Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Joaziela (talk | contribs) at 10:47, 23 March 2023 (→Arcticle Taras Shevchenko: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion


    Aggressive behavior of User:Hotwiki towards other editors

    I think admins should take a look on User:Hotwiki's editing behavior, especially towards other editors. I stumbled upon their edit-war with User:FrostFleece regarding GMA Network shows supposed airing of their shows in 4k format and in 5.1 surround sound. Since the Philippines had yet to broadcast in full digital and most of the major TV stations are still airing in analog, FrostFleece's edits are valid. Even the programs that the network upload in their official YouTube channel are not in 4k format or 5.1 surround sound. Hotwiki reverted back FrostFleece's edits (see here, here and here) and posted a fourth level warning on FrostFleece's talk page. When ForstFleece replied on Hotwiki's talk page explaining their edits, Hotwiki replied aggressively and even threaten FrostFleece that they will report them to administrators (see Picture and audio format of LIVE broadcasts on GMA Network).

    I myself have encountered Hotwiki's behavior whenever I edit the 24 Oras and Saksi articles. They may also have violated WP:OWN on these articles since whenever other editors add content on the mentioned articles, they will revert them immediately and tag them "unreferenced". -WayKurat (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Replying to reinforce this topic regarding User:Hotwiki who only greeted me with unfriendly remarks and a shower of warnings.
    This all began when I started editing on the Eat Bulaga! article as I noticed the particular detail standing out. Just recently, a reversion of User:Blakegripling_ph's revision on the Eat Bulaga! article reveals User:Hotwiki's intent on maintaining their edit with their summary highlighted here:
    "According to who? GMA shows are in Netflix and Netflix are required to be in 4K resolution. Again you have no proof that there are NO 4K cameras being usedwhen GMA Network already stated in their pressrelease many years ago about going 4k. Go look it up before you revert 1 more time"
    It stems from this article here (which is frequently cited by User:Hotwiki) describing how GMA Network is investing to upgrade their programs to full 4K format. However, this user is greatly misinformed since it doesn't state here which shows are produced in 4K; nowhere in the article also mentions anything about 5.1 surround sound. This user also cannot provide additional references and clearly made assumptions from the said news article.
    Furthermore to refute their claim, TAPE Inc.(Eat Bulaga! producer) is a separate entity and a long-time blocktimer on GMA Network (see news article) and does not produce the show for Netflix; similar to the aforementioned news programs: 24 Oras and Saksi.
    I would also like to share that this issue is also spread out across most GMA drama series articles with User:Hotwiki behind changing the parameters of multiple shows also without references. Any efforts on improving these pages are considered futile due to this user's aggressive and persistent revision. FrostFleece (talk) 06:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hotwiki also display ownership on other pages such Twice singles discography insisting that The Feels is not a single of Formula of Love: O+T=＜3 over the objections of other editors. Hotwiki needs to respect consensus when it does not go their way. See [1] and [2]. Lightoil (talk) 07:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lightoil: The issue with Twice was discussed in the talk page of Twice singles discography. The evidence is there and I responded in a very civil way. You could have expressed your opinion in that talk page and you didn't. TheHotwiki (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also this was written in my talk page "You are full of threats instead of discussing things civilly. Your talk page shows it all". How is that not a personal attack? I did discuss to User:FrostFleece in a civil way, about posting a reference, which he/she failed to do so. TheHotwiki (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @WayKurat: yes, I do revert unreferenced edits immediately as those articles are in my watchlist. Is there a problem with that? Seeing your edit history, you do the same, though most of your reverts are unexplained which are seen in your contributions page[3]. User:FrostFleece made changes to at least five Wikipedia articles without posting a reference, and I checked the user's edit history, the user did not post any reference to all of his/her edits.TheHotwiki (talk) 08:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Expounding that statement:
    1. "You are full of threats instead of discussing things civilly." - I simply described your frequent threats to block me from editing as seen on my talk page.
    2. "Your talk page shows it all." - describing your disposition when dealing with other editors.
    Taking offense is not the same as a personal attack and I am sorry if those statements did offend you, but let it be known I have never meant it in any way a form as an attack on you.
    It's simple. Provide and present references that proves the GMA content are in 4K and 5.1 sound. Please stop relying on that godforsaken article that does not back your claim at all.
    I admit, it is tough finding a source that specifically details the show or channel specifications, but that information is readily available publicly since GMA Network is broadcasted across the country. I have no place to lie about it here on Wikipedia.
    Please also do your due diligence instead of keeping on harassing editors for a reference you so much crave about.
    Do your part too, @Hotwiki. FrostFleece (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hotwiki: Yes, I revert edits, but the edits I revert are mostly obvious vandalism. FrostFleece already provided an explanation on why they did the revisions, and still you acted aggressive towards them. I also didn't saw any personal attacks against you on their reply.
    Also, have you watched GMA Network's over-the-air broadcasts or even watch their shows on YouTube? The signal is obviously not in HD, let alone, in 4k. It's only on 16:9 480p. The source that you keep on bringing up only mentions that GMA is capable of producing shows in 4k. Only a few stations in Metro Manila airs content in HD. -WayKurat (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    GMA Network only started broadcasting their shows in widescreen in broadcast television, this year, but their shows have been filmed with wide-screen ratio since 2014 and this is evident from online videos (YouTube/Netflix/Viu) that they uploaded throughout the years. Recent shows like I Left My Heart in Sorsogon, First Lady and First Lady are indeed filmed with 4K cameras, as 4K resolution is a standard requirement for content being streamed in Netflix[4] and GMA shows are available for streaming in Netflix. Shows being streamed in Netflix also uses 5.1 surround sound, not stereo. A 2019 article from GMA Network which was posted in Saksi, Eat Bulaga and several articles backed up the 4k claim. So please, provide a reliable source when you make an edit and claim that GMA doesn't use 4k cameras and 5.1 stereo for their shows. Thank you. TheHotwiki (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say they are not using 4k capable cameras. I'm telling you that they are NOT broadcasting in 4k and in 5.1 surround sound. Just because some of their shows are on Netflix does not mean that ALL of their shows are recorded on what format you are claiming. Heck, Eat Bulaga, Saksi and 24 Oras are not even in Netflix. You are just assuming them. I'm throwing the question back to you. Do you have a primary source that says that all of their shows are being shown over-the-air in 4k 5.1 surround sound? -WayKurat (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is your source @WayKurat:? If we are gonna drastically change audio format and picture format for 5 shows, we should able to back up that with a reliable source which @FrostFleece: failed to do so.TheHotwiki (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop asking me and other editors on our sources. It's obvious that you only based your assumptions on that GMA article and you won't let anyone remove it unless they provide their "sources". That's the problem on your editing behavior, you remove or revert back the edits of other editors if they edit your work but when questioned on this, you keep on asking "where is your source?". This is borderline WP:OWN. -WayKurat (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing content without adding a reliable source is a valid reason to revert someone's edit. Now since you and @FrostFleece: failed to provide a reference, how about you both just let it go? TheHotwiki (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't get the attitude, @Hotwiki, after all these replies.
    We are going around in circles and instead of trying to help finding common ground, you are simply telling us to let it go? Do you mean let it go and let you keep your edits? Sure, but please provide correct sources too if you are all about the references.
    @WayKurat and I have provided and explained in sheer detail but you choose to stick with your logic and fail to see our point. We are not wasting our time and efforts here for no reason. So please, don't tell us to just "let it go." Would you like it if I were to tell you the same?
    I invite you to please reread our counter-arguments once more and you are very much welcome to do so. This would be my final response until someone steps in to help resolve this issue. Adios for now and all the best for this discussion. FrostFleece (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not just gonna let this slide one bit this time. This attitude of yours has been going on for years now. Look what have you done to the 24 Oras and Saksi articles. For comparison, look at this version of the Saksi article from 2017 and from today. You removed most of the content there that the show's history section now has gaps in it, compared to TV Patrol's article. And the references used in the "anchors" section are just clips from YouTube when the anchor appeared in that newscast. Maybe you should stop owning articles and let other editors edit them. -WayKurat (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are over-generalizing these information! I have a phone right now that can also shoot in 4K but that doesn't mean everything I shoot is 4K. Your NETFLIX logic is flawed.
    We are not contesting the fact that GMA can shoot 4K format right now. The problem is that not all shows are released in 4K and 5.1. The keyword here is released. Just because Netflix requires 4K cameras, it doesn't mean all GMA shows are released in 4K. If you go to Netflix right now, you'll be surprised to see that the specifications for shows like I Left My Heart in Sorsogon is still in 1080p, and in Stereo! (linked here) Technically, no 4K or 5.1 release yet, unless you provide hardcore references.
    Yes, GMA Network does have 4K cameras (see article here) and can produce in 5.1 surround sound format (see Voltes V Legacy cinematic version plans here,) but you are assuming that for all shows. FrostFleece (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Hotwiki: You too need references. In the absence of any reliable source showing what format the program is in (which is different from what format the producer is capable of making) we should not specify any format. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Phil Bridger: There is a reference for the 4k resolution claim which was already added to this article Saksi. Looking at the access date of the reference, its been in the article since 2021. As for surround sound, FrostFleece (talk · contribs) just posted a link above that shows of GMA Network utilizes 5.1 surround sound.TheHotwiki (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That is precisely a link that shows that the producer is capable of making programs in this format, not that any particular show utilises this. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Here's 3 more articles that says the network in discussion uses 4K cameras.[5][6][7] The first link is for the network's Public Affairs department. The second link specifically mentioned a 2020 drama series. These articles are from 2020. I just don't understand the need to cherry pick which shows are using "4k resolution camera/4k picture format", when these articles exists. Meanwhile there are still no reference, that certain shows are only in lower resolution.TheHotwiki (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It doesn't matter what sources might say about the network's capabilities when they don't say that these capabilities are being used for particular programs. And we don't need a reference to simply leave out the format when there is no such source. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It's more likely that these shows aren't broadcasting in 4k at all, but mainly in 1080i or 1080p. Hotwiki, you would easily be able to find out what format a show broadcasts through a technical tool which would show its true format, and the only regular 4k broadcasts are usually special events, not a Filipino lunchtime variety show being broadcast every weekday (and often to an audience that has absolutely no need for 4k). Also, just because it's being recorded on 4k equipment doesn't mean it goes out in 4k; more likely it's being downscaled to a regular 1080i/p system for graphics and network output like we do in the United States for sports broadcasts). Netflix doesn't have a 4k requirement, and you need sourcing to show it, which just doesn't exist. So it's time to stop, now. Nate • (chatter) 20:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • User:Hotwiki is showing their WP:OWN tendencies again. I just re-added the content they removed from the Saksi article that were removed in 2020 but they keep on removing them because according to them, it's unreferenced and "trivial". The removed content were mostly the show's history between 2002 and 2011 and if you read the overview section before I re-added the history section, it's missing a significant chunk of the newscast's history. This thread also mentions a couple of instances when Hotwiki violated WP:OWN. Can someone please review the article first and issue warnings to Hotwiki for edit warring? -WayKurat (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Chiming in again after some statements.
      @WayKurat, I'm afraid I have to back @Hotwiki on this one upon review of the diffs but I think there are some information worth reviewing. I agree that some parts are way too trivial but I believe can be rewritten to be deemed an acceptable entry. The article has a talk page and I invite all of us concerned to discuss further from there.
      But still, @Hotwiki, though I appreciate and respect your contributions and your incredibly proactive editing, we need to always have a healthy discussion instead of swooping in with the reverts and dealing with us and other editors in an unfriendly manner. What's the use of citation needed or other tags and discussion pages if you always take matters on your hands? It's good to be bold to delete some information, as said in the article, but not overly bold that discourages other contributors from providing insights. FrostFleece (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @WayKurat: you are using this opportunity as a way to revert back a version of Saksi (an article that used to have plenty of unreferenced claims and trivial stuff), that has been removed years ago. How is "graphics change" important to the article? Trivial uncited information like Catchphrases is unnecessary. Myself removing uncited and trivial content IS NOT me owning the article as if its my own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotwiki (talk • contribs)
      An IP user with 6 edits, reverted an old version from 2020 in this article, Saksi.[8] No one is still adding sources to the reverted back uncited claims. Could the administrators look into this? The article is now (once again) full of uncited and trivial claims because @WayKurat: claimed that the article used to be a mess when the uncited and trivial claims were removed, yet for years it was removed just fine. TheHotwiki (talk) 10:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Maybe you should try looking into the TV Patrol article. It contains uncited and trivial claims similar on what you have removed in the Saksi article. Instead of helping out in finding sources in the History/Overview section, you just removed a lot of content, some of them were written way back in 2007, skipping the show's history from 2004 to 2011. You also added that "Interim anchors" section, which only uses video clips from GMA News' official YouTube channel as primary source. The videos are not even about the subject being cited, it's just news clips when the interim anchor delivers the news. How can you call that a proper source? Also, with comments like this to other editors, no wonder no one bothers to revert your edits. -WayKurat (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      In other news, I discovered something. @Hotwiki, you have plenty of edits on the page of The Wall Philippines but you haven't questioned once regarding the audio format of the show nor asked for references. You did not even try to change it. Why, @Hotwiki?
      I was surprised that the show was stated in its actual audio format, although yes, it is "unreferenced" as you would love to put it; though, I am not debating the credibility of the parameter but instead the seemingly bias approach towards other articles and editors. Although you might say you have missed it, sure; but I highly doubt it since you are pretty much eagle-eyed and active on GMA-related articles. FrostFleece (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm seeing way too much edit warring (across multiple articles) and way too little talk page discussion in general, although by now it appears to have all subsided. If Hotwiki, WayKurat, and FrostFleece can find an article talk page or content noticeboard to settle the format dispute (or alternatively WP:DROPTHESTICK), I think this could be closed with warnings to Hotwiki to WP:AGF and avoid edit warring. signed, Rosguill talk 22:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      User:Rosguill, Hotwiki has been warned several times about edit warring and this behavior since at least 2017 (I checked their User talk Archives 11 and 12). I'm not sure adding any warnings above that would solve anything. --Lenticel (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      They were blocked for the 2017 incident but I'm not seeing any problems since then--the warning from 2018 seems to have been posted tendentiously. oh wait there are other warnings from that year too. Hm. signed, Rosguill talk 01:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Here's their block log. --Lenticel (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      If you check their user talk page, there are instances that other users are complaining User:Hotwiki for owning articles. Maybe admins can check this as well as this has been going on since 2017. It just really escalated with this incident involving User:FrostFleece. -WayKurat (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think part of my initial reluctance to impose a block is due to the fact that I find WayKurat's edit-warring and WP:POINT-y reversion to a diff from 2020 at Saksi to be equally sanction worthy (and yes, they have a similar history of 5+-year-old blocks for edit warring). In the absence of an ongoing edit war, I don't think blocking WayKurat will accomplish anything, but am loathe to reward brinksmanship at ANI. I think that the separate concern of Hotwiki veering into OR (vis-a-vis video formats) is more singularly sanctionable, but I'd like to see a response from Hotwiki regarding that charge and what they would intend to do moving forward before taking action as an admin . That having been said, failure to address this concern (specifically addressing the points made in Nate's comment and Phil Bridger's last comment) is problematic, so a sanction will be warranted if Hotwiki does not respond to it. Pinging Hotwiki, per that last sentence. signed, Rosguill talk 17:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Rosguill: I already stopped edit warring/arguing about 4K once Phil Bridger/Nate both commented about the picture format. And you can see in the history page of the articles,that I didn't restore it to 4K, as I already dropped this issue right after their comment. I blanked the audio format per the suggestion of Phil Bridger. I can work well with other editors as I have never resorted to personal attacks especially in this issue. This issue escalated due to my reluctance of the articles being backed up with references (when there was none when things were being changed/removed). I'm sorry for all the inconvenience I made. TheHotwiki (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll reiterate my support for closing this with a warning: it seems clear from the above responses that disruption related to the immediate dispute between Hotwiki, FrostFleece, and others is at an end and Hotwiki is backing away from their prior problematic editing. A formal warning that further disruption will result in a block should be all that is needed as a preventative measure. signed, Rosguill talk 22:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm fine with a formal warning and closing this thread per WP:STICK. Hopefully this will no longer be an issue in the future but in case edit warring becomes an issue again, I suggest a stronger intervention. --Lenticel (talk) 04:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      WIth all due respect to Hotwiki and their contributions, It is unlikely that this editor is will be open to settle matters in talk pages or even recognize insights from other editors. I am also unsure how I (or other editors) can arrive at a conclusion with Hotwiki independently in the future without the intervention of administrators.
      To summarize again this user's actions:
      - Misuse of WP:PRIMARY across multiple articles, (where plenty are still left unedited due to their behavior.)
      - Exhibiting WP:OWN and high-maintenance behaviors.
      - Engaging in WP:DE for WP:POINT.
      - Lack of WP:AGF, (ex. presenting a barrage of warnings on my talk page.)
      As a newcomer, I apologize for my oversight on the guidelines on edit-warring on which I ceased from the moment this case was discussed and eventually raised here. All I wanted was a civil discussion from the start.
      Once again, this will be my final response, simply finalizing my points to help the admins concerned and to also help avoid prolonging this any further.
      With thanks, FrostFleece (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I already dropped this issue the other day. The audio format for the Tv show articles were blanked and @FrostFleece: thanked my edits for it, as seen in my notifications. I didn't know I am up for a "block", when I already stopped edit warring days ago.TheHotwiki (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Disrupting editing of filmographies, films, actors

    Persistent addition of unsourced claims focused primarily on adding films to filmography tables for future projects that have not yet begun filming, but also changing release dates, adding cast members, changing budget/gross. WP:FILMOGRAPHY says Do not add future projects until filming has begun as verified by a reliable source.

    Diffs and talk page links

    Examples of unsourced/poorly sourced additions:

    Talk pages are littered with warnings:

    Note: this appears to be the same editor who was on this range:

    Select examples: [31] [32] [33] [34]

    I think they need a timeout.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 19:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    They have resumed their chronic disruptive editing at:
    • unsourced change to the date of a film's release: [35] and [36]
    • Unsourced change to a film's gross receipts that breaks existing ref URLs [37]
    Both 2A00:F29:280:BD93:0:0:0:0/64 and 2A00:F29:2B0:5D6C::/64 need blocks, or you might consider widening the block to 2A00:F29:280:0:0:0:0:0/42  — Archer1234 (t·c) 22:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    More unsourced edits [38] [39] [40] from:
     — Archer1234 (t·c) 12:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Continuing unsourced edits contrary to WP:FILMOGRAPHY: [41] from:
    How about a short-term block on 2A00:F29:280:0:0:0:0:0/42 ?  — Archer1234 (t·c) 22:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    More from today [42] [43] from:
     — Archer1234 (t·c) 17:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    More: [44] [45] [46] [47] from:
    Note that edits in this range picked up minutes after another IP that geolocates to the same area was notified of an ANI discussion about the same disruptive editing behavior. [48]. That IP 91.73.33.144 was subsequently blocked: [49].
     — Archer1234 (t·c) 20:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Lard Almighty

    Both myself and Lard Almighty have been editing the this page Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


    Originally, Lard Almighty had reverted an edit and allowed a BLP disputed name to stay [here], which was undone in [this edit].

    After this, there have been several issues that have happened involving Lard and their subsequent edits.

    After their edit was removed, the subsequent user who added it received the following message on their talk page Darrencdm1988 [user page

    "Please note that we are not naming the suspect per WP:BLPCRIME. Thank you. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)"

    This would appear to go against a fair consensus building, since edits to a page should be addressed on the talk page itself, not on a members user page. Also, this would appear to be an issue with WP:OWN, since it doesn't mention trying to obtain consensus or the like.

    Lard created a talk page [here], with the first post being

    Please do not add the name of the recently arrested suspect to the article or talk page. See WP:BLPCRIME and the BLP Noticeboard. Thank you.
    — User:Lard Almighty (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

    On a prior BLP discussion [located here], Lard had stated the following.

    We are an encyclopedia. We need provide as complete as possible a summary of events. That includes stating that people have been declared persons of interest. As long as we don't state that anyone who hasn't been convicted is actually guilty of a crime there is no BLP violation. Not including something that is in the public domain in RS does our readers no service.
    — User: Lard Almighty (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

    However, in the talk page discussion, this is contradictory to the following quote

    Read WP:BLPCRIME. We need to err on the side of caution when it comes to naming people who are not in the public eye who have been accused of a crime, no matter that they are named in RS.
    — User:Lard Almighty (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


    I started [a discussion] on the Dispute Resolution board to try to see if maybe I was misunderstanding consensus being made, and Lard said

    The reason we need to be cautious here is because it involves paedophilia. There have been countless examples of innocent people with the same name as a suspect being attacked and even murdered when they are misidentified as paedophiles because they share the same name as a suspect in a case. This suspect has a relatively common name (there are almost 100 listed in the white pages in Indiana alone). Exercising caution here means not putting these people at potential risk. Wikipedia is the most read website in the world, so people are far more likely to read the name here than anywhere else if we include it. I would also point out that the last few reverts of the name prior to today were by other editors, which indicates that there is no consensus to include.
    — User:Lard Almighty (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    , but this is contradictory to the statement on [this edit where they say that sexual assault was not the cause of death.

    When I noted that it didn't involve paedophilia since it has never been stated in a single RS, this was the reply

    It involves the murder of children (likely with a sexual motive) which is also highly emotive. These are precisely the types of case where we need to take the suggestion in BLPCRIME about being cautious seriously. Not including the name does not detract from the article, while including it could prove problematic. When non-inclusion does not detract from the article, it is best to err on the side of caution in cases involving child victims.
    — User:Lard Almighty (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    Regarding the revert comment, that is somewhat correct, but I believe it's skewed by the fact that the original talk page statement says not to name the suspect as the very first comment, which most people would more than likely read the first post and assume it's what should be followed without second guessing it. The name has been added 28 times, 13 of those being Anonymous edits, with 14 being registered users. One of those additions is mine, and three are the same user adding it. There have also been 29 removals, 13 of which were by Lard, and 22 of the 29 mention to see the talk page or make mention of the consensus needing to be reached. I listed the ones mentioning the talk page below.


    Lard, See Talk

    deleted by Lard, PLEASE SEE TALK PAGE. WE ARE NOT NAMING THE SUSPECT.

    deleted by Lard, See talk page.


    deleted by Some1, Talk page.

    deleted by Lard, See Talk

    deleted by S0091, See Talk page.

    deleted by S0091, See Talk Page.

    deleted by NtheP, talk page.

    deleted by Lard, Talk page.

    deleted by Lard, See Talk Page. There is no consensus on adding the suspect's name.

    deleted by Lard, Added hat note to see talk page.

    deleted by Lard, See hat note and talk page.

    deleted by Nthep, See Talk page

    deleted by Kashmiri, see talk page

    deleted by Lard, see 'various discussions'.

    deleted by General Ization, See Talk page.

    deleted by General Ization, See Talk Page.

    deleted by General Ization, See Talk page.

    deleted by S0091, See Talk page.

    deleted by Lard, See Talk Page.

    deleted by Lard, Talk Page. No consensus to add the name yet.

    removed by Beccavnr, 'per hidden text, and article text page.'

    removed by Dumuzid, 'get consensus before naming the suspect, even in URLs

    I personally think that several policies have been involved - - WP:STONEWALL by ignoring the concerns presented by others, and seemingly cherrypicking which arguments they would counter with brief dismissals, and nothing substantial in terms of rebuttals. - WP:TALKPOV by not staying objective, or remaining neutral. - WP:TALKDONTREVERT by reverting every mention of the name, regardless of what the consensus seems to be at the time. - WP:NOTUNAMITY by ignoring the arguments, and essentially creating a filibuster by removing every addition regardless of what the talk page has stated.

    I just want to be able to have a fair consensus, which had appeared to be reached prior but I am not sure of that, and if I am wrong in any of the above statements regarding anything, please let me know. I tried to be as thorough as possible, and while I have used Wikipedia for several years, I only recently made an account, so I'm more than likely going to make mistakes.

    Awshort (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It should be noted that WP:BLPCRIME is a Wikipedia policy, not a user agreement. As a policy it cannot be overridden by a consensus on an individual talk page it would need to be altered at the Wikipedia policy level. Canterbury Tail talk 16:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what this is doing here. There are lots of people adding the name and lots of people removing it. That points to a content dispute, not a behavioral issue. What happened to your referral to WP:DRN? And why are you eager to include the accused's name in the article? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Canterbury Tail - I understand about the policy, but I would further like to point out that that said policy states that "editors must seriously consider not including material" (I cannot use tqb quoting on my reply, however it's one of the comments quoted in the original post}, which was the issue being discussed on the talk page since it does appear elsewhere when it comes to arrests in connection with murders and higher profile crimes. It should be noted as well that the policy does not outright say that it cannot be done, and it seems to be up for discussion as it currently stands. Several high profile crimes have had their suspects named without convictions, which is the issue I was trying to address. The recent Idaho college murders come to mind, as well as the Pike County murders that were updated with the arrest of the suspects who later were charged, and convicted of the murders.
    @Rsjaffe - I put this here because it involves user behavior and what I feel is issues that are hindering consensus, which was the instructions from Wikipedia:Consensus "Sysops will not rule on content, but may intervene to enforce policy (such as WP:Biographies of living persons) or to impose sanctions on editors who are disrupting the consensus process.". The reason for listing the additions was to show that other people had wanted the info inserted, in counter to the argument of "I would also point out that the last few reverts of the name prior to today were by other editors, which indicates that there is no consensus to include." (I cannot use tqb quoting on my reply, however it's one of the comments quoted in the original post}, which as stated above I felt was not capable of being met based on user behavior. As for the referral, I haven't been able to follow up to the discussion there yet regarding the content issue due to not having a lot of time around schooling, and figured i would address the user issue here. In regards to your last question about why I am 'eager' to add it,it has been an unsolved murder for several years with no arrests. When the arrest happened and the suspect was publicly named, several people tried to add it (which I understand is WP:NOTNEWS, and should probably have been avoided as being sensationalism). The fact that it was almost continually removed by the same user, and the general consensus on the talk page was ignored as stated in the reasons of my original post brought me here since I felt it was damaging to the consensus process.
    Awshort (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I moved this back from the archive since it wasn't closed previously.
    I would also like to state that the user is still participating in behavior that seems to violate WP:OWN by almost instantly reverting any removal of, ironically enough, their statement directing people on what to do in the article before editing as being a WP:OWN issue, rather than allowing said users to edit first and discuss after revert.. [50][51] Awshort (talk) 09:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Instead of copy and pasting an old discussion here, what I would do instead is write a new discussion, with a link to the old discussion, with any new info that you want to add in it. AP 499D25 (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I was going from the advice of Wikipedia:Teahouse#Unarchiving a page from Administrators Noticeboard Incidents which said to just copy it back over. I was worried about having multiple articles for the same thing/user, so I wasn't sure proper practice. Awshort (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, okay. That makes sense. AP 499D25 (talk) 09:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to address everything that was commented all at once, but I can't figure out how to strike text - is it not possible when a post is on the ANI?
    Im currently using Chrome mobile on my phone, but I seemed to have the same problem on my PC.
    Thanks in advance, for any input on this, but also for all of the input above.
    Awshort (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PLEASE DO NOT ARCHIVE YET
    I had a few posts to follow up on, and wanted to make an effort to do it correctly, since my original post was organized rather poorly and I think some things were listed rather vaguely. I will be able to do a proper edit when not on mobile. Thank you.
    Awshort (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This looks like a content dispute. I checked out the talk page, and I can’t see any sanctionable behaviour from Lard Almighty. In particular, edit-warring over a comment that explains a consensus on the talk page is probably not a good idea. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    May i ask for clarification on a few points?
    Namely, how is it not stonewalling, when whatever points are brought up in the talk page are ignored and the main article seems more geared towards what one user wants? Maybe I am completely misreading the WP:STONEWALL article, but I felt this seemed to be in conflict with that, as well as WP:OWN by only allowing what they deem necessary on the page. Also, does it not involve WP:FRINGE views with stating that information can't be included due to something that has never been published in any reliable sources, and prevent a NPOV?
    I'm not being disrespectful by asking, I am just trying to understand Wikipedia better. I registered an account years ago, made one or two edits and have otherwise been an inactive editor (active visitor, though).
    Thanks for your time &/or reply.
    Awshort (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On the article's talk page, I see the following comment in one section, "Let's leave it at this, as it's pretty obvious that there's no consensus on adding the current suspect's name to the article." and in another section I see agreement. I see Lard Almighty telling you that court transcriptions are not suitable as sources in articles about living or recently deceased people, which is correct per policy (WP:BLPPRIMARY), and also says "BLPCRIME exists to protect innocent people, not just those who are suspected or even charged with crimes. We need to consider the impact the naming of a suspect my have just not on that individual's life but also on the lives of others", which is a perfectly reasonable point to make. I can't see anything being ignored.
    All I can see is people disagreeing with you and you keep asking them to reconsider. Everyone else on the talk page appears to have accepted that consensus might not go their way. Sometimes you've got to accept that you're not going to get the result you want - collaborative editing is about teamwork and compromise, not pushing a dispute when everyone else has got bored and lost interest. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hasn't this been repeatedly brought up at WP:BLPN? (See archives 343 and 346) It's well past time to drop the stick. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This post was in regards to if a users behavior violated any policies, as it was suggested in one of the many guideline pages to post here for certain issues. This is not about the content of the article.
    One of the BLP posts was mine, which suggested a RfC, so I'm not sure how me asking about if someone is stonewalling or anything similar is me beating a dead horse when one is content based and one is not. Awshort (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the first post at BLPN was all that was needed, BLPCRIME applies. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Something I'd like to point out that no one's quite said: yes, we like to encourage a collegial environment here, where people talk things over reasonably in order to obtain a consensus. With that, no one is under any compunction to change their mind on your behalf. You can be as eloquent as you please, your arguments may make perfect sense to you, and they might still gain no traction. (Why would I advocate something in the first place, after all, with which I disagreed?) You seem to have mistaken "stonewalling" for failure to agree with your arguments. But that happens here, as in every walk of life; I doubt I could estimate within the nearest hundred the number of eloquent arguments I've made in my time on Wikipedia that didn't budge the needle an inch. Ravenswing 21:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm just wondering how many more noticeboards the OP will bother in order to try and get this suspect's name back in the article. At the last count, I think we're on
    • Maybe it's just me, but it sounds like that's quite enough, especially for an account with only 66 edits in total. I would suggest a pblock from Wikipedia space, personally. Black Kite (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I have posted on noticeboards that are directly related to the topics at hand, as instructed to do on the policies and guidelines pages. And out of the 5 you listed above,  I don't see how these were asking for the suspects name to be added back.  I'm not exactly sure how using the noticeboards for their intended use would be 'a bother'.
      DRN - asking if consensus had been reached, was told to address at BLP.
      BLPN - asking for clarification on wording and if something is allowable, since BLP itself is vague on what was allowed.
      ELN - Asking if links containing a name are a BLP issue, since it had not been addressed before and needed clarification for future editors of any topic that may run into similar issues, and had been mentioned in the talk page.
      CR - If a consensus is not agreeable, or clear,  it is recommended to go to CR and have a neutral party look and see if consensus has been met and rule on it. Considering that it seems to not be clear, by several other editors aside from the two people involved in this post, I followed the steps it said to take.
      ANI - I have previously went over my reasons for addressing this here, and they didn't involve content, but the user.
      My amount of edits shouldn't have a huge impact on being respected as an editor or person.
      ~~~~ Awshort (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      This isn't an issue of lack of respect, but of you forum shopping to get a result that you want. You cannot just throw this at every potentially relevant notice board, in the hopes someone will agree with you.
      At this point, WP:BLPCRIME has been explained to you, and no one seems to agree with your interpretation. Please take that to heart and move on to a different topic of editing. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for the respectful reply and link. I honestly hadn't thought it could be Forum shopping, so I'll check that out.
      As for the explanation, yes it has been explained to me, but my confusion was in the fact that other pages with similar content exist with no BLPCrime issues, and BLPCrime states 'must seriously consider', not outright that something is not allowed..
      Again, thank you for being respectful in explaining stuff to me. I don't know if you can close this topic or not, but I get your point.
      Awshort (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    CrashLandingNew

    The User:CrashLandingNew started a series of disruptive edits on various article by mass deleting sourced material, which he insisted that it was "pseudo-history", all while without bothering to check the references.

    1. [56]
    2. [57]
    3. [58]
    4. Afterwards, he turned to personal attacks [59]Removing all the ORIGINAL RESEARCH by a sock
    • On other pages he kept removing properly cited material all while claiming source does not mention that
    1. On Hyder Ali; [60], removing citations while saying it to be unsourced[61], again calling a sock [62]

    Afterwards, he breached WP:3RR, [63] while calling me vandal,[64] and [65], all while adding material for which cited references don't corroborate or are repeated afterwards.Sutyarashi (talk)

    I would like to draw the attention of the admins towards the history of all the pages mentioned here by the the User. They all have been recently re-written recently by him/her with a clear bias to push one POV. What we are seeing is a pushing of complete pseudo history with selective citation of sources to suit one's agenda. He wants to push Jat origin of many Subcontinent based Muslim dynasties and has even tried to push offbeat narrative about origins of some famous historical figures. I repeat, just check the history of these pages and see how unchecked rewriting of history was tried. CrashLandingNew (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is no excuse for deleting sourced content... why not discuss the bias of the sources in the talk pages before blanking huge sections of the article? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If a user adds something on a page using selective sources without discussing, which completely changes article's existing narrative, shouldn't that be deleted until a consensus is reached? Plz go through the history of all these pages. He has completely changed what was written on them. There are these historical figures with different origin theories and he comes out of nowhere to push the ones he prefers. CrashLandingNew (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not engaged in any war here. Plz go through the history of these pages. I even adjusted his changes only to keep what was written originally. CrashLandingNew (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It does appear that User:Sutyarashi has made significant changes to a number of articles, and then when those changes were reverted, instead of doing the correct thing per WP:BRD and starting a discussion on the various talk pages, has reverted again. I have no idea who is "right" here, but continued reverting is not a good idea, and I would suggest that the articles be restored to the status quo before the major changes started, and a discussion started about each one. Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did requested him multiple times to use talkpage[66][67][68] a d then even started discussion on respective pages, but he keeps repeating that this was pseudo history, without mentioning that whether there was even problem with cited sources.Sutyarashi (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As observed above you have made significant changes to a number of articles without discussing. You can't add something to a page without discussing and then expect it not to be removed without discussion when you didn't use the 'Talk page' option yourself in the first place. You have been engaged on all the talk pages where you initiated the communication and discussion. CrashLandingNew (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite Sutyarashi has done the same to my additions also. He made a slight discussion on the talk page however when I gave my reasonings for each of his issues he still isn't satisfied and reverts all my edits. Glad to see im not the only one complaining about this. Has no admin resolved this yet? Trigarta (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your “additions” (removal of 21k bytes of info) at Gandhara were also reverted by two other users. And would have been reverted by me as well, since they’re disruptive. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Revertes for further explanation and to do them in sections
    Which I did, so your point is invalid Trigarta (talk) 09:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Consistant gaslighting behaviour by Freoh

    Freoh (talk · contribs) is a relatively new editor, from August of last year. Since then, a pattern of disruptive/gaslighting editing has become obvious. The most recent is at Rayleigh–Jeans law, an article which they never really edited and suddenly got involved into a debate without understanding the basics of it, mostly about whether or not it should be included in the category Category:Obsolete theories in physics. From the article, it should be patently obvious that it is (and certainly is obvious to any physicist). The Rayleigh–Jeans law was an attempt to characterize radiation emitted by black bodies, and it was known since its inception that the law was inadequate. This was called the Rayleigh–Jeans catastrophe.

    Some other editor removed the longstanding category, I reverted since this is known obsolete since its very inception in 1900s. Then the insanity starts where Freoh tags the category as uncited. This is patently false, Ref 1 explicitly states RJ is obsolete

    When physicists tried to apply classical ideas of radiation, they could not derive blackbody spectra that agreed with the experimental results. The classical calculations yielded an intensity I(ν,T) given by

    This is known as the Rayleigh–Jeans Law. [...] The Rayleigh–Jeans Law agrees with experimental results at low frequencies (long wavelenghts), but disagrees at high frequencies. [...] (The classical prediction of arbitrarily large energies at high frequencies was sometimes referred to as the 'ultraviolet catastrophe'. ) [...] In 1900, Max Planck, a German physicist produced an empirical formula that accurately describes the experimental blackbody spectra:

    Emphasis mine. RJ was obsolete back in 1900. This was not good enough for Freoh, who keeps demanding sources and writes.

    Headbomb stated that "this is cited" in the article, but I do not see where. I am not taking a side here on whether or not it is obsolete, just ensuring that the information in this article is verifiable.

    On the talk page, the following additional source was provided, after Ref 1 was (again) pointed out

    We remember the Rayleigh–Jeans law as an incorrect hypothesis superseded by that of Planck.

    Freoh then writes:

    XOR'easter, that looks like a good source to me. I would not be opposed to re-adding Category:Obsolete theories in physics along with a cited sentence to this effect

    Emphasis mine.

    Thinking we have finally reached agreement, I reinstate the category, which Freoh reverts again demanding a source, and then warning me about their disappointment of me supposedly refusing to provide a source. A source which they already agreed exists, was provided, and supports that category, and which they themselves deemed good and sufficient to re-add the category.

    This is gaslighting WP:NOTHERE behaviour of the highest order. Similar behaviour was also seen at Talk:Science, Talk:Constitution of the United States and many other places as evidenced by User talk:Freoh#January 2023, User talk:Freoh#January 2023, User talk:Freoh#January 2023 and User talk:Freoh#NPOV debates.

    Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm very new to all of this, but here are some facts relevant to what I've observed. I think it would be worth it if everyone concerned just paused and looked at some facts. I would hope these are easily agreed by all:
    • approximations are used in physics and science all the time
    • when a new discovery in science supersedes a previous one, it is often the case that the previous one continues to be used as a useful approximation
    • the word "obsolete" means no longer used. Something that is actively used is therefore not obsolete
    What I have observed unfortunately is @Headbomb refusing to acknowledge any of the above. This baffles me. @Freoh and others had a good-faith, honest debate about the topic. The difference is clear, and is recorded in the talk page. Dllahr (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Obsolete means out of date, not "no longer used as an approximation". RJ was never, even at the time it was proposed, ever in agreement with reality. It was known to be wrong even at the time of proposal. The attempts to salvage it involves invoking the luminiferous aether. XOR'easter explains why further on the talk page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging @XOR'easter, Ancheta Wis, Thebiguglyalien, Andrew Lancaster as others who had similar run-ins with Freoh recently for their opinion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't say I'm surprised that this has made its way to ANI. What I've seen is entirely consistent with what Headbomb has described, and I've tried to explain this on Freoh's talk page. Headbomb did not mention what I think is the largest issue in these discussions though, which is that Freoh often refuses to drop the WP:STICK. All of the discussions and RfCs opened by Freoh follow a cycle of proposing fundamental changes about the approach of the article, multiple editors explaining why it's not viable, and a subsequent back-and-forth.
    In addition to what Headbomb mentioned at Talk:Rayleigh–Jeans law, Talk:Science, and Talk:Constitution of the United States (where according to Xtools, Freoh has written 87,455 bytes, almost entirely on a single WP:1AM issue over the last four months), this has also happened at Talk:James Madison, Talk:Civilization, and Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. With the exception of Rayleigh-Jeans law, all of these also have a strong WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS component to them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1. His project is WP:countering systemic bias, according to a participant list.
    2. The encyclopedia is so big that it can harbor editor groups with all these points of view. So he doesn't have to "poke the bear", he can "live and let live" / ... Sorry that it got to be too much.
    3. I think we handled Talk:science by getting to a meaningful dialog on his talk page that we could agree on, and he stopped. --
    Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 05:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Freoh isn't doing anything that couldn't simply be ignored by editors who don't want to engage with them. Headbomb gave them a warning for edit warring on Rayleigh-Jeans law, but they only have one single revert in the history for that page, and two edits total spaced out over a week. Their insistence on documentation for that category could be a little nitpicky, but could also be seen as an attempt to facilitate an agreement between Headbomb and the other editor. There's no behaviour here that requires intervention. Larataguera (talk) 12:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Larataguera: we sadly can't ignore it, because this behaviour occurs across the board on Science, on Raileigh Jeans Law, and elsewhere. That "only" two reverts happened on that page is immaterial. What matters is that discussion is impossible with them because they read words differently than everyone else, then revert consensus when they've agreed to it. And that's on top of the other behaviour highlighted like accusing people of espousing white supremacist views when they say the ancient Greeks has an important role to play in the history of science. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not eager to dip my toe into the ANI waters, but... I'm a bit baffled as to why the text already in the article didn't count as cited sentence[s] to this effect, and why Freoh reverted the re-addition of the category while pointing to a guideline that says the correct course of action is to add the {{unreferenced category}} template. I'm significantly more baffled by the remarks from earlier this month to the effect that it's racist/white supremacist to say that the ancient Greeks were important for the history of science [69]. XOR'easter (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was pinged here, and like User:Ancheta Wis I was part of some awkward, and needlessly long, discussions involving the history of science. I can not speak for other articles but the descriptions sound familiar. Sometimes Freoh seems to refuse to get the points being made by others on talk pages. On the other hand, I am not sure why this level of talk page awkwardness by a new editor would deserve an ANI discussion? If it is just for collecting feedback to help Freoh get perspective then I am OK with that. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm familiar with the very long discussion at Talk:Science. And it does seem like it took Freoh way too long to finally "drop the stick". But as long as the behaviour is confined to talk pages, other editors (as pointed out by Larataguera above) can simply choose to not engage. Paul August ☎ 16:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Paul August: He appears to also be tag bombing articles and reverting BRD notices while editing main pages, as he did with Dhtwiki on the James Madison article for several weeks. Binkster, in his comments below here seems to be stating that this has been the long-term edit conduct of Freoh in his edit history. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that this is a misunderstanding, Headbomb, and I wish that you would assume good faith and try to reach a consensus rather than edit warring and taking this to WP:AN/I and WP:RFPP. I do not think that the text currently in the article supports the idea that this law is obsolete, only that Planck's law is more accurate. (As Dllahr pointed out, these are not the same thing.) I do not understand why you are so opposed to clarifying this point, and you might benefit from reading the advice for hotheads.      — Freoh 18:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "this is a misunderstanding"
    Then please to explain why you reverted the addition of the category because it was 'unsourced' after you explicitly agreed that XOR'easter's source was appropriate and that you would not object to the category being restored.
    Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I have previously explained at the article talk page and my talk page, a citation in the talk page is insufficient for verifiability, and I said that I would not object to the category being restored along with a cited sentence.      — Freoh 20:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Freoh tagging a category as needing a citation is a little odd. Categories can be wrong but category discussions need to be approached a different way. Decisions about how we structure and make Wikipedia itself are not subject to those rules in any simple way. Please do take notice of the concerns being raised. The line you could cross here would be if these types of interventions start to make it literally difficult for other editors to keep editing. It is important that in your interactions with other editors you should show that you are trying to understand them and work with them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not just add whatever sentence you wanted yourself? I'd like to understand, but I'm at a loss here. XOR'easter (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then perhaps, we might "Seek first to understand, then to be understood"— This is an invitation for some of us to go to the problem page to perhaps work things out? OK? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, per WP:CATV Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition. It is entirely sufficient to establish things on the talk page, so long as the article gives an indication as to why a category might be there. The article clearly explains that RJ was supplanted by Planck in 1900s, which is plenty sufficient to support the addition of the category (on top of the existing refs which support the same). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    At the time, I chose to tag and remove the unsupported content because I thought that it would have taken more of my time to figure out where and how to describe the obsolescence. In retrospect, it would have taken less time to just write the material.      — Freoh 02:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The list of users who are arguably involved in some way with the Freoh situation, as Thebiguglyalien points out, spans far more individuals and articles than have been included and notified here, and with that in mind I think this ANI report may be premature and of too limited scope. Of respected editors, Doug_Weller immediately comes to mind and commented on this on Headbomb's talk page.

    I find Freoh to be quite confrontational (e.g. with the spamming of veiled links to WP:DISRUPT against everyone they disagree with) and to themselves be a situation of probably something along the lines of WP:PUSH. The user, to be honest, seems to openly have contempt for anything to do with "white men" and feels like merely using that label is a sound argument against inclusion (e.g. the ancient greeks were white men, so their contributions to science should ipso facto be downplayed).

    That said, it would be very easy to say that Freoh is bringing needed balance to articles that do suffer from institutional bias. It's the approach that's the problem. Freoh seems to be very WP:IDHT and WP:STICK and to continue plowing ahead without substantial response or reaction to others. Even when I partially agree with them, and offer some middle ground compromises, they do not seem to understand how to take advantage of that or collaborate.

    I think Freoh is more of a wait and see situation, and where one should compile a list over time of examples of behavioral problems for a single comprehensive ANI report that covers all these articles and behaviors. Maybe Freoh will learn how to be a good wikipedian, or maybe their personality and approach are just unfit for this place, but I think it is too early to say - or at any rate, it would need much more thorough documentation and wider input than this report is going to get, which is actually counterproductive in getting Freoh dealt with. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • After reading Freoh's talk page I'm starting to wonder if this is an editor we can work with. That's not the talk page of someone who's here to work together in a collaborative environment. It's the talk page of someone who knows Wikipedia is wrong and is here to fix the great wrongs. Someone who has a lot of confidence in their own judgment and not much in anyone else's. They're attracted to fraught topic areas and they want to make big changes. Collaborating with this one is going to be a challenging and time consuming exercise.—S Marshall T/C 09:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @DIYeditor@S Marshall Agreed. As I said at Headbomb's talk page, there's clearly a problem that I doubt will go away soon. It looks as though this will need a more comprehensive report than this. I'm afraid I don't have the time to do that as I'm trying to devote my time now mainly to writing. Doug Weller talk 11:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Freoh: I hope you are paying attention to all this, especially to what DIYeditor and S Marshall are saying. I think you are intelligent, knowledgeable, and well-meaning, and so have the potential to make a significant contribution to the encyclopedia. But not the way you are going about it now. Paul August ☎ 12:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you explain why you characterize my behavior as plowing ahead without substantial response or reaction to others? I have listened to the concerns of other editors and made plenty of compromises. Looking just at the conversation in Talk:Constitution of the United States about how to discuss the People:
    • I listened to Allreet when they opposed my use of footnotes to clarify who the People were, so I made a new proposal that avoided footnotes.
    • I listened to ONUnicorn when they pointed out that I was blurring the lines between the people who wrote the Constitution, the people who ratified it, and the people who voted for delegates, so I made a new proposal that was less ambiguous.
    • I listened to Dhtwiki when they complained about my attempts to address length concerns within an RfC with a different focus, so I made a new proposal that I thought was in the spirit of their proposal while addressing ONUnicorn's concerns.
    • I listened to you, DIYeditor, when you recommended that I include an in-text attribution for a widely-agreed-upon estimate of the support for constitutional ratification, so I edited the proposal to include an in-text attribution.
    • I listened to you again when you suggested that I expand my in-text attribution to name one of the historians who has made that estimate, so I made a new proposal that named Forrest McDonald in particular.
    • I listened to BogLogs when they argued that it would be misleading to cite the percentage in favor of ratification without citing the percentage opposed, so I made another proposal that cited instead the total percentage.
    • I listened to Gwillhickers when he argued against making a vague reference to the people as a whole, so I made an edit that avoided the issue by cutting out the disputed content.
    • I listened to Randy Kryn when he wanted the Preamble section to mention Gouverneur Morris, so I made another edit that kept the reference to Morris while again removing the disputed content.
    This conversation has gone on so long because of my substantial response or reaction to others, and I feel like I am one of the few people who is trying to compromise rather than status quo stonewalling. I know that I am in a minority among editors, but I have been taking the opinions of others into consideration when trying to reach a consensus, and I honestly do not know what I have been doing wrong.      — Freoh 13:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because you lost all of those discussions, there was no need for any deletions, and yet you keep going and going and going into thousands of words of discussions not realizing that editors are volunteers and not paid to be here or bots. You've been told this many times by many editors on many talk pages, that you seem to have no idea when to stop beating the horse. You removed most of the Preamble section, I reverted, and then you removed it again and someone else reverted - at that point WP:LETTINGITBE probably works. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) I honestly do not know what I have been doing wrong. Yes, I can see that. My main advice to you is to go a lot slower and be a lot more succinct. And absolutely do not go within 100 miles of anything touching on post-1932 US politics under any circumstances whatsoever, but I'd say that to anyone.—S Marshall T/C 13:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please, hopefully nobody requests an indef ban, or even a topic ban just yet, this editor is going to be a very good one once he stops beating the dead horses into submission and maybe stops bragging on his use page about negative reactions to his disruptions. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since I received a ping from Freoh I'll respond. To get a definitive idea of the nature of Freoh's on going involvements all one need do is look at the the failed RfC on the U.S. Constitution Talk page which he initiated, starting on 2 February 2023 and continuing to 11 March 2023. During that RfC he introduced three other proposals on top of the one initiated under discussion, and in the process some 42 browser pages of talk ensued in an apparent attempt to obscure the discussion, and ward off any newcomers to the discussion. I would not be surprised if some sort of block was imposed, but he should at least get a stiff warning, that is, if he promises to stop flooding the discussions with endless argumentative talk first. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pinged to comment here by Randy Kryn. After reading through the last six months of Freoh's edits, then there appear to be some comments to make. Freoh seems to have made a hobby of Quantum computing, which is a timely subject, and sysops editors have apparently been pleased to have him edit the Quantum computers articles and to give him something like a 'pass' for his tag bombing and multiple reverts on other pages not dealing with Quantum computing as a type of courtesy. A closer look at Freoh's edits other than Quantum computers seems to show him as repeatedly presenting himself as a SJW for the various causes which he considers to be his own, and then to spend hours, days, and even weeks grinding down other editors who might not agree with his SJW opinions. One example which literally went on for weeks and weeks was his interaction with Dhtwiki on the Talk page for James Madison where Freoh was tag bombing the article and making revert edits against several editors, which Freoh was making against BRD on the James Madison page. At the end of weeks and weeks of interaction with Dhtwiki, the peer review nomination which was in progress for Madison at that time was fully derailed and failed. And Freoh as SJW was able to prevail over Dhtwiki for his own purposes, with regards to edits unrelated to his hobby in Quantum computers. Supporting Randy Kryn on his report here regarding Freoh's edit conduct issues made above. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      "SJW" is not a good argument against Freoh any more than their "white men" argument holds water as a reason to diminish or remove something from an article. These need to be framed in an appropriate Wikipedia behavior and Wikipedia content fashion. Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND and that cuts both ways. Feeling that their calling is to address "institutional bias" or whatever is not a reason to block Freoh from editing. In fact, many would say it's a needed role on Wikipedia. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Gaslighting continued

    Actually, ErnestKrause's comment is right to the point, as from what I've seen in a number of cases Freoh has exhibited SJW behavior in several ways, esp when, on the Talk page, he referred to the atomic bombings in WWii Japan, which ended the war, as a "terrorist attack", a fringe POV that none of the sources resort to. Also, your statement that Freoh's activity is needed to correct "institutional bias" presents its own acute bias, and only encourages this editor to continue with this behavior. In any event, I agree that WP should not be used as a battleground, and this is indeed why this ANI involving Freoh is occurring, as explained by numerous editors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    At the article Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Freoh changed the infobox template from "military conflict" (which it had been since 2010 when I put it in) to "civilian attack". Freoh was reverted and started a talk page discussion which attracted strong opposition to Freoh's suggested change. Nevertheless, Freoh tendentiously changed it back, asserting a consensus: "I've seen a few talk page comments in favor of this infobox proposal, and none opposed". That's the kind of falsehood others have been complaining about, and it makes me think Freoh is not able to collaborate at all. Binksternet (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's good to identify behaviors that indicate WP:CPUSH, WP:BATTLEGROUND, or WP:ADVOCACY issues. It's not good to label an editor in what appears to be a derogatory manner. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm uncomfortable using the third person, so I'll be direct. Freoh, responding to others is not the same as listening to what they have to say. Above, you gave examples of your willingness to make compromises. Certain things, however, do not lend themselves to compromise: specifically, the fact that Wikipedia's focus is determined by the prevailing view, meaning what most mainstream sources have to say. I've pointed this out several times, in several different ways, and I'm certain you haven't listened; otherwise, I wouldn't have to repeat myself. And to be even clearer: You say you listened to what I said about footnotes, yet changing them to text wasn't a compromise, just another tact, since the message and its effect were essentially the same. Allreet (talk) 07:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It gets back to the ability to collaborate. Freoh doesn't really seem to understand how to work with others and this I think gets into CIR territory, but it premature to claim such here in ANI. I'm not sure what the respondents here want done about Freoh. A warning? For what exactly? Let's move on to either in depth evidence supporting some stronger action, or wording on a "warning", or just drop this, because I don't think we are going anywhere. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The comment from Binkster directly above just stated that the long term harsh edit conduct of Freoh is described as: "That's the kind of falsehood others have been complaining about, and it makes me think Freoh is not able to collaborate at all." ErnestKrause (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A warning? For what exactly?  ( ? ! )  Numerous editors have said essentially the same thing and have provided detailed examples involving a lot of time and articles, and thus far there hasn't even been an acknowledgment from Freoh that there's an issue, other than, I honestly do not know what I have been doing wrong. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Freoh: Tens of thousands of words, literally hundreds of hours, have been wasted over the past three and a half months on issues you've raised that have little to no basis. Here are a few detailed examples:

    • I just pointed out that Georgia and South Carolina relied heavily on slavery..., and you contended this amounted to ambiguous synecdoche. Clearly, you don't understand the guidelines related to the term. The states and their governments are synonymous in this context, and we don't need to distinguish one from the other.
    • In illustrating a point about vagueness, I cited a passage from the Encyclopedia Britannica, and you said you wouldn't be opposed to some of this information, meaning you would oppose other parts. That puts you at odds with Joseph Ellis, the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian who oversees the encyclopedia's articles on the Constitution.
    • You contended we should be presenting a global perspective on the Constitution. Aside from a minor tweak, I have no idea what that might mean, but I do know we're accurately reporting the viewpoints of leading historians.
    • Most scholars generally concur with Yale historian Akhil Reed Amar that in the late 1780s the Constitution was "the most democratic deed the world had ever seen" (America's Constitution: A Biography, page 5), as exemplified by the Preamble's opening words We the People. Yet you've called our section on the Preamble and its emphasis on this phrase vague and misleading, even though what we've stated is consistent with the mainstream view.
    • We just concluded a five-week RfC where S Marshall ruled no changes should be made to the Constitution article without first seeking a consensus. Despite the finding, you deleted a full paragraph in the Preamble section a couple days ago. While your deletion has since been reverted, you continue to argue that your edit was justified.

    What I see here is a combination of incompetence—a lack of understanding of WP's guidelines, values, and methods—and an unwillingness to heed what others tell you about them. Perhaps a formal warning will make this clear to you. If not, then IMO a topic ban should be imposed. Allreet (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Formal warning

    I propose that Freoh be formally warned that they must:

    1. significantly improve their collaboration
    2. demonstrate an ability to adapt to Wikipedia practices, philosophies and culture (i.e. behave like other people here)
    3. drop the WP:STICK and not plow ahead when a discussion has gone against them, or perpetually prolong discussions that have gained no traction with other editors
    4. not try to concoct "consensus" from thin air on the premise that it is not a vote to use as a pretext for unilateral action on an article
    5. understand that Wikipedia reflects only prevailing scholarly consensus and not WP:TRUTH or what is right
    6. tone down this aggressive piped linking of Wikipedia: space policies/guideliens/essays in disagreements with other editors until Freoh gains more experience and understanding themself

    and that if this warning is not heeded, a narrowly construed topic ban from history, human civilization, politics, government and science be put in place. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Its not clear what you are supporting since Freoh appears to have already stated above that: " I honestly do not know what I have been doing wrong." Freoh has not acknowledged a single comments made in this list and I'm not sure what your support means given his comment. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the general outline. That list of your six items above is, after reading it again, really a very strong criticism of Freoh and his edit disruptions over months and months; I mean that if another editor where accused of even half of those disruptions then everyone would be talking about a possible block of an editor like Freoh for a day, or a week, or even a month. I'm not for being excessive on this, but your 6 point criticism of Freoh really portrays him as being somewhat extreme in his disruptions of Wikipedia over the last several months. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      For that matter, there could've been a 7. avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and insinuations that other editors may have heinous beliefs, or something like that, or even more items. It can be difficult to precisely define what the problems have been.
      I do think some acknowledgement of the issues and this warning would be appropriate, but I don't think it would be necessary to have any duration of block given such acknowledgement, even a brief acknowledgement. Not everyone "gets" Wikipedia right away. To me it's better to say "stop this general behavior, or it will be a longer topic ban, or block" than to shut out a new user right off the bat. I'm not sure what purpose a brief block would serve other than punitive. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support — Actually, the six items are points of good advice, not criticisms, given the endless arguing, (which is still in progress in at least two articles) reckless handling of an RfC he initiated, tag bombing and often times, multiple reverts (still in progress). And yes, this involves many articles over months and months indeed, and in some cases with obvious SJW behavior, in spite of his subtle attempts to dress this up as simple discussion, all of which makes his activity on the extreme side, though, albeit, I've seen worse behavior. In any case, we are still not seeing any acknowledgement from this editor, so I'm inclined to go for a topic ban, at least on American history articles, but no more than 30 days, this time.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      As I (and Thebiguglyalien) mentioned above, I don't think it is constructive or appropriate to use labels such as "SJW" which is pejorative. There are many good editors who are sympathetic to "social justice" political views and who would no doubt like to see what they believe to be bias in major articles addressed. I think we should phrase this instead as WP:ADVOCACY, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    SJW, which there is a WP article to which you linked, can be either pejorative or complimentary, as the case may be, and the way it has been used here was a reference to behavior, as are BATTLEGROUND and ADVOCACY behavior, – not exactly name calling inasmuch as terms like Liar or Thief. In any case, I will desist from using the term, which I didn't even know existed until someone else introduced it here, so as not to futher side-track attention away from the issue here at ANI. Just for the record, "Social justice" is a two way street. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    D. Scot Miller (User:Afrosurreal, User:2600:1700:cf90:ed80:e01b:5252:7a0c:5c88)

    KEEPING IT REAL
    Was initially p-blocked for WP:OWN but evaded block so indeffed, IP blocked 3 days. (non-admin closure)— rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The WP:SPA Afrosurreal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – also posting as 2600:1700:cf90:ed80:e01b:5252:7a0c:5c88 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – has been WP:OWN squatting on the article Afro-Surrealism for several years, in a self-promotional manner, and is now libeling other living writers. He is D. Scot Miller, writer of an op-ed about Afro-surrealism that was published in the SF Bay Guardian in 2009.

    • Self-declared as D. Scot Miller. [71]
    • In 2018, started rewriting the Afro-Surrealism article to be all about himself and his work [72], without independent reliable sources.
    • Removes mention of other authors that don't seem to suit his preferences [73], [74], [75], [76] with an especial attention to suppressing mention of Rochelle Spencer [77], [78], another academic and author in the subject area.
    • More self-promotional editing in 2019 [79] again.
    • Weird "lecturing" in edit summaries that have nothing to do with the edit made [80]
    • Repeatedly suppresses mention of Afrosurreal Writer's Workshop, with a false claim that WP itself has determined that it doesn't matter, and he claims to be personally representing "The Afrosurreal Arts Movement" [81], [82]
    • Attacks at least two living persons by name (Spencer, and another writer named Sumiko Saulson) on the talk page with unsupported accusations of real-world wrongdoing [83].
      • I believe this is across the libel line, and the edit should be WP:REVDELed under WP:BLP policy.
      • In same edit, he engaged in more self-promotion, and denigrated another editor (me) simply for not being enough of a subject-matter expert to suit him, and not promoting who he wants to promote. Also made it very, very clear he is just here to go after his off-site ideological enemies, that he aims to 'right great wrongs', and that he thinks it's okay to edit the article to suit his own viewpoint above all else. He also accused me of being a shill for Spencer (whom, in reality, I have never met nor had any other form of communication with).

    The user has edited no pages other than Afro-Surrealism [84], not even the closely related Afrofuturism.

    For my part, I've notified several wikiprojects (African Disapora, Horror, Science Fiction, Fantasy) and the article's talk page about what a total trainwreck the article has become, and also posted links to various sources that might be used in improving it (sources that Miller has attacked without any independent reliable-source evidence to back him). I have no deep involvement in the topic area (I've only done some minor cleanup editing, and some incidental looking around for additional source material). I was just rather shocked at the degree to which this page has been aggressively dominated by a single voice. I left the user a Template:uw-coi [85], before he just used the article talk page for more self-promotion (and attacks). I also added a Template:COI to the article itself.

    I suggest that User:Afrosurreal needs to be topic-banned, if not just indefinitedly blocked as not here to actually work on an encyclopedia. He's treating this article as if it's his personal blog, and has a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach toward other editors and indeed other off-site writers, as if the entire topic belongs to him globally. One guy who wrote a newspaper op-ed doesn't get to determine what credence Wikipedia gives to that writer or any other writer, or view they write about; independent sources do that.

     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Extra credit to D. Scot for informing our readers [86] that his own "famous" manifesto lists ten tenants that Afro-Surrealism follows. I guess he was manifesting in an apartment building or something. EEng 11:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the diffs above I'm indefinitely p-blocking from the page Afro-Surrealism, any attempts to evade it with an IP will result in an indefinite siteblock. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He's now [87] using 2600:1700:CF90:ED80:4D04:8869:5893:6877 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indef site blocked the master, IP for 3 days. Courcelles (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Same action I'd have taken. Now if anyone can clean up the, dare I say it, surreal mess that article is, we'll really be in business. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WikiWikiWayne

    Briefly, on March 14 at 17:40 HJ Mitchell blocked WWW for 48h for violating 3RR "after explicit warning and while lecturing others on BRD" at Wikipedia:Drafts. WWW lashed out post-block to such an extent that on March 15 at 12:00 HJ opened a thread at WP:AN (see link above) for a block review. Simultaneously with the opening of the thread (I hadn't seen it) I revoked TPA because of WWW's latest screed attacking HJ and just about everyone involved. Because of an e-mail WWW sent me (and I believe he had e-mailed others although I never saw them) I later disabled e-mail access.

    You can read the thread, but the consensus was that the block was deserved. Many thought I should have extended it because of WWW's post-block comments, but I didn't think that was right and said so, as did HJ.

    After the block expired, WWW posted to the thread, which was still open, repeating much of what he had said while he was blocked, although with less heat.

    On March 17 at 00:57 Rosguill closed the thread saying "Block endorsed as lenient, closing this before WikiWikiWayne manages to talk their way into a longer block." Seven minutes later, WWW archived the thread. I unarchived it and warned him on his Talk page. Today, he reverted me re-archiving the thread. For some background and links, see Rosguill's Talk page.

    I wasn't sure what action to take, if any, and I asked Rosguill about it, but then WWW responded to my warning on his Talk page and to my comments on Rosguill's Talk page. On Rosguill's Talk page, he accused me and Rosguill of defamation. On his own Talk page, he said the comments by editors at the AN thread defamed him and that his archiving it "mitigat[ed] the damage". He then accused me bullying him, attacking him, and defaming him.

    WWW has clearly decided not to let go of his anger at the block and others' comments. More important, he is taking ill-advised actions and making comments that are borderline legal threats and personal attacks against anyone who does something he doesn't like. For those reasons, I propose blocking him. Whether it should be indefinite or of a limited duration I leave to others to decide. Even if WWW is indefinitely blocked, I want to make it clear that I at least am not proposing a community ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think a block at this point would only escalate the situation, but I would strongly urge WWW to go and find an article to edit and let this episode fade into history. If he does that, this will all be forgotten in a few weeks, but continuing to escalate is unlikely to end well. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been loosely following this drama as I was briefly involved in the initial dispute that led to Wayne's block. @WikiWikiWayne: I say this as someone who doesn't want to lose you from the project. When the initial dispute took place you very graciously apologised to me twice,[88][89] and I know that this project is better with you here. However, what could have been a small blip that was forgotten about has unfortunately spiralled, and I don't think either of us want you to be indeff'd. After Bbb23 warned you about self-archiving the AN post, you chose to do it again, and have continued reacting with hostility towards him. I'm writing this out to ask you to act quickly and decisively to 1) unarchive the AN post yourself and 2) retract everything you've said post-block to Bbb23 and Rosguill. I think you are clearly facing a potential indef here, which would be a real shame given than you previously had an entirely clean block record. It's for these reasons I think you should work quickly to undo these errors, then hopefully the community will agree to draw a line under this and we can move on. — Czello 14:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with eeverything @Czello said here. @WikiWikiWayne, this is good advice!! Philipnelson99 (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure blocking WWW temporarily is going to solve anything and will likely just make him more angry. I do think accusing other editors of defamation and bullying is uncalled for, especially when the first block was absolutely in line with policy. I think if we all just let this go away, then it will likely no longer be a problem. Like @HJ Mitchell said, let WWW go find an article to edit and the problem will be gone in a bit. Philipnelson99 (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Cullen328 Sorry to drag you into this again, but could you have a word with Wayne? I've already done so, basically saying what Harry already has in this thread - find an article to improve and forget about this. As for what action to take, I would suggest ignoring it. Is Wayne archiving a closed thread on AN actually harming or damaging Wikipedia? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ritchie333, I have discussed this at length with Wayne off-Wikipedia and repeatedly advised him to move on and forget about this. Cullen328 (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's an incongruence in WWW's behavior at AN--on the one hand, they assert that editors there defamed them and moved to remove the discussion from the board. On the other hand, their very actions only drew more attention to, and gave more validity to, the criticisms of their behavior at AN. Personally, I don't care what WWW has alleged about me, and would prefer to see this whole situation fade into memory. If their dramaboard antics continue to a degree that is disruptive to other editors, however, I think a timed partial-block from WP-space would be warranted. signed, Rosguill talk 17:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why don't we archive this thread and let things and Wayne calm down? This can't be helping.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hate to be critical, but I think the archiving was at least ignorable. It was closed, everyone was done talking about it, and it was ready to be moved on from. Archiving it off AN hardly erased the record, and everyone could have easily walked away from it. As much as I thought the initial block was good, reverting an archival unless someone wanted to say more wasn't needful. Let's let WWW stop being drug to AN/ANI unless there's a good future reason, and not whether the closed thread that's over stays on AN for 5 more minutes or 5 more days? Courcelles (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      WWW was only brought to AN again after he accused other editors of defamation. It wasn't just about the archival of the previous thread. I think if left alone, WWW will return to constructive editing but I just wanted to point out that the archival was not the sole reason for the creation of this entry at AN. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      No, not the only issue, but it was the proximate cause. WWW clearly felt his name didn't need to be on AN anymore, and had that been allowed to stand, the rest of it likely doesn't happen. All that said, WWW? Take a breath. Don't accuse folks of defamation. That's not an argument that's going to go anywhere you want. Courcelles (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, I agree that it would have been better to just leave the archiving or maybe just post to WWW's talk page and tell them they really shouldn't do that. While I don't think highly involved editors should be archiving threads, in the end the harm is very small when another uninvolved editor has already closed the thread. If you disagree with the closure itself then sure feel free to unarchive and post accordingly but otherwise just leave it be if it's a one time thing. That also means I think it's better to just leave it be now notably there's actually no reason to unarchive the thread any more, the existence of this thread means that if we were to consider further sanctions for WWW, it's better discussed here than there anyway. (And I don't think this is rewarding bad behaviour since we're discussing and thinking about that thread when we'd be forgetting by now were it not for that bad behaviour.) Note that none of this excuses what WWW said and did in response, nor what lead up to it. They should consider that if they keep repeating such behaviour, it's going to end up in escalating blocks. As others have said, their behaviour is particularly flawed since as per my earlier point, they've effectively drawn more attention to something we'd have forgotten about sooner were it not for their actions. Nil Einne (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To speak up on WWWayne's behalf, he seems a great editor who cares deeply about Wikipedia and cherishes his own substantial role in it. ANI is sometimes a cruel taskmaster, but sometimes like a children's party. Dibs on the vegan ice cream! Randy Kryn (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Both User:Philipnelson99 and I have closed a dispute that was opened by User:WikiWikiWayne at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, both because discussion at the article talk page had been going on for less than 24 hours, and because the filing consisted mostly of conduct allegations. The dispute is about Killing of Tyre Nichols. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And now, WWW has accused Robert of personally attacking them for notifying them of the closure.[90] Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the alleged personal attack consisted of saying that WWWayne was lecturing, while saying that they were not lecturing. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an editor whose thin skin causes them to think that they are being bullied or personally attacked when there is no such aggression. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note that WWWW was also involved in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Killing of Tyre Nichols, copyvio? which might be loosely related to the DRN dispute. In any case, unfortunately they have been blocked. So this thread is probably best closed. Nil Einne (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: Rosguill has blocked WikiWikiWayne indefinitely for WP:GAMEing and personal attacks (with the AGF understanding that the erratic editing behavior is the product of off-wiki stressors and that a successful unblock request will be forthcoming once things calm down). starship.paint (exalt) 02:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Randy Kryn: - thank you for speaking up for WWW. Perhaps you could chat with him about such messages like [91] As written, I feel that I am being personally attacked. Please self revert anything that could make me feel attacked, broadly construed. I tried to give some advice to WWW but it was not received well. starship.paint (exalt) 02:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Starship.paint. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Mikemaccana - violation of 1RR on blockchain article Solana:

    Mikemaccana blocked 1 week for personal attacks and harassment with TPA removed by Acroterion.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:4 20 March 2023 (UTC) AND Topic banned: Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Mikemaccana is in violation of the 1RR in place on all cryptocurrency related articles (see WP:GS/Crypto#1RR). I placed a notification about the GS on their talk page a few weeks ago - though the 1RR doesn't actually require notification. This is the edit they're reverting to, this is revert #1 and revert #2. Related talk page discussion is Talk:Solana_(blockchain_platform)#Number_of_developers. Discussion is minimal, but is 2 to 1 against Mikemaccana's edit. For background, this is an editor who has returned recently after a 13 year absence and now edits primarily about the Solana blockchain, and their user page carries a COI notice about Solana. Since this is a community authorized GS, I wasn't sure if this belongs here, or AE, or at the 3RR noticeboard. Please advise if I should take this somewhere else. - MrOllie (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    "Discussion is minimal" indeed. The reason the information about developer use of the Solana blockchain was removed was the user @MrOllie not understanding that blockchains themselves are developer platforms. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solana_(blockchain_platform)&diff=prev&oldid=1141421417
    The information was re-added with a note (and links to two wikipedia pages) politely explaining why blockchains are developer platforms. I also added a note on @MrOllie' talk page explaining the same.
    Rather than constructively respond to the reasons given for re-adding the content, the user @MrOllie reverted the content a second time (revert 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solana_(blockchain_platform)&diff=prev&oldid=1141421417
    revert 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solana_(blockchain_platform)&oldid=1145383238). This is not constructive behaviour and my understanding is that it is in violation of 1RR. Mikemaccana (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not add things over my signature. - MrOllie (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not know what the 'signature' is here, I normally expect a signature to be an item at the bottom of an article or the digital signing of a document hash with a private key. I added a link to others to help others know the users involved, and see you talk page where I originally raised the matter of your recent edits. Mikemaccana (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As others have asked, I have merged my issues with your actions in regards to this article to this item. Mikemaccana (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since my edits were also to let others know I am accusing you of violating wp:1rr and wp:etiquette I have added a separate item to this noticeboard as it seems you would prefer the discussion happens elsewhere outside of this item. Mikemaccana (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So why did you twice call MrOllie's edits vandalism? It isn't. Acroterion (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Acroterion for joining the conversation. Are you an arbitrator? I'm not sure how this process works.
    I don't edit Wikipedia very frequently, so I appreciate wikipedia may have a different definition of vandalism than the common one. Given that information was provided to MrOllie explaining how the referenced information was relevant to the topic, and he responded by simply deleting the information, I'm not sure what else to call this behaviour. Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions @MrOllie's behaviour could be considered a lack of good faith, etiquette, civility, not open to compromise, not willing to discuss on talk pages, and failure to discuss. Mikemaccana (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Further to @MrOllie's introduction, as @MrOllie is likely aware but not mentioned here, there's a general sense that the wikipedia page for the Solana blockchain is generally used as a smear campaign against the Solana blockchain - this has been bought up repeatedly on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Solana_(blockchain_platform) Mikemaccana (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mikemaccana For an definition of vandalism on wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Vandalism. MrOllie's removal of content was not malicious, and they clearly explained why they removed it in the edit summary, so it is not vandalism.
    Acroterion is an administrator, not an arbitrator. This board is for dealing with user conduct issues, not for resolving disputes over content.
    You have been edit warring in a topic under community sanctions, while talk page discussion is ongoing and while having a COI, and have now filed a ridiculous retaliatory thread full of nonsense claims. I would advise you to take a step back here. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    > MrOllie's removal of content was not malicious
    I'm not sure how you can know this.
    > They clearly explained why they removed it in the edit summary, so it is not vandalism.
    The reason the content was re added was specifically provided to @MrOllie -
    My message in edit history: "Undo removal of developer statistics - as discussed in the Talk page blockchains are developer platforms - see the [blockchain] and [Decentralized_application] pages for details on this topic. The amount of developers is a a clearly notable aspect of any developer platform"
    My message on MrOllie's page: "You recently removed developer stats for the Solana blockchain. As mentioned in the edit history when this information was re-added, the majority of modern blockchains are platforms for distributed applications - a blockchain being popular with developers is indeed a notable aspect of the blockchain. See Blockchain and Decentralized_application for more on this topic. Note I did not raise the importance flags re: Melania Trump. However I did remove the information per the flag"
    @MrOllie's response was not constructive at all:
    Rv edit warring about stats from unreliable source combined with deletion of actually reliably sourced information
    This is very clearly not engaging in discussion. Mikemaccana (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    > now filed a ridiculous retaliatory thread full of nonsense claims.
    Please be constructive and polite in your engagement with others. Mikemaccana (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how you can know this. WP:AGF. Our default position is we assume an edit was made in good faith unless evidence is presented otherwise. You have provided no evidence that this is anything other than a disagreement over whether this belongs in the article.
    It doesn't matter whether you agree with the reason MrOllie gave for removing the content, the important thing is that he provided a reasonable explanation regarding the relevance of the material and standard of sourcing - the edit, therefore, cannot possibly be vandalism.
    Please be constructive and polite in your engagement with others. Indeed, so please stop accusing other people of vandalism and improper etiquette without evidence. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't resolve content disputes here, we deal with problematic behavior, which in this case appears to be yours. MrOllie isn't a vandal, and thinking you're right isn't an excuse for edit-warring.Please work this out o the talkpage, and I strongly advise you to withdraw the accusations of vandalism here. Acroterion (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @mrollie's behaviour in refusing to discuss changes, in a way that harms wikipedia's output and actively engages in conflict-based behavior to a user that simply explained:
    1. Why some content was relevant to the topic
    2. that a third user had marked somethin as being irrelevant
    Absolutely corresponds to Wikipedia:Vandalism's:
    > The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. Mikemaccana (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you insist on doubling down with assumptions of bad faith here at ANI, you're blocked for a little while. If you resume personal attacks of this kind, the next block will be longer. Learn to use talkpages to discuss disagreements, using published sources, and stop treating other editors as opponents. Acroterion (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Addressing @mrollie's response to my statements he has violated 1RR and WP:etiquette:

    > WP:1RR is 1 Revert per 24 hours

    @mrollie OK. I didn't know that. Happy to learn, as I only reverted your work once today with an explanation before you began the edit war.

    > The claim of "Violations of WP:Etiquette" and failure to discuss has no actual evidence attached to it

    Yes it does. Repeating:

    > As discussed in the comments in that section, information originally considered to be off-topic by @MrOllie was re-added, with a polite explanation about how the information is relevant to the topic at hand, with two links to very well-referenced wikipedia articles proving this point. In addition @MrOllie was also contacted on his personal talk page with the same information. In response Mr Ollie simply removed the developer usag stats a second time without engaging in further discussion.

    Your actions in this matter are very clearly a violation of good faith, etiquette, civility, being open to compromise, and being willing to discuss - you didn't attempt to respond to the reasoning given to you in two places - the edit history and your personal talk page - about how the information you deleted was relevant. Instead you just reverted the changes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikemaccana (talk • contribs) 23:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    You need to provide evidence in the form of WP:DIFFS to support your claims that MrOllie violated WP:Etiquette. You cannot just vaguely handwave "I left messages on the talk page prior to reverting, so WP:Etiquette violation". Where did he violate the policy? What did he say that was uncivil? Where was he impolite? Bear in mind that talk page discussions can take a long time, you are expected to give other participants a reasonable time to respond to questions. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see this user has been blocked, but I'll state here anyway that whatever response he is referring to here was not written by me. MrOllie (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @MrOllie see #MrOllie‎ - violation of WP:Etiquette and 1RR on blockchain article Solana below. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:John Cummings

    I highly respect User:John Cummings's contributions to Wikipedia (and Wikimedia Foundation, also as Wikipedian in Residence at UNESCO), but I'm worried about some of their contributions highly suspect that they're doing some WP:COI edits without any proper discloure. On contacting them, they have refused that clearly which is okay, but they are autopatrolled and that helps them avoid scruitny especially when they create spam page like QWSTION and its product Bananatex, Piñatex, [92], and many others. I'd leave it to the community how they would like to go with this case, but at least we should remove autopatrolled rights (not meeting guidelines such as WP:NPOV, WP:GNG, properly - visible on their creation Geeetech), so that an independent editor gets a chance to review their new article creations. Thanks! US-Verified (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) @US-Verified: As the red text near the top of the page states, you must notify the user in question on their talk page. I have done so for you this time. Notification was hidden in a slew of other notifications, and for that I apologise. (Amended 01:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did that. US-Verified (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    [Disclosure: I know John Cummings. having met him at editathons, Wikimedia UK AGMs, and Wikimanias]

    This is an egregious failure to AGF; with none of the claimed respect on show. No diffs have been provided, and no evidence of malfeasance. US-Verified appears to have nominated a great number of John's article creations for deletion, on spurious grounds. For example, Geeetech is described as "Created by someone with a strong COI and was reviewed automatically, courtesy WP:APAT. This page is clearly a marketing piece..." and is garnering delete !votes on that basis; again, no evidence of the claimed COI is provided, and no evidence that the page is "a marketing piece". US-Verified also tagged the article with {{COI}}, again with no evidence; and without starting the required discussion on the talk page. This all occurred after John had stated in reply to US-Verified on his (Johns) talk page that he has no COI in the article and asking US-Verified to provide evidence for his unsubstantiated allegation there that John had "not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements". US-Verified did not reply. Furthermore, US-Verified had earlier `removed all the photographs from the article, describing them, falsely, as " complete spam". This kind of hounding of a good-faith editor and positive contributor is not acceptable. Administrative action is required to prevent its continuance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I do find it highly concerning that an autopatrolled and Foundation-affiliated editor would dump this into mainspace. How is that many images of products an encyclopedia page, not an advertising brochure. The sourcing is not great (largely press releases and non-independent coverage). Or why are we including text like The Simple-Strap system allows bags to be used in multiple ways e.g. from tote bag to shoulder bag to a backpack, it is used on the Shopper, Zipshopper, Day Tote, Tote and Small Tote. or QWSTION bags have multiple carrying options, for example the Office Bag can be carried horizontally, or as a shoulder bag or as a backpack. (with an image demonstrating the use to boot) or QWSTION doesn't follow the seasonal fashion calendar, they iterate on existing products, rather than creating new ones.. This reads like a toned-down PR/advertising piece. If warmed-over WP:CORPSPAM is what Cummings normally contributes, then autopatrolled needs yanked. Hog Farm Talk 19:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "How is that many images of products an encyclopedia page, not an advertising brochure." The same way it isn't on our many pages about motor vehicles, or aircraft, or video games consoles, or... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's one thing to include pictures of car makes for say, Ford Focus, to illustrate what the thing looks like, or to have a picture of a book cover so you know what the book looks like. It's another to include a picture of every.damn.product a borderline non-notable organization offers. It crosses the line and becomes problematic when we have content about how wonderful a satchel is that it can be worn/carried in many ways, and then demonstrate the many ways of carrying with images (provided by the company, to boot), of handbag models carrying the thing around in different ways. The article as Cummings left it was little better than a sales brochure. Hog Farm Talk 20:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Such conetnt issues should be discussed on the article's talk page; no evidnce has been provided of a pattern of problematic editing worthy of adminstrative action. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If we're being real, if QWSTION were created by a new user, I suspect it would pretty quickly be draftified, stubified, or possibly tagged for G11. It's promotional for reasons Hog Farm explains. But while being a long-time good faith contributor doesn't make you exempt from WP:PROMO, it should buy a modicum of AGF and collaboration. Instead, US-Verified went in hot with assumptions of bad faith. It looks like before any edits to any of John's articles or any communication with John (that I can see), they just assumed bad faith that Geeetech was Created by someone with a strong COI and was reviewed automatically, courtesy WP:APAT, and continued to bang the COI drum without furnishing any evidence. The article does look like the person created it has a COI, but there's a difference between saying an article looks that way and making an accusation even after it was denied by someone who we have no reason to disbelieve (and, to the contrary, every reason to believe). Then, without any non-template messages to John that I can see, and without any talk page comments on any of the articles, US-Verified went through John's creations and nominated a slew for deletion. If they were all for promotional reasons, I'd understand, but the next link I clicked was Fidelity Communications, which is largely critical of the subject. It seems to just be WP:HOUNDING at this point. For something like QWSTION, it seems like a good first step would be "hey this is looking pretty promotional, could you take another pass?" YMMV. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Rhododendrites. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I've now read WP:HOUNDING and would not interact with them in any sense that gives such impression. My only intention was to bring it to the community's notice. I appreciate what they do and won't disturb them in future in any sense, if the community decides that their work is not problematic. US-Verified (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good, thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the autopatrolled right is not appropriate for an editor creating this kind of content. If you showed me the QWSTION revision linked above without any further context, I wouldn't hesitate to assume it was thinly veiled advertising. I don't think US-Verified is unjustified in expressing a suspicion of a COI just based on the content of the articles they linked above (though some of their other comments elsewhere, like describing some of John's contributions as "spam", go too far in concluding bad faith). Colin M (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Colin. I've now read WP:AGF completely (and now aware how this works), so would comply with it strictly. Also, I've striked my comments which were not per WP:AGF. Hope this helps. US-Verified (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for doing that. And for what it's worth, it's entirely possible to create poor or problematic articles without having an ulterior motive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you all for your comments. General observation: User:John Cummings created QWSTION on 20:52, 14 April 2022‎ and then on the same day they uploaded more than a dozen product photos to Wikimedia Commons (diff: [93]) and then they were verified by VRT member. Like this photo: it shows that the souce and author of this photo is QWSTION - the company under discussion. Is this normal? In my opinion, this suggests that there was some sort contact with the company and then their representative emailed to VRT team (so as part of the process, it was verified by VRT and released under creative commons license). The same is true for Geeetech, created on 13:26, 30 August 2018‎ (diff [94]), it was tagged (notablity) by @Deb: (diff:[95]), removed by User:John Cummings on 3 September 2018 (diff:[96]). Photos were added by them a day later (diff:[97]). Now, also note that these photos were uploaded by User:John Cummings, like in the case of QWSTION, and then were verified by VRT member after an email was received from Geeetech (as they were the owner of these photos), like [98]. I will share some more diffs as I find some time this weekend. Thank you all. US-Verified (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Milo Edwards, created by User:John Cummings on 6 February 2022 (diff: [99]), a photo was posted earlier, i.e. 27 January 2022 (diff: [100]) when User:John Cummings/Articles/Milo was created. Re Autopatrolled: Mahdi Gilbert, Stephen Clarke (archaeologist) (and the organization: Monmouth Archaeological Society) were created by them, but I failed to find any siginifcant coverage about these topics. US-Verified (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Is this normal? It's sometimes true that paid editors or people with a COI get photos submitted through VRT, but that requires a level of wiki knowledge that [most, I'd say] people here for promotion don't bother to learn. They'd probably be more likely to just upload the file without thinking about Commons licensing processes. On the other hand, many of us have, upon writing an article, decided to reach out to the subject for images. I've done this a number of times. More often than not they just say no, get confused, or don't reply, but once in a while you find someone happy to oblige. The first one that comes to my mind is Pocket FM. I had no connection with the company when I wrote that. I think I'd just heard a radio story about it, and now we have a bunch of relevant photos. Realistically, if the person in charge of PR/marketing/whatever is savvy these days, they should be happy to oblige when someone wants to write about you on Wikipedia. None of this is to say I agree with the use of images in e.g. the QWSTION article, but to answer your question "is this normal?", I'd say "fairly normal". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I have a vague memory of tagging one of John's articles, but I also recall that I discussed it with him and explained that he needed to make a reasonable claim of notability, which the article at that time didn't do. I believe he made the necessary changes before he removed the tag. That's all I can say. Deb (talk) 08:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      So the sum total of your evidence for accusing - a very serious accusation - John of COI and undeclared paid editing is a hunch based on the fact that he followoed the correct and advertised process fror getting an artcile subject to provide clearence for the use of their images? It's a pitty many more editors do not take the time and trouble to do that. Do you not realise the chilling behaviour your inappropriate action can have on other good-faith volunteers who may be considerng cnotrbition to our project? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    With no comment on this specific example, it might be a good general principle to have autopatrolled removed from paid editors, including Wikimedians in Residence. It's useful to have that second pair of eyes regarding COI. CMD (talk) 03:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It really would not, for a number of very good reasons, but that's orthagonal to the ssue at hand. In none of the articles under discussion was jJhn paid, nor acting as a WiR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Radhey100

    Radhey100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Despite several reverts and warnings, non-constructive editing has been done so far. Like, changing content according to their own will, not following the standard manual of style, remove portions from a page, editing per their own point of views and personal analyzing the guidelines. They've been making disruptive edits especially on Kundali Bhagya. Some of the diffs from Kundali Bhagya's page which are absolute unconstructive and needless, [101] [102] [103] [104] [105]. ManaliJain (talk) 05:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    ManaliJain, this complaint is unclear. Specifically, what is disruptive in those diffs listed. Assume that I and most others here on the English Wikipedia are unfamiliar with this Hindi-language TV show to tell what's what. El_C 09:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: Alright, so the mentioned editor changes content on Kundali Bhagya per their own will; is merging Kumkum Bhagya's content, mostly unrelated, with the other mentioned page; changing the style and format of the page unconstructively. The user has been reverted and warned numerous times, but no positive or constructive attempt from their side. ManaliJain (talk) 10:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What is this per their own will you keep mentioning? You wrote the above per your own will; this comment of mine has also been added per my own will. I realize it's a language barrier, but it's a rather confusing phrasing. Anyway, yes, I saw that their talk page has many unreplied warnings—though the latest were all from you—but as far as the diffs you've listed, I still am unable to immediately tell what's what. So I suppose I'll leave it to someone else, maybe they can parse it better than me. El_C 10:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there's been a communication barrier. While stating, changing content by their own will, I mean they are doing it freely or independently as per their own point of view and personal analysis, without following the Wikipedia guidelines. ManaliJain (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the latest warnings all done by me is because the editors who have/are reverting their edit(s), for instance [106] [107] [108] [109] [110], are not leaving a warning on their page. Also, the user edits limited number of pages and majority of them are maybe not being watch-listed or checked by experienced editors that often. I check Kundali Bhagya's page on a regular basis, hence I get aware of the user's activity and warn them respectively. ManaliJain (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin closure) El_C has range blocked 2600:1700:b971::/50 for 6 months due to long term problems. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Need a rangeblock for 2600:1700:B971:1930:B8C2:E223:29B0:E024/50 or a similar range,

    IP has been warned repeatedly for the on-again off-again disruptive edits. IP never leaves edit summaries and constantly introduces false categories ([111] [112], unsourced edits ([113] [114] [115] and non-notable redlinks to disambiguation pages ([116] [117][118]).

    Some prior warnings were given here:

    Previous blocks can be found here.

    Cards84664 07:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 6 months. El_C 08:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User: Ankur D1946

    (non-admin closure) Ankur D1946 has been indefinitely blocked by El_C for WP:PAID violations. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Ankur D1946 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs [119][120] that show that the user accepted themselves to be a role account used by a professional PR team. ManaliJain (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely for WP:PAID violations: User talk:Ankur D1946#Indefinite block. El_C 08:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    QuarioQuario54321 continually disregarding MOS guidelines, despite warnings

    QuarioQuario54321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I wanted to bring this to ANI because after several months of reminding this user about the Manual of Style-related issues they have introduced into articles with little improvement in their behavior (more specifically MOS:ENGVAR in recent months, which this report will primarily cover), my patience has run thin. I'm fairly convinced that this is a case of long-term disruptive editing.

    1. On 24 January 2023, in this edit to Inner West Light Rail Quario changed ... a few metres down Darling Drive ... to read ... a few meters down Darling Drive ..., and I issued a standard ENGVAR user warning on their talk page the day after. This is the only instance (I think) in which strong national ties play a role, as this article covers an Australian light railway.
    2. On 26 January 2023 Quario altered the spellings of numerous instances of "kilometers", "meters", etc. in this edit to Airport link line (Shanghai Suburban Railway) to use the non-American spelling varieties; at that point, assuming that these changes were unintentional, I had tried reminding them to preserve pre-existing English varieties.
    3. I eventually wrote on Quario's talk page that I hoped they were heeding my concerns, only for them to double down triple down quadruple down and continue their disruptive editing, as seen in this edit, for example.

    Quario has had several editors contact them regarding the Manual of Style, but previous incidents appear to have largely been resolved... except for this one. With this in mind I've decided to take them to ANI because I feel that I'm out of options, and I firmly believe that Quario should hold themself to account for their disruption. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 18:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    None of the times I intentionally changed it. QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't address the issue at hand either, and you repeatedly defended your disruption by talking about how subtle the change was, how little it mattered, and how the average reader [wouldn't] even notice. This was all in spite of the style guidelines that I and others have referred you to. It doesn't take much longer to ensure that you preserve it. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 21:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I am one of those aforementioned editors who has interacted with Quario on a couple of MOS issues. His/her reluctance/refusal to change is frustrating. In the case of this latest ENGVAR issue I'm amazed action hasn't been taken much sooner. Some naughty step timeout to reflect might be warranted. If this were an employee (instead of a volunteer) I'd be suggesting attendance on an appropriate training course. 10mmsocket (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Except for the first diff, at Inner West Light Rail, where they changed the spelling in actual prose from metres to meters, all these changes seem to be from meters to metres and produced by adding the conversion template? Including the other changes within that first diff? So in essence, what's happening seems to be that they aren't adding "sp=us" after the unit abbreviation in the template? QuarioQuario54321, look at this edit by XtraJovial following one of yours. Yes, which spelling is used does matter. That is what people have been telling you repeatedly. But I'm not sure it has been explained that what you need to do is, if the article spells it meters or kilometers, add "sp=us" to the conversion template. Do you understand and can you promise to do that from now on? Yngvadottir (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Or they can use {{cvt}} and it won't matter the spelling of metre. As in 1 m (3 ft 3 in). CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He/she uses {{cvt}} or "abbr=on" extensively. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If something is unabbreviated before I add the units, I keep it that way. Is that normal? QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your choice t.b.h. I tend to abbreviate very commonly abbreviated units of measure such as m, ft, km, lb, kg, etc. less so on miles (I have a personal aversion to "mi"). So km for example I might do something like {{convert|50|km|mi|abbr=in}} to only abbreviate the input not the output. However... Back to the issue in hand. If you don't abbreviate units the the default spelling is international, ie. non-American, so if you are in an article that has American spelling and you have a unit like metre, centimetre, kilometre, then you need to remember to include the "sp=us" parameter in the {{convert}} template. You have done it in the past - see the message below - but it's something you need to be really mindful of if you don't want to introduce the wrong spelling into an article. Hope that helps. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This edit from 9 March (diff) shows that he/she does know about "sp=us" and has used it, but again like everything this user does it's inconsistent and slapdash, leaving others to clean up the aftermath 10mmsocket (talk) 08:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    N1C4T97

    N1C4T97 (talk · contribs) demonstrates WP:TENDENTIOUS editing - it's evident this user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Some glaring examples from their recent contributions:

    • [121] - Removes "cultural genocide" and replaces it with “vandalism” instead, despite the wikilinked article Armenian cemetery in Julfa indeed describing Azerbaijan's actions as "cultural genocide" with reliable sources. In the same tendentious edit, for no logical reason, changes the citation of George Bournoutian - an accomplished historian on Caucasus and beyond, to attributed citation.
    • Removes the sourced Azeri war crime against Armenian civilians and removes "Azerbaijani war crimes" category from the same article [122]. At the same time, adds unsourced "Armenian war crimes" category in several articles [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], previously added by a sockpuppet IP [129], [130], [131], [132], [133].
    • Reverts and edit-wars without discussing when asked for a source for his edits, does not provide a source [134], [135], [136], [137], edit-wars in another article [138], [139].
    • According to N1C4T97, the Talish, Tartar article shouldn’t have an Azeri war crime category since “places cannot be a war crimes” [140], but at the same time they restored "Armenian collaborators with Nazi Germany" category to a non-person article [141], [142], and then removed a category "Azerbaijani collaborators with Nazi Germany" in another non-person article.
    • While removing sourced Azeri war crime and category in Talish article [143], adds a partisan and unreliable archive website as some sort of apologia for Azeri Nazi legion [144]. The same website (echo.az) publishes garbage such as this: "Armenia revives myths about "genocide"" [145].

    In summary, this user demonstrates WP:TENDENTIOUS editing - they edit it partisan manner, resort to reverts and edit-warring, their edits push a clear nationalist point of view and they're restoring sockpuppet edits. It’s clear that this user is here to push POV in Armenia-Azerbaijan articles, that is - WP:NOTHERE. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I was going to report them myself, they blatantly refuse to abide to the community imposed extended-confirmed restriction, even though I did notify them about it on their talk page, for them just to continue tendentious editing as if nothing happened. - Kevo327 (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Proposal - Indef Topic Ban for topics relating to Azerbajian/Azeris and Western Asia Countries, broadly construed - I think based on the editors disruptive editing in this area is clear in their partisan editing, and would normally think a site ban would be warranted, but it looks like the user has made some edits outside the topic area and could still work constructively in noncontentious topics.
    LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per my report.
    KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I reverted the POV edit of N1C4T97 in Gülüstan, Nakhchivan - what they don't mention is that the wikilinked main article in their edit literally has 3 reliable sources for cultural genocide in the lead [146], [147], [148]. Can't comment about the other articles, but N1C4T97 defending his tendentious editing with this misleading wall of text pushes me to support a topic-ban on Armenia-Azerbaijan articles. Nocturnal781 (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @LegalSmeagolian, I was not actively editing, while I created my account many years ago. So, I am new to Wikipedia, especially to the EnWiki, and I acknowledge that I unintentionally disobeyed some rules. Like, I was unaware of the community-imposed extended-confirmed limits that prohibit new editors from making edits related to the topic area. I stopped making any further alterations to the topic area after I noticed the message put on my user talk page about that.
    Tendentious editing accusations against me are made-up and groundless. In this case, the "evidence" against me cannot even be referred to as such, as the difference between revisions were manipulated to deceive the admins. I am not sure why KhndzorUtogh did that, but evidently, he snipped through my edit history, and without even attempting to clarify them with me, he brought a bunch of snippets in an effort to convince admins to ban me.
    For example:
    1. In this difference between revisions I specified the author "Armenian historian George Bournoutian" because I thought that "primary sources" sound vague. I also changed "cultural genocide" to the "cultural vandalism" as per cited source, which clearly states "cultural vandalism" and doesn't contain "cultural genocide" term. The other source other is a website that is funded by Armenian government (note the text on bottom). I am astounded that KhndzorUtogh did not even bother to discuss this edit before bringing it up to accuse me of tendentious editing.
    2. difference between revisions KhndzorUtogh accused me for removing "the sourced Azeri war crime against Armenian civilians and removes "Azerbaijani war crimes" category from the same article". In fact, I explained everything in the edit summary, but I will repeat it here. I removed the war crimes category because it is not applicable for the article which is about the village, and I removed "the sourced Azeri war crime" because it was cited to some unknown partisan website, which is based in Yerevan, Armenia. On the other difference between revisions, I was adding war crimes categories to the events where civilians were massacred. There is a difference between an article about village and an article about events. I do not think I even need to explain that to anyone. I was doing that because those events fall under UN war crime classification [149]. I am curious why KhndzorUtogh did not mention anything about the edit summary in which I explained everything. Why is he making this bogus accusation without even bothering to discuss this edit beforehand?
    3. "According to N1C4T97, the Talish, Tartar article shouldn't have an Azeri war crime category since "places cannot be a war crimes" [174], but at the same time they restored "Armenian collaborators with Nazi Germany" category to a non-person article [175], [176], and then removed a category "Azerbaijani collaborators with Nazi Germany" in another non-person article." - This is totally made up; in fact, it is a clear disinformation. On 20 February 2023, I added the Armenian collaborators with Nazi Germany category to the Armenian Legion article. That edit was reverted on 17 March 2023 by Kevo327 with the "Category is for persons" edit summary. Kevo327's edit summary convinced me, and I deleted an identical category from the identical article on March 19, 2023. Before we established the consensus that these categories do not apply to these articles, there was some back and forth between these difference between revisions[150] [151], but the point is that KhndzorUtogh's description of these difference between revisions is entirely misleading. I don't know why KhndzorUtogh attempted to mislead administrators into believing that first I removed from one article and then added to another. Time, when edits were made, proves the opposite.
    In conclusion, it is apparent, and I have demonstrated, that this report is baseless, and I can not believe that it was filed in good faith. KhndzorUtogh never came out to me on the talk page to discuss my edits, nor did he engage in many of the difference between revisions he provided here. From what I see KhndzorUtogh essentially glanced through my edit history, sniped some of my edits, did not even bother to discuss them with me, and did everything he could to mislead administrators and persuade them to ban me. I hope administrators will recognize this and not fall for this false information.N1C4T97 (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @N1C4T97, articles on Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts are under an extended-confirmed restriction, meaning they are off-limits to editors under 500 edits. They are contentious subjects that require a solid understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Woodroar (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I know it now, but I was unaware about that restriction until I was informed on my talk page by another user. I believe making that restriction more visible to newcomers would be beneficial.N1C4T97 (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've blocked N1C4T97 for 1 week for their violation of WP:GS/AA on March 19 (Special:Diff/1145494935, a series of 3 edits), 3 hours after receiving a notice from Kevo that specifically explained the community sanction (Special:Diff/1145468587). I haven't otherwise investigated their edits, but given GS/AA, discussion of a topic ban at this time seems moot. signed, Rosguill talk 22:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Topic ban - @Rosguill: I have to agree with the nominator, I think the report clearly shows N1C4T97’s disruptive behaviour, him editing in partisan manner - this isn't something needed in the already volatile and contentious AA topic area. POV-pushing by adding "war crime" categories and removing them elsewhere based on what/where suits their POV, and then edit warring over it - the pattern is clear. I’m sorry to see them calling the report "baseless" in the face of clear evidence - this shows no insight or willingness to improve. This leaves little hope that editing will be better after the week of block, and therefore I think the tban should be applied as a preventative measure. - Kevo327 (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple edit reversions of good edits & lying about facts

    CLOSED
    (non-admin closure) If your only defence against editors analysing that your reported user's edits were correct was that the only way they could have come to that conclusion was if they were meatpuppets, you probably need to reconsider your compatibility with this collaboration-mandatory project. Dourriga169 (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely by Valeree for personal attacks, unfounded meatpuppetry accusations that they refused to support with evidence, and failure to drop the stick. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 21:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User Throast immediately reverted my valid edits to this page. Editor did not first initiate conversation with me to discuss, as would be expected if they are acting in good faith. The edits are pretty simple, they were both fully cited using reliable sources, and more than one.

    • The first edit was in the Philanthropy section where I added one brief paragraph detailing the Dog For Dog charity
    • the second was under "Legal issues" where I added one paragraph detailing prominent legal battle information and recent activity regarding a legal outcome
    • The page's revision history is here.

    WHY THIS DOES BELONG ON THE ANI NOTICEBOARD: I won't waste everyone's time replying to every accusation (below) by those who are defending Throast's inappropriate deletion of my edits, because those are all just noisy attempts to discredit me quickly so valid, unbiased admins might actually listen. Let me explain why this is an ANI matter.

    This is an ANI matter because Throast and the other editors rising to his defence (now and every time in the past there were issues with edits on this page are trying to discredit me quickly so nobody else will look deeper into what I'm saying.

    Throast is just one of many in a meat puppet editor ring, probably including a few editors here who are defending him like AroseWolf, Ravenswing and others who haven't yet joined this fray, all of whom have been violating Wikipedia policies on this page since 2021. Why? Because the subject is embroiled in several legal battles that began in 2021 with this guy. The page has been vandalized since then, instructed/guided by Ethan Klein/h3h3Productions with Throast leading the work to:

    • remove positive content and emphasize negative content
    • remove good citations, supporting accurate edits
    • lie about his edits to disguise his destruction of this page
    • attack every new editor to the page to discredit them and justify deleting their edits

    Other editors' work to contribute valid, balanced information to the page have been rejected completely even though many over the past couple of years have offered good edits as well. The only edits that have been allowed to stand are those done by this meat puppet farm, and they are smart. Many of them only interact on talk pages and defend each other that way. But looking into the editors on that page who have not yet been banned or scared away, they all have too many pages in common to be random unassociated editors, like these three. Throast and his fellow meat puppets are very good editors, and mask their true purpose very well. Most other editors who tried to get involved or were asked to look at this have backed off because it's ugly.

    All it takes is a look at the page history, the editor interaction history, and if you really want to see the juicy stuff, watch some of Klein's YouTube videos where he talks about the vandalism to the Kavanaugh page at length in several video like here, here, here, and here.

    If this is what Wikipedia has become, and nobody on the ANI board will properly investigate it, then it's a shame because when words become weopons and the BLP rules are nothing more than meaningless typing on a page, it discredits everything in wikipedia and all the good work that honest editors have done. I hope someone who is really completely unbiased will please take a closer look at all of this, as ugly and messy as it is, and finally do what's right. Why am I wasting my time on this? I like to right wrongs. And this is just wrong. Thank you to anyone else willing to do what's right.Dourriga169 (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    In reading history, this editor is not following community guidelines and is violating WP:NPOV and WP:POV railroad. All their reversions happen instantly after another editor tries to edit the article and their comments about the reversions are untrue. Thank you for looking at this as it is not right. Dourriga169 (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dourriga169: Please notify @Throast: of this discussion per the instructions at the top of this page.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dourriga169: I have done so on your behalf. Please remember that it is vitally important to notify subjects of any thread you post here, so that they know that you have done so and that they can respond or appeal. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300.

    (Contact me | Contributions). 06:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hang on. He made ONE edit, affecting SOME of your changes, with the edit summary "rv: promotional tone, no unresolved legal disputes," in an article where he's made over 200 edits going back to 2021, and that you touched for the first time a few hours ago. You have made no attempt to contact him, no attempt to discuss your issues on the article's talk page, and you are badly misinformed if you're under the impression that WP:AGF requires him to gain your approval in advance of changing any of your edits. Any editor in good standing has the right to edit, change or revert your edits, with or without warning, and language to that effect presuming your agreement to this is at the bottom of every editing screen as a precondition of making those edits. Throast is certainly active on that article, but heck, just having counted, there are over sixty articles on which I have fifty or more edits; it happens.

    As it happens, taking a look at your respective talk pages, your only interaction is him sending a mild warning to your talk page about misleading edit summaries. At the top of this page is the tag "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." Would you care to tell us what you feel raises this single interaction to the "chronic, intractable" level, or what about it is "urgent?" Ravenswing 03:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition to the above observations by Ravenswing, I'd also suggest the OP review WP:BRD and WP:ONUS to appreciate that the burden is actually much more upon them in this context (and as the party advocating for novel content that has been challenged) to secure a consensus for inclusion: far from new additions being presumed beneficial, there must in fact be positive consensus that such material agrees with core content policies, as explored through specific dispute resolution procedures where editorial differences of opinion exist. None of those processes seem to have been attempted here, even to the extent of the natural starting point of a talk page thread, and I almost NAC'd this discussion as procedural matter, but for the fact that the OP may have follow up inquiries about establishing consensus. But short of that, I would urge they retract this thread, reach out on the talk page, and be much more wary about escalating to ANI short of longterm, protracted disputes not amenable to other dispute resolution tools, in the future. SnowRise let's rap 05:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor is welcome to discuss the issue with me, either on the article talk page or on their user talk page, where I left a message elaborating on my edit right after reverting. I did this to initiate a productive discussion and to prevent the kind of edit warring the editor has now resorted to. Ryan Kavanaugh is on my watchlist because I've edited it a lot, which Ravenswing accurately notes. I've been especially motivated to keep the article in line with our NPOV policy because its subject has threatened editors with legal action and paid to have both flattering information included and unflattering information excluded from the article in the past. All of this is documented at ANI, SPA, and the article talk page. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 11:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (nods) I also concur on the objection you left on Dourriga169's talk page: that it's a matter of routine for them to use "Clean up/copyedit" as an edit summary for every edit they make, including adding new text to articles. This is, as you correctly pointed out, quite misleading, and they need to stop doing that at once. Ravenswing 14:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course you do. Ravenswing! Because you are working together. You are both a discredit to Wikipeia. Dourriga169 (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You have made some personal attacks in this section and accusations both here and at your talk without providing evidence. If you believe two editors are colluding, you need to be prepared to back it up with diffs. More than one editor does often end up on the same talk or user talk pages when they both see the same edit and they both feel is problematic. Please try to assume good faith. Please don't accuse people of lying if the actual issue could be a simple misunderstanding. We understand you are frustrated, but You are both a discredit to Wikipeia doesn't actually help your cause. Valereee (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What utter nonsense. I have Ryan Kavanaugh on my watchlist, as well. I've made very few if any edits to the article but I have been involved in discussions. Throast and I haven't always agreed, especially with their approach, but I generally find their position, with regard to content, to line up with policy and maintaining a NPOV on the article. I have been accused of colluding with Throast and others on the article in the past which is absurd. This claim is no different. If the OP had clear evidence they would have presented it but two editors agreeing is not collusion. --ARoseWolf 20:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ARoseWolf has it exactly right: what utter nonsense. I recognize your lack of experience on Wikipedia, Dourriga169 -- someone who did have experience with noticeboards would know that I've been pretty active at ANI for a couple years now -- but that's zero excuse for your lack of good faith towards other editors. As other editors here have, I've looked into the dispute YOU posted here and came to my own conclusions ... a fresh conclusion being that your prompt assumption that no editors could agree that you're the one in the wrong without collusion between them is a very bad look. (Did you truly think that everyone would just agree with you, without actually looking into the facts of the dispute?)

    I expect an immediate retraction of your hostile and unfounded accusation, and a prompt apology for the same. With that, the degree to which you're lashing out [152] from what started out as a mild template warning is not only bordering on hysteria, but a very bad look in of itself. Ravenswing 20:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Throast, you are sadly not telling the truth. You're really defending your ownership of that page, and the wikipedia guidelines clearly state that nobody owns any page.Dourriga169 (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It sure seems odd how many people are so interested in Throast's innocence, when he's clearly a Wikibully and has many friends coming to his/its/her defense (not sure which pronoun to use, I thought I saw they/them/it but that might be someone else. Dourriga169 (talk)
    On Wikipedia, when several editors agree on something and nobody seems to agree with you, we call that "consensus." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dourriga169, I don't know whether the edits should have been retained or not. What I'm still not sure, despite an editor asking about it above, is why this is an ANI matter. Where is the talk page discussion on the content and behaviour demonstrating it was no longer a content issue?
    I would also like to know your actual evidence of collusion that you accuse Ravenswing and Throast of above. If you can provide the two, then we have an ANI case that editors will review much more seriously. If you can't provide both, then you've just accused editors without basis, and would advise an apology before digging the hole deeper. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dourriga169: you made your first two edits to your User/User Talk namespaces in October 2022 and made 7 mainspace edits that day.
    Your next 500 (exactly if my counts are correct) mainspace edits were done between March 16 2023 (last Thursday!) and your opening of this thread, with as far as I can tell almost every single one of them with the summary Clean up/copyedit even on edits up to +3,702 characters in size. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you effectively have less than a week of editing experience under your belt. Between your talk page and this thread it seems you somehow already believe that you have a better grasp of Wikipedia policies than any number of more experienced editors, and have suggested that anyone disagreeing is part of Throast's personal friend group working to discredit their detractors. I really want to suggest in a neutral tone that you seriously reconsider how you perceive the other editors of WP and I hope how I framed this shows how this thread looks from the outside.
    As a final aside (and not an attack), it's generally considered derogatory to use "it" as a pronoun when referring to people. Referring to someone you don't know well as they/them/their is almost always acceptable as far as I've seen. GabberFlasted (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw they/them/it somewhere along my travels, if it's wrong, I'm not sure why anyone would be offended as the whole pronoun thing is an attempt to be respectful rather than the other way around. sorry if you didn't see it originally that was, as was intended. Dourriga169 (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dourriga, it's a complicated issue, but 'it' is not acceptable unless a person has clearly indicated that's what they prefer for themselves, and I literally don't recall anyone ever requesting that. OTOH, here on Wikipedia, because in many cases we don't know a person's gender, they/them is not offensive to most people. Valereee (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair to Dourriga169, and purely on this one topic ~ i'm making no judgements about anything else in this thread ~ pronouns can be awkward and i can easily see how one could use "it" thinking of referring to the account rather than realising we look at each other as people here. Indeed, without looking i wouldn't like to assert that when i began i didn't make that error. Senza other pronoun issues, i wouldn't push this as a further reason to look poorly on Dourriga. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 17:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added an update to explain further why this does belong on the ANI noticeboard, for anyone looking or most recent information, please go see: WHY THIS DOES BELONG ON THE ANI NOTICEBOARD: above. Thanks. Dourriga169 (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Combefere removed copyvio notice twice

    Rosguill has removed the partial block from Combefere, and enacted an indefinite block on WikiWikiWayne. starship.paint (exalt) 02:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Combefere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed a copyvio notice on Killing of Tyre Nichols (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) twice[1][2], despite being warned not to. Bowler the Carmine | talk 08:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • User partially-blocked from that page for 2 weeks. Stifle (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      despite being warned not to

      This is not true.
      The entire page has been deleted under the pretense that there is a copyright violation, but the editor who deleted it (WikiWikiWayne) has not provided any documentation or explanation for the alleged copyright violation. I restored the page to the previous edit (inadvertently deleting the copyvio tepmlate that was added), and opened up a discussion on the talk page to try to resolve the issue without edit warring. WikiWikiWayne reverted my edit without discussing on the talk page, so I undid that reversion and left an additional message on their own talk page -- again, to try to resolve the issue without reverting to edit warring. I was not warned at any point in this process that I had removed a copyvio template, nor that this was disallowed. In fact, I was trying to communicate about the issue to both better understand Wiki policy around copyright and to avoid an edit war, but I was being ignored.
      I apologize for removing the template. It was inadvertent, and I was unaware that it was disallowed. I am still concerned that this action is an abuse of the copyright infringement procedure as a way to vandalize the page. WikiWikiWayne did not provide any documentation substantiating the claim that there was a copyright violation, and after two days and dozens of messages, they still have not even explained whose copyright has allegedly been infringed. I'm really just trying to protect the page from vandalism, and have been trying to go through the proper channels and communicate rather than edit war. I really don't know what else I'm supposed to do here. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 02:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi S, I only tagged one vio in the lead. I reported it per the copyvio template instructions. I provided the URL to the copied headline with my report. The small, obvious vio is still there 14 hours later. {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 03:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Stifle – I followed the template instructions in good faith for substituting the copyvio template. I did not tag the whole page. The lead was clear of vios, so I only tagged the body, which had a copy/paste vio in the sentences I spot checked. It woulda been crazy to set more than one set of tags as the output is massive. I set the tags 14 hours ago, IIRC. I had just tightened up the lead when I found several vios in the body. To my horror I was soon mortified when I look up and there's now a vio in the lead from the same editor causing most of the vios in the article. So, I surgically tagged that vio. Thirteen hours later, that one sentence vio remains. Can we take everybody seriously that is accusing me of malicious tagging, when they cannot recover one single sentence? The lead is here and it is 95% copied from the headline of the inline ref hanging on it. This is sucking on my time. Take care always. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 03:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    You've failed to identify which sentence is a copyright violation and from where the infringed content came. We've asked numerous times at this point. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Minutes ago, I have directly and explicitly requested that you to stop stalking me. Yes, I feel that you are stalking me, and your recent edit history confirms it. What purpose does your comment serve in the matter here? Stay away from me, please. I don't stalk your edits. I'm not telling you what to do, other than to cease your obsession with me. Thanks. {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 03:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure where you asked me to leave you alone. I am not singling you out, I'm just trying to make sure that other editors know that you have been repeatedly asked to explain the alleged copyright violations and have not done so. I won't comment any further on this matter. Any admins who take a look at this, please review the edit history over at Talk:Killing of Tyre Nichols as its relevant to all of this and the many repeated attempts to understand the copyvios that WikiWikiWayne says they identified. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, now you're reminded and will stop, right? You're creeping me out. Thanks. Take care. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 04:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WikiWikiWayne Thank you for finally at least providing a source! However, I am not seeing what you are seeing. Here is a link to a copyvio comparison of the lede you provided and the article you claim has been copied. Copyvio finds only 9.9% similarity, with violation unlikely. Some of the "copied" content that vio finds is:
    • "Tyre Nichols, a 29-year-old Black man"
    • "Second-degree murder
    • "Aggravated kidnapping"
    • "Tenessee Bureau of Investigation"
    • "extensive bleeding caused by a severe beating" (direct quote from autopsy)
    • "opened a civil rights investigation"
    • "aggravated kidnapping, official misconduct, and official oppression"
    You can't seriously be contending that the presence of these proper nouns, direct quotes, and specific legal terms constitutes copyright infringement, can you? Could you elaborate on what in this lede you think violates copyright? You seem to be under the impression that there is some obvious and egregious plagiarism here... nobody else seems to be seeing it. Why don't you do us all a favor and point it out for us? Thanks! Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 04:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's some pretty severe copyvio in the page history that needs cleaning up, e.g. this edit from two days ago [153] is a direct copy paste from the source. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to minimize the issue but I'd hardly characterize a single sentence as severe. Nevertheless, I appreciate you identifying a copyright violation in a previous version of the page. I'm not sure it was necessary to blank the majority of the article in order to tag the page with a copyright violation if the violation only existed in a previous version. But using the wikiblame tool easily found the version where this text was first added, which was not the edit from two days ago, it is in fact the same editor who brought attention to the copyvio in the first place. Here's the wikiblame link: http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/wikiblame.php?user_lang=en&lang=en&project=wikipedia&tld=org&article=Killing+of+Tyre+Nichols&needle=total+number+of+officers&skipversions=0&ignorefirst=0&limit=500&offmon=2&offtag=20&offjahr=2023&searchmethod=int&order=desc&user=
    Philipnelson99 (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that text was removed from the article entirely in this edit.
    Philipnelson99 (talk) 11:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Philipnelson99 Fair enough, I didn't put too much effort into background research there, I basically just looked at the first "big" edit I came across and compared the added text to the source. It may or may not need cleaning from the page history, one of our copyright knowledgeable admins are probably in the best place to say. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note the parallel discussion Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Killing_of_Tyre_Nichols,_copyvio?. No significant copyright violations have been identified after review by several editors, with a single, now-fixed instance of copyvio committed by WikiWikiWayne of all people. I have blocked WikiWikiWayne indefinitely for WP:GAMEing and personal attacks (with the AGF understanding that the erratic editing behavior is the product of off-wiki stressors and that a successful unblock request will be forthcoming once things calm down), and lifted Combefree's partial block. signed, Rosguill talk 19:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Content dispute between User:Mnnie053 and User:Pichsambath, removal of sourced content, possible biting of a newcomer

    Involved users:

    Pages:

    User:Mnnie053 is in a content dispute with User:Pichsambath, citing "unsourced content" as the reason for reversion of the edits by User:Pichsambath. Mnnie053 made a report of the other user at AIV with the explanation, "Repeatedly readding unsourced content without explanation, intending to edit war." I took a closer look at the article contents that are being disputed between the two users, and on at least one article, it involves removal of sourced content (diff here). Pichsambath's contributions seem to be high-quality for a new user in general, as they are adding things like automatic date templates, and foreign language text translations here and here. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think every single bit of content addition immediately needs a source? i.e. sources needed for just substantial additions only?

    Furthermore, looking at the talk page for User:Mnnie053 (the reporter at AIV) reveals they have been very recently warned and blocked in the past for disruptive editing before, with behaviour that seems very similar to what's happening above, so I probably don't know what to say between these two editors. Here's a quote from Drmies on their talk page: "Besides, on closer inspection it seems clear that at least some edits of yours are, well, vandalism with misleading edit summaries. Here, you removed a bunch of information, and you said "needs source"--but you removed the actual sources in that edit, including this article. And in that edit you also removed the basic and uncontroversial statement "The national federation is a member of ASEAN"."

    I mainly intend this thread to be a further discussion thread for these two users (i.e. I am helping them out), since an AIV report is probably not appropriate here (not for in-depth discussions at least). AIV is intended for obvious vandalism and promotion/disruptive editing, and on Pichsambath's talk page I only see one warning, a level-2 disruptive editing template.

    AP 499D25 (talk) 10:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The user just reverted again, in series, and passed 3RR already, despite warnings. They posted incivility in my user page and hardly showing any communication or maybe language competence. This is clearly disruption and not content dispute. Please delete my user page as I previously requested in AIV because I didn't create it. Mnnie053 (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, there has hardly been any communication from User:Pichsambath at all, so far this is the only talk page discussion they have started, and it's on their talk page, not on yours or on any articles. Though, a look at the page histories of all four pages reveals they have only just hit 3RR, not broken it. AP 499D25 (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking closer at this diff I am a bit mistaken. The paragraph changes appear to be copyediting rather than straight up sourced content addition. Indeed, no sourced content has been added. Ah I should've looked a bit closer before writing up this report, my bad. AP 499D25 (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: 24 hours later, no response from Pichsambath on any discussion pages. As of now, this is still the only communications from them. That talk page message kind of suggests to me they aren't willing to work issues out with other editors in a disagreement. Note that Pichsambath's edits have been reverted for the third time already, so if they redo the edits and not discuss with the other editor here first, well, I think it becomes clear which party is in the wrong here. Mnnie053 appears to be willing to discuss issues with the other editor happily whenever needed, given their presence here and on the other user's talk page. @Pichsambath if you could chip in and leave your thoughts on why your edit should be restored, that would be appreciated. AP 499D25 (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Update 2: Pichsambath just restored their edits yet again, without any consensus or discussion before it: 1 2 3 4 5. The lack of communication from them is a bit troubling... I made the original thread above centred around both users in the dispute, but as time goes on it seems Pichsambath is the one being the disruptor here. AP 499D25 (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think blocking Pichsambath from article space for a week would be justified, if only to force them to use the talk pages. I will wait for feedback before pressing the buttons. PhilKnight (talk) 06:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. The main issue here is the lack of communication from them. I've left another message on their talk page to point out that they should communicate with other editors when there is a disagreement, and also that the onus is on them to provide a reliable source for their edits, since that's the main reason why their edits are being reverted (they have not actually provided sources for their edits, I didn't look further and closer into this before typing up the original report).
    By the way, they've just made another wave of edits today since the last reply, this time after being reverted by a different editor, Untamed1910, also on the basis of no citations provided: 1 2 3. AP 499D25 (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I have partially blocked from article space for a week. PhilKnight (talk) 07:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Pls see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User:Igsiters Moxy- 22:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Amigao keeps mass deleting content and sources

    Amigao (talk · contribs) was blocked sometime ago for mass removal, across English Wikipedia, of sources and/or sourced passages where sources have been deprecated, sometimes replacing them with <cn> tags. Obviously, this is not only vastly problematic, because often these passages formed a part of the article's logical flow, but expressly against the policy: Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately (Wikipedia:Deprecated sources).

    Many editors, including recently myself, have pointed this out to them on several occasions[154][155][[156], etc. Also, I pointed out to them that they should instead use the deprecated inline template. To no avail.

    The user has made hundreds if not thousands of such mechanical edits in the last months all over Wikipedia, often going faster than one article per minute. A few random examples from the last 24 hours: [157][158][159][160][161][162], but honestly, it's easier just to open their contribution list.

    Is there an effective way of stopping them? — kashmīrī TALK 11:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Kashmiri, you should probably review WP:BURDEN. Also, deprecated sources such as WP:SPUTNIK cannot be used to make factual claims outside of very limited WP:ABOUTSELF claims. - Amigao (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is not about removing a deprecated source in individual instances, e.g., in an article you're working on. The problem is with your ongoing indiscriminate, mass removal of all occurrences of a source, in thousands articles, despite the DEPRECATED policy and objections from fellow editors. — kashmīrī TALK 14:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Deprecated sources should be removed. Was there something in particular about WP:SPUTNIK that triggered this? Amigao (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorrect. Deprecated sources MAY be removed. And no, I don't read and have never read Sputnik if that's what you're asking about. — kashmīrī TALK 19:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No... Its pretty obviously should... Thats the whole point of our classification system, to clean our poor sources. All sources *may* be removed, thats a universal not just the deprecated ones. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure that there are warnings in all of those diffs? Maybe you linked the wrong things? The only warning I see is from ToBeFree and its a warning about being unresponsive, not about problematic mass edits. What am I missing here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not templated warnings, but in each of those discussions, other users asked Amigao to stop making specific kinds of mass edits, or to be less indiscriminate about them. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't we go through all this when all the Daily Mail references where removed? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We did, the consensus was that while some people don't like such mass removals of unreliable or deprecated sources there is nothing in the existing policy or guidelines which prohibits them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For anyone interested, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1045#Editor David Gerard and the Daily Mail. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's better to keep the source and add a relevant template. Removing text is sometimes appropriate, but in Australia–Russia relations the meaning was changed. And some of the citations were not originally to Sputnik, but to RIA Novosti, which has a separate entry in WP:RSP and is not deprecated. In this case the access dates were 2008 and 2009, before Sputnik existed, but the URLs were recently changed by a bot (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australia%E2%80%93Russia_relations&diff=prev&oldid=1138759772). Peter James (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Unfortunately doing so generally achieves nothing, as such templates are ignored. At least replacing the ref with {{citation needed}} warns readers that the text is unsupported (which is the case with deprecated sources). An attempt should be made to replace it, but that is not required by policy. So as long as the replacements aren't being done in a WP:MEATBOT fashion or errors are left in the article because due care wasn't taken, which none of the supplied diffs show, there is nothing to answer for here. This is unlike the last ANI thread where both of those issues were present. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • If a source is deprecated, it should not be used as a source. The existence of a deprecated source added to support a claim in an article is equivalent to that claim being unsourced. The deprecated source is simply useless. It cannot support a statement because it has no weight, and the statement might even be false. And if there's concern about not being able to understand the meaning of a statement because the source has been removed, we should remember that if the only source supporting a statement is a deprecated source, the entire statement probably shouldn't exist in the article. The deprecated source should therefore logically be removed and replaced with a {{citation needed}} template. Nythar (💬-🍀) 13:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • And if someone replaced a deprecated source with a {{citation needed}} template and you disagree with that, please look for and add a reliable source instead of thinking about re-inserting the deprecated source. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 13:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Removing a statement can change the meaning of the text surrounding it. If a source was used we should say what it was, not hide it, until a better source is found or the content rewritten so the source is no longer necessary. And it could be that the source used is not deprecated, but the URL that the citation now links to is on the site of a deprecated source (which is what happened here). Peter James (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: WP:BURDEN = no problem with removing deprecated sources and unsourced content; it absolutely should be done when it is in a BLP or has names of living persons. Cleaning up articles of unsourced "content" should be encouraged. If you need to leave the unsourced content, it could use a cn tag to warn readers. Every removal of unsourced material increases Wikipedia's already fragile reliability.  // Timothy :: talk  03:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once again, everybody believes that they themselves know The Right Way(TM) to handle material cited to deprecated sources, and anyone doing it a different way is being wrong and disruptive. My own take is that {{citation needed}} and {{better citation needed}} tags can sit around for ages without getting attention, deprecated sources are a blight upon the encyclopedia, content covered only in unreliable sources is by definition undue, and wholesale removal of deprecated sources along with the sentences to which they are attached can be a darn good move. Might it sometimes have costs, like disrupting prose flow? Sure. Are those costs worth the benefit not pointing our readers to disinformation and propaganda? I'd say so. XOR'easter (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Ugly00015 and license violation

    (non-admin closure) Ugly00015 has been blocked indefinitely by El_C for WP:COPYVIO. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Can you please have a look at this user's contributions and decide a block is required please? This user has persistently uploaded non-free files in violation of Wikipedia's licensing policy. This account is 8 months old and seems to me as vandalism. This user does not understand the purpose of Wikipedia, and seem to lack the competence to edit here appropriately. I think temporarily blocking would be necessary. Yours sincerely, 1394ochi (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely for persistent WP:COPYVIO: User talk:Ugly00015#Indefinite block. El_C 08:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Aspersions by Bon courage

    Bon_courage has been making bunch of changes to the page on EMDR that I view as non-neutral. I object to those changes, so after a talk page discussion and this discussion over at FTN, I started an RFC on the talk page to see if there was consensus for them. (Then after it became clear from the first day's !votes that the original phrasing of the question wasn't what was actually being voted on, I rebooted the RFC rather than trying to fix the question in the middle.)

    Bon_courage has now suggested twice that I should be TBAN'd or blocked for using ordinary Wikipedia processes. (And this is in addition to a whole lot of WP:BLUDGEONING.) This is a pretty clear WP:ASPERSION and a complete failure to WP:AGF. All I'm requesting here is an official warning to knock it off and WP:AGF.

    (E 21:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC): Relevant note: I withdrew the second RFC after consensus was quickly apparent that it was also premature. Still trying to resolve this content dispute on the talk page.)

    Loki (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I took a look at the various linked discussions, and it looks to me like most editors are, at least in large part, agreeing with Bon courage and disagreeing with LokiTheLiar about the content issue, and there seem to be a significant number of complaints about how Loki has been trying to handle the dispute. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you may be overweighting BC's own comments here. BC comments a lot (hence why I also accused them of WP:BLUDGEONING up above) but as far as I can tell the only objection other editors have had to my conduct here is that my RFC questions were poorly framed. (My answer to that is that I've been trying to ask people what a better question would be and nobody's wanted to clarify.) And many of them did at least disagree with BC on the conduct dispute. Firefangledfathers, Darknipples, Bakkster_Man and Cedar777 all raised some kind of objection to BC's changes.
    Furthermore, whether or not BC's changes have consensus that doesn't give him the right to threaten me for opening an RFC. Loki (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You accuse me (without evidence) of "bludgeoning" yet by my count at Talk:Eye_movement_desensitization_and_reprocessing you have 37 comments on the page right now compared to my 31. So what does that say about you? Bon courage (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLUDGEONING isn't a simple matter of number of comments. Almost all of your comments are very aggressive while many of mine are just things like "could you please clarify that?" Loki (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest a WP:BOOMERANG should probably find the OP. This appears to be an attempt to preempt an ANI filing on them self after Bon courage observed this would likely end up at ANI. Combined with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT arguments that consistently misrepresent what the article says in Wikivoice ([163][164][165][166][167]) as well as the repeated arguments that anything that works better than literal nothing cannot possibly be pseudoscience, I think they could use some time away from this topic. Also, a quick look at the talk page history would suggest that claims of BLUDGEONING fit better on the OP as well. MrOllie (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So, first of all, that comment about this ending up at ANI is a third example of BC's WP:ASPERSIONS, thank you for finding it. Second, I've been trying to avoid making this about the content dispute but I also feel like my characterization of Bon_courage's edits as "calling EMDR pseudoscientific or ineffective" in Wikivoice is accurate and I've given evidence for such. As for the WP:BLUDGEONING accusation, I agree I've been talking a lot but talking a lot is not the same as bludgeoning. BC's comments have been much more aggressive than mine and he's especially been making a habit of responding to everyone who disagrees with him with a counterargument. Which is the definition of bludgeoning. Loki (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to join in a talk-page RFC where neither option offered is optimal, but is certainly troubling that one has to drill down in to the article to Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing#Effectiveness to discover how really vague and weak the lead is. In other words, perhaps someone should bludgeon to get that lead to be more reflective of the actual state of affairs with this particular bit of (increasingly popular) pseudoscience. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We're getting into the underlying content dispute here, which I wanted to avoid, but in brief: Many edits to that section were made recently, and those edits are some of those that I object to. This dispute is not just about the lead but about the general weight of the evidence for EMDR and whether some academic books and articles that describe it as "pseudoscientific" outweigh a lot of meta-analyses that find it effective and many professional recommendations. Loki (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll avoid then the usual disclaimers about the usefulness of meta-analyses here (garbage in = garbage out, and if they are looking at a lot of small or low-quality studies, and finding "low" evidence ... ok then, the lead is obscuring that wobblyness). This underlying content dispute may be partly due to someone's POV coming in as being in favor of what they label as effective, when that "effectiveness" is not at all well established in MEDRS literature. I suspect that is the underlying frustration here that has perhaps led to some impatience. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I can tell you exactly what the underlying frustration is (and Bon_courage should feel free to correct me on this if I've described his position incorrectly): I think that the sources that endorse EMDR or establish the effectiveness of EMDR contradict the sources that call it pseudoscientific: i.e. if the APA or the WHO or the NHS endorse a treatment that implicitly means they think it's not pseudoscientific. Which means I think that, since there are a lot more sources that call it effective than that call it pseudoscientific, the sources that do call it pseudoscientific should not be given much WP:WEIGHT.
    BC, as far as I can tell, does not think that scientific studies proving effectiveness or professional organizations endorsing it bear either way on the question of whether it's pseudoscience. This means that BC thinks the sources that call it pseudoscience have a lot of WP:WEIGHT, since there are very few sources that explicitly say EMDR is not pseudoscientific in those words. Loki (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I and others have repeatedly explained, you're just wrong about this (and it is WP:OR in any case). The APA endorses various pseudosciences. My frustration is that you won't follow (or even read) the strong sources on this topic, Bon courage (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Loki, it sounds like you're relying on a tally of sources rather than quality of sources or an evaluation of the evidence those sources present (for example, when they say "low" we don't go "high"). Yes, many orgs endorse pseudoscience; sometimes they even do it because <gasp> it saves them money! Anyway, I'm not here to engage the content dispute, rather to say I can see why it has become frustrating. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I also feel like while neither side is really weak quality-wise, the "effectiveness" sources are still better, FWIW. I feel like it's an "academic consensus vs. academic critics" situation. But otherwise, understandable. Loki (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that both you and Bon courage are heading out onto the WP:BATTLEGROUND, both of you should take a step back from the article and the talk page... Lets let some other editors sort this one out. Yes Bon courage is casting aspersions, but you aren't exactly being the paradigm of civility either and escalating this to ANI was probably a bad idea. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Y'know, that's fair. My frustration here is that from my point-of-view I have attempted to get off the WP:BATTLEGROUND several times by trying to offer some sort of compromise, and that it feels like when I do this BC is failing to assume good faith, assuming I have some kind of sinister motive, and treating me as some kind of obstacle. Which is to say, my intent of going to ANI for a warning was to attempt to get off the WP:BATTLEGROUND and I'm not sure what the appropriate solution is at this point. Loki (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The solution is to accept that Wikipedia is going to reflect what reliable sources say, not what you think differently. This is the foundation of NPOV and it is not up for discussion. Bon courage (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am trying very hard to make Wikipedia reflect what the reliable sources say, and I think if you WP:AGF'd that I'm trying to do that (regardless of whether you think I'm succeeding) we would have a much more productive situation here. Loki (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your problem is not a lack of "good faith". It's that you're fundamentally wrong about how policy applies, and so loudly it's causing disruption. Bon courage (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what the appropriate solution is at this point. I believe, Loki, the appropriate steps at this point are for you to withdraw this unwise ANI report, drop the stick here, here, and here, and agree to stay far away from all things related to EMDR for a few months. Before a WP:BOOMERANG is delivered it might be best for you to voluntarily walk away from this increasingly unproductive and disruptive situation. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll offer to Bon courage the advice that it's best not to comment about supporting a ban or block for someone when discussing content; make that warning on the user's talk page, or not at all. But this is a situation where a loss of patience with Loki seems understandable, and I don't think there's anything actionable against Bon courage. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is sage and true, my patience is definitely wearing thin for reasons which should be apparent. I'll confine any such future such comments to Loki's User Talk Page. Bon courage (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I plan to comment here but due to obligations IRL, I don’t expect to have an opportunity to do so for several days. Cedar777 (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Pvmoutside autopatrolled rights

    I was suggested by Barkeep49 to come here. I am trying to get a hold on the autopatrolled rights of editors who masscreate stubs and while I was checking some of the top ten article creators and I came across Pvmoutside, who is a prolific stub creator since over 10 years with an stub count of over 8000 per xtools. At the beginning of his wikipedia career they also created some start class articles. Pvmoutside was given the autopatrolled rights by an editor who is no longer editing since 2012. They create technical articles on species in danger, usually without mentioning in their articles that they are in danger like here, here or here, nor adding an image or add more prose than mentioning their existence in a country. You can see their latest articles here. A recent article not on a species didn't have an inline citation at all.

    Autopatrolled mentions "clean" articles as also noted by Barkeep49.

    I'd support to remove Pvmoutside the autopatrolled rights so reviewers get to tag them for deficiencies such as too technical, image requested etc. Pvmoutside doesn't seem to be too much aware for what autopatrolled actually is and believed that the autopatrolled rights entitles them to move pages, which doesn't seem to be correct as noted by Barkeep49 and also by Uanfala in a discussion before. Courtesy pings to Uanfala. I am not against masscreation of stubs, I believe Esculenta would be a good example of who would be a trusted masscreator of articles on autopatrolled. Courtesy ping to Esculenta. But deficient stubs on autopatrolled is not a good idea in my opinion.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support removing autopatrolled. Autopatrolled editors are expected to produce articles that do not need manual review; mass creating micro-stubs without a consensus approving their creation does not fall into this category. BilledMammal (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I don't see what is wrong with, for example, Erythrolamprus sagittifer as a stub article. All species are considered notable, so there can be no reason not to create an article. A stub is a place-holder, which this is. It has two very respectable references and a taxobox that connects it to the genus article and other higher taxon articles. The conservation status of the species is shown in the taxobox, as normal for a stub. Why would it need to be reviewed? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose User creates fully functional taxon stubs that contain all features required for this type - complete taxobox, authority, synonyms, fundamental references. Of the dozens I have spot-checked, there was not one that could not be NPP signed off. These thus do not require review through the queue, which is the sole reason for the autopatrolled right. "Did not contain all information that could have been included" is the state of all stubs, not a reasonable requirement of stub creators, and not a valid point in this regard. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose. From the XTools summary linked above (prolific stub creator), Pvmoutside has created 8,775 articles, not including redirects. 118 of these were later deleted, most of which (106/118) were deleted to make way for a page move, usually to change a title between common and scientific name or due to a later taxonomic change (split or merge species). Of the remaining twelve deleted articles, nine appear to have been made in error, and were most often deleted at the users request. This has resulted in 99.9% of the articles he has created still remaining in mainspace. This level of article retention rate is exactly why the auto-patrolled status is appropriate in order to save new page reviewers time and effort validating new article creations. The articles created by Pvmoutside are all fully functional, and range from disambiguation pages to those now rated as GA or FL. Pvmoutside's article creation contributions are valuable to the encyclopedia and should be further encouraged and emulated. Loopy30 (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't looked in depth, but in this, and previous, discussions, I haven't seen anyone point out any actual problems with these stubs other than the fact that they're short. Yes, the three examples given above (here, here and here) a sourced to the IUCN Red List, but their endangerment status (as prominently visible in the infobox) is least-concern, which means they're not endangered, and this fact is probably not salient enough to be worth mentioning in the prose as well.
      I don't get what sorts of "deficiencies" these stubs will need to get tagged for by reviewers. If {{image requested}} is important, then we can ask Pvmoutside to add it when creating the stubs' talk pages. As for {{too technical}}, which articles would that be applicable to? If the article goes like "X is a species in such and such subfamily, named in the year YYYY by so and so, and found in such and such countries", then that's as plain and clear as it can get. – Uanfala (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What Pvmoutside has produced is, for better or worse, the state of many species pages. If anyone feels that the bar for species pages should be higher, they really should start an RfC to update WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Yes, Draft:Jean McDonough Arts Center should never have been put in mainspace, but I can't see any problem with the species pages, which is the vast majority of their creations. As mentioned above, if something like Oxyrhopus trigeminus is not an acceptable stub (in my opinion, it's absolutely fine), that's something that needs a wider discussion rather than trying to cause issues for an editor who is only doing what many others have done previously, with apparently few issues. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It's fine to create such stubs, but not on autopatrolled. The suggestion is meant to regulate the masscreation of stubs, and maybe also mention that the species are in danger, enable them to get tagged for too technical, image requested etc. Anyway, the closers seem to follow much more reason than simple majority these days and I'll hope they follow my approach to the masscreation of stubs.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment species articles are a useful magnet for subject experts. Many subject experts will balk at starting a new Wikipedia article, which is intimidating. They will, however, add information to a pre-existing article they happen to have come across, often as an IP editor, and they often give pretty decent referencing. Stub species articles fulfil a very valuable function by providing a place in which others can - easily - write about something that we've already decided is guaranteed to be notable. Elemimele (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • For these species stubs, I think it would be a much better idea to merge them into the genus articles rather than revoke autopatrolled rights (for now). A lot of information is duplicated between the genera and species pages (e.g. Kingdom–Genus infobox entry and authority). I see it as a more productive alternative than what's proposed. SMEs can still improve them because the articles will still be somewhere, and make the resulting page longer and more likely to pass notability challenges. SWinxy (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Let's graciously forgo penalizing the editor for entirely conforming to expected standards, and instead screw up their output contrary to established consensus to avoid nonexistent notability concerns." Here's a better idea: let's not. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A little update. I didn't know that least concern doesn't mean that they are in danger and they are not in danger. I figured that if they are on the red list, they are in danger. I correct me on that. Might be worth clarfifying that in he article. Too technical. But that's a point of view that one can share or not. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The IUCN Red List contains conservation statuses for (ideally) all species, so it will include species that are not threatened. This is not the same meaning that the average person thinks of when someone says "red list" which may just contain species threatened or worse, and some people may refer to regional threatened species indices as "red lists". The IUCN Red List acts more like an encyclopedia. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Destructive editing by User:Universalsunset

    Apparently there is a dispute between Nabongo and Spotts for who is the first black woman to travel to all counties in the world. From what I can tell, User:Universalsunset seem determined to make a statement on the article about Jessica Nabongo that she was the second woman to do so and bend the article about Nabongo in favor of Spotts without proper citations. From the talk page of User:Universalsunset it seems that the user has tried to push through articles stating Spotts as first. I have no problem with the Nabongo article stating she is second, if there is a reputable source declaring her so. I also have a problem that User:Universalsunset is doing destructive edits under the false policy of "promotional edits". This clearly shows the user does not understand Wikipedia policy. The user is also quite new to Wikipedia judging by their contributions so I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

    • I tried to remove the citation "CORRECTION: Jessica Nabongo will be the second black woman after Woni Spotts to travel to every country in the world if she achieves her goal." because it is based on a report for which the source is explicitly stated as being Spotts herself. My edit has been reverted twice without discussion.
    • After having reviewed all the citations in the article I could not find a single citation stating that Nabongo was declared second (except for an article starting with "CORRECTION: ..." which is based on a report by Spotts herself). I edited the article Jessica Nabongo to state that both Nabongo and Spotts claimed to be first and also mentioned the dispute. My edit was reverted.
    • I tried to add that Nabongo authored a book which User:Universalsunset has deemed twice as promotional and reverted my edits.
    • I have tried to add factual details about Nabongo's book (the actual title and the publisher), but my edits have been reverted twice.
    • tried removing all controversial text about the dispute only adding Nabongo as an author, my edit was completely reversed.
    • complete reverts

    --K.Nevelsteen (talk) 07:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, about that --K.Nevelsteen (talk) 07:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Original research performed upon the Bible

    This is about [168]. I'm not seeking sanctions against that editor, just someone to explain him nicely that his own analysis of the Bible is unwanted, according to WP:OR and WP:RSPSCRIPTURE.

    Also, if you're asking, gotquestions.org is not WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this would be better addressed at WP:OR noticeboard. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean: how hard is for admin to leave a message at his talk page, and say "Yes, I'm an admin, and we mean it!"? I believe that more user education prevents harsher measures. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tgeorgescu Administrators shouldn't have any more authority than a regular editor, just a few extra tools to resolve disputes. Anyone at WP:ORN could explain it equally well as an admin here, and with the bonus that it comes from a fresh set of eyes. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    January 6 United States Capitol attack‎

    Wlwl0623 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaging in an edit war to insert a recent controversial topic which primarily cites Fox News and Daily Wire without consensus. On a side note, Matt Smith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly bludgeoning on the talk page to defend Fox News/Tucker Carlson's credibility, framing the article as politically biased because right-wing media are rejected for advancing left-wing political ideology, which is a false statement. The issue has gone so bad that I had to request a temporary semi-protection for talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack‎ due to persistent disruptive messages by ip users. Therefore I request broader administrative involvement to this incident. (Notification has been sent to both Wlwl0623 and Matt Smith.) -- -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Daily Wire material has been removed following community consensus. For Fox News, "Although a significant portion of the community believes Fox News should be considered generally unreliable, the community did not reach a consensus to discourage the use of routine and uncontroversial coverage from Fox News".
    The controversy is around what the video suggests, instead of whether they are authentic. Therefore the existence of this section is justified. Wlwl0623 (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If I recall correctly, consensus differentiates between regular Fox News and their pundits, of whom Carlson is one. His feature on the Capitol is also not “routine and uncontroversial” news. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The controversy here is whether several minutes of video edited down from 40,000 hours presents a full and accurate depiction of events. The video "suggests" what the editors of a highly dubious source intend it to suggest. Without reliable sources stating the video fully and accurately depicts events, anything from Tucker Carlson of Fox News must not be included in such a contentious topic area. soibangla (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    FoxNews(Talkshows) is the relevant entry at WP:RSP. Further amplified by FoxNews(Politics) on same list. So no, if DailyDot and FoxNews are the sources, it is not justified. Add in WP:ONUS, WP:DUE and WP:CONSENSUS and it's really not justified in any way at all. Slywriter (talk) 03:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah Fox News talk shows are not RS, and Fox News are also not an RS for politics. So the fact Fox News may currently not be considered generally unreliable is a moot point since it isn't reliable in the case of the specifics here. Nil Einne (talk) 09:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I am User:Matt Smith, and I would like to point out that User:Sameboat's claim about me is false. I have never defended Tucker Carlson's credibility in a bludgeoning way. In the discussion section, I only mentioned Tucker Carlson in two discussions:

    • The first one is with User:Muboshgu and User:Dumuzid. To see the discussion, please search for my reply to User:Muboshgu with these text: But the video released by Tucker did show that
    • The second one is with User:Slatersteven and User:Sameboat. Too see the discussion, please search for my reply to User:Slatersteven with these text: When exactly have Fox and Carlson "admitted to lying"?

    The first one is relatively short and did not really involve discussing Tucker Carson's credibility. The second one is the actual one, and the only one, which involved discussing Tucker Carson's credibility.

    As we can see, in the second one, User:Sameboat presented me with an old news whose heading is considered taken-out-of-content by me. After that, User:Slatersteven presented me with a few news, which I said are more or less the same. And then User:Slatersteven presented me with a few more news, but User:Sameboat suggested that this debate should not continue. I then agreed tacitly by not continuing to reply to User:Slatersteven.

    Aside from the aforementioned two discussions, I also pinged User:Dronebogus to ask about his particular reason for removing an IP user's comment, which I considered reasonable, though User:Dronebogus did not reply. To see that ping of mine, please search for these text: @Dronebogus: I think the comment you removed actually looked reasonable. That is my last discussion about the article, and it also did not involve discussing Tuck Carlson's credibility. Furthermore, my intention of pinging User:Dronebogus was not discussing Tuck Carlson's credibility. Instead, my intention was discussing the article's balance between different opinions, which does not necessarily need to involve discussing anyone's credibility.

    So what on earth did I bludgeon about? I think User:Sameboat exaggerated those discussions as if a bludgeoning occurred. Maybe he did not pay attention to the details of those discussions? I don't know. Anyway, I did not bludgeon nor even try to, and my tacitly agreeing not to continue the debate in the second discussion already showed that. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed the comment because it was about 90 percent complaining about media bias and fundamental principles like WP:Reliable sources that can’t be changed, and 10 percent anything relevant about the article or topic. Dronebogus (talk) 05:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nearly all of Matt Smith's reply regarding this topic is "it's not about Fox News/Carlson's credibility; it's about the political bias of the article". The worst offender has to be casting doubt on the J6 committee's integrity[169][170] which is not backed by any reliable source. This issue is always about our reliable source policy, nothing less, nothing more, but Matt Smith shrugged it all off every time we told him about that. I find it very unconvincing from an editor active since 2014 (on Chinese Wikipedia), and conclude that it's a deliberate act of manipulation to derail the discussion. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 07:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Carlson is explicitly listed as unreliable at RSPS and even if he wasn’t, as Fox News’s chief polemicist, if he told me it was raining, I’d stick my hand out the door to double check. Any editor who disagrees really needs to be bonked with the WP:CIR bat. Sceptre (talk) 08:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, the page is unlikely to have been fully-protected on account of one (or even two) user(s), anyway. El_C 09:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Sameboat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continued to make exaggerated claim against me, for example, by asserting that nearly all of my replies regarding this topic are about the political bias of the article. But the fact is that, out of those specific 7 replies of mine, only the last one is such. Also, I felt that he went too far and likely breached WP:No personal attack by labeling me as "The worst offender". --Matt Smith (talk) 09:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    No, he didn't, as that's not a personal attack. For my money, you're inching ever closer to a topic ban. —  Salvio giuliano 10:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    After using those words (which I consider offensive), he linked my comments. Is that not the same as including me in his targets?
    The discussion about the article had already ended in the article's talk page. I came to here just to clarify his claims about me, not to continue on the topic. Therefore, I'm not sure why you would think of topic ban. Would you mind explaining? Matt Smith (talk) 11:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't this one of those cases where WP:ARE might be a better bet if there are problems with user behaviour serious enough to warrant action? Nil Einne (talk) 11:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For Matt Smith, probably. For Wlwl0623 I'm not sure, because, from a very cursory examination of his edits, I'm starting to wonder whether a WP:NOTHERE indef wouldn't be be the best solution... —  Salvio giuliano 11:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah a possible community site ban or indef is one reason to continue this. Nil Einne (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. I see both of the main named editors may have only been given alerts recently so maybe it's unlikely an admin can sanction under CT either unilaterally or from ARE. Even so, IMO it's probably better to just wait and see if any alleged misbehaviour improves and file at ARE if it doesn't rather than bother with a community sanctions process. Nil Einne (talk) 11:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    CAT:RFU LTA needs blocking

    IP blocked for block evasion. (non-admin closure) – Nythar (💬-🍀) 17:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    2600:1001:B136:6B9:4098:C00E:999D:643B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) most recent incarnation of the CAT:RFU admin impersonator LTA needs blocking can't report to AIV, since the range is already partially blocked Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Already blocked by 331dot. Thanks for reporting! --Yamla (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User: Thesaurabhsaha

    Thesaurabhsaha threatened me on my talk page. They were very uncivil and i had no involvement in the conflict they are describing. They called me a terror and threatened severe action. Nagol0929 (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nagol0929: Hi, I'm sorry to hear that — could you please link to some diffs where they threatened you? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 15:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is the one referred to. To me it looks like two fairly inexperienced editors having a content dispute, not sure this 'threat' is clear enough to be actionable. Definitely rude, though. Valereee (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I did see that, but evidently didn't make the connection! I agree — @Nagol0929 and Thesaurabhsaha: I'd strongly recommend either finding something away from each other to edit, taking a step away from Wikipedia for a bit, or reviewing other methods of dispute resolution. Disputes like this which end up at ANI have a habit of resulting in editors talking themselves into blocks — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 15:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright thank you Nagol0929 (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Chronic addition of unsourced / WP:OR by Donmccullen

    Donmccullen (talk · contribs) was blocked by @TheresNoTime: last year for "Persistent addition of unsourced content." Since the block expired, the editor is making almost exclusively unsourced edits, but more problematic, making edits based on their experience: WP:ISAWIT or WP:IHEARDIT.

    @Tide rolls:, @Sammi Brie: and @Mvcg66b3r: have attempted to explain things to this editor [171] [172] with no success.

    See edit summaries confirming WP:ISAWIT or WP:IHEARDIT:

    1. [173] (→‎CBS: I saw the 1985 CBS preview special)
    2. [174] (→‎CBS: I have seen the 1984 Satuday's The Place special on Youtube)
    3. [175] (I have seen clips of this show and see its smilarties)
    4. [176] (→‎Early history: I listned to this station when it was KJIM)
    5. [177] (→‎I grew up in the market and remember KXRM carrying the very CBS shows)
    6. [178] (→‎Recording: I have listened to the song and remembered its lyrics.)
    7. [179] (→‎History: I have a firend that worked for teh station.)

    Talk page warnings are not getting through. Toddst1 (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    P-blocked from article space to see if we can get this editor's attention; in 17 years and 3700 edits they've never responded to the multiple concerns brought up at their user talk. Valereee (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Arcticle Taras Shevchenko

    user Joaziela ignoring sources --- Neptune777 (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    you are making edition war and dont participate in discussion page. Already @Freerow2 and @Surveyor Mount were doing the same vandalism as you and also claiming that he wasnt born in Russian Empire. Really i understand that you have war, but stop with this antirussian propaganga, removing Russian art history. Shevchenko was born in Russian Empire, work in Russian language (nine novellas, a diary, and an AUTOBIOGRAPHY), only poetry in Ukrainian, so Russian language wirter and Ukrainian language poet as it was standing before you start with your propaganda Joaziela (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there are two issues here. From the last couple of edits I get the idea that, in this context, "Ukrainian" is not referring to the language of his works but to his ethnic origin. MOS:NATIONALITY states that [t]he opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident; or, if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was a citizen, national, or permanent resident when the person became notable. Nevertheless, it also includes the following proviso: Ethnicity [...] should generally not be in the lead sentence unless relevant to the subject's notability (emphasis mine). While Shevchenko was, indeed, a subject of the Russian Empire, and a distinguished one at that (he was even recognised as a member of the Imperial Academy of Arts), he was known to have expressed himself explicitly in favour of some sort of autonomy if not outright independence for Ukrainians, and in many ways this is what he is best known for today. Now I do not think you're acting in bad faith, and I, too, am worried about instances of blind (and wrong) "wikiukrainisation" of places and individuals, but this is quite clearly not the case. I don't think I could come up with a better example than Shevchenko of a situation in which a figure's ethnic origin should take precedence over other considerations in the lede. If you feel his works in Russian deserve more space (which could be a valid point), then come up with a way to integrate them into the article outside of the lede.
    The second issue is people removing "Russian Empire" as country of birth in the infobox, or introducing placenames transliterated from the modern Ukrainian official names instead of using the historically accurate Russian (or, in other cases, Soviet, Austrian, Hungarian, Polish...) names. In those cases I believe your edits are justified in essence, and there are MOS considerations as well as Wikipedia policies that support your position, but you're not conveying this in an articulate and civil manner. I would advise you to step back a little and find a way to formulate your concerns more adequately. I get your frustration as it is apparent that many users have refused to engage in discussion in the talk page, but do understand that your abrasive style isn't conducive to discussion either, and probably puts off reasonable editors. A random IP popping out of nowhere with weak diffs won't make a difference, but you are engaging with different individual editors in an antagonistic manner, casting WP:ASPERSIONS freely, and that can't end well. You have been blocked for a week due to your edit warring recently, and it can only go downhill from there if you don't find a way to communicate more efficiently. Ostalgia (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ostalgia notice it was written neutral facts: "Ukrainian language poet, Russian language writer". The facts are that only his poetry is in Ukrainian language. All his writing including autobiography was in Russian language. See at: [180] there Russian language is called: "aggression and perpetuates crimes of the past". With this logic just reading Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Nabokov, Zamyatin, Solzhenitsyn you are committing a crime. As you notice this blind wikiukrainisation is taking place and we need to keep strict to facts. Joaziela (talk) 10:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Neptune777, for the record, a notice must be placed on the other user's talk page. I've done that, but in future please read the instructions on how to do that at the top of this page when you open an edit box. Valereee (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition to casting aspersions, Joaziela's ranting is starting to get... disturbingly nationalistic. At this point he is well deserving of a block whether he is right or wrong on the content issue. 73.68.72.229 (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    After going through their recent edits, Joaziela seems to be on some kind of anti-Ukrainian crusade as most of their edits are either pointedly drawing attention to past misdeeds by Ukrainians:
    Or just outright attempting to deny any historical existence of Ukraine:
    I know I'm just an IP, but Joaziela is blatantly Wikipedia:NOTHERE 73.68.72.229 (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear IP @73.68.72.229, if you don't like something it doesn't mean it isn't true. Describing Bandera was "Ukrainian nationalists and convicted terrorist" (facts: he was convicted terrorist for ordering political murder of Bronisław Pieracki and leader of nationalist group OUN-B that is responsible for Volhynia genocide), describing him as politician, is as calling Hitler "watercolourists and vegetarian".
    Cossack Hetmanate was created by Polish Treaty of Zboriv. And lastly: before 20 century historically Ukraine meant border region between Poland and Russia (Name of Ukraine). Those are facts, if you don't like facts it don't change them. The fact is also except poetry in Ukrainian language, Shevchenko writing including autobiography was all in Russian language. Neutral facts, not emotional opinions, this is what this is about (and again i understand war, but let don't make because of it reading Russian literature a war crime) Joaziela (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Cross wiki vandalism

    OVER SEERS OF THE PROMISED LAND
    (non-admin closure) The offending edits to enwiki have been oversighted. If need be, the OP can also go to Meta for a global ban of the culprit IP ranges. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi,

    I am a sysop on fr-WP. Hermine Horiot contacted us on the French VRTS address to report being cross-wiki harassed. The perpetrator adds libellous contents both on en-WP and fr-WP under IP 2A01:CB04:B50:A500:0:0:0:0/64 or 2A01:CB04:B50:A500:0:0:0:0/64. Can you please block them here for a significant duration? (their contributions are harmful since Jan 2022). Or protect the article?

    Also, these two versions should be erased: [181] [182]

    Thanks by advance JohnNewton8 (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Dilpreet Singh and mess at Talk:Amritpal Singh (activist)

    This user has repeatedly refused to understand Wikipedia Policy about reliable sources, verifiability and assuming good faith. His activity on Talk:Amritpal Singh (activist) (which is a BLP talk page) is highly disruptive and tendentious.

    • User also claims that Page Protections have been added to this page for the sole purpose of "pro-state narrative to flourish"
      like here and here

    Users like @CrusaderForTruth2023: and @Mixmon: and I have attempted to explain to him and point him to relevant guidelines and policy, but he shows no capacity what so over to understand what we are attempting to explain. WP:NOTHERE in the form of Treating editing as a battleground — Preceding unsigned comment added by Extorc (talk • contribs) 19:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding my summary on a closed DRN as a reference. Mixmon (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I belive if you rather input to construct a dialog at first we wouldn't be in this situation. I have pointed multiple times same concern and your response is in a way, like you don't want to accommodate ground reality. there's is clearly WP:NPOV and article is not balanced. If you guys understood at first point why I have to repeat so many times to make you stop on further edit that too without discussing on the talk page. Dilpreet Singh ping  20:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But you haven't cited any reliable source WP:RS you are just promoting original research WP:OR Mixmon (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RS we will discuss this on relevant page and there's already a thread & will open another one to discuss this further. Dilpreet Singh ping  20:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Extorc @Mixmon User Dilpreet Singh has the right to claim a possible conflict of interest as per WP:COI, seeing as one of the two users have Hindutva userboxes and both the users’ editing history is related to figures related to the Hindutva movement (including creating articles for Hindutva personalities). It is not a personal attack if a user suspects another of having possible conflict of interest in-regards to their editing if it can be reasonably assumed based on their activity and information provided on Wikipedia. Therefore, this is @Dilpreet Singh asserting a conflict of interest with regards to certain editors on an article where it may interfere. Dilpreet should not be punished and the victim of a witchhunt if he voices concerns about conflicts of interest of certain editors. Diffs: 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Abhijit%20Iyer-Mitra&oldid=1139528075 – draft for Hindutva internet personality, Abhijit Iyer-Mitra, by user Mixmon 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy%20Index&diff=prev&oldid=1140538871 – including viewpoints of Hindutva economist, Sanjeev Sanyal, in article by Mixmon, even after being reverted by another editor who was concerned about including the views of a controversial figure into the article. User Extorc currently has a Hindutva infobox on his user page, whilst this may not indicate an affiliation with Hindutva but rather a genuine interest in Hindutva topics, a cursory look at his editing history can reasonably lead to someone coming to the latter conclusion. His choice of words in past edits are suspect of holding certain viewpoints on issues which are sympathetic of common Hindutva talkpoints and narratives, such as that Muslims are overly-appeased in India: 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_landmark_court_decisions_in_India&diff=prev&oldid=1144783208 – writing edit that discusses how a court decision relates to the apparent "appeasement" of the Muslim minority in India. 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Islam&diff=prev&oldid=1140942154 – contributing to an article titled "Criticism of Islam", where he changed wording slightly to claim that Muslims are more aggressive due to their religious environment and "Islamic imperialistic history", which is suspect given the above points. Therefore, is it unreasonable for Dilpreet to claim conflicts of interest based on Hindutva considering all of this? It is not a baseless personal attack as it is being presented here. ThethPunjabi (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now what is "Hindutva economist" the user who reverted again cited no source for this labelling (I accepted that edit not because of the reason cited by that editor but because of lack of good quality critical analysis in the source unlike you who are hell-bent on carrying out personal attacks and disregard to policies). You people can fall to such a low level- even if you disagree with the views of the person in draft article how is that an indication of bias? Following that logic editors who created articles on criminals have a criminal mindset? That draft is still there and I will work on that ( by the way again no source to brand him "Hindutva personality"). I am not supposed to clarify on this but it remains a proof of your meanness. Mixmon (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mixmon I am not being mean or personally attacking anyone, I am making the argument that Dilpreet has reasonable grounds for voicing concerns of certain editors on the basis of WP:COI and that his accusations are not empty, hollow, or unsubstantiated (as shown by the diffs I have provided above). Your draft of Abhijit Iyer-Mitra portrayed him positively and does not meet WP:BALANCE, it makes no mention of his past controversies, controversial views, and affiliations with extremist ideologies. The controversy section is shallow and concludes by again showing him in a positive light.
    Abhijit Iyer-Mitra literally is an contributor and writer for the Swarajya Magazine, one of the the main internet outlets for Hindutva on the internet: (search the keywords "Abhijit Iyer-Mitra swarajya" on Google to find his page on the Swarajya website, I cannot link it because their website is blacklisted on Wikipedia)
    Sanjeev Sanyal is associated with the BJP, working as an economic advisor to it, the main Hindutva political party of India: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/profiles-sanjeev-sanyal-the-man-of-economic-sutras/article65076927.ece ThethPunjabi (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the arguments you are making full of original research and lies - I can reply to this nonsense if you want but bring it to my talk page. This noticeboard is not for that. Mixmon (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mixmon This is the right place for this discussion as it was claimed @Dilpreet Singh made personal attacks by suggesting others may have a Hindutva bias. Meanwhile, an editor can suggest possible conflict of interests regarding certain editors in specific areas as per WP:COI, and these are not personal attacks if they are reasonable based on the particular editor's activity and information shared on Wikipedia. ThethPunjabi (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    same thing I have noticed about DaxServer, they kept a biased against Sikhs. no doubt our observations was correct. Dilpreet Singh ping  21:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dilpreet Singh This is a gross personal attack. I'll let it go if you strike it off — DaxServer (t · m · c) 22:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What real arguments about policies and guidelines they are making? Their entire agrument is based on allegations on editors and original research about their editing. Mixmon (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dilpreet Singh if you suspect another user of having a conflict of interest, please substantiate your claim by referring to their past editing history, information they provided about themselves on Wikipedia, and the views they have shared on Wikipedia (by sharing links of examples of evidence to support your assertion). Otherwise, it may be seen as a personal attack without basis. ThethPunjabi (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was just thinking of filing a report on Dilpreet Singh. The only thing the user has to offer is that [all] RS are just state-run propaganda. The user is exhibiting a crusader’s WP:RGW behaviour. Sorting thru the discussions is painful and quite a headache as the talk page is being littered with the same argument (see OP links). The user is a net negative and clearly WP:NOTHERE for an encyclopaedia — DaxServer (t · m · c) 21:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, and see the reply to my Contentious topic reminder here where they just repeats the same thing — DaxServer (t · m · c) 21:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC) (amended at 21:44 22 March 2023 (UTC))[reply]
      and this comment is an example of his biasedness against sikhs. If you wants a constructive dialogs then you have to give space to others. Dilpreet Singh ping  21:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me summarise Dilpreet's major arguments -
    1. All the sources cited in the Amritpal article are state propaganda.
    2. The editors on that page are government-affiliated "state lobby".
    3. The editors are only pushing state-sponsored sources while ignoring sources offered by Dilpreet.
    4. Wikipedia is "biased against Sikhs" as they "don't have many accounts that meet the requirement for the semi-protected".
    5. Editors are not aware of the ground reality so they are defaming "drug healer" "bhai" Amritpal Singh.
    6. Protection on the page is Wikipedia's "conspiracy against Sikhs" to keep them away for the reasons mentioned in point #4. Mixmon (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Let me make it easy, there are two concerns which I have :
      1. Balanced conversation.
      2. opportunity to edit/protect the article.
      check your points they are merely an explanation that you don't want a WP:BALANCE conversation. I repeated this many times in many ways and you are going in circle. Dilpreet Singh ping  22:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked Dilpreet_Singh for three days for personal attacks after my warnings earlier today. I don't have much faith that they'll contribute constructively after the block, but it'll stop the immediate disruption while this discussion continues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it was @ThethPunjabi who made bigger personal attacks than Dilpreet here. Mixmon (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mixmon @ScottishFinnishRadish I supported Dilpreet's claim of possible conflict of interest in violation of WP:COI using diffs/links of past user history and citations. Therefore, there was no unsubstantiated personal attacks made against any user. I have remained civil in my tone of writing as well, even after Mixmon started writing uncivilly to me above, accusing me of "meanness", "You people can fall to such a low level", and "unlike you who are hell-bent on carrying out personal attacks and disregard to policies". Furthermore, I warned Dilpreet Singh above to not make unsubstantiated claims of COI without evidence (such as diffs) to support his assertions or else they will be viewed as personal attacks. ThethPunjabi (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Bluntly, everyone on that article that isn't some drive-by and is actually going to stay and defend their position should be given a warning for the India-Pakistan contentious topic area, with Singh probably being one of the worse ones due to the aspersions-casting. The topic area is a powderkeg; the last thing we need is nationalist bickering. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 04:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jéské Couriano I took your point and tried to extend an olive branch at the article talk page just now but the other editors there accused me of “propaganda” now. So who is in the wrong when one tries to make amends and the others continue to attack, belittle, and argue with them? ThethPunjabi (talk) 07:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Javerine

    The user is deleting proper, well cited material on the page Cis-Sutlej states, to add what are his own theories and original research using selective portion of one citation. It's a clear case of adding revisionist history to suit his own POV. CrashLandingNew (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @CrashLandingNew Commenting here because I was asked to share my opinion over email. I remember seeing @Javerine delete a section of the article mentioning cis-Sutlej states paying tribute and/or being under the suzerainty of the Maratha empire, but this claim was only cited using a British Raj-era source, which is not reliable and therefore can be removed, so he is justified in removing that. I cannot recall the WP: code for citing the policy that discusses the issue of Raj-era sources being unreliable as sources on Wikipedia but it exists (MOS:RAJ or WP:RAJ? or something like that). As for the other things that were edited and changed on the article, I have not gone through all of it as of yet but I will try to read through all the changes. ThethPunjabi (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • User CrashLandingNew reverted well sources information and sources including that of historian Hari Ram Gupta. He did it 4 times already and I left a message to stop disruptive editing.[183]. Soon after, CrashLandingNew submitted same warning on my talk page as can be seen here.[184] and then submitted another message on false pretext [185]. Here are his some of his reverts: [186], [187], [188], [189].

    Even from the messages on the reverts, user is pretty aggressive and doesn't take time to go through the information provided and reverts the changes back the way he wants. User CrashLandingNew has been disruptive and uncooperative before as well according to previous discussion by other user on his talk page [190] and on this noticeboard.[191]. I would like administrator to please take necessary action. My changes on article Cis-Sutlej states can be seen here [192] and you can see that they are well detailed with reliable sources and footnotes as compared to changes that the user prefers [193] and the problem with his changes is that, none of the sources back the information he stated such as "tributes were paid". And he also removes additional information that are vital to the article where some of them come from the exact same source that he shares as well but doesn't prefer that to be viewed. The user has already reverted my changes and I would like someone to please take a look at this case. Javerine (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    As is evident from the history of the page under discussion, User:Javerine has deleted well defined , cited material only to add his POV. Just go through his own submissions and see how he deleted information backed by multiple citations and used one to add selectively. He first did this deletion of citations and adding of completely new version of history on 16th March, some of his edits were reverted by an IP on 19th March, he reverted that IP's edits. I came across the page on 22nd March and found the page to be completely different from what it was last time I checked. Also, kindly notice how he is only using selective portions of the citation he is mentioning. Much of what he is adding is not at all backed by any citation and is his own original research. No efforts to discuss the changes on talk page either. CrashLandingNew (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Another thing that I would like to point out is that if you look at the source templates that the user sites, they are poorly informed with no page numbers. Another thing, the user didn't leave a notice on my talk page about the discussion on this noticeboard. Finally, there was exact same reverts done by IP [194] with similar comment as that of User CrashLandingNew on "Vandalism" which is completely false. Javerine (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Here, see how User:Javerine deleted all the citations which he didn't like apparently, in his first attempt of disruptive editing. CrashLandingNew (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Both of you need to discuss the content dispute on the article's talk page calmly. Javerine made an attempt at starting a discussion there; CrashLandingNew, your response was to bluster and threaten. Please try discussing. Schazjmd (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (after edit conflict) This looks to have at its heart a content dispute. I have no idea whether anyone is right in that, but you are both wrong in the way that you are going about things. You should both stop editing the article, but should discuss things civilly on the talk page with each other. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand but the user CrashLandingnew isn't being cooperative and that is the problem. The user is in no mood to resolve the dispute and keeps repeating about having me blocked for vandalism. He did it on my talk page and on the article's talk page [195]. That is why I think its better if additional help can be possible to looks at my changes and the user's changes that I mentioned above. The changes I made are well detailed and improvement to the article. Previously it was mostly incorrect with sources not even supporting the sentences. Javerine (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest writing up a comparison of the sources and the content differences on the talk page, then inviting editors at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics to join in the discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, i have added my contribution about the sources and information that I think is best of the article for its detail and accuracy. Any editor can take a look at it on the article's talk page [196] and can run a comparison with the article Cis-Sutlej states. Javerine (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You have only deleted the well defined citations and the information backed by them. You are suppose to use the talk page before bringing in such heavy changes which completely change the narrative of the page. The discussion should have been initiated on the talk page before making these substantial edits and removal of citations. The discussion is on now btw. CrashLandingNew (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you didn't read the response earlier by Schazjmd and also ignoring that I initiated the discussion on talk page [197] before you started reverting without following discussion. Javerine (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Davidcannon's BLPs

    A thread I started at the BLP noticeboard has been archived. Davidcannon is an adminstrator that has created several BLPs consisting almost entirely of unsourced contentious information (see Samuela Matakibau as an example of one which was outright deleted as a G10). I was hoping more eyes (especially from adminstrators who likely have more experience dealing with situations like this) would be useful. I strongly suggest reading the thread and other linked conversations there to understand the underlying context. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that I have manually un-archived that BLPN thread, which as far as I can tell, Davidcannon did not reply to. It now can be found here. El_C 05:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness and upon closer look, Davidcannon's last contribution was early Feb. The list in that thread may be of import, though, and perhaps a dedicated subpage would work better. El_C 05:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CrusaderForTruth2023 - gaming

    CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    The user has made tons of small edits to Leeladhar Jagudi, Giriraj Kishore (writer), PM-SHRI Scheme over the last couple of days. The user is also an involved party at Amritpal Singh (activist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (also see ANI § Dilpreet Singh and mess at Talk:Amritpal Singh (activist) above). The user is clearly WP:GAMING for EC rights [purportedly to edit the ECP Amritpal Singh (activist) page, judging by the fact that they edited it before it was ECP'd]. I'd recommend a watch over the user. The username might as well be against the policy as it seem to be disruptive (also see [198]) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 05:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Just trying to clarify the legitimacy of an editor's tactic.

    Sorry for bothering you again, I'm just trying to clarify the legitimacy of a technique. I made a complaint about a user back in February [199] The jist was:

    Today I saw that the user <user name>, after being knocked back in a failed RfC on [200] (they were directed to the Marxist cultural analysis article as an alternate place to edit) they immediately created a merge for that page (Marxist cultural analysis aimed merging it with the much broader topic of Culture studies) - in order to, I presume, get rid of the obstacle/argument by merging the article. This manipulation seems to be part of their ongoing project to revive 'Cultural Marxism' as having currency or modern political relevance.

    I came here to ask about this er... tactic, because I've just reverted similar on the page for Cultural Bolshevism, where they performed a merger without discussion, then slashed the merged content by half. This is a topic related to Cultural Marxism (just as Marxist Cultural Analysis is), and my original complaint was that they were attempting to WP:OWN the topic area. I see they're also active in a large range of culture war topics (stemming from GamerGate), and I fear they may have done similar types of... "vandalism?" elsewhere. So is this sort of thing approved on Wikipedia? Or does this warrant keeping an eye on this user? Like I say, last time I asked I didn't get a response, probably because the discussion was flooded with walls of text from involved editors (as things related to "Cultural Marxism" tend to be). Any response by someone who might know is appreciated. 220.235.229.181 (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct by Transylvania1916

    Transylvania1916 is engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct seeking to add the leader of Romania to the infobox in the World War II article. This has included:

    This is clearly really uncivil and unhelpful, and I'd be grateful if an admin could take appropriate action. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Romania being where it is, this is clearly an Eastern Europe CTOP problem, but this editor had never been alerted to the CTOP rules. I’ve done that alert, and if conduct like that shown continues I’ll be willing to topic ban them from Romania in WW2… but since this was their first alert, I can’t do that unilaterally. Courcelles (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      What I will do, when I get to work and have a computer and not an iPad, is place a warning in the AE log for incivility within a designated contentious topic; provided this thread hasn’t moved significantly in 90 minutes. Courcelles (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I make my case real quick? The infobox shows only 3 Axis leaders. Two of them are alright, being in that position for the entire war. But two thirds into the war Mussolini was deposed and spent the remainder as a puppet leader. I have multiple RS stating that, following the Italian armistice, Romania became the second Axis power in Europe for 1 year, so I see the need to add Romania's leader as a means of completion, because otherwise - I maintain - the infobox lies by omission. This is not something that should really be debated or argued, it's just basic chronology. Nick-D, I admit, got on my nerves, since he comes across to me as incorrigible, and yes, he does make me feel like talking to a wall. Transylvania1916 (talk) 10:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The user (RG72) edits his/her personal photos to different articles which most of the time don't add any relevant information to the article.

    Here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/RG72&target=RG72&offset=&limit=20 you can see his/her contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A31A:A248:4E00:28D3:51E:3646:AD49 (talk) 10:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1146199872"