Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

BilledMammal nominations of Danish international footballers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State of play at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related discussion at WT:AFD

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related discussion on mass creations

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

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

Edits being undone in 5G NR frequency bands page

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

---

Hi,

I'm new to Wikipedia and not overly familiar with all the procedures. I have been working to update the page HERE as it contains some mistakes. My latest edit added sources from FCC, Ericsson, Samsung, but was removed. I've tried to discuss my reasoning in advance in the "Talk" page, and there doesn't seem to be valid counter arguments. I don't understand why my edit was removed, and also don't understand why less reliable sources are being given more weight. For example, another user referenced a few blogs like Android Authority, and that reference remains, although it is less reliable than FCC, Ericsson and Samsung. This kind of selective editing seems to be against Reliable sources and undue weight policy.

Could a neutral third-party please review?

Thanks! Sheytoon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheytoon123 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dnywlsh is relevant. MrOllie (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

How exactly is it relevant? Patachonica (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Sheytoon123 is one of the suspected socks in the case. Nil Einne (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I must admit I'm getting a bit confused here. If someone could help me understand what's going on, I would really appreciate it. My question is regarding my references for 5G NR being removed, and now it seems like I was investigated for being a sock puppet? How did that happen?

Do I need to do anything to prove that I'm one person?

More importantly, would anyone be able to review my references on that page and comment on whether they are valid and should remain?

Thanks! Sheytoon123 (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

When a new account shows up to advance the same arguments on the same talk pages as someone who has already been caught using multiple accounts to evade blocks, it is common for a sockpuppet investigation to be triggered to make sure that it isn't happening again. MrOllie (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I've tried to ask him about possible sockpuppetry but he didn't answer. Patachonica (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Patachonicaapologies, I didn't see that question before, seems it got deleted after it was made. I've replied now. I'm not a sock puppet.

@MrOllieHow is a new user supposed to know the history of banned users? I have no idea who Dnywish is, and when I click on their account, I can't see what they had posted in the past. That account seems to be totally blocked. If you can help me understand what the "same arguments" is referring to, I can get a better idea. I've posted valid references from RAN vendors and regulatory bodies. I don't understand why those sources are removed, yet less reliable sources from blogs are ok?

I have many years of telecom / RAN experience and this is an area I have been writing about on other websites. I'm happy to share those posts if it helps my credibility. I have extensive knowledge of 4G and 5G network deployments, both from a standards/architectural level and specifically as it pertains to the Canadian market. Sheytoon123 (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not interested in rehashing what other people have been telling you on the article talk pages again here. I suggest you read their comments over again. MrOllie (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

We have been trying to explain why we reverted his edits but he continues to say that User:Nightwalker-87, User:ebahapo and my contributions 'Don't have any valid counter arguments.' We have constantly refuted his edits on the talk page but he refuses to listen just like Dnywlsh. The account Sheytoon123 conveniently showed up right after Dnywlsh supposedly resumed his sockpuppetry using the IP "73.128.151.200" and Sheytoon123 has not edited any other articles beside 5G NR frequency bands which makes his account very suspicious. Joshua Shah (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Alright this will be my last comment since it's clearly not going anywhere.

I don't know who Dnywlsh is, I have no idea what their previous involvement was, and I also don't know who 73.128.151.200 is. I don't know why 73.128.151.200 showed up at the same time as me, you'd have to ask him. I came here because of a Rogers reddit post where someone thought Wikipedia references were always accurate and came from standards bodies like 3GPP, so I signed up and saw some mistakes that I tried to fix. Telecom/RAN is my actual job, I have lots of experience in this field and was willing to contribute.

Apart from a few generic comments at the beginning, ebahapo wasn't really involved in the discussions in the Talk page. For the most part it's Joshuarshah and Nightwalker-87 engaging with myself and 73.128.151.200. Looks like 73.128.151.200 is banned now.

My main source of frustration is the quality of references, I wanted a neutral third-party to review them. Looks like there is no interest in doing that.

This environment is really unfriendly towards newcomers. So much conspiracy theories and baseless allegations going around. I haven't vandalized or participated in any edit wars, haven't made random accusations again anyone, but I feel like I'm on the receiving end of backlash. Somehow it's suspicious for a RAN expert with years of internet presence under the same account to make edits to a 5G NR page? I'm quite surprised this is how Wikipedia operates. If you don't value newcomers who may disagree with you, just say so. No reason to accuse a new member of being a sock puppet without talking to them first and gathering facts.

Thanks for reading my message. Good luck and take care! Sheytoon123 (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Sheytoon. There's no good reason to assume that he's a sockpuppet of Dnywlsh. Patachonica (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hence the reason why I filed the SPI. They will be able to confirm or deny if you're a sock or not. No hard feeling bro but this is just a sanity check for us because Dnywlsh abused a lot of accounts to vandalise articles so we just need to be sure. Joshua Shah (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Patachonica: if you dispute the SPI, you should mention it in the SPI. It's unlikely anyone investigating the case is going to pay much attention to this thread. Nil Einne (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Nil EinneForgive me, but I didn't see your name in the Talk discussions of the 5G topics. Is there a reason you are suspecting I am a sock puppet, or someone else made that claim and you just noticed it? I'm just trying to understand how I got caught up in the middle of all of this. Thanks. Sheytoon123 (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Read what I said again. I said you were one of the suspected sockpuppets in the case. I didn't comment on my personal view in any way. Nil Einne (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Sheytoon123:, @Patachonica: since the SPI was closed with the admin finding no real reason to suspect socking, I suggest Sheytoon123 reason WP:CONTENTDISPUTE which this seems to clearly be. Content disputes aren't handled at ANI. As the page outlines, the way to resolve a content dispute would be to continue discussion and if you reach an impasse then try and get more editors involved. It doesn't matter whether you think the other editor's arguments are invalid or whatever, if they are acting in good faith then you're not the one to judge. I'd note that reliable secondary sources are generally greatly preferred over primary sources like the FCC, and probably nearly everything produced by Samsung or Ericson (either they're primary or they're biased or both) although news blogs aren't generally the best sources either. It may also be helpful for Sheytoon123 to read Help:Wikipedia editing for researchers, scholars, and academics. While we are very welcoming of editors editing content they're an expert on (provided they declare any COIs), we don't allow anyone to write articles based just on their personal knowledge. All editors need to cite reliable sources. Further as an encyclopaedia, our standards for reliable sources are different from more general purpose works. In particular, as I already said we generally greatly prefer secondary sources over primary sources which is often not the case in some other areas. As I also indicated, editors also need to great take care when citing their own work. Often they simply shouldn't do it, but if they do, they should make sure they declare their COI. Also I'd strongly advice against citing your own work if it's self published. While we do allow self-published works when written by experts, citing your own self-published work is IMO too problematic to ever be a good idea. Nil Einne (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to correct me if I am reading this improperly, but does said SPI closure imply that the accusations against this person were completely unfounded? If so, it seems like they are owed an apology by many of the people in this thread. If not, well, I guess I don't really care -- but it is always annoying to see new users with an interest in editing immediately plunged into a trial-by-fire to prove they aren't some kind of sock. jp×g 05:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

While ultimately only those patrol admins and CUs could say, if an admin felt there was enough to run a CU, and the CU also seemed to feel it was okay to run (it's not clear to me if they actually looked into Sheytoon123 or just decided there was no point since there was nothing to tie it to if it was this then they might not have considered the situation the same way they would have when deciding whether they could run a check), I wouldn't say the accusations were unfounded. Our CU policy is strict so if there was really nothing there then there is no basis for a CU to be run. It may be that the socking in the area is severe enough that the threshold is low. I agree that the harm to innocent editors is highly problematic, that's one of the reasons I detest socks so much. IMO it's always helpful to apologise when you were wrong or probably wrong, so an apology would be good even if the accusations weren't unfounded. Nil Einne (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Amusingly Patachonica has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Magnatyrannus. So at least someone in this discussion was actually socking. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

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

IP socking starting back up on the talk page

IP socks of Dnywlsh are starting back up with the personal attacks and trolling on Talk:5G NR frequency bands. This is obvious evasion of the block on Dnywlsh and socks as well as the recent block on 73.128.151.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - MrOllie (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

As a reminder, the previous investigation was closed, with the admins finding that none of the accounts or IPs being accused were socks. You appear to have a history of falsely accusing accounts of being socks. In any case, this isn't the correct place to open a sockpuppet investigation. 2601:152:300:36FF:10D9:AF7A:9EAD:8DA5 (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

This is just false. MrOllie (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Click the link. The investigation was closed by admins, with them confirming that none of the accused accounts were socks. This is not the correct place to open a sockpuppet investigation. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations is the place for that. 2601:152:300:36FF:10D9:AF7A:9EAD:8DA5 (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

User: Mquintana28

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

---

Mquintana28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has - seven times! - made the same change to Big Brother 24 (American season), changing the name of the city of one contestant, despite repeated notices both in edit summaries and warnings on their talk page that we go by the information provided on the CBS website. Their only communication was tonight in this edit summary - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Brother_24_(American_season)&diff=1099692399&oldid=1099681213 - "Siesta Key is part of Sarasota... It does't matter what CBS says, I'm from Sarasota as well and Siesta Key is just an Island." Not a serious problem, but still frustrating to have to clean up every few days. Bgsu98 (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

What? If you watch the feeds, She contestant Herself said She lives in Sarasota. I am also from Sarasota and Siesta Key is part of Sarasota...

https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/entertainment/television/2022/07/06/big-brother-cast-2022-the-challenge-usa-florida-women-competing/7819105001/

https://theancestory.com/alyssa-snider-2/ Mquintana28 (talk) 05:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

This user has now made this reversion four times this evening. Again, we go by the original source on the CBS website. Bgsu98 (talk) 05:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Just a heads up, this is starting to approach edit warring from Mquintana28's side. They've been reverted by myself and Bgsu98, and continue to revert, despite us mentioning the source cited in the article. Here's the diffs, all from within the last 24 hours: [5], [6], [7], and [8]. They're also no longer using edit summaries and have, to my knowledge, made to attempt to begin a discussion. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

They've also been warned on their page (here) of proper discussion etiquette by me, and continues to revert. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

In the shown itself clearly shows the contestant is from Sarasota.

https://i.imgur.com/dTwZFCr.png Mquintana28 (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It would be better if you brought these points up on the article talk page, either way the WP:STATUSQUO should remain in place while discussion takes place and a consensus is reached. You should NOT continue to revert to your preferred version. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

We are up to five reversions tonight. 🙄 Bgsu98 (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm gonna suggest you also stop reverting for now. We don't want to clog/disrupt the article history by edit warring. Now that it's brought here, an admin should respond soon and once they do, we can probably revert until proper discussion takes place, if the editor is willing to participate. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I’m not touching it anymore. Not worth the hassle. Bgsu98 (talk) 05:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The fifth revert in question for any reviewing admins. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

P-blocked 31 hours from the article for edit-warring. valereee (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee, as soon as the block was lifted, they were right back to Big Brother 24 (American season) making the same change again. Bgsu98 (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Indef p-block from the article. No objection to anyone lifting this if you can get through to this editor. valereee (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by User:Βατο

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

---

Albanian editor Βατο is not here to build an encyclopedia without Balkan nationalistic battleground mentality. They have anti-Slavic and pro-Paleo-Balkan i.e. pro-Illyrian-Thracian-Albanian worldview. At article Perëndi talk page immediately jumped into discussion after my edit (reliably citing, but most probably for now a fringe viewpoint of a possible Slavic influence or origin of the Albanian deity Perëndi, but rightly mentioning connection between Peperona song and deity Perun), saying that the article is based on "several reliable sources". However, they also countered it by making exceptional claims that "according many scholars ... the custom of Dodola/Perperuna is most likely Paleo-Balkan/Thracian, not Slavic. Btw, what is the evidence that Perun was Slavic and not borrowing from Baltic, or even Paleo-Balkan (cf. the attested Thracian Perkos/Perkon)?", that "we don't know the original area from which it [deity Perun] spread" (edit).

I didn't continue to discuss the part about possible Slavic influence or origin of Perëndi (for which we don't have any evidence in historical sources in comparison to Perun). However, they continued to talk about the Slavic supreme and thunder deity - Perun. The editor dares to claim such things in such a fashion, on a scale of claiming that there's lack of knowledge about the Greek origin of Zeus, that Zeus is possibly a borrowing from Iranian or Armenian, and we don't know the original area from which it spread. It wouldn't be such a big issue if it wasn't for their claim that it is supported by "many scholars". It is supported only by three non-expert Balkan scholars (plus fourth Katica Kulavkova, 2020 who cites the same fringe viewpoint making WP:FALSEBALANCE with Slavic origin in own source), Dimitǔr Dechev (1957), Sorin Paliga (2003, linguist), Mihai Dragnea (2014, historian) who cite each other and argue a controversial and fringe theory that both Slavic deity Perun and Perperuna/Dodola pagan custom are of Thracian origin (by the way, it was edited in 2006 by English Wikipedia banned account). This theory is completely unmentioned and ignored in international literature and one could argue that probably shouldn't be even mentioned in the article (per WP:WEIGHT and FALSEBALANCE). In both international literature and those three-four sources advancing fringe Thracian theory there was no mention of any connection between Perperuna/Dodola i.e. Peperona custom & song and Albanian deity Perëndi. The inclusion of the song in a section dealing with rainmaking customs invocating Perëndi makes it look like the Peperona custom is related to the same Albanian deity and tradition, but that is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH not to mention out of WP:SCOPE for the article. I asked them (link) to find and cite at least one of those "many" scholars and sources. They maybe, as couldn't verify nor received full quote, found one (link), but 100 years old which has issue with WP:AGEMATTERS among others (link). They replied to that the inclusion is according "WP:DUEWEIGHT" and it has "balanced wording" (link) which doesn't make any sense and only shows that the editor isn't accustomed to Wikipedia editing policies (link). I decided to make a third opinion request (link), informed the editor (link) and they didn't even wait for third opinion to come as immediately removed the custom & song from the article (link).

Previously in the same day I majorly rewrote the article Dodola ("Perperuna and Dodola" must be the new title because these are separate but scholarly related pagan customs, even had separate articles until 2015 when were merged but on wrong reasoning, and the former is more discussed in the sources especially regarding mythological relation to Perun). Several days I read many reliable sources and accordingly started working in my sandbox, being careful on NPOV, WEIGHT, FALSEBALANCE, VERIFY etc. expertise and viewpoint of the cited scholars. One of the major issues of the many years poorly edited old revision is that it gave false weight to the same fringe Thracian theory although it was easy to find and cite many reliable sources which argue and conclude to be of Slavic origin related to Perun - that is the majority and mainstream viewpoint. As the editor described Perëndi's article, using their words, the article was finally based on "several reliable sources".

However, they claimed that "Slavic-POV editors are so interested in pushing for Slavic origin of Albanian cultural aspects in Wiki articles, while Albanian editors don't do it", but then hypocritically went to the article of the "Perperuna and Dodola" pagan custom, which is per majority viewpoint of Slavic origin related to Perun, and start reverting the article title ignoring that Perperuna and Dodola are two separate customs among other said issues ([9]), making false balance using the same controversial source by Kulavkova ignoring other already cited sources in the article (Wachtel's source, rightly cited but he isn't an expert neither wrote anything more than the quote, doesn't help much considering the article cites more than 12 RS arguing Slavic origin and that others borrowed the custom from Slavs), removing in the lead emphasis on the Slavic origin and relation to Perun ([10]), removed part about Perun's origin from Thracians claiming it to be "original research" although it can be easily verified in the sources including Kulavkova's whose the editor insists on using ([11]), changing and removing reliably sourced Slavic viewpoint ([12]), removing reliably sourced information ([13]), making only a bigger mess ([14]) and so on. Miki Filigranski (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I suggest not to WP:cast aspersions. Also I've never said this: The editor dares to claim such things in such a fashion, on a scale of claiming that there's lack of knowledge about the Greek origin of Zeus, that Zeus is possibly a borrowing from Iranian or Armenian, and we don't know the original area from which it spread. don't put words in my mouth. The content dispute in the article Perëndi has already been settlet. The views I added in the article Dodola are from scholars like Andrew Wachtel, in academic sources published by Oxford University Press. As for the origins of the names of the custom, the article now includes the views in a balanced way, giving more importance to the more widespread view; but no source says that a specific hypotheses is "fringe", it's you own personal opinion added in WP:wikivoice, while the most updated publication (Ḱulavkova 2020) reports all those possibilites. Also claiming in wikivoice that a widespread custom in a region has origins only from one of the population groups that practiced it, without historical evidence, is not neutral. Anyway, this is not the right place to discuss content disputes and disagreements you have with other editors, take them to the relevant article talk pages. – Βατο (talk) 08:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Now it makes sense, you don't understand well English language. I didn't put anything into your mouth, of course you never said it - that was just an example how absurd is your insistence on non-Slavic origin of Perun. The views you added are from scholars, but you completely ignore all other already cited scientific literature and majority viewpoint. You made false balance ignoring the actually more widespread viewpoint. You don't need a source to say it is a "fringe theory" to be "fringe", you obviously never read and understood WP:FRINGE/WP:FRINGE/ALT/WP:FRIND/WP:PARITY ("To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea... In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Because Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is."). Kulavkova's source cannot be described anyhow as the "most updated publication", that's at best only one independent source which mentioned both theories, but all other independent sources from 20th and 21st century completely ignore the Thracian theory ("The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only among the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative."). Several secondary reliable sources by prominent scholars claim the custom was spread by the South Slavs among non-Slavic speaking Balkan populations. This is not a mere content dispute, this is an example what it looks like to deal with WP:NATIONALIST editor's nonsense. It is simply incredible that you're an administrator at Albanian Wikipedia as don't have basic understanding of common Wikipedia editing principles and guidelines. No wonder why and how Balkan languages Wikipedia versions are so bad. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski avoid personal attacks, please. Different scholars' views recently published by highly respected publishing houses can be dismissed only by other reliable sources, not by wiki editors who don't like them. To the admins who read this discussion: User:Miki Filigranski's false allegiations and personal attacks are not a constructive behavior, it has to stop as per WP:CIVIL. – Βατο (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me, it's not my problem you don't understand English language and confuse this general comment with a personal attack and reply falsely accusing me of being a "Slavic-POV editor interested in pushing for Slavic origin of Albanian cultural aspects in Wiki articles". Do you have any evidence for that accusation? No. You're the one who has unconstructive behavior and annoyed me to the point to make this report. Seems you still don't understand NPOV and FRINGE, somebody please explain them. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

"Pushing for Slavic origin of Albanian cultural aspects" is the first of your edits from which started the whole content dispute and all your personal attacks. Unlike you, I never added content in the article Perun claiming a different origin from Slavic, and unlike you I did not add in wikivoice in the lead of an article that a widespread Balkan tradition exclusively belongs to one of the population groups that practiced it. But you accused me of being a "Disruptive anti-Slavic" editor, which I consider a WP:PERSONAL ATTACK. Now stop and take the remaining content dispute to Talk:Dodola, and in WP:CIVIL behavior because there you are keeping diminishing the comments of other editors besides mines. – Βατο (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I made a bold and reliably cited edit. I immediately stopped "pushing", in your words, at the talk page that part of the edit although could have went searching for source mentioning the same POV. It is incredible how much you dare to ignore and reject majority viewpoint in scientific literature regarding the Slavic origin of a widespread tradition in the Balkans. The tradition was literally spread in places which were inhabited by the Slavs since the Middle Ages. You don't need to edit now Perun's article to show your bias. Are you aware that literally three editors on the talk page called out balancing issues and two of them are pointing out Slavic origin and majority/popular viewpoint? I agree, my last comment on this report. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• This thread is such a big waste of time. I did not expect the simple content dispute go this way. An admin can do nothing in this case, apart from maybe warning Miki to not rush to take content disputes to ANI/I. Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

This goes beyond a simple content dispute and your comment is WP:TAGTEAM.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I will not keep responding to your non-sense - I am not even involved in your content dispute with Bato over Dodola/Peperunda. But, frankly, maybe the day @BDD: unblocked you did not do any service to the Balkan area topic. Feel free to call me whatever you want, I could not care less. You transformed a simple content dispute into a battleground of accusations. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

If you're not involved then why are you even heatedly commenting here? I didn't report them to get blocked or banned neither I want that. We are more-or-less constructively discussing the content dispute at the talk pages. I want an admin to explain them editing policies and guidelines so that can reconsider their biased approach. I am not wasting my time tirelessly explaining the basics to a supposedly experienced editor. They were first to personally attack me. Look, what do you want me to say, Βατο's first reply at the talk page was around 30 minutes from your comments at Perëndi, your comment here was exactly 30 minutes after Βατο's. I don't care if you're talking behind the scenes, but I am not the one who transformed it into a battleground, exactly the opposite, seek neutrality where it is due outside Balkan warlike mentality. We have a similar report this days above, "Disruptive editing by Jingiby", and fellow editor Maleschreiber wrote a good comment which directly relates also to this report. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• So based on how this complaint begins and [15], I think both Mili and Βατο may need logged WP:ARBEE warnings for casting aspersions on the basis of others' ethnicity or nationality. Open to other perspectives. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for intervening @Tamzin: IMO, since Bato has a clear log and, at least as far as I know, he has never made such comments in the past, if he apologizes a formal warning is not needed. On the other hand, tbh Miki has a very rich block log, among the richest in the Balkans topic area. So IMO a formal warning for them could be good. When I reverted Miki yeasterday he thanked me, and I thought it would be an ordinary dispute. Sad it became such a mess. Both Bato and Miki should be more careful in the future. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: thanks for your intervention. I have never made such comments in the past. It was not my intention to cast aspersions. I apologize for that comment and I realize I should have used more moderade tones. @Ktrimi991: thanks for your advice, of course I'll be more cautious. – Βατο (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I dropped the report (link), noted Βατο (link). Content dispute constructively continued and changed for the better. I formally apologize to Βατο, and others, for my comments, but also making this report in a hothead moment. In the end it was unnecessary, maybe necessary we both acknowledged our momentary wrong doing and won't repeat it. I formal warning on my talk page is welcomed. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

It is good both of you apologized. Miki, I still support a formal warning to you, since you have in your log several blocks for personal attacks/aspersions. In any case, I like many of your edits, and I am sure you have the potential to keep making interesting edits. @Tamzin: I think that, whatever you as an uninvolved admin decide to do, it is better to close this thread now. Cheers to all, Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Having already been leaning toward a logged warning, I'm hesitant to just give a "regular" warning... But what's better than a warning is an agreement. @Miki Filigranski and Βατο: Can you both agree to not make any comments that negatively highlight other editors' ethnicity or nationality? This includes inferring ethnic/natioanlistic bias on others' part without clear evidence. If you can both agree to this, I will leave a note in the ARBEE log memorializing this discussion, but will not issue any warnings. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  Is not an AE note harsh for someone with a clear log and no previous civility issues? I think that Bato took the lesson. I have seen many cases of editors making one or two unconstructive comments without being marked with AE notes. The fact that Bato apologized should be enough this time. Durraz0 (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Tamzin, I agree. I don't know how logs function, but if there's a strong wish that Βατο remains with a clear log etc., I am fine with that too and you can leave a note only for me in the ARBEE log, but would like to see an admin explain FRINGE to Βατο. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, as already stated, I have never made such comments in the past, and I will be more careful in the future. Thanks. – Βατο (talk) 11:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

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

user:Zvfibkoj

I've just blocked Zvfibkoj (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for edit warring, personal attacks and grossly inappropriate edit summaries at 2022 monkeypox outbreak, despite multiple warnings. They immediately responded by sending me the following two emails:

I am gonna have you for that you little rat I will wait 24 hours and I will be back on the second!

I am God and you are going to burn like hell when you die and see me in the spirit world do I make that clear you will never recover from this ever again!

Sickening homophobe +1000 gay lives you to Ra and Oshir can not wait to judge and condemn you

and

I will trash all your other edits to GO ON BRING IT

So I reblocked with email disabled, but I'm wondering if there is any reason not to just indef them, given their edit summaries and emails clearly indicate that they have no intent to learn how to edit collaboratively. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Bumped to indef. valereee (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Looks like we have a sock. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Sock blocked by Bbb23. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi'd the article. valereee (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

While I agree with the decisions and the outcome, I must say it struck me as really bad form for User:Thryduulf to quote private email communications in a public discussion page, in spite of its amusement value. It would have been enough simply to describe the emails as full of emotional invective and threats. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I get that. In general I disapprove of sharing private emails. If these had been part of an exchange that turned into a disagreement or became heated, absolutely not okay to share. For me, something unsolicited that is completely just an attack out of the blue...I'm a little unsure whether that is privacy that needs to be protected. valereee (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Whatever the rights and wrongs of my sharing the emails, I absolutely did not do so for "amusement value" (until your comment it hadn't occurred to me that anyone might find them amusing, I certainly don't) but rather as evidence to explain my actions and thinking. Thryduulf (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing whatsoever wrong with publishing those emails - anyone who uses email to send abuse and/or threats has no right to privacy. 17:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boing! said Zebedee (talk • contribs)

I'm going to back Boing! here, sharing the content of an abusive email to explain the ban is a legit reason. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

In this case, I see no problem in sharing these emails. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Person definitely needed to be indeffed Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• I am a Hindu so I am not worried about eternal damnation, or words like ever/never. But just in case they are god, wont they be able unblock themselves, and suppress/oversight entire mainspace? —usernamekiran (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  If they are god, presumably they wont even need to unblock themselves or require suppression/oversight to remove content from the encyclopaedia. If they are just a god then maybe, maybe not but that wasn't their claim. Thryduulf (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  yeah, they didnt make any claims to remove the data/content. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

User:CymruFootyFan

CymruFootyFan (talk · contribs) - this editor has been previously blocked for adding unsourced content to BLPs; has received multiple warnings (before and after the block) about adding unsourced content to BLPs (their talk page is littered with it); and yet they continue. They clearly lack the competence to edit here. I suggest an indef. GiantSnowman 21:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I think there should be a temporary block which should be longer the the original block. Patachonica (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

An indef seems harsh, considering that the information added is accurate and not remotely contentious. That this particular footballer has signed for Accrington Stanley was unsourced, yes, but it was easily verifiable. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

A temporary block is better than nothing, but I have no faith that behaviour will improve. I've done a quick random spot check of their recent edits and I cannot find a single one with a) source being added or b) edit summary explaining. GiantSnowman 19:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I’d like to thank you for backing me up Patachonica. I would not edit any pages if I didn’t know for sure the information was correct.

GiantSnowman, you reverse a hell of a lot of my edits. It doesn’t take much to do a bit of research yourself and add a source. Not everybody is as experienced with Wikipedia as you are, so instead of trying to ban people for not adding a link, why don’t you try and HELP fellow editors instead of trying to get them banned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CymruFootyFan (talk • contribs) 00:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

User: JackOffer69

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

---

I don't know where else to report inappropriate usernames, but JackOffer69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) probably qualifies. Bgsu98 (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention next time to report offensive usernames. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it refers to "Jack's Offer", assuming that the user's real name is Jack. Patachonica (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Erm, I don't think so, especially not with the "69" added. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Apart from anything else the username is grammatically wrong: it should be "JackerOff69". Phil Bridger (talk) 07:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Jack Offer is a real name! 😂 Perhaps he was born in '69?  Tewdar  07:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose sanctions. Nobody should be offended by this, it's ambiguous anyway. Besides Jack Offer being a real name, even when assuming the verb, "jack off" also means engaging in generally unproductive activities and/or procrastination. (which is probably a euphemism for masturbation) Like yo-yoing. (which is also yuck according to Urban Dictionary) And the 69? 69 (sex position) isn't compatible with masturbation anyway. There's a long list of euphemisms for masturbation, there's no point in blocking all usernames containing possible euphemisms. Spank the monkey. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

User has been blocked as a sockpuppet of NatsFan4Ever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I suppose this means that further discussion of whether "JackOffer69" is inappropriate is now moot. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 16:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

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

• I was startled to read that Jack Offer was born in Hampton Wick - but the citation looks sound, and this seems to be nothing more than a sniggerworthy coincidence. Narky Blert (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Belugan

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

---

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

Obviously not a new user, right off the bat they were aware of the WP:WIKIVOICE guideline [16]

Also been randomly hostile towards me for some reason, being angry at an argument I used, as they had already heard it before. The most noticable thing is their random and open hostility:

"I wonder if you regard Napoleon's domain as "Italian" as well. Stop using that stupid argument. French Empire was French nation state after the French Revolution. Afsharid Empire were early modern state and the nation-state structure had not yet emerged at that time. We should use WP:CIR on you with this trashy argumentation. "

Also clearly with my all good faith your compentence isn't good enough to edit wikipedia with this argumantation.

As you can see, they are also aware of the WP:CIR guideline here, not that they used it correctly. Mind you, I never been in contact with this user before then.

[17] [18] Attempted to alter sourced information, changing "myth" to "information" regarding the fictional Turkish rescue of Jews.

And now he has resorted to WP:EDITWARRING in Turkic history [19] [20], completely disregarding WP:POV and WP:ONUS instead of taking part in the discussion at the talk page. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense. He try to tarnish my name. But I will continue to contribute to the encyclopedia despite these efforts to provoke. I did restore Berkberk users edit because of his behaviour to build an encyclopedia. They said It's a problematic article and he wrote every single parts of "Turkic history" article. And if there are faults in it, you cannot delete all parts of it. You must say errors and try to restore it. We should be constructive on Wikipedia, not destructive but HistoryofIran is none of it. Belugan (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I rest my case ^^. Also, this user also posted this particular nasty comment about me down below; "HistoryofIran is here on a mission to Iranify articles. All of them are sourced informations. Also we reached consensus on that page. But as we can see in Reddit or Twitter HistoryofIran is ruining Turkic related articles and try to ban newcomers here to build encyclopedia users with his policy knowledge." --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• "Nonsense. He try to tarnish my name."

How can a name possibly be "tarnished" when the editorial pattern behind that name has been disruptive ever since they started to edit....a mere 6 days ago?.[21] - LouisAragon (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

has been disruptive ever since they started You cannot say this. I didn't delete nothing unlike you. I created 2 articles in my first week. And I made all my changes with policies. Belugan (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Afsharid Empire's origins are from a whole Turkic tribe called "Afshars", unlike Napoleon being particular person. There was a significant population of Turkmens in Iran and Nader adopted their identity as himself being a Turkoman aswell. I don't think there was Italian clans in France that influenced military and bureaucracy which resulted in establishing a new state on themselves, so stop using that argument. You also compared a whole Eurasian nomadic tribe to a European dynasty [22], which is completely irrelevant. Every nation has its own seperate system, and especially when you change the continent, you can't compare different conditions. BerkBerk68^talk 07:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

This is not the point of the report. Take it to [23]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

He wrote same "nasty" comment to other user down below Based on all this, it seems that BerkBerk68 is here on a mission to Turkify articles. Also I did not say nothing to HoI but to his argument. Belugan (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I based my argument on multiple points, and I did not mention anything about “twitter, reddit, ruining, banning” etc. You might want to see WP:ASPERSIONS (again). Also, the fact that you know I am referred to as HoI is even further proof that you’re not new here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

the fact that you know I am referred to as HoI I just bored when writing your name lol :d Belugan (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Belugan also knows that striking a comment is a thing [24], another unusual thing for a 'new user'. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Lol you just keep going to your false accusations. You made this striking thing above in this discuss. I saw it from there. I also know Don't bite newcomers Belugan (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I am aware of WP:CIVIL which covers your comments to this discussion, if we’re going on policies that we know. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 10:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I haven't done any striking in a very long time, let alone above this discussion. So you clearly didn't learn it from me just now. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

More WP:ASPERSIONS by Belugan "You can easily find sone Arabic or Turkish people complain about HistoryofIran's bias edits in anywhere of social media and meatpuppeting in Wikipedia community with Telegram groups. Don't try to manipulate community with these nonsense arguments." Based on all these diffs, but also the fact that Belugan knows right off the bat of random subforums (one even stretching back to two years ago) which I am portrayed in a negative light suggests that he has been stalking me for a long time [25] [26], which is quite concerning. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I just saw a lots of people who knows about your harrasment in Wikipedia multiple times in social media. But you still trying to manipulate fellow Wikipedia community like I watch your moves lol. Stop making false accusations on me. Belugan (talk) 13:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked indef There are far too many red flags, from familiarity with obscure Wikispeak from the get-go, to the use of "we", to the reference to off-wiki collusion with like minded editors. Black Kite (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

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

BerkBerk68

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

In the talk page sections of Talk:Turkic history [27] [28] [29], concerns were made against its neutrality, including the addition of groups of disputed origin (the Xiongnu and Huns), with the only person being an advocate for inclusion of these groups being BerkBerk68. However, 4 users opposed this, and thus mention of those groups were removed. What does he later do? Completely ignores all the discussions there, and proceeds to make the article even less neutral, restoring mention of the Xiongnu and Huns, as well as other stuff [30]. For example, recently at the Talk:Timurid Empire, he showed his dissatisfaction with the word 'Turco-Mongol', only wanting it to say 'Turkic' instead. I responded to him, showing that WP:RS says otherwise, etc. In his addition, he added the very proposal he had made in the talk page, completely disregarding my reply as well as WP:RS. Let me just show some few examples of what the main articles say versus his own additions;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other concerning stuff;

[31] Here he proposes to add 'Turco-Iranian' instead of 'Iranian' in the lede... using a source that says 'Persian dynasty'. Right before then, he was shown multiple sources in another thread, that 'Iranian/Persian' was the used term in WP:RS [32], but once again he didn't care.

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

[34] Tried to portray a political tactic as some sort of "early Pan-Turkism", completely disregarding a vital piece of information in the very WP:RS source he used [35]. Even now he is still completely disregarding WP:RS and following his own personal conjectures/opinions [36]

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

First of all, I'd like to mention that I have not noticed his comment on the main article of the Timurids and I have told that already at the Turkic history talk page. I even told him that he can fix Timurids and openly imply that I am agreeing with him [37].

About Xiongnu and Hun situation at the lastest version written by me, I utterly reject that I am trying to Turkify them, I have never claimed that Xiongnu or Huns were Turkic, I just added the claims (with underlining that they are claim/theory), genetic researches and the non-primary sources about Chinese historical records, similiar with the Turkic peoples model. I have not also pushed or reverted the calendrical history deletions after the calendrical deletions got the majority on talk page (including a deletion without achieving consensus here [38], I even tried to save the lastest version of calendrical informations (that the disputed subjects are already deleted) by opening a new article [39] and opened a talk page discussion [40] instead of rewriting it.

I thought that "Turco-Iranian" would fit better for Afsharids because the reference itself says Empire's origins are based on a Turkic tribe,[41] and Afsharids used Turkic language as official military language just like many other Turco-Iranian civilizations. I didn't even make an edit, I just expressed my thought on the talk page.

I didn't even understand what exactly is the problem with Nader Shah's Turkmen policy, reference is Iranica there.[42] ("Nāder departed substantially from Safavid precedent by redefining Shiʿism as the Jaʿfari maḏhab of Sunni Islam and promoting the common Turkmen descent of the contemporary Muslim rulers as a basis for international relations." "Nāder’s focus on common Turkmen descent likewise was designed to establish a broad political framework that could tie him, more closely than his Safavid predecessors, to both Ottomans and Mughals." "Nāder recalled how he, Ottomans, Uzbeks, and Mughals shared a common Turkmen heritage. This concept for him resembled, in broad terms, the origin myths of 15th century Anatolian Turkmen dynasties. However, since he also addressed the Mughal emperor as a “Turkmen” ruler, Nāder implicitly extended the word “Turkmen” to refer, not only to progeny of the twenty-four Ḡozz tribes, but to Timur’s descendants as well." )

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

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

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

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

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

This is about the article Turkic history

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

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

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

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

Now onto the Hun section;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing has been addressed, you are simply sweeping it under the rug. You are repeating the same old points you made earlier, which has already been replied to [44]. One of the many concerns is that the Xiougnu and Huns origins are still disputed, and thus shouldn't be there no matter how you spin it, hence why it was removed in the first place. BerkBerk ignored that and went on to restore it. As you've already been told various times, we have a rule named WP:ONUS. Also, see WP:TLDR. I'll let the admins take over. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the record:

Belugan's first comment at ANI was made at 20:43, 26 July 2022[45]; BerkBerk first commented at 20:43, 26 July 2022[46]; Zenzyxx first commented at 20:45, 26 July 2022.[47] All three are newly registed "accounts" with a pro-Turkish irredentist POV and a strong axe to grind with veteran editor HistoryofIran. Coincidence calling?

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

Calling people that has different opinions "Turkish irredentist", There is obvious WP:ASPERSIONS at the comment unsigned by User:LouisAragon[48]. BerkBerk68^talk 17:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Zenzyyx and @Belugan participated at the Turkic history debate on talk page, they would ofcourse be aware of the ANI. The absurdness of this argument is that you have made your first comment at 21:09, 26 July 2022‎ [49] right after HistoryofIran's one at 21:06, 26 July 2022‎ [50] and you have not even participated on talk page. I do not claim anything, I am just telling that the argument mentioned can be used with different perspectives. BerkBerk68^talk 21:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to topic

This report has steered too much into the direction of off-topic as a result of excessive bickering, some of it instigated by a now indeffed account. I'll make a quick TLDR of the most relevant bits of my report; BerkBerk68 completely disregarded the WP:CONSENSUS in Talk:Turkic history (everything was discussed here [51] [52] [53]) by re-adding groups of disputed origin (the Xiongnu and Huns) [54], a edit which also added several entities, however now with more Turkic/less non-Turkic mentions compared to its (well-sourced) main article counterpart (which I demonstrated in the initial report). I would appreciate it if someone would look into this mess. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I pretty much agree, this case turned into a defamation mess especially when @LouisAragon called a Sephardic Jewish user (@Zenzyyx) a "Turkish irredentist who is influenced by Turkish government propaganda" at his unsigned comment [55][56] (WP:ASPERSIONS).

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

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

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

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

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

I said: "All three are newly registed "accounts" with a pro-Turkish irredentist POV and a strong axe to grind with veteran editor HistoryofIran. Coincidence calling?"[57] As usual, your edits are loaded with nonsense making stuff up. Good you brought this up though; more evidence of your disruptive edits for admins to see.

• "WP:ASPERSIONS"

Nope. If you'd only read the policies you are so keen to cite: " If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums." The ANI case here is littered with verifiable, egregious misconduct on your behalf. So no, zero "aspersions". Its a verifiable fact that all three of you are pursuing such an editorial pattern. Belugan already got indeffed for it based on solid policy judgement. As user:Black Kite sensibly stated: "There are far too many red flags, from familiarity with obscure Wikispeak from the get-go, to the use of "we", to the reference to off-wiki collusion with like minded editors."[58]

• "...at his unsigned comment"

It wasn't "unsigned"; I adjusted part of my comment[59] that I had already placed and signed.[60] More WP:NOTHERE.

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

@BerkBerk68; Yes, you have multiple times stated that you did not present the origin of the Xiongnu and Huns as definite Turkic. That was also what you stated the previous time. We get that, however consensus was still that they shouldn't be there no matter how it would be spinned, which you were told countless times (here for example [61]). What do you then do? Proceed to re-add them and repeat the very same old argument (WP:REHASH) which was already rejected. Frankly, it seems that you simply dont care about community input, and only follow your own personal opinion. And I am certainly not the first person to notice that [62]. And thus I have reported you, because time and time you have proven that words (whether its from scholars or users) dont get through to you. Wikipedia is a collaborate effort, not a individual one. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Sigh, even still now words are not getting through to you. You shouldn't have added that version in the first place before discussing, as there was indeed a consensus, which you even now keep ignoring. Yes, as I've already told you at least 6 times, I reverted you because it violated the previous consensus as well as WP:POV (per the diffs) even more this time (there is also WP:ONUS which you have been told of multiple times). And no, it is not my job to fix your mess, as you also have been told [63]. Either fix it yourself, or expect it to get reverted. There are no guidelines that says I have to hold your hand. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

Well it's your decision [64] to participate or not, I have already informed you about all my edits and openly called to participate on developing the article. Again, it's your decision, it doesn't bother me at all. BerkBerk68^talk 14:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Belugan was an obvious troll, I have already expressed that [65], his actions doesn't bother actual editors who want to develop the encyclopedia. Calling editors "irredentist" or "swallowing state funded negationism" just because they have different opinions than you is not WP:CIVIL, and again, WP:ASPERSIONS.

Ironic, because you did the same with Belugan, said "No worries, we'll get to the bottom of it" on a threatening language, [66] and you didn't answer my questions when I asked about the situation. From your language it seems like there is an "off-wiki collusion with like minded editors" just like how Black Kite described, especially considering you did not participate on the lastest section of Turkic history talk page. @Black Kite, I believe that this information should be considered at the case.

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

Oh please, you didn't say anything about Belugan's problematic behaviour till he got indeffed. In fact, even after his block you were still supporting him (just like he had been supporting you), writing a unhelpful comment in a thread that was closed [67]. But now he's suddenly a problematic troll? Also, if you're planning on accusing someone, I sure do hope you have diffs, otherwise you are being no different than Belugan in violating WP:ASPERSIONS yourself. Anyways, let's not deviate again, the only users which should be talked about are you and me. If someone has other concerns, please take it somewhere else. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

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

He told "No worries, we'll get to the bottom of it" while he did not even participate at the talk page discussion, only user that participated on his side of arguments was @HistoryofIran and now he is actively siding with him here. I am not claiming anything, I just want a clarification to the community to end the confusions just as I did 2 days ago [68][69][70].

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

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

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

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

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

Slywriter, Theroadislong, and Cabrils

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

---

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed posts

Slywriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Slywriter finished his/her review of Draft:Eureka_Scientific on 20:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC), then finished Draft:White Dwarf Research Corporation on 20:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC), just 2 minutes between Draft:Eureka_Scientific and Draft:White Dwarf Research Corporation, so she/he did not spend any time to read the text and check the references. You can check here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Slywriter&offset=20220725225033&target=Slywriter Ad65718 (talk) 02:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Theroadislong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Theroadislong finished his/her talk with 112.206.242.198 (User_talk:112.206.242.198) on 20:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC), then finished his/her review of Draft:Eureka_Scientific on 20:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC), so he spent around 2 minutes to make a decision and write her/his comments, and she/he did not have time to read the text and check the references. You can check here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Theroadislong&offset=20220726071241&target=Theroadislong Ad65718 (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Cabrils (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Cabrils finished his/her talk with DevaneyJohn (User_talk:DevaneyJohn) on 00:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC), then finished his/her review of Draft:White Dwarf Research Corporation on 00:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC), so he/she spent just 2 minutes to read and check the references, and then make a decision! You can check here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Cabrils&offset=20220720221645&target=Cabrils Ad65718 (talk) 02:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I've moved this from the non-autoconfirmed noticeboard. Pinging involved users: @Theroadislong @Slywriter @Cabrils @Ad65718 >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 03:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Frivolous complaint by editor who is upset that two articles have been declined at AfC. Editor made no improvements to first draft before resubmitting and no substantive improvements to the second. The source added was written by the founder. so, yes it took all of two minutes to see that no improvement was made. Rather than seek reliable sources, editor has spent the time complaining about process and ignoring any advice given (as seen in the comments of the drafts and teahouse discussion here. Slywriter (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The sources in Draft:Eureka Scientific were written by third-parties, not by the founder. History in Draft:Eureka Scientific are from prestigious Science Magazine, written by Anne Simon Moffat, who has no connection with Eureka Scientific, Scientific Network is from Nature Index, which is published by Nature (journal) prestigious leading journal. Gallery includes images from Wikimedia Commons uploaded by other users a few year ago. Other materials are based on publications in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society by people who worked there many years ago. There are some online sources cited as URLs.

Description in Draft:White Dwarf Research Corporation are from MIT Technology Review, a bimonthly magazine owned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and also from publications by the director (Travis Metcalfe) published in Open Astronomy, a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society. There are some online sources as URLs Ad65718 (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Four passing mentions (literally just single mention of company in each), four articles written by Director and Nature profile that is not usable for anything. Lacks WP:CORPDEPTH. Though all of this has been explained several times now by several editors but the WP:IDHT is strong. Slywriter (talk) 03:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I think a WP:BOOMERANG might be in order here. After Ad65718's draft was declined by Theroadislong, they started adding notability tags to around 20 of Theroadislong's articles over about 10 minutes. See the discussion on their talk page about the issue. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 03:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Those articles have notability issues. Very short, a few references, from non-reliable resources. An exmaple is here John Leach (studio potter) : one from Somerset Live and one from Falmouth Packet, which are less well-known sources. Ad65718 (talk) 03:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I made this report, as soon as Slywriter informed me "Continuing with your personal attacks of editors will lead to you being reported to Administrators.", while I just mentioned on Draft:White_Dwarf_Research_Corporation "For your information, Slywriter ... finished on 20:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC), then finished Draft:White Dwarf Research Corporation on 20:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC), just 2 minutes between Draft:Eureka_Scientific and Draft:White Dwarf Research Corporation, ..." and there was any personal attack on Slywriter! Ad65718 (talk) 03:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I agree my assessment of the draft page was about 2 minutes-- plenty enough time to see the existing references were replete with primary sources, so in my comment, which opens with the encouraging words "Well done on creating the draft, and it may potentially meet the relevant requirements..." I clearly said "Many of the sources in the draft are primary sources and so are unacceptable...If you feel you can meet these requirements then resubmit the page and ping me and I would be happy to reassess." I don't believe that is conduct that justifies an incident report. Seeing Ad65718's trail of complaints makes me inclined to support your WP:BOOMERANG suggestion. Cabrils (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Ad65718 for disruptive editing. Personal attacks, hounding, and retaliatory editing were the specific unacceptable behaviors that I observed. Cullen328 (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The blocked editor, may also need to be barred from his own talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 04:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

TPA has been revoked by Cullen328. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 04:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I have revoked their talk page access. For what it's worth, their argument that the lack of an infobox or a wikidata entry means that the topic of an article is not notable is utterly without merit. Cullen328 (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

And now declined at UTRS appeal #61258 Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Phew, that escalated quickly and all whilst I slept, thanks for your help everyone. Theroadislong (talk) 06:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

For a new editor (1 month) with 120 edits, they sure seem to know their way around. The use of the {{{USER5}}} template is very impressive. Would any check user care to look at that? Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

And their use of the "moved from" thingy. Impressive. Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not their only account. SPI here we come... Girth Summit _(blether) 09:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vodu3000, if you're interested. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Thansk! Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra they actually made their post on here, and I moved it for them and added that template. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 11:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

That was very kind. Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

There is still the notability tagging, the USER5's and other info I did not post here from the UTRS ticket, so good enough for the CU check. Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

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

User page move by User:Citizen arindam

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

---

Citizen arindam (talk · contribs) has been trying to move their user page to the mainspace several times, and leaving a trail of redirects as they move the page through different spaces (i.e. User: -> Template: -> Portal: -> (Main)), in no particular order. A warning was left on their talk page on this, but they continue to move, with the last move's edit summary being Because I want to shorten the user page link a bit, first it was HTTPS//en.m.wikipedia.org/Wiki/user:Citizen_arindam and now https//en.m.wikipedia.org/Wiki/Citizen_arindam. This was brought to pagemovers' attention through WP:RM/TR to revert one of their moves earlier. I had reverted their previous moves twice, but I think it's time that enough is enough and have an admin to look into the possibility of having their user page deleted, or them being blocked for clearly not trying to build encyclopedia here. According to xtools, 233 of the 284 edits made here are just for the user page. – robertsky (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Considering that this is the second time they've done this and a whopping 85.3% of their edits are solely to their user page, I would support either a NOTHERE or a CIR- or perhaps both, given their tendency to cause trails of redirects across multiple name spaces for no apparent reason. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 05:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing per WP:NOTHERE. Cullen328 (talk) 07:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#TheLastOfTheGiants related stuff

Serial plagiarism

Will someone take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Contributor_surveys#TheLastOfTheGiants and make a decision? The case seems beyond ludicrous. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The notice at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Contributor surveys indicates that the page has been superseded by Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations, so I recommend filing a case request at CCI if you think a contribution survey is needed. While I'm here, I should note that I removed a significant 5.5k addition of copyvio earlier this month from the History of Romania article that had been added by TheLastOfTheGiants, and they were warned twice more on their talk page about unattributed copying within Wikipedia – all of those went without acknowledgement – so I'm concerned by recent statements like "What is the issue with it being a copy from the Origin of the Romanians?" [71] (more unattributed copying). DanCherek (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

If I understood correctly, copying from within Wikipedia is allowed and does not constitute a copyright violation, as users do not own their edits. Also, why are you concerned about recent statements like "What is the issue with it being a copy from the Origin of the Romanians?" I was genuinely asking what is wrong with that, and after receiving the answer I did not further press the issue. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Because attribution is not optional when you copy within Wikipedia. DanCherek (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Understood. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@DanCherek: This copyvio still remains: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22In+the+decades+following+the+1867+compromise%2C+minority+elites%2C+forced+to+choose+between+assimilation+or+exclusion%22&client=firefox-b-d

Finally, you requested revdel at [72]. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I understand that it was removed, but for future edits, would a paraphrasing like this [[73]] be all right? TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

That still looks like a lot of overlap to me, with several of the sentences largely unchanged from the source, and in other places some of the words were just replaced with synonyms but the overall sentence structure and word order remained. Anyone looking at that would pretty easily conclude that you started by copying the text over and then shuffled some words around. A good way to avoid close paraphrasing (click on that to read a helpful explanatory essay) is to read the source material, think about it for a bit, and then try to summarize it in your own words, from scratch, without directly referring to it. Of course you can look at it afterwards, but this might help avoid the temptation of using the same or substantially similar phrasing. DanCherek (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Understood, thank you. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

TLOTG, the edit in that diff looks to me like a good example of why you can't edit out copyvio: copyvio includes not just the words used in a given sentence but also the sentence structure and paragraph structure. Which means when you copy several paragraphs, then go through to reword phrases, switch them around, or find synonyms, even if you could possibly fix all the micro instances (and even if that were possible I promise you it would take more time than simply summarizing in your own words), you've still got the sentence/paragraph structure sitting there violating copyright.

So if I copy/pasted: The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog

And I edited it to: The agile chocolate-colored vulpine leapfrogs the indolent canine

And then saved, I've still got copyvio at the level of the sentence structure. And anyone familiar with that pangram would recognize it. The same goes for para structure. Valereee (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

User:tgeorgescu is harassing me

While making an edit [[74]] about some dubious statements, tgeorgescu (talk · contribs) reverted me [[75]], I undo-ed his edits [[76]] saying "The tags have purpose, please see the talk page" as a discussion was made about this on the talk page (me and tgeorgescu (talk · contribs) didn't have any previous discussion to this, that was the first time I came into contact with him). He then reported me [[77]] on the basis of "It is clear that they push a nationalistic POV to the exclusion of all other POVs, while there is no WP:RS/AC on this matter. According to them there is WP:THETRUTH of Romanian nationalism, and all WP:SCHOLARSHIP to the contrary should get doubted". Being a "nationalistic POV" is his opinion, I have made the case in my response why this is not nationalistic POV but enforcing WP:NPOV and WP:RS/AC, the "exclusion of all other POVs" is something I have never done, you can check all of my diffs, however it can still be argued as his "opinion" even if there is no evidence for it.

But "According to them there is WP:THETRUTH of Romanian nationalism, and all WP:SCHOLARSHIP to the contrary should get doubted" is something I have literally never said, he is putting words into my mouth [[78]].

We then proceeded to discuss on the report page [[79]], he then found out that one of my edits (not related to the subject of the ongoing report) had a copy-pasted sentence [[80]], called me a "literally thief" [[81]] and proceeded to report me to Project Copyright Cleanup, again calling me a "literally thief" [[82]].

On the report page [[83]] I explained that I was not aware that that sentence wasn't paraphrased, and that I usually paraphrase the material I read to avoid copyright, and then proceeded to paraphrased the material in question myself. And on the Project Copyright page [[84]] explained that he didn't notify me about this so I can change it, and this is all an attempt to harass individuals listed here for evaluation.

He then found one other sentence [[85]] of a similar issue and proceeded to call me "They are not a literary thief, they are a serial literary thief".

While I was trying to paraphrase my edit so that it's compliant with Wikipedia's policy, he reverted my whole edit [[86]] saying "Go plagiarize elsewhere, you literary thief!!!!".

Then that [[87]] "Friend, it is a fact that you are a serial plagiarist". Lastly, while writing this report, I received a notification that he reported me here [[88]] for serial plagiarism. Despite me mentioning that this was not my intention, and any plagiarized material he finds will be paraphrased to not violate Wikipedia's policy. This is how stuff is added on Wikipedia, you find a book and write from it, but sometimes, especially when writing large paragraphs, I forget to paraphrase some parts, I don't believe this makes me a "literally thief" or "serial plagiarist".TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

While I am writing this large, many plagiarized phrases still remain at Magyarization. They did nothing to address this issue, instead they promise they will sometime later rephrase their plagiarism. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• but sometimes, especially when writing large paragraphs, I forget to paraphrase some parts, If that is the case, this text should be removed immediately. If you are copying (or close paraphrasing) text from another source, that is a copyright violation and we cannot have that. Your forgetfulness does not allow you to copy text inappropriately. That is not an excuse. If someone else removes it, you should not return the text unless you decide you wish to take the time to write your own original text. --Jayron32 14:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  This is precisely what I did, immediately after returning the text [[89]]. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Close paraphrasing is banned; copyvios still remain in the article, as stated in reply to DanCherek. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  About "Go plagiarize elsewhere, you literary thief!!!", AFAIK that is still a truthful statement, since you DID plagiarize. And you still think that it's fair game to revert me when I tell you that! tgeorgescu (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Tgeorgescu, namecalling isn't helpful here. Please stop calling other people thieves. I am not going to say this again. Valereee (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Valereee: I was not the first saying it's copyvio: see [90]. And I was infuriated by their denial The "In 1875, the government of Prime Minister Tisza intensified the program of forced magyarization, closing Slovak and Romanian-language schools and limiting minority cultural activities" is paraphrased (not copy-pasted, so no copyright violations) from a book written by historian Geoffrey Wawro in 2014. at [91]. So, yes, forgive me for namecalling, but their denial is infuriating. Seen that the most infuriating tactic is complete denial, I would even suspect they would be flamebaiting. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  TG, there is a difference between calling an edit plagiarism/copyvio and calling a person a thief. This is something that has been explained to you before w/re saying an editor must have a reading disability. We talk about edits here, not about editors. Valereee (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) You're conflating two unrelated issues here, tgeorgescu. That there are copyright violations has no bearing on whether or not you can violate Wikipedia policies on civility and personal attacks. You cannot. Regardless of what any other user does or does not do, you have no right to call them names. This is clear and unambiguous per WP:NPA. You will stop calling other people names or you will be sanctioned for that; even if the person who you called the name also did something wrong. Do you understand that? --Jayron32 16:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I understand. I will stick to "they did a copyvio". tgeorgescu (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Tgeorgescu Or, you can say "that text looks like a copyvio". You can omit mentioning the editor completely, and focus on the text. Do you see the difference in focus? 71.228.112.175 (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  I have retracted the offending words with <s> and </s>. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  @TheLastOfTheGiants, I think what you're saying is that you copy, paste, then edit? You cannot edit out copyvo. The initial copy/paste/save introduces copyvio into Wikipedia, and that original copyvio cannot be fixed. It can only be removed completely. Never, never, never copy/paste/edit. Instead read, then type out an original statement that summarizes what you've read. I cannot emphasize enough that no one should be copying and pasting into Wikipedia, even if they edit before saving. You cannot edit out copyvio. Valereee (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Read WP:FIXCLOSEPARA and follow that advice! — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Indef block

CCI is perpetually backlogged to no end, and someone that constantly violated copyright, even after it is explained, and then plagiarizes, even after it is explained, then wants to get back to it eventually.... maybe their are a net negative and just need to not be here. Because copyright has legal ramifications, that can lead to expensive problems as well as credibility problems, I just have no use for serial copyright violators, and would propose an indef block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support Why? After all those explanations about WP:NPA, see [92] and [93]. And [94] begins really promising indeffing. To me such attacks aren't new: Romanian nationalists indeffed due to my reports addressed similar charges against me, sometimes even curses. E.g. [95]. See? If I side with objective WP:SCHOLARSHIP, that makes me a traitor according to such nationalists. According to them, anyone who puts historical objectivity above the myth of the nation is defined as a traitor. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Short context: It is a subject of dispute whether elements of the mixed Daco–Roman population survived in Transylvania through the post-classical era becoming the ancestors of modern Romanians, the Daco-Roman Continuity Theory mainly accepted in Romanian histography, or the first Vlachs/Romanians appeared in the area in the 13th century after a northward migration from the Balkan Peninsula, the Immigrationist theory mainly accepted in Hungarian histography. There is an ongoing scholarly debate over the ethnicity of Transylvania's population before the Hungarian conquest.

  tgeorgescu is a supporter of the Immigrationist theory and perceives anything that remotely supports the Continuity Theory as "Romanian nationalism". "Romanian nationalism" is his version of "everyone who doesn't think like me is a nazi". The issue is that he doesn't side with WP:SCHOLARSHIP. In fact, when I posted a paragraph from a book written by an acclaimed American processor in 2014, his issue was that "Hungarians get the short end of the stick". Nevermind that it was a verifiable source written by an acclaimed professor, his issue was that he didn't like its contents, it had nothing to do with WP:SCHOLARSHIP. According to them, the Immigrationist POV is the only historical objectivity and all other POVs must be excluded. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 06:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  There is a difference between quoting a reputable professor for what he has to say about Hungarians, both good and bad, and selecting only those phrases from his work which make Hungarians look bad. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  His whole work makes Hungarians look bad. In an issue with no WP:RS/AC, WP:NPOV is applied. "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Your way of bypassing this is by labeling everyone that disagrees with you a "Romanian nationalist". TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  His whole work makes Hungarians look bad. That's a keeper. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  It's a work about magyarization, the forced cultural assimilation of minorities in the Kingdom of Hungary. What do you think it says about the Hungarians? Once again I would like to point out tgeorgescu's discomfort that this verifiable work "makes the Hungarians look bad". I know 4 other works that say essentially the same thing about magyarization, with the newest from 2021 and oldest from 1996. But he doesn't care about WP:TRUTH. If he thinks that information is biased, he could easily post other works that he found who offer alternative views which would fit perfectly with WP:NPOV. But instead he doesn't. His issue is that this quote "anti-Hungarian" work exists in the first place. It's not about being anti-Hungarian or pro-Hungarian, it's about verifiability WP:TRUTH. Writing bad things about the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not "Western Propagnada" or "Russophobia" if that's what actually happened and they have been published previously by a reliable source. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 06:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  I understand that the reason I am here is because I didn't follow the guidelines and summarize it in my own words, and promise to work on that in the future in order to avoid copyright for Wikipedia. But the soruce itself is not questionable, it's also not cherry-picked as tgeorgescu would love to believe. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 06:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: reply to "someone that constantly violated copyright, even after it is explained, and then plagiarizes, even after it is explained, then wants to get back to it eventually" -> This is not what happened. I wrote those paragraphs. Then tgeorgescu reported me for one coyprighted sentence within that paragraph. I modified that sentence. Then he reported me for another. I again modified that sentence. And then it turns out in this discussion that most of those paragraphs were copyrighted, I did not object when DanCherek removed them and promised will follow the guidelines and summarize it in my own words in the future. I do not see where I kept violated copyright after it was explained to me. Tgeorgescu insists that the reason he called me thief was because they were "infuriated by their denial", but forgot to mention the fact that everytime he called me thief for plagiarizing a certain sentence, I removed it [[96]], [[97]] ,[[98]]. How could I possibly be "in denial" if after everytime I was called a thief because plagiarized sentence I went ahead and modified the plagiarized sentence? TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 08:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• TheLastOfTheGiants, you have a serious problem with walls of text and WP:BLUDGEONing. Stop it. And no, do not reply to this. If you keep putting up walls of text, I will personally block you for that, as a WP:DE violation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  Seen what DanCherek wrote as summary at [99] and how TheLastOfTheGiants defended themself in the collapsed section above, TheLastOfTheGiants seems the least aware of what happened to the text, the least aware that whole paragraphs were plagiarized (instead of just two or three phrases which I have indicated). I mean, it was immediately obvious to DanCherek, but not to TheLastOfTheGiants. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Love the fact how you aren't actually replying any of my points. How is that for concise text? TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support per comments from earlier today: "But whatever helps you sleep better at night and justifies you being an ahole", "Only retrated because the admins told you to, your character is as rotten as before", and tgeorgescu is a pathological liar and a cheat" and so on. 200 edits, copyvio problems, still doesn't seem to get the point about not copy-paste-edit-ing, plus a series of personal attacks? Yes, somebody please just indef this editor. Levivich (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Gross personal attacks redacted, LoTG indeffed after a self-immolation. Acroterion (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Terminator-I'll be back on YouTube: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheLastOfTheGiants. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Sfaubawe disruptive editing.

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

---

I just came across this user who keeps removing the UK's new provisional temperature record from articles. In fact, all of their edits are reverting sourced edits of other users. This definitely needs to be looked into. I would say this is probably a case of WP:NOTHERE. GabberFlasted alt account (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

•  Done Blocked indef. Black Kite (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  The OP is a sock of the disruptive editor. I'm running some checks now to see if I can identify other accounts or the puppeteer... Girth Summit _(blether) 17:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Well, it was nice of them to report themselves. Black Kite (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Impersonation

GabberFlasted alt account (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The account posting the above incident, is not me. I'm not sure exactly what noticeboard this should fall to but I wanted to get this down somewhere ASAP. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Yep, we're on it - see my comment above. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Its greatly appreciated. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I think I've blocked all the accounts here. If there are any stewards watching (ThereNoTime?), if you look at the CU checks I just ran, I think you'll find quite a few blocked accounts that really ought to be globally locked. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Urgh, reping TheresNoTime Girth Summit _(blether) 17:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Mekitembem21

The account "Mekitembem21" is being used for advertising only. [100] It is also appears to be the same editor as Masyarno, which has been blocked indefinitely for spamming. [101]. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 18:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for spam. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Those URLs seem that they should be easy enough to blacklist as well. Canterbury Tail talk 18:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Dsa2324jdsafhjka

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

---

Dsa2324jdsafhjka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Shinzo Abe (diff): User does not appear to be WP:COMPETENT. Per diff, they spammed the exact same external link to a JPEG image, in replacement of internal links, under a false edit summary. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. The response to your notice gave away the game. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Edit warring and suspected sockpuppetry

• Vox (political party) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In the Vox (political party) we got a sudden interest of several newly created accounts (Tom63552, Diegn5, DanskPolitikDK) to change the long-standing version of the article's lead to tell in WP:WIKIVOICE a particular biased view on the article's subject, and to eliminate alternative perspective from the lead, instead a WP:NPOV characterization of the subject in the long-standing version. The involved accounts ignored warnings about the need to abide WP:NPOV, and invitations to follow WP:BRD joining discussion in the article's Talk page. At some point, Tom63552 also has violated 3RR rule. To remediate the incident a page protection request has been raised. Please, consider this posting as the request to check aforementioned accounts for sockpuppetry, and if confirmed, to apply corresponding sanctions to these accounts.

At least three sockpuppets have been blocked by other administrators. I have semi-protected the article for a month because the disruption has been going on for about two weeks. Cullen328 (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Newbie mass deleting postnominals from British biographies

Historylikeyou (talk · contribs)

A newbie with exactly 17 previous edits made major undiscussed/non-consensus changes to MOS:BIO [102], and since then has been mass-deleting certain postnominals from British biographies. I've reverted the ones up to this minute, and left a warning, but he may continue. Could people watch him, especially British editors? Thank you. Please block or final-warn if he continues. Softlavender (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

It would have been better if you had invited other editors to give their opinions on my proposed changes. Is there somewhere else to ask for feedback? Historylikeyou (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Have you ever edited under a previous username? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

So you are now telling an experienced editor who has made over 80,000 edits and been here over 15 years what "It would have been better" to do? Don't remove postnominals without WP:CONSENSUS. Please read that guideline on consensus. Never remove cited information from any Wikipedia article (whether cited in the lead or cited in the body text). Start a thread on the talkpage of the article and get consensus first. Softlavender (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, because I made a good-faith attempt to improve Wikipedia, after posting on the policy talk page and waiting for feedback. You may have done the right thing in reverting my edits and waiting for further feedback from other editors, but the way you have responded to me is, frankly, atrocious. Rather than encouraging discussion of my proposals, you have immediately threatened me with a block and encouraged Wikipedia administrators to do the same. I don't care about how experienced you are on Wikipedia; this is obviously a bad way to respond to newer editors. And I did not deliberately remove any cited information from any articles. Historylikeyou (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

You changed MOS:BIO without any consensus at all, much less "waiting for feedback" [103]. I don't have to "wait for further feedback from other editors" to revert non-consensus removals of cited or well-established postnominals. I have indeed encouraged you to discuss and get consensus, both on your talk page [104], in edit my summary [105], and in this ANI thread. I did not at all "immediately threaten [you] with a block". That said, unless you learn to follow protocol, your days on Wikipedia will be numbered. Softlavender (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I did look at the guidance for editing policies and according to WP:PGBOLD, it's allowed to edit them. I don't think I've done anything to warrant speaking to me in such an accusatory and threatening tone. I've already said I'm not going to reinstate my changes without further discussion. Historylikeyou (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Care to answer my question? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't. Historylikeyou (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I think we all know the answer to that. {{checkuser needed}} Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown If you had a specific account that you suspect was the sockmaster, that would be relatively easy to check. But without knowing who to compare against, there's not a whole lot CU can do. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

This is more of a "seems like a sock of someone" situation based on behavior. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

What about a topic ban? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC).

Whilst I think that the actions of Softlavender were appropriate my understanding is that the place to hold a discussion before making a change to such a core component of Wikipedia like MOS:BIO like the one that you want would be the Village Pump (WP:VILLAGEPUMP). Whilst waiting to get consensus you shouldn't make the change to remove the postnomials. Gusfriend (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I have posted at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Manual_of_Style_-_Postnominals_in_Biographies. Historylikeyou (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

SPA at Kevin Knuth

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

---

Cosmoid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an SPA focused exclusively on matters related to Kevin Knuth (see contributions here), has repeatedly reverted reliably-sourced content from Kevin Knuth here, here, and here with non-collegial, COI-ish edit summaries that refer to offending edit[s]. The editor has also responded in an uncivil manner to a reasonable query on their Talk page about potential WP:COI: I suppose you're now going to pull some bizarre Wikipedia rule about that out of your arse too? A topic ban/block based upon WP:NOTHERE is requested. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

This user has edited the article in such a way as to deliberately post misleading information in a biographical page. The user posted content that was lacking in context, from the personal website of someone who wrote critically about Knuth. The author of that referenced content had quite blatantly misrepresented the quote of Keven Knuth. The user chose to post this misrepresentation, whilst omitting to post Knuth's original quote. Moreover, the user made this clearly provocative change without consulting on the 'talk page' first. The user then proceeded to roll back my deletion of the offending quote, despite Wikipedia's rules about not entering into "edit wars".

The user also added content that was not relevant to the subject of the article. For example; a review of a movie in which Knuth appeared which was critical of production values - which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the article. The film was referenced simply as an example of notability; Knuth did not produce the film. It was made by an independent production company, which I had already pointed out to the author in my edit comments. Cosmoid (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Moreover, the notion that I am focussed on matters exclusively related to Kevin Knuth is preposterous. I have never met the man. I am interested in scientifically based, academic UAP research, be that Galileo Project, Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies, UAPx, Sky360, and other such endeavours. Cosmoid (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Finally, if you want to talk about "non-collegial" behaviour, let's start with the above edits of this user, which even if taken at face value as 'good faith' were clearly intended to convey an impression about Kevin Knuth that is not 'unbiased' - as evidenced by the user's choice of quotations and the manner in which they were presented. At the very least, this user should have discussed the edits on the talk page before making them. Even more so, since my article has only been up a few days; there are supposed to be rules against jumping in and reaping havoc on new pages. Cosmoid (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

JoJo Anthrax and Cosmoid, why aren't you two discussing the content issues at Talk: Kevin Knuth as a first step? There is no conversation there at all. Cullen328 (talk) 03:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

My point entirely. Ask "JoJo Anthrax". Cosmoid (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328 I invited the editor, per WP:BRD, three times to discuss the content on the article Talk page (see edit summaries here, here, and here). Rather than discussing, they chose instead to revert my reliably-sourced edits. My interpretation of those responses, their associated edit summaries, the editor's contribution list, and their response to the COI query (not from me) on their own Talk page, is that this editor is clearly a WP:SPA who is WP:NOTHERE. That interpretation is solidified by their responses to this report. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 03:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

JoJo Anthrax, in my view, your case would be much more solid if you had opened a discussion on the article talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 03:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328 WP:PACT. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

JoJo Anthrax, so, you think that discussing content issues on the article talk page is a "suicide pact"? That is an unusual assertion that I very much disagree with. You may well be right in whatever the content disputes are, but I would like to see you providing an analysis of the content problems on the article talk page, before concluding that the other editor deserves the sort of sanctions that you are proposing, and that their concerns are entirely without merit. Cullen328 (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328 My attempt to address and prevent disruption by a WP:NOTHERE editor has clearly failed here. Please close this report. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 04:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

JoJo Anthrax, does Jason Colavito have the level of academic expertise that his blog criticism of Knuth ought to be included in Knuth's BLP? This is the sort of content matter that ought to be discussed on the article talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• JoJo Anthrax, I don't see a single post from you on Talk:Kevin Knuth. Therefore this ANI filing is not going to go anywhere. This is a content dispute, and you have failed to abide by the guidelines for content disputes, namely WP:BRD. Go back and make your case for your edit(s) on articletalk, and assume good faith. Softlavender (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Edit warring over charges of plagiarism at Jesse Cox (YouTuber)

• Jesse Cox (YouTuber) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Appears to be breaking news, and is now largely--or only--sourced to tweets. Bringing this here rather than the BLP board because of the nature of the accusations. I don't think we're invested in covering the latest Twitter wars. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

My findings have been posted at Talk:Jesse_Cox_(YouTuber); but the TLDR is that a source covers it and verified twitter accounts are involved. InvadingInvader (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Whatever happens on the article, there's at least two editors that have gone well over 3RR on the article (6RR by my count), and the edits being reverted are not vandalism as it's a content dispute. I think the involved editors should cool down and take a step back and use the talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Some blocks have been handed out and the page semi-protected. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
• Acknowledging that I have a tenuous connection to one of the BLP subjects here, and thus won't be taking any admin action beyond the straighforward NLT block I made of MathasGames... @Crboyer and, when your block expires, Yoshi24517: could you please explain why you thought this was an appropriate situation in which to revert (at all, let alone past 3RR), and whether you think that decision is compatible with the judgment expected of a rollbacker? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The content in question has been restored post page-protection, without further discussion either here or at the article talk page. The concerns re: WP:BLP and WP:RECENTISM haven't changed, they've just been ignored. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Yoshi has replied:

      Absolutely, I can answer that. Keep in mind I do not do content creation or any of that stuff with BLP guidelines or any of that sort, so feel free to explain that to me. Also keep in mind, I’m all new to this explain yourself for actions thing, so don’t get too disappointed. It all started when I was using Huggle, minding my business, and then I come across the article, and I saw a bunch of reverted, unexplained deletion with the words “libelious”. I saw other editors reverting it as well, so I decided to revert it as well. Then it kept getting reverted and it kept going on and on, and well you get the idea. Then I saw other users and editors trying to get rid of it as well, so I suspected meatpuppeting was going on, and of course, we usually don’t like that, so I kept reverting. Then I found out about libel and BLP guidelines, and all that stuff, and I decided to use the talk page, and it all went downhill from there and got blocked.

      I'm sure different people will take different things from that statement. My main takeaway is, maybe we need to have a bigger discussion about recent change patrollers' understanding of WP:BLP and WP:RS, because I think it's unfair to put it on any one person... or three people. And it's not just these three people. I am gonna go make sure everyone's AWARE of WP:NEWBLPBAN, though. And going to ask Jon698 to come comment here and answer the non-rollback-oriented half of my above question. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
      • To follow on that: I came across the article while the warring was in full bloom. I, too, saw the edit summaries that included accusations of 'libel,' to which my knee-jerk reaction is the same as that of most experienced editors. Then I scanned the content in question, and realized immediately that it's possible for a disruptive editor, who may even be using multiple accounts, to be right about a WP:BLP issue. It only took a few seconds to reach this conclusion; it's beyond my ken that experienced page patrollers can see content containing controversial accusations, freshly made and sourced to Twitter (!), and edit war to restore it. I'm not blaming anyone, just a bit surprised at what a slog this has become, and how even users who must know better are vulnerable to what is, essentially, he said/he said crap. We're not running a tabloid. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
        • "Immediately"--indeed. The others should have done at least some kind of diligence. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
      • By the way, in the event that the plagiarism accusation is resolved or proves unwarranted, my first thought is that the whole damn thing will need to be redacted. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
• I am baffled that four apparently seasoned editors, Crboyer, Jon698, Yoshi24517, and InvadingInvader, simply restore a bunch of gossip sourced to YouTube and Twitter.

  So Yoshi got blocked for edit warring, and correctly so. They seemed to simply have joined in with the revert war, judging from the comment quoted here; ignorance of the BLP is a lousy excuse, and another comment of theirs was puzzling too: "Regarding what the IP said, I would recommend that you NOT ping admins for a content dispute, as that could be see as canvassing"--no, in an edit war over a BLP with libel accusations pinging an admin is exactly what you should do; simply reverting is the last thing one should do.

  But Jon introduced part of the section and edit-warred over it, which lacked secondary sources and strikes me as a flagrant BLP violation.

  InvadingInvader condescendingly told the IP to "bring it up on the talk page" when they were confronted with their BLP violation, and hasn't shown up here.

  Crboyer has been here longer than me, and restored the content three times, plenty for an edit warring block--they asked for semi-protection, saying "repeated content removal for no other reason than 'libel'", but if you go through all that trouble someone with their experience should have actually looked at the content first.

  This is all really disconcerting. I have removed the rollback flag from Crboyer and Yoshi. They are welcome to re-apply for it, and when they do I suggest they show they understand why this was so troubling. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  • "But Jon introduced part of the section and edit-warred over it" I made a grand total of two reverts to the page. The second one was due to me not knowing about the talk page discussion. I also removed a large amount of unsourced material or added citations to it. Jon698 (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
    • You reinstated that BLP violating "only two times"? That looks minor only in the light of others having restored it six times. And you did introduce it in the first place. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
  • My first reaction upon seeing those "libelous Content" edits was a knee-jerk reaction thinking the user was removing sourced Content they disagreed with. My biggest mistake was running with that reaction and not giving the benefit of the doubt. I'll accept this judgment. $chnauzer 21:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: - Crboyer actually re-added the content six times, but I can't provide diffs because they've been revdel'd (they're right at the top of his recent contribs though). I'm not sure why Yoshi24517 was blocked for his six reverts but Crboyer wasn't blocked for his six reverts. Six reverts over about 10 minutes while slapping vandalism templates on user talk pages when the edits weren't vandalism isn't a great way to deal with content you're trying to reinsert into the article, BLP violations or not. - Aoidh (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
    • The opinion at the talk page that we leave it up, since secondary sources would probably confirm it soon, was incredible and irresponsible. I'm not finding any coverage of this by WP:RELIABLE sources. Thank you for redacting, Drmies. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict × 3) @Drmies: InvadingInvader did reply briefly above—I'd also read past it when I wrote my first comment—but if anything their response is more alarming than none at all, since a source covers it and verified twitter accounts are involved is the kind of explanation I expect from a newbie. I've given them a BLP DS alert too. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Tamzin, you are right, and I saw that after my third edit conflict, haha. And I saw you placed the BLP note--thank you. I think all this shows how important it is for "vandalism fighters" to actually have some good sense, and knowledge of other aspects of the project. No you can't place such accusations in article space without proper secondary sourcing. Yes you have to be careful. No you cannot, as an impulse or a reflex, hit rollback whenever you see an alarming word. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Over time I realized this was a scandalous thing to get into. My story of getting involved in this very similar to Crboyer and Yoshi's; the more research I did into it, the more stupid it was, and I ultimately decided this morning to just pull away from this. It's better off not on here unless a secondary source covers this. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
    • I personally think that part of the impulsiveness that got to me during my reverts did have something to do with the personal attacks and legal threats that were thrown at the project. I'm paying particular attention to Osirilen's "crazy guy ax to grind" comment and Mathas's legal threats. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
      • InvadingInvader, dealing with...well, people who throw such language around is not easy, and I understand the frustration. I have run into many such editors, besides many trolls, racists, antisemites, sexists, and homophobes, and it can be hard. The thing to do, and it is not always easy to do this, is to focus on the actual edit. This is why you will find editors like Cullen328 sometimes finding editors/edits we vehemently disagree with--because we are having to enforce the rules/policies/guidelines rather than figuring out who we like or what we like. And when one is attacked personally, that's obviously even harder. All I can say is that we need to try and focus on the material at hand. I appreciate your note here.

        I'll add one more thing, for the vandal fighters who might be watching. The longer I'm here, the more I believe we should revert less and report more. In this case, the removal was correct, but if any of the reverters had not reverted and reported the matter, we wouldn't have a page full, fifty edits, in the history that needed reverting, scrutinizing, rev-deleting. This is one of the dangers of rollback, but I realize I'm riding my hobby horse.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs)

• Comment: Since I was released from my edit warring block early, I would like to take the time to read over what I saw, and take some time to give some more thoughts on the situation. Drmies's removal of my RBK flag was correct: I did not read through the edits as I should have, and reverted 6 times. Huggle even says "verify every edit you make". That I did not do. After talking with 2-3 admins on my talk page, as well as one in PMs on IRC, I have a better grasp of what transpired yesterday. Like Drmies said, I can request it back once I feel like I understand what happened here, and for it not to happen again, but I plan to wait a short bit before doing so, to cool off, and to move around to other parts of the project I can help out with. I'm pulling out of this debacle all together, to me, its just not something I really need to continue with. I would like to thank the IP editor who brought it here, as well as every one else who has talked to me, you have all been a big help. I fully understand what has happened, and I hope I do not get dragged here in the future. Thank you. Yoshi24517 ^Chat _Online 03:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Continuing conflict between topic-banned editors regarding political parties in Italy

User:Scia Della Cometa and User:Checco each have an existing topic ban regarding lists of political parties in Italy (Special:PermaLink/1087724241) due to a series of drawn-out feuds. Regardless of the ban, both editors continue to extensively debate whether certain entities are in fact political parties in Italy on a variety of satellite pages. I would ask someone more experienced than I evaluate whether this is in violation of the topic ban (WP:TBAN: "a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic... For example, if an editor is banned from the topic 'weather', this editor is forbidden from editing not only the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather.") The long-running debate between User:Scia Della Cometa and User:Checco that led to the initial ban is being reignited on pages such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civic Sardinia and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veneto for Autonomy, among several others. The continued exhaustive debates between the two users feels in violation of the topic ban previously (and recently) imposed. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civic Sardinia the other user and I agree! This said, User:SDC and I have been blocked only from the pages List of political parties in Italy and Talk:List of political parties in Italy. There is no topic-ban upon us. Just to let know, my only wrong was to kindly answer to each and every proposal by User:SDC in the latter talk page and embarking ina dispute resolution which was not well managed. While considering the block unfair, I accepted it and I focused on updating articles. Over the last months, User:SDC proposed 30+ articles on political parties/coalitions for deletion. He was very sincere in explaining to another user that "since the list of Italian parties will have to be completed in the future, I am simply proposing for deletion the pages that do not seem relevant to me" and "I am proposing the pages for deletion only after evaluating their content, the author is irrelevant to me. It is simply necessary to slightly thin out the number of pages of parties, to make the list of Italian parties more usable in the future". I would have refrained from that and I am now suggesting User:SDC to stop proposing pages for deletion, but, as always, I am sure of his good faith. We had disagreements, but we have always discussed and disagreed in a very civil and transparent way. There is a forthcoming general election in Italy: it is better focusing on updates rather than AfDs. Surely, I have been opposing deletions, but, while User:SDC's good faith is evident to me, it should be clear to everyone that I have never started any dispute or AfD, I only answered to discussion started by others (mainly User:SDC) and I think I did nothing wrong in answering. --Checco (talk) 06:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@49ersBelongInSanFrancisco It has already been clearly explained to you, the ban concerns only and exclusively the List of political parties in Italy. If you had read the discussion (which you evidently didn't do or roughly did) you would have seen that the topic ban proposer himself stated: "they may edit in any related areas such as more specific lists of parties, or AFDs to delete parties not having a reliable source, or any other topic." Cheers.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 06:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• The "topic ban" was:

  ...be topic-banned and partially blocked from the specific article and its talk page for three months: List of political parties in Italy ... They may edit in any related areas such as more specific lists of parties, or AFDs to delete parties not having a reliable source, or any other topic.

  The confusion seems to stem from everyone in that discussion referring to this as a "topic ban" (WP:TBAN) when it's actually an article ban (WP:ABAN). Levivich (talk) 07:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for the clear explanation. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 07:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Reporting Nua eire

Nua eire (talk · contribs)

This editor is going around changing charts without discussion and edit warring as well [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've notified Nua eire (talk · contribs) on their talk page on your behalf, please make sure to do this in future. Zudo ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

You are reporting me for updating pages with accurate information. I work in the Irish music industry therefore I should know and have provided evidence for these change. The OCC has never been the official chart compiler for Ireland they only host information on their website similar to the US and French charts will we also change these to the OCC? Zudo TheAmazingPeanuts how do you report profiles that persistently use OCC because they are spreading disinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nua eire (talk • contribs)

Both of you are edit-warring. Discuss the issue on the article talk pages or the relevant Wikiproject rather than reverting each other. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: I reverted Nua eire's edits only twice in those articles, and did you even pay attention to the edits? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

You have not right to take that tone to @Phil Bridger:. You are being rude and encouraging the spread of misinformation OCC is not the official chart complier for Ireland. Will you be changing it for the US chart positions too? as the OCC also carry the billboard charts on their website? No, I don’t think you will, because it would make no sense and it would be factually inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nua eire (talk • contribs)

@Nua eire: The reason why I revert your edits because you didn't bother to have an discussion at WT:CHARTS first. It doesn't matter if the chart is correct or not, you must start an discussion and restoring your edits doesn't help either (see WP:BOLD). TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I will start a discussion however, the issue of the OCC was created by someone else a few months ago where it was always IRMA until someone changed it and nobody caused such drama or needed open a discussion about this. Using the OCC is factually inaccurate and the fact you accuse me of vandalism and reporting me for using actual facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nua eire (talk • contribs)

@Nua eire: That's not a fact, it's opinion. Revert your edits right now and not being disruptive because you don't know what you doing here. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

It is 100% fact go look at www.irma.ie if you do not believe me. You are beyond insulting and assume you are correct on everything but you are not. Do not undo my work in the future. Nua eire (talk) 11:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with Phil Bringer. I would strong suggest discussing the issue on talk or project pages and WP:BRD is a good starting pointing. You need to remember that Wikipedia is all about generating consensus. It is also good to remember WP:NPA. Gusfriend (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Aussiewikilady

Following a series of disruptive edits on the article about Bret Weinstein,[112] which escalated into an edit war that resulted in the article being locked,[113] User:Aussiewikilady received a number of warnings from three different users on their talk page.[114] The day they received these warnings, they responded by blanking their user talk page, thereby acknowledging the warnings.[115]

Since then they have continued to engage in disruptive editing on different articles, removing instances of the "she" pronoun from the article on Chelsea Manning (claiming that they were trying to "offset a 1984 vibe of changing history")[116] and adding the former name of Elliot Page to the article for the film Juno.[117] These edits have since also been reverted,[118] twice in the case of Manning's article.[119][120] In Talk:Right-wing authoritarian personality, they also accused Wikipedia (which they described as a "God-awful website") of being "full of left-wing authoritarian authors",[121] in an edit that has also been reverted.[122]

I'm reporting this as an outside party, uninvolved in any of the above-mentioned disputed articles, and to me this appears to be a case of WP:NOTHERE. Grnrchst (talk) 14:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I do see that they haven't edited, except for one edit on their talk page, since July 7th. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

They just reverted my ANI notice, so I hope they're willing to address my concerns. I will be more than happy to close this if they do. Grnrchst (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

So, Awl has made some slightly pointy edits that were reverted, probably by left wing authoritarian authors like me, yes? So what? - Roxy the English speaking dog 14:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Does this not indicate an intention to continue disruptively editing? I just noticed a number of repeated reverted edits following a series of warnings, and figured that was worth bringing up here. Apologies if this was a premature report. Grnrchst (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Unless they straighten up and fly right they wont get too far here imho, but perhaps I'm being a little hard on you. I'll stop now. - Roxy the English speaking dog 15:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

It's fine, I don't think you're being too hard on me. I want to make sure I'm doing right by Wiki policy. Grnrchst (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

They haven’t edited substantively since 7 July so perhaps the warnings had the desired impact. The issues are three weeks old and rather stale now, we only need to pick this up again if they resume their disruptive behaviour. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Joseph2302

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

---

I don't appreciate User:Joseph2302 using "moron" in [their] edit summary over something they were wrong about. I didn't read their last response but I did see the rude edit summary message. I also noticed [their] block history is full of warnings for disruptive editing and harassment, being uncivil, etc. I was in the process of adding citations for recently removed content that wasn't sourced for Tony Dow. I added a tag in the meantime. Regardless of the method I used, the nasty messages and threatening tones are unnecessary. This is not a way to welcome new editors who are doing a good job. Please see: [123] [124] Thank you, kindly! Littlebitof (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I addressed this on my talkpage just now, when it was pointed out that I had reverted back too many edits. That was wrong, and I apologise. But you clearly stated that you won't comply with WP:VERIFY, and that is not acceptable. I apologise for the harsh language used (the term "moron" was excessive and inappropriate), but admitting you want to break a core principle of Wikipedia is frustrating. Also, you are obliged to notify me, which you did not. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a diff for them stating they refuse to comply with a Wikipedia policy? Because if so then that's an instant indef, it's a condition of editing just like a sites Terms and Conditions. If you outright refuse to comply with a policy, then you're not suitable or able to edit here. Canterbury Tail talk 14:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Not true. Just saw you told me not to post on your talk page. I pinged you here and you replied before I could. You seem to be in a rush. I also never said I wouldn't comply. My history proves that. I wrote the way I did it was fine. Please use good faith and slow down a bit. Littlebitof (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

You said that adding unsourced content with citation needed tags is fine, which it's not. I'm not going to apologise for telling you that isn't fine, though I have apologised for referring to you as a moron, because that was actually wrong. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Littlebitof and Joseph2302: It sounds like there was minor issue here. Littlebitof posted a version that may have had a citation needed tag as a placeholder for a reference to come. Joseph2302 warned them about it and got carried away with the language in an edit summary. Can you agree to move forward civilly and cordially from here, being mindful of the need for references, and put this ANI thread to rest, rather than have the both of you stay under the administrators' microscopes? —C.Fred (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Fine by me. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

And in the spirit of collaboration, you immediately updated your "talk page guidelines" with this? Fram (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I moved on but the fact Joseph keeps lying is problematic and bothersome. First of all, I never added the content. I simply replaced it because another editor removed it for not being sourced (which someone else just added two projects that aren't referenced). I added sources since no one else would. It's like I'm being "punished" for adding 4-5 sources. In [his] haste, the sources were deleted with nasty messages. My calmness must have rubbed Joseph the wrong way so [they] attacked me. The fact I'm accused of adding unsourced content, when I am the one who provided the sources, just shows that Joseph is doing what [they] are accusing me of. It's easy to see that what [he] is saying is not true because he reverted it when there was no citation tags and 4 reliable sources. Ugh. I can't associate with editors like this. Bye. Littlebitof (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

It's my contentions that Joseph's block history reflects he is going to continue doing this to editors. His recidivism pattern is troubling. Maybe a break is in order? I can't engage with toxic people. Best of luck! Littlebitof (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be part of a pattern, earlier today we had this WP:BITE example, accusing a new editor of an " obvious attempt to steal a nomination credit" as if an ITN nomination credit was something very worthwhile which shouldn't be given to some newbie who, er, nominated an article. Fram (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention this which imo is more concerning. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Yep, already mentioned above, which makes at least 3 problematic interactions or edits in a short while. Fram (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll add another. Joseph sent me (and another ITN regular) this uncivil message without any provocation earlier this month (I have never posted on his talk page correction: I gave Joseph an ITN credit once in April 2021). He was quite hostile around the ITN nomination of the Highland Park parade shooting of July 4, which preceded that talk page message. I and many others only speak/type in American English. If he can't deal with that, he shouldn't be on a site where he'll have to interact with so many Americans. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, that matches his changed talk page guidelines of today and is of course totally unacceptable. Fram (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Let's be clear about the timeline of edits:

1. 13:14 - 13:16: an editor correctly removed three unsourced sentences: one about parodying a role, the second about a bronze piece, and the third about a hospitalization.
2. 13:30: Littlebitof restores the parody sentence with a source, and restores the bronze piece sentence without a source
3. 13:31: in the next edit, Littlebitof restores the third sentence about the hospitalization with a {{cn}} tag
4. 13:47: in the next edit, Littlebitof replaces the {{cn}} tag with three citations
5. 13:48: in the next edit, Joseph removed the hospitalization sentence, with the three citations. Note that the actual unsourced content -- the sentence about bronze pieces -- was not removed. In fact, it's still in the article. I just removed it as unsourced.

This isn't about, as Joseph says above, reverted back too many edits. Only one edit was reverted, and it was the wrong one. This is about an editor calling another editor a moron, while simultaneously not even paying attention to what they're reverting.

In supporting Joseph's unblock request two years ago, Black Kite wrote This is actually a no-lose situation. Joseph2302 has done good work on the encyclopedia in the past, and this time there won't need to be any waste-of-time discussions if he even steps slightly out of line - he'll just be indeffed again. I've seen lots of people say this in supporting unblock requests, I've probably said it myself multiple times, but it rarely seems to come to pass. Levivich (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, that big red "No American English on my talkpage" by itself disqualifies Joseph2302 from participating in a collaborative worldwide English language project. I cannot help wondering why Joseph2302 would get involved with editing Tony Dow, an article written in American English. Cullen328 (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Note: I see the filer has been indeffed as a sock, however I think the complaint does have merit regardless of that specific account's status and hope this will continued to be addressed as it extends beyond this single interaction. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

While the OP was blocked as a sock, the editing history shows that Joseph is behaving in the same manner that led to his initial block that was overturned. The comment "No American English on my talkpage" alone is enough to tell me they are not willing to work collaboratively. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The correct decision I think. Joseph2302 had his Wikipedia:LASTCHANCE two years ago and he failed to keep in line. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Crumbs, I was never aware that Joseph has been blocked multiple times until I have noticed the current block with the assistance of one of my settings to see who has been blocked and who is not. Hopefully the experienced user returns with a longer spell of making edits with no blocks and the filer won't return per WP:SOCK. It was useful to query the edit summary usage though so hopefully that word won't appear either. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I have worked with Joseph for a number of years and never had experience or knowledge of any issues. This was very silly but I'm inclined to put it down to frustration more than anything else. He has already said the incivility was wrong. Joseph, if you're reading - take a few days to get your head in the right place and come back to demonstrate you can work collaboratively. GiantSnowman 22:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Aman9750 engaging an Edit War/unconstructive edits

I became aware of this user when I repeatedly saw the page Koeri show up in the Pending Changes log multiple times for what seemed to be the same edit. Upon further investigation, I found that the new user User:Aman9750 repeatedly attempted to change Shudra into Vaishya, which this edit appears to be political/religious in nature. User had made the same edit 3 times, each one of which was reverted:

• [125] reverted by User:Gardenkur
• [126] reverted by User:CycloneYoris
• [127] reverted by User:Fylindfotberserk

User then attempted the same edit 3 additional times, each of which were reverted by myself ([128], [129], and [130]). Following the second edit, user was notified on their talk page [131]. User made the same edit again, which I left a WP:3RR warning on their page. After the thrid edit, an additional discussion was opened on Talk:Koeri. This topic (Shudra into Vaishya) was already discussed Ad nauseam on the talk page, but I did not want to escalate the issue for a new account with only 7 edits. User then continued to make the same edit:

• [132] reverted by User:Fragrant Peony
• [133] reverted by User:Admantine123
• And a rather questionable edit [134]

I am afraid that WP:NOTHERE, WP:3RR, and maybe even WP:CIR may be applicable to this situation. The User's responses on Talk:Koeri and User talk:Aman9750 do not fill me with the hope that this user is here for constructive purposes. @Admantine123: here is a customary ping since you have been involved. Etriusus (Talk) 15:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked Aman9750 for 31 hours for efit warring. Cullen328 (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a WP:CIR issue, they don't even know, how to cite source, and other basic things about Wikipedia. A 31 hr block is suitable here, i have tried to explain them about the editing process.-Admantine123 (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

User:JordanKSM is WP:NOTHERE and WP:NPA

User:JordanKSM was temp blocked for mass removal of content at Chinese people in Myanmar. In response they insulted the admin and accused them of working for the CCP, racism, more racism, accusation of canvassing, tried to hide racism, still insulted admins. I warned them of WP:NPA: [135]. They responded with this: [136]. Qiushufang (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I've made them go away. None of that is acceptable in any way. I will always indef for racist comments and attacks. Canterbury Tail talk 15:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Dollarsign14

Multiple warnings for addition of unsourced content to BLPs; a block for the same; still at it (and I can't find a source to verify the info beyond rumours on forums). Clearly does not get it. I suggest a block of some length. GiantSnowman 18:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Done. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you. GiantSnowman 22:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

they edit on mobile. of course they edit on mobile. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 09:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

continuous destructive editing

Resolved

 – Blocked for 24 hours

User user:24.170.226.22 has made multiple destructive edits to Wikipedia. Amdins please look into their contributions and take actions.Uricdivine (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• I've given them a last warning. Let's see where it goes. Not holding my breath, but they are actually trying in good faith, just doing a poor job of it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked them for 24 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Legal Threat

Resolved

 – Blocked with talk page access revoked

This edit summary [137] looks like a legal threat to me. LizardJr8 (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure looks like one to me too. Blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 21:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The IP has now placed an inapplicable block notice on their own talk page (copyvio, as opposed to vandalism and legal threats), and an unblock request as though they had been blocked for copyvio, which they were not. I'm not sure if this sort of gamesmanship is the modus operandi for any specific LTA, but it does suggest they've been through the blocking process a few times. Perhaps talk page access needs to be revoked as well. PohranicniStraze (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Don't think I've seen that one before. ("That" as in that tactic, at least; I've probably seen this person before, although LTAs of this kind all blur together.) TPA revoked. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it's just a kid who thinks that's how the adult world works. Acroterion (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Reporting TheAmazingPeanuts

TheAmazingPeanuts (talk · contribs)

This editor is using incorrect information regarding the issuer of chart placements in relation to Ireland. Despite making efforts to open the discussion the user makes changes to my edits despite my efforts to provide correct information that IRMA is the primary company and copyright holder of chart positions in Ireland with the OCC sharing responsibility for collecting data on behalf of IRMA. IRMA is the correct reference not OCC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nua eire (talk • contribs)

There is already a thread up the page, which you tried to remove. Retaliatory reports aren't wise. Please read the advice given in that thread. Acroterion (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Nua eire: You are being very disruptive. Oroborvs has reverted your edit at Seventeen Going Under but you restore it back again. Stop restoring your edits and listen to other editors, it's obviously there are other editors don't agree with your take. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

As if the retaliatory report wasn't enough, the OP also failed to notify TheAmazingPeanuts of this filing, as the red notice on top of the page and when editing clearly require. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Nua eire: For my part, the concern was not IRMA/OCC; I reverted this because nothing appeared in the URL. I would ask you to verify that your URLs are working. Thank you. Oroborvs (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Request blocking User JesseRafe for cyber harassment and deleting my contributions

Dear administrators,

I am a research fellow for the LaGuardia & Wagner Archives. The LaGuardia & Wagner Archives is a New York City Archive established in 1982 to collect, preserve, and make available primary materials documenting the social and political history of New York City, with an emphasis on the mayoralty and the borough of Queens. The Archives serves researchers, journalists, students, scholars, exhibit planners, and policymakers examining the history of Greater New York. The Archives also produces public programs exploring that history. Its website provides a web database of collections, including more than 100,000 digitized photos and nearly 2.5 million documents.

The recent work I have contributed to Wikipedia is information directly from the archives. The current exhibit is "A Seat At The Table." : LGBTQIA Representation in New York Politics examines the personal lives and political experiences of New York City LGBTQIA elected officials in the City Council and State Legislature from the 1990s to the present. Because the exhibits focus on personal lives, this is the section of NYC politicians I have contributed the most, using the words of the politicians directly in interviews as their experiences were personal and contributed to a large majority of their political activism and work. Stephen Petrus conducted the interview, and he is a historian at the LaGuardia & Wagner Archives. The interview was uploaded on YouTube as a platform to access an archived source. You can see the verifiability if you watch any of the NYC politicians' interviews conducted by the archives.

The point of these contributions is the additional information regarding these politicians' personal lives that may not be found elsewhere, especially when these interviews are primary sources. However, a user by the name of JesseRafe has accused me of "spamming" and directly said "Spamming links to this same source on multiple NYC politician's pages is unusual behavior" when I am using primary sources (interviews) that come from the archives.

In addition, Mr. Jesse Rafe has falsely accused YouTube as being an unreliable source, when the interview was conducted by historian Stephen Petrus, directly interviewing these politicians and the archives are a credible source only using YouTube as a platform to upload their interviews.

If there is a way please give me back my contributions and block this user. This user has deleted everything under a misunderstanding of not knowing the archives Is a reputable source and further researching the sources. I would greatly appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCKitKat (talk • contribs) 23:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@JesseRafe, what are you doing? Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

While I can respect the intent behind adding Wagner and Laguardia Archives, looking at Glick and Quinn - there are "better" secondary sources (such as NYT) that cover the same material and do not require Wikipedia to rely on Primary sourced interviews hosted on YouTube. With that said, WP:ABOUTSELF does provide some allowance for the interviews. Regardless coming here and asking for a block over misunderstanding is a bit of an extreme position given your complete lack of any attempt to discuss the issue with JesseRafe. So you may want to use his talk page or one of the articles to discuss these edits, rather than just demanding restoration. See WP:BRD for the prefered cycle of editing. Slywriter (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The OP did post several lengthy messages to User talk:JesseRafe to attempt to discuss the issue. They just didn't wait for an answer before posting here (JR hasn't edited in hours so likely hasn't seen the OP's messages). Schazjmd (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Schazjmd, discussion is a generous term for an attack post that includes "I was shocked when I saw all of your contributions contribute to censoring users and editing in an unhumanitarian way. In other words, criticism failed to be constructive and was only written to demean other people's contributions to the Wikipedia community. I notice many users were victims of you undoing their works..." Along with several other unkind attacks directed at JR. Slywriter (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

OP has had an account for a little over a month and made 35 edits. I imagine that they are not familiar with our alphabet soup and large body of arcane best practices for dispute resolution. But even I would be a little pissed off if I added twenty-some citations to articles and had them all blanket-reverted by someone who called me a SPA COI in their edit summaries -- perhaps we can spare them a little understanding. jp×g 04:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

That said, this is a little bizarre:

I realize I don't need to do anything because you already have a mass amount of people who are strongly against what you are doing. I don't particularly appreciate spreading hate. Rather I know that people who do unkindly things will learn the hard way, and it is not my place to do anything. Your reputation on Wikipedia has already ruined your image, whether you like it or not, and if I don't do anything, I know someone else will or already has. My last message is simply that I'm disappointed in you and the people Wikipedia appoints as peer reviewers who are not doing their job in an appropriate, helpful manner that makes Wikipedia's community welcoming.[138]

@JCKitKat: Under no circumstances should you ever be leaving, uh, whatever this is, on people's talk pages. jp×g 04:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok I do apologize for writing that, I was frustrated one evening when I logged in and saw these accusations. JCKitKat (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

A few comments for JCKitKat that might help:

• If you are posting on a talk page you should start new topics at the bottom of the page and sign your post with ~~~~ so that people can see who posted it and it doesn't merge into other text and get missed.
• Given your association with LaGuardia & Wagner Archives adding references to resources created or hosted by them to articles may be a Conflict of Interest so I suggest that:
  • Read the Conflict of Interest policy at WP:COI
  • You should disclose the COI on your user page (see WP:DISCLOSE)
  • When you want to add a reference using the L&W Archives it is best practice to propose changes on talk pages (by using the {{request edit}} template), or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard, so that they can be peer reviewed
• You can ask for help at any time at the Wikipedia:Teahouse Gusfriend (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• WP:AGF is still a thing so let's assume good faith. Here is someone new to Wikipedia who wants to help improve the encyclopedia with some unique material who has got a bit frustrated. Some guidance is needed and perhaps some discussion on how best to use this material. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  I definitely agree with this. Gusfriend (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for your message, I was not aware that it was a conflict of interest. The people I'm working on it together for a college project never told me and I assumed I would have no problems citing it as a main source, at least I know nows so thank you for bringing it to my attention. And about the YouTube part I'm confused, is it against policy to cite YouTube as a source, regardless if it is from a primary source or reputable source that uses YouTube as a channel? If you could clarify this that would be great, that's all I want to know at least. JCKitKat (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  • • • You were politely notified you had a conflict of interest on your talk page (as well as in edit summaries) before you launched that malformatted personal attack on my talk page and before this lengthy post that also is largely personal attacks. To claim ignorance of the conflict of interest until this afternoon is pushing the assumption of good faith to its limit. JesseRafe (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

        "To claim ignorance" To be fair I am new to wikipedia so I assumed you were one of those users who deletes others work on purpose so I did not take your claim seriously unless I heard it from administration. At least I admit when I'm wrong, you have still continued to claim you are right 100% of the time and won't work with me or others who have reported you to the higher ups. You can see below my post I did apologize for some errors so you can't accuse me of the same things anymore, now I think you should do your part Mr. JesseRafe. JCKitKat (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

        Aside from mine I feel bad for everyone's work who got deleted because of nitpicking peer reviewers who dictate their opinions as policy, what is a fact and opinion has become immensely blurred. I hope Wikipedia does something about this because it's not Wikipedia anymore it's plain bureaucracy.. Also once someone apologizes for errors, you can't attack them for it anymore and ignore yours, this is 50/50, I messed up and so did you so why not own up to it. JCKitKat (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

from the accused I did assume good faith. You'll notice these edits occurred over a period of time, and the user was undeterred by previous explanations that this was not welcome content. They kept adding the same COI (by their own admission) content making them an unambiguous SPA. I have all most all of these articles on my watchlist, in fact I started some of them, so I saw they kept doing it after prior removals with explanation, that's when I looked into their contributions and saw they also spammed the Youtube links and wrote more less-than-ideal tone expanded bios on other NYC pols' pages I wasn't watching. They are spamming a non-notable source, just calling it reliable does not make it so, especially if they're involved with it. Especially as I stated early on, it's easy enough to get print not video third-party not first-party sources for the same content, and to write the content in a more encyclopedic tone. Instead they wrote that screed on my user talk, and I really don't think that's OK and should be allowed. JesseRafe (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes they occurred over a period of time, that's the point. A college with archives ( which many colleges have) isn't a COIL or a company of business scheme. I do plan on contributing way more to Wikipedia using the archives as a source after I'm done with the seat at the table (politicians) exhibit so that's the only reason why it appears to be SPA and occurred over a period of time. You are RIGHT about tone, that can DEFINETLY be improved with revisions but I don't think legitimate information about these politicians personal life obtained from interviews should be deleted and written off as "vandalism" which is deliberately having malicious intentions, you did say I was in good faith so using the term vandalism doesn't apply here maybe I can work on tone but that's the only thing I thing you got right. Also yes the archives aren't NBC they arent' super well-known you are RIGHT, but I don't think that makes it any less then any other source, I mean they are still recent interviews at the end of the day and as Malcolmxl5 said there is nothing wrong with wanting to improve Wikipedia with unique material. If there is a policy against using interviews and an archives database please link me to it, otherwise I think you are biased as well, which is that you don't believe a college archive is a "legitimate" source, as you said. But aside from me, I think many people would disagree, it it just not fair to write a college archive off as source that's not reputable, doing so is just ignoring the important work the historians are doing and I think we should respect their work and from what I understand Wikipedia is welcoming to primary sources. Also I apologize for the later comment on user talk, I logged in on wikipedia one evening and when I saw the contributions were gone I was frustrated and genuinely believed it was a misunderstanding and I wanted to stand up for myself, I think all wikipedia users know if they don't speak up peer reviewers can easily exercise control over their contributions, wikipedia users and peer reviewers aren't perfect, either of them could make mistakes. The bureaucracy on Wikipedia has became a lot lately, I apologized for my mistakes and I hope you can admit to yours at the very least if you don't want to give my contributions back. Good day. JCKitKat (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

JCKitkat, you just renamed this thread to make it even more accusatory, so it seems your goal is drama not improving the encyclopedia. Yes, we do have policies that prefer WP:SECONDARY reliable sources over WP:PRIMARY sources especially with biographies. We also have an essay WP:ACADEME that explains Wikipedia can be a challenging place for researchers, subject matter experts and the like to navigate as we have our own rules and standards. Slywriter (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I should clarify that give my contributions back isn't a thing on Wikipedia and, to be honest, after the elapsed time reverting their reverts may introduce new problems due to possible changes since then. But there is nothing stopping you from reintroducing your edits although after your changes were reverted you are advised to follow the principles of WP:BRD.

Having said all of that I also wanted to warn you that if you want avoid having your edits reverted you should follow the COI related instructions above and request edits on the talk pages rather than adding L&W Archives links directly.

Gusfriend (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Paulistafan and Barron Trump

• Paulistafan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Barron Trump Knauss (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Barron W. Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Barron Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barron Trump (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barron William Trump

Barron Trump is 16 years old and considered a minor, and has been found not to be individually notable in three deletion discussions, and the title has been redirected to Family of Donald Trump. The applicable guideline is biographies of minors.

Paulistafan has attempted to game the name to create a stand-alone article using two different names, where the second is one by which Barron Trump has never been known. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• Gaming the system indeed. I have topic banned the user from BLP's. They may still edit the talkpages, and of course appeal the ban. Depending on their attitude, it may be appropriate to narrow the ban in some way. Bishonen | tålk 16:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC).

User:JesseRafe

Hello, after getting into a dispute with User:JesseRafe about Brooklyn Technical High School, the user is now removing any edits I make to Wikipedia such as the ones I made on ramen. The user has not offered any explanation for these removals (except for the initial removals on the page about Brooklyn Technical High School) and they do not appear to have been made in good faith. Nezahaulcoyotl (talk) 01:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• "Seek consensus on the talk page, it is not OR, it's a plain meaning of the word, your source is BS, stop spamming it"--that's an explanation. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

While I stand by my assessment that the claims made by User:JesseRafe violate Wikipedia's policy on original research, this notice is mostly in regards to the removals he made on the ramen page. Also, while the user asserts that any disputes about Brooklyn Technical High School should be discussed on its talk page, he doesn't seem at all interested in discussing these disputes there. I waited 5 days for him to respond to my post on the Brooklyn Technical High School talk page before proceeding to edit the Brooklyn Technical High School article page as I found appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nezahaulcoyotl (talk • contribs) 03:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. In the case of the ramen page, it has only been reverted once without any subsequent discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 10:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

This is just not true, user has several edits that are still tagged "current" from the same time period that I obviously did not undue, so off the jump their accusation is false. I only have Brooklyn Tech on my watchlist, and after the second time this user insisted their completely irrelevant "source" was the dispositive authority on magnet schools in nyc (I admit, it is a convincing URL "magnetschools.nyc"! Something something books by their covers) I looked at their contributions to see if they also did this to the other Specialized High Schools of New York City and yes, they did, so I undid all of those edits on those pages for the same reason. They seem to only edit about once a week, so when they came back to unhelpfully edit the Brooklyn Tech article by removing the wikilink again, I again checked to see it if they did so to the other HSs. They hadn't, but I did see they made an edit to remove sources and upon looking it over, it seemed they did so improperly. I didn't want to accuse them of anti-Chinese bias in their removal of sourced content in the ramen article, so I merely called it vandalism and moved on. I have no interest in communicating with them on the Brooklyn Tech talk page about that silly website and the phone number that you can supposedly call. As I stated prior, that website is not affiliated with the City of New York or the Department of Education, but I also have no obligation to participate in the talk page discussion, they ought to build consensus and they have not, if other users participate there, then I might. JesseRafe (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, can an administrator at least clarify as to whether or not attempting to categorize Brooklyn Tech High School based on the descriptions of school categories provided by another Wikipedia article violates this website's policy on original research? Nezahaulcoyotl (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I suggest following WP:CONTENTDISPUTE, as there is currently no consensus at Talk:Brooklyn Technical High School#Magnet School Status.—Bagumba (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

User: 104.186.77.128

104.186.77.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be Sean Kenniff. He removed the PROD from his article, leaving a personal insult in the edit summary (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sean_Kenniff&diff=1101038712&oldid=1100283834) - "Bgsu98 has a bias, it's ugly and unwarranted." I then sent the article to AFD, where the user again left a lengthy comment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sean_Kenniff) that included a legal threat - "I promise to resist this clear unfounded bias in any legal way possible." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgsu98 (talk • contribs)

Blocked the IP for legal threats — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 02:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime... this user is back - Seankenniff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - and commenting on the AFD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sean_Kenniff). Bgsu98 (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Historiador1993

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

---

Resolved

 – Blocked 36 hours for disruptive editing

Historiador1993 has been engaging in disruptive editing at Millennials and elsewhere. In the last few minutes they nearly blanked the page[139][140] and removed 110k of content as a minor edit.[141] They have been warned many times on their talk page, including by EvergreenFir. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for disruptive editing for 36 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 04:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Historiador1993 is not happy edit by Historiador1993 Adakiko (talk) 05:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Now indeffed EvergreenFir (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I predict that the Wikipedia administrators will win that "war". We've got tools in our toolboxes and mops in our buckets, after all. Cullen328 (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Anlyam

Anlyam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) speaking a lot of profanity and bad manners. First edited with IPs 189.45.119.50 and 191.247.20.98 and now created account, perhaps trying to bypass R3R. 2804:14D:5C87:8C5D:B031:19B9:8953:726 (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• Shirt58 blocked him from that one article for 31 hours. That's probably a bit more generous than I was going to do but maybe it will work and they will get the message. If they continue, longer blocks can be applied. I didn't see profanity so much as highly disruptive and corrosive editing, but they only have a handful of edits. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Low-Quality editorial ownership of the "Recession" article on WP.

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

---

The Editorial ownership of the "Recession" article on WP has fallen into disrepair. The current editors have chosen to affect the article in such a way that it has become politically biased and is no longer in alignment with standard "Recession" texts. Insofar as there are students and institutions which view these articles as having value, this should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liftmoduleinterface (talk • contribs) 10:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, well, there's an RfC on the talk page about the phrasing of that infamous sentence, so I think you should go participate in it if the issue is important to you. It isn't really an administrative issue if some article sucks. jp×g 10:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

This is neither urgent, nor does it describe an intractible and chronic problem. Can an uninvolved admin close this? MiasmaEternal☎ 10:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

And besides, this sounds like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue. As another user said, you can articulate your issues with the article at its talk page. MiasmaEternal☎ 10:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Andrewbf evading block with Mexico IPs – four rangeblocks proposed

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andrewbf/Archive

User:Andrewbf was blocked indefinitely seven years ago. This action did not stop his Wikipedia contributions; he has been using a variety of Mexico IPs to evade his block. The article Personal life of Lindsay Lohan was protected earlier this month by Favonian because of these IPs. More edit-warring can be seen in the Love Come Down article history. Is there a way to block the IPs with minimal collateral damage? Recently active IPs listed below. The listed IPs might be considered as four ranges: Special:Contributions/187.147.192.0/18, Special:Contributions/189.172.0.0/18, Special:Contributions/189.174.0.0/18 and Special:Contributions/200.68.160.0/22. Not only IP4s have been used by Andrewbf; last year the IP6 range Special:Contributions/2806:2F0:8020:310A:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked for three months. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

lnvolved IPs

• ‎187.147.200.87 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 187.147.207.33 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 187.147.212.97 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 187.147.236.151 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.172.23.242 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.172.25.229 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.172.33.230 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.172.38.3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.172.49.152 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.172.72.145 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.172.91.34 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.172.118.215 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.174.6.243 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.174.9.87 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.174.17.233 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.174.19.198 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.174.21.221 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.174.48.58 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 200.68.161.254 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 200.68.161.68 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• This user has some unhealthy obsessions. Various blocks placed. Thanks Binksternet. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Big thanks! We're done here until next time. Binksternet (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Cabin134

Cabin134 is currently disregarding talk page notes and edit summary notes from myself and Hey man im josh, as a way to “win” an ongoing AfD discussion on the 2022 Eastern Kentucky floods. This user has blanked an article 3 times amid an AfD discussion which they started.[142][143][144] I also received talk page message from this user saying “It seems that most editors don´t agree with you don't worry though we moved most of the text to July 2022 United States floods”, which is also confusing seeing how they are the AfD nominator and it appears the current consensus is keep. I have sent 3 different messages to this user on his talk page about not blanking/redirecting an article that is currently in an AfD, especially one they started.[145][146][147]. I even dropped a helpful message after the first one explaining and linking some policy/essays as to why the AfD needs to just finish after 7 days.[148] There is also a whole controversy section about how the AfD started visible on Talk:July 2022 United States floods#Kentucky. An administrator needs to step in and do at the very least a warning about blanking/redirecting a page during an AfD since this is out of hand now. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello Elijahandskip, you have take this way to far it has to stop I need to let pepole know if in the article July 2022 United States floods we sould include Kentucky and Vrigina information from 2022 Eastern Kentucky floods. Cabin134 (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually, there is a move discussion in progress (Talk:July 2022 United States floods#Requested move 29 July 2022) to move it back to 2022 Missouri floods. I came here because of the disregard for talk page alerts about blanking the article amid the AfD. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Cabin134, have you been paying attention to what people are saying to you? You cannot change the article to a redirect when there is an ongoing deletion discussion (that you started). You need to let the deletion discussion play out.

Also, I highly encourage you to read WP:Vandalism and to not accuse others of it during a content dispute, or tell users they'll be blocked if they revert your edit. Especially considering Elihajandskip's edits were definitely not vandalism. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Update: After this discussion began, Cabin134 is continuing to revert edits on July 2022 United States floods to merge the pages together.[149] Elijahandskip (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Update #2: Just discovered Cabin134 reached out to User:HurricaneCovid and accused me of vandalism. Still noting the message on Cabin134’s talk page seem to be unrecognized. I also received a 2nd talk page message from Cabin134[150] accusing me of vandalism. Once again, talk page alerts seem to be unrecognized and it now appears this discussion is also being unrecognized. I am feeling like a block may be needed, since a warning will probably be treated the same as all the alerts/discussions. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• Note to admins: This isn’t the first time Elijahandskip has taken to AIV or AN/I when another editor doesn’t agree with him. It should be noted that in order to ensure a comprehensive article on this subject, the method employed by Cabin134 is the preferred alternative. United States Man (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Wait, just confirming you agree that redirecting/blanking an ongoing AfD discussion without proper closure is ok? Hmmm Elijahandskip (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that everyone, including you, seems to want these pages merged, so just do it. United States Man (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The article issue is not the reason this ANI was opened. More over the vandalism accusations and disregard to talk page message about proper closures. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

As I said to you on other page but for the record here, when you have fresh events, it generally is easier on everyone to let the temporary editors do their thing and just clean up later. Having all these move discussions and AN/I discussions could all be avoided with patience. Cabin134 is in the wrong, but it could all be solved easily in a few days without all of this. United States Man (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Where are you seeing "everyone, including you" wants these pages merged? Hey man im josh (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

That's a strange note to add when you yourself stated that Cabin134 is clearly in the wrong and being disruptive. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

As I said, that doesn’t mean you have to run straight to AN/I suddenly when all sides seem to want the same outcome as far as content goes. Regardless of Cabin134, I think Elijahandskip could benefit from being patient in the future. United States Man (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Possibly, but in this instance OP isn't in the wrong. Cabin134 is clearly being disruptive and trying to canvass for support while not listening to those giving them feedback. They took the right route in coming to ANI. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Update #3: Cabin134 has once again vandalized the 2022 Eastern Kentucky floods by blanking the page amid an ongoing AfD discussion[151]. Numerous talk page messages, numerous editors and this discussion have taken place telling them not do to that. They are a confirmed troll and vandal, so we need an admin to block them. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Update #4: Cabin134 has now asked User:WikiDan61 via his talk page to block me[152]. I don't understand why they will not just read the messages we are sending, but either way, they are canvassing and not listening, so time to block or warn. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• I've p-blocked 31 hours from the article for edit-warring, but E&S, honestly, learn what vandalism and trolling is. I literally am second-guessing myself because of your language and approach here. Valereee (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I guess they were not directly vandalizing/trolling, but instead were ignoring policy. That would be the better terminology to use. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• Withdrawning AN/I. The whole main issue stemmed from this user merging without linking to a source, then not responding to "provide a source" requests. They just responded to my question (after the partial block was put in place) which shows it was not WP:OR. All that problem just because a simple question wasn't being answered, which then caused a cascade effect, even to the point of a partial block having to be put in place. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Shortiefourten and civility

I've been embroiled in content disputes with Shortiefourten for several months now due to their ownership-like tendency to refuse consensus or discussion in a civil manner. The most recent interactions we've had (an edit war with this inappropriate summary and this talk page message) make it clear they have no intention of finding consensus without making accusatory and hurtful remarks. I'd like some intervention. SounderBruce 18:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Figures. Embroiled is a great word though. A bit flame-y, but well-done.

This has not been "several months now" but since I became an active member in 2019. Before we start, I want on the record that I have never once - not once - gone to a page created by this editor or a page in which he has heavy involvement - and ever reverted a single post of his. However, my desire to join Wiki comes from this rude edit (and where I theorize all this started) - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chehalis,_Washington&oldid=911924967 - my apologies, I still cannot find the proper way to link to an old edit. As my User page notes, I suck at coding.

Let's do this...

With that quick set of facts out of the way, the title of this ANI dispute is about my civility. Fine. But WP:OWN, too? An edit war after one revert? And refusing to concede to consensus? Can we just go ahead and add in the complaint here that while I like Beyonce, I'm not, like, in love with her? Why is there suddenly a large buzzing sound coming from outside my front door...

So, let's start with the civility part of this first. He's right. I wasn't. And I don't regret it. I'm fed up with being followed around (no attack; he's admitted he does it and has that right) and reverted solely by him, using vague and unsupported reasons, but I gotta explain myself. If he's looking for an apology, he's not going to get one. What, should I apologize that he doesn't appreciate sarcasm, too? Come on, man. So we don't go off on a tangent here about accusations of how I hurt him, it's best just to say that based on his actions and manners that I have observed and been exposed to, I don't like people like him. Never will. I do not believe I said anything that lacked truth (based on my observations and interactions with him at Wiki) and I told him how I felt - powerless. I've not recruited anyone to think the way I do, banded together with others who've had run-ins with him, nor shared this anywhere. Even despite what I am assured will be a really long response (my husband feels your pain), I am feeling powerless as I type. I know that, by way of WP:CIVILITY, I am in the wrong, and yet hamstrung at the same time to defend myself in a situation that I would have right to do so in the real world. I'm sure this is not the first time that Wiki has heard some editor state that.

Now, to admins or others who are going to intervene or mediate, I wasn't wrong in terms of standing up to rudeness or wrongs as I see and experienced them, but I can clearly understand that my approach would besmirch Wiki. For that I am sorry. I've had one bad, continuous interaction here at Wiki, and it's getting to me, its wearing me down, and though not a reason to excuse my actions, only a means of description, I felt I had no other choice. It's the rest of this editing experience here at Wikipedia for the last three years, which has been damn awesome, that keeps me going as an editor. I thank many of you for that.

Now let's get down to complaint number two - ownership. I stay in my lane (my husband whines a bit to fix a baseball player page every once in a while and I stiffly oblige) but overall, I stick with Western Washington, with a large interest, based solely on my love of the area, in Chehalis and areas in or around Lewis County, Washington. My User Page has stated the same for the last two years. I'd love to write about Olympia, the place where I was born, raised, and live, but I know I'd be too biased. So, I actively avoid pages where I have experiences and background, but I own other pages because that's where I write for the sheer interest and like/love of the topic? Hmm, let's go to the teleprompter (my husband is nodding I have the reference vaguely right).

After a basic review of my edits (500+), you will see a consistent revert or overhaul approach from the editor above. Chehalis. Twin Transit, Cashmere, Washington. Parks and recreation in Chehalis, Washington. Each page where he's done a revert (outside of new articles I helped to build) are pages he has edited many times, in some cases to a large degree, mostly months and years before my first edit attempt. But he doesn't revert or correct when I go to a baseball page, or something outside Washington state. Pages where he's never edited before.

Now, since its been a few sentences since some levity, I have a fun personal theory - that when I joined Wiki and reverted that August 2019 post of his, again, based purely on the rudeness of it (you'll see no actual WP or rule or reg listed, a common issue with said editor that I'll certainly bring up later), that he never forgot that. Now, I have no proof of that, and I can't cite anything to back it up, but it makes me laugh, somewhat nervously, that it might be true.

So, back to it - I own Western WA articles that I work on? Hardly. I believe I have four reverts to others in my name and they dealt with self-promotion, vandalism, and a common biography mix-up. That's it. Not one instance of being rude, condescending, demanding, or overtly powerful over another here. Not one. Not a single revert against another editor on any of those same pages "I own" that wasn't a maintenance or vandalism item action. A long, and I mean long, history of thanking editors who edit pages I am either interested in, worked on, or created myself. Good holy monkey, I just thanked an editor for correcting a mistake I made at the Ruth, Washington article I built! Yeah, I use that "Thank" option in the View History tab! Oh, and yeah, I'm demanding residuals...

Seems to me that I suffer from ownership only when I don't immediately concede (some of the time!) to his revert or overhaul edit. That's not page ownership, that's writing (intentional!) a wrong. If it was OWN, where's my long track record of telling others to go stick it?

But, I do stand up to the edits he reverts. Why wouldn't I? His reasons are often vague, unsupported, and in a surprising number of cases for an editor with that breadth of work, just his opinion. He never engages in discussion and most attempts are replied back with WP:BRD or WP:AGF or that I gotta go to the talk page. His first revert of mine was in February 2020, my third edit in history. I added a Gallery. Turns out Wiki isn't a fan of them (and neither is he! I mean, he's really adamant about it!) and as a rookie, I came nowhere close to knowing that. I had to go ask him, because, again, unhelpful reasoning. The reply was fine, a bit stiff, but based on his Talk Page writings (and for some fun!) his insistence on writing about tax and voting referendums on transit/transpo articles, he's a bit dry. Based on his interactions over the years, I did notice a pattern that he was, I don't know, kinda bored with explaining things and busy with editing? Kinda like he had seen and heard it all, already? That wasn't an ATTACK!!!, just an observation.

And we've not gotten along since.

The only editor to accuse me of ownership is the ANI editor above. He's done it four times, I think, seems like more...? And only one editor has reverted my edits in three years. SounderBruce. And they are numerous and lacking in explanation. Often done scarily quickly...and I mean that, it's scary. As I mentioned earlier, he's on record that he does follow me around! Which is legal here! Like I said at my talk page, HOLY SHIT!!!

Here's a few cases - he reverted a 2,000 byte edit (in less than a minute) at the Chehalis page, in its entirety, because he had a problem (not backed by rules or regs) about the inclusion of a couple of dates. He overhauled an edit at Cashmere, Washington in November 2021 based on reasons that did not match up to what I did. I mean, not even close, even trying to claim a ref was banned when it isn't. Reverted a Cinebar, Washington edit because it was an "inappropriate level of detail" based on the type of community. You want to know where that reg exists? Me, too! Tried to delete a new article I built with one reason being that it's only valid if I were to use non-local sources. Rule for that? Nowhere! The Twin Transit article was heavily edited in less than 6 minutes for "over-emphasis"...what the hell is that? I spent two hours trying to find a WP that could explain it; nothing. And nothing from the editor...I had to go "talk it out".

Problem number three - consensus. And this goes to highlight his accusation of ownership towards me...what consensus? There's no vote. He doesn't explain or link to a rule or reg. He ignores any engagement so...is it consensus...because he says so? Granted, the WP:CONCENSUS states clearly that the revert is considered the consensus until a disagreement. But I disagree, and because he lacks engagement and support of his reasons, I re-edit, as the rules state that I should. His argument seems to be that if he ignores the concensus process, and claims WP:BRD, WP:AGF, and WP:CIVILITY on top of it, his revert is gospel. That's my takeaway because that's the experience with him. And I'm supposed to what, sit there and take it? I'm lost here. The only time there was an actual discussion is when he listed an article that I created for deletion and it didn't go anywhere. Consent to what? His removal based on the entire phrase, "over-emphasis"? I followed the guidance of his own writings on transit and transpo articles. I did nothing different than an editor of 88,000 posts has done or others have when writing about the facilities of a transit system. (Whoops, that's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS!) He's Washington's transit writing master. He's allowed; he says I'm not.

Problem quattro - edit war. Again, he heavily edited my edit to the point of a revert, didn't really explain it nor go on the talk page, so I remained bold and reinstated it. His vague reason wasn't anything I could go with. I mean, we've seen edit wars here, yeah? This ain't it. He could've explained himself (as the WP:CONCENSUS article states), we coulda come to an understanding (or CONCENSUS!...works better if you shout it out like Oprah), and we wouldn't be wasting anyone's time here, stuck in a cold, joy-sucking void between us.

Final issue - working together. He and I won't. It's not there. Don't think it ever will be. We have a wide difference in opinion in how much knowledge should be included. But, honestly, it comes down to him being the only editor to revert my work and he's done it with fervor numerous times. Quick to remove, spends no time explaining. An editor who demands consensus without engaging with his point of view...and as I've concluded, his word is final until I dance. I can't do it. That wouldn't fly out in the real world and I've got too many hard years stamped on this brain to just go, "Yeah, I'll play by a different set of rules and roll over."

So, before I conclude, I've made a good amount of mistakes here at Wiki. Nothing intentional, but it's not the civility issue with the above editor that makes me wince or makes me feel the worst, it's the minor stuff, like the whole em-dash/en-dash thing. Coding mistakes. Misspellings! That I cannot figure out how to edit a photo at the Commons! When I think I've finally got this editing down...nope! Editing here is truly joyous to me. Not that I am a professional educator, but knowing I'm helping spread knowledge, even a very, very small amount is somehow...warming? Knowing that Wiki has been around and finally in 2021/2022 that users can come here to learn about Millett Field and the Willapa Hills Trail? That rural areas in Lewis County now have their own page, like Winston, Washington, and that residents and citizens in the area and throughout Western Washington can learn more about existing pages that I've helped expand? Seeing an increase in traffic to these pages, seeing an increase in editing participation on those same pages after years of solitude? This is awesome. Yeah, I have a long way to go to be a better editor, but that doesn't mean bending a knee because someone else says so.

But the joy is stripped repeatedly by this editor. That's not an attack; I feel that way and it's happened that way. I've taken two long breaks, November 2020 to March 2021, and then March 2022 to this July, because, "is working around this editor even worth it anymore?" That's not to make him feel bad or give him more CIVILITY gunpowder. Take a look at the actions towards my edits at that time. I wasn't bored. My husband didn't suddenly get rock-hard abs and my libido went up. I wanted to be here, to help. I used Wiki as a form of escape from my overworked Covid rear-end. I ENJOYED it. And it just gets crushed by one editor over and over again. After both breaks I thought I could tolerate the inevitable reverts, the WP:OWN accusations, and be more civil towards him. I couldn't. I won't.

No doubt I should've been...kinder?...but how? Three years of the only editor on my ass. Three years of researching all the WP's to find out what the hell he's reverting about. I'm so damn tired of it. But I do not want to stop working on what I've been working on here at Wiki. I just want him to stop. I sure as hell don't want to be banned and this may be a shock, but I don't want him gone either. That editor has provided Washington state with a massive amount of knowledge here at Wiki and I, as well as other readers, are damn thankful for it. And like me, he can still be better.

Nearing my conclusion, I'm powerless. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS can be thrown back at me. I know there's a sentence or interpretation on WP:CONCENSUS and that I'm in the wrong. Due to my continuing frustrations and sarcasm that this reply isn't exactly WP:CIVILITY. That yes, you can be BOLD, but the editor above is allowed to be MORE BOLD. I know that my GOOD FAITH can be superseded anytime by the ANI editor's AGF. I can't take the advice to "take a break" from the pages or areas I normally edit because...he's seemingly everywhere I go. I can't take a break from Wiki as a whole anymore, because...wait...why should I? Just like many of you, I've lost far too much time in my life letting other people get their way because I "take a break". I've done run out of that approach.

So, what's the answer? My profound, proposed solution? I got nothin'. I wish I did, but I'm too tired; there's too many years of taking the high road and being burned for it, seeing too many people cave while others get away with things because they say they can, being raised as a Gen-X'er and to "turn the other cheek", and hearing people claim hurts and wounds completely forgetting their own actions, their own lack of respect for someone else's equality and contributions. Smarter people than me have failed to figure this out (my severe hopes on Gen-Z!) but maybe someone here has a decent solution. Either way, I'm here to stay because I want to help give knowledge to as many people as it can reach. And Wiki is the first and foremost place for that.

All the above is clearly me needing to get things off my mind. But after all this writing, I do easily offer this to the admins, editors, and mediators reading now, in the future, or that ever come across me in that wide Wiki world, I do promise to not engage in any uncivil conduct towards SounderBruce, ever again, and that in whatever future interactions we may have, that I will document my side in a straightforward, factual manner. This, of course, goes for any other unlikely difficult future experience with other editors, too. I may not be able to give him an apology, but he has my word on that promise. And my word matters, otherwise a lot of my patients better have their last will and testaments signed. To everyone, SounderBruce, too, I won't back down, but I can buck up. Also, I will really, really try to limit the sarcasm, but since it is a great therapeutic tool for me, I can't exactly bold-type that!

Other than that, for the love of a juicy turkey on Thanksgiving, please, people, please provide more details in your edit summaries. I mean, you don't have to go to the lengths I do, but give us something more!

I appreciate the mediators taking the time to read this. My apologies to Wiki for any incivility that may make us look bad. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go dunk my head in some ice water...oh, not because of this, because it's 94 damn degrees outside when it should be 78. Shortiefourten (talk) 03:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@Shortiefourten: In response to "I still cannot find the proper way to link to an old edit" - click the "History" tab, and then click "Prev" on the edit you'd like to link. Alternatively, on the old revision of a page, click where it says "diff" in the top bar with "(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)", next to previous revision presumably. For the given edit you cited from SounderBruce, that'd be this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chehalis,_Washington&diff=prev&oldid=911924967 .

Also, on the merits, I'm not a "mediator", but as a warning, citing the number of minutes it took for SounderBruce to revert an edit of yours is not a strong argument. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Nobody's edits are guaranteed to stay for some minimum length of time. Long edit summaries are good if they are explaining the content change, but they are not generally the place for user disputes. Try hashing things out on the article talk page instead. It's good you're promising not to be uncivil, just recognize that you won't necessarily get every change in even if you're civil about your opinion. (And if you do take to the talk page, try to be much more concise than the above. Get to the point, otherwise people's eyes glaze over and won't bother trying to digest your comment. See WP:TLDR. SnowFire (talk) 07:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Shortiefourten, no one is going to read this wall of text. Please shorten it down, or expect no one will read it in your defense and just take action anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  I've read it all, and I'm finding Shortie's arguments persuasive, and I can't not sympathize. But Bruce isn't stalking you, Shortie—you both have overlapping interests in Washington-related articles, and Bruce has been editing them for a long time (interaction analysis). Both of you are still here to build, though. My recommendation—my 2¢—is an WP:IBAN for 12 months. SWinxy (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Sharks, Robots, the mafia, and Zellers‎ department store.

There is apparently an ongoing trademark lawsuit over the brand Zellers. Though one of the parties to that lawsuit has recently begun editing Wikipedia, this report is actually about Canadiansteve (talk · contribs), who has resumed editing after a several year absence. Canadiansteve seems to have some strong feelings about this dispute. They say that they have no COI, though Canadiansteve does say that they attempted to sell robots to one side of the dispute. Canadianstevedoes seem to think that other people commenting on the talk page, including myself ([153]) and User:Meters ([154]) are the ones with a conflict of interest. Their basis for that is unclear. These accusations have been repeated and coupled with threats to get admins involved - but since no steps have actually been taken to report these claims or contact any uninvolved admins, I have taken it upon myself to bring it up here. I do recommend reading the (admittedly longish) discussion at Talk:Zellers#reverting_changes. I promise it will keep your attention, especially the mentions of robots, aquatic life, and revelations that specific individuals are members of the Canadian mafia. Thanks for any input you have and any attention to can bring to the situation on the article talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I know nothing about the dispute over the name "Zellers", but I do know that unsourced accusations against named people should be revision deleted as WP:BLP violations. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Taking a look at the page & talkpage. Is there a chance that Canadiansteve, is linked to the 'now' blocked Zellers-related accounts? GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Canadiansteve for disruptive editing and BLP violations. Cullen328 (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I have also blocked RobertMMoniz for 72 hours for BLP violations. Cullen328 (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh God, first Consumers Distributing, now this. What is it with defunct Canadian retailer 'comebacks' and Wikipedia edit/sock wars being part of weird (and possibly wholly fictional) trademark disputes? Nate • (chatter) 20:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Actually, my thought was that this drama is connected to the ConsumersDistributingonline sock farm. That sock farm has diversified to other articles. I don't see direct evidence to connect these accounts to that sock farm, but – spoiler alert – all the new accounts editing Zellers are sock puppets of Canadiansteve. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I knew it, socks. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Nothing escapes your eagle eye. Levivich (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Timcdfw

Not sure what to do about this, if anything, found while cleaning up List of museums in North Texas. On that list is Rooming House Museum in Dallas. But if you click on it, it directs to Lee Harvey Oswald Rooming House, which is not a museum. The creator is listed as User:Timcdfw, which in itself is a redirect to Joseph L. Bennett. Under "External links" there, is a link to "Oswald Rooming House Museum", which points to some kind of tour. The Timcdfw user account has made 473 edits since 2013. Their most recent edits were a 2021 Draft:Alyne Harris . So they haven't exactly stopped editing, it's an odd pattern. Thoughts? — Maile (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Im still around....:) not sure the question? 70.119.178.242 (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Re: the rooming house.... the tours have ceased since the house was resold to a private indivdual... if we need to remove that external link we can 70.119.178.242 (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Glad I pinged you about this. The entire list of museums in North Texas has been tagged generally for, among other things, for looking like advertising. I think the Oswald ones ought to be renamed, but I'm not sure what. Also, most people don't redirect their user page to an article. — Maile (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

They wrote the Joseph L. Bennett article on their user page, moved it to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Timcdfw from where it was moved to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Joseph Bennett, then finally to Joseph L. Bennett. A bot 'fixed' the redirect left on the user page to point to the article. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Re the Rooming House: if it’s no longer a museum, it can just be removed from the list. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your quick responses and help. I think we can close this thread out now.— Maile (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Disruption at Zinaida Serebriakova

• 31.208.84.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Zinaida Serebriakova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can someone please take action on this IP, who has been repeatedly making disruptive edits including unsourced changes on the linked article, all while ignoring any warnings they receive? Jalen Folf (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

IP is also actively removing content without explanation at Ilya Repin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). This really needs to be handled and fast!!! Jalen Folf (talk) 02:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

It looks like they've decided to hop IPs and have now started to edit from 46.162.96.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I'm opting not to revert their latest efforts to give myself a break after a hectic night, but if anyone can evaluate the efforts and take action as needed, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Jalen Folf (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I have semiprotected Zinaida Serebriakova and Ilya Repin. If the issue spreads to more articles, IP blocks should also be considered. Both of these painters were born in what is now Ukraine, and at least one of the IP edits was removing a 'lang-uk' template. EdJohnston (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Transphobic, antisemitic troll 49.145.169.109

In the article Transgender genocide, at 04:38, 19 July, 49.145.169.109 (talk · contribs) wrote:

• "This includes suicide of which transgender people experience a high volume this the majority of transgender genocide is self-perpetuating and practically inevitable due to the disturbed nature of the minds of transgender people."

After fixing a typo (this ⟶ thus) and having his vandalism reverted, he doubled down and added his vandalism again at 04:48, 19 July (along with a fake source, since he was gently advised on his talk page about failing to include a source, the first time).

In his edit of 04:59, 19 July, IP 49 changed a valid statement previously in the article and correctly sourced from:

• BEFORE: "transgender people were at greater risk of becoming victims of state-sanctioned violence...", to:
• AFTER:    "transgender people were at greater risk than Jews of becoming victims of state-sanctioned violence..."

This editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Mathglot (talk) 02:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the editor is NOTHERE, however given that their last edit was 11 days ago, I suspect they may have moved on to another IP address. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

•  Proxy blocked 3 months. Per Sideswipe, I doubt there's anything that can be done about the user who abused it—although I'm guessing they're already indeffed on some account or another. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• There have been other problems on that article, so while feeling WP:BOLD, I indef semi-protected that page. That may need to be done to others, selectively. I hate cutting off editing to IPs so strongly, but accounts are free. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  A bit unexpected but not bad. I've been thinking about semi-protecting that page for a year for a while now. I had even set up a reminder to do so if disruption continued after the first protection expired. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Megacheez reported by Magnolia677

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ToBeFree (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

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

On Keylon Kincade: Nearly every edit this editor has made--I mean hundreds of them--has been unsourced. Often to biographies of living people. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Megacheez, why are you not providing citations for your contributions? Specifically, which source(s) did you use for Special:Diff/1101280271, your number addition to the Bob Kilcullen article? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

As one example, see this recent unsourced edit at Kauffman Stadium. When I looked at talk page, I found these previous warnings just from me!:

• March 28, 2020 - I added "Only a small portion of your edit was supported by the sources cited. Please stop your disruptive editing."
• June 18, 2017 - specifically about a stadium
• June 18, 2017 - specifically about a stadium.

Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Looking at their talk page and block log, this honestly feels like a very long term WP:CIR issue. I don't see getting out of this short of an indef. We can't fix this, we can only prevent it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll do it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Criticism of Buddhism article sections removed

Hello, the article Criticism of Buddhism has had a vast number of sections deleted. The previous version of the article on 29 May 2022‎ had substantive sections detailing the criticism of Buddhism (i.e. criticism of doctrines, practices, and from Hinduism) until it was all deleted on 15 June 2022‎. When this was reverted, another user undid the reversion to leave the page devoid of content. Is there any justification for this? Or are these edits being done in bad faith, simply because the users dislike the content? If so, can the page be restored back to its previous version? 2601:646:8C00:C2B0:7D7F:3B31:9B94:A9E8 (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, I suggest you take part in the discussion that has already been started on the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Dull, performative display of administrator corruption

I am addressing the bad-faith actions of @Daniel Case, one of the many corrupt administrators who I believe is abusing his power and wrongfully blocking individuals who were innocent. I am also involving the administrators who I have dealt with over the course of this month as to shake their positions on how they view 'vandals'. I know that it is policy to let pinged users know on their talk page that I have opened a discussion, but I exhausted all ways of trying to contact him. I am practically going to run off on a tangent here because of how ridiculous and unnecessary it was for him to treat me this way. To @Daniel Case, it is very much idiotic of you to really believe "redacted for obvious reasons" was the password to @WikiGravedigger044. Sure, that was a silly and childish move of me to do that, but I just wanted to see how you would handle the situation, even if it's at my expense. If you only knew how much bulls*** I have faced with administrators in the past, you can get the bigger picture of why I am so sick of dealing with y'all over trivial matters that could be solved incredibly easy. One instance being admins constantly reverting my charitable attempts to correct poor spelling and grammar all over the encyclopedia, without purpose or reasoning. The fact that you have the audacity to compare me to a kindergartener really surprises me based on the fact that you also failed to realize the subtle implications of my technical privileges here on Wikipedia. Huh. Talk about responsible administrating. To make myself clear, I can and will use the CheckUser tool to view the device details, IP address, and (approximate) location of any user who makes threats to tarnish my reputation on Wikipedia or in some way hinder my progress in making Wikipedia a better place. I feel like if you had the time and patience to read my "deleted" mission statement posted on that user page (which we all know administrators can see it still), you can see that my original intentions were to contribute to the project, not harm it. Of course I would never be stupid enough to reveal that aforementioned CU account or work on the same IP address, so I want to take this opportunity to share the sad truth of how us Wikipedians are oppressed daily by power-hungry administrators that have nothing better to do in their pitiful lives.

I used to be an anonymous long-term vandal while also simultaneously presuming the role of administrator. Yes, I was aware of course that on the off-chance everyone believed some nonsense falsehood I slipped in to a random article surreptitiously that I could end up propagating a self-sustaining lie. But that wasn't my driving force by any means. Luckily I covered up my tracks pretty well, obsessively enough to where I wouldn't lay a finger on an article that I vandalized but also had an admin edit on it. This really goes to show how easy it is for power and influence to corrupt any administrator, regardless of their will to help others and do good for Wikipedia. It's comparable to an arsonist firefighter who starts fires just to put them out. I do admit fault in my IP hopping and sockpuppetry of several accounts that were obviously created for one purpose only. But I want to ask exactly how you would define "sockpuppetry" and also whether you would impose sanctions on someone's 2nd account that had good intent to edit. Because I know that it's a LIE that Wikipedia allows multiple accounts even if they are used for the right purpose (me as an example). And then there's all this nonsense about the zero-tolerance of block evasion. Have any of you considered someone might want to protect their online privacy or turn over a new leaf?

So in conclusion Daniel, you have actually helped me to realize that Wikipedia is one of the most toxic platforms that anyone can join online. It's scary knowing how easily you can be duped into believing that all types of authority on Wikipedia must be looked up to and respected. Without your mindless comebacks and insults towards me, it would have never been possible to call attention to this urgent matter that plagues this community. As administrators, we should all be fostering an environment that allows EVERYONE'S voices to be heard. But instead, actions from admins like you simply fail to uphold the motto of Wikipedia, “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.” No wonder all of the well-respected active users are dropping dead like flies, and there's no question as to what the source of that is. I think that it's too late for any reform or improvement on the current state of this immoral system, and any attempts to do so is caused by wishful thinking and even possibly delusion.

I am 100% certain that within the next 15 minutes of me posting this, my IPv6 will be blocked indefinitely and I will have no ability to comment further.

@331dot @Acroterion @Berean Hunter @Canterbury Tail @El C @Freshacconci @Home Lander @Jayron32 @Jpgordon @Kuru @Lavalizard101 @LizardJr8 @Muboshgu @Natureium @NinjaRobotPirate @Ohnoitsjamie @Oshwah @PohranicniStraze @Ponyo @Squeakachu @Tamzin @Tornado chaser @Yamla @Ymblanter

2600:1012:B15D:BF7C:E451:D489:233:5302 (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)