letter of the definition of AGF (which afterall does begin with "Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful.") it is still problematic in a number of ways. Because if you are accusing BM of WP:GAMING, that is an issue. If you're going to take shelter in the literal wording of WP:AGF, then what's good for the goose is good for the gander: WP:GAMING (also a behavioural guideline) begins with "Gaming the system means deliberately using Wikipedia policies in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia.". And if you are accusing another user of doing that without strong evidence, you are clearly casting WP:ASPERSIONS, which to my mind is actually a more serious issue than just a failure to AGF.
    And further, even if you wanted us to read the definition of "assume good faith" literally according to the policy, but read the definition of "gaming the system" more idiomatically (which would be a very convenient approach for your position), it's still not a good fit to the circumstances, because nothing BilledMammal did here can really be considered "gaming the system" in even that looser sense, imo. They made a novel proposal in light of novel circumstances (and to meet a pressing need for the encyclopedia). They not only did it in full view of the community, they actually did it on probably the most visible single page on the entire project. The community is free to endorse or reject that proposal (and right now, with significant participation, the majority are leaning towards support and were at the time you made your observation).
    A now banned user abused process to add nearly a hundred thousand articles to the project that did not meet its sourcing standards. There has been voluminous discussion about what to do about the resulting content. BM made a proposal to move just a couple thousand of those (that meet very strict criteria) to draft space until those that could were brought into compliance with our content policies. That's an eminently reasonable proposal. Community members and reasonable minds may (and clearly do) vary in whether they consider it the right way forward here, but again, this was a proposal to the community at large that we adopt a certain method for processing mass-created content made in abrogation of our policies. The mere act of volunteering the proposal itself to the community (again, in the most visible and open manner possible on this project) can in no reasonable way be considered "gaming the system", and if that's what you meant by your comments--yeah, it's problem and you need to recalibrate your impressions, imo.
    Or at the very least avoid vocalizing them in this respect, because whatever the value or lack thereof of the proposal, there was nothing improper in how BilledMammal approached seeking consensus on the matter. I know you didn't ask for it, but if you want my honest opinion, being now in possession of more insight into your thought process here, you need to be more cognizant of the possible chilling effects of accusing someone of abusing process by merely making a proposal, especially when that accusation comes from an administrator.
    I still don't think there's more to be done here than to ask you to bear all of this in mind going forward, but I would ask you to give the feedback very serious consideration. You are in a position of authority here and your descriptions of the conduct of other users have weight and potential consequences. If you want to cleave to a textualist reading of policy in your own defense, you should be giving other community members the same courtesy and not making willy-nilly descriptions of their conduct that involve terminology that also serves as a label for policy violations on this project. Afterall WP:AGF also tells you to avoid speculating about the motives of other editors without proof for exactly this reason. SnowRise let's rap 11:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing, it's hard to see how dishonesty to further one's own personal motives is not straightforward bad faith in basically any situation I can immediately come up with. But definitely let the toddler wash the dishes, as (parenting hack) I discovered that if you let toddlers do all the things they think look like fun when they first start thinking that, by the time your kids are five they've internalized that it's their job to do the laundry, vacuuming, and dishes and have learned to do those things competently. Valereee (talk) 11:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What seems actually dishonest to you, in any of the comments by anyone? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC
    WhatamIdoing, I was responding to your assertion that In other words, this isn't a case of "ABF" – according to my definition. If you're calling someone dishonest, IMO you're saying they're operating in bad faith. I don't think saying they're being dishonest but for reasons-they-consider-good makes it okay. Valereee (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you Valereee for opening this, and thank you Levivich for providing those other examples; I had in fact forgotten about those, which is part of the problem in that such accusations of bad faith or other examples of incivility have become so commonplace they are no longer memorable. To be clear, I'm not referring to just Steven Walling here, but any step to remind editors that assuming good faith, and civility more broadly, is required is a positive.
    My problem with the statement under discussion here, BilledMammal is doing this because they know that mass AFDs would never pass, but they can pretend each draft will get considered before being eventually deleted, is that I am accused of dishonest motives, of lying about my intent. Steven Walling is free to believe this, but saying it isn't helpful, and is against policy. Personally, I am hoping that Steven will concede they shouldn't have said that and strike the comment; while offering to take other editors concerns under sincere consideration in future discussions is a positive step, it isn't the same thing as agreeing that it was "not cool", nor is it the same as removing the problematic sentence. BilledMammal (talk) 05:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to WhatamIdoing, and without presuming to speak for Valereee, I'll say this about good/bad faith. You are right that the first sentence of WP:AGF defines good faith strictly in terms of what benefits the encyclopedia. I think that if we broaden that out slightly however, a more everyday, commonplace meaning of the phrase would encompass assuming that people are being honest. Implying that people are lying (or 'pretending' something they know not to be true) would in most circumstances be understood as an accusation of bad faith. Even if it isn't strictly covered by the wording of AGF, I don't think that it is permissible under WP:CIV. We encourage editors to focus on content, not contributors; in a discussion like that one, which is about policy rather than content, we should obviously be focusing on the policy, not the motivations or mental state of a contributor who has proposed a change to policy. It's fine to say 'the results of this wouldn't be X, it would be Y and Z, which would be bad so I oppose'. It's not cool to say 'Example editor is pretending they believe that X would happen, so they can push through Y and Z through the back door.' As admins, we should be doing our utmost to model civility and restraint in discussions, and we should be open to criticism when we lapse. Girth Summit (blether) 08:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    BilledMammal: If simply striking the comment is really the show of good intentions that would make you feel more comfortable, I'll do that now. Steven Walling • talk 16:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, that is all I was looking for. I'm satisifed. Valereee (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    BilledMammal I think that was a very reasonable request. I agree with you, contra WAID, that "deceptive" does carry negative connotations (albeit mild ones), and while I don't think it was wise of Valereee to take up a cudgel over something you saw fit to ignore at the time, I think you're well within your rights to ask for it to be stricken. (If you, rather than Valereee, had initially requested the comment be stricken and been refused, I would have considered that a much more serious affair.) Choess (talk) 03:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Choess: I did actually make the initial ask for it to be striken; I wasn't going to take it further because such comments directed at me are quite common and I can't be opening a new ANI thread every few days, but I'm glad Valereee did. BilledMammal (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Choess, read the diffs again. My first comment in that interaction was simply to agree with BilledMammal after they objected to the comment. But I'm not sure why even if I'd been the first making the remark that would make it less serious for you? As I see it part of an admin's job is to protect other editors. Valereee (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every year some group of editors wants to start a holy war over the wording or style of the banners - a look at that fundraising discussion and this is the egregious breach of AGF? In general, Steven's comments come off a bit flip, but nowhere near something that should rise to the level of ANI. As if there aren't some people who, based on what they've actually said on-wiki, would absolutely like to sabotage the WMF's fundraising by challenging the banners every year (in addition, of course, to a larger number of people with more nuanced perspectives and criticisms of the banners). Is that even directed at anyone in particular? Also, it would be clear to anyone active in deletion policy/guideline-related discussions that one of BM's primary activities is to test the limits of those PAGs and of deletion processes to make it easier to delete things, easier to remove stubs, and harder to create/keep low quality content. I would be surprised if they disputed this, even, as it's not at all incompatible with good faith. I don't agree with a lot of it, and I have some wiki-old-timer worries about the strategic use of "case law" to steer policy where a proposal to simply change the policy would fail and what all of it means for the future of newbie participation in particular, but that's just a matter of differing perspectives/wikiphilosophies. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do tend to still feel that this is a bit of a tempest in a teapot, which may seem strange to say, given the rapid amount of discussion it has blossomed in a day and my own contribution to that volume with my wall of text above. But I think it's largely because of Steven's status as an admin: it's the only rational explanation I can think of, when unambiguous behavioural issues sometimes sit in broad daylight on ANI for weeks with much less uniform criticism. And to be fair, the admin factor is a reasonable cause for community members to express inordinate concern.
    Even so, and as I said in my initial post here, I couldn't personally see bringing this issue to ANI, ever. But brought it was, and I think it is (hopefully soon to be "was") a useful conversation to have. If nothing else, it was necessary to at least discuss the issues in a manner that allowed Steven to present his side of the exchange, lest he be left with a compromised reputation in the eyes of any editors without the benefit of replying. But even if it's clear that there is no basis for a sanction or community restraint here, I think the discussion of the subtext and relevance of these policies is a good one to have when these accusations are made. It would be unfair to Steven to keep this discussion open for much longer, in my one opinion, for just the purpose of having that debate, but if he's an admin worthy of the mop, he will have already decided the discussion was worth having--at least, that's how I see it. SnowRise let's rap 13:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Snow Rise (and others), where would be a better place to have a discussion about an administrator who you believe has demonstrated behavior we would like not to see from an admin but who is repeatedly pushing back on whether the behavior is at all problematic when you bring it to their attention, and finally tells you they won't discuss it with you any more? Because I'm happy to take it to the proper forum next time I encounter that. Valereee (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Arbcom, and see if it rises to the level of stripping the rights, ala Scottywong. Zaathras (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that any behavior by an admin has to be so egregious that it's enough to get arbcom involved before we can bring it up somewhere else and try for community resolution. It looks like this has been resolved, so if anyone would like to suggest a better forum, you can take it to my user talk, and I sincerely would like to know: if not here, where? Valereee (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No - arbcom is for cases we can't figure out with a community discussion. Valereee did not come here and say 'Steven won't accept that he's done something wrong, so we need to get his sysop bit taken off him', she came here and said 'Steven said this stuff that I think is unacceptable, and he won't take it back - what do others think?'. Lots of people have commented, Steven has agree to strike the comment that caused offense, and everyone who has read the thread has probably done a bit of thinking about what is and isn't acceptable in discussions about policy. I don't think Valereee was wrong to bring this here - like Levivich said way further up, this forum shouldn't be exclusively for cases where sanctions are unambiguously needed. We can nudge people in a better direction. Girth Summit (blether) 16:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a behavioural issue, not one regarding the use of administrative privileges. Even in the case of problematic administrative actions, the community should be trying to resolve the issue using the usual dispute resolution path, as with any editor. isaacl (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    +1. If it had involved tools, I would have taken it to WP:XRV. Valereee (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Valereee, I appreciate that this might not be a satisfying answer for you, but in this instance I would not have taken it anywhere. ANI is the appropriate forum for behavioural discussions, but not every disagreement about conduct meets the threshold for justifying a discussion here; there is a space between suboptimal conduct and highly disruptive behaviour where it typically makes sense just to let go of these things. I hope my comments above made it clear that I don't think Steven's observations were fair game, and I certainly understand why you took issue with them. Furthermore, I think you did the right thing in broaching the topic with him. But once it was clear that you weren't going have a meeting of the minds about the comments in question, I don't think it necessarily needed to be escalated to ANI, or any further community response, on the basis of those particular statements.
    Now do bear in mind how I phrased the observation in the first instance: I'm not going to go as far as to say you did the wrong thing by bringing the matter here (it's enough of a grey area that I don't feel comfortable doing that). I'm just saying I wouldn't have done so. But what's done is done and I do sincerely hope that Steven takes the feedback to heart, the conversation having been had. SnowRise let's rap 00:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll respond at my talk. Valereee (talk) 09:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point, I doubt theres going to be any sanctions; I also doubt that editors believe this was acceptable. Might as well warn and close. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Reporting user TheMNLRockstar

    I'd like to report user TheMNLRockstar which is/are indeed user Raymarcbadz. They have created a new count (TheMNLRockstar) just 2 days after having erasing the section in talk in their talk page on Raymarcbadz. They are doing exactly the same kind of edits that user Raymarcbadz did. I recall you that user Raymarcbadz is banned from doing any edits on Olympics subjects and they are doing a lot of edits since 4 July on Olympics Subjects. I think that the administrators must show to TheMNLRockstar or Raymarcbadz that when the user is banned from editing on certain subjects, they are banned ! 82.120.136.18 (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User TheMNLRockstar is deleting all my remarks without explaining them. I think the masks have fallen. 82.120.136.18 (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think an investigation would be welcome regarding the strong similarities between users Raymarcbadz and TheMNLRockstar. 82.120.136.18 (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Who are you and how sure are you? And why did you file any charges against me? Could you please stop accusing me as someone who banned from Wikipedia? TheMNLRockstar (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You have created your new account 2 days after last edit from Raymarcbadz. I read your talk page before you have erased it and you said that you can't live without making edits on Olympics subjects because you editted in during 17 years. I found it really strange that the exact same edits that Raymarcbadz did you too also did exact the same kind of edits. You have the exact same kind of vocabulary and you do the exact same edits on the same subjects. 82.120.136.18 (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They have been checkuser blocked by User:Girth Summit. Canterbury Tail talk 13:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you ! It is important to stay vigilant with these users using Sockpuppetry ! 82.120.136.18 (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And apparently you come from the same geographical area. That's too big to be "just a coincidence". User Raymarcbadz is banned from editting Olympic Subjects, you should too considering that you are the same person. 82.120.136.18 (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Raymarcbadz is not banned from just Olympic topics, they are outright banned from Wikipedia. Any sock is block and revert on sight. Canterbury Tail talk 13:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's undeniably the same person. We don't have a category stronger than  Confirmed, but this if we did this would be {{super-duper-confirmed}}. Girth Summit (blether) 14:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Girth Summit for your quick response. I will stay vigilant because I am 80% sure they will create another one... 82.120.136.18 (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. I saw that they were deleting edits made by other editors on Olympics subjects exactly like was doing Raymarcbadz. I hope they will be reasonable in the future and stop their destructive behaviour. 82.120.136.18 (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Girth Summit: I found this (Redacted). We were right: it is completely the same person ! 82.120.136.18 (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    IP editor - I wasn't in any doubt. Please don't post things like that here - it's WP:OUTING. The user may be blocked, but we need to respect their privacy. I've asked the oversight team to suppress your edit. Girth Summit (blether) 14:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK right, but in this comment they say that they will do the same thing again and again, I think it's worth noticing it... 82.120.136.18 (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Noticing, perhaps, but not posting here. Evidence like that can be submitted through other channels, such as IRC or email, but not posted onwiki. Girth Summit (blether) 14:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the redacted information is still posted on WT:OLYMPICS. Kingsif (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's gone now. This can probably be closed. Girth Summit (blether) 19:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


    Reporting user Pisarz12345

    Hello to Admin. Please note that both users User:Александр Васильев and myself, User:ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ-888, are hereby requesting your assistance or intervention, in regards to a series of apparently bad faith edits by a certain user, User:Pisarz12345, on various articles from the Eastern Orthodox liturgical calendar (= calendar day articles). The edits of a certain user, User:Pisarz12345 are in bad faith, in our view, and are contravening Wikipedia's three-revert rule (edit warring).

    In summary, user Pisarz12345 is adding persons to the lists of articles of Eastern Orthodox Saints, who are NOT officially venerated by ANY of the Orthodox Churches. An example of this is the article July 3 (Eastern Orthodox liturgics), where Pisarz12345 has blatantly transgressed this three-revert rule; another example like this is article April 19 (Eastern Orthodox liturgics). Both User:Александр Васильев and and myself User:ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ-888, have repeatedly asked User:Pisarz12345 to not add un-venerated persons to the calendar articles that list venerated Eastern Orthodox Saints. Rather, inclusion of a person on these calendar day articles, means that such a person is VENERATED by one of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches in the world,according to their own listings; and so, in the absence of a valid footnote or reference, from a valid Orthodox Church source, then any person may NOT be included in these articles; however, User:Pisarz12345 is blatantly doing so, and participating in edit wars on this point.

    Now, some of the references/footnotes that User:Pisarz12345 had provided, are from a Russian Orthodox encylopedia, called DREVO, which is indeed an acceptable, and a pre-moderated, good encylopaedic source - HOWEVER, only in the instance of venerated (or canonized) Saints or Martyrs; obviously this DREVO encyclopaedic source, being an encylopaedia, will also include several other articles on various historical personages who are NOT officially venerated by any Orthodox Church; and so, such persons, cannot therefore be automatically included in the list of Saints for the Eastern Orthodox liturgical calendar; yet Pisarz12345 is engaging in continuous edit wars and adding such unvenerated persons. The titles of ALL of these 366 Wikipedia calendar-day articles, includes the term "Eastern Orthodox", and so this principle of canonization or official veneration in a valid Eastern Orthodox Church, is paramount here.
    Please note also, that User:Pisarz12345 has already been BLOCKED INDEFINITELY on the POLISH WIKIPEDIA (see here).
    Your assistance in this matter would be appreciated. Sincerely, ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ-888 (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Other commemorations paragraph is for not canonized but venerated persons, like: Hieromonk Arsenius of Valaam Monastery (1853), Schemamonk Theodore of Svir (1822) or orthers. Secondly Potitus of Gargara you are insinuating is not venerated is in the official menologium of ROC, like Patricius of Vladimir but you are too lazy to check the sources I linked. Pisarz12345 (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Having looked into this, I'm going to note for the record that there has been no effort to discuss these issues on the talk page for either article, and that the edit warring is definitely two-way here: [122], [123]. Furthermore, the edit summaries for Александр Васильев are in Russian, which is clearly an issue that needs addressing. Actually, I get the feeling that all three at least two of the editors involved here have somewhat borderline competency for contributing in English and all three a limited understanding of local policy and procedure. There's also some pretty direct labeling of Pisarz's edits as "bad faith" in ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ's edit summaries, which obviously is a WP:AGF concern, insofar as these edits are not vandalism but merely constitute constitute content that ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ doesn't agree with. (Incidentally, the two editors with cyrillic script names may want to read WP:LATINPLEASE).
    The edit warring should of course stop immediately and the issues taken to the article talk pages. But even then, I'm doubtful that there is going to be a meeting of the minds here, based on the previous edit warring, the distance between these editors in perspective, the religious element of the dispute, and the fact that the discussion would need to take place in English. Even mediating the matter would take a lot of hand-holding over some relatively minor changes to the articles (mileage may vary on that last part of the analysis about the importance of the edits, of course).
    Honestly I'm not sure what would be the recommended course of action here. Can anyone think of a WikiProject where editors with the requisite interest might be willing to weigh in and help break the deadlock here? I can't imagine these issues are of sufficient interest to the average editor to attract much outside attention, and I don't think these three are going to be able to make proper use of RfC. WP:DRN maybe? Robert McClenon, would this be a good candidate for your assistance, or do you think the obstacles here would be a problem for your process? SnowRise let's rap 19:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't looked into this dispute, but DRN has never worked well for editors whose English is marginal. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I thought that might be a concern. To be perfectly fair to these parties, I am basing my interpretation of their English skills on limited information, but given the wording of the post above for one of the two users, and the fact that the third is providing edit summaries in another language, I think it's fair to say there is room for miscommunication if the issue was being mediated in English and considering the parties are already strongly rhetorically opposed. I honestly don't know that there is a a feasible middle ground to explore between the two sides here. I guess the best option is to find the closest (probably religion-based) WikiProject to direct them to make an inquiry at. SnowRise let's rap 20:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. Narky Blert (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, thematically it would certainly seem to be the right place, but it doesn't look like it sees much activity of late. SnowRise let's rap 01:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring on over 80 golf articles

    List of the 87 pages affected

    Some time ago Wikiproject Golf reached a consensus that "Past champions in the field" and "Nationalities in the field" sections should be removed from tournament articles (see discussion here, here, here, and here). That consensus was reached 3–4 years ago, but it wasn't until earlier this year that someone put in the work to actually remove all of them. Today User:Jamahiriya has been re-adding them, saying that no consensus was reached.

    I posted a message on Jamahiriya's talk page letting them know of the Wikiproject consensus. They replied that the consensus was invalid since it didn't occur on article talk pages. It is true that it didn't, partially because of the number of pages involved, but almost all of the most active golf editors were involved in the discussion.

    I opened a new discussion at WT:GOLF regarding whether consensus needed to be re-established, tagging the above user. User:Wjemather replied that it did not, and began to revert Jamahiriya's changes. This led to an edit war between the two, with edits on over 80 pages being undone and redone and both users reaching the maximum of three reverts on some of those pages. Early on, Wjemather posted a warning on Jamahiriya's talk page, and eventually Jamahiriya posted a warning on Wjemather's talk page as well; both have been removed. Both have accused the other of disruption, with Jamahiriya also accusing Wjemather of tendentious editing and violating 3RR in addition to accusations of canvassing, forum-shopping, and meatpuppetry apparently directed at me for re-opening discussion on the Wikiproject talk page. (Wjemather has also mentioned that Jamahiriya's reverts have re-introduced errors and removed citations.)

    Several hours ago Wjemather gave up trying to revert Jamahiriya's edits. So far only three users have really been involved in the dispute, and I've just made talk-page comments and no article edits. I'm unsure what the best way forward is, but I've laid out the details to the best of my knowledge. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 18:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Jamahiriya is unquestionably edit warring and I've p-blocked them from mainspace for 48 hours. They're welcome to continue discussing here or at the Project. I leave further action to someone else. Star Mississippi 19:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest no further action be taken until we get a response from Jamahiriya, or they return to disruptive editing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Should there be further discussion rather than immediate reversion of their edits? pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 20:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably. Consensus can change, so it would be good to be sure it hasn't before reverting wholesale. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI in case anybody’s curious. I’ve opened an SPI into them: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/IceFrappe#Suspected_sockpuppets Thepharoah17 (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Not surprised at all. Besides the familiarity with policy you mentioned, it would be strange for anyone to be upset about a consensus change that happened before they started editing Wikipedia. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 19:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ActualUkrainianCossack

    Newly created sock of User:ActualCossack that has decided to return and restore all their POV edits from the old account that were reverted with the same edit summaries like "Learn to read"[124][125]. Now they are edit warring over their changes[126]. Mellk (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeffed. Star Mississippi 20:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Mellk (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're more familiar - I assume there's a reason ActualCossack isn't blocked as well? Star Mississippi 20:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not aware of any other previous accounts but probably that account has not been blocked yet because I did not post a complaint on ANI. They made a series of edits and then disappeared (until now). Mellk (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If the original account was never blocked, this may not be a case of socking but rather an SPA misplacing the password to their original account. That said, given the comments and the at least open question of abuse of multiple accounts, I think we can call the indef warranted anyway (NOTHERE, DISRUPTIVE, CIV, EW--take your pick). SnowRise let's rap 23:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked now. Courcelles (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Courcelles! I was offline and missed your comment @Snow Rise. If anyone thinks I should revise the block for accuracy, let me know (or any admin can feel free as I'll be offline bulk of tomorrow too). It was the immediate stop the disruption Star Mississippi 01:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Frenchl

    User:Frenchl is repeatedly and persistently making disruptive edits to articles pertaining about football (soccer) players. They are obsessed with the issue of players' nationality, and have made many edits against the consensus of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football (WPF) despite repeated warnings and pleads to stop. Firstly, Frenchl has been adding "dashed nationality" or "double nationality" to player articles, which is something that is against the consensus of WPF. An example of their addition of a double nationality can be found here for Ilyes Housni, and an example of their addition of dashed nationality can be found here for Skelly Alvero. The consensus of WPF regarding situations of footballers having dual citizenship is clear; players born in a specific country and who end up representing that country should be labelled as such (e.g., Zinedine Zidane is French, even if he has Algerian citizenship/nationality). The other consensus of WPF is that in a complex scenario, in which for example a player was born in one country and later represented another at international level, the consensus is to omit the nationality from the opening sentence and explain it either in the next sentence, or further down in the lede. This is to avoid using hyphens and "double nationality" as I say, which WPF has consisently stood against. As stated by GiantSnowman in this discussion, We have a standard way of editing - if a player is born in country X but plays for country Y, we do not include the nationality in the lede (opening sentence). This confirms what I am iterating the consensus that has been used for past years within this WikiProject.
    Frenchl is doing everything in their power to not listen to both of the consensuses, and is making WP:POINTY edits against past consensus on nationality. Examples are here on Dembo Sylla, here on Mouaad Madri, here on Hamza Hafidi, here on Steven Nsimba, and just in the past 24 hours, on the articles of Ilyes Housni, Antony Robic, Syam Ben Youssef, Yann Boé-Kane, Skelly Alvero, Aïman Maurer, and Kévin Mouanga. I have had to go back and remove every disruptive edit on the nationality of all of these player articles. Many complaints were made against Frenchl in this discussion, first by GiantSnowman, regarding Frenchl's POINTY editing patterns against consensus on nationality. They have been repeatedly warned, as in this discussion on their talk page. Iggy the Swan and GiantSnowman both warned Frenchl about their disruptive editing on player articles regarding the subject of nationality, and this was done repeatedly by GiantSnowman in three different comments. However, as I mentioned just above, despite repetitive warnings, Frenchl has continued to violate the consensus long established on WPF, and has persistently disrupted many player articles, including many in the past 24 hours. According to this discussion started by Koncorde on GiantSnowman's talk page, Frenchl has also been making POINTY edits regarding specific wording around "representing a federation" despite persistent demands to stop disruptively editing Wikipedia.
    I believe that a block is in order now for Frenchl, due to their repeated disregard for community guidelines and consensus, and repetitive disruptive editing. I would like to add that per WP:BLOCKP, this block is preventative based on the high likelihood of repetition of disruptive editing, as seen in the past 24 hours despite several demands and warnings. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    In 2019 a user has been banned by the community because "nationality isn't determined by who you play a sport for". And because "WP:RS,WP:OR and WP:BLP apply, regardless of what WP:FOOTY says." He was even told "You need to understand that nationality/citizenship is a legal status. It does not change merely because someone plays a sport for another country."
    I think these rules should be reminded to WP:FOOTY members. As someone said yesterday, WPF consensus on nationality is "a stange rule - with no other profession does Wikipedia decide that we can obscure basic info because some of it kinda relates to their job". Frenchl (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm supporting a block for Frenchl, due to repeated violations against various discussions many established users have been involved in, including the two similar discussions on the WPF page whose text takes up at least half the page. By blocking, hopefully before the end of this month the two long discussions will have been archived by the bot but they keep on expanding partly due to further input by Frenchl. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should encourage Frenchl to contribute to discussions more productively, since they are clearly willing to discuss edits. Before anyone suggests it, I don't say this because they have some similar views to mine, I say it because I think blocks should be a very last resort as a rule and there are better ways to deal with well-meaning editors - see my comments from the past few days in the above thread about HiLo, a user I almost always disagree with, for example. Kingsif (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your input, Kingsif, and I thank you for reminding the viewers that you and Frenchl have indeed been repeatedly backing each other up in a recent discussion about nationality. However, as you said, I am unsure if you are the best placed to oppose a block on Frenchl, as they are clearly making POINTY, disruptive edits repetitively despite warnings and pleads to stop. To @Frenchl:, we are not here to discuss WPF's consensus, but your bad behavior and disruptive editing, which you have not stopped. A block is appropriate, as Iggy and I see it. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This must be said. Paul, I have not been backing up Frenchl in the slightest; I have asked them to stop making off-topic comments, and made it clear that they are seeking a different resolution that I felt was unhelpful in the recent discussion. Please do not continue to mischaracterise my comments there or try to discount my comments here. Kingsif (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I agree with that. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • From my superficial reading of the situation, I agree that Frenchl should stop making edits to footballers' nationalities until this matter (how to treat the subjects' nationalities) is resolved. Frenchl, if you believe the project's consensus goes against some other policy, you should bring this up to the community, possibly at VPP (though I think the linked thread from 2019 is related to a somewhat different issue). Editing articles in a way that contradicts what appears to be the current consensus is disruptive, especially as you are clearly aware that several editors disagree with you. I don't think sanctions are necessary right at this moment, as long as Frenchl stops with those edits. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 22:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Isabelle Belato: If the disruptive editing abruptly stops, then sanctions would not be necessary, but it would wise to analyze what Frenchl does over the next few days. However, I would be impressed; just in the past four-five days, Frenchl has made over 150 edits, of which over 75% were disruptive. I have spent the past 20 minutes reverting former disruptive edits that went unnoticed. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    For background, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Nationality in lede - there is clear consensus that Frenchl's edits regarding nationality are NOT supported by the community. They know their edits are against consensus, but they continued.

    However, their edits beyond the 'nationality issue' are also disruptive, examples being removing 'national' from national teams and adding unsourced content to BLPs.

    Their talk page is littered with established editors trying educate them, but the conduct has not stopped. WP:CIR is a serious concern here.

    I therefore support an indefinite topic ban from all association football-related articles, broadly construed. GiantSnowman 06:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Frenchl: Being right is great but that won't stop you being blocked because collaboration is paramount. You need to either stop right now or get a clear consensus for your edits at the wikiproject talk. Please let me know if this continues. Johnuniq (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I already stopped. I will go to Village pump (policy) and we will see if global consensus can be overruled by a local consensus. As for artists of politicians, the WikiProject Basketball mentions all nationalities in the lede for dual nationals, there is no valid reason why this should not be the case for the WikiProject Football. Frenchl (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Echoing GS. CIR is of particular concern. User either is unable to write encyclopedically, or their POV is so overbearing that they are needlessly disruptive in trying to force their perspective. Even if their argument was one of nationality, changing the word "country" to "association", amending links from representative national teams to associations and so on can only be viewed as WP:POINTY attempt to force citizenship into the first sentence by making all other usage obscure, unclear, or purposely misleading for the average reader who would understand the association is the organiser of a representative national team associated with a country - uncontroversially referred to in all reliable sources as "representative country" / "national team" / "allegiance to" / "plays for" and words to that effect. There is no illusion that a French player plays for France as all current links will point directly to the national team of that representative association. The edits are therefore intentionally disruptive and not conducive to writing encyclopedically.
    That their answer is to run to the Village Pump pretty much seals the deal that they have no intention of working to consensus and only threat of action has paused their disruption (not actually recognising why their edits are wrong, inappropriate and disruptive). Koncorde (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, respecting FIFA's wording is not WP:POINTY. And following Wikipedia's global rules is not disruptive. WP:CIR is an essay, not a policy, and saying I am incompetent is a personal attack. Frenchl (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't understand what we're saying and why what you are doing is against consensus and most probably incorrect for this WikiProject, then WP:CIR is valid here. Since you are trying to force an agenda, I am getting strong WP:NHTBAE vibes based on General pattern of disruptive behavior and Little or no interest in working collaboratively. I fully agree with Koncorde and GiantSnowman's comments. A topic ban would be appropriate too, if a block is not in order yet. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I perfectly understood the WikiProject Football does not want to respect the global rules of Wikipedia. In 2014 a Request for Comment has been made and the result was that all nationalities should be referred in the opening sentence. It is inaccurate to say that this is a "long-established consensus" when in 2014 it was not. The closure was contested by Giantsnowman but confirmed on Administrator's noticeboard.
    I asked him when WPF consensus on nationality changed, but got no response. Was there a new vote afterwards? Has the global community allowed WPF to have its own rules on nationality ? Frenchl (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of whether Frenchl's conduct is appropriate or not, WikiProjects may not enforce their "consensus" on articles, and editors have been topic banned for attempting to do so in the past. Per WP:PROJPAGE:
    However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, or that a specific type of article can't be linked in navigation templates, and that other editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. An advice page written by several participants of a project is a "local consensus" that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay. Contents of WikiProject advice pages that contradict widespread consensus belong in the user namespace.
    WikiProjects do not speak for the community, and any editors that repeatedly try to enforce a "WikiProject consensus" should be sanctioned for violating WP:OWNERSHIP. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this is more about the discussion topic than Frenchl's attitude (although it's definitely related), you may want to take it to the WT:FOOTY threads (Nationality in lede and Lucy Bronze) instead. Kingsif (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also not relevant here. The local "consensus" is an explanation MOS:CONTEXTBIO in line with the overall project. That it comes up off an on is evidence that there is no WP:OWNERSHIP, and that there is a discussion of that policy reflects that refers to a local consensus is as a short-hand for "we have covered this topic before and this is what has been said". People are always free to bring it up again, so long as they're not purposely being obtuse. Koncorde (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment would also be better at the actual discussions, I think. Of course, I would find that trying to disregard new well-meaning discussions only on the premise of the consensus existing is relevant. But let's keep the AN/I on-topic, too. Kingsif (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It became relevant when editors started calling for someone to be topic banned specifically because they edited in a way that a WikiProject didn't like. Asking to sanction a user because they went against "WikiProject consensus" approaches WP:BOOMERANG territory. An editor doesn't have to "bring up" anything with a WikiProject, because WikiProjects don't have a say in editing practices. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing from WikiEditWaste

    @WikiEditWaste has consistently disrupted and vandalised numerous articles, refuses to engage in discussion, and is disseminating false information.


    Examples:

    1. From the Economy of Afghanistan page, they have continually disrupted edits made by other users, which have attempted to develop the article, and continues to spread false figures which have been shown to be disreputable. This diff shows the extent of disruption being done.
    2. From the List of regions of Afghanistan by Human Development Index, where they had falsified HDI data which had to be corrected by other editors. This diff demonstrates this.
    3. From the List of countries by GDP (nominal), where they had edited the article with false information to boost the position of Afghanistan. This was soon reverted by another editor. Diff.
    4. From the 2021 Afghanistan–Iran clashes, where they painted a biased pro-Afghan narrative to the skirmishes to falsely claim an Afghan victory had occurred. Diff.
    5. From List of countries by Human Development Index by region, where they had removed Afghanistan's position from the table showing it among the lowest in the OIC.
    6. From Demographics of Afghanistan, where they had used poor quality sources to increase life expectancy figures, that were odds with the referenced sources from the WHO.


    I have made a report previously to this board, which @WikiEditWaste did not engage with. They continue to make bad faith edits, especially in the Economy of Afghanistan page, which is now hindering the development of the article and causing immense disruption. LeoHoffman (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Diff for point 5. Diff for point 6. LeoHoffman (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The almost month-long and ongoing disruption is documented in Talk:Economy of Afghanistan, where myself and three other users commented on the poor quality (and obviously falsified data), and on the edit history of the page. Unsuccessful attempts were also made to engage on the user talk page. LeoHoffman (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thickrod6869

    CaptainEek took care of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    [127]. Should be self-explanatory why I'm reporting this (also rev-del). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Repeated submission of Draft:Chang, Ching-Yu by User:Yen930407

    User:Yen930407 has submitted this draft for AfC review a total of 7 times, each time ignoring the feedback previously received and doing nothing to remedy the issues that reviewers have highlighted. They also added Chinese categories after being told that this is inappropriate. They were directly asked to stop resubmitting the draft without addressing its major issues four times (1, 2, 3, 4), with multiple editors making clear that this behaviour could be considered disruptive. They have now submitted the draft for a seventh time. They have commented on this matter here and at the AfC help desk, where @DoubleGrazing: reaffirmed the decisions of previous reviewers. They have then gone on to resubmit the draft. This is unambiguously disruptive behaviour and this editor has refused to WP:LISTEN to others on many, many occasions. Pinging @Theroadislong:, as they have also reviewed the draft twice and tried to engage with this editor. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This draft has now been rejected by another editor. I came to ANI specifically to avoid rejecting this draft, because I think there's a good chance it's an appropriate and notable topic. Of course, this stops the repeated submissions, but I don't think it's good to use rejection to stop repeated submissions when the article subject is potentially notable and appropriate. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Actualcpscm: Update to this: Draft:Chang, Ching-Yu was rejected by Mcmatter, and so Yen930407 simply created another draft (Draft:Chang Ching-Yu) with the same problems. 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which was pretty much to be expected. I just realised it has not been mentioned here yet; this is also a single-purpose account. Actualcpscm (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to add that there are half a dozen copies of this, in the draft and user spaces. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @DoubleGrazing: Can you link them here? 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You can find them in the editor's contribs.
    I've added to each a pointer to the rejected draft, in case more of these are submitted for review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For simplicity, here are the relevant user logs: Special:Log/Yen930407 Actualcpscm (talk) 10:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MrHerii

    Have come across this user on Elon Musk related topics on Wikipedia, looks to be engaging in serial removal of reliably-sourced content they don't like that's negative of Musk, inserting their own fan-created material, and engaging in what can only be interpreted as bizarre roleplay about a future Musk government-type entity that also involves Nazi-style imagery. Examples of behaviour include:
    Repeated insertion of what appears to be their own fan-created logo for X Corp, despite warnings [128][129][130][131]
    Repeated removal of reliably sourced content that highlighted issues with Twitter under Elon Musk's ownership under what appears to be false claims of "neutrality" [132][133][134] [135]
    Apparent abusing of neutrality templates [136]
    The page Musk Family that when examining it closer today was nearly entirely their editing and outside of what were essentially disambiguation links was rather questionably sourced (which for transparency I have nominated for deletion) [137]
    Their sandbox page, which is a series of fictional entries about an Elon Musk-run government bodies[138] that has also recently included obvious allusions to Nazi iconography.[139]
    (For added context, this isn't the first time it appears this has happened, see their user profile page from last year[140])

    Believe this needs rather urgent intervention Apache287 (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I’m highly inclined to NOTHERE. The sandbox is an obvious U5, but I’m leaving it alone for now so non-admins can consider this. Courcelles (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I first came across this user a couple of years ago when they were edit warring at House of Hohenzollern for which they were blocked. They had a single-minded Russian-related POV and was pretty uncommunicative. I think there was similar behaviour at other Russian -related articles. Their user pages have been on my watchlist ever since and I've noticed its bizarre use as a place to keep fictitious Elon Musk and colonisation of Mars pseudo-articles - including the one with the Nazi symbolism which I and another user reverted. That part of their editing is definitely NOTHERE. I'm not sure whether their more conventional editing (which seems exclusively Musk and Russia related) is worth keeping them for. DeCausa (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I've seen of 2023 edits I'd say it's very much not worth it. They are actively just inserting fan creations into mainspace, claiming it's fine because "it's derived from" a completely different item, and their approach to sourcing is basically "reliable = my view, unreliable = anything not my view" given they've used tweets as sources in one instance and then removed statements backed up by multiple reputable outlets in others. Apache287 (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Weird fan fiction sandboxes which probably violate the BLP policy aren't cool. NOTHERE. Girth Summit (blether) 17:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked. Courcelles (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing

    At Talk:Zionism, race and genetics, editor jps has opened an RM to move the article to draftspace following a reverted (by myself) move attempt. This followed an AfD opened by the editor (and a second one closed procedurally immediately afterwards) just closed as no consensus and a consensus on the page to allow for the article to be completed before engaging in further processes.

    This appears as disruptive, talk page exhortations are failing to get the point across. Selfstudier (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree that requesting a move of this article to draftspace is disruptive. @Liz: told me on my talkpage that I should not have been WP:BOLD in moving the article to draftspace myself. I'll ask here, I suppose, what I asked there. Is there a set of rules someone can point to for what to do after an AfD is closed as "no consensus"? jps (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The RM has now been closed so nfa required, thanks for assistance. Selfstudier (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You were told not to go against the consensus of the AfD, which was no consensus, i.e. not to draftify, or to delete (and potentially restore and draftify). The community already spoke and the consensus was not to draftify. You then went and tried to WP:FORUMSHOP and/or be WP:POINTy by trying to use an RM as some sort of novel means of returning a page to draft. That isn't the purpose of an RM, which is simple a discussion about moving a page within mainspace, which is obvious, and, for new and unacquainted users, WP:RMNOT also outlines that it is not a process for moving non-mainspace article to mainspace. Now you might argue that it doesn't explicitly say that it is not for the reverse, but I think that is probably just because WP:COMMONSENSE applies, and the expectation is that people will not go about attempting to use the process to that end in the first place. In any case, you now have your answer, as it has been closed as out of process. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Leaving aside the merits of this case, I think that jps raises a legitimate policy question: Is there a set of rules someone can point to for what to do after an AfD is closed as "no consensus"? My understanding is that "no consensus" basically means "retain status quo (unless and until a consensus is achieved)". But I don't know if this is codified anywhere. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No consensus in any discussion means no consensus, which means, as the material and point of discussion stand, there is no agreement. That means further discussions, such as a repeat AfD, can be brought, but the minimum expectation for this is that something has changed, either in the circumstances of the page, or a novel argument has been brought that builds or changes the situation substantially from the prior discussion. This was outlined by @Rosguill in the close of the 2nd AfD that was disruptively opened within 24 hours of the first being closed. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I misunderstand you, your answer is basically the same as mine. (Except that I didn't make explicit that attempts at achieving a consensus will usually require something to have changed.) But is there any guideline that actually says so? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I imagine the answer lies somewhere in the imaginary ether between WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:NOTBURO. It is somewhat obvious that you shouldn't reopen and relitigate the same issue in the same type of discussion unless something has materially changed since that prior discussion, otherwise what is there to discuss? Discussions are meant to be substantive, not just a re-roll of the dice in the hope of a different outcome, i.e. low-level WP:GAMING. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    After some searching I found WP:NOCONSENSUS. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that. To my reading, I don't think my actions were in abrogation of any rules. If others disagree with my interpretation, I am happy to learn how and why. jps (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried explaining that at my talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know that you were basing your explanation on WP:NOCONSENSUS. That makes me more confused by our conversation, but it appears you may be exhausted talking to me in any case. jps (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I wasn't basing it on that. What I meant was that I was trying to explain why others disagree with your interpretation. And they do disagree. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that is codified anywhere; there may be various remarks in essays hiding in different corners, but I doubt there is anything definitive. XOR'easter (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a dispute where everyone needs to calm the F down. Jps, it's kind of obvious that draftifying the page was going to be a bad idea. On the other hand, editors on the other "side" are also acting in a way that tends to escalate things. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor is still pushing the idea that the article topic is fringe at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Zionism,_race_and_genetics. I merely wonder how long it will be before we need to visit AE. Selfstudier (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On the same thread that was started as the one and only edit by a random IP, in a contentious topic areas protected by ECP restrictions on internal project discussions, making the thread itself an WP:ARBPIA breach. Basically, this whole prolonged collective community time waste is all just dancing to the tune of an IP (/sock?). Iskandar323 (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty much. Although I am pretty sure it would have happened at some point anyway. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that if this discussion becomes a general discussion about everything that is going wrong about Zionism, race and genetics, it will become a free-for-all, and editors on both "sides" will have their conduct come under scrutiny, none of which is what ANI is really good at handling. Focusing on the original complaint, an admin has closed the RM. I'd like to see jps agree not to try any more attempts at deletion or draftifying. If we get that, it might be best to end this ANI thread. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ThePentecostalScholar is clearly WP:NOTHERE

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

    Per their contributions, this user has provided unexplained and unwarranted removal of information from multiple articles associated with the now deceased J. Delano Ellis such as Pentecostal Churches of Christ and United Pentecostal Churches of Christ. They even provided unwarranted and unexplainable additions to the United Pentecostal Church International article, showing a seemingly overt bias in favor of this deceased person. These edits seem similar to previous ones which sought to cull as much information that doesn't make someone seem as a saint, not so long after their death. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yep, seems disruptive to me as well. It would be helpful to everyone to tell why ThePentecostalScholar made those edits. The username provided may also be of administrator attention, by checkiing "Pentecostal" on Google search and some of the affected articles, the user seems to be interested in editing with a possible conflict of interest. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Conflict of interest could be tricky here. Is it a conflict of interest for Pentecostal believers to edit articles relating to Pentecostalism? How about Tories to edit articles about the British Conservative party or atheists to edit articles about atheism? I have not looked at the edits in question, I'm just making a point about COI as it might apply to this case. COI or not, they still have to follow our rules.
    -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it only matters if they are editing disruptively. Then having a COI such as that counts more as an aggravating factor for the disruption. If they edit neutrally, then that all is irrelevant. SilverserenC 22:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Seattle mansonics

    Seattle mansonics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This editor does edit very infrequently. However, in between a handful of legitimate edits, this editor has a history of vandalism, including 3 straight edits that were vandalism. Some of the vandalism edits appear to be deliberate factual errors. In addition to some history of vandalism, this editor has a history premature edits for sports transactions, even after receiving warnings about not doing this. They did it again today. Potentially a weak WP:NOTHERE case but there's enough legitimate edits in the past that this might just be a simple vandalism/unsourced/poorly sourced edits case. With how infrequently this editor edits, they may not even realize they are banned if they receive a short ban, but I'll support whatever, if any, action taken by admins.--Rockchalk717 01:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Uncivil behavior, bad faith edits, and false accusations and warnings from DarmaniLink

    As you may recall, in May this year someone started an ANI regarding a mass language change I made, on the grounds they alone opposed it. As soon as I was made aware at the ANI by a third-party that there had been a previous RFC on the matter with a consensus against the change I was making, I stopped the behaviour. The ANI was closed with "no admin action required and the editing in question has stopped". See here. Two days ago, I was pinged to the talk page of an article I made a reversion to prior to the ANI. DarmaniLink stated his opposition to my old change, which was fine in itself, though I feel his choice of language was unnecessarily condescending [141]. It is important to note he later openly stated he was not "calm" when he started that discussion, though this was not an apology, rather, he was just voicing his opinion that he was retroactively justified in assuming bad faith against me, saying he made his comments by going on a 'gut feeling', rather than evidence [142]. Anyway, I told DarmaniLink I wasn't interested in contesting his reversion, though he continued the discussion and concluded his commentary with an uncivil and unnecessary insult [143].

    I would have been more than happy to let this go, incivility is unfortunately not uncommon and this is hardly the worst example of it, however, at this point rather than dropping the stick, DarmaniLink went on to make a false accusation and leave a completely unjustified warning at my talk page [144]. Using a provocative and inaccurate header, Darmanlink stated that I had a "perennial issue" with this matter, when in reality I stopped immediately after being informed of the RfC. His message confusingly consisted of a warning for me to stop my behaviour. Here's the deal, I had already stopped months prior, and had clearly stated my intention not to start the contested editing again. While this information was openly available from links at my talk page, I responded to the warning by pointing out I had long agreed to stop the behavior in question. DarmaniLink then decided to double down [145], explicitly using the ANI as justification for continuing to warn me to stop behaviour, which the ANI noted I had already stopped.

    You can't make this up. Just to clarify, they used a resolved ANI as justification for leaving a warning on my talk page to stop behaviour I had already stopped months earlier and had made no intention to start again. I can only consider this to be a case of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.

    Again, I was willing to let this go and not escalate the matter, however, DarmaniLink has now also accused me of edit-warring at this new Village Pump post [146]. While he does not refer to me by name, he explicitly links to the original article I made the change to and cites it as an example of "enforc[ing] a de facto ban on the phrase through edit warring." I have not previously been accused of edit warring in relation to this, even at the ANI. I have already explicitly explained my justification for my edits to DarmaniLink [147], prior to his accusation of edit-warring.

    Here are the facts. I changed the language at the article in question on May 17 [148]. My edit was reverted with the edit summary "I don't understand this campaign against the word suicide." [149]. Since the person said they didn't understand my edits, and since I wasn't campaigning against the word suicide, I counter reverted giving them a very detailed explanation [150]. At no other point did I contest the reversion of one of my changes by re-reverting it. In all other cases, if someone reverted my change for any reason, I left the reversion intact (Example here: [151]). I only did so in this one instance as the person reverted my edit on the grounds I opposed the word suicide, which was not the case, so I used the edit summary to explain it to them. If they had of further clarified they opposed the change for another reason, I would have accepted that, consistent with my other editing I was doing at the time related to this issue.

    I have now had to deal with one case of incivility, two cases of inaccurate accusations, and a case of a completely unjustified warning regarding behaviour I had already stopped. Can I get an admin to make a comment regarding whether these three separate actions from DarmaniLink were acceptable, and if an actual warning against them is warranted? It's also interesting to note DarmaniLink modified the guideline related to this issue in question, without consensus, while an active discussion regarding it was open [152]. As per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, "Editing a policy to support your own argument in an active discussion may be seen as gaming the system". I already decided to leave the underlying issue related to this alone some time ago. Considering DarmaniLink feels so strongly about this issue that in their own words they cannot stay calm about it, perhaps they should do the same. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's my suggestion. Please provide us with:
    • Your one sentence summary of what the issue is;
    • Your one sentence summary of what you think the best outcome would be.
    Perhaps then we could move this toward a resolution. --Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 03:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So Damien, I've looked over all the supplied links, read the two discussion (at the article TP and your own), looked at the article revision history, and observed but did not participate in the previous ANI where your prior conduct was discussed. My impression is that Darmani's commentary in the original discussion was a little needlessly aggressive, and even more so once they brought matters to your talk page. On the other hand, can you explain why you chose to escalate this matter to ANI after you told Darmani you would do so only if they persisted further (and it seems they haven't)? Also, are you aware that you have it in your discretion to ban people from commenting on your talk page?
    I do agree there are tonal issues in how Darmani decided to approach you, but you fired back some as well--you didn't exactly exit the debate with a firm "not interested" like your summary above suggests: you lingered for quite a bit of back and forth argument. Also, you did to some small degree open the door to conflict with your re-revert back in May, which was still a live edit until just precedent to this dispute. I get what you are trying to say in that the person who first reverted you did so with an edit summary that you felt mischaracterized your rationale, but that's fairly inconsequential; whatever your motive and reasoning, that party clearly thought the edit was not in the best interest of the article. And the policy is WP:BRD not "WP:BRRD": once you were reverted, the WP:ONUS was on you to seek consensus for the change on the talk page, not edit war it back in--please keep that in mind for the future. Now, did that justify Darmani in pinging you back to the discussion months later to re-litigate the matter? Well, they might have thought after the edit warring that they had to in order to prevent the cycle from continuing.
    That said, Darmani's tone definitely needlessly escalated the tension in the discussion, I think I can grant you that. And coming to your talk page to argue further was unnecessary and unhelpful, especially in light of the fact that they either 1) failed to realize the ANI was before the edit in question or 2) tactically ignored that fact, possibly to impugn your conduct as a means of strengthening their perceived position in the rhetorical discussion about whether this or that alternate phrase is acceptable. But you can just tell them to leave, and provided you are true to your word about not wanting to discuss the matter further, nor try to force the edit in question through, that would pretty much end the matter--other than your having some hard feelings about being treated a little roughly. Is it really worth the community's effort to take action here on a matter you have the ability to end immediately on your own?
    I'm not saying Darmani's approach was perfectly 100% civil--and if their manner of speaking here is typical of how they approach editorial disputes, they might well run into a sanction eventually. But it seems to me you have every tool necessary to shut the lid on this little episode right now. SnowRise let's rap 03:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me state my side.
    Most of my contributions have been on current event disasters/assassinations in japan. I havent been on wp in months, I look at my watchlist, I see that page has a change. I check it out, its poor wording. I look at the log, I see it was reverted once before with a reason that insists on changing the language. Following the BRD system, I'm not going to re-revert something, and you have no indication that if it were to just be flat out reverted you would not unrevert it in the edit summary. As the new language used made the article significantly worse by using a 1st grade vocabulary, followed by an implicit demand that any other phrase would be acceptable. Seeing how other users had no problem with the word choice used and the proposed alternatives were significantly worse, I wanted to see if you would revert this. You did become defensive of the position, attempting to justify it. Which by all means, is completely your right to do. But its also my right to disagree, and believe it is agenda pushing when you're attempting to "destigmatize" something. You claimed it was discouraged per the guideline [153], when it is not. I'll admit "calm" was a poor word choice, I meant something more like "extremely tactful". I didn't look at your profile until after the discussion, where based on the language used in the discussion made me assume you were very much still actively engaged in it, as you were arguing in favor of keeping it in, claiming other options are inferior, however, misusing a MOS guide to do so.
    I'm fully willing to stop engaging with you,and have not talked to you directly since. But you have introduced me to this topic and now I'm attempting to improve the MOS page through the RFC. Reverting and claiming that "there's better ways to do it, see the MOS", when that is NOT what the RFC or the MOS explicitly says told me that "this needs to change"
    This was the only instance i heard of you. So this is all I know about you.
    I changed the wording in the village pump to try to implyyou are no longer engaged in it, but undoing a revert without discussing is edit warring.
    On the MOS page, I made a bold edit because it was very poorly written and implied things that the RFC had a consensus explicitly against. It was undone, and I took it *to* an RFC at the village pump. I didn't know the whole process.. DarmaniLink (talk) 03:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Darmani, I think with this context in mind and both of you committed to letting the discussion go, that's the best course forward. Any lingering issues regarding the non-local consensus/MOS guidance can be resolved through your new RfC at the pump. However, if you will consider some unsolicited feedback from an uninvolved party, I do think the wording you chose to employ at the beginning of the first discussion needlessly exacerbated the dispute from the outset and somewhat set the tone going forward. Damien also leaned into the acid tone a little, but I do think you put them on the backfoot from the start, and there were little moments in there where your responses almost seemed to be implying "Watch yourself--I'm on the case now and don't intend to let you get away with this" which, if not exactly WP:OWN in nature, felt at least a little OWN-adjacent. Further showing up at Damien's talk page after they had indicated they were not looking to debate the issue on the Yamaguchi article, armed with evidence of their "pattern", suggests that you thought it was your role to police them, even after there was no ongoing editorial dispute between the two of you--and it's hard to imagine how that discussion could ever end productively.
    More broadly, and in my opinion, the content in dispute is an issue that should definitely be filed under "reasonable minds may vary". Now personally, I lean a little bit more towards your interpretation: that is to say, that "commit suicide", aside from being the common terminology, is highly idiomatic in how English speakers process it (that is, they don't attach a cultural value judgment to the "commit" part, by and large, or even consciously recognize the possible criminal/cultural violation meaning of the word in this particular phrase). I believe it is considered offensive by some at least partly because of folk etymology, and a fixation on a semantic interpretation of the phrase that is by no means universal (or even necessarily very common). But style guidance sometimes evolves on the back of such misconceptions, and we have to be able to have discussions about such semi-subjective style matters without entering the discussion heated from word go, no matter how silly we might personally think a given piece of linguistic prescriptivism is. SnowRise let's rap 04:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'll admit I should have been more tactful off the bat. I could go on about what exactly set me off, but I don't want to reignite any arguments. I understand what you mean by own-adjacent and I can see exactly where you got that from, but it was more to do with the argumentation "style" of the opposing party. Avoidable situation, admittedly. I should have done better, I'll remove what I wrote on his talk page. DarmaniLink (talk) 04:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you: I appreciate the feedback being received in the spirit it was intended. Best of luck with the RfC and hopefully finding a wording that most can get behind. SnowRise let's rap 05:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I consider this issue resolved, especially now that the comments on my talk page have been voluntarily removed. I don't want to escalate things further and would prefer to have this discussion closed immediately. Thank you for your third opinion Snow Rise, which I very much appreciate and respect. You're right, I did lean into the acid tone; I've always followed the Golden Rule on Wikipedia. I treat people the way they treat me. I'm not saying that's any justification, it's just how I always do things. In regards to your question regarding why I chose to escalate this matter to ANI: as per my initial post, I had every intention to let the talk page issue go, until I saw the post at the Village Pump. I don't want to restart a debate (following your explanation I now understand why my edits were considered edit warring), but to answer your question, the way I saw it at the time was that ceasing what I believed to be unfair accusations on my talk page, only to continue doing so elsewhere, was a sign that they did want to continue the debate, just elsewhere. I was also not aware I had the discretion to ban someone from my talk page; I've never wanted to before. Anyway, thanks again for your helpful input. Damien Linnane (talk) 09:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Power trip ban

    In response to being informed their range block was too broad, Graham87 banned the account and left this message "Please change your username to something less inflammatory that doesn't contain a grammatical error"

    What an absolute champion. Dummyaccount2354547665 (talk) 03:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This happened in more than a month ago, why raise it now? You must notify a user when you start a discussion about them here. RudolfRed (talk) 04:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This person is probably a sock of YouBlockedEntireISP and wants to complain... that's my guess. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 08:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how this would count as socking when even the block message says in bold Please take a moment to either create a new account... Ljleppan (talk) 08:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only would this not be socking, I am also at a loss as to the reasoning for the account being blocked.TBH if their entire ISP has indeed been blocked I dont think making a one time account to get it changed is all that unreasonable, especially if they dont want to edit as an account.
    Quite snarky, must say, but not block worthy IMO. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Notified the person. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the notification. If consensus is that the account YouBlockedEntireISP should be unblocked, then so be it (i.e. I'm OK with it being unblocked without my say-so), but I don't think there'd be much benefit in that. I did indeed block quite wide IP ranges to protect Wikipedia from an insidious pro-Trump vandal from the Australian state of Victoria, probably its capital Melbourne (see this old help desk thread). They've also been active cross-wiki, especially on Wikiquote (see this thread participated in by Antandrus. There are two IP ranges at issue: the first, Special:Contributions/2001:8003:4000::/35, the subject of this thread, is not significatnly active cross-wiki so I'll unblock it, citing this diff; the second, Special:Contributions/2001:8003:C000::/35, very much is, so I'll leave my block of it alone. Graham87 09:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Repinging Antandrus, just in case. Graham87 10:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that an account with a username that specifically made up to criticise someone's actions is a UPOL violation, and a softblock at least was inevitable. It would probably have been a good idea to send it to UAA for another admin to consider, rather than the target of the criticism being the one to block, but the result would have been the same and we don't need to waste too many words on this. The person who made the account would only have had to spend a few seconds creating a new account had they wanted to. Girth Summit (blether) 10:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point re taking it to UAA. Graham87 10:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:S201050066 number 72.2

    User:3201050066 number 72.2 is a sockpuppet of User:S201050066, who has been globally banned for sockpuppeting. He posted an abusive message on my talk page making baseless claims against me. This user has been classified as a long-term abuser. Please block this account. Andykatib 03:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks @Euryalus:. Andykatib (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

     Done - Euryalus (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Jaxoncat13

    Relatively new user Jaxoncat13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly adding to the station identification article relatively detailed material about PBS Kids identifications, even after a final warning. They have also been uploading images of these identifications without any licensing tags. (I bring this up here instead of AIV because, based on their talk page, I do believe these are good-faith, if misguided, contributions; they do not appear to be factually incorrect or anything like that.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Note this comment on his talk page. 79.244.62.51 (talk) 11:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent disruption at multiple wrestling articles by South Korean IPs

    Mostly unsourced changes to weight and height data, standard low-visibility vandalism. I don't know whether it's more practical to lock a bunch of articles or do some range blocks.

    This is long term stuff and the (presumably one) user has probably done this with far more accounts than I've listed here. Perhaps there's an existing SPI related to this. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Valjean edits at Julian Assange

    Hi, I made this edit to remove what I perceived to be a BLP violation from a section header. The topic of weight to the allegations has been under discussion here Talk:Julian_Assange#Consensus_required, recently regarding the WP:LEAD and the content was eventually removed. In my edit described in this ANI I went on to remove the allegations from the section name (my logic being to deal with the highest weight first and then go down in weight). Valjean (talk · contribs) then reverted my removal apparently in violation of WP:BLPRESTORE. I then started a talk page discussion Talk:Julian_Assange#undue_text_in_heading asking Valjean to restore the removal so we could discuss it according to the BLP policy. I felt likely that I was not allowed to revert back, so I sought clarification on my talk page User_talk:Jtbobwaysf#question_on_Assange_article and 331dot (talk · contribs) suggested I might note the BLP issue here and also confirmed I was not permitted to revert as well. FYI, I have subsequently explained on the respective talk page why I think using the assault terms are undue weight (the courts never brought any charges and the RS state that both accusers said the sex was consensual). Anyhow, I dont think this ANI is the venue for the content, we can discuss that on the article, I just thought I would summarize my logic. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1166728242"