Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

I am highly sceptical that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today BilledMammal nominated two dozen Danish international footballers with the surname "Nielsen". Many of these players were active before the internet age so a web search probably isn't enough to check for

WP:SIGCOV

. But just a quick look at some of the players' careers suggest they could very well be notable. For example:

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

Bottom line: It's very hard to assume that "reasonable steps to search for reliable sources" per 

WP:BEFORE were taken. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:BEFORE and the nominated the articles. If it's a bigger problem maybe it should be part of the ongoing AE discussion. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah. These articles (as far as I can tell) are non-frivolous AfD nominations--which is not to presume that they deserve deletion, simply that they're worthy of discussion. Presenting evidence (as Robby.is.on has done above) would seem to be the way forward to me. That said, I feel like everyone is being a bit overly prickly here. A bit unkind to presume no

unnecesary templating. The NPA business seems a bit much to me, but that's subjective. I think, if possible, everyone should try to reset and return to the evidence. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

WP:BEFORE

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

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

And that still leaves one more mess. For stubs that met earlier laxer notability standards (primarily sports), no one is to blame, but they are subject to challenge, based on a good?-faith

WP:BEFORE. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:NSPORT for footballers.Jahaza (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  The SNG was

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

  ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+2, when failing articles are created at a rate of dozens a day, nomination of them at a similar rate for deletion is justified. Anything other than this is insisting that articles are never cleaned up at all. That paper archives might exist is also not a valid keep rationale - they either do or they don’t, and if they do exist then the

wp:burden is on those supporting keeping the article to show that they do exist.FOARP (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

In addition, the civility issues at AfD aren't limited to these accusations related to

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

]

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

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

I think that Govvy may have an unrealistic view of what an adequate Before search looks like: They've insisted that it requires an offline search [1][2][3][4], which would presumably require the AfD nom to travel to Denmark if they are not currently located there.

WP:BEFORE

actually says that if an editor has searched Google, Google Books, Google News, Google News Archive, Google Scholar and The Wikipedia Library and found a lack of sources, than they have completed their basic due diligence.

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

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

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

@

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

]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part of the problem is the sheer mass of nominations. The other problem is that placing an informed voted and doing a detailed

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

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

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

shouldn't this have been thought about before the article was created? Maybe, but the articles were created at a time when there was an

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

]

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

• having to create an article from scratch is a much higher barrier I don't see how; the AfD is on record for everyone to see, and the only difficulty is
  Avilich (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mass deletion is the consequence of

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

]

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

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

Not to mention that many of these supposedly perfect redirect targets would in no logical instance actually mention the name of the person which serves as the redirect. E.g. The parent team article which is supposed to broadly cover the whole history of the team as a well as some of the recent performance is probably not going to mention by name that one left defender who played a half season in 1923, as that would be

WP:UNDUE. Not to mention the "MUST BE REDIRECTED NEVER DELETE" privileges these trivial footballers over other possibly notable subjects which might have the same name. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Oppenheim, for example, whereas a result a footballer who played one match in 1909 has a redirect to a list of Austrian footballers, so if you're searching for Harry Oppenheim the newspaper publisher, or the art collector, or the South African businessman, or the Scottish politician, fuck you I guess, only football matters. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

And then if it is pointed out that a redirect isn't suitable, the proposal then becomes to move the article to a disambiguated title and redirect that, before creating an unmaintainable dab page at the primary title for non-notable people in contradiction of

WP:NOTDIRECTORY. BilledMammal (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

talk) 23:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

    There is no exception clause to

    WP:BEFORE for "well, they didn't do it, so I don't have to either." Nor is there anything in it that says "if you think there probably aren't sources, you don't actually have to prove it." 00:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

    ]

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

    WP:BEFORE

    .

    I would also disagree with your claim about an exception clause; considering it in the context of

    WP:NOTDATABASE, such a search is not required although editors may chose to do it anyway. BilledMammal (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

    ]

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

until

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

]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Not just BilledMammal - we also have @

  NemesisAT:, has nominated c. 25 articles for deletion in c. 20 minutes. Based on the AFD discussions so far, BEFORE was not performed because a large number of sources showing notability have been found by other users. GiantSnowman 16:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

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

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

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

  Currently, I'm not planning to bring any more through AfD; there are two things I want to happen first. First, I want to try and move mass created articles that violate

  WP:NOTDATABASE out of article space in larger groups; I'm not certain whether I try this with RfC's, as proposed above, or if I wait and see if a suitable process emerges from ArbCom's RfC. Second, I want to see if there is a consensus in the community to throttle AfD nominations; if there is, I will of course abide by it. BilledMammal (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think that comes down to why we have policies and guidelines like

WP:NOT

; the reasons we need to delete them are as broad as the reasons we need those policies and guidelines.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rules at

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

]

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

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

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

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

WP:G7'd.) Levivich (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Related discussion at

WT:AFD

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

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

Because of this, I think it may be worth contemplating some kind of supplemental guideline (or even a new process) for batch nominations. I've created a section at

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

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

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

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

Related discussion on mass creations

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

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

IP socking starting back up on the talk page

IP socks of Dnywlsh are starting back up with the personal attacks and trolling on

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

This is just false.

MrOllie (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

That is not what the SPI concluded. It concluded they couldn't make a technical connection because the data was stale, so it would have to be determined by behavioral evidence. You claim here here is so obviously false, I'm forced to think you are making it in bad faith. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, someone beat me to blocking you. Oh well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification, there could never be any public connection involving the IPs based on technical evidence per the WMF's privacy policy, behavioural evidence is the only way publicly. One of the IP's was blocked for other reasons and after that I don't think it was felt particularly important to decide if they were a sock so it wasn't considered further. Nil Einne (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patachonica was blocked as a sock, so I wouldn't be putting too much emphasis on their support. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CymruFootyFan - you have been told multiple times by multiple editors to include sources when you edit. You seem unable to do so. How therefore can we help, other than doing your job for you? GiantSnowman 17:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

In the talk page sections of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other concerning stuff;

[9] Here he proposes to add 'Turco-Iranian' instead of 'Iranian' in the lede... using a source that says 'Persian dynasty'. Right before then, he was shown multiple sources in another thread, that 'Iranian/Persian' was the used term in

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

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

Based on all this, it seems that BerkBerk68 is here on a mission to Turkify articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is about the article Turkic history

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

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

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

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

Now onto the Hun section;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing has been addressed, you are simply sweeping it under the rug. You are repeating the same old points you made earlier, which has already been replied to [22]. One of the many concerns is that the Xiougnu and Huns origins are still disputed, and thus shouldn't be there no matter how you spin it, hence why it was removed in the first place. BerkBerk ignored that and went on to restore it. As you've already been told various times, we have a rule named

WP:TLDR. I'll let the admins take over. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

The fact they could be Turkic is NOT rejected and is still pushed by many scholars of the West, as evidenced by the sources provided in the new edit, and in the main articles of the

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

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

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

WP:CIR. HistoryofIran (talk

)

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the record:

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

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

Calling people that has different opinions "Turkish irredentist", There is obvious

WP:ASPERSIONS at the comment unsigned by User:LouisAragon[26]. BerkBerk68^talk 17:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have not presented any evidence of off-wiki Reddit or Twitter threads that prove HistoryOfIran is biased, and even if you did, we are not interested in any off-wiki disputes. Only diffs here on Wikipedia are acceptable as evidence. Regards,

Contact me | Contributions). 22:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

Again, off wiki disputes matter nothing here. In fact, neither you nor zenzyyx have provided any diffs at all, as far as I can tell. If you cannot bring any evidence to the table at all, then this report is without merit. If you think that is in error, then reply with an actual diff link, rather than having to resort to off-wiki links because you literally have no evidence. Regards,

Contact me | Contributions). 02:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

We aren't interested in what off-wiki users on social media have to say; you must provide evidence of bias within Wikipedia itself, not on other unrelated sites. Regards,

Contact me | Contributions). 22:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

Note that

Contact me | Contributions). 00:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Back to topic

This report has steered too much into the direction of off-topic as a result of excessive bickering, some of it instigated by a now indeffed account. I'll make a quick TLDR of the most relevant bits of my report; BerkBerk68 completely disregarded the

I pretty much agree, this case turned into a defamation mess especially when @

WP:ASPERSIONS

).

I've already mentioned that the

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

mentioned).

Since the article was unsuitable for Wikipedia's standard (

WP:MOS

), and with the lack of consensus, I wanted to introduce a new, much more detailed and properly sourced edit. I put the Huns and Xiongnu in their own sections ("Early historical affiliations") to further emphasise their controversial origins and did not state that they are Turkic.

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

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

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

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

• "
  WP:ASPERSIONS
  "

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

• "...at his unsigned comment"

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

WP:NOTHERE

.

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

@BerkBerk68; Yes, you have multiple times stated that you did not present the origin of the Xiongnu and Huns as definite Turkic. That was also what you stated the previous time. We get that, however consensus was still that they shouldn't be there no matter how it would be spinned, which you were told countless times (here for example [39]). What do you then do? Proceed to re-add them and repeat the very same old argument (

WP:REHASH) which was already rejected. Frankly, it seems that you simply dont care about community input, and only follow your own personal opinion. And I am certainly not the first person to notice that [40]. And thus I have reported you, because time and time you have proven that words (whether its from scholars or users) dont get through to you. Wikipedia is a collaborate effort, not a individual one. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

Sigh, even still now words are not getting through to you. You shouldn't have added that version in the first place before discussing, as there was indeed a consensus, which you even now keep ignoring. Yes, as I've already told you at least 6 times, I reverted you because it violated the previous consensus as well as

WP:ONUS which you have been told of multiple times). And no, it is not my job to fix your mess, as you also have been told [41]. Either fix it yourself, or expect it to get reverted. There are no guidelines that says I have to hold your hand. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

No, you shouldn't have added that version in the first place, as you've been told countless times. The fact that you still think like that and consider a version riddled with

WP:CIR issues as well. I'll wait for an admin. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

Oh please, you didn't say anything about Belugan's problematic behaviour till he got indeffed. In fact, even after his block you were still supporting him (just like he had been supporting you), writing a unhelpful comment in a thread that was closed [45]. But now he's suddenly a problematic troll? Also, if you're planning on accusing someone, I sure do hope you have diffs, otherwise you are being no different than Belugan in violating

WP:ASPERSIONS yourself. Anyways, let's not deviate again, the only users which should be talked about are you and me. If someone has other concerns, please take it somewhere else. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

You are literally insuating that I am doing something fishy - you are the third user in this report to accuse me of something alike, and the third to do so without any form of evidence. I could also very easily point out even more questionable stuff regarding you, but I rather stick to direct evidence in the form of diffs, as seen up above. This is nothing but

WP:ASPERSIONS. As for your comments in relation to Belugan, I’ll the admins be the judge of that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

Serial plagiarism

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

The notice at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Contributor surveys indicates that the page has been superseded by Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations, so I recommend filing a case request at CCI if you think a contribution survey is needed. While I'm here, I should note that I removed a significant 5.5k addition of copyvio earlier this month from the History of Romania article that had been added by TheLastOfTheGiants, and they were warned twice more on their talk page about unattributed copying within Wikipedia – all of those went without acknowledgement – so I'm concerned by recent statements like "What is the issue with it being a copy from the Origin of the Romanians?" [49] (more unattributed copying). DanCherek (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Finally, you requested revdel at [50]. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it was removed, but for future edits, would a paraphrasing like this [[51]] be all right? TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:tgeorgescu is harassing me

While making an edit [[52]] about some dubious statements,

WP:RS/AC

, the "exclusion of all other POVs" is something I have never done, you can check all of my diffs, however it can still be argued as his "opinion" even if there is no evidence for it.

But "According to them there is WP:THETRUTH of Romanian nationalism, and all WP:SCHOLARSHIP to the contrary should get doubted" is something I have literally never said, he is putting words into my mouth [[56]].

We then proceeded to discuss on the report page [[57]], he then found out that one of my edits (not related to the subject of the ongoing report) had a copy-pasted sentence [[58]], called me a "literally thief" [[59]] and proceeded to report me to Project Copyright Cleanup, again calling me a "literally thief" [[60]].

On the report page [[61]] I explained that I was not aware that that sentence wasn't paraphrased, and that I usually paraphrase the material I read to avoid copyright, and then proceeded to paraphrased the material in question myself. And on the Project Copyright page [[62]] explained that he didn't notify me about this so I can change it, and this is all an attempt to harass individuals listed here for evaluation.

He then found one other sentence [[63]] of a similar issue and proceeded to call me "They are not a literary thief, they are a serial literary thief".

While I was trying to paraphrase my edit so that it's compliant with Wikipedia's policy, he reverted my whole edit [[64]] saying "Go plagiarize elsewhere, you literary thief!!!!".

Then that [[65]] "Friend, it is a fact that you are a serial plagiarist". Lastly, while writing this report, I received a notification that he reported me here [[66]] for serial plagiarism. Despite me mentioning that this was not my intention, and any plagiarized material he finds will be paraphrased to not violate Wikipedia's policy. This is how stuff is added on Wikipedia, you find a book and write from it, but sometimes, especially when writing large paragraphs, I forget to paraphrase some parts, I don't believe this makes me a "literally thief" or "serial plagiarist".TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  This is precisely what I did, immediately after returning the text [[67]]. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

  @Valereee: I was not the first saying it's copyvio: see [68]. And I was infuriated by their denial The "In 1875, the government of Prime Minister Tisza intensified the program of forced magyarization, closing Slovak and Romanian-language schools and limiting minority cultural activities" is paraphrased (not copy-pasted, so no copyright violations) from a book written by historian Geoffrey Wawro in 2014. at [69]. So, yes, forgive me for namecalling, but their denial is infuriating. Seen that the most infuriating tactic is complete denial, I would even suspect they would be flamebaiting. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• (

  WP:NPA. You will stop calling other people names or you will be sanctioned for that; even if the person who you called the name also did something wrong. Do you understand that? --Jayron32 16:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

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

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

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

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

  Read

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

  ]

Indef block

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

• Support Why? After all those explanations about
  WP:SCHOLARSHIP, that makes me a traitor according to such nationalists. According to them, anyone who puts historical objectivity above the myth of the nation is defined as a traitor. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

  tgeorgescu is a supporter of the Immigrationist theory and perceives anything that remotely supports the Continuity Theory as "Romanian nationalism". "Romanian nationalism" is his version of "everyone who doesn't think like me is a nazi". The issue is that he doesn't side with

  WP:SCHOLARSHIP. According to them, the Immigrationist POV is the only historical objectivity and all other POVs must be excluded. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 06:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

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

  His whole work makes Hungarians look bad. In an issue with no

  WP:NPOV is applied. "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Your way of bypassing this is by labeling everyone that disagrees with you a "Romanian nationalist". TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

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

  It's a work about magyarization, the forced cultural assimilation of minorities in the Kingdom of Hungary. What do you think it says about the Hungarians? Once again I would like to point out tgeorgescu's discomfort that this verifiable work "makes the Hungarians look bad". I know 4 other works that say essentially the same thing about magyarization, with the newest from 2021 and oldest from 1996. But he doesn't care about

  WP:TRUTH. Writing bad things about the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not "Western Propagnada" or "Russophobia" if that's what actually happened and they have been published previously by a reliable source. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 06:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

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

@Dennis Brown: reply to "someone that constantly violated copyright, even after it is explained, and then plagiarizes, even after it is explained, then wants to get back to it eventually" -> This is not what happened. I wrote those paragraphs. Then tgeorgescu reported me for one coyprighted sentence within that paragraph. I modified that sentence. Then he reported me for another. I again modified that sentence. And then it turns out in this discussion that most of those paragraphs were copyrighted, I did not object when DanCherek removed them and promised will follow the guidelines and summarize it in my own words in the future. I do not see where I kept violated copyright after it was explained to me. Tgeorgescu insists that the reason he called me thief was because they were "infuriated by their denial", but forgot to mention the fact that everytime he called me thief for plagiarizing a certain sentence, I removed it [[74]], [[75]] ,[[76]]. How could I possibly be "in denial" if after everytime I was called a thief because plagiarized sentence I went ahead and modified the plagiarized sentence? TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 08:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  Seen what DanCherek wrote as summary at [77] and how TheLastOfTheGiants defended themself in the collapsed section above, TheLastOfTheGiants seems the least aware of what happened to the text, the least aware that whole paragraphs were plagiarized (instead of just two or three phrases which I have indicated). I mean, it was immediately obvious to DanCherek, but not to TheLastOfTheGiants. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Terminator-I'll be back on

YouTube: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheLastOfTheGiants. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

User:Dsa2324jdsafhjka

BLOCKED

(non-admin closure) dsa234

dsa2324lkjfdsa

dsa2324jdsafkja

...

filed user blocked for

ping me when replying 15:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

---

WP:COMPETENT. Per diff, they spammed the exact same external link to a JPEG image, in replacement of internal links, under a false edit summary. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

Newbie mass deleting postnominals from British biographies

Historylikeyou (talk · contribs)

A newbie with exactly 17 previous edits made major undiscussed/non-consensus changes to

MOS:BIO [78], and since then has been mass-deleting certain postnominals from British biographies. I've reverted the ones up to this minute, and left a warning, but he may continue. Could people watch him, especially British editors? Thank you. Please block or final-warn if he continues. Softlavender (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

So you are now telling an experienced editor who has made over 80,000 edits and been here over 15 years what "It would have been better" to do? Don't remove postnominals without

WP:CONSENSUS. Please read that guideline on consensus. Never remove cited information from any Wikipedia article (whether cited in the lead or cited in the body text). Start a thread on the talkpage of the article and get consensus first. Softlavender (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

You changed

MOS:BIO without any consensus at all, much less "waiting for feedback" [79]. I don't have to "wait for further feedback from other editors" to revert non-consensus removals of cited or well-established postnominals. I have indeed encouraged you to discuss and get consensus, both on your talk page [80], in edit my summary [81], and in this ANI thread. I did not at all "immediately threaten [you] with a block". That said, unless you learn to follow protocol, your days on Wikipedia will be numbered. Softlavender (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I did look at the guidance for editing policies and according to

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

]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whilst I think that the actions of Softlavender were appropriate my understanding is that the place to hold a discussion before making a change to such a core component of Wikipedia like

WP:VILLAGEPUMP). Whilst waiting to get consensus you shouldn't make the change to remove the postnomials. Gusfriend (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

User:Joseph2302

Reportee blocked for uncollaborative editing by RickinBaltimore, reporter blocked as a sock. --JBL (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

---

I don't appreciate User:Joseph2302 using "moron" in [their] edit summary over something they were wrong about. I didn't read their last response but I did see the rude edit summary message. I also noticed [their] block history is full of warnings for disruptive editing and harassment, being uncivil, etc. I was in the process of adding citations for recently removed content that wasn't sourced for Tony Dow. I added a ^{[citation needed]} tag in the meantime. Regardless of the method I used, the nasty messages and threatening tones are unnecessary. This is not a way to welcome new editors who are doing a good job. Please see: [82] [83] Thank you, kindly! Littlebitof (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed this on my talkpage just now, when it was pointed out that I had reverted back too many edits. That was wrong, and I apologise. But you clearly stated that you won't comply with

WP:VERIFY, and that is not acceptable. I apologise for the harsh language used (the term "moron" was excessive and inappropriate), but admitting you want to break a core principle of Wikipedia is frustrating. Also, you are obliged to notify me, which you did not. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

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

And in the spirit of collaboration, you immediately updated your "talk page guidelines" with this?

Fram (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

Seems to be part of a pattern, earlier today we had this

Fram (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Yep, already mentioned above, which makes at least 3 problematic interactions or edits in a short while.

Fram (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Okay, that matches his changed talk page guidelines of today and is of course totally unacceptable.

Fram (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Let's be clear about the timeline of edits:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The correct decision I think. Joseph2302 had his

Wikipedia:LASTCHANCE two years ago and he failed to keep in line. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Crumbs, I was never aware that Joseph has been blocked multiple times until I have noticed the current block with the assistance of one of my settings to see who has been blocked and who is not. Hopefully the experienced user returns with a longer spell of making edits with no blocks and the filer won't return per

WP:SOCK. It was useful to query the edit summary usage though so hopefully that word won't appear either. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

User:Dollarsign14

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

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

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

they edit on mobile.

ping me when replying 09:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Reporting TheAmazingPeanuts

TheAmazingPeanuts (talk · contribs)

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

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

@

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

]

As if the retaliatory report wasn't enough, the OP also failed to notify TheAmazingPeanuts of this filing, as the red notice on top of the page and when editing clearly require. Regards,

Contact me | Contributions). 00:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Nua eire - So, I just went and had a look through your and TheAmazingPeanuts' edit histories to try to see what you're talking about. And I note that after several editors asking you to take it to talk, it would appear that Talk:Seventeen_Going_Under has no discussion edits at the moment.

I also took a look at your talk page history (here's where you blanked it recently [84]) and I also looked at the previous AN/I disccussion, and Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts#Irish_Chart_Information as well. I see a fair amount of issues and more than a bit of an aggressive way in which you are responding to other editors.

I'm going to stop here, else I have a feeling that we're going to be heading into

WP:BOOMERANG

territory.

I'll merely suggest to you that you may wish to re-think how you engage with other editors; and

blocking you. I sincerely hope you take this suggestion to heart, as I'd rather not see you indefinitely blocked in the near future. - jc37 07:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:BOOMERANG territory, in fact it moved into this territory days ago. Again thank you for insight however, I would be grateful if users did not communicate with me on this matter going forward as I organize time to gather some things and then delete my account. - :Nua eire

I saw your comments, and was sorry to see them.

So, to use an analogy, rather than try to work within the system, you've decided to leave the field in a huff.

You've mentioned you've been around for 15 years. What would you, as an experienced editor think, if you saw someone else saying and doing such things? 15 years or 15 minutes. We're all Wikipedians here.

In any case, I hope you take such time of

disengagement for rest and reflection. I wish you well. - jc37 13:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@Nua eire: I think you being kinda petty here. I'm not trying to antagonize you or anything, I just stated that you should have a consensus discussion before you decided to change the Irish charts without discussing the issue first, that's how Wikipedia works. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a point of order, you cannot delete your account. At best, you could request a courtesy vanishing or just scramble your password. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request blocking User JesseRafe for cyber harassment and deleting my contributions

Dear administrators,

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

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

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

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

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

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

While I can respect the intent behind adding Wagner and Laguardia Archives, looking at Glick and Quinn - there are "better" secondary sources (such as NYT) that cover the same material and do not require Wikipedia to rely on Primary sourced interviews hosted on YouTube. With that said,

WP:BRD for the prefered cycle of editing. Slywriter (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

OP has had an account for a little over a month and made 35 edits. I imagine that they are not familiar with our

alphabet soup and large body of arcane best practices for dispute resolution. But even I would be a little pissed off if I added twenty-some citations to articles and had them all blanket-reverted by someone who called me a SPA COI in their edit summaries -- perhaps we can spare them a little understanding. jp×g 04:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

That said, this is a little bizarre:

I realize I don't need to do anything because you already have a mass amount of people who are strongly against what you are doing. I don't particularly appreciate spreading hate. Rather I know that people who do unkindly things will learn the hard way, and it is not my place to do anything. Your reputation on Wikipedia has already ruined your image, whether you like it or not, and if I don't do anything, I know someone else will or already has. My last message is simply that I'm disappointed in you and the people Wikipedia appoints as peer reviewers who are not doing their job in an appropriate, helpful manner that makes Wikipedia's community welcoming.[85]

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

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

A few comments for JCKitKat that might help:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:ACADEME that explains Wikipedia can be a challenging place for researchers, subject matter experts and the like to navigate as we have our own rules and standards. Slywriter (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

WP:BRD

.

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

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

Paulistafan and Barron Trump

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

biographies of minors

.

Paulistafan has attempted to

game the name

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

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

User:JesseRafe

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

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

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

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

This is just not true, user has several edits that are still tagged "current" from the same time period that I obviously did not undue, so off the jump their accusation is false. I only have Brooklyn Tech on my watchlist, and after the second time this user insisted their completely irrelevant "source" was the dispositive authority on magnet schools in nyc (I admit, it is a convincing URL "magnetschools.nyc"! Something something books by their covers) I looked at their contributions to see if they also did this to the other

Specialized High Schools of New York City and yes, they did, so I undid all of those edits on those pages for the same reason. They seem to only edit about once a week, so when they came back to unhelpfully edit the Brooklyn Tech article by removing the wikilink again, I again checked to see it if they did so to the other HSs. They hadn't, but I did see they made an edit to remove sources and upon looking it over, it seemed they did so improperly. I didn't want to accuse them of anti-Chinese bias in their removal of sourced content in the ramen article, so I merely called it vandalism and moved on. I have no interest in communicating with them on the Brooklyn Tech talk page about that silly website and the phone number that you can supposedly call. As I stated prior, that website is not affiliated with the City of New York or the Department of Education, but I also have no obligation to participate in the talk page discussion, they ought to build consensus and they have not, if other users participate there, then I might. JesseRafe (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

I suggest following

consensus at Talk:Brooklyn Technical High School#Magnet School Status.—Bagumba (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

User: 104.186.77.128

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

)

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

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

User:Historiador1993

WAR OF THE MOPS

(

Contact me | Contributions). 21:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

---

Resolved

 – Blocked 36 hours for disruptive editing

Historiador1993 has been engaging in disruptive editing at Millennials and elsewhere. In the last few minutes they nearly blanked the page[86][87] and removed 110k of content as a minor edit.[88] They have been warned many times on their talk page, including by EvergreenFir. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Andrewbf evading block with Mexico IPs – four rangeblocks proposed

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andrewbf/Archive

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

lnvolved IPs

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

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

Cabin134

talk) 16:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Elijahandskip, you have take this way to far it has to stop I need to let pepole know if in the article

2022 Eastern Kentucky floods. Cabin134 (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, there is a move discussion in progress (

talk) 16:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

Update: After this discussion began, Cabin134 is continuing to revert edits on

talk) 16:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Update #2: Just discovered Cabin134 reached out to

talk) 16:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Wait, just confirming you agree that redirecting/blanking an ongoing AfD discussion without proper closure is ok? Hmmm

talk) 17:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

The article issue is not the reason this ANI was opened. More over the vandalism accusations and disregard to talk page message about proper closures.

talk) 17:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

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

Update #3: Cabin134 has once again vandalized the

talk) 21:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Update #4: Cabin134 has now asked

talk) 21:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Ok, I guess they were not directly vandalizing/trolling, but instead were ignoring policy. That would be the better terminology to use.

talk) 22:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Withdrawning AN/I. The whole main issue stemmed from this user merging without linking to a source, then not responding to "provide a source" requests. They just responded to my question (after the partial block was put in place) which shows it was not
  talk) 00:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

User:Shortiefourten and civility

NAC, reported user is retiring. If they return to editing & cause the same issues, we can deal with them then. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

I've been embroiled in content disputes with

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

]

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

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

Let's do this...

With that quick set of facts out of the way, the title of this ANI dispute is about my civility. Fine. But

WP:OWN, too? An edit war after one revert? And refusing to concede to consensus? Can we just go ahead and add in the complaint here that while I like Beyonce, I'm not, like, in love with her? Why is there suddenly a large buzzing sound

coming from outside my front door...

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

WP:CIVILITY

, I am in the wrong, and yet hamstrung at the same time to defend myself in a situation that I would have right to do so in the real world. I'm sure this is not the first time that Wiki has heard some editor state that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But, I do stand up to the edits he reverts. Why wouldn't I? His reasons are often vague, unsupported, and in a surprising number of cases for an editor with that breadth of work, just his opinion. He never engages in discussion and most attempts are replied back with

WP:AGF

or that I gotta go to the talk page. His first revert of mine was in February 2020, my third edit in history. I added a Gallery. Turns out Wiki isn't a fan of them (and neither is he! I mean, he's really adamant about it!) and as a rookie, I came nowhere close to knowing that. I had to go ask him, because, again, unhelpful reasoning. The reply was fine, a bit stiff, but based on his Talk Page writings (and for some fun!) his insistence on writing about tax and voting referendums on transit/transpo articles, he's a bit dry. Based on his interactions over the years, I did notice a pattern that he was, I don't know, kinda bored with explaining things and busy with editing? Kinda like he had seen and heard it all, already? That wasn't an ATTACK!!!, just an observation.

And we've not gotten along since.

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

Here's a few cases - he reverted a 2,000 byte edit (in less than a minute) at the Chehalis page, in its entirety, because he had a problem (not backed by rules or regs) about the inclusion of a couple of dates. He overhauled an edit at

"talk it out"

.

Problem number three - consensus. And this goes to highlight his accusation of ownership towards me...what consensus? There's no vote. He doesn't explain or link to a rule or reg. He ignores any engagement so...is it consensus...because he says so? Granted, the

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS

!) He's Washington's transit writing master. He's allowed; he says I'm not.

Problem quattro - edit war. Again, he heavily edited my edit to the point of a revert, didn't really explain it nor go on the talk page, so I remained bold and reinstated it. His vague reason wasn't anything I could go with. I mean, we've seen edit wars here, yeah? This ain't it. He could've explained himself (as the

WP:CONCENSUS

article states), we coulda come to an understanding (or CONCENSUS!...works better if you shout it out like Oprah), and we wouldn't be wasting anyone's time here, stuck in a cold, joy-sucking void between us.

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

So, before I conclude, I've made a good amount of mistakes here at Wiki. Nothing intentional, but it's not the civility issue with the above editor that makes me wince or makes me feel the worst, it's the minor stuff, like the whole em-dash/en-dash thing. Coding mistakes. Misspellings! That I cannot figure out how to edit a photo at the Commons! When I think I've finally got this editing down...nope! Editing here is truly joyous to me. Not that I am a professional educator, but knowing I'm helping spread knowledge, even a very, very small amount is somehow...warming? Knowing that Wiki has been around and finally in 2021/2022 that users can come here to learn about

Millett Field and the Willapa Hills Trail? That rural areas in Lewis County now have their own page, like Winston, Washington

, and that residents and citizens in the area and throughout Western Washington can learn more about existing pages that I've helped expand? Seeing an increase in traffic to these pages, seeing an increase in editing participation on those same pages after years of solitude? This is awesome. Yeah, I have a long way to go to be a better editor, but that doesn't mean bending a knee because someone else says so.

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

WP:OWN

accusations, and be more civil towards him. I couldn't. I won't.

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

Nearing my conclusion, I'm powerless. I know

WP:CIVILITY

. That yes, you can be BOLD, but the editor above is allowed to be MORE BOLD. I know that my GOOD FAITH can be superseded anytime by the ANI editor's AGF. I can't take the advice to "take a break" from the pages or areas I normally edit because...he's seemingly everywhere I go. I can't take a break from Wiki as a whole anymore, because...wait...why should I? Just like many of you, I've lost far too much time in my life letting other people get their way because I "take a break". I've done run out of that approach.

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:TLDR. SnowFire (talk) 07:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

  I've read it all, and I'm finding Shortie's arguments persuasive, and I can't not sympathize. But Bruce isn't stalking you, Shortie—you both have overlapping interests in Washington-related articles, and Bruce has been editing them for a long time (interaction analysis). Both of you are still

  WP:IBAN for 12 months. SWinxy (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

If appropriate, we can close this complaint

In this subsection here, I'm not meaning to overstep any bounds and demand the thread be closed. There's no further need for it, IMO. Ultimately, it's not my call and I leave it all in your good hands.

I read somewhere in all those vast WP's that threatening to leave is a big no-no, but I assure you this is not some ploy to encourage backlash towards another editor, or some sympathy for me, or...ugh, good holy monkey...certainly not calls for me to stay to boost my own ego. I'll be leaving Wikipedia as an active editor.

After the last 48 hours, and a trip to the gorgeous Washington state coast, I've come to the conclusion that I've known since the late winter, I don't enjoy myself here anymore. I thought some few edits here and there would reinvigorate me, or that my last week's edits of diving back in would help, but it didn't.

I have to admit that I just can't divorce myself from the loopholes I perceive in some Wiki rules about

WP:BRD

and it's connected WP's. I cannot separate the fact that using these same processes in real life would have me filing for divorce 28,000 times per day...that I never would've been accepted to college...have any friends...and I'd never advance, much less get a job, in my medical profession. I understand the absolute need for collaboration here yet I know I'm missing the other points somehow/somewhere...just getting not it...and don't think I will.

Even when no ill will is intended, I am also having a difficult time shaking the worries about how the rules that are supposed to allow other editors to track another (fair concerns such as newbie activity, vandalism...or that you just flat out like another editors work) are able to be used outside of that scope. If you aren't a woman, and have been conversing only with rocks for the last few decades, the emotions of a woman being followed in real life and/or online can be best described as being an almost daily battle with anxiety and this Wiki loophole is...disconcerting.

So, on a more lighthearted note in closing - not to be rude - I only browsed the above so for all I know there's been some resolution, but I did see the call for brevity. Now, let me tell you something, I had a 15-minute conversation this morning with my husband at breakfast in which the entire point was to tell him that we were out of basil. Brevity? Me?! Not possible.

Thanks to every editor who has been a help to me, whether they know it or not. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to tell my husband to buckle up. I just remembered we're low on paprika. Shortiefourten (talk) 06:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

There is apparently an ongoing trademark lawsuit over the brand Zellers. Though one of the parties to that lawsuit has recently begun editing Wikipedia, this report is actually about

MrOllie (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I can confirm that the entertainment value of the talk page amply repays the time investment. EEng 20:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: Thanks for the tip Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about the dispute over the name "Zellers", but I do know that unsourced accusations against named people should be revision deleted as

Phil Bridger (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

Oh God, first

chatter) 20:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

• Sigh! Now we've got User:Stevecanadian. Do we need a checkuser?? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Without a doubt; making similar/identical edits in rapid succession after being reverted...not a good look. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 10:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, and Robert Moniz Zellers, too. There's a username with potential COI written all over it. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 10:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh God. Blocked them both as blatantly obvious sockpuppets. They both linked themselves to consumersdistributing too[102][103]. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And protected the page against further disruption for one month. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Good move. On an entirely different note, why can't we call them "fake-noses" too, as the French apparently do, following the trail of destruction back to FR-WP [104]? Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 10:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Heh! 'Faux-nez', isn’t the French language marvellous. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, this looks kind of trollish to me. I guess it doesn't matter whether this is ConsumersDistributingonline or a troll impersonating that sock farm, though. More socks will likely show up soon based on la:Special:Permalink/3695593. Just block them as they appear, and I'll try some range blocks. The newer accounts are on proxies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As was foretold of olde. Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What will be next? Metropolitan Stores, Towers Department Stores, Woolco, Target, etc etc.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodDay (talk • contribs) 15:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Timcdfw

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruption at Zinaida Serebriakova

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

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

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

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

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

Transphobic, antisemitic troll 49.145.169.109

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

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

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

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

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

This editor is clearly

WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Mathglot (talk) 02:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

Megacheez reported by Magnolia677

Moved from

WP:AIV

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

]

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

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

citations for your contributions? Specifically, which source(s) did you use for Special:Diff/1101280271, your number addition to the Bob Kilcullen article? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

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

Criticism of Buddhism article sections removed

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

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

HURA CREPITANS brazilians' ASSACU

I added a comment to the HURA CREPITANS description saying the way brazilians call this tree: ASSACU. The translation is something like ASS BURNER! As 'assa' is to burn and 'cu' is ass. The bot just deleted this pertinent explanation of the funny name brazilians use for Hura trees. Hess100 (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hess100, that edit was 6-1/2 years ago and you did not provide a reference to a reliable source. This is not a matter for administrators to deal with. Cullen328 (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Threats

User talk:MoreIntelligentThanAllFactCheckers: "If you do not make adjustments, I will plead my case on Medium.com and Twitter. The article will include your name since you are the only one responding to messages." Threats of this kind have no place on Wikipedia, right? Robby.is.on (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller who has addressed the issue, right below that posting on that user's page, is both an Admin and a member of Oversight. I think the correct eyes are already on this threat. And as Doug has noted, if they carry out their threat, they will be blocked on Wikipedia. We have no control over what somebody does on another site, but we can clamp down on it at Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contact me | Contributions). 09:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

User: CorbieVreccan

Overview:

I believe that CorbieVreccan is abusing their power as an administrator by arbitrarily blocking me from editing the Choctaw-Apache Tribe of Ebarb article and by selectively editing (and supporting other editors selectively editing) articles about state-recognized Native American tribes.

Brief summary:

26 June 2014: I create the article out of several sources, several of which are definitely questionable re: reliability.

30 December 2022: After 8 years, the page still has a couple of primary sources that should be replaced, but nothing on the page is controversial.

27 May 2022: A massive edit is made by the user Yuchitown that removes almost everything, well-sourced or not, rewording it to insert weasel words (for example, replacing "The tribe descends from Choctaw people and Lipan Apache people" with "The organization identifies as descending from Choctaw people and Lipan Apache people," despite a secondary source supporting the original language). Overall, the changes introduce a clear bias that state-recognized tribes don’t count.

22 June 2022: When I noticed the changes, I update the lede to 1) take out the weasel words and 2) remove the sentence that I felt was redundant (makes the point of saying that the tribe isn't federally recognized when the first sentence of the article already says the tribe is state-recognized). I also put some of the well-sourced material back in.

28 July 2022: A few weeks later, Yuchitown again changes the article to insert those weasel words and the redundant phrasing (including changing words in ways that didn't make sense--like adding the word "Community" twice).

28 July 2022: I revert these changes a few hours later with the edit summary: "Undid revision 1100987405 by Yuchitown (talk) Revisions had an obvious bias--undid revisions to remove the insertion of weasel words etc."

29 July 2022: Yuchitown updates the lede to re-insert the line that I felt was redundant given the reasoning above.

29 July 2022: I revert the changes with the edit summary, "Removed redundant phrasing in the lede," and leave a comment on the Talk page about my reasoning, thinking that Yuchitown and I are going to work through it (per the dispute resolution guidelines). This is my second edit--the first was reverting changes with a clear bias and words that didn't make sense, and the second was changing a single sentence.

29 July 2022: Yuchitown replies on the talk page that it is important to make a distinction between federally and state-recognized tribes. Then he posts again a few minutes later accusing me of edit warring.

17:51, 30 July 2022‎: CorbieVreccan reverts the page back to Yuchitown’s version, complete with weasel words (the article now says again, "The community describes themselves as the descendants of Choctaw and Lipan Apache people.")

17:53, 30 July 2022: CorbieVreccan posts on the article talk page warning me not to edit war and asking me for personal information (whether I have a connection to the group).

17:54, 30 July 2022: CorbieVreccan then posts on my talk page telling me not to remove content from articles without giving a valid reason.

18:02, 30 July 2022: CorbieVreccan edits the article with the edit summary: (Simplify piping, clarify language. These are their assertions. They are not recognized as Apache or Choctaw; the state can't do that. Cleanup on unsourced. Apache are not from this region.)

18:19, 30 July 2022: I reply on my talk page that, in fact, I did give a valid reason and that it isn't up to CorbieVreccan to decide if the state's recognition of the Choctaw-Apache Tribe is legitimate or not. The state recognizes the tribe, and that is what my version of the article says, complete with secondary sources. Things seem off at this point, so I also say that I know he's an administrator, and I'm going to look into the process for arbitration. That's because I am afraid of an arbitrary ban.

18:23, 30 July 2022: CorbieVreccan replies on my talk page a few minutes later to say that my reasons aren't valid. He again asks for personal information (whether or not I am affiliated with the tribe). I reply shortly after that I'm replying on the talk page.

18:48, 30 July 2022: CorbieVreccan makes another edit to remove a source (which is perfectly legitimate, and I wish we could have just worked through the sources together).

19:32, 30 July 2022: It takes me a while, but I post a long comment on the talk page of the article laying out my reasoning for why I was removing that sentence I felt was redundant. I also suggest some clarifying language that I think will help keep that sentence while providing more context, with the idea that we can come to some consensus. Finally, I provide a bunch of news and government sources to back up what I am proposing that we include.

19:51, 30 July 2022: CorbieVreccan bans me from editing the page. They claim it is because I won't give them personal information about myself, but I strongly suspect it is because I object to their use of weasel words in the article--language meant to diminish the importance of state-recognized tribes so that, when readers look at those articles, they'll think such tribes don't really count as Native American.

Actionable items

If you look at Yuchitown's edit history, you will see that they have systematically edited state-recognized Native American tribes to insert this kind of bias. I'm less certain how often CorbieVreccan uses their administrator powers to maintain that bias (besides the particular case I've outlined here), but I think, given what's happened with the Choctaw-Apache Tribe of Ebarb's article, it would be a good idea to:

• Have a systematic review of state-recognized tribes in order to correct the bias they've introduced to these articles,
• Unban me from editing the Choctaw-Apache Tribe of Ebarb article so that we can come to some consensus about the language in the article,
• Monitor CorbieVreccan's use of administrator powers so that this abuse doesn't happen again.

I've been editing Wikipedia for 15 years, and this is the first time I've ever had an issue like this come up. The fact is that these articles reflect the bias of a handful of people who have a particular idea of who counts as Indigenous--completely ignoring the difficulty that some tribes have had in gaining federal recognition.

Finally, if there is another more appropriate place where I should talk about this, please let me know. I tried to follow the dispute resolution guidelines, but unfortunately it escalated out of all reason.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljpernic (talk • contribs) 22:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you look at my edit history, I edit articles relating to Indigenous issues of all sort. I don't know how this can be seen as having "escalated out of all reason." Yesterday, User:Ljpernic was edit warring, because they feel strongly that the

wp:coi. Yuchitown (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply

]

Ljpernic, you are not blocked from editing that article and you are not blocked at all. So you are incorrect about that. What connection, if any, do you have with the Choctaw-Apache Tribe of Ebarb? Cullen328 (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm soft-banned from editing the article--any change I make will be reverted to keep the weasel words in place (and I run the risk of being actually banned). Ljpernic (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Banning me was the escalation out of all reason--especially after I proposed language that I think would satisfy everyone. The fact is that you have systematically edited articles about state-recognized tribes with a clear bias to make them seem less. I provided a clear-cut example above, but there are many, many more.

Reverting an edit with an egregious typo in the first sentence is not edit warring. Reverting a change to remove a sentence that is giving literally the same information that another sentence is already giving isn't edit warring. The appropriate thing would have been for you to reply to my comment on the talk page with your own so that we could come to a consensus. Instead, you brought in CorbieVreccan, who obviously agrees with the bias, and they allowed the weasel words (such as the specific example I gave above) and soft-banned me from further edits. Ljpernic (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ljpernic, you are wrong. You are not blocked and you are not banned. Again, what connection, if any, do you have with the Choctaw-Apache Tribe of Ebarb? Cullen328 (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW: the nature of Ljpernic's confusion about being banned has to do with the COI template CV left on their talkpage. 66.44.49.56 (talk) 03:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And they need to reply to it. Doug Weller talk 10:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What the what this about: User:Wiki fixer Gnome (User talk:Wiki fixer Gnome) dif. New account created just to delete the cited statement that Ljpernic objects to. Yuchitown (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Just a troll trying to stir up trouble. --66.44.49.56 (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for blocking the socks and protecting the article. Looking at how these three accounts were created to continue the same editing pattern here (and as the user erroneously believes they are blocked, and refused to answer about COI):

Main: Ljpernic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• Wiki fixer Gnome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Big dixx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• All of the captchas already exist as usernames (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The pattern seems to indicate it's a drawer with the sockmaster Ljpernic. There was so little interest in this article until yesterday, and this user is clearly very invested. Looking at the specific edits, the quacking is loud. -

☼ 18:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

It's almost certainly a LTA troll joejobbing. 66.44.49.56 (talk) 02:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now. After I posted I noticed the connection to

☼ 17:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

User:Drodit

Not sure what's going on with this editor. I assume they are either a

single-purpose account that was apparently trying to get past semi-protection to edit my ... um, not-protected user talk page ... to post what looks like a makeshift template per this edit. (As far as I know, there is no template for this, but am aware of a similar template when someone is running in an RfA.) I'm not going to throw any other assumptions here, but I think the fact that ... per Drodit's contributions list, they performed their first 13 edits in about a 15-minute span on various pages including ones related to The Wikipedia Adventure, then post that template on my page and haven't edited since ... speaks for itself. Anyways, I'm taking this directly here instead of posting warning since I could not find a warning template appropriate for such a situation. Steel1943 (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Obvious troll blocked Girth Summit _(blether) 11:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stalked and insulted by an editor on a Talk page they have no prior activity on and have a history of harassing me

• TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Primary diff regarding this most recent case
• From Sept 2021: [105] [106] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saucysalsa30 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TheTimesAreAChanging harassed me unprovoked yesterday [107], and from other users' complaints tends to be continually aggressive with others and in his editing. The most recent occasion was yesterday, when, completely unprovoked and out of nowhere, he made his first comment on Talk:Anfal_campaign for no other reason but to slander and insult me for activity on the page, add his own twisted and deliberately negative interpretations of cherry-picked diffs as far back as 2020, mostly from late 2020 and early 2021, to form a denigrating and disingenuous framing, and other demeaning. This violates Talk page guidelines and

WP:NPA

policy.

While the stalking and harassing nature of comment on its own is unjustifiable, the comment linked above [108] also includes attacks such as

• equating me with Holocaust deniers which is considered a terrible insult in the US and many other countries, for no other reason that I gave a reliable source that a claim originated on no basis by a country in war leveraged against their enemy, and it is not controversial,and providing a couple other links for consideration on the Talk page from US mainstream media
• He says I make "apeshit claims", because in Nov 2020 I clarified a statement in an article to be more in line with what the source was saying.
• He calls me a propagandist saying my "primary source" for my information in general is "official Saddam-era Ba'th Party propaganda" ... and makes this sweeping generalization because of an Iranian historian referencing Iranian officials (not Iraqi) estimating 1 million Iranian military casualties in the Iran-Iraq War such as used to exist as a source on
  Iran-Iraq War. [109]
• Ridiculous demeaning remarks like "Such selectivity and evasiveness are the hallmarks of Saucysalsa30's editing style"
• The rest of the comment is similar in insulting and demeaning nature, in particular making claims against that simply are not true while insulting me or my "editing style" on the basis of disingenuous interpretations of cherry-picked diffs from my entire edit history. Even with the cherry-picking, he still has to disorient and twist them to make a point.

Please note this was on a Talk page, making a comment that had no relevance to the Talk page or topic at all, and doing nothing but unprovoked insults, slander, and twisting to make false claims about me. It is disruptive and by policy, such a comment has no place there or anywhere on Wikipedia.

I gave a thorough response to this ridiculous comment here, not only refuting these claims against me but pointing out a few examples of his aggressive behavior and of his own poor editing, such as aggressively championing user-generated content websites as reliable sources. [110]

Unfortunately, this isn't a random or isolated incident. He's harassed and insulted me a number of times. The last time he engaged me was in early September 2021 when I was last active, and he insulted me then too, when in response to a mostly uncorrobated and commonly refuted claim that he champions and has staunchly defended, I provided many (though a small sampling overall) of sources rejecting or directly refuting this claim. [111] His response to being proven wrong on the matter was an irritated complaint [112], and then calling me a "small child" in a sarcastic and insulting response. [113] Note that on the same day, September 3, he was given a 1 week block for unrelated personal attacks on another user. [114]

Even in the last month, users such as @GregKaye have politely asked him to stop attacking and demeaning editors, including GregKaye himself. [115][116][117]

When disputes on Talk:Depp_v._Heard [118], were not going his way, including getting called out for edit warring [119] he proceeded to create an ANI entry against @GregKaye, which many users quickly pointed out TheTimes was clearly misrepresenting and twisting things to disingenuously frame GregKaye in a disingenuous manner, like the slanderous comment posted against me. [120]

Some other random things from recent weeks.

• A very common activity is solely determining what is and isn't a reliable source like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warren_Commission&diff=prev&oldid=1100100549 As I've shown, he will also edit to bring back unreliable sources
• More reverts on personal opinion, which is the plurality of the editor's activity overall, often with a shaky editor note to "justify" removing sourced additions like "editing against consensus" when no such consensus exists, like recent edits on Trump_Tower_wiretapping_allegations and Khomeinism [121][122][123][124]
• or deciding unilaterally what is a consensus view and undoing edits on no basis: [125]
• but then will go ahead and edit articles on the basis of personal point-of-view such as [126]. When someone contests this, the response is edit warring like with Rusentaja and making ANI reports like this on GregKaye both mentioned above, or continued reverts of other editors like on the same Trump_Tower_wiretapping_allegations article linked above.
• An older diff, but is an expression of ideological bias through one-sided and unsubstantiated charges in undoing edits [127] "Note that sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry by pro-Iraqi/Arab nationalist accounts is common in this topic area." in justifying the undo.

What happened in early 2021, mentioned earlier? The details are in the thorough response I linked, but TheTimes and another user engaging in meatpuppetry Qahramani44 were upset that reliable source noticeboard discussion agreed that a user-generated content personal website was not a reliable source [128], despite TheTimes aggressively defending that it was in many edits such as [129][130][131][132]. Even on the RSN, he continued to desperately defend the use of the highly unreliable source, because it was used on multiple Wikipedia articles. They stalked and harassed me on other articles' Talk pages such as Talk:Ba'athism to such a degree that EvergreenFir had to get involved and shut it down, giving a warning to TheTimes for personal attacks. [133]

Early 2021 was not the first time I'd been harassed by him either, but since it stood out in his comment[134] on, it was worth addressing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saucysalsa30 (talk • contribs)

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

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

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

)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Violations of WP:3RR

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

1. 16 July 2022 [135] [136] [137] [138]
2. 12 May 2021 [139] [140] [141] [142]

Warnings & Talk Page

Significant

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

Routine

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

WP:CIVIL Violations

Talk Page

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

Some quotes are presented below.

1 Multi-Revert Issue with Alsoriano97

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

2 Your revert about Dwayne Haskins

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

Diffs of Uncivil Edit Summaries

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

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

• [149] Daily updatings of the fires are not necessary. At least name the country
• [150] Iowa is a new country???
• [151] rewrite it adding the country where it happened. it doesn't cost that much to do it yourselves. Learn.
• [152] Is Louisiana a new country????????
• [153] Is Idaho a new country?
• [154] Once again some users cannot mention the country....this is not a local newspaper!
• [155] Is Virginia a new country?
• [156] At least you will be able to locate the news in a country, right? Northern Virginia is a new country? This is not a local newspaper. And that you take away from the notability of a minister's murder....
• [157] country?????????????????????????? It's not hard to mention it!
• [158] Ontario what? A country?

Carter00000 (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Go to contributions for namespace Portal and they jump out at you left and right. Some choice ones:

Cryptic 13:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cryptic 13:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The warning appears to be about this edit, which appears to be a content dispute. I don't believe it would fit the description of

WP: VANDALISM. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The point isn't what that specific warning was about; it's his statement that "I only admit warnings from admins, not from angry editors." —

Cryptic 13:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Separately, this user's block log would be much, much longer if I was willing to make 3RR blocks for edit wars I observe that aren't actively in progress. Just this year, I see 3RR breaches on the

Cryptic 13:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

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

• I use to interact with this user a lot when I only worked in the
  talk) 13:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk) 15:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Per Alsoriano97: Vandalism? You've got to be kidding me. Vandalism is breaking the 3RR rule. (
  talk) 14:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • But see Wikipedia:Edit warring#Exemptions, especially no 4. Deb (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  I agree with

  talk) 12:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Second example of 3RR from 10/1/2021

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

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

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

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

• Given that it seems that most of those who would make submissions to the case have made those submissions, and discussion has begun on the solution, I would like to make my viewpoints known as well, as the original filer. I note that @
  Elijahandskip
  has suggested above that a 24 hour block be used as a warning.

However, my opinion is that Alsoriano97 should be indefinitely banned from WP. As can be seen from the above submissions, Alsoriano97 has made numerous violations of WP:3RR and WP:CIVIL, at a rate of multiple times per day, to many different editors, over a period of many years. Such conduct clearly shows that Alsoriano97 feels that he is above both the rules and other editors.

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

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

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

Carter00000 (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Today, Alsoriano97 said, “Stop with this American bias of Current Events[165] during the removal of an ITN Nominated historic US flood event.

talk) 17:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Carter00000

Meanwhile, is it only me that is somewhat suspicious of an account whose very first edit was on a Portal/Current Events page, was aware of obscurities like

WP:ANI by edit 44, and was filing ArbCom cases by edit 56? Black Kite (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

This is what I previously wrote to Ad Orientem [166]

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

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

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

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

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

I would argue that because

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

]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As mentioned above by

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

]

Legal threat

IP user 125.137.205.234 appears to have made a legal threat at Talk:BTDigg - "WELL... ALL .. I.D.s HERE WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE AUTHORITIES

YOU CAN EXPLAIN TO THEM.. WHY YOU SHOULDN'T BE IN JAIL... WHILE THEY SCAN YOUR HARDDRIVES...". PohranicniStraze (talk) 14:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been blocked for 3 months. And the threat has been redacted.♘ME_isSCAMMER 15:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

User

WP:NEXIST with no apparent consideration of the article or effort to confirm that sources actually exist. I've already warned them twice [167][168]

about not following the updated NSPORTS criteria, however they continue to claim that the guideline change does not change the notability of Cricketers.

• 09:26 31 July 2022 - "Keep per the strong consensus at
  WP:NEXIST
  sources do not need to be present in the article." (No SIGCOV sources have been shown to exist)
• 09:27 31 July 2022 - "Keep per the strong consensus at
  WP:NEXIST
  sources do not need to be present in the article. (No SIGCOV sources have been shown to exist)
• 09:28 31 July 2022 - "Keep per the strong consensus at
  WP:NEXIST
  sources do not need to be present in the article." (No SIGCOV sources have been shown to exist)
• 09:36 31 July 2022 - "Keep per the strong consensus at
  WP:NEXIST
  sources do not need to be present in the article." (No SIGCOV sources have been shown to exist)

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

• Editors are free to disagree with policies and guidelines, but so long as there isn't a consensus to remove that policy or guideline they are required to follow them (
  WP:IDHT
  behaviour.

In this case, with

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

]

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

There was some BRD activity around two weeks again, no edits since then and no active discussions on the talk page so I really don't see what relevant point you are making.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Two more examples:

• 09:37 31 July 2022 "Keep per the strong consensus at
  WP:NEXIST
  sources do not need to be present in the article." (No SIGCOV sources have been shown to exist)
• 09:39 31 July 2022 "Keep per the strong consensus at
  WP:NEXIST
  sources do not need to be present in the article." (No SIGCOV sources have been shown to exist)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe the real issue here is the

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

]

Raleigh80Z90Faema69 at 2022 Tour de France

I’ve tried to keep details regarding climate change protests on the 2022 Tour de France (TDF) factual and to a neutral point of view. I took Raleigh80Z90Faema69 to 3RR (26 July), as they had been reverting or editing a paragraph to what I would consider to be not a neutral perspective, and had not heeded my suggestions not to revert and discuss on the talk page instead. I did suggest that they were not able of having of neutral point of view, given their talk page comments and their edit summaries.

(I note they replied to the 3RR notification with Well, this editor is continuously manipulating content and including content in articles that is not true.... For example, in the 2022 Tour de France he is claiming that riders supported climate change protests even though nowhere in the article does it mention riders supporting protests, in fact it says the opposite.... Also this editor is continuously trying to make the article align with his political beliefs instead of staying with the content of the article, which is about the race, so I have been making efforts to get rid of the political content and keep the article about the race. I did not reply to this.)

At 3RR, EdJohnston subsequently warned them (27 July) - “They may be blocked if they edit the article again regarding climate change or Tour protests unless they have first obtained a consensus for their edit on the article talk page.”

Following this, I sought consensus on the 2022 TDF talk page for a new, redrafted wording (27 July) - and I received helpful edits and pointers from User:HiLo48 and User:Kiwipete. I then made the edits to the article after leaving a reasonable period for clarification, as I believed I had sought & gained consensus for my edits. (Today, 31 July)

Raleigh80Z90Faema69 subsequently wrote [over 1000+ words] of off topic, personal opinion and complaining about references on the 2022 TDF talk page instead of offering alternative wording. I ignored these messages, noting this as a reply in the 3RR post. They made a [small constructive edit] to the article, however I then partially reverted/left a citation needed tag as the reference did not back up the assertion.

Raleigh80Z90Faema69 then added to the [2022 TDF talk page] Quinn Simmons puked at the Tour de France.... And no matter how hard you try to make it fact, zero riders supported the Tour de France being disrupted.... Nobody.... It's actually kind of embarrassing and pathetic..... I'd rather post an edit I know to be true without the proper source, like Quinn Simmons puking, rather than lie and manipulate article headlines to agree with my politics.... Thanks for making my point and removing that uncited information lol

I sent them a [brief reply] (ignoring the vast quantity of their off topic messages on the talk page) seeking clarification - I do hope “lie and manipulate article headlines to agree with my politics” is not directed at me…? (a genuine clarification - it is not clear to me)

The [reply I received] No and yes…. for the most part it isn’t…. It’s the authors of the source articles themselves which obviously you or I have no control over… You’re not the one writing the headlines for these articles, so no, in that sense it’s not directed at you…. The only part that might be directed at you is the David Millar part…. That part there looks like it might have been intentionally worded in such a way to make it seem as though he is supporting the protests and calling them “extremely valid”, even though in the next sentence (which is excluded) he says he does not support the race being interrupted

Setting aside whether the reference they refer to is reasonable, I don’t feel this (or their 3RR talk page reply) is acceptable behaviour. If you have an issue with a particular reference, wording or point that I or anyone else makes - edit it or seek clarification/consensus. I do not appreciate being accused of editing articles to 'agree with my politics'.

(I confirm that I have notified them, and I note that I have not done ANI before) Turini2 (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have indefinitely pageblocked Raleigh80Z90Faema69 from editing 2022 Tour de France and Talk: 2022 Tour de France. Their behavior has been very disruptive. Cullen328 (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 Thanks - just to note they have replied to the ANI note on my talk page [here] - I have not dignified it with a reply. Turini2 (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Raleigh80Z90Faema69 tuned to personal attacks and harassment of two editors, so their indefinite block is now sitewide. Cullen328 (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welp. Thanks for your work, appreciated. Turini2 (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: - I don't think the block is site-wide (per this). Please could you have a quick look? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts, I must have misclicked.. it is sitewide now. Cullen328 (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 05:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 Can you check if @Squidclaw a sock of Raleigh80Z90Faema69? @Lugnuts stated so on 2022 Tour de France page.

So my brother texts me a few hours ago, RaleighZFaema, and says go check out the 2022 Tour de France.

(If not, sorry Squidclaw!) Turini2 (talk) 12:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the evidence for a sock. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Squidclaw has now been blocked) Turini2 (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CR-1-AB, Trolling, disruption and POV pushing.

CR-1-AB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could someone take a look at the contributions of this account, who formerly edited here as LightningComplexFire/GeometryDashFan12. Over the last few months they've been engaging in a lot of anti-isreili/antisimentic trolling, especially at ITN, backed up with incivility and personal attack targeted at other editors.

Looking through a few of their edits:

• Someone proposes adding the election of the new Israeli prime minister to
  WP:ITN. In response CR-1-AB supports the addition with the blatantly inappropriate message The evil empire now has a new leader with a trolly edit summary, showing they new their comment was inappropriate [169]. They try to edit war their comment onto the page with trolling edit summaries [170], before turning around and describing other editors as clowns [171]
  .
• They support the addition of the death of a Palestinian journalist at the hands of the Israeli armed forces, describing the action as "Israeli Terrorism" and using a trolling edit summary [172]. Another editor points out that no sources at all describe the event as terrorism, CR-1-AB looks at their userpage, realises they are a Jew and comes back with Looking at your profile, it makes sense why you would say such a lie. [173]. Apparently the only thing stopping them from reinserting the message is the fact I can get blocked [174].
• Making user boxes to attack Israel [175], including some which were deleted under criteria G10 as attack pages [176]
• Another editor makes a personal attack (Stfu you Zionist fascist), CR-1-AB shows up and comments, I never thought I would actually agree with a communist, but now I did. [177]
• The leader of Islamic state is killed by the US military, CR-1-AB describes the event as murder [178]. This might just be a typo, but given the above I'm not sure.
• Apparently they've recognised that everyone keeps removing their innapropriate comments [179], but this is the fault of everyone else, who is just mad that CR-1-AB has political opinions [180].

Even their contributions which are not attacking Israel and the Jews are problematic in other ways, and illustrate that they don't really understand how notability or newsworthiness works. These include making baseless speculations that the Russo-Ukrainian crisis is Most likely will turn into a world war [181], Opposing things on the basis I've never even heard of this [182], supporting things on the basis "I recognise this" [183], leaving people messages that just because they keep bringing their personal political views up in places where it isn't remotley relevant doesn't mean they are promoting their political views [184], repeatedly insinuating that they want to make inappropriate comments but "wikipedia won't let me" [185], etc. etc. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these diffs are months old, so there's not much recent to act on. However, they definitely do show a pattern of bias and

WP:NOTHERE commentary. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• The one about the IS leader getting killed was an honest mistake. I didn't mean to use the word "murder", that's just me using a word in the wrong context. I mostly edit pages about current events and politics because that's what I'm genuinely interested in. To assume that I'm only here to cause drama and trolling isn't very nice. CR-1-AB (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also why did you have to put the last part? It has nothing to do with the "incident" that happened, and it seems like you want another reason for me getting banned/warned. CR-1-AB (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This [186] was just some premature prediction that turned wrong. That has nothing to do with my so-called violations of Wikipedia policies. [187] Literally nothing wrong that edit, I just said that I recognized the RD. This honestly seems like an attempt to call me out, and it's all for no reason. You could have let this "incident" die off yet you decided to report me to admins and make this situation even bigger than it already was. Is the wikipedia community THIS sensitive!? I wouldn't be surprised if more people come here and attack me and use crummy pieces of "evidence" against me (cough cough [188][189][190] cough cough) CR-1-AB (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring by Errorrate over changes to Discography section at Marko Hietala

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

This started when I had changed the discography for the article to feature only the "major works" for the artist, as per the guidelines on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Musicians/Article_guidelines#Discography_section. However the user Errorrate is persistantly reverting this edit to its original version. I had opened a discussion on the article's talk page regarding the discography, but Errorrate has not responded, or is refusing to respond. HorrorLover555 (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I left a strong but polite message on his talk page that should get the point across. If that doesn't work, he will likely get blocked. There may be reasons why to include all of it, who knows, but he really does need to discuss it first and get consensus, since the guidelines is pretty clear, and it just makes sense most of the time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The following have been blocked by

COIs fr:Tocrahc (talk · contribs), fr:Ithaque Odysseus (talk · contribs), fr:Jaffredo (talk · contribs). (Of the five, only Jaffredo^[noping] has any contributions at en-wiki, and has already been indeffed by Blablubbs for cross-wiki abuse

.)

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

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

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

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

I would like to let you know of two developments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarifying: his mention of UPE is en-wiki's shortcut,

WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE). The French "Antipub" discussion about fake information sites related to "Avisa" can be read in automatic English translation here. Mathglot (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

User 70.164.104.167 making legal threats

User 70.164.104.167 is apparently upset with Wikipedia and is making threats to "sue" in addition to vandalism. Per Wikipedia:No legal threats, I am posting here. Examples of threats: [191][192]. Thanks. Wikipedialuva (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like AIV already got them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 02:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility by Ss112

Ss112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I pondered for a few hours whether or not I wanted to file this report, but Ss112 has been uncivil towards me on several occasions.

• The first occurrence was on
  stan
  antic whatsoever, but okay. In the thread, he said I was xenophobic, working on Gray's album article as a fan, and alluded to me not being a "decent editor". This can all be found quite simply at the linked thread.

• More important however, is at Lil-unique1's talk page, where he again accused me of working as a fan, ridiculed my concerns about potential bullying, made fun of my block in 2020 even though I've done a lot of work here since then. After that, I mistakenly wrote that Ss112 had placed notability tags and started a merge discussion on an article I started (I corrected myself afterward). In this edit summary, he called me an "insufferable editor" and said I was trolling. In this diff the user brought up an ANI thread that was over a year old and accused me baselessly of being a sockpuppet based on a thread where I was not declared of being a sockpuppet (thread here). None of this is helped by the fact that he's been very rude in his interactions with me.
• I will admit that my conduct was not perfect by any measure, but I believe that
  WP:CIVIL
  , and essays to make sure my replies are constructive and I could get past that thread. I feel like I'm on the receiving end of the attacks that violate these rules now.

Thank you. —VersaceSpace 🌃 04:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you want to happen here, exactly? What overblown drama this is. I think we can now firmly conclude VersaceSpace wants drama or quite simply to make a mountain out of a molehill. This is coming from an editor who has a history of making personal attacks themselves as documented at this very noticeboard, and has insisted they want nothing to do with me yet continues to find reasons to reply to me, and went looking for a place to do so after removing my thread from their talk page. I went to Lil-unique1's talk page to ask for their opinion on articles started by VersaceSpace, with no pings towards VersaceSpace, and VersaceSpace inserted themselves into it because they "have the page watchlisted" and I should "expect" a reply from them if I talk about them. I didn't want VersaceSpace's input, I was asking an uninvolved editor of their opinion on a couple of articles. As I said to you, VersaceSpace, if you wanted to talk to me, you should have kept the thread I started on your talk page there, not used another user's talk page to repeatedly reply to me when you said you "didn't want to have to think about me" again.

I didn't mention your block—I called you a "reformed vandal" based on the infobox on your userpage. I didn't "ridicule" anything—I said a few threads on your talk page and a tag in an edit summary is not bullying; I had barely spoken to you before the endless thread at Lil-unique's talk page. I also pointed out you were accused of sockpuppetry and of being Billiekhalidfan, because that's a fact. "Possible/unlikely" just means the CheckUser results were inconclusive. It wasn't declared you weren't them, it's that there wasn't enough data to conclude you definitely are. Also, please don't lie. I didn't say you were xenophobic, I specifically said "somebody is inevitably going to accuse you of having xenophobic intentions" if you preferred English-speaking countries over non-English speaking countries in matters like choosing which charts to include in a wikitable.

I'm not arguing with VersaceSpace here, I've had enough of them at Lil-unique1's talk page. Talking to this user is incredibly frustrating—they can't stick to a single thing they say. The constant replies after saying "I don't want to have to think about you" seemed like trolling, was a timesink and the general behaviour from this user is just insufferable. Now, was bringing things up VersaceSpace has been accused of the best thing to do? No, but I did it because this user was condescendingly trying to tell me how to behave when not too long ago they themselves were doing the same things they are accusing me of. So if somebody finds me to be uncivil, forgive me—this user's insistence on replying after saying that they want nothing to do with me was exhaustingly frustrating. Ss112 05:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ss112, perhaps there have been more damning responses at ANI in the past, but you are surely in the running for the worst ANI response ever. What makes you think that it was a good idea to respond with naked aggression and "it's OK for me to be a jerk because someone else was a jerk" type reasoning? Your behavior in this conversation so far is completely unacceptable and I advise you to drop the attitude. This is a collaborative project and you are acting in a confrontational manner rather than a collaborative manner. Clean up your act. Cullen328 (talk) 06:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Cullen, you're right, thank you for the criticism. I suppose what I was trying to get at in a blunt way was I can't understand why VersaceSpace is wanting to drag the interaction with me, somebody they "don't want to have to think about" out, and saying only I am the problem when we were both pretty confrontational in that unnecessary back-and-forth at Lil-unique1's talk page. But yes, you're right, two wrongs don't make a right and I should have just stopped instead of letting my frustration get the better of me and continuing to bring things up to point out what I saw as hypocrisy. Ss112 07:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm having a hard time finding what could be considered uncivil statements and/or personal attacks. Can you provide more detail here?--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the response. Yes, I see now that none of these were specifically personal attacks, just general incivility, so I'll remove the italicized term from the heading. However, in the second point, I give clear examples of what I consider to be "bad behavior". I'm sure people have said worse, but many of the highlighted statements were hurtful to me, especially the sockpuppetry one. If you have any other Q's I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks —VersaceSpace 🌃 12:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  General incivility can sometimes be simple misunderstanings. I believe that

  A weak personal attack is still wrong. I also encourage both editors to first attempt reconciliation at user talk pages rather than come to ANI.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• As someone who works in the music content area and frequently crosses paths with Ss112, while I agree that sometimes he comes in a little bit hot in some discussions, these are all relatively mild instances of incivility. I can't see this closing any other way beyond a note that says "Be nice you two." Sergecross73 msg me 13:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Really? I see plenty of personal attacks and incivility here:

  • "I think you only removed Norway because Superache had not charted there yet and you wanted the table to only include countries where Gray made an appearance with both albums."
  • "This looked like a removal because "oh no, it makes Conan Gray look slightly less successful because his second album didn't chart in one country"."
  • "
    WP:ASPERSIONS
    says "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes." This is exactly that situation.
  • Yesterday: "Clearly an editor who can't stick to what they say"
  • Today: "Self-reverting to discourage this insufferable editor from replying."
  • Today: "says the editor who's made well documented personal attacks and been accused of sockpuppetry" and really the whole thing is one big personal attack:

    The hypocrisy and complete lack of self-awareness you display is simply staggering. You have a well known history of making personal attacks against editors; it's been documented at ANI. Just like the suspicions of you being a sockpuppet that I was made aware of by another editor. Best be careful you don't quack, Versace (or should I say Billiekhalidfan?), because the truth will come out sooner or later and clearly you already have editors you've feuded with watching what you do. Do feel free to continue annoying Lil-unique1 with your inevitable inane, rambling defence to these well documented things you've been accused of, though. You're accomplishing nothing and continuing to demonstrate nobody on this website should listen to what you say because you can't do the things you "request" others to do, and can't stop replying to somebody you've insisted multiple times you want nothing to do with, yet keep finding excuses ("I'm being talked about! I'm being replied to!") to talk to. Goodbye.

  • The reply in this ANI: I think we can now firmly conclude VersaceSpace wants drama...I didn't mention your block—I called you a "reformed vandal" based on the infobox on your userpage...Also, please don't lie...I'm not arguing with VersaceSpace here, I've had enough of them at Lil-unique1's talk page. Talking to this user is incredibly frustrating—they can't stick to a single thing they say.

  Ss112 should be warned to cool it. This is no way to talk to each other. Levivich (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP still removing automated dates

About a month ago I started a thread here about an IP who was replacing some automated fields with static numbers, meaning the article is rendered obsolete after one day. The end result was a range block for two weeks. Unfortunately the IP is now back making the same edits. Here are some of the IPs I've found so far:

• 2409:4065:38C:312F:0:0:8E5:70B1 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2409:4065:d98:744d::94a:120f (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2409:4065:d0a:1f1a::94a:ee01 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2409:4065:20d:3dd3::22fe:38b1 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This is becoming rather frustrating, as it's a near-daily occurrence. What can be done to resolve this permanently? — Czello 07:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Oshwah as they applied the last block. — Czello 09:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reckon a 'range block', will be required. GoodDay (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Socks on Zellers

Hi! Several socks of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ConsumersDistributingonline / fr:Wikipédia:Faux-nez/Distribution aux Consommateurs are operating on Zellers:

• Robert Moniz Zellers (talk · contribs)
• Stevecanadian (talk · contribs)
• Canadiansteve (talk · contribs) (already blocked)
• Zellers Canada (talk · contribs) (already blocked)

Ping NinjaRobotPirate. See also fr:Wikipédia:Le Bistro/1 août 2022#Contournement de blocage ? Rémunération cachée ? Best, — Jules* ^talk 10:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• See also: Sharks, Robots, the mafia, and Zellers department store. above. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 going haywire

In secularism, after I added an image, the citations spitted out this error: "Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 1392: bad argument #1 to 'pairs' (table expected, got nil)." I then previewed an older version before my edits and the error still persists. Does anyone here have a clue at what's going on? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to also happen at other pages too. Seems like this is a

FUBAR-level situation. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Image for what I'm seeing: CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You needn't keep updating this. This is a widespread issue that's been noted by many. Have patience. GabberFlasted (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Village stocks it goes :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To prevent this from happening in the future, is there a thing like sandboxes and test cases for modules? weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 17:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This would probably be better reported at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is worse than deleting the main page, it may be only an admin can fix this, so this is a great place to note this problem affecting references across the pedia. Undo the last edit?-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is fixed now with this revert. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, apparently some readers/editors may need to

WP:PURGE, if the are still seeing it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Finally, this userbox makes sense

This user has totally not destroyed Wikipedia.

— rsjaffe 🗣️ 13:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, I don't think this is worse than deleting the main page -- both can be reversed by an admin. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 17:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. In reality, it appears that Wikipedia is put together in such a way, and versions so carefully tracked on a granular basis, that it is extremely difficult to cause lasting harm. Knock on wood — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outgoing

Apparently, I have a "moral obligation to help clean up the mess". Despite working on cleaning up said mess for the last 6 months, that hasn't helped, and it's even harder to do with an indef block. In a case about conduct in deletion discussion, votes are made with rationales on anything but condcut in deletion discussions. It used to be fun to create stuff, then the rules kept changing. Deletion monkeys spend their time at guideline/policy talkpages, playing with their own fecal matter, rather than actually creating, adding and expanding content. Despite the token "(I) genuinely hope that I see them back on Wikipedia after a successful appeal" I'm not going to wait until August 2023 to write a begging letter to a group of users who couldn't care less.

About a year after joining the project, I started creating articles. Some early creations from 2007 got tagged as copyvios. A year later, they were still being tagged. I got added to some white-list at the time, and avoided adding OBVIOUS copyvios and further scrutiny, but made no attempt to either stop or remove the ones I added. Guess what - that continued since then. Not just across the 93,000+ articles I created, but across the 1.5 million edits I made too. Tens of thousands (a low-end estimate) now have these issues. Have a look at any film article from before 1930, for example. And that's before I mention the countless deliberate errors on pages that have very few pages views. Was that person born on 21 June, or was it 12 June?

So that moral obligation? Ha. Good luck with that. "The mess" is now your mess and the burden falls with YOU to fix it. Enjoy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]