Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1112

ArbieP has been shoe horning into hundreds articles mentions of the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. He is splitting existing refs, adding pointless nods to EB1911. An encyclopedia article over a hundred years old is not a presssingly important source and is only added to promote their project. He has been informed by various editors that this is not constructive editing for the benefit or improvement of the WP articles. He is clearly not concerned with the well being of WP articles and doesn't particularly care. Anna (talk) 00:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you point to some diffs that are actually problematic? Because looking at some on the first page of his history they seem fine. Things like replacing broken links to ones that work. Jahaza (talk) 03:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be partly a content dispute about external links for John Keats?[1]? I see some places where ArbieP's additions have been questionable (like those clustered around Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Plot), but others seem to have been correct and neutral or useful. Jahaza (talk) 04:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Promote what project? (and is "their" intended as a gender-neutral singular or a group?) The only active project I'm aware of is the one I've adopted: Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/1911 verification, which is a long-term attempt to bring legacy EB1911-copied text into compliance with current verifiability policy. Other than that, I believe "nods" to EB1911 are appropriate if (a) a citation is needed and there is no appropriate primary or secondary source available (b) the online text contains illuminating further reading. ArbieP is a valuable contributor and I regret attempts to sanction him (pronoun implied by name). David Brooks (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello. This user has repeatedly shown unprofessional and rude behavior over the Patrick Troughton Article, more specifically on its image. Consistently removing it, Violating the 3 Revert Rule. and Ignoring talk page warnings by blanking the talk page. I am unsure if this is the proper place to report this incident but I would like to know if something could be done about this. Cheers. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I think a 24 hour block from that page would be in order, or a warning on their talk page could work too. Coolman2917 (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

If he's blanking the page and not taking the other warnings into account, then I don't think this one will be different. I think we should do a 24 hour block and see what happens.

Sham me / Where I've shammed

15:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@

editors are allowed to remove (almost) any messages from their talkpage. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed}

] (she|they|xe) 16:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Masonjcole

This user has been given multiple advisements of policies and things that need to be done on NFL roster templates and player pages. Most of these advisements of (seemingly) gone ignored. This editor has had multiple posts to their talkpage and has made zero attempts at communication or acknowledgments of what he's been advised of. This editor has continued to do or not do what he's been advised of on his talkpage. On example, NFL roster templates have a count for the number of players on each listing (active, reserve, etc.) as well as the date the template was edited. Despite multiple advisements on their talkpage this editor continues to do this, see these edits: 1, 2, 3, 4. Advisements of the count were made on this editors talkpage and the editor briefly began doing it but chose to stop again.--Rockchalk717 19:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

judging by the edit tags, he is on computer, so WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (or whatever it's called) does not apply. I believe a topic ban should be considered, as he seems to add random free agents to team. This isn't NFL Blitz, last time I checked.

Sham me / Where I've shammed

20:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Persistent disruption of biographies

212.228.225.94 (talk · contribs), returning from recent block for more of same. Requesting reversion of edits and longer block. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 08:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

See also 212.228.213.255 (talk · contribs). 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 08:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I've reported them at

WP:AIV as this doesn't seem to merit an ANI filing (unless it's declined there). It's just an IP who's continuing the same disruptive editing that they were previously blocked for shortly after their block has expired. DonIago (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC) Support extending block. The AIV filing was declined for non-obvious vandalism, but I agree that based on edits like this one and these that the IP is making claims about people, at least in some cases BLPs, without providing appropriate sourcing. DonIago (talk

) 14:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Since May 2022, 70% of the edits (156/222) in this range 212.228.192.0/18 have been reverted. Could this be ZestyLemonz? – Archer1234 (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Crickets. The vandalism continues. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Materialscientist blocked 212.228.225.94 for two weeks. 212.228.213.255 has not had any edits for 10 days. No other IPs are active in this range: 212.228.192.0/18. Are there other IPs continuing with vandalism that you suspect are related? – Archer1234 (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you—-I don’t see anything else. I’m away for the weekend, but appreciate the update. Cheers. 66.30.216.14 (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I Have GIBE. But It's Not Working In EnWiki. What can I do?–MinisterOfReligion ^(Talk) 02:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Global IP block exemption doesn't work with local blocks. If you need IP block exemption locally, follow the instructions at

WP:IPBE. Further questions can be directed toward the help desk. NinjaRobotPirate (talk

) 03:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Sheep8144402 automated cosmetic editing

) 09:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

They appear to be fixing lint errors, a task undertaken by wikignomes and which is generally a good thing. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Why didn’t you attempt to discuss this with Sheep before posting here? 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:9013:50B8:AF43:FF87 (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

This feels like a mild boomerang encoated in "well technically" wood. Coolman2917 (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

It looks like

WP:LINT specifies that these are valid repairs and encourages them to be automated. ~Swarm~ ^{sting}

19:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

At

WP:AWBRULES. However I do agree that Linting User talk pages should be left for bots so as to avoid sending new message notification. It would have been better to discuss with Sheep first instead of bringing this directly to ANI. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk

) 15:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Note that Sheep has now submitted a

WP:BRFA – Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SheepLinterBot. This should resolve the IPs concerns. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk

) 17:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Emailmesbah

Vandalism by User:Emailmesbah

Ref: Contributions/Emailmesbah previously noticed by other users @ User talk:Emailmesbah after their return user seem to have continued with spamming behaviour against articles of some of Pakistan's politics & politicians by inserting urdu language pejoratives. Ref dif.: [3] & [4] still to be reverted.

• Though not directly related to above user, I also suggest/ request to add article Lettergate to watch list for NPOV. IMO Politically vitiated environment likely to continue affecting related Pakistan politics related wp articles.

Bookku (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP violation. Please revert this type of thing yourself whenever you see it. Because this happened four days ago, I am not blocking but instead left a BLP discretionary sanctions notice. If any other administrator thinks that a block is necessary, I will not object. Cullen328 (talk

) 15:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Long term disruption by 68.37.42.31

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

This IP user has been repeatedly blocked for disruptive editing, and has done nothing but disrupt the encyclopedia for over a year now. Their edits are sometimes a bit humourous, but disrupting Wikipedia is no joke, and this user needs to find some other outlet. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

They lost interest for 4 months after being blocked for a month, a 1-3 month block should convince them to find a new hobby.

RAN1 (talk

) 12:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

3 months it is. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

User:80s Sam

Status:     Requires admin attention

80s Sam (talk · contribs · count) This user is a net negative. Editwarring, changing what they don't like to their preferred version, not discussing anything, not heeding warnings, many warnings just today. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be connected to this AN post. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of back-and-forth, highly personalized conflict with Sundayclose; the use of templates as weapons and lots of ANGRY ALL CAPS communications. This looks like a "it takes two to tango" kind of situation, and I'd like to hear from both sides and seeking a mutual "chill out" period based on what I am seeing from this. I will notify Sundayclose as well; the entire situation is not a good look on either party. --Jayron32 16:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Thanks for the ping. 80s Sam has a long history of changing timelines according to their personal preferences (mostly without any sourced support in the articles), and being reverted by multiple editors. As just one example, consider The Beatles, all within a few days. Note that the reverts are by several editors:

• 80s Sam
  
• revert
  
• 80s Sam
  
• revert
  
• 80s Sam
  
• revert
  
• 80s Sam
  
• revert
  
• 80s Sam
  
• revert
  
• 80s Sam
  
• revert
  

For these edits alone, 80s Sam was asked by several editors (in both edit summaries and on their talk page) to discuss and seek consensus before changing timelines. 80s Sam has never attempted discussion on any issue whatsoever. 80s Sam has edited for three years and, until the last few days after many reverts, requests, and warnings, never left an edit summary, never responded to warnings, and never attempted any discussion. Look at 80s Sam talk page and you'll see many warnings for many policy and guideline violations from numerous editors. I'll be happy to discuss with more detail if needed. I certainly don't mind a "chill out" period if 80s Sam can agree to simply leave timelines alone unless there is a clear consensus for the changes. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Even after this discussion began, 80s Sam was notified, and I made my comments here, 80s Sam made another change to a timeline with a false claim of "all cited": [5]. Sundayclose (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: Thank you for the diff's, all that work and we're still waiting for some kind of Admin cmt's or something.. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@FlightTime: Glad to help. Thanks to you for bringing the issue here. I also appreciate Jayron32's input. I suspect admins are waiting to see if 80s Sam responds, which I fully understand. Based on his history, I would not bet a dime that he will do so. I continue to revert his changes to timelines if he refuses to discuss. That's the only thing I know to do at this point. Sundayclose (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I will say one thing, Sundayclose: "Refusing to discuss" is not an exemption to

WP:EW, and it has happened often in the past that both parties to a conflict are blocked if they both edit war. Please keep that in mind. If what you say is correct, people who aren't you will also agree and prefer your version of the articles in question. --Jayron32

10:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Thanks for the comment, and point taken. To my knowledge I have not exceeded 3RR or otherwise edit warred in reverting 80s Sam (I'm aware that edit warring can occur even without a 3RR violation). As I've noted above, multiple editors have reverted 80s Sam's edits to timelines. At least two editors have thanked me for reverting 80s Sam's changes to timelines. I'm very concerned that 80s Sam refuses to even discuss these issues in an ANI report. I will be happy to agree to stay away from 80s Sam's edits entirely if 80s Sam will simply agree to get consensus before changing timelines, as they have been asked to do by multiple editors. It's obvious by now that 80s Sam sees no need to discuss these matters and feels that they can proceed to change timelines as they wish with impunity. Sundayclose (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually on second thought, dealing with 80s Sam is not worth my time. I'll leave it to others to deal with 80s Sam's many problem edits, with the exception of articles related to the Beatles since I spend a lot of time monitoring those articles. I appreciate all of the comments here as well as those who have thanked me for my edits. Sundayclose (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I have been trying to revert an edit (by an ip who has vandalised other pages), but the edit is being blocked as there is unrelated blacklisted site being used on the page, could the edit please be reverted 2001:8003:34A3:800:69E6:848E:B794:9784 (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Reverted, links removed. Static IP with previous block, reblocked 3mo. Looks like a past attempt to remove all links to that domain failed due to a typo in the ping to Primefac. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, I guess to answer the "ping" from 4 years ago... yes? Primefac (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Cordyceps-Zombie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Given this user's current edit-warring over on Suella Braverman's article (which I brought up on the BLP noticeboard), it's clear that this user is acting trollish and is not here to build an encyclopedia. I think a look through all of their contributions is necessary at this point – QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, keeps accusing other users of sexism and racism without any reason. Action needs to be taken ASAP. – QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Looks like they have been given a 1 month block for disruptive editing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocked.

Sham me / Where I've shammed

20:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Wow, insists that the name she uses on her own website, and in all her own controlled social media, is not her name and anyone who disagrees is sexist and racist? They've just been issued a one month block which I think is generous. I think they should be indeffed which would force them to explain their actions and confront why their current edits are wrong to restore editing privileges. Canterbury Tail talk 20:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Given their continued trolling after the block, the block is now indefinite. Edit - And talk page access revoked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

That was a strange hill to die on. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the fungus finally got the better of them? I'd seen them around before, they seemed to be doing a good job. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 15:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

• This user has made over 21,000 edits and created some 162 articles. What the hell made them go berserk and set it ablaze over such an obviously stupid troll? Is their account compromised? jp×g 07:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so, it's an area they would normally edit in anyway. It's not like the article is out of left field for them. They seem to have just latched onto this one piece of trivia over why her mother named her the way she did and become obsessed with it and ignored what name they actually use and call themselves. Canterbury Tail talk 10:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

From the looks of past edits, this does not seem out of place for this user. As I say, I think other articles and edits made by this user should be looked through thoroughly. QueenofBithynia (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

"O noes, we have to change every example of 'Malcolm X' to 'Malcolm Little,' because that otherwise disrespects his birthname!!!" Ravenswing 02:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

did not lead to much; no further reliable sources were given, Savalanni has continued to reinstate the edit (without changing any sources), and I (and Wikipedia as a whole) have been accused of anti-Turkic and anti-Azerbaijani censorship. I am looking for anyone to help clear up what's acceptable or not; am I in the wrong for asking for the information to be supported by reliable sources? Are the sources provided reliable (did I make the wrong call)?

This is the first time I am posting here so if I am doing anything wrong, please let me know. Beodizia (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Beodizia (talk · contribs) I have never claimed that you are anti Azerbaijani or anti Turkic, please read them carefully again: They may be sign of such things, but hopefully not! Read them again. I have given sources like TRT and GunazTV about her Azerbaijani ethnic background, there are many such sources. They are valid sources from my point of view. Why you have deleted them initially whitout any discussion? But after my reverting and asking you to go to talk page you have written in talk page. But the discussion was ongoing there you have again deleted the source content, why? Why you are not waiting for Admins reaction and decition? Savalanni (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:RS; hopefully someone else can weigh in on that one. The other two sources you added do not mention any ethnicity. I still do not see the relevance of having the ethnicity in the article at all, especially since the majority of the available sources do not mention it. Still feel that it is in poor taste to argue about this so hopefully someone comes along and sorts this out. Beodizia (talk

) 14:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Beodizia: It was just one question, nothing more. You must please remain positivist and interprete my comments positively. Please read them again and try to see them from positive point of view. About TRT: based on one sentence in TRT wikipedia article (nobody knows who has written that there and why) you say TRT is not relible source! I could also find many such claims against BBC, CNN and VOA and claim these are not valid sources and so delete 80% of Wikipedia articles content! About GunazTV: The fact that you could not find much about it is not important. Because you are not the criterion in Wikipedia. From my point of view this is a valid source specially regarding such discussions related to Iran. There is also only one source about other details of Hadis Najafis life (from Radio Zamaneh); you but agree to keept them in spite of this fact that most of other sources never included such details. But in case of her ethnic background you refuse to accept the given source, saying most sourced have not included it! It is clearly a big paradox in your thinking way and argumentation. There are many such logical problems in your argumentations here. I have answered already about your other claims in the talk page of Hadis Najafi, please refer to that discussion. Savalanni (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm just reiterating the same responses and clarifications over and over and I am not really interested in being attacked further so I'm not going to bother keep discussing this until an admin or other outside party weighs in. To those outside parties my concerns are 1) I feel like Savalanni went a little over the top in arguing with me, 2) is information concerning her ethnicity relevant in the first place? and 3) are the sources used to support the information Savalanni wants to add (TRT and Gunaz TV) reliable? I have for the record also asked about Gunaz TV at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Gunaz TV. I already assume TRT is not reliable based on what is said in its Wikipedia article. Beodizia (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

very helpful. You have not read at all what I have written here. You repeat your groundless argumentation full of paradoxes here and in talk page. Please read them and then answer. Savalanni (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Savalanni: What's the point? I point out how you accused me of essentially racist censorship - you claim that I read those passages wrong (how could they be read any other way?); I point out that Wikipedia does not appear to consider TRT a reliable source - you don't care; I question the reliability of Gulnaz TV - you say that it is reliable in your opinion. I think ethnicity is far less relevant than details of a person's personal life - you clearly disagree. It seems to me that your fixation on the importance of ethnicity trumps the importance of ensuring that the sources used are reliable. Someone else will weigh in on this issue here and on the reliability of Gulnaz TV on the other page eventually, it's pointless to continue this argument until then. Beodizia (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Beodizia: I agree, it is fruitless to argue with you. Savalanni (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I am still being accused of censorship and "fear about people getting information" (1) and of having some anti-Turk agenda (2). I think this flies in the face of

) 20:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Those words were not against you, they were about the current Wikipedia's policy (or mainstrem EN Wikipedia users) in regard of Turkic related articles. Mentioning you was one simple example to understand the topic. You may have just followed these negative trends in Wikipedia. And about Source: Who says TRT is not reliable at all? I need the reason for it. Savalanni (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I won't comment on the behavior, but only on the content.

If one considers TRT unreliable, they should definitely consider Gunaz TV unreliable too, because the latter is just a joke compared to the former.

According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, there is no consensus about the reliability of TRT World: Consensus exists that TRT World is reliable for statements regarding the official views of the Turkish government but not reliable for subjects with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest. For other miscellaneous cases, it shall be assumed to be reliable enough.

But the Turkic identity issue is not a miscellaneous one, in my opinion, considering the policy of

Panturkism

widely-adopted by the Turkish governments.

Please also note that TRT World is the International and English language version of

TRT. The local language versions (such as the Azeri one used for this article) are of much less professional standards. 4nn1l2 (talk

) 00:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources we clearly see that "TRT World" is considered to be reliable for topics like death of a woman in protests in another country based on the following sentence (where no interest of the government of Turkey could ever be existed if we have no illusion): For other miscellaneous cases, it shall be assumed to be reliable enough.. see also [19] Savalanni (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• As I have written earlier there are many sources which mention the ethnic backgrund of
  Hadis Najafi, it is not only GunazTV or AZnewsTV. Please as an exmaple refer to: The Caspian Post [20].Savalanni (talk
  ) 15:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
• Savalanni, now that the discussion is returning to the content of the article and a discussion about sources, it seems more clear that some of the earlier comments have distracted from a productive discussion about the article, e.g.
  • 13:12, 9 October 2022 [...] Is it not a sign of anti-Azerbaijani or anti-Turkic thoughts to censor her real ethnic background? Hopefully not. [...] Why you do not accept the reality? Why you try to censor the reality? Is it not a sign of anti-Turkish thoughts? Hopefully not. [...] Hopefully Wikipedia Admins see my wrtings here and do something against this Anti-Turkic censoreship in Wikipedia
  • 13:32, 9 October 2022 [...] Why in the similiar article Death of Mahsa Amini and thousands other article the ethnicity is relevant but in Death of Hadis Najafi it is not? The answer is simple: because she was of Azerbaijani Turkic decent and this is considered to be a big problem in Wikipedia.
  • 13:47, 9 October 2022 [...] The motive is clear: avoid mentioning of her Azerbaijani background in Wikipedia, it does not matter how.
  • 20:39, 9 October 2022 (directed to Beodizia) [...] I think there is one senibility about what is related to "Turk". There are many similiar information based on similar sources and reasons in this and in many other articles inb Wikipedia. You show never any sensibility against them. Why?

I appreciate that after I asked you [21] to

personal attack, and had caused the discussion to shift away from the article and the quality of the sources. From my view, ad hominem statements about editors can make it more difficult for editors to work together, and can be damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia, but I am hopeful we can all work together productively in the future. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk

) 17:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Beccaynr I thank you very much for your very good and professional way and manner of working in Wikipedia. I think you are one of the rare users in EN Wikipedia who behaves logically and soft. I and many other users had and have very bad experience here in EN Wikipedia against the users who want to edit Turkic related articles. They were brutally attacked specially from the side of Pan-Iranists and Pan-Persianists and their regional and western extremist and rasist supporters in a very bad way ... . I and many Turkic rights activists can give you thousands of examples for discrimination againgt Turkic people in this "free encyclopedia". I know one could say Wikipedia works based on rules, there is no systematic discrimantion against no body, and blah blah blah ... . But I and many other know that these claims are not true. We have one analogy in the real world: US had and have very advanced law system and Judiciary with very good rules and laws. But we know that Black people were and partly are under extreme pressure, discrimination and attack in that system of laws!

But about the topic and article: I have written in some other occasions that these sentences were not against a specific person. They were towards the EN Wikipedia in regard of Turkic related articles as whole and towards the typical "you" in EN wikipedia. The discussion were not initially about the validity of sources, it was about whether writing the Azerbaijani ethnicity of Hadis Najafi in the article is relevant or not. Please refer to that discussion [22]. Savalanni (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Wow, just wow: They were brutally attacked specially from the side of Pan-Iranists and Pan-Persianists and their regional and western extremist and rasist supportes in very bad way ... And you are directing those words towards the contributors of the English Wikipedia. These are definitely against

WP:NPA. We may be free to harshly criticize the Iranian/Turkish/Azerbaijani/US governments here at Wikipedia, but not the contributors of the English Wikipedia even collectively using generic pronouns (though not necessarily the contributors to other language editions of Wikipedia or other WMF projects). Please keep this in your mind. I personally won't tolerate more abusive behavior on your part. 4nn1l2 (talk

) 19:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

disruptive even if it is not aimed at a specific editor. I think at minimum, this discussion and all of the links to the conduct policies and guidelines in the various comments should serve as a warning about how to edit here collaboratively and productively. Beccaynr (talk

) 00:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Beccaynr thank you for emphasizing this again. I have actually read that content and found out at least that it is not really relevant in my case, because I am not interested in Armenia-Azerbaijan topics. The aim of the links and the descriptions in that case were not fully clear. But I shall read them again to understand the sense of it, I am sure I shall find helpful content there. And regarding this topic: I have identified one clear discrimination issue in Wikipedia, I try to communicate this with responsibles here. I think there is not a working mechanism in Wikipedia (at least unknown for me) to protest against discriminations in Wikipedia, if you know please let me know how to proceed in that in best way. But real worlds experience from e.g. USA (having one of the most modern judiciary systems in the world) history shows us that there is no clear method to avoid system-based discriminations other than to protest against them, see e.g. Discrimination against Black people and their protests and reactions to it. Wikipedia is become a paradise for Pan-Iranists. They are fully satisfied with the content in Wikpedia. Even extremists among the Pan-Iranists are fully satisfied with the content of Wikipedia, because the articles have been written according to their wishes and ideals and Wikipedia reflects only their point of view and their perspective. On the other side we see extreme censorship against Turkic culture and heritage. Wikipedia should find and select an optimal way in between, not so that it satisfies Pan-Iranists and discriminizes the Turkic people. And at the end: being alone here does not necessarily mean that I am not right. I think one person may be alone in a discussion and his/her oppnents may be many, but nevertheless he/she can have right! See the history, you find plentyful of examples for this interesting fact! Savalanni (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi

guidance for editors

from ArbCom for topics that are subject to discretionary sanctions.

There are several concerns about your conduct discussed in the section below, and from my view, broadly asking if you are

WP:BATTLEGROUND approach that is not constructive. If you are willing to adjust how you communicate, so your concerns are raised with evidence and in the proper forums on Wikipedia, without personal attacks against individual editors or groups of editors, this may help address the concerns raised by multiple editors about your conduct. We all make mistakes, and learning from our mistakes is part of being here to build the encyclopedia. Beccaynr (talk

) 17:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Beccaynr, thank you very much again for your helping me to find the optimal way in Wikpedia to proceed in an optimal manner. Very helpful links and articles to read and learn with very helpful writing manner. Really thank you. I must invest much time to read them and think about them and try to find an optimal way to solve the earlier mentioned issue in Wikipedia namely the discrimination and censoring against Turkic related materials here. If I compare the quality and effectiveness of the discussions above of "Indef or topic-ban proposal: Savalanni" and below it, I find miles of distance and difference beween them. Really I have started to search in your contributions list to find and read your other comments and the texts written by you in other occasions. They are written in fantastic way and are solution oriented whithout traces of violence, full of kindness. Hopefully other users including myself look at them and try to learn how to treat other users. Have a nice time. Savalanni (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Writing so it doesn't get archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Writing so it doesn't get archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Writing so it doesn't get archived. The SPI should hopefully reach a conclusion soon. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm kinda cluttering up the thread. Isn't there another way to avoid auto-archive? --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:08, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Indef or topic-ban proposal: Savalanni

• Comment There are no excuses for Savalannis
  WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --HistoryofIran (talk
  ) 20:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Yep, I stand by with I said, and would also like to add in

WP:NOTHERE user. A indef block or at the very least a topic ban would be the right thing imo, let's not waste more time on these kind of users. --HistoryofIran (talk

) 22:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

About your claim againt me about WiR comment: Please refer to that discussion there again and please remain positivist and view them from positive point of view. It was just a pre-cuation: I can not understand that a Kurdish Woman named Mahsa Amini, an Azerbaijani Woman named Hadis Najafi and many people from other ethnicities are died in Iran protests, but I am wondering why we should consider all of them as Persian? Iran is a multi-ethnic country. Who sees Iran only as land of Persians, he/she ignores 50 Million other ethnic peoples like Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Baluches, Lurs, Arabs, Turkmens, ... . It would be a clear disrimination to do so. My discussion in that page was about this rightful fact. Please read this reliable source Iran Is More Than Persia. Most of what I have written here you can find in this and in similiar sources. Savalanni (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The title of that logo has nothing to do with ethnicities. That woman is from the Qajar period when the whole country was called Persia. Iran is a relatively new name in English. The Iranian government asked the international community to call it "Iran" in 1935. That woman predates it and that's why that logo has been named as such. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, also it's clear that Savalanni still doesn't get that the topic was about soldarity with Iran, not a platform for to spew their ethnic-related rants. And thus perhaps a lack of

WP:COMP as well. --HistoryofIran (talk

) 20:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I think HistryofVIran has not fully understood my reasoning way: it is solidarity with Iran and it must remain as such, it should not be changed to soldarity with Persia! It is the point. As you may know I am not really your opponent, I am sure you are also not mine. We better solve our issues with logic and kindeness. I have looked at your page, you come from Rasht. I love your hometown Rasht, it is one of the best cities in Iran with friendly and open minded people, I was many times there. It was for me really a pleasure to stay at night in that fantastic city. Specially if I recall my memories at road going towards that fantastic city and if I recall the traffic shield of "reduc your speed" near that beautiful city, I feel me really satisfied. Really perfect city with good memories. I think we are allowed also to speak a little bit about our common ground not always about our differences. Hopefully it is allowed in Wikipedia to speak about such things some times besides the main discussion topic, if not, please inform me. Savalanni (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Pleae consider this fact that the user: HistoryofIran has been blocked 5 times in English Wikipedia for disruptive behaviour. Savalanni (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

9 times actually. And so what? That doesn't make your conduct less disruptive. Interesting, first you called me a pan-Iranist/pan-Persian/pan-whatever, then you tried to sweet talk me by praising my city of origins, and now this? Can you make up your mind? --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@

Hussainiyas in this city according to Vadud Asadi whos Azerbaijani family lives in this city in fifth generation (his great grand father immigrated there before 71 yeras). I wonder if you are originally really a Persian or a Gilak? If you are Gilak, some people would expect from you that you become active in Gilak related articles too. Savalanni (talk

) 22:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

My ethnicity is none of your business and plays no role in this. Also, no one here cares what you think about Rasht nor your obsession with other ethnicities, it's irrelevant. The more you comment, the more you keep proving that you're

WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk

) 04:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran I tried to make the atmosphere a little bit friendly, but it seems that you do not accept it. Sorry, but the soul of your activities seems to be a little bit brutal with no considerable amount and sign of kindness. No problem! Before your trying to ban me from Wikipedia, I was active in Wikipedia in normal way to create new articles and to add content (see my global activity too), but after that I am here in this discussion page to defend myself. It means WP:NOTHERE can not be applied for me, because the evidences for it are mostly produced directly or indirectly by your actions against me. It means you withdraw this unjust nomination, I shall again concentrate me on effective activity in Wikipedia; my first priority now is to defent my rightfulness here. Savalanni (talk) 10:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support indef per my nomination. EDIT: Savallani has now either resorted to
  WP:FOLLOWING me [24] or he's a sock Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kalelizade. --HistoryofIran (talk
  ) 22:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:HOUNDING of me. Savalanni (talk

) 13:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Nice try, but I edited the

WP:BLUDGEON this thread as much as you want, it won't save you. --HistoryofIran (talk

) 13:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I can also simply create a topic named: Indef or topic-ban proposal: HistoryofIran, and nominate you for blocking. I am sure I can find more material than you to nominate you for blocking from Wikipedia forevr. I have checked your contributions, unfortuanly full of struggle with editors of Turkic related articles, not a good sign. Savalanni (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Sure you can, but there are various diffs here that support my argumentations / proves my point, including this comment right here and the one below. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but your account HistoryofIran has been blocked 5 times in English Wikipedia for disruptive behaviour. But mine never been blocked in English Wikipedia. I think nobody shall block me in Wikipedia upon the request of a user who itself is blocked 5 times. Savalanni (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran You corrected me in a previous comment (thanks for it!) that your account has been actually blocked 9 times!. Very impressive! I would have a question: why you do not learn from them how to behave yourself in Wikpedia in better way? I think one or two times blocking would be enough for most users to change their behavour and learn, but in your case you have been blocked 9 times but you continued your disruptive behaviour here in Wikipedia. I think your attacking me here is the continouing of your disruptive behavouir in Wikipedia. Savalanni (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

A retaliatory filing would not reflect well on you, and likely sway more people to agreeing with a block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I have not meant it as retaliation. I have meant that it is possible for any user to nominate any other user for indef ban here! This means it does not necessarily carry meaning or importance. Savalanni (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Wikipedia is not a palce to try to limit other thoughts than your own with fabrications and with personal attcks againgt others who think different than you. What I have written has reliable sources, see as an example this one: Iran is more than Persia. Savalanni (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support regrettably. They started their Wikicareer with canvassing in order to keep a specific article (
  Hadis Najafi article and will most probably be abandoned after a while, but in the meantime, wastes a lot of good-faith contributors' time. The sooner they be shown the door, the better for the community and the project. 4nn1l2 (talk
  ) 22:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  I have expected such a comment from you here. Do you pursue me in Wikipedia? I think your comment here is in my favor! Because you mention my work of generating new articles! I have generated this important article Death of Hadis Najafi, you wanted to delete it but I have defended it successfully! Savalanni (talk) 22:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Don't pick another fight. You already have too much on your plate! 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  According to Wikipedia's recommendations I have tried to be bold. I think you do not know the difference between "fighting" and being Bold. Savalanni (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Pestering, badgering,

  hounding is not the same as being bold. 4nn1l2 (talk

  ) 15:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment @ Wikipedia Admins, @
  Turkic states which would present true and non-censored Turkic history and culture. Please stop Pan-Iranist and Pan-Persianist Mafia-like group in Wikipedia and ban their supporters from it. Savalanni (talk
  ) 23:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
• Indef The above comment, accusing the entire English Wikipedia of discrimination, tells all — to users with an nationalist agenda, everyone else looks like a bigot. But, if this user is not blocked, would they be topic-banned from Iran and Turkic peoples? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  Please read my comments again. I have never accused anybody or Wikipedia entirely. It is unfair to interpret them in this way! I am referring to an obvious problem in Turkic related articles in Wikipedia, which are the result of destroying activities of a small group here. If you are intersted in evidences to prove it, I can provide it, but you should give me the needed time, I gather the information and evidences and present them to all. For doing this I need special rights and a shield against attcks from that group. Savalanni (talk) 10:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support: This user, Savalanni, has unfortunately been trying to make edits only for his desire and not to help wikipedia. H2KL (talk) 12:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC) striking sock of a blocked user per recent SPI — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  The account user: H2KL is a Sockpuppet of user: Khabat4545 and is blocked [28] short after writing this comment. Savalanni (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - based on Savalanni's comment above [29], there is clearly expressed interest in reviewing policies and guidelines "to find the optimal way in Wikpedia to proceed in an optimal manner". This discussion can serve as a warning about conduct that can be disruptive and potentially lead to sanctions, including blocks or topic bans, to both deter and prevent future disruption. Beccaynr (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

In the very comment he says "I must invest much time to read them and think about them and try to find an optimal way to solve the earlier mentioned issue in Wikipedia namely the discrimination and censoring againg Turkic related materials here." Which just goes to show they aren't going to change anytime soon, which goes without saying. It was literally just yesterday they called us a "Pan-Iranist and Pan-Persianist Mafia-like group" and whatnot.

WP:NOTHERE indeed. --HistoryofIran (talk

) 19:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, I agree that referring to a "Pan-Iranist and Pan-Persianist Mafia-like group" is an unacceptable and unhelpful way to communicate concerns. The sanctions proposed here also emphasize what may happen if disruptive conduct continues. There is a lot to read and understand about Wikipedia, and I favor providing some time to a new user who says they want to learn. Beccaynr (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support either a topic ban from Turkic and Iran topics or an indef block, which are probably the same thing for this user.
  WP:NOTHERE applies. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C
  ) 20:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef the vast majority of edits registered at "user:Savalanni"[30] were made at
  WP:SOAPBOX, and are therefore wasting the communities' time. Take a look at the hundreds of drive-by editors who have appeared on Wikipedia over the past few years pursuing the same sort of WP:NOTHERE throughout various topic area's and please tell me otherwise. - LouisAragon (talk
  ) 13:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Some more examples of user:Savalanni's egregious conduct:

1. "@ Wikipedia Admins, @Jimbo Wales: please stop happening of such discriminations against Turkic peoples and their opinions, culture and interests in EN Wikipedia."
2. "I guarantee you that nobody in Turkic world trust and read Turkic related articles in Wikipedia anymore, day to day the situation get worse. I warn you to stop Pan-Iranists with their anti Turkic propaganda in Wikipedia before it is too late and before Wikipedia has completely lost its worth and reliability being a biasless free encyclopedia, in regard of topics like Turkic history and Turkic society and Turkic culture. Creating a new online encyclopedia is very simple for the governments of 7 Turkic states which would present true and non-censored Turkic history and culture. Please stop Pan-Iranist and Pan-Persianist Mafia-like group in Wikipedia and ban their supporters from it."

I wonder who the head of this "pan-Iranist and pan-Persianist Mafia-like group" is?! Who are its members? Could you tell us? - LouisAragon (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I am sure you are coincidentally here in this page to improve merely the quality of Wikipedia and practically your comments here can not be biased at all! You have no connection at all to the user HistoryovIran (who has been blocked 5 times in Wikpedia bacause of disruptive behaviour!). Look here [32]. User talk statistics: number one: your own talk page, number two: User talk:HistoryofIran. Top articles statistics: Iran, Persian, History of Iran, Iranian peoples, Azerbaijani, ... (all directly related to Iran or Persians or to the other side)

From your new comments here I can understand your love of Turks and Azerbaijanis (including me): pro-Turkish government propaganda, pro-Azerbaijani separatist (GunAz) "outlets" , ... . Savalanni (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support topic block, weak support indef user seems to have
  WP:IDHT about aspersions and one against many. In this report they have cast aspersions against the majority of EN-WP in several of their comments. If they cannot engage without assuming anyone who disagrees with them is racially/ethnically motivated, I fail to see how they can contribute positively. I tend to agree with their assertion that our articles are skewed to one POV in middle eastern history- however- the approach this user has taken is completely inappropriate. Nightenbelle (talk
  ) 13:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Nightenbelle thank you for your constructive comments. I fully agree with you that my initial approach in confronting with the existence of bias in some WP articles were false. I have accepted this fact already in my discussion above with the user Beccaynr, no doubt about it. This kind user has given me very valuable links to read and learn, and shown me how to deal with other users here in an optimal manner. I am now in learning phase. I did not know initially how to confront with bias or discrimination in Wikipedia's articles, but it seems Wikipedia has some mechanisms for this. Savalanni (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'm going to recommend reading

  WP:BLUDGEON. Responding to practically every comment in this discussion is unlikely to endear you to anyone 2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:2D80:51A0:9D62:35A0 (talk

  ) 17:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for the point, I have read important parts of that article, very informative; good to know. It means I should minimize my comments in a discussion, and do not comment except when I am spoken directly for example with @. I will consider it. But this point shows us clearly that editing in Wikipedia is not that simple as it is normally claimed. You need to have at least B.Sc. in Wikipedia Editing or even M.Sc. in Wikipedia Editing to be able to edit in Wikipedia in expected form! Who has a Ph.D. in Wikipedia Editing, they can even do train others as a Professor and show how to edit in expected way. My level now is student of elementary school in editing Wikipedia! Savalanni (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Let's wait for
  Mann Mann (talk
  ) 14:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
• Indef: Persistent ad hominem attacks have been their primary response to criticism. That's bad news, as it suggests that they may not be capable of collaborating effectively. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, these two pages have been under attack by multiple accounts. Can we get some basic protection on them please? And maybe an investagation into these accounts too.

The sooner the better! Mtcat101 (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

@Mtcat101: I've placed both under semi-protection indefinitely to prevent the ongoing disruption. I'm not opposed to a higher level of protection if someone else thinks it would be appropriate, but since the Module appears to contain data rather than code, restricting it only to template editors seems unwise as it would prevent most editors from updating the content of the map. ST47 (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Mtcat101 (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Thomasthimoté (talk · contribs) - after being asked to look into this user's contribs by @Robby.is.on:, I left Thomasthimoté a message regarding the issue.

His response? To say "fuck you asshole" and "shut up".

Can somebody please intervene? GiantSnowman 19:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

It's their third nasty personal attack since they started editing in September: [37] Robby.is.on (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, this one needs a block. +1 while I'm away from my keyboard for the next few hours. IznoPublic (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

  Much obliged! GiantSnowman 20:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

) 01:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Today that have tried to resurrect

Piezoelectric Transformer from a redirect without adequate RSs, and those that do exist have been pillaged to produce a content which is riddled with COPYVIO. I have restored the redirect, but this is, at best, most unhelpful.  Velella  ^Velella

Talk   10:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

185.30.88.0/22

185.30.88.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

If you Ctrl + F "reverted" on the contributions of this IP range [38], the right side of your screen will almost be fully yellow, that's how much this IP has been reverted, which is no surprise, looking at some of their edits. It's pretty clear that this IP range is operated by a single person, or at least like-minded people.

Their most recent "contribution" was today, writing this nasty anti-Iranian forum-like comment here, which they titled "Persian fascism and racism made Nizami a persian,whereas he was and is Azerbaijani Turk who created during Turkic Seljucs";

This is the fake and racist persian manipulation, as such this page’s value is eeual to toilet paper.

If I look even a bit further back, other blatant disruptive edits such as these come up, where the IP blatantly pov-pushes in a GA article [39] [40]. Or here for example, which is just pure vandalism, "göt" means "ass" in Turkish [41]

They have already been blocked for 3 three months at

WP:NOTHERE, and seem to on a nationalistic mission. If they think Wikipedia has the same value as toilet paper, why not help them on their way out? --HistoryofIran (talk

) 19:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Is this (Special:Contributions/185.30.88.0/22) related to your post at User talk:Johnuniq#Thoughts? I have not had time to review the contribs but in general my thoughts re disruptive IPs have hardened and, if disruption is evident, I would support blocking for six months or longer. Johnuniq (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

While I'm not LouisAragon, I don't think they're related to that. Or at least that's what I was was pretty sure about, but after just seeing the most recent disruptive edit of this IP range [42] (made yesterday), it seems more possible imo. Why? Well, Ayyubid-related battles have been recently the subject of much disruption by users with a probable Turkish connection (see this SPI for example, the bit about the Battle of Mansurah (1250) specifically [43].) But now by a IP based in Baku? I'm frankly not sure why these ethno-nationalistic users are so interested in the battles of the Ayyubids, a Islamic dynasty of Kurdish origin. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I'm not entirely sure whether they are connected to the off-wiki campaign I brought up. What is certain though is that AA2/KURDS is a cesspool not only infested due to off-wiki coordination, but also large-scale government meddling and indoctrination (Historical_negationism#Azerbaijan, Pan-Turkism#Pseudoscientific_theories, Censorship in Turkey, Media freedom in Azerbaijan). Bear in mind that there was a mass desysop on Az.Wiki not that long ago due to the very same reasons.[44] Almost a decade ago, in 2014, the SignPost already mentioned that the Azerbaijani government is planning attempts to disrupt Wikipedia.[45] Various factors are responsible, but Wikipedia is being a bit too late to the party, IMO. These topic areas really need permanent protection. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that bold admin action is needed in areas like this and I am about to block 185.30.88.0/22 for six months. Pretending that the range might have good editors waiting to make helpful edits leads to too much wasting of time. Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Selling illegal drugs

Page deleted, user blocked, witty repartee stopped. (non-admin closure) Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dr Jum User set up a now-deleted page User:Dr Jum/Sample page selling illegal drugs such as cocaine. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Page has been deleted; I have blocked the user. Just say no kids! GiantSnowman 14:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I could not agree more! "No kids" is the way to be! Dumuzid (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I do have to wonder how much traffic they expected to get from that. I have trouble with the thought pattern and logic of some editors. Canterbury Tail talk 14:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think they expected to sell anything, instead it was either (A) trolling, or, IMHO more probably, (B) an attempt to discredit Wikipedia by creating an obviously illegal page, waiting a few days/weeks to see if it was still there, and if it was go public with a story about Wikipedia allowing user pages that sell drugs... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

And it would've worked, too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids! Levivich (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

You never know...actually it could have been

stupidity, or one of the other two. Lectonar (talk

) 14:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I’d look to Hanlon's razor. Much more likely to be stupidity than malice.

P.S. I was hoping to take the record for shortest ANI discussion with GiantSnowman’s prompt action, but, alas, it was not to be. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

You could have closed the discussion right after GiantSnowman's edit... =D - UtherSRG (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, but I would have missed all this witty repartee. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spaceflight Europe-America 500

Space Flight Europe-America 500

There are multiple IP addresses insering similar claims about a “jimmy corona Rooney aka William corona” on the Space Flight Europe-America 500 page. The same name has popped up in articles on ER and ET. Various IP addresses have been used to insert his name. A page protection might help with the problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/93.217.224.154 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/47.37.178.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/99.9.138.139 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/63.156.78.118 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/93.138.58.169

I’m sure there are others, but these are the most recent ones, including different ones used today to make similar edits. Afheather (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done page protected for two months. In the future I suggest making such requests at

WP:RFPP. ST47 (talk

) 03:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks and will do. Afheather (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Dispute in COVID-related statement in BLP of Martin Kulldorff

returning curvy stick for justice! --Jayron32

17:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am requesting the attention of an uninvolved administrator, per stated guidance at

WP:BLPREMOVE

: “In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at the administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page.” This issue intersects several wiki policies and guidelines and involves a COVID-related BLP and the disputed topic is COVID-specific.

There is an on-going dispute in the

Science-based Medicine

. Because the full statement in SBM is inaccurate, it should not be used as a source for the disputed statement in a COVID-related BLP and therefore the statement should be removed from article space.

The core dispute is over the phrase “The past two years,” and whether that means the previous 24 months or the previous flu season of 2020/2021, as the CDC tracks and designates flu seasons.[46] As I will argue below, either way one interprets “the past two years,” the source article from SBM is inaccurate.

The full statement from SBM is this:

The past two years, with COVID-19 mitigation in place, the flu killed just one child. During this same period, according to the CDC’s Covid Data Tracker, over 1,000 children have died of COVID-19 in the US, with mitigations in place, making it one of the leading causes of pediatric deaths. Even in normal years, the flu killed fewer children than COVID-19.
— Jonathan Howard , Science-based Medicine

1. As I have alluded to in discussion on the talk page, if there is another source that accurately challenges Kulldorff’s claim that the flu is worse for children than COVID, that source should be used. I am not debating the flu vs COVID issue. I am arguing that Howard’s article in SBM is an inaccurate source that is not appropriate for a COVID-related BLP.

2. If “the past two years” is interpreted as “the past 24 months,” that would include part of flu season 2019/20 and part of 2020/21. The source used by the SBM author (the CDC) indicates that during influenza season 2019/2020, 199 children were killed by the flu and in flu season 2020-2021, only 1 child was killed by the flu. Therefore, there was more than one child death due to the flu in “the past two years” or “the past 24 months.”

3. Several editors (

MrOllie[49], and ScottishFinnishRadish[50]

) have argued that what Jonathan Howard, the author of the SBM article meant when he said “the past two years” was actually “the 2020/2021 flu season.” The phrase “the past two years” is easily understood to also mean “the past 24 months.” I don’t believe that many readers will understand that “the past two years” actually means “6-8 months that span the years 2020 and 2021.” Howard does not explicitly use the term "2020/2021 flu season" in the entire article.

4. Most importantly, if Howard did, indeed, actually mean to say only one child died of influenza in flu season 2020/2021, then the second statement he makes becomes untrue; "During this same period, [emphasis added] according to the CDC’s Covid Data Tracker, over 1,000 children have died of COVID-19." No source supports the statement that COVID-19 killed over 1000 children during the 6-8 months of flu season 2020/2021.

Therefore, if Howard meant the 2020/2021 influenza season when he wrote “the past two years,” that makes his second statement false, that “during the same period” over 1,000 children died of covid. If Howard meant the previous 24 months, that makes his first statement false.

Regardless of how “the past 24 months” is interpreted, both statistics can not be true at the same time. Arguing otherwise is

core policy

.

Thank you for your patience and attention to this matter. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 16:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, where you appear to be on the wrong end against multiple editors. There's nothing for ANI to do. Zaathras (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked the OP. He was blocked last month for edit-warring in the same article.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

  I was in the middle of writing up a description of Michael.C.Wright's disruption on this topic, but given the block I'll spare myself the effort. If that block doesn't stick for whatever reason, please let me know and I'll finish my writeup for discussion.

  MrOllie (talk

  ) 16:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• Also, the dispute OP is making is just dumb. If there's two interpretations of what a time frame is meant to refer to in a source and only one of those time frames matches the rest of what the source is saying, then that's the time frame being referred to. Particularly since their followup point on the CDC doesn't actually have backing, they just say "no source supports this", without indicating sources disproving it. Meaning this source is the one saying it and that's fine. This seems just blatantly straightforward. Silverseren^C 16:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• OP’s user page seems to be a pretty clear violation of
  WP:FAKEARTICLE, at least I think that’s the relevant policy. Absolutely appears to be designed to emulate a real article. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:583A:8D82:C1F2:7925 (talk
  ) 18:57, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

  For one thing, it's wrong when it says "Most of Michael's work here on Wikipedia focuses on coffee articles.". In fact most of Michael's edits these days are about Martin Kulldorff.[51] It strikes me this editor might be an asset editing about coffee and stuff, but about anything in the COVID space, is an impossible timesink. Bon courage (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Space2050

No action needed.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Requesting revoke of talk page access rights to User:Space2050. User keeps spamming talk page with the same nonsensical comment, has been previously blocked indef as a vandalism-only account. Diff 1 Diff 2 46.235.97.54 (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Save yourself a few steps and report to

WP:AIV next time. Anyway, I'm sure an admin will be along shortly with a mop. Slywriter (talk

) 21:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

AIV is not the right place for asking for revocation of TPA. The user hasn't edited in almost a week. No reason to revoke TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Request  Denied – no edits in a week, no action necessary. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:NOTHERE

• Captain Dangerbuff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Captain Dangerbuff has been spending the last month editing on their userpage, user talk page, and their sandbox. They have spent only a mere small edits to mainspace, only to self-revert. They have also inappropriately used their talk page. Is this a clear sign (and leading to) a

talk

) 23:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing the matter with the user? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I have not, as I have just seen this. I'll do so now.

talk

) 23:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Apparently this user is just making hoax ("alternative history") infoboxes and articles, and sometimes presenting them as real. This is pure fiction and has no place in an encyclopedia. If they just want to write fiction, they can do so somewhere else. If they don't want to leave on their own, they will require

assistance. Mako001 (C)  (T) 

🇺🇦 15:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocking would be excessive at the present time. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Chandansinginn

I don't really know what this editor is doing, but they are clearly

not being here to build an encyclopedia.

They keep copy/pasting the same phrase into articles, and it's also been inserted onto their user and user talk page. The phrase is also put in the edit summary of all the edits.

The phrase is "This company is a software company, which makes this company website apps and registers computer centers, this company started in the yisite ar 2022, it was started by sandalwood to start this company, sandalwood started this company very difficult."

I would provide diffs, but it's not really necessary as it's all very obvious at their contributions page. Thanks. echidnaLives - talk - edits 10:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked indef.
  Competence is required. Black Kite (talk)
  10:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Brainyshark03 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

NO ACTION

Premature report. There has been no discussion with the editor on their talk page. -- Whpq (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Uploading TV station logos from Logopedia/Fandom, some of poor quality. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• I am trying to get good quality.
  Brainyshark03
  04:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I have a few comments here. First, I think Mvcg is escalating a bit quickly to jump this to ANI (which I generally view as a last resort for intractable disputes), but I do think that this behavior has to stop. Why are we taking logos that look so rough and accepting them? What is the thought process? If the whole thing is being driven by the ABC logo update (nb for non-TV stations topic editors: American Broadcasting Company redrew its logo last year), then it's ridiculous. My personal thoughts on Fandom/Logopedia are that it tends to be the home of mostly bad and inaccurate vectorizations and logo renderings (I've contributed a handful of logos and improvements). For the most part, we shouldn't be pulling logos from there. In re WPBY-LD, they do seem to be updating their website etc. with the new ABC logo, but I'm not sure where the arrangement uploaded w/o Lafayette. WQAD has not. In the case of KERO-TV, the logo with updated ABC logo was straight-up inaccurate as they no longer use red anywhere. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

    Not all logos I find from Fandom. It is simply because I can't find it from anywhere else. I will try to redo some of the logos that I feel are low quality. I redid WQAD, WICS, WEEK-DT2 and WICD simply because they were, indeed, poor quality.

    Brainyshark03

    11:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Reiner Gavriel

• Reiner Gavriel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 188.170.192.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Imam Shamil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adigabrek
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arsenekoumyk

Vandalism in Imam_Shamil article, 1, 2. User refers to something on talk page, but there is nothing of the kind there. Pure vandalism. 188.170.192.126 (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I believe the edit summary is referring to the Talk:Imam_Shamil#Doubtful_Kumyk_"ancestry" discussion. The diffs you provide aren't vandalism; there seems to be a content dispute about the Kumyk claim. Schazjmd (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

>Reverts one edit

>Without any warning or a thorough check of the talk page, goes straight to ANI

>Reiner Gavriel has edited the page before, reverting an IP who keeps inserting back the same Kumyk claim and responding to "See talk page" with "Cancelled vandalism"

>Page was eventually protected for sockpuppetry

Please use the article talk page first or discuss this with the user as this is a mere content dispute, not vandalism. Gavriel's three edits to the page in this month do not suffice a post on the Incidents noticeboard. ~~ lol1VNIO👻 (I made a mistake? talk to me) 21:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

talk · contribs) was blocked as a sock by User:Bbb23 in April 2022. I've put one year of semiprotection on Imam Shamil. One of Adigabrek's socks has edited that article. There is more background on the socking issues at User talk:A poor son of Adam#Appeal. I would encourage the IP who filed this complaint to log in under their regular account. In my opinion this thread can be closed with no action against Reiner Gavriel (talk · contribs). EdJohnston (talk

) 15:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Tyrone Sampton's pro-Somaliland disruptive edits

• Tyrone Sampton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mount Shimbiris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Cal Madow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Despite having been warned several times, in the past month Tyrone Sampton has kept disrupting Somalia/Somaliland-related articles. Nearly all of their edits appear to have been made in order to push pro-Somaliland POVs. They are especially eager to remove all mentions of Somalia, and replace them with Somaliland (see [52], [53], [54], [55], and [56]). They insist that Somaliland is an independent country and not a part of Somalia, in a disruptive way ([57], [58]). And yeah, they created an article literally named

WP:NOTHERE. After a three-week hiatus, they came back yesterday, and edited in the usual manner ([59]). I think it's time to do something more than just issuing warnings. BilletsMauves^€500

18:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Clearly NOTHERE. As a note, this is an

WP:ARBHORN issue with some history of disruption and sockpuppeting, and the history of such pages (eg. the Cal Madow page which is included in the diffs above) shows they are almost entirely edit warring by IPs and accounts over such issues. CMD (talk

) 06:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Commenting so it doesn't get archived. BilletsMauves^€500 13:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I've indef'd Tyrone Sampton for

WP:NOTHERE. The edits and the veiled threat to sock was enough for me, even if their editing has been sporadic. RickinBaltimore (talk

) 14:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks chief. Have a good day! BilletsMauves^€500 17:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Rojer Aurther

WP:CIR indef block needed. I noticed this editor in September, when their "Buddhism in country" articles were moved to draftspace en masse, and they received warnings (from me and others), e.g. I said on 8 September "Your "buddhism in ..." articles seem to be based on absolutely nothing, with ridiculously inflated figures and claims" and a day later this

. On 22 october, they also got a copyright warning and some edits were revdelled.

Now I notice their edits to

Fram (talk

) 08:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Noted the user almost exclusively uses mobile devices to edit and there are known issues with talk page alerts and messages to mobile, no previous blocks, and as he do not have email enabled, I would be minded to issue a temporary block of (say) one week in a last attempt to get his attention, but any resumption of disruptive editing after that would tend to suggest moving to indefinite as the next step. Will leave open for other admins to consider. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think "theycanthearyou" is the issue here, they have no problem finding pages in all namespaces, and have edited their talk page after the previous round of messages[60].

Fram (talk

) 08:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I feel you're stretching it a little... I think a temporary block should be the first action instead of an indefinite one, since they don't have any previous blocks. - Coolman2917 (talk) 11:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I doubt that someone (who was already warned about introducing nonsense into articles in different forms) who is this incompetent (adding information about the obviously wrong person to an article, and then linking the obviously wrong husband to it to make it worse) will suddeny become competent after a temporary block. If it was willful vandalism, then indeed a change of heart would be possible. But if someone doesn't even notice such issues? As a bonus: they are aware of this discussion (they communicated with Stifle about it), but instead of replying, they submitted

Draft:Buddhism in Spain

for AfC review, without tackling any of the issues I enumerated on the talk page: that page e.g. includes the "sentence"

• "In Seville and also in Spain, (see the book Buddhism in Spain, representing Buddhism in the Ministry of Justice during the creation of Article 16 of the Constitution on religious freedom, including the word "and community", later he Spain Jane created missions that still exist today. ". Sic.

If an editor believes that article is ready for the mainspace, while they are being discussed for a lack of competence, then I don't think escalating blocks are in any way useful.

Fram (talk

) 11:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

They have more contribs to bnwiki than enwiki. Their bnwiki talk page looks like their enwiki talk page. I suspect a language barrier issue. Levivich (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

User_talk:208.83.112.200

User has admitted to abusing multiple accounts, block evading, and continuing an edit war regardless of wikipedia policies.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PerryPerryD (talk • contribs) 18:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Block and protections handled. Canterbury Tail talk 18:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

2A01:4B00:EA2E:3A00:B4F3:D413:14AE:7E72 posting legal threats

Blocked for 48h.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Special:Diff/1118219421 and Special:Diff/1118219421 In these diffs,

WP:NLT. ◇HelenDegenerate

◆ 19:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Armeniangigachad

Good to archive. El_C 15:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I first noticed Armeniangigachad doing some edits on the Garegin Nzhdeh article, and was arguing that information in the article is unsourced. I reverted Armeniangigachad's edit after confirming that information is sourced. Apparently Armeniangigachad's did not reviewed sources prior claiming that material is unsourced. However, Armeniangigachad reinstated his edit. Part of edit summary was stating ...Why did you revert the portion on Turkey's collaboration with the Nazis? Are you particularly interested in hiding that?. Given that Armeniangigachad is new to Wikipedia, I presumed good faith and described what was incorrect with their edit as well as offered them some advice and my help.

Then I decided to look at the other edits Armeniangigachad made, because new users are prone to make good-faith edits that are not improvements. The behavior I noticed when reviewing the Armeniangigachad's contribution prompted me to pass on this case to the administrators review, because the behavior I witnessed demonstrates that this case is about more than just being a newbie. It is about the editor who is not built for Wikipedia editing.

Armeniangigachad stars a talk page discussion called Name of the article/hostility towards Armenian contributors. In it Armeniangigachad states stuff like

• The reason I am asking this is because this is an Armenian instrument and its' more popular name (düdük) is unfortunately of Turkish origin.
• Given the fact that Armenian culture - and Armenia itself - is currently under vicious attack by Turkey and Azerbaijan, I believe I represent all Armenians when I put forward the motion of the article's name being changed to "Tsiranapogh"
• I can basically see the train of "criticism" from negationist Turks and self-proclaimed "defenders of neutrality" coming, along with the accusations that changing the title into an Armenian one is a nationalistic approach.,
• To those who engage in this behavior, here's some friendly advice: restrain yourselves, take a step back and ask yourself why you're so xenophobic. Could it be perhaps that you're squatting on stolen land, and would just totally hate for people to find out?,
• This narrative is mainly pushed by the Turks, who constantly feel threatened by any acknowledgement that cultures other than Turkish exist on former Ottoman soil,
• if it threatens your identity when people reaffirm their culture, then you need to do some serious soul-searching and dig to find out why exactly you feel like a cornered animal when that happens.

At another talk page discussion Armeniangigachad replies with Dear Turk, reminder to remain civil unless you'd like to get booted off Wikipedia naming another user by assumed ethnicity. Then Armeniangigachad says The number of Turkophones is irrelevant and does not prove that "düdük" is not a dumbing-down. Let's compare the two, shall we? "Tsiranapogh" in Armenian means "pipe instrument made from apricot wood". "Düdük" means...."thing that makes the du-du sound"., and then Armeniangigachad continue making personal attacks At this point, I'd like to speak with your English teacher., And of course, like the unoriginal person that you are, you stole and failed to rephrase my end statement. I expected nothing more and nothing less!.

I could go on and on with examples of Armeniangigachad behavior, but I feel the ones above are sufficient. I didn't add much commentary or explanation, because the quotes speak for themselves. I assume that the above instances demonstrate that the user has a general pattern of disruptive conduct, is here to fight rather than develop an encyclopedia, and simply NOTHERE. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 15:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week: User talk:Armeniangigachad#Block and discretionary sanctions alerts. El_C 16:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fowler&fowler

Apparent threat

Could an admin take action as needed regarding this edit summary which should probably be removed and the editor held accountable? Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 03:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

It's an LTA. IP blocked. Acroterion (talk) 03:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Or even how to report it, but it seems someone has created mirror accounts (of me) [[151]] including one here (it seems, [[152]]). Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:BADNAME (non-admin advice). TSventon (talk

) 11:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Looks like blatant/disruptive impersonation, so would think

WP:UAA is the board to take it to. DeCausa (talk

) 11:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Their home wiki seems to be Simple Wikipedia. Do you edit simple.wiki? -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I was just told about this and was unsure what it all meant. The user who told me was concerned about the implication, and if (as they suspected) it is a vandalism account and gets a global ban (as they are active on more than one project) I wanted this on record as a "this is not in fact me" statement. And I have (as I said) no idea what to do about this. In a sense, I am getting my unblock request in early.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

By the way they did create an account [[153]] as well, so, as I said, this is more about getting it on record this is not me before I am forced to have to do so. Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

That’s fine. They haven’t edited en.wiki at all and haven’t edited simple.wiki since May. Their only interest seems to have been to create an article about Rao Gujarmal Singh on simple.wiki. Coincidentally, we have a draft on this chap created about the same time by a different editor. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked the impersonator. Cullen328 (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Consensus in WP:WikiProject Television is that the "name" parameter in Template:Infobox television not be used in situations where the value would match the {{PAGENAMEBASE}} value. There is a maintenance category in the project that targets articles that use it when it is not needed: Category:Pages using infobox television with unnecessary name parameter

User 79.79.252.199 has continually pushed placement of this parameter on the following pages:

• Swashbuckle (TV series): [154][155][156]
• Mister Maker: [157][158][159]
• Something Special (TV series): [160][161][162][163]

These edits result in the page being repeatedly added to the maintenance category. In initial changes, I used an edit summary indicating the parameter is unnecessary. Since they continued and I received no indication they were reading the edit summaries, I tried reversion. I also reached out on their talk page ([164]) explaining that we don't use it, and upon further instances, asked if they had a reason for placing it. Reversion and talk page comments all have been ignored with no response, so I tried implementing notices of disruptive editing when reverting and still no response.

I can ignore future entries in the maintenance cat (although others may not), so my issue isn't so much the infobox itself but rather the fact that this shows a level of

) 18:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• This looks a lot like this block editor. I've blocked 79.79.252.199 for disruption/lack of communication/block evasion.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Lots of issues here. 66.249.122.34 has been repeatedly adding favorable original research to the Halloween Ends lead section (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff). This is likely a continuation of behavior by sockpuppeteer User:VideoGamer123456 (diff, diff) and sockpuppet User:Mr.Creatinator (diff), who've been making virtually the same edits to the page. See the SPI here. Both VideoGamer123456 / Mr.Creatinator (diff), and the IP (diff, diff) have been repeatedly warned about WP:NOR and/or edit-warring violations. Neither have responded to warnings or participated in the relevant talk page discussion. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Update: The IP is still at it, once again removing negative information from the lead section without proper explanation and introducing positive information that is not supported by the source cited. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked them for a year (they had a previous block for six months for something else) as a suspected IP sock. Daniel Case (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

We have a persistent disruptive editor who seems to be switching IP addresses, essentially an IP sock puppet. The disruptive edits from these IP address seem to be focused on women's history mostly with respect to armed combat. The type of disruptive edits include unexplained removal of material, original research, POV editing slanting the historical perspective of the article, & edit warring. This seems to be an attempt at historical revisionism that is actually a chronocentrist approach & historical negationism. It is in effect a form of antifeminism because it negates the actual conditions that women had to overcome.

None of these IP editors has ever responded on their talk pages or explained their edits in the edit summary..

These are the IP addresses in question. Note that the non-185.5.48.* are presently blocked, one for a year & one for two weeks.

• 185.5.48.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 185.5.48.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 185.5.48.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 185.5.48.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 185.5.48.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 185.5.48.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 185.5.48.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 185.5.48.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 185.5.48.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 195.158.74.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 217.71.190.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Here is a partial list of the articles being disrupted. I have made requests for them at

.

• Anne Dieu-le-Veut
• Brita Hagberg
• Eleonore Prochaska
• Fighter pilot
• Jacquotte Delahaye
• Participation of women in the Olympics
• Rayna Kasabova
• Women in piracy

I have also made a report to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests/Archives/47#From the 185.5.48.* range & a couple of others, although there appears to be a three month back log there. Peaceray (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

185.5.48.0/24 has been blocked for one month. The other IPs are already blocked. There's nothing more to do, I think. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that we still need to complete the investigation as to open proxies in the 185.5.48.0/24 range. ST47ProxyBot has already blocked 185.5.48.142, 185.5.48.153, 185.5.48.155, 185.5.48.158, & 185.5.48.159. Peaceray (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

BTW, 217.71.190.230 is off the two week block & is again editing disruptively. Peaceray (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Update: 217.71.190.230 is now blocked for six months. Peaceray (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• WP:CIR, or some such. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:4D94:1769:7F0B:FB12 (talk
  ) 16:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I've given them a 31 hour block. They can troll elsewhere. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

This IP user in Brazil seems to have a habit of editing in various hoaxes, especially fake deaths (fake death edit example 1, fake death edit example 2). They're active at 187.36.168.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and 2804:D45:9660:EB00:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). A block is probably needed. Thanks. wizzito | say hello! 03:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• Sure thing. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to Drmies for the block. wizzito | say hello! 03:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm here to request for a fair and square judgement onto this matter between me and 115.135.197.182 editing the controversies that had been preceding for days on this link shown: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Malays_National_Organisation&action=history. A few users had out of the majority editors have claim that the statement that i've made isn't related to party actions despite having it majority of party members involved.I request your fair judgement as many people had contributed to this work and seeing it easily removed is not fair to me or other contributors. If you disagree with my statement then please tell me a valid reason not to do so and I'll will not proceed with the revert of the edit. Francabicon (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring has been going on over the Rita Ora discography article for a long time. User:Helptottt, User:Jakubik.v and a newly created account (User:Swedishbrittisk), by possibly one of them with the clear purpose of edit-warring, are continually removing sourced content, without any plausible reasoning: [172][173][174][175][176][177] Despite various warnings given on their talkpages and attempts to find a solution on the talkpage, they are unable to understand this and unfortunately, they do not seem to like to communicate and help improve the article instead. Their behaviour show that they are intending to continue reverting repeatedly. User:Swedishbrittisk further calls to "keep reverting" me if I "keep on doing these senseless edits" [178]. However, they're endangering the article, which is currently being reviewed to pass the featured list nomination. Thanks in advance. Iaof2017 (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Listen, I just want to follow Wikipedia's rules, and believe me that I’m just using one account, none of these two is me, but think whatever you want to think. Swedishbrittisk (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

This is serious accusation. I'm not pathetic, I don't need to hide behind some "other" profile. I only have one profile here and I require you not to accuse me of such of thing. Thank you. Jakubik.v (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The only user who is edit warring is yourself, and several editors pointed out the unnecessary changes with which you have damaged the article. Insinuating that I created a new account to revert your edits is insane. The article, before you started editing it, was already in a very good state, needing minimal changes. Like Black Kite highlighted, it's you who needs to explain all the wild changes you made to the article. You are behaving like you own the article, and use threatening and accusatory language against editors. How is this behavior not against the rules?! Helptottt (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Iaof2017 keeps on vandalizing Rita Ora discography with edits that do not contribute to the page. In addition, they are blaming me of having more than one account, which is completely false. I would like this user to be stopped from doing this. Thank you in advance. Swedishbrittisk (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, this is a content dispute at its heart, but the edit-warring appears to be between yourself on one side, and at least three other editors (not counting Swedishbrittisk) on the other. I think you'd have to explain why your changes are correct and all of the other editors are wrong if anyone is to take any action on this. Black Kite (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello Black Kite thanks for your participation. As I initially wrote in the talkpage, I reworked the article on the grounds of the manual of style and discography guidelines. I'm familiar with that topic and have written numerous good articles. Other user would note the article's issues on the talkpage or on the featured list review if my edits weren't correct. Iaof2017 (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

You never gave us any reasonable argument. You have messed up already good articles. I gave you countless point where you were wrong and you never gave me one single explanation, only reverting and giving some warning. What you did with Rita Ora's discography is a mess. Most of your edits are sooo useless and itrelevant. I don't know what is the reason why you keep doing that but I don't see any point in it and I'm not being prejudiced vecause there are 3 other users who are seeing it and I think there will be more and more. Also you edit history shows that this is not your first time being reported or even blocked. Jakubik.v (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Read the talkpage and try to constructively contribute to the article and the ongoing discussion. You have been very offensive with your zero-convincing statements and absolutely out of place. I do not own the article however, I would appreciate it if we could work together to make this article pass the featured list nomination. Iaof2017 (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The article was already good. It's pointless, you keep ignoring all the things we are pointing at and still editing the same things over and over again. Jakubik.v (talk) 09:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

• I have no idea whether User:Swedishbrittisk is a returning old user or a sock, but they've been here for two hours, have insulted other editors, called upon people to be blocked, and reverted the article to a broken revision. So I've blocked them indefinitely. If they want to edit here, they can tell us their old username and how they're going to improve their behavour going forward. Meanwhile, I've fully protected the article for a week. Black Kite (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  A mix between a somewhat complicated CU connection and behaviour tells me they are the same as MikaelEmanuelsson (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), who has a history edit warring and conflict with Iaof2017. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

User:GemGemB forces his preferred pronouns into the article Celia Rose Gooding. It has been she for a while and GemGemB refuses to get consensus for a change. --FMSky (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• Regardless of anything else,
  Template:Pronoun notice is not appropriate to place on the article and has now been removed - other issues may still need to be dealt with. — xaosflux ^Talk
  18:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  I edit conflicted GiantSnowman in the removal of that, see his note below. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  This response from FMSky is concerning. GiantSnowman 18:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

this is a thing i have noticed here for a while. that user who are just returning to the last clean version and reverting users who are ignoring consensus are somehow considered edit warring - how? --FMSky (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

what exception under

WP:3RRNO are you citing? GiantSnowman

18:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Wow, ok, that i didnt know. That basically means as long as a user isnt a completely obvious vandal you arent allowed to revert them more than twice. and it doesnt seem to matter if what they are inserting is constructive or not. Anyway i wont visit this article anymore as it is not worth the time --FMSky (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I know it's difficult not to revert more than once (even I do it as well!), but good practice is to take it to the talk page and discuss, per

WP:BRD. GiantSnowman

18:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

You have both been edit warring. I have give you both warnings for the same, and taken the article back to what I feel is the last good version (with no comment on which version is correct). If further changes are made I will block. GiantSnowman 18:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

so just returning to the status quo is edit warring? --FMSky (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, when it violates 3RR. Do one revert, and immediately open a dialogue on talk. If it needs to escalate from there, it's done in discussions and noticeboards, not in the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Doing so repeatedly is, yes. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• If she says she uses both she/her and they/them (listing them in that order), saying that we should use the latter because she doesn't identify as a woman seems to be a misunderstanding of how nonbinary identities works (and of how
  MOS:GENDERID, which by its letter does not currently discuss such identities, has generally been taken to interact with them). GemGemB's comment back in August that When a person has two sets of pronouns, the general guideline is to vary it in speech and text does not refer to any guideline I'm aware of. Every article I've ever seen on someone who takes multiple sets of pronouns settles on one set. A lot of this is content-dispute stuff, but I'm concerned by GemGemB's apparent willingness to assert things are Wikipedia guidelines when they aren't. I'm optimistic for an amicable resolution here, since, unlike in most pronoun wars, it does look like everyone genuinely has the BLP subject's best interests in mind. But we should get everyone on the same page about what GENDERID does and doesn't say, and what the standard practices are and aren't. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed}
  ] (she|they|xe) 22:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The editor didn't say it was a Wikipedia guideline -- just a "general guideline," presumably of good writing as the editor sees it. So I don't see that comment as a behavioral issue. CapitalSasha ~ talk 10:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

There's a new Evlekis sock on Liberland: Ethnotrex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) See this edit, repeating earlier personal attacks. [179] AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

DuckBeaks has used several–if not one, edit summaries to troll and/or spam. In one, they wrote: "Outdated link L L L L L L", when they were just changing the link because the article was moved. And in another, they wrote a 45-letter word (supposedly the longest word on Earth), when they were changing the link for the same reason. And that's not

) 03:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I guess we should warn them, and if they keep doing it, block them. PhilKnight (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

They even threatened one by deleting an important message and saying: deleting because that ignorant arthropod did not respond to me since his IQ is lower than his "contributions" and is a useless parasite with no life.

comment added 03:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Sure, this is the diff. PhilKnight (talk) 04:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Don’t forget he said death threats.

comment added 06:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you use colons (:) to indent your posts, please? Also do you have a diff for the death threat. See

WP:DIFF for what a diff is, if you are not sure. PhilKnight (talk

) 07:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

yes, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DuckBeaks&diff=prev&oldid=1111991862.

He said if not, that's your problem. do or die, its your choice.

talk

) 08:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

That's no more a death threat than publish or perish; it means "take it or leave it". No comment on the rest. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

still it counts as a death threat since he is telling them to die. Sorry for the mispelling, I'm in laptop.

talk

) 08:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Not convinced it is a death threat. I am content to leave them warned and block if they continue. PhilKnight (talk) 08:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Alright

talk

) 08:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

No edits now for several days. PhilKnight's "leave them warned and block if they continue" seems right to me. JBW (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be the right case for now.

talk

) 19:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Aliawalsh22 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

This is a newish editor with a specialised interest in horses and equitation, and a particular interest in two specific equestrians. I have encountered their edits because I review drafts at AFC.

They have been blocked for 48 hours by Ged UK (expired). While they may wish to comment on the reason for making the block it is, in part, to encourage thenm to engage. They have not engaged.

Their edit summaries are deceptive, and they have been warned for this yestefday.

They have been asked, formally, about paid editing, and have twice ignored a level 4 warning for this.

Although not directly relevant to the English Language WIkipedia, their behaviour on Commons shows the same cavalier disregard of engagement. See C:User talk:Aliawalsh22. THey are currentky blocked for the second time on Commons for uploading files of (at best) questionable licencing. Obviously they must handle that at Commons, not here.

It appears to me that this could be a useful editor on the basis of their interest. However, at present, they are a negative asset to the project. All this could be solved if they were to choose to engage. The purpose of this filing is to encourage them to engage. Their current refusal to engage means a bigger shot across the bows is required than simple talk page warnings 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Things have moved on. Indeffed. I imagine this can be closed 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have blocked the editor indefinitely, with a block notice containing an attempt to encourage them to start communicating, and request an unblock. It is unfortunate that this seems necessary, but since neither talk page messages nor a short-term block have produced any response at all, it seems that it is. JBW (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

For the record, far from taking up my invitation to request an unblock, she decided to evade the block by using a sockpuppet: see Aliawalsh2. JBW (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Smorkach 24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite several warnings and two blocks, the latter of which was lifted by an admin after a discussion with them (see their talk page: [180]), Smorkach 24 haven't improved their behavior (for the previous episodes, see [181] and [182]). They have kept modifying content without proper sources, even though they have been asked not to do so several times ([183], [184]). All of these edits seem to be made with the goal of increasing the listed numbers of equipment of the Azerbaijani armed forces. It is obvious that leniency hasn't worked at all, so I think it is time to take some more decisive action. BilletsMauves^€500 13:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I have checked the editing history, and while at one time it may have looked like a good-faith editor not understanding about sources, the accumulated evidence makes it abundantly clear that this is not so. It is an editor knowingly and deliberately falsifying information to boost the appearance of the Azerbaijani armed forces. They have been given chances to change, and clearly don't intend to do so. I have blocked indefinitely, and I would require the editor to provide very convincing reasons before I would consider unblocking. JBW (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd also suggest, at a minimum, they accept an indefinite topic-ban from the AA2 topic area as part of any unblock condition, assuming they weren't already under one. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

) 17:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

First of all, this is not my POV. This part is cited on Ataturk’s page: “His government carried out a policy of Turkification, trying to create a homogeneous, unified and above all secular nation under the Turkish banner.[12][13][14] Under Atatürk, the Minorities in Turkey were asked to speak Turkish in public but also were allowed to maintain their own languages at the same time;[15]” I read your discussion board, and you have a history of vandalisms and removing well-cited scholar sources just because you disagree with their views. I’ve never deleted the sources citied on this page or the entire page. I never said the deportation is Kurdish ethnonationalist propaganda. I was talking about your removal of peer-reviewed sources that disagreed with your POV and sent a disruptive link to my page just because I disagreed with your opinion. I didn’t even further engage in edit wars with you considering your history of vandalisms. The “multi-ethnic republic” part can also be found in my sources. LeonChrisfield (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a history of vandalism. If you say that Kurdish was only banned in public why did you remove that info from the article then with the excuse "Ataturk allowed ethnic minorities to speak Kurdish"? [195] You are contradicting yourself. Semsûrî (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

And what relevance does these additions of yours about Sheikh Said rebellion have for the deportations?[196] And this? "Despite the conflicts between Ataturk and the Kurds, most Kurds today in Turkey have a positive view of Kemal Ataturk, even among HDP voters."[197] Semsûrî (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

You agree that he banned Kurdish in public but not that such a policy is fascist because he himself denied being a fascist.[198] That to me screams POV-pushing. Semsûrî (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Not really sure if this needs admin attention or not, but I can't resolve this with the person in question.

" was a direct film adaptation of the story (it does share the star-crossed lovers theme, but isn't a plot like the Shakespeare tragedy at all. Also there was no source for the comment either.)). They've also had disruptive edit warnings too, on their talk page and in edit summaries because some of the same edits they keep doing over and over again. For more than a year, I and many others, in the article talk pages, Mr. Doggy Dog's own talk page, and in the edit summaries, have tried to help and to explain why their edits are inadmissable/what the rules are, and suggest a reading of the manual of style, but there is never any response and the behavior continues. I tried really hard to go without involving admin and told them I really didn't want to involve admin or cause a fight/get them blocked, but at this point I don't see what else can be done. I know these are all probably good faith edits, but at this point it's been explained so many times it's getting kind of silly. Is there anything that can be done, or do we just let it go? EEBuchanan (talk) 05:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be a case of

WP:CIR, and yes, editors get blocked for it quite often. Mako001 (C)  (T) 

🇺🇦 10:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I have been trying to be helpful/explain to them how this works for a long time, and really didn't want to get them blocked because they're obviously a newer user and trying to help. However their unwillingness to respond or check the manual of style, no matter how many times they were told to do so, was getting out of hand. I let them know we're discussing this, but based on patterns of behavior I doubt they'll answer that either. I've only ever had one answer from them in the year they've been here and it was a simple unsigned - "Sorry I'm new". or something like that. I'll let the admins sort this one out.

EEBuchanan (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Just to make sure that I understand correctly, it IS only admins that can block/take action like that, right? I'm not expected to do anything further? This is the first time I've had to bring anything up on this noticeboard.

EEBuchanan (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Correct, the average user has no power to make blocks. Bringing the report here should be sufficient, an admin will typically hop on a case like this relatively quickly. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 22:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

OK. I'll let this sit, then, for the admins to deal with, unless you need me to provide more info or anything like that. EEBuchanan (talk) 08:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

There has been persistent disruption at

) 08:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

They're not proxies. It's

WP:LTA/MRY. I've put down some range blocks, which I think covers all recent IPs. Range blocks are usually required anyway, so let's just flush them out (IMO). -- zzuuzz ^(talk)

08:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

We've got another one, 112.211.183.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 08:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Flushed. You can see from the range blocks that this is not a local problem; they're only going to visit other pages. Thanks everyone. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Than Tun Ba Thein Tin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite a hefty amount of warnings distributed over the past year and a half (including two by myself in the past days), this user hasn't stopped their disruptive editing, mostly on pages dealing with subjects related to Myanmar's armed forces. Recent edits include unexplained changes to sourced content [199], unsourced additions [200], and removal of sourced content with no good reason [201][202][203] or no reason at all [204]. Despite all the reverts and warnings, their behavior doesn't seem to be evolving in a right direction. Could something be done about it? BilletsMauves^€500 19:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Please note that Than Tun has filed a report at AIV against BilletsMauves. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked by Bbb23. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

User editing from multiple IPs is determined to make their point re: the superiority of liner notes as sources. Maybe rangeblock of 2601:C2:B00:730:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs) and/or page protection. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:C8E6:ADB8:BC1A:535B (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a couple of days with a request to discuss and reach agreement on the article talk page. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Good. But honestly, if I had gone on that kind of tangent I would have expected to be blocked long before now. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:C8E6:ADB8:BC1A:535B (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Rstan2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly been hijacking the Richard Stanley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) disambiguation page by replacing it with their autobiography:

1. 10:54, 29 October 2022 – 11:33, 29 October 2022‎
2. 13:57, 29 October 2022‎ – 15:36, 29 October 2022‎
3. 08:11, 30 October 2022‎ – 13:30, 30 October 2022‎
4. 15:12, 30 October 2022‎

The methods include improper page moves: [205], [206]

On their user talk page they said they are "new at this and need some help guidance". They have had an account since 2012, but have made very few edits outside of this topic. Even after I provided them guidance[207], they haven't tried to communicate, but proceeded to revert (diff #4). I'm afraid this will continue until they are blocked.

) 18:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• I've pblocked them from editing the base page. I appreciate they may be confused as to what they should be doing here, but they can't be allowed to continue to cause an issue like that. Black Kite (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. I think that will work. Just hope they won't be creating articles.

  Politrukki (talk

  ) 18:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

User:47.149.223.192 is genre warring despite multiple warnings against such

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

This person has made 47 edits over the past month, most or all of which consist of

06:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

This individual just made two more genre-based edits: here and here on the "

questionable. I believe action needs to be taken, such as a block, to mitigate this person's behavior on Wikipedia. Tomorrow, I will be messaging editors who have warned #47 on their user talk page so as to attract further attention to this issue and this thread. Mungo Kitsch (talk)

06:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I crossed out the last part because I have notified the other three editors who have posted on #47's talk page. Hopefully at least one of them will give further valuable input to this thread. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 07:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

user also inserts random articles that dont contain whats supposed to be sourced https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=All_Hope_Is_Gone&diff=1115570339&oldid=1115438108 alternative metal is not mentioned anywhere in the source --FMSky (talk) 08:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• This person uses multiple IPs from Long Beach, California, and was blocked twice as Special:Contributions/47.155.35.83. They have also used Special:Contributions/47.149.216.159, Special:Contributions/47.153.205.29, Special:Contributions/47.153.196.129 and Special:Contributions/47.153.196.129. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
• On occasion, this editor has included references in their edits, but every case that I've checked (
  Ich Will to "industrial metal", while the source they provided says "before this record, band's sounds [was] very tight and industrial" but now has changed, pretty much contradicting the edit. In the second example, they changed the genre for the song Zick Zack to "industrial metal" but the source they provided does not discuss the song or its genre at all. In the third example, they changed the genre of the song Second Heartbeat to "heavy metal", but the source they provided is a brief review of the album and does not mention the heavy metal genre nor the song itself. In the fourth example, they changed the genre of the song Genocidal Humanoidz to "heavy metal", but the source they provided is a review of the song but again does not mention the heavy metal genre. CodeTalker (talk
  ) 19:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Anonymous editor #47 just made another genre edit, this one at Heldmaschine. This needs administrator intervention immediately, because this editor is likely to continue doing this without such. #47 deserves no further inaction nor benefit of the doubt. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

112.200.9.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The IP made a few hundred edits. Some of them were clearly inappropriate such as edits at users' talk pages (example; those I reverted). I warned them, and, after they made a number of inappropriate edits to categories, I blocked the IP for 48h. However, most of their edits are removal of redlinked categories from articles (example). In principle, we should not have redlinked categories in the articles; on the other hand, most of what the IP removed could have been valid categories which so far nobody cared to create. Opening this topic to see whether mass rollback is needed. (I can help with rollback, but probably currently do not have capacity to create all these red-linked categories). Courtesy ping @

) 07:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

One set of categories that the IP deleted were to Category:Harrier jump jet. This category already exists at Category:Harrier Jump Jet, but the links were changed as a result of a move of the parent article. Some of the other deletions may be for the same reason, but I haven't checked those, as I'm heading to bed now. BilCat (talk) 08:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I concur with this report as laid out by Ymblanter, his preventive block to stop the disruption, and his decision to seek more opinions regarding the appropriateness of rolling back the IP contributions en mass. While my initial thoughts were in favor of mass rollback, I now agree that more opinions will lead to the best result and yeald to those opinions. Thank you.--

John Cline (talk

) 08:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I am a Mexican editor and since three years ago I've been writing and creating around

, and of course I've been helping with uncountable edits to other users articles. Other pages that you probably reviewed or read, those articles include prose, several sources and of course report-links.

The problem is, early October 2022 I started to write articles about my native country Mexico, the 1994-95 season with 19 football teams and plus another cancelled campaign. I followed the same

.

This is clearly linked to the undeniable fact that the three persons cannot accept a Mexican editor write popular articles with many views, following a Jim Crow strategy' they even don't read my articles, just nominate and delete them always the same three persons (1 nominates, 1 votes, and 1 deletes the same three always). They acted against my 200 articles only after they've realized I am Mexican. I have 18 articles deleted, they are doing the same for the other 200 Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Football.

This is the first time I am posting here so if I am doing anything wrong, please let me know.HugoAcosta9 (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, you are doing something wrong. You've made blatant personal attacks against several editors, accusing them of racism, because they had the gall to nominate some of your articles for deletion based on Wikipedia's guidelines regarding notability. I strongly suggest you refactor your post to remove any insinuation that your were targeted because of your nationality as opposed to a relatively recent consensus-driven shift in notability criteria for sports/athletes. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'm going to second this. Calling these editors racists, to be blunt, is a

  personal attack. I'm also changing the title of this section, as this again is a personal attack. RickinBaltimore (talk

  ) 18:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  Not surprisingly, Football in Baltimore is not popular, of course you want the 200 football articles deleted. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  I don't care about the articles in question. I care about your continued personal attacks. Stop with the racism calls immediately, or you're going to be blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  Heaven forbid that Wikipedia editors apply notability policies and guidelines, or that we don't treat association football articles as immune to the same. JPxG is correct that there've been sweeping changes to sports notability guidelines (after years of abuse, with some footy editors being among the worst offenders), and it's entirely possible you were unaware of that. But if you're unable to assume good faith, and you reflexively jump to the conclusion that the only conceivable reason anyone could take one of your articles to AfD is sinister intent, then Wikipedia will just have to soldier on without you. Ravenswing 19:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  Looks like it was changed back, should I change it to "Personal attack from HugoAcosta9"? @

  Sham me / Where I've shammed

  19:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  See everyone, after I wrote 200 articles I showed with exhibitions those three friendos are acting against a Mexican editor and they deflected the truth labeling as personal attacks. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  Please read the behavioral guideline

  WP:AGF before you continue. — rsjaffe 🗣️

  18:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  I can write with fear anymore over here. I will never published another article on wikipedia. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  @HugoAcosta9: no one here is being racist, or biased against articles from Mexico. As @JPxG states below, the notability guidelines for sports articles are much stricter now; please take a moment to review the link they provided to understand the changes. (And before I get accused of racism myself, check my user page – I'm actually south of you.) –FlyingAce^✈hello 18:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  Read 1 out of my 200 articles, if you want 1 article unsourced, then I allow you to delete all of them. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not the one nominating the articles for deletion ;) I'm just saying that the nomination, even if it may have been mistaken, has nothing to do with your nationality or any other personal characteristic. I understand it's distressing, but please avoid attacking other editors because of it. –FlyingAce^✈hello 19:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Close as forum shopping and suggest p-block from DRV which he's bludgeoning (again) with bad faith comments and arguments. Star Mississippi 18:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• @
  WP:NSPORTS, so while I think it is unlikely that you are being specifically targeted, you are not wrong in perceiving a sudden increase in sports-related AfD nominations. jp×g
  18:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  With the difference they are lying about me writing that the 200 articles are unsourced when you red those they are sourced with 6-7 references, and using only 1 vote to delete my 200 articles from the same user. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Strictly spoken, I am not informed about this discussion. I was pointed to
  WP:AN for a non-existing discussion. But with some searching, I did find the personal attack. The Banner talk
  18:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  False. I properly noticed you in your talk page. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Just read your own edit on my talk page. The Banner talk 19:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

    I noticed you based on real claims, on the contrary, you deleted 10 Mexican football articles based on false claims, then you want my other 200 being deleted precisely the 200 european football. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The claims of racism and so on are unacceptable, but on the other hand I would be upset as well if someone started AfD´ing articles like

) 18:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Possible copyvio... The Banner talk 19:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Which is not an Afd reason, and needs perhaps some indication of where the text is copied from? Otherwise you are accusing an editor without any evidence, which isn´t a good look...

Fram (talk

) 19:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Based on what evidence? I carry no water for HugoAcosta9, but your seeming assertion that he committed copyvio with no other ground than a lack of sourcing is dealing in bad faith. If you think this is copyvio, prove it with a link. If you can't (or more likely haven't bothered trying), retract the accusation. Fram is exactly right: Real Madrid is one of the most prominent and popular sports teams in the world, and seeking to delete one of their season articles without the slightest attempt at

WP:BEFORE is as egregious as if you sought to delete the 1990 New York Yankees or the 1990 New York Giants seasons. Ravenswing

19:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Boomerang per CIR - Hugo is being disruptive at AFD, disruptive at DRV, and is levelling accusations if racism against numerous editors who disagree with him (including me). Totally unacceptable. GiantSnowman 19:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  Says the one man-one vote over my 200 artciles which unable a deletion. I showed you did not read my 200 articles and you vote to delete them. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I did some looking around, and this editor is virtually accusing anyone who disagrees with them a racist at virtually ever venue I checked. It's not just here - it's talk pages, AFD, DRV, etc. as much as I'm very sympathetic to people who feel they're receiving racist comments towards them...I haven't witnessed a single person say anything racist. Most didn't comment on race or the editor at all. This editor just appears to default to accusations of racism or "not reading the nomination" to anyone who dares doubt him. Sergecross73 msg me 19:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Agree, I wasn't aware that closing an AfD was a "Jim Crow Pattern". I understand he's frustrated, but this is spiraling beyond necessity.

Star Mississippi 19:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm neutral on the AFD nominations (I dont edit in sports enough to know) and I know he must be frustrated, but he can't be bogging down good faith discussion with bad faith aspersions at every venue like this. Sergecross73 msg me 19:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

False. You have no evidence that my 200 articles deserved to be deleted, just deflected the real matter, Mississippi delete pages with a 1-0 AfD consensus. 1 vote is not a consensus over two weeks of discussion. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Zero evidence of what? I just told you I was neutral and not taking a stance on the AFDs. This is exactly the problem. You throw accusations around that don't make any sense. Sergecross73 msg me 20:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

he's already gone, buddy.

Sham me / Where I've shammed

20:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, saw his comment and responded before I read the rest of the thread. Sergecross73 msg me 20:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

200 articles deleted with 1-0 consensus over two weeks based on false claims is acceptable to you, well thats not good faith from you. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe instead of fighting this, maybe you should work with these other fine souls to fix the issues in the articles?

Sham me / Where I've shammed

20:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• This is going nowhere. I've indefinitely blocked the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  That also works, however what does that mean for the AfD's?

  Sham me / Where I've shammed

  20:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  Oops, just seeing that he was blocked. I won't waste further time responding. But regardless, it doesn't mean anything for the AFDs. They can continue on. The article creators participation aren't essential. Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you. Star Mississippi 20:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  Any chance you or an uninvolved admin might consider revoking TPA? Thanks either way Star Mississippi 21:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  Sir Sputnik did.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you both. There was no way that was going to end in any positive manner. Star Mississippi 21:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Would a CU with an eye on this thread/aware of this issue have an eye at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HugoAcosta9 and the contribs there. JoTorres22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not a new editor, but not sure whether this a is joe job. Star Mississippi 18:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The Banner conduct

Good block. But what about the

) 10:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• • I was about to say Good Block, with respect to the OP, who threw a
    boomerang at a non-existent kangaroo. But I see that the subject has changed. Yuck. Robert McClenon (talk
    ) 00:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
• You know, just because person A does something wrong, doesn't mean that person B didn't. Hugo clearly had gone off the deep end with his spurious and unfounded accusations of racism, and his refusal to back off that accusation. He wanted to die on that hill, and it looks like he was granted that wish. So, he was unequivocally in the wrong for accusing people of racism where none existed. However, the non-racism-accusations part of the complaint appear to have merit. Yes, we have (wisely) tightened up our
  casting aspersions and unless you can provide the source of the copied text, such claims are baseless. Being falsely called racists doesn't mean what you did is right, and like Fram above, I think we should not sweep these problems under the rug. --Jayron32
  16:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

+1. I agree that HugoAcosta dug his own grave, but he had cause to be angry. The Banner filed a heap of AfDs that were just this side of spurious, targeting teams that are among the most successful in the world, and often going after championship seasons -- the analogy I've used in some of those AfDs is that even an American who knows nothing about sports might well hesitate long and hard before going after

WP:BEFORE. We would not tolerate such antics in a newbie editor with 200 edits, and it's appalling to contemplate that the perp here is someone with over a hundred thousand edits and who has filed well over a thousand AfDs. Some consequence needs to happen here beyond "Gosh, what a shame," and The Banner would be well advised to have some serious explanation for this egregious conduct. Ravenswing

16:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Fully agree - the petty, POINTy nominations by The Banner of clearly notable topics is incredibly disruptive and I agree this constitutes hounding and needs resolving. GiantSnowman 19:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I think - if possible - @

Sham me / Where I've shammed

19:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

[[Wikipedia:Don't shoot the messenger. A big portion of my Afds are honoured, with. the articles removed. The Banner talk 19:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@The Banner not only did you not give a reason for afd'ing the articles but they are extremely notable articles.Td^she/her 19:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually, you have quite a mediocre record at AfD. AfD tools report that in the last thousand nominations you've filed, the eventual result matches yours just 57% of the time, which is not much better than random chance.

But we are not talking about AfDs you filed five years ago -- although given your recent behavior, a closer examination of your record is appropriate. We're talking the AfDs you filed against articles on highly notable subjects that HugoAcosta created, where you demonstrably did not perform

WP:BEFORE, where you levied unsupported and likely unfounded accusations of copyright violations at him. Do you have an explanation for those? Ravenswing

20:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Another vote for temporarily banning User:The Banner from AFDs and further punishment if he continues, the AFDs he's just put up are are at best ridiculous, and at worst incendiary. Ortizesp (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with Jayron and Ravenswing, repeated untenable nominations are bad enough, but AfDing so many that are obviously notable is beyond disruptive. JoelleJay (talk) 05:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• COpying my comment from one of the AfDs. I think The Banner's conduct at the ongoing AfDs needs evaluation and handling by an uninvolved admin, which isn't me. While I have no issue with Fram's responses, the AfD isn't the place for the discussion. (Will notify both momentarily. Star Mississippi 14:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Off-topic and becoming disruptive, Jip Orlando (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I also believe that all involved admins should be punished for not even questioning what he was doing at the time. it is very obviouse that not only The Banner was involved. Tdshe/her 19:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC) Comment as closer of some and Keep !Voter in others. There is already a DRV open and if consensus forms that my close is wrong, that's fine. But I don't see what "punishment" you'd be looking for. Star Mississippi 19:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC) I wasn't looking for something harsh just a day ban at most from afd's as the proof of not looking at the articles and following Wikipedia:Good faith. Not to attack any of the editors or saying any of you haven't done insanely great things for the site but I see this as a lapse in judgment that led a user to get very upset. Tdshe/her 19:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC) This seems...rather extreme for an DRV trending towards an "endorse" close currently. Sergecross73 msg me 20:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC) @ Wikipedia:BEFORE I think that a one day ban from AFD's is more then fair as he still after several hours hasn't given a good reason as to why he set those afd's up.Tdshe/her 20:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC) I was referring to your comment about "all involved admin". Not entirely sure who all you meant by that, but that part seemed extreme regardless. Sergecross73 msg me 20:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC) I meant the other admins that voted then archived the article within minutes of the afd going through. While i understand why you think its extreme if we are going to punish Wikipedia:BEFORE both all admins should also be brought into the situation as they also helped him remove these articles without looking or they would have opposed the deletion.Tdshe/her 20:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC) I'm still confused to who exactly you're referring to in these situations. Who exactly do you feel should be blocked, and for what exactly? Sergecross73 msg me 20:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC) as per above. "I've never had problems with my past 195 articles, but, suddenly after three years, I've received 10 nominations to delete my Mexican football teams articles by The Banner (talk · contribs) . Naïvely I followed the process, it was abhorrent, I've explained one time, two times several times my artciles were properly sourced, but by an incredible deletion score of 1-0 with the same user . GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) voting in my AfD discussions through a two weeks span, they were deleted by Star Mississippi" Tdshe/her 20:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC) You want to block an AFD participant for a good faith AFD !vote with no past pattern of disruptive AFD participation? That's insane. This is an awful approach. Sergecross73 msg me 20:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC) I specifically said that he deserves a one day ban from afd because several other user have called him out for Wikipedia:Good faith I call to him to give a viable reason for why he set those afds up but until then there is absolutely no proof of it. Tdshe/her 20:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC) Okay, I feel like we're not talking about the same thing again. You said you want "all related admin" to be blocked. Please list every name of every admin you feel needs a block in this situation. What admin deserve to be blocked? Sergecross73 msg me 20:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC) I don't think you understand the situation well enough to be proposing sanctions @Thedefender35 and suggest possible advisement from @ARoseWolf and others working with you. That said, while I regularly check in on overdue AfDs, a one day "ban" isn't something I'd argue with if consensus evolved for it. Star Mississippi 20:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC) Unless there's some sort of long-term pattern of bad closes or past warnings about this, the only punishment" that makes sense would be overturning your related deletion/closes. Sergecross73 msg me 20:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC) @Sergecross73, I feel the same. And while I disagree with how Hugo handled this, I have zero issue with a DRV being raised. I'm not infallible. Star Mississippi 20:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC) @Star Mississippi I have been watching the situation for a day at this point and I watched this page waiting for a good reason for why User:The Banner sent those afds in. As of now he still has yet to do so. I don't believe him being an admin should give any reason to why he shouldn't be punished for a very obvious breach of policy. As an admin if a new page reviewer did this it would be a big deal. It very obviously doesn't matter how much experience you have mistakes can be made, the issue isnt that its the fact he seems to be doubling down and refusing to give a viable reason. Tdshe/her 20:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC) thedefender35, The Banner is not an administrator. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 20:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC) Understood. Tdshe/her 20:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC) @ WP:Competence to be proposing sanctions on another editor? Your proposal for sanctions has no basis in policy, and is utterly ludicrous - what on earth is a 1 day topic ban supposed to achieve? Why on earth should admins be "punished"? Blocks and bans are used to prevent disruption, not as punishment. A load of people have told you to stop with the involvement in administrative areas, myself included, but you just don't seem to listen. 192.76.8.77 (talk ) 20:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC) ok first off if you are gonna Wikipedia:HOUND me go to my talk page Tdshe/her 20:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC) Can someone HAT this up to The Banner's last comment? It's off topic and bordering on disruptive. Jip Orlando (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the points made by Fram and others about TheBanner's possible HOUNDING behavior (I was very surprised to learn that this is an experienced editor after going through the batch of Spanish football club season articles AfDs they started yesterday). I'm also concerned from the post above that TheBanner doesn't understand their behavior was very likely inappropriate (asking us not to shoot the messenger?). I'm not recommending any sanction, but I would like TheBanner to consider how to handle themselves better in the future. Jogurney (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

That sums up my thinking as well. Whilst I am note sure about a symbolic 24 hour AfD ban at the moment I would certainly be willing to entertain a sanction if issues recur. Gusfriend (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

We don't do that here. "Symbolic bans" are not anything worthwhile. Either we believe that TheBanner will continue to be disruptive, and issue some kind of sanctions, or we believe that they are capable of self-regulating and modifying their own behavior, at which point we let them do that. Symbolic bans are pointless. --Jayron32

14:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

See

) 14:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

On the flipside, that's an older nomination, before TheBanner was made aware such nominations were being disruptive. Digging backwards isn't helpful; we know they have a history of this; I just am not sure that before this discussion they didn't know they had a history of problems. Don't misunderstand me here. What they did was wrong. But giving them the opportunity to self-correct should be done here. Blocking or banning should come only after a person has been given the opportunity to do better. @The Banner: Do you agree to stop making these kinds of nominations? --Jayron32 14:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion at the bottom of the AfD indicates to me that The Banner has learnt nothing from this discussion or is being deliberately obstructive. Star Mississippi 14:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, this is not a newbie editor: this is someone with a hundred thousand edits, sixteen years of experience and many hundreds of AfD filings. At this stage in his Wikipedia career,

not to disrupt Wikipedia by filing spurious AfDs or levying unfounded and unsupported accusations at other editors. Nor should he be pulling defensiveness or deflection, as above in this ANI or on the AfD Fram links; the stance that would have helped in either venue was humility and abject apology, withdrawing his remaining open noms, and as Drmies says below, to take these concerns seriously.

At this point, especially with him weaponizing AfD to drive out a productive editor, I'm no longer up for a token slap on the wrist. Let's give him a month's ban from AfD, broadly construed, and see if that gets his attention. Ravenswing

15:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Work up a formal ban proposal, put it to discussion, and let's see what the consensus is. --Jayron32 15:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

User:The Banner--this is a good time to take those concerns seriously. Being defensive is not likely to help you. I've known you for a long time and I want to keep you on board here. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

My intention was nothing more than protecting the quality of Wikipedia. I am willing to stop looking as football articles, as it is clear that a critical look at (the quality of) them is not appreciated. I am not willing to get a formal ban because others come up with some silly made-up stories over how bad I am and what bad intentions I had. That Hugo now has a block OT, is due to his own behaviour, including accusations of racism and apartheid. I will walk away from football articles and will not care about substandard articles. To put a date on it, the rest of the year, minimum. I hope there will also be a look at the behaviour of "the other side" because to my feeling that is harassment and hounding. The Banner talk 16:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

With that as your unrepentant encomium, let's take you at your word. I therefore propose that The Banner receive a two month tban from AfD, broadly construed, with the recommendation that he educate himself better on the purposes of and his obligations under WP:Deletion policy. Ravenswing 19:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Wait, are you just gonna keep raising it? Just make it indef until they demonstrate that they recognize the problem and can commit to correcting it. But if there's already an unwillingness to do so, what's the point of a 2 months hiatus and/or TBAN, if the issues are likely to continue once that time is up? El_C 20:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

If you want to propose indef instead, feel free. Since this is the first formal proposal I've made, I'm unsure where you get the idea about "raising" anything. Ravenswing 20:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I'm just speaking generally. I only have a vague idea as to what's happening here. But I saw you in passing above being unimpressed with The Banner's responses, thus, seeking to raise the previously-proposed 24-72 hour ban (shortest TBAN I've heard of) to one month. And then, after being further unimpressed, you proposed to raise it to 2 months. That's what I was referring to wrt raising. But I didn't realize that this was your first proposal, so now I feel like a dick. El_C 20:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd support the two months, but agree that indef would be better. We don't need The Banner to stop looking at football articles -- the topic area is irrelevant -- we need them to stop disrupting AFD; the TBAN should last until they commit to doing so. Levivich (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment:I've been a regular closer at AFD since January and I just wanted to add that it is not uncommon for a nominator to target a variety of article creations from the same page creator. There are times, like with those thousands of GEO stubs with terrible sourcing, when such behavior is warranted. But there are other times where it seems like a veteran editor spots one bad article by a relatively new editor (or at least an editor without a "known" profile) and just nominates all of their articles for deletion. There are rare times where it is part of a feud between editors or payback but it usually seems like we have some very experienced editors who become suspicious of editors when they find a weak article and go through their contributions to find others of similar mediocre quality. While it could very well be that these articles merit deletion I just wonder what it feels like for an editor, whether or new or old, to be going along and doing their editing work day by day and suddenly, BOOM! their talk page has 3 or 5 or 12 AFD notices on it, telling them that their articles are being considered for deletion. Unfortunately, there is no requirement with any deletion tagging to actually talk to a page creator first so they are likely blindsided by the number of their articles simultaneously being considered for deletion. I understand that Hugo Acosta crossed over a line here but I can see why he panicked, vocally defending his articles in all those AFDs and then went off the deep end. I think most content creators would get irate.

I guess my point now is that what The Banner did is unacceptable for an experienced editor but they are far from the only editor who has targeted a particular editor's page creations and tagged them for some form of deletion. And I guess those of us, both admins and regular editors, who regularly patrol AFD need to speak up more when we see this happening REGARDLESS of what we think should become of these nominated articles. Just my 2 cents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:15, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Well said. I sometimes see something similar with requested moves, merges and the like on people's talk pages and suspect that they might feel the same. Gusfriend (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

There is a huge difference, however, between coming across one (non-notable) article, taking to AFD, checking the creator's contribs, and nominating other (non-notable) articles - and what The Banner did. GiantSnowman 11:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I was talking of seeing user talk pages with a dozen messages within a few weeks mixed between different types which I suspect they find hard and this is a whole different level. Gusfriend (talk) 12:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

• Not wholly in relation to this thread, but it (and a good few others I've seen here) inspires me to an idea. The phenomenon of "all of my articles have been AfD'd at once" seems to be a fairly common point of contention -- and it seems to cause a completely disproportionate amount of stress for anyone it happens to. Sure, the articles often have problems, but when there's a bunch of them at the same time, we aren't really leaving creators with much option. Do we really expect someone to call off work for a week to rigorously go through two dozen articles and copyedit them to GA at the same time before the AfDs run to the end? I think it might be worth considering some formal acknowledgement of this; I'm not sure exactly what that would look like. One idea, off the top of my head, is that if an article creator has more than a handful up for deletion at the same time, they could be given more latitude in relisting them, or request a relist under the "barrage clause", or whatever. I don't think that would break the system too badly. Of course, there may be some other solution that makes sense -- but I think it's worth trying to come up with something that satisfies the need to maintain article quality while avoiding the regular and predictable series of meltdowns that occur (even among otherwise productive editors). jp×g 18:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal re: The Banner

AFDs for top Mexican football league

I think we've dealt with the user issues here (above). But what remains is that while some of the Mexican AFDs are going Keep, for the initial couple of weeks the other AFDs were very poorly attended, and were closed with very little participation other than the Delete votes from

! Football AFDs have become very poorly attended in recent months.

Perhaps User:Star Mississippi can revisit and relist these AFDs, given the poor attendance, systemic problems, and likely being notable; I believe they closed all these (correctly looking at the AFDs in themselves). The AFDs in question include: WP:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Club Puebla season, WP:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Cruz Azul season, , WP:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Toros Neza season, WP:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Santos Laguna season, WP:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Tigres UANL season - and also WP:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Correcaminos UAT season and WP:Articles for deletion/1994–95 C.D. Veracruz season that were closed by User:Liz. Nfitz (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• I've just realized that 5 of the 7 AFDs I mention above are already at DRV - WP:Deletion review/Log/2022 October 19#1994–95 season articles. Nfitz (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• Hi! I put a note this morning in the DRV that I have no issue if these are relisted. Factors definitely have changed since I closed the discussions. Given the number of endorses in the DRV before HugoAcosta imploded (and subsequently socked), I don't think I can or should unilaterally relist these. That said, I agree with you re: the systemic issues. As someone who doesn't follow soccer, I'm not sure if these are Real Madrid territory where I was a Keep, or one that needs more research. So I guess consider me neutral and fine with whichever outcome develops. Star Mississippi 22:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm always willing to revisit a closure I did but in the other AFDs, I can't fault the way they were closed. We have a problem with low participation in most AFD discussions and after a gut-wrenching summer of hundreds of athlete/team AFDs, given the changing guidelines surrounding sports notability, many regular participants in discussions on this subject (and closers for that matter) stay away from AFDs on these articles. I think people are just worn out from arguing, on both sides of the debate.

Repeated relisting is discouraged in the guidelines so these discussions had to be closed with some decision even if that was "No consensus". But I'll take this issue to DRV to discuss it there. I just want editors who don't work with sports articles to realize how grueling things were in AFD over the summer, there were hundreds of AFD discussions, debate got very heated among the dozen or so regular participants in sports deletion discussions. If these articles had been nominated in AFDs in the spring, I think there would have been a more robust and healthy debate on what to do with the articles but what happened, happened and here we are. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, look. Speaking as one of the editors who was not only in the thick of the arguments this year, but someone who's been a frequent flyer at AfD over the years, I get it: I chalk up the general lack of participation at AfD from where it was just a few years ago partly due to exhaustion. And I wouldn't argue that the closes now at DRV were illegitimate closes.

But I think we can agree now that they were bad decisions, and that the nominations were very likely just as tainted and pointy as the other similar AfD cases The Banner filed, all of which have closed (or will soon do) as overwhelming keeps. We have two choices here: to do the right thing and restore the articles -- not simply relist the AfDs -- or just wash our hands of The Banner's now-obvious bad faith. Ravenswing 02:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

While I said relist above and at the DRV, I'm also fine if these are outright restored given the factors that have been identified since my initial closes. Star Mississippi 02:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work Liz. Gusfriend (talk) 07:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Once again for @Nfitz: - NSEASONS is a presumption of notability - not automatic notability. We need GNG to be met. GiantSnowman 18:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Articles that pass NSEASONS (which is a guideline) should provide reliable sources to meet GNG; but unlike athletes, it's not like they must. As it does pass an SNG it doesn't need to meet GNG explicitly - at least not immediately. But I don't know why anyone would think that seasons articles for teams in the best league in North America in a football-mad country wouldn't meet GNG. Looks like that many rank this league 9th in the world currently, compared to 15th for MLS. There's no doubt that the calibre of teams in this league is higher than MLS. And yet we seasons articles for all but two of the 1996 MLS teams (the first year of MLS). The main sourcing issue is access to media from Mexico in the pre-Internet age over 30 years ago. If this was a lower-ranked league like the 1994-95 First Division with teams like 1994–95 Reading F.C. season and [1994–95 Sheffield United F.C. season]], we wouldn't be having this discussion - there are 22 seasons articles for the First Division that season. Nfitz (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Beyond Nfitz's comments, look, GiantSnowman -- I get it. I've made AfD votes before where I looked at the article, maybe looked up the sources listed, saw nothing valid, made my Delete vote and moved on. The same as you did with "no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me" votes. And we both know that any search for qualifying sources we made in such cases was cursory at best. That's the nature of things, and all there'd be at AfD would be tumbleweeds and crickets if every voter was compelled to spend a half hour searching for sources before each vote.

But let's not give ourselves props for that, and let's not imagine that we are truly serving the process well, and for pity's sake let's not dig in our heels defend the result when it blows up on us. The honest truth here is that no one did the legwork to assure themselves these articles could not meet the GNG. And it's not as if we don't know better. C'mon, let's be honest here: you're an active editor in sports topics. Do you really, truly believe that there was not enough media coverage to sustain a season article for a top-flight soccer team in Mexico? Ravenswing 21:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure there is - but it wasn't there when I reviewed, and I have been criticised in the past for saying 'look at the level this player/club plays at, common sense says there must be coverage'. So I can't win can I? GiantSnowman 21:05, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's a matter of whether anyone can -- or should -- claim to have "won" here. HugoAcosta shot his own foot off, but he was a productive editor with tens of thousands of edits. The Banner's about to be tbanned from AfD, and his future edits are likely to be scrutinized, and that's a hundred thousand edits now tainted. AfD's structural problems won't be addressed and likely can't be (barring a radical redesign), and it'll likely remain vulnerable to being hijacked by editors acting in bad faith. There's egg on faces all around. I doubt anyone here's overjoyed at the consequences. Ravenswing 02:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe people should look at your edits too. You are clearly on a rampage to get me kicked from AfD by claiming all kinds of bad intent of my side. If you think that caring about quality is a bad intent, then I am guilty as charged. But then Wikipedia and football articles in particular have a problem when scrutinizing the quality of articles becomes illegal and punishable. Lowering the quality of articles is not in the best interest of Wikipedia. The Banner talk 19:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Word of advice: claiming that you are fighting for "article quality" while others are not is a bad look. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Have you tried reading the comments in this thread with a genuine desire to understand why almost everyone here has a problem with your actions? Or did you immediately decide that you were the victim the moment that someone started scrutinizing your edits?

LEPRICAVARK (talk

) 22:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

People are welcome to look at my edits, and if they find obvious flaws in them, then I'd better hitch up my trousers and admit to that, instead of repeating "I've done nothing, it's everyone else who's wrong!" in an infinite loop. Neither my longevity, nor my edit count, nor my accomplishments immunize me against Wikipedia policies or guidelines. (Never mind that, in the department of Bad Looks, do you really think it's a good look for you right now to plot to go after yet another editor's contribution history? Really?)

This is where I would ask whether you get the gravity of numerous editors, including several administrators, with a combined Wikipedia experience of over a century, unanimously thinking that your actions are enough to warrant an indefinite topic ban from AfD. Except it's fairly obvious that you don't, and there's not much point to it. Ravenswing 22:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

You seriously couldn't find any SIGCOV SIRS for any of the season articles when you searched? JoelleJay (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Whether they could or not, and whether they searched or not, is irrelevant to ANI, because there is not and has never been any requirement to do a search for sources before nominating something for deletion. It is suggested, yes. It is not required, and any such requirement would obviously go against

WP:BURDEN. The formal burden to perform such searches is entirely and exclusively on people who add or wish to retain material, never on people who wish to remove or delete it. --Aquillion (talk

) 05:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

That's certainly the common misconception. The actual phrasing at

WP:BEFORE runs: "Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to:" "D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability ... The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects ... If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating."

This is rather obviously not the sort of phrasing used for mere suggestions. Ravenswing

21:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

GiantSnowman's AfD edits

I have for a while now noticed that GiantSnowman's votes at AFD are often identical, but I presumed that they did at least a short search for sources and only then posted their boilerplate "no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.". From the above AfDs and their response in this discussion, it has become clear that in reality, GiantSnowman does no such effort at all, and just relies on the state of the article and the comments by the nom (when they vote delete) or the work by others (in the cases where they vote keep after others have looked for sources). The effect, certainly with the delete votes, is that the nom basically gets an automatic additional "delete" without any effort, leading to articles being deleted without anyone actually bothering to look for sources, as is required.

They seem to have used this boilerplate delete in more than 1,000 AfDs so far[222], sometimes voting very rapidly (e.g. 8 delete votes in 4 minutes, 17:55, 16 October 2022 to 17:58, 16 October 2022. Between 15:20, 3 October 2022 and 15:28, 3 October 2022 When they voted 31 times in 9 minutes. 27 of these were identical boilerplate deletes. When they voted "keep", it's also simply and blindly based on the work of others in the AfD: e.g. here and here.

AfD is not supposed to be a vote, but GiantSnowman treats it like one, in most cases simply reinforcing the nom no matter if they are right or wrong, thereby skewing the outcome. Their AfD stats are probably pretty good this way, but that's more of a self-fulfilling prophecy than any actual merit. Can we give them some restriction that they are from now on only allowed to !vote if they provide some evidence of having done at least a basic

) 08:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I've three comments. The first is that while WP:BEFORE is nominally a requirement lain upon nominators, it's widely ignored, almost never enforced ... and doesn't apply to AfD voters. The second is that the guidance lain upon contributors to AfD discussions (

WP:AFDFORMAT) is mostly procedural; there's almost nothing in there concerning any duty -- theoretical or otherwise -- on the part of a AfD voter to do his or her own research.

Finally, a large part of the problem here is simply that AfD participation has cratered. Many discussions are relisted multiple times. Many are closed with soft deletes with only one -- or none -- participant. We don't have enough participants to have the luxury of booting knee-jerk voters. I wish there was a better answer. Ravenswing

16:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The comments on boilerplate !votes ignores the reality of the subject matter Snowman is working in, namely association football. Given the breadth of available routine sports coverage, the low amount of effort required to use said coverage to create articles, and the sport's sizeable global fan base, it should come as no surprise that there is a never ending supply of non-notable stub articles in this subject area. Most of these should be PROD's but wind up at AfD one way or the other. For the vast majority of these, there really is nothing more to be said than that there isn't enough coverage to satisfy the notability guidelines, but it does need to be said in order to get these articles through AfD. Look at just about any other editor who regularly !votes to delete football related articles and you'll see similar patterns. It's not some novel behaviour by Snowman, it's just how AfD functions at the scale needed to keep the never ending supply of low effort non-notable football stubs in check. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The 'issue' of my AFD !votes was raised, explained, and resolved at the NSPORTS RFC - in short, just because I 'vote' rapidly does not mean that I am not checking articles in advance of the edit being made; I use more than just a boilerplate, such as this and this (although I do use one in many AFDs, because in many AFDs there is nothing else to say!); I do search for sources, such as this; and if I !vote 'delete', and somebody else finds sources, I always ask to be pinged so I can reconsider.

I therefore see no issues with my AFD votes, and indeed less than 3 months ago I was complimented by @Liz: (an admin active in closing AFDs) for how I "eavluate [sic] each case individually". I have not changed my AFD habits since. GiantSnowman 17:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

What Sir Sputnik said. In 2019 I participated in hundreds of NFOOTY AFDs; these are all processed the same way: either someone drops links to two or more GNG sources, or nobody does. Either way, there is not much more to say other than "keep, meets GNG per above sources," or "delete, no GNG sources". Very rarely is there need for discussion about the sources or other matters -- 90% of the time, it's clear: either there are GNG sources or there aren't. When I was participating in these AFDs, I started out writing longer rationales, but later realized that I was just writing useless filler that others (the closer) had to read, and so I'd just say "keep meets GNG per X" or "delete, no GNG sources". I can also say, as someone who has participated in hundreds of AFDs with GS (though not lately), and very contentious AFDs where I was intentionally nominating players who met the SNG but not GNG, that although the text of GS's !votes can be brief, in substance, they are not cookie-cutter. I could prove this if needed, but I remember GS as being one of the few regular NSPORTS AFD participants who would actually change their vote based on the quality of the sourcing; even if I disagreed with him a lot on the particulars, it's clear that he doesn't always vote the same way, he votes based on an individualized analysis of each topic. Levivich (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh look another AFD where I find sources and !vote accordingly... GiantSnowman 18:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh look an AFD where I change my mind after somebody found a bunch of offline Norwegian newspaper coverage... GiantSnowman 11:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

...which has nothing to do with the above complaint. The issue is not whether you are willing to change your mind if someone else finds sources, the issue is that we have AfDs like

Fram (talk

) 12:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

But it does have something to do with the above complaint - you said that I when I !vote keep, it is "simply and blindly based on the work of others". I showed an example where that is clearly not the case.

However, you're absolutely right - I should be sanctioned because I'm not as good at Googling information about 1990s Mexico as you are. Did you ping me as requested after you had found those sources? No. If you had I would likely have changed my mind. So what's the issue here? GiantSnowman 14:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Your example being this, where you changed an effortless "delete" in an effortless "keep" based on the work of others? And that is somehow disproving my point? And no, I am not in the habit of pinging editors who have no interest in doing any effort, but want to influence the outcome of the AfD anyway.

Fram (talk

) 14:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

No, the Craig Skinner AFD I also linked and which you are conveniently ignoring. Another earlier example here. No effort is it? GiantSnowman 15:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I replied to an example you provided and which had nothing to do with this section (well, it confirmed that many of your keeps are not any better than your deletes, but it didn't show what you intended to show). But congrats, not all your AfD votes are worthless, well done.

Fram (talk

) 15:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I often do a thorough

WP:BEFORE is done before nominating an article. As far as GiantSnowman goes, he does vote a lot, but he is reasonable, and responds to discussion. Jacona (talk

) 18:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• Meta ish comment. The challenge with the flood of AfDs and lack of participation is that "drive by" votes don't help with an unfamiliar subject and/or where there's a language issue. Folks have raised the lack of quorum issue above. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andi Fadel Muhammad is an example of one where I rebooted it (ultimately closed as soft PROD) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermes Junior is one where neither !vote helps the closer. An n/c is just kicking the can down the road, which doesn't help with the flood. Is the ArbComm RFC going to address any of this? And by this I mean not @Ortiezsp @GiantSnowman !votes, which are not against procedure, but just the general lack of quorum or is AfD is broken the new RfA is broken?

Star Mississippi 18:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Both of those seem like they're coming to the correct result (under our flawed but nevertheless current consensus about notability) and efficiently? What's broken about it? Levivich (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich the way that I see it is repeat nominations when it's not a case of consensus/other factors changing are a symptom of a broken process. There's a no consensus close where editors are making a case on both sides and there's no clear answer, and then there's no meaningful input, let's kick the can down the road a few months. It does nothing to help the backlog, but that may just be my POV. @Ravenswing I mostly agree. I also just don't think we have the active editor base to keep up with ~100 discussions/day (factoring in all the XfDs). They require work and not everyone has the time/interest/language skills/research database access to !vote "properly" unfortunately. Star Mississippi 23:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi After seeing so many of these deletion related ANI's over the years, I've had the thought before that if an article is nominated repeatedly for AfD and the outcome is no consensus each time, there'd be a mandatory moratorium of re-nominating it for a year or more. I don't know what the general appetite is for that idea, but it's an idea . ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 00:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I agree with you. It's not that there are substantially more AfDs; AfDs often went over a hundred a day five years ago and ten years ago and fifteen years ago. A lot of people have just fallen away. I've had many thousands of edits at AfD myself, but other than (a) articles I've nominated, and (b) hockey- and Massachusetts-related deletions, which I follow, I haven't regularly participated in random AfDs since 2017. Kicking the can NCs aren't responsible; do repeat nominations really form more than just a fraction of AfDs? No. Ravenswing 01:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly how an RfC could fix AfD, not without a (highly unlikely) radical revamp of the system. There was less potential for abuse in the days when many AfDs had numerous participants, but even there gaps existed: the couple dozen at the top of a day's listing might have a dozen, the couple dozen at the bottom heard crickets. Now? People just don't bother. Nor is there a feasible way to compel them to do so. (Nor, honestly, is this any sort of subject for ANI.) Ravenswing 22:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

NorthAmerica1000 and I brought this up in independent evidence submissions at the ArbCom case, but since it was out of scope it wasn't really addressed there.

On the one hand, I have argued at length that WP:AFD and WP:N don't require participants to perform a BEFORE search. Editors at the NSPORTS2022 RfC also rejected the proposal for a "special sports PROD" that could be used to handle the tens of thousands of athlete articles that do not demonstrate notability in their sourcing; regular PRODs on athletes are quickly removed based on non-guideline-based "claims" to notability and anyway I can see why one might be reluctant to PROD an article, see it get dePRODded, then nominate it at AfD where it would be ineligible for soft deletion and thus require more participation than can be expected at this juncture for it to be deleted; and it's unlikely my off-the-cuff suggestion at the mass AfD RfC pre-workshop here would be technically feasible (although maybe...). Making BEFORE a requirement that must be demonstrated would help assuage concerns that no one looked for sources, but at the same time it massively shifts the burden of proving notability onto those who challenge it rather than those who wish to retain the material, and since the community is inexplicably adamant that article creators should never have to include any references at creation, let alone references that even halfway show notability, and even under circumstances of mass creation, it would be unfair to make non-compliance with BEFORE sanctionable or grounds for a procedural keep. So pretty much our only option to process these countless microstubs of dubious notability is through AfD, at whatever rate the nominators decide, and that means !voters will have to match that rate.

On the other hand, what do these contentless !votes contribute to (notability-based) deletion discussions? Especially when they are one of the first !votes in an AfD with just a hyperlink to a DELREASON as the nomination statement--I can definitely see justification for a perfunctory "X, per the above arguments" when there is substantial discussion of sources in prior !votes, or when the nominator provides a good BEFORE analysis. But if the only data you (general "you") are going off of is the nom's unelaborated claim the subject "doesn't meet X", then your !vote should be ignored. And if you actually did look at all the sources in the article, or even better, did a search yourself, then why wouldn't you explain your findings? If you care so little one way or the other whether an AfD comes to an appropriate conclusion, why !vote in the first place? JoelleJay (talk) 00:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

JoelleJay, preach! — Jacona (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with much of this, but I am pretty sure GS reviews sources before voting or at least uses experience from prior sourcing reviews to guide their voting (e.g., I suspect GS knows what kind of sourcing is generally available for a footballer who played during a particular time period with a particular type of career because we've gone through dozens of AfDs like that in the past - see Levivich's comments above). Using the

WP:GNG. My PROD was reverted without any improvement or suggestion that SIRS exist (as happens probably 80% of the time). I moved it to AfD, where participation is very limited, so honestly GS's input was useful (as they are one of a handful of active editors in footballer AfDs). I suppose I could have included my own search output in the nomination rationale, but I figured the description was sufficient (and the references I added to the article were there for all to see). In short, the no consensus outcome was a bit frustrating, but I'm struggling to think of something that would have led to a better outcome. Jogurney (talk

) 16:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

• leading to articles being deleted without anyone actually bothering to look for sources, as is required... It is absolutely not required, nor has it ever been required to search for sources before proposing, nominating, or supporting the deletion of an article; per
  WP:BEFORE by demanding that other people perform searches for you for things you've added or want to retain is completely inappropriate and would make challenging many additions unworkable given the volume at which new material is added to the wiki. --Aquillion (talk
  ) 05:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
  • "Trying to invert
    Fram (talk
    ) 08:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• AFDs themselves may be no more numerous before - but those in the Football area have increased significantly - and many editors can't keep up. A likely cause of this is the elimination of the NFOOTBALL guideline, which kept most of the borderline cases from going to AFD. I believe that one shouldn't vote either way at AFD without a BEFORE. And these borderline cases invariably kick up sources - so instead of a relatively clear cut decision on there not being sources, we end up with an endless and tiring debate about the quality of sources. This doesn't directly effect this article (for which NSEASONS and plain common sense should have stopped the nomination for the top league on the continent, and one of the top leagues in the world), the burnout on the football AFD issue is. If GS's "votes" look a little rushed these days, then this issue plays into the whole thing. GS should be commended for his work earlier this year trying to find alternatives to NFOOTBALL at a truly thankless discussion at WT:Notability (sports)/Association football. Hopefully the lack of such a guideline, and the fallout from that, is discussed at WP:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/AfD at scale. Nfitz (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Closure please

This thread seems to have deviated/degenerated into a general discussion about Afd, and GNG vs SNG, and disussions of other users' use of AfD, all which are topics for another case or venue. The one part of this case is the Topic ban proposal re: The Banner and perhaps it's time for an uninvolved admin to do his thing and close this according to his or her reading of consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

19:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• I just want to note that Dentren has engaged in cross-wiki disruptive behavior. They've been recently blocked on the Spanish Wikipedia for edit-warring and POV-pushing on the Gabriel Boric article [224]. Most recently, just today, they've been warned not to continue in disrupting behavior (including personal attacks and fallacies) exactly on the Amarillos por Chile article. Just above they say I have "kidnapped" and "a group of users" have "kidnapped" the article. Under such an unwelcoming environment it is very difficult to work collaboratively. I hope some action is taken against his continuing disruptive behaviour. --Bedivere (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• I haven't looked into this particular party, but the long list under "ideology" in the infobox tells me nothing as a reader except that the party is not socialist. Wouldn't it be better to write in prose what the party stands for and get rid of this useless infobox content?
  Phil Bridger (talk
  ) 20:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• Phil Bridger, one thing is for sure: the party can not be hold to stand for whatever it detractors says it does in opinion pieces. Ideologies are to stem either from self-declerations or quality sources. Dentren | ^Talk
  20:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  Reliable third party sources are always preferable, rather than opinion pieces or self declarations. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  Its ideology was labeled as Concertaciónism, Liberalism, Conservatism, Social conservatism, Laguism, Neoliberalism, and Moderate reformism!!! I'd like to see how all those ideologies coexist. I boldly removed the whole ideology line in the infobox. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

"Neoliberal" and "conservative" are not slurs. Most EU pragmatical parties are de facto neoliberal, even if they consider themselves left or right. "Conservative" does not necessarily means MAGA Trumpists. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone is claiming here that they are slurs, but one or both of them may or may not be inaccurate. I really don't get this edit-warring that we see in many articles over this field in the party infobox. A party's ideology can rarely be summed up in such a way, so it's better described in prose.

Phil Bridger (talk

) 22:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. It should be better dealt with in prose. I don't have a strong opinion on the topic, despite Dentren's personal attacks and assumptions. Bedivere (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

•  Note: Dentren has been just permabanned from the Spanish Wikipedia for their disruptive behavoiur and wikihounding. Since this user continues those disruptive actions here with the same users (Bedivere, Aroblesm, etc), this user should be permabanned from here too, and be globally blocked. --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. Please note Spanish Wikipedia admin Farisori, who indefinitely blocked today Dentren in that wiki (locally dubbed "expulsion"), has also called out Dentren's behavior at talk:Gabriel Boric#Iglesias. I ask admins to block Dentren here indefinitely. They've gotten away with their disruptive behavior for too long. Bedivere (talk) 02:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I fell compelled here to give some cue to those curious on what is happening in the Spanish Wikipedia. Try Google translate on this [225]. Spanish Wikipedia is each day resembling more and more the Croatian Wikipedia, except the bias has a different political sign. Dentren | ^Talk 03:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

And you'll presumably say exactly the same thing about this Wikipedia, when you've been blocked from here too. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss alleged problems with the Spanish Wikipedia but I'd note I did try Google translate, and that article seems fairly useless in demonstrating problems with the Spanish Wikipedia. All it seems to say is a bunch of people complained about alleged problems with the Spanish Wikipedia. It doesn't mention any specific problems that can be considered. You'll find a large number of people complaining about problems with the English Wikipedia too e.g. Trump supporters or frankly many Republicans in the US, some BJP supporters in India, those who support Putin's worldview, those who support the Chinese government's worldview, people who support fringe theories or pseudoscience on vaccines, alternative medicine, climate change, COVID-19, intelligence design; etc etc. Nil Einne (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• Despite what Spanish Wikipedia users are saying above, that list of terms in the Ideology section were very clearly not applicable or appropriate, as they contained just a ridiculous number of contradictory inclusions. Do any of the editors above want to address the quality of the sources raised for the inclusion, as brought up by Dentren? Were they indeed opinion pieces? Silverseren^C 13:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

  They were just translated verbatim from the Spanish Wikipedia, where there is currently a discussion on the issue. I don't oppose removing them all while describing the party's ideology in its own section (which needs creating). Bedivere (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

  Siren seren, yes I can confirm both are opinion pieces. The write of the first is Bárbara Brito, a former student leader of University of Chile Student Federation. She finishes her rant with "let us not forget that it was the Christian Democratic Party that supported the coup of 1973" (Spanish: no olvidamos que fue la DC la que apoyó el Golpe de Estado del 73’.). Roberto Bruna's opinion piece begins with "There is no dubt that the last nine months have been intense and hard..." (Spanish: No cabe duda que los últimos nueves meses han sido intensos y complejos...). Again, using opinion pieces to peyoratively link a party to "conservatism" and "neoliberalism" is unacceptable, that "They were just translated verbatim" is no escuse for Bediveres behaviour, he is an user who by now can be supposed to know the rules of Wikipedia, and actually there are indications his life here begun long before the creation of the current account (such as using advanced shortcuts from day one..).

I add also that Amarillos is wrongly portrayed in the infobox as a split of both (!) the Christian Democratic Party and the Party for Democracy. Take note on what is happening in the Spanish Wikipedia, this event is a spillover of the bias there. Dentren | ^Talk 19:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

What happens on the Spanish Wikipedia needs to be addressed there, or in extremis at

Phil Bridger (talk

) 19:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@

Phil Bridger You're correct, what happens on the Spanish Wikipedia should be addressed there. However, Dentren has been actively engaging in disruptive behavior here for several months now, without receiving warnings, despite their obvious despisal of some contents. Bedivere (talk

) 00:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Convergencia Social.[226]). tgeorgescu, neoliberal and conservative can be used as slurs and by the context (opinion pieces criticizing a party that idenfies as grouping centre ans centre-left people) it is pejoriative. I recomend you that you read the article Neoliberalism and the sources therein about how it is used as a negative attribute and its modern origin in Chilean political discourse. Dentren | ^Talk

09:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

You are still continuing on ad hominem fallacies and attacks, reinforcing yet again your false claims that I am a sockpuppet. You should be stopped. Endorse site-ban as requested by Amitie 10g. Bedivere (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

If you would not have blanked away your open sympathies for Boric and Convergencia Social from your user page I would not have needed to link your sockpuppet investigation as source for the claim. Dentren | ^Talk 22:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I blanked them out precisely because you use them to personally attack me. I hope admins take action and have you blocked. I am tired of having to review your contributions only to revert your pointless, POV-ish edits and your relentless, never stopping and unfair attacks. Stop for once and for all. Bedivere (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Bediveres lastest edit: [227]. Conclusion: He removes legitimate sourced content making a missuse of

07:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• Is there any hope, given the bickering above, that the protagonists here will come to an agreement on the article talk page? This seems to be a content dispute at heart, but this thread seems not to be being conducted in good faith.
  Phil Bridger (talk
  ) 14:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  I looked at the talk pages of both

  IBAN recommended. Minkai (talk-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame

  ) 17:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  • • Did I say TBAN? I meant IBAN lol Minkai (talk-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 18:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  @JulieMinkai Dentren has consistently dragged me into edit warring several times, and their groundless accusations (including that I am the sockpuppet of a long-banned user) have got me tired. I would not oppose myself a topic ban or better an interaction ban if that helps me continue to edit in peace. My interactions with Dentren, their bad faith against me, I've got enough of them. As noted above by other users, Dentren's problematic behavior (including POV-ish content, dubious sources, and bad-faith accusations) has led to their indefinite block on the Spanish Wikipedia; behavior they also have in this Wikipedia version. It seems obvious to me they are not here to contribute positively. Bedivere (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

JsjRonnskerAsjn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User repeatedly vandalizes articles, including changing production companies as seen here. CartoonnewsCP (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

(Non-admin reply) @CartoonnewsCP: The user has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. In the future, you can report vandalism and spam to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism after the user has been appropriately warned. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 00:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Surprised they found out fast. I did not see an investigation but it must be

WP:DUCK. I already put them there too. Thanks. CartoonnewsCP (talk

) 19:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Legal threat from User:Gigaag1919

I think I need to report this here now, before it escalates further. The article

) 19:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that's a good block. Blatant and clear legal threat that I can see. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I suspect this might be block evasion by Special:Contributions/Gus1182. Schazjmd (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• The user seems to not want the "film had generally negative reviews" in the article and claims it had positive reviews from viewers on VOD services. The line is cited to Rotten Tomatoes, which is standard for films, I think. 331dot (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  The irony is that when this was still at AfC, I noticed that a largely negative review had been taken out of context and edited in a way that made it sound positive. That passage was subsequently rewritten, and actually now much better represents the film's critical reception. But that appears not to please the alleged director. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

A massive bot attack is underway at Talk:Attack on Paul Pelosi with hundreds of identical comments being added by different IPs. AusLondonder (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I can concur. It's next to impossible to undo all of the damage that's being done right now because the bots are flooding it all at once. Love of Corey (talk) 10:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Also at Talk:Paul Pelosi. Brunton (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Been happening for over an hour, now. AusLondonder (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Is the main Attack on Paul Pelosi article protected? There's been no IP activity for a bit, but I sense we're going to have to be ahead of the curve here. Love of Corey (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing (saw I edit conflicted on the page protection).. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 10:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Presumably the history pages of these talkpages are now a list of a few hundred open proxies. Any admins with experience blocking open proxies may want to lend a hand. Malcolmxl5 seems to have started, but there are a lot of blocks to do. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 10:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Excellent! :D Love of Corey (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5: looks like you started blocking the IP addresses. Need some help? A quick scan of a random selection of the IPs shows they are indeed proxies. There are close to a thousand entries to get through, so an automated process would be helpful here if anyone has suggestions. I'm a bit surprised this attacker showed their hand so soon and so incompetently. --Yamla (talk) 11:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I extracted the list of involved IP addresses to User talk:Yamla/Attack on Paul Pelosi botnet. --Yamla (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Timotheus Canens/massblock.js might help you there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Excellent. I plan to block all involved IP addresses for two weeks as proxies. I'm going to wait a while to see if Malcolmxl5 has any comments, though, or if anyone else objects. --Yamla (talk) 11:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I've never used Tim's script to block that many users in one go so I don't know if it'll handle such a large batch. If you want to split it down I can start from the bottom and meet you in the middle. A two-week hard block seems reasonable unless any of the IPs have been open for a while. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm going through some of more obvious ones and blocking them for longer. Should be fine to massblock, just make sure you don't override anything. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 11:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll start at the beginning of the next hour (1 PM UTC), unless anyone objects. HJ Mitchell, happy to start at the top if you start at the bottom. I've split the list in (roughly) half, so you can take the bottom half. I plan to leave {{blocked proxy}} as the talk page message, choose the same for "Common reasons", use "2 weeks" as the expiration time, hard block (leave "Block anonymous users only" unchecked, as per default), and UNCHECK the "Override existing blocks". --Yamla (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@Yamla. Yes, I blocked a few. Out now so I’ll leave to others to you all to carry on. They are certainly proxies, almost certainly p2p proxies. A couple of weeks should do it. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I went through half of User talk:Yamla/Attack on Paul Pelosi botnet and noted all the ones marked by IPQualityScore as proxies at User:DatGuy/sandbox. Am hitting the rate limit so leaving the rest for someone else, can provide code if requested. Will compare with a few with other sources to determine which ones to block and for how long. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 12:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

DatGuy, any objections if we start by blocking all of them for 2 weeks, then you can override with longer blocks as appropriate? I expect you will object; let me know how specifically you think we should proceed instead. :) --Yamla (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

No issues, go ahead. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 12:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• I got as far up as 188.72.163.238. Beyond that most seem to be already blocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  Excellent. I'm done, too. Took the opportunity to add very brief documentation to the mass block script. The script seemed to handle lists of 100 "users" without problems; I didn't test beyond that. Thanks, everyone! --Yamla (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  @HJ Mitchell: was this intentional? DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 14:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  Ah bollocks! No it wasn't. I'll fix it when I'm back on a proper computer. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Following an unholy amount of blocks, rangeblocks, and everything in between (my spur.us account was suspended for 'suspicious activity'), I'd like to think that we're finished with this. Until the next time they somehow pull out five hundred proxies out of their arse, that is. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 15:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Worth noting that in (actual) bot attacks, blocks can be fairly ineffective — we have other higher-level methods of mitigating attacks, which the functionaries/stewards etc. know how to request. (Partly covered in T321971) — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 16:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I lack the technical skills to deal with type of attack, but I just want to say how grateful I am to all the administrators who helped out with this. Thanks to all. Cullen328 (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The phab task has restricted viewing, but I trust in your ability to handle this kind of stuff . DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 17:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Sorry I am a little late to the discussion, I just noticed that some of the blocks initially placed were indefinite. Is there really any harm in having IP addresses blocked indefinitely? There are numerous instances of IP addresses being blocked indefinitely, although they are few and far between. Per the

WP:NOP policy we can block open proxies, Tor networks, and VPNs for any length of time. An indefinite IP block can still be reversed once it is found that the IP is no longer an open proxy. In my humble opinion the fact that these IP addresses are still open proxies is likely not going to change in two or three weeks. Unless if those IP addresses will be getting 403s when attempting to access Wikipedia I think a much longer block, potentially even indefinite, may be warranted. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis

❄️ 15:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The

mitigation, does not lend itself to indefinitely blocking the IP(s) in question — TheresNoTime (talk

• they/them) 16:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime Ahh, I was about to ask why both links were pointing to beans. We want to make sure that any disclosure is done responsibly (ig). I see, I see. :) Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 21:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, can somebody please take a look at

16:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Long-term disruption on UK TV articles

Harley Pasternak is being subject to constant BLP violating edits by IP users. Can I request semi-protection pronto. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Article has now been protected. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

FreshMorphleMemePedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user has been blocked, but I need an admin to revoke their talk page access. Thanks. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 07:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Materialscientist: I pinged you on their talk page. Could you please? Nythar (💬-🎃) 07:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

TPA revoked. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 07:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

2A00:23C5:980:B601:7DB2:A065:A969:71D (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Previously on AN/I: [229]

Following the end of their one-week block (see above), this IP editor has kept editing in the very same disruptive manner as they used to do before, i.e. changing sourced GDP figures with no explanation whatsoever: [230][231][232][233][234][235] (the last one was done in spite of a level 4 warning). I think a longer block is necessary, as they don't appear to have learned anything from the first one. BilletsMauves^€500 10:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks this time. Acroterion (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

IP editor User talk:86.188.161.99 has had more than 30 warnings for vandalism and disruptive editing, yet vandalised the Enigma machine this morning. Can somebody please take a look. scope_creep^Talk 12:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Back to another 3 year school block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

In September after some talk page conversations ([236]) I boldly split off the page

.

On 16 October Doug Coldwell expressed support for the move [239] and then made another 8 posts in support of the renaming. The move was closed as supported and actioned about 12 hours ago [240] then less than hour later Doug Coldwell created a new page called

to the new page.

I would normally have skipped ANI and left a note on his talk page about it being a duplicate page and either merged the new information into the existing page or suggesting that they do it except for the following timeline:

• The page was starting to be worked on by 18 October [242]
• There is a note indicating that he was planning to create a new page with a merge request since at least 18 October (see top of [243]) whilst the recommended move discussion was still underway.
• The page
  801 N. Rowe Street is a cut and paste creation from the sandbox of their alternate account [244]
  and has no attribution for any information. I believe that at least some of the information comes from other Wikipedia pages.
• He is arguing that the current name, Haskelite Building would not be appropriate [245] when he said the opposite during the move discussion which was open until 1 hour previously to him making that statement.

Happy to provide additional context if required. Gusfriend (talk) 06:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

• True - The section Haskell building of
  801 N. Rowe Street is only information from Haskelite Building, which is information from Haskell Manufacturing Company, which is the information from my work of Haskell building from the article I created on Haskell Manufacturing Company on May 15, 2016. So all I am doing is improving on my own work. I would think it would be correct to improve on my own work. --Doug Coldwell (talk
  ) 08:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I've redirected the new article to the older one, as its creation was a

) 10:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

• True, with the creation of Haskell Manufacturing Company Building that Gusfriend did on 22 September 2022 he used all my references I already had in the article 1 May 2020. So all he did is took all my work I did on Haskell building section of Haskell Manufacturing Company including pictures and references. In the process of doing this he made the mistake of saying the building was made for the Mendelson Manufacturing Company was in 1982. If you will notice that in the section I wrote in Haskell building the correct date should be 1892. Notice also he said the company went out of business in 1984 which again is wrong - the company went out of business in 1894. Gusfriend made these mistakes since he did NOT do the research in the first place. He was just taking my research work and attempting to make it look like he had done the work. I corrected the dates when I made improvements the article. So all I am doing is improving on my own work. It would be a major improvement if Haskelite Building were to be merged into 801 N Rowe Street. I would know how to make the merge since I did most of the work in the first place and all of the research on these two articles. There is an ongoing discussion with merging Haskelite Building into 801 N. Rowe Street which User:Fram just redirected into Haskelite Building. That should NOT be done with an ongoing discussion about the merge.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, he wrote 1984 instead of 1894. That's a clear typo, and not an error in research. Andrew Jameson (talk · contribs) corrected it almost immediately, over a month ago. This is trivial and irrelevant.

  I'm much more concerned about what you write here: So all he did is took all my work I did on Haskell building section of Haskell Manufacturing Company including pictures and references. Doug, you were nearly blocked indefinitely a month ago over self-promotion and ownership concerns. The content split is correctly attributed on Talk:Haskelite Building (something you have not done when you do copy/paste moves). Gusfriend is not claiming credit or ownership for the work you did. That's not how any of this works. Mackensen (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

  Some of Doug’s comments are bordering on personal attacks. Accusing Gusfriend of stealing his work is an outrageous comment, especially considering the amount of time and effort Gus has spent trying to repair Doug’s articles. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:7056:59B4:45AA:64BC (talk) 12:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

  I still remember when you accused me last month of starting an ANI thread about you out of "jealousy" over your articles (as if I could ever be "jealous" over articles full of copyright violations and factual errors). Here you go again throwing out unsubstantiated allegations against other editors. Your remaining time on this website will be very short if you continue down this path. You are demonstrating an inability to work collaboratively with other editors, which is a vital part of editing Wikipedia. This has all happened because you are so upset that another editor tried to fix your copyright violations and nonsensical page creations, you made a fork to try and make the article entirely your own writing again. You seem more concerned with who "owns" content than with building an encyclopedia, which is what we are here to do, not boost our own egos. You are already on a very thin leash, Doug. This could easily escalate to you being blocked indefinitely. If I were you, I'd be changing my tune right now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

• User:Fram removed the merge to and merge from templates of 801 N. Rowe Street and Haskelite Building. Whatever happened to discussing the merge before anyone does anything. I believe an administrator should look at this.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

  You created a content fork and it was boldly redirected. If you think the article should be at a different name then you should request a move. Creating a copy of the article and then proposing a merge with the original article is disruptive and not how our processes work. I see nothing controversial about how Fram handled this. Mackensen (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

• INDEFed, which arguably could/should have happened last time. There is no indication Coldwell has learnt from or will change his behavior. Star Mississippi 18:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

  Coldwell has a secondary account here, which remains unblocked CiphriusKane (talk) 10:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  Good block. Doug has been given multiple chances and far more leeway than most editors would get and he hasn't shown the slightest indication he is willing to edit collaboratively or address the issues with his conduct. It's a shame he decided to go out this way, but the blame is on nobody but him. You'd think after having a proposal to indefinitely block you narrowly defeated, one would change their behavior. I hope Gusfriend will continue to clean up Doug's articles. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  I was hoping that it wouldn't have to come to this point, especially after the indefinite block proposal last month. It's unfortunate that Doug had to go out this way, but with his unchanged behavior after his hiatus, a block was sure to come at one point or another. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 16:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  Very good block. There was no indication last month either that DC felt the slightest degree of remorse or resolve to do better, but the apologists were out in droves all the same, making excuses for him all the same. I suppose we should count ourselves fortunate that it only took him several extra weeks to flame out, instead of several more years. Ravenswing 06:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• Special:Contributions/Douglas_Coldwell needs to be blocked as well. I echo everyone else's sadness. Most of me feels sorry for DC, but his steadfast IDHT leaves no way out. Since the last ANI thread I've had some further encounters with his articles, and things are definitely as bad, and probably worse, than it seemed at ANI: non-RS sources; sources abused for purposes they can't possibly serve; rampant OR; misinterpretation of sources leading to the assertion of ridiculous things; discursions into random miscellany apparently thrown in because they popped up in a keyword search of old newspapers; sources from 100 years ago used to make assertions about the state of the world today; and, of course, blatant copyvios.

DC shows, and has shown, absolutely zero understanding of any of these problems, much less of how serious they are. He just keeps plowing forward like nothing happened. Even how he's been fiddling with his talk page to brag about how 97% of his articles became DYKs, how he's got 500 550 DYKs, and how he set the record for quickest time from article creation to DYK appearance [246] (36 hours). One fucking thing Doug Coldwell should not be bragging about is how fast he's been able to shovel crappy articles onto the main page. It's like when old-time surgeons used to pride themselves on amputating a leg in 45 seconds -- no thanks, Doc. EEng 21:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocked secondary account. Apologies for missing your first note @CiphriusKane Star Mississippi 00:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I too am sad that it ended up like this as I do not like seeing any long term editor blocked but unfortunately I think that there was no other option. I will be leaving the Haskelite Building page to other editors for a while to avoid any perception of ownership of the page but I will be working on some of his other articles where I see something to be improved upon. For example, GA that says longest and heaviest grain-laden train ever put together which is supported by a reference from 1898. In fact a couple of minutes of searching found an article from 2020 about a 3km grain train called the longest ever. Gusfriend (talk) 05:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

FTR, do you have a diff or link for the "biggest plywood sheet" goof? EEng 09:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@EEng It's still in the lead of Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation. In the body of the article it's sourced to a book from 1918. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, mysterious IP editor! I feel I should add the following, for the record in case years later someone can't understand why all this happened. Bluntly, it's the only thing you need to know to understand why Doug Coldwell simply cannot be a productive editor here until he allows himself to be tutored in the proper use of sources. On May 31, 2016, he added the following to the article Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation [247]:

The largest plywood panels ever made were manufactured by the Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation

This is cited [248] to an article published in 1918 and written by a Haskelite employee [249]. What's going on here is wrong on so, so many levels:

• Even if the claim was "As of 1918, the largest plywood panels ever made had been manufactured by the Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation", we wouldn't accept that with a source written by the manufacturer itself -- we'd need a reliable and independent source.
• But the statement made in the article, in Wikipedia's voice, is that Haskelite made the largest plywood panels ever made, period. And it's cited to something more from more than 100 years ago. This is so monumentally stupid that even my very substantial powers of invective cannot do it justice.
• And to add the cherry on top, the cited article isn't talking about the largest plywood panels ever made -- it's talking about the largest waterproof plywood panels ever made. That qualifier just got left out.

It's just hopeless, and it's not occasional -- it's typical of DC's work. I'm really beginning to think we need a special process to deal with the stupefying amounts of crap he's woven into the fabric of the English Wikipedia -- a sort of nuke-on-sight authorization for deleting his articles, or reducing them to harmless stubs, without the usual ponderous processes. We did something like this, IIRC, in the Neelix situation. EEng 15:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I would absolutely support this. We have to go through over 200 GAs and look for issues like this; doing it the standard way will take years. We need an expedited process where if we find one or two glaring errors like this (or copyvio) the article is summarily delisted from GA status. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

GA delisting isn't enough. Really, GA-or-not-GA is a relatively minor issue. The real issue is the misinformation and copyvios in the articles themselves. To address that we need a process like you describe, except it ends with the article being stubified (or, in some cases) deleted.

Arid Desiccant, thou art wise -- can you suggest a rough outline of how such a process might work? EEng

21:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:PDEL; there's a significant amount of pure copyvio mixed in with PD copying that merely needs to be attributed though. CCI uses a nuke-on-sight principle on about ~4-5 cases off the top of my head, and that is after over a decade of having the case open. If we do something like this for DC, the community's most likely going to get pissed at us for the collateral. I think we'd need some kind of community consensus to actually do this; similar to the case that resulted in the mass bot blanking of pages back in 2010. Sennecaster (Chat

) 23:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

At least for the rail transport related DC articles, I'd be happy with committing to rewriting them from scratch if that will make people happy that we aren't "losing" anything (except for copyvio, of course). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

• Belated comment that this is a good block, and that it really should have happened earlier. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps, similarly to Neelix, we need a list of articles to deal with, so it can be worked through in a similar manner. Having "good" articles which include total garbage is a serious issue, and needs to be dealt with ASAP (before the next slow news day). Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

  Absolutely. If the powers that be would prefer this be discussed somewhere besides ANI, we can start a discussion elsewhere specifically on this question. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:42, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

  There's a list over at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 of a mix of his old contributions and some newer ones that MER-C grabbed during the September thread. We could expand that list (and the CCI size), or grab a query of every article DC's sent to DYK or GAN and create a checkpage elsewhere if people want to assess the articles out of what CCI normally does. We end up having to handle neutrality, verification, and copyright issues anyways fwiw. Sennecaster (Chat) 15:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I would support a specialised process to deal with this. Based on what I have seen so far I believe that the majority of his GAs have enough issues to start a GAR which could easily overload the GA pages. Gusfriend (talk) 08:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• He has requested an unblock, which @Yamla: has declined. I'm obviously going to stay away from it and defer to any admin to take whichever action they deem appropriate, but based on the content, he still does not understand why he was blocked going back to the original discussion that quantity of DYKs etc. is irrelevant. Star Mississippi 10:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  After reading his unblock request I will be doing my best to avoid any of the articles that he has had a significant contribution to for the next 4 weeks in order to allow time for things to settle down as I do not want to complicate (or be seen to complicate) matters further. Gusfriend (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Where to now?

So to recap, we now have a giant mess of copyright violations, improperly attributed sourcing, dodgy sources which don't properly verify claims, and outright tripe to clean up, and need to figure out how that will be done. That isn't exactly within the scope of ANI. So, the question now is, where does that discussion happen? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

What about @Sennecaster's suggestion of the open CCI, or the Talk thereof? Star Mississippi 13:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer for discussion to be on the talk page of the CCI, or on

WT:CP even. Putting it on the CCI itself would be cluttering. CCI usually ends up cleaning serious verification and sourcing issues while also checking for copyvio, so if the community wants to look at other things or set up a space to check everything over, there's going to be anywhere from mild to serious redundancy. Sennecaster (Chat

) 15:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

This is NOT just about copyright problems. Somewhere in VP is probably a better venue. EEng 01:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Over 90% of my issues with their pages are not CV related and are based on:

• incorrect information
• poor use of sources
• mismatch between information on 2 related pages
• Some poor prose (which I actually suspect comes from CV issues)
• incomplete information in GAs
• DYK statements not supported by information included in articles (sometimes the issue is the DYK and sometimes it is the article)
• OR and irrelevant information to meet a specific narrative

Even just somewhere to list the discussions like Talk:SS John Sherman/GA2 and Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_26#GAR_for_multiple_interlinked_articles

would be appreciated. Gusfriend (talk) 06:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@EEng: I presume by VP, you meant Village pump, but I'm just not sure where on Village Pump you had in mind? Or were you thinking of a new subpage or something? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I meant Kamala Harris should handle it. EEng 11:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Then it might do to let Joe know that he'll need to find a stand-in VP for a few months. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 23:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Also pinging others who've participated above: @

Fram, @Mackensen, @CiphriusKane, @XtraJovial, @Ravenswing, @Beyond My Ken. Any input would be welcome. Mako001 (C)  (T) 

🇺🇦 08:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the best way to handle this. As others have noted, it's not just copyright issues. Any article to which he was a major contributor needs to go through a thorough reassessment. Mackensen (talk) 11:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

We need a process that has authority to go through his articles with a chainsaw and cut out copyvios and factual errors with extreme prejudice. It's the only way this gets resolved in anything resembling a timely manner. I've brought a handful of his articles to GAR, and one was delisted the other day, but that's a slow process and doing all his articles that way would take a very long time. Not to mention the other issues beyond GA status that EEng mentioned. We need to compile a list of his articles and go through them one by one looking for issues. As much as I'd like to just wave a wand and say delist every GA he did, at least a few are likely ok. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I might start something up myself, a list of every GA will be a start, plus all the DYKs, as there is a greater incentive to misuse sources to get a catchy hook. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring/vandalism

I would like to raise an issue with user 81.104.95.127.. This user - using a wide variety or user numbers - is repeatedly and deliberately breaching Wikipedia's house style albeit in small ways. For example, in the article on Yell (company) they are repeatedly changing UK to United Kingdom, even though Wikipedia's house style makes it clear that UK is fine and United Kingdom not needed.

In itself, this is a minor point but when they have been repeatedly asked not do so and keep ignoring those requests, it almost amounts to vandalism. Moreover, their other edits continually damage articles. Among the edits they repeatedly make, they:

• repeatedly change straight (') apostrophes to curly ones, again in breach of house style and despite numerous editors requesting they stop or pointing out the error
• insert unnecessary and/or irrelevant detail
• repeatedly changing numerals above 10 to words, when Wikipedia's house style says both are fine
• repeatedly putting words, especially but not only company names, into italics and/or bold for no clear reason
• add redundant or superfluous words ('until' becomes 'up until', 'released becomes 'first released', even when there was no second release)
• incorrectly change the case of initials
• inserting completely unnecessary/incorrect/illogical paragraph breaks
• change good, idiomatic English to unidiomatic wording
• add multiple references to sentences, that almost always have no relevance to the claim supposedly being referenced
• insist on adding in the season when something happened, eg "in the spring of" or "in the summer of" when it adds nothing to the article
• Repeatedly remove hyphens where they are grammatically correct and, indeed, necessary (for example, they turn words like re-ordered into re ordered).

These are just some examples of their tedious, annoying and disruptive behaviour. It seems that this has been going on daily for at least five years, and several editors have left comments they have ignored. However, they have no Wikipedia account (which, after at least five years, is very suspicious in my view). Instead, they change their user number usually every one-three days, making it hard to take action against them. They can easily be traced, however, by the articles they keep re-editing and the types of changes they make. I can also supply many of their numbers if required.

I really hope something can be done to prevent them, as correcting their disruptive, if possibly well-meant, editing, is tedious and time-wasting. If I need to post this in a different section, please let me know (I've never reported anyone before so apologies if this is the wrong page).

I have notified them of this report.Neilinabbey (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

revert

back to their edits even once.

Now, you've warned this IP editor (

Manual of Style, not "house style" — however, you then immediately erased that warning 2 minutes later with the notification to this ANI complaint (diff

). As a result, they likely didn't even see it to begin with.

Furthermore, you're expected to at least give two warnings (i.e. {{uw-mos1}} then escalate that to {{uw-mos2}} or {{uw-mos3}}), if not three or four. This noticeboard is for intractable issues, so that falls short communication-wise, if such warnings would even be due, which as mentioned, may well not be so. Generally, please make sure you treat IP editors as you would any named accounts, by explaining yourself with enough detail prior to jumping the gun with enforcement requests here. P.S. I've linked to the IP's contributions in your OP for convenience. HTH. Thank you. El_C 08:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Strike that, on closer look, I see that they have used multiple IPs for these pages. I'll re-examine. El_C 08:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Neilinabbey, I'm having a difficult time seeing what the problem was, for example, with their edit to Skapocalypse Now! Their addition of initally seems tentatively okay. But regardless if in error or not, you should not be responding with an edit summary that reads: STOP YOUR IDIOTIC ADDITIONS OF TAUTOLOGOUS WORDS (diff). Anyway, that's just a random example I sampled from some earlier edits/IPs (Sept), so hopefully, the rest are not like that. I have to get going now, but hopefully, I'll get a chance to revisit this matter later in the day. El_C 08:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

They've literally used dozens of IPs over several years, changing every 1-3 days. I have complained directly to them, as have other editors over the years. This is not a one-off, mild issue, it is ongoing and repeat offending.Neilinabbey (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide a list of the IPs they have used (it doesn't have to be exhaustive, but a representative sample), and some explanation of how you know they are the same person? Girth Summit _(blether) 10:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Here are just some you can check:

81.104.95.127

86.2.120.14

86.1.31.56

81.104.95.127

86.7.38.32

81.103.30.186

86.5.23.191

86.7.38.32

86.6.237.104

86.4.156.202

80.0.138.190

86.7.38.32

86.4.167.159

That's just in the last 10 days! I admit some of my comments to them have been intemperate, but they repeatedly ignore standard messages/polite requests and they have been pursuing this behaviour for at least five years, so patience is wearing thin. Neilinabbey (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, this crossed with your last message. I am certain they are the same person because they frequently return to edit the same pages or make the same changes on a page (eg, changing UK to United Kingdom or changing the apostrophes to curly ones). In some cases, they've been editing the same pages for years, and they are often relatively obscure pages/subjects that not many people would visit. Also, the types of changes they make (including an obsession with adding months, sometimes misleadingly) are too similar for this to be different people. Neilinabbey (talk) 10:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

P.s., their edit of Skapocalypse Now! is an example of a pointless edit. They added that the recording was released "in the autumn". This is a little vague and adds nothing to the article, and in any case it had already been stated (in what is a very short article) that it was released in October. This is, I agree, a very small thing, but when they repeatedly over several years keep adding tautologous information like this, it it amounts to poor and unhelpful editing. The article already states the information, it does not need stating again. Neilinabbey (talk) 10:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

From a few spot-checks, these are all Virgin Media IPs, mostly in Blackburn. I can understand the frustration - if someone is repeatedly making the same small-but-unhelpful edits to the same pages, ignores requests that they stop and refuses to discuss the matter, I can see how that would get exasperating. (Particularly the curly apostrophes - argh, my eyes!) We can't implement a range-block wide enough to prevent them, so it would have to be dealt with via long-term semi protection on the effected articles. El C, do you think that would be warranted, or is it overkill? Girth Summit _(blether) 10:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding and appreciating the issue. Yes, I feared a block might be impractical. TBH, I'm not sure semi protection would help, as there are just so many articles involved. Perhaps a block on the current IP as a sort of warning that their edits are unhelpful? It might (but probably won't!) encourage them to rethink their editing. Neilinabbey (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Briefly, because I'm writing in haste: I did look at

WP:PC en masse, but wanted to examine at least a few of the edits closely first. But once I encountered the addition of initially by the IP, which again nominally seemed fine, followed by Neilinabbey's IDIOTIC [etc.] edit summary (diff again), I was no longer sure what's what. And I already had reservations after seeing Neilinabbey erase their warning 2 min after posting it, replacing it with the ANI notice for this report (diff again), which seemed a bit sketchy tbh. Then I had to step out, so I had no time to look any further. Anyway, unfortunately, I gotta step out again, so I'll just leave it with you, GS. But to reiterate, I did not see a single candidate for semi (in the usual sense), only pc. Quick correction, though: I didn't actually choose Skapocalypse Now! at random — I chose it because it's a cool title! El_C

11:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I erased the initial warning as it one I wrote myself (I'm new to reporting, so wasn't fully aware of the procedure). I then found there is a standard wording, so replaced my wording with that. The activity only seems sparse because that's one IP address. When you add it to 13 others in 10 days, and then multiply that for five years, it's a rather bigger issue!Neilinabbey (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I've popped the last dozen articles edited on my watchlist. If there are others, let me know (not all of them, just enough to alert me to their presence). -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

And I've applied some long-term PC protection to a bunch of articles that they've edited recently. If you notice them editing again, let me know and I will try my best to reason with them, and failing that we can do the whack-a-mole blocking game, I suppose. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much, and to Malcolmxl5 too. In response to Malcolmxl5, here are a few examples of other pages they repeatedly (mis)edit:

Cathedral City Cheddar

Saputo Dairy UK

Giraffe World Kitchen

Opel Grandland

The Mall Blackburn

Bumper Films

SP Manweb

Asda Mobile

1992 Manchester bombing

I could go on for ages, but that's probably enough for now!Neilinabbey (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

OK. I’ve added those. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated. Hopefully they'll get the message!Neilinabbey (talk) 12:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, they are back again, this time as 86.4.170.56. The usual daily four edits, three of which I've reverted (Irish car of the year, Tiger Tiger (nightclub) and Sin-Jin Smyth.

Given this almost constant changing of IP addresses and their refusal to engage, I'm not sure we're going to be able to stop them, unless they eventually get fed up with 95% of their edits being reverted within minutes!Neilinabbey (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Neilinabbey. Have a look at this: Special:Contributions/86.4.170.0/24. Is this mostly their work? Back to September? -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5, yep, that's them alright. I'd be happy to explain why I think their edits here are unhelpful, if needed.Neilinabbey (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

No, that's OK. In fact, their edits go back to 2017, I think. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that tallies with what I've found. Looks like I'm far from the only editor who's been reverting their edits! It's an odd one, as for the most part I don't think their edits are malicious, they just have certain very fixed views and obsessions, and won't take no to imposing them even where they contradict Wikipedia's house style. I do find the constant changing of IP addresses and the four-edits-a-day thing a bit curious, too.Neilinabbey (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

OK, I’m going to collate some data to get a handle on the picture here. It may take some time so let’s move this conversation to my talk page. Let me know if you see them again. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Neilinabbey (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Glad to see this got sorted while I was away for the day. El_C 09:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

First of all, I want to apologise for my English. It's not my mother tongue so I hope I can explain myself here. There is an editor called MrsSnoozyTurtle who nominate for deletion the article of the Paraguayan Football Association. Despite several users had explain to her that the article was relevant (you can see that in the deletion discussion and in the edit history), she started an editing war by deleting almost everything of the article and then suggested that it should be removed from Wikipedia. The reason she states is an extreme interpretation of Wikipedia policies (i.e. that she considers the sources are not good), but with her attitude of deleting instead of improving the article she is also breaching another principle of Wikipedia which is to do positive things, to be helpful and try to do the best for this marvelous encyclopedia. When this happens, I started to see how this user behaves in Wikipedia and what she did in the Paraguayan Football Association article is her modus operandi. Instead of improving articles that need work, she move them to drafts or ask for deletion. She also accuses the editors of those articles of having interests on those articles (as long as I see, most of us edit articles about things we consider interesting) and sees conflicts of interest everywhere. As she's been in Wikipedia for many years and has permissions and a deep knowledge of Wikipedia, she takes advantage of that and instead of being helpful with non experiment users, she destroys everything. It is very difficult to have a deep understanding of Wikipedia and it's a lot of work to write article right, so it is very sad to see how an editor instead of giving help, erases everything. The community should not allow this kind of abuse and I believe that should do something to avoid this kind of behaviour, How can be possible that one editor can take on her own the decision to delete, undo or move to draft an article? In other words, how can one user decide is an article is relevant or not? How can is possible to let her do that even when there are several users that are saying that she is not right? It's like she is more worried about respecting in an extreme way the policies of Wikipedia (because all she does is according to her sustained by a Wikipedia policy) -which are important-, instead of improving the articles and having more contents in Wikipedia. I hope the community can analyze this case and do something, but I believe this kind of behaviour doesn't help to make Wikipedia better. Many thanks.--Lizkin (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The fact that someone has nominated an article for deletion is not a good reason to make a complaint about them on this page, especially when the article you mention is already under discussion and the consensus is to keep it. If you think that this user has done something else wrong, please give clear examples with diffs. Deb (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, there has to be a point at which nominating an article for deletion is disruptive. I'll also note that MrsSnoozyTurtle edit-warred rather than post anything at

Phil Bridger (talk

) 17:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

It was a ridiculous AfD nomination and it has been closed as a Keep already. I have no idea what MrsSnoozyTurtle (who is usually a sensible editor) thought they were doing here. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

This is not about the Paraguayan Football Association article but her kind of contributions. If you see her contributions Special:Contributions/MrsSnoozyTurtle all you can see are nominations for deletion,moving to drafts, unilateral reversions... There are very few improvements and creation of article. In my opinion, this kind of behavior is disruptive and in some cases very near to what can be considered WikiBullyng.-- --Lizkin (talk)

Sorry, that's incorrect. I have looked at her previous AfD nominations and the vast majority appear to be completely reasonable, so would take this particular one as being an aberration. Black Kite (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I've had some issues with move to draft from MrsSnoozyTurtle in the past. They're fairly deletion-friendly but I wouldn't say more so than the average NPPer who deals with articles on companies. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with @

ResonantDistortion (talk

) 19:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

It does have a slightly promotional feel but I'm not seeing why it needed moving to draft nor tagging for notability; the film has clearly received independent coverage from respectable national newspapers et al. and much of the plot summary that MrsSnoozyTurtle appears to have objected to is present in the review from The Guardian. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• Interested in what folk think of Draft:Pankaj Choudhary (professor); moved to draft after Explicit declined G5 and I declined A7. Given the creator is blocked this is tantamount to deletion, but with no oversight. It's not the best article and would probably not survive AfD but I'm not personally comfortable with such an overt delete-by-draftifying approach. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Also

Draft:Javier García Martinez, another one certainly notable under WP:PROF as president of IUPAC and Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry & the American Chemical Society. It's hard to deal with undisclosed paid and COI accusations but Martinez is clearly notable under PROF and I think unlikely to be deleted at AfD. Espresso Addict (talk

) 04:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I do wonder if this is the stuff of ANI? The editors working NPP make a lot of difficult, close calls. Dragging them to ANI over each of those calls seems unreasonable to me. That there Pankaj Choudhry article was indeed created by a blocked sock (although I note the contribution of others blows the G5 rationale) and is indeed promotional/COI stuff. The subject is not notable and I'd AfD it, personally. Joseph S. Coselli and Elissa Altman are both, IMHO, poorly sourced and arguably not WP:GNG or at very best borderline and in need of work - a move to draft is again, IMHO, appropriate. But this is really not "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems" - this discussion, if it must be had at all (and I do wonder about that), should surely be at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers??? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not particularly urgent, no, but it may speak to a pattern of behaviour that is at least not optimal in a fairly prolific patroller. Assuming Coselli falls under PROF the lack of GNG is not a problem and for Altman what's needed are book reviews. This would have been pointed out if either of them had been AfD'd. Martinez is notable, and needs cleaning up, but the accusation of COI & paid stultify anyone else doing so and taking responsibility for it. (And it seems a great deal more important than say someone complaining about someone else fixing their lint errors...) Espresso Addict (talk) 05:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict, I'm sorry, but who is the patroller that you're referencing in this case? I feel it important to point out that MrsSnoozyTurtle does not have NPP rights.

As for the articles you're referencing;

• Draft:Pankaj Choudhary (professor) - Marked as reviewed by NPP member Onel5969. Later nominated for deletion by myself, based on it being from a now banned editor. This was declined, which was understandable and I left it alone. It was later moved by MrsSnoozyTurtle.
• Draft:Joseph S. Coselli - Marked as reviewed by NPP member Kj cheetham
  . It was later moved by MrsSnoozyTurtle.
• Draft:Elissa Altman - Does not appear to have been reviewed
  by a member of the NPP team. It was moved by MrsSnoozyTurtle.
• Draft:Javier García Martinez - Marked as reviewed by NPP member Kj cheetham
  . It was later moved by MrsSnoozyTurtle.

The NPP team marked 3 of the articles as reviewed and 1 was apparently unreviewed. MrsSnoozyTurtle's behaviour in draftifying articles is not associated with any NPP activity. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Hey man im josh. I tend to use "patroller" generally to apply to anyone who gatekeeps based on the new articles feeds, with or without the NPP right. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks for the explanation, I was a little worried since I was a patroller in one of those action logs haha. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I stand by my original comments. For an editor (Lizkin) who's made fewer than 20 edits altogether to use a single example of silliness to make a whole list of accusations suggesting a general "abuse" of Wikipedia guidelines is bizarre. By all means look into MrsSnoozyTurtle's record, but the eagerness to "pile" on in support of this report is rather surprising to me. Deb (talk) 08:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• I started working on
  Draft:Elissa Altman, and after my initial review to remove BLP issues, promotional sources, apparent original research, and copyvio, the promotional tone still needs work. Beccaynr (talk
  ) 18:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
• I have encountered similar problems in the past with MrsSnoozyTurtle draftifying obviously-notable biographies including
  WP:PROF notability criteria [251]. She claimed to have been unaware of those guidelines [252] but as I wrote at the time "It is difficult to tell what you might be aware of because of your habit of removing past warnings to pay more attention to the draftification guidelines such as the one at [253]". I am disheartened to see that these bad draftifications have continued and that in the recent cases of Joseph S. Coselli and Javier García Martinez, MrsSnoozyTurtle has apparently forgotten what she was told about academic notability. Given that this is a long-term pattern, should MrsSnoozyTurtle perhaps be discouraged more strongly from draftification altogether? —David Eppstein (talk
  ) 01:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
• I would like to hear from MrsSnoozyTurtle and other New Page Patrollers, and in the meantime, I revised and expanded the Elissa Altman article from what it was at the time of draftification [254] and moved it to mainspace. Beccaynr (talk) 03:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  I'd like to point out that MrsSnoozyTurtle does not have NPP rights. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• The core part of the article wasn't sourced and there was no attempt to source it, even though there was numerous updates. Also a lot of references are absolutly routine coverage, copied and pasted, typical of a fan article, they are mostly primary. But they are not all primary. As a national organisation clearly named, I wouldn't have sent it to Afd but I would have probably copyedited it quite heavily. scope_creep^Talk 05:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  The existence of some references to routine and primary sources in new articles is absolutely not a problem, and not cause for draftifying anything, as long as "they are not all primary". They do not contribute notability but they can and often do contribute verifiability. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with that, absolutely. scope_creep^Talk 16:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Last topic: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1105#User:Aigurland_:_edit-warring_academic_boosterism_for_Paris_1_Sorbonne

Aigurland has been doing advertisement for Paris 1 (for example: [255] ), and is doing the same again: [256] The same on the webpage on Collège de droit, which he said he won’t edit again in the last topic, but still removes information and sources this time.

--Ransouk (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I am shocked to see that Ransouk is still on this page, even though he never answers me when I try to talk to him. I implore an administrator who has the time to come and look into Ransouk's case as it is a clear case of POV pushing. I am at your disposal on my talk. I feel very bad about the way Ransouk never replies to me and undo all my changes, trying to pass himself off as the victim... I really wish an administrator would intervene, please. Aigurland (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are a viable approach. Thanks and good luck. El_C

09:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Now, Aigurland is making free personal attacks on talk pages: [257]

[258] --Ransouk (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Those are not personal attacks, Ransouk. And now is Nov 2, Nov 1 was the day before. El_C 15:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much El_C for noticing this. You are the first outsider to come between Ransouk and me and you have no idea how much it relieves me to be less alone. Aigurland (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

About personal attacks: [259]

El_C: I’m happy to answer anything, but if I have a serious idea to answer. I just have to deal with a user, making obvious promotional edits on one page ( [260] [261]), making long comments about me in several talk pages at the same time, and how other pages where they try to delete sources are supposed to be promotional. I am short in my texts, because the substance of their comment is very short too. You are an admin, so it is your function to tell them how to use wikipedia properly, but I guess you will agree that it is not mine, nor the place in talk pages. It is precisely why I opened this discussion here. For some admin to interact with them. --Ransouk (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Ransouk Ransouk (I'm talking to you here since there will at least be witnesses) why don't you ever respond to my requests on the substance? Aigurland (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Ransouk, let me get it right, you're saying that the comment on my talk page that I just responded to contains a personal attack? That's... interesting. Maybe quote what you contend is a personal attack rather than simply posting diffs, leaving us to guess...? Also, can you please wrap your bare urls so they don't take up extra space for naught? I keep doing it for you, but it's very easy to do. Anyway, at this point, you two should try to minimize interacting with one another and seek outside input, as suggested above. El_C 18:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

El_C: Not at all, I tried to keep it short because I thought it was obvious. I meant that you noticed that some comments of Aigurland about me were improper, and some people could see that as personal attacks. I was NOT saying at all that you made personal attacks against me. ----Ransouk (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2022

Aigurland, maybe because you keep writing at great length...? Please try to condense better. Brevity is the soul of wit, and so on. El_C 18:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Phil Bridger (talk

) 18:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. --Ransouk (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

You are right (I would point out that since Ransouk's last comment on the "College de Droit in France" talk, our relations seem to be more courteous :) Aigurland (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Aigurland, what is this indent? Who are you replying to? Which comment? El_C 19:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Ransouk, I understand you didn't say that I attacked you. Above, I said the comment on my talk page that I just responded to — that comment was by Aigurland (that I responded to), imlpying that I missed it in my response. If I did somehow miss it, please point it out with a quote. The point is that you keep citing diffs of what you claim are personal attacks "leaving us to guess" what exactly these are. So, next time you make a claim of a personal attack, you'll need to attach a quote of it alongside the diff. The diff by itself is not enough. El_C 19:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I meant what you mention of of how they write to me in your comments. But whatever, at this point, it is not very important. What I meant is that they should do exactly what you recommend, I happened to call that "personal attacks", that’s it. Ransouk (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Fair enough, but in the future, keep in mind that, on Wikipedia, the term personal attack has well-defined meaning as outlined in its policy page: Wikipedia:No personal attacks. El_C 19:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Baudimoovan is getting a little racist

Baudimoovan has been indefinitely blocked by DanCherek. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I hate to be that guy, but this edit [270] by User:Baudimoovan, saying only white people can be US president and including pictures of Hitler, was kind of over the line. Bkatcher (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Baudimoovan (talk · contribs) for vandalism, given that they were previously temporarily blocked in August (also for flagrant vandalism). DanCherek (talk) 12:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Gee, I'm waiting to see what kind of stuff goes under "XXX is getting a lot racist". EEng 17:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  You beat me to it. I was about to make a very similar comment but got an edit conflict.

  Phil Bridger (talk

  ) 17:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  *Goodbye* Nasty --User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 00:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  Please don't imply that I beat other editors. EEng 02:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  It's refreshing to see an understated ANI header for a change. Levivich (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Personal attack at Talk:Aaron Maté

User:Poyani warned about conduct at the talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't think it's courteous to call other editors "clowns". [271] Please tell them to knock it off. Thank you. Nutez (talk) 13:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Nutez I'm not sure how it could be a personal attack - it doesn't state a specific person or persons, and the article has been edited by more than enough people for it to not simply be a hidden attack. Clowns is also a mild term for many - I might use the word "muppet" in the same way. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

TIL that people use "muppet" as a mild insult. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I can confirm this. I think it must be a British thing, but it's very common here. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh please. Calling people "clowns" and accusing them of being "activists" is not a "mild insult like calling them muppet". Where in the world do you get this from? And they are very clearly referring to certain editors. Also, referred to sources such as The Guardian, The New Yorker and the Wall Street Journal as "dubious" [272] AND broke

WP:NOTHERE. Volunteer Marek

13:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

They also added a slew of "citation needed" tags to the article... after they themselves removed all the citations that were in the article already [273]. Volunteer Marek 13:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you are correct, but none of this rises to the level of needing attention at ANI. Seems like a backhanded way by the OP to involve admins in a content dispute. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:F589:D21A:47A2:82D0 (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

AFAICT the OP, is uninvolved in the article, aside from reverting an anon ip. Wait, that’d be you? Volunteer Marek 16:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

No, I have never edited that article. Regardless of the OP’s involvement, this doesn’t warrant a thread at ANI. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:F589:D21A:47A2:82D0 (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Incessant incivility is a reason to launch an ANI case, I believe. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Calling other editors "clowns" is most definitely insulting, and is not acceptable behavior. Paul August ☎ 15:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
• There is no doubt about who this editor is referring to with his "clowns" comment, but I think that it is only a minor personal attack so should attract a warning (which any editor can issue) rather than a block. I haven't looked into any further behaviour by the editors involved here.
  Phil Bridger (talk
  ) 16:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  Note that this is not a single, isolated personal attack from the user in question – only very recently they referred to other editors engaged in the article dispute as "trash activists" Nutez (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I'd describe the comment "clowns" as being a personal attack per se, but it definitely fits under the definition of "incivility". It's an insult for sure, even if it's not directed at one person in particular. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  I am currently observing the behaviour that is occurring at the article. It is very problematic, coming from the side who threw out the "clowns" and "trash activists" comments. Not simply due to these comments alone but due to their overall mentality towards Wikipedia and towards other editors. A flagrant disregard for the rules and consistent incivility. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Victor Ohids adding various forms of citation needed templates to parts of the lead in articles

Most of their 73 edits are sub-optimal. The rest are simply wrong. Indeffed. Black Kite (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Victor Ohids (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I wasn't exactly sure where to take this as I Don't feel this is quite enough of an issue to need administrator attention, however at the same time it's also rather disruptive and a lot of edits have been made with this. The user Victor Ohids appears to have gone on an editing spreed, adding a bunch of various tags regarding refs in the article, recently in the article's lead. These don't appear to be constructive at all since sometimes they aren't an inline template but rather a banner template which messes up the layout of the article and also the lead does not always need refs (

MOS:LEADCITE). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk

_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I just reverted this edit to World Meteorological Organization which appended a citation needed template to a passage which already had a citation.—Anita5192 (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Please read and understand Wikipedia:WikiProject Reliability before you babble. ~~``_``~~ (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

First, that's a Wikiproject, not a policy or a guideline. Second, I cited the Manual of Style which is a form of guidelines. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Victor Ohids: Your response above is sub-optimal - there is a genuine concern here, which you should address seriously. I just reverted this edit of yours, where you added a 'citation needed' tag to an assertion in the middle of a paragraph which was proceeded by a citation to a book. I have a simple question for you: did you read the source before applying the tag? If the citation at the end of the paragraph does not support the content, then a citation is needed and the tag is valid. If it supports it, then the tag is not needed. Did you check? Girth Summit _(blether) 19:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Various policy violations by User:Archives908

Block evasion. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC) (By the OP, not Archives908) Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 00:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• WP:NPA
  • "your mess" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:European_integration&diff=1120008889&oldid=1120008221
  • "Out of control editing pattern" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:European_integration&diff=prev&oldid=1120005914
• violating
  WP:AGF
  • accusing a user of vandalism, which may have been bold by re-applying fixes, but certainly was not vandalising https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=1120011074
• templating User talk:77.11.87.107
• WP:BRD
  • re-inserting bugs instead of selected reverts via reverting every edit in violation of WP:BRD [274] [275]
  • not eplaing reverts, even when asked https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:European_integration&diff=1120010181&oldid=1120010115 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:European_integration&diff=next&oldid=1120010181
• WP:OWN
  • demanding that *any* change (including bug fixes) should be presented on the talk page first and reverting any edit that s/he didn't approve https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:European_integration&diff=1119995919&oldid=1119988629 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:European_integration&diff=1120008889&oldid=1120008221 - "I ask again, any major changes should be discussed here given the recent turbulent editing on this article" - there haven't been any major changes, the IP explained any change in the edit summaries and even started an explanatory section "Cautious changes 2022-11-04" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:European_integration&diff=1119988629&oldid=1119965391

78.55.6.168 (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC) 77.11.172.241 (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Obvious block evasion is obvious. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  User:Kinu, only because you link to https://whois-referral.toolforge.org/gateway.py?lookup=true&ip=77.11.87.107 and https://whois-referral.toolforge.org/gateway.py?lookup=true&ip=78.55.6.168 doesn't mean a block evasion is obvious. 77.11.172.241 (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• I'm closing this thread to help you stop evading your block. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you. Clearly this blocked IP is very bitter. Archives908 (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Two new Evlekis socks needing a quick block (and, as always, removal of TPA and email access...)

These were done. — Diannaa (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

92.40.198.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Kraamphaar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

About to be blocked for unfair reasons 1 month ago by Jeff G.

Obviously frivolous complaint, adding to earlier issues from this IP range and resulted in a 3 month rangeblock. It might be worth taking this to meta:SRG if this IP is being a cross-wiki drama factory.

This is one case where having a blocked sink is helpful.

(non-admin closure) Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 00:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

About a month ago, a user named Jeff G. was going to block me for “vandalism” and “refusing to create an account” (and maybe “sockpuppetry”). I have not done any of those, and you can’t even get blocked for not creating an account.

Vandalism: I do not vandalise, I am here to edit. (he also thought of NOTHERE as an excuse to ban me)

Refusing to create an account: You can not even get blocked for this!

Sockpuppetry (maybe): He might have thought I am taking advantage of dynamic IP addresses, when they change at random, and I have little to no control over it.

He has also blocked 2001:8003::/32 from test (and maybe from test2 as well) for “vandalism”. That block lasts until 25/9/2023… and I was most likely why he did that block, but I haven’t vandalised on both wikis. He might be doing this to other innocent editors here. There might need to be an investigation into this… 2001:8003:B1B8:BF00:B0D8:A651:7BB6:A94E (talk) 09:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Jeff G. you almost blocked me. 2001:8003:B1B8:BF00:B0D8:A651:7BB6:A94E (talk) 09:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not write that I will block accounts (or IP Addresses) on wikis where I am not an Admin. I use standard warnings that each recipient may be blocked. I am not an Admin here, so I cannot block here. Do you have a diff of the accused behavior? Your edits that were reverted include: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; and 8. Because they were reverted by users in good standing, they are considered to be unconstructive to the project (not helping to construct the project). In this edit and the above posts, you imported drama from Test Wikipedia. I use "your edits" to refer to

G. ツ

10:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

IP range blocked as a time sink. Acroterion (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Billy Fiddle personal abuse

SOCK RETURNED TO DRAWER

(

hateful PA is redacted. If Billy is still interested, weather in Moscow is rather cold and windy now. a!rado (C✙T

) 21:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

To confirm, I don't use these noticeboards a great deal and hate having to come here. These days, with the way so many people feel, Wikipedia is not the friendliest of climates for editors with pro-Russian sentiment such as I, and from what I can tell, it is open season where the other is concerned.

Lvov (Lviv) which we don't know anything about: looted? left alone? destroyed? No way of finding out. I believe action should be taken against this editor, but it is not strictly an NPA issue, and as I said, abuse in this direction may be considered acceptable. If so, I'll consider packing my own bags from here. Thoughts please? --Coldtrack (talk

) 18:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of anything else, BillyFiddle's remarks are beyond the pale. Warned and redacted. Acroterion (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Acroterion. Regards. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

BillyFiddle is now checkuser blocked. Acroterion (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revoke TPA of an obvious sockpuppet

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

Can someone please revoke the TPA of this blocked obvious sockpuppet? Thank you. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 06:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 06:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Hide this racist redirect

CLOSED

Report was addressed to the wrong Wikipedia. No action possible. Deb (talk) 06:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hide this racist redirect saying Gypsy scum

https://rmy.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romane_manusha&oldid=15796 94.127.215.177 (talk) 10:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

This is the English language version of Wikipedia. You are talking about the Vlax Romani version. That's a different project. Please contact them directly, there's nothing we here at en.wiki can do. --Yamla (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

In addition, as a last resort, if no one is active at that Wikipedia at all, you can contact

Contact me | Contributions

). 10:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

You have the wrong Wikipedia. This is the English Wikipedia, and we have no jurisdiction over a 14 year old edit on the Vlax Romani Wikipedia, which appears to be moribund in any event. Ravenswing 10:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ongoing self-promotion on Yakuza franchise pages

For the last four years, the Yakuza franchise article and the various Yakuza video game articles have dealt with ongoing attempts at self-promotional vandalism by a user looking to promote their YouTube channel. There have been occasionally been other articles affected too, such as The Lost World: Jurassic Park (console game) and Aquaman: Battle for Atlantis, but the Yakuza articles are the main targets. According to the SPI case, they have gone through at least 20 different socks in their attempts to do so, and quite frankly, I'm getting very tired of it. Between the continued bad-faith editing and uncivil behavior, it's irritating to have to deal with this time and time again, especially when it immediately resumes the moment their block is up (if not before, under a new IP) or protection expires. Therefore, I'd like to request indefinite pending changes protection on all Yakuza series articles, if not indefinite semi-protection. The fact this has been going on for four years warrants at least some level of preventative measures, and it would certainly make things a lot easier on those of us who have been doing our best to curtail his activity up to this point. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I think the easiest solution, that doesn't involve protecting articles, is simply to blacklist their YouTube channel URL. Seems like the simplest action for the greatest outcome. Or would that not work with the way YouTube URLs work as they're video not channel URLs? Canterbury Tail talk 13:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

We can blacklist the channel landing page, but that doesn't really help because there's no way to blacklist the videos from a particular channel.

MrOllie (talk

) 14:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

You can also blacklist individual videos. That would be tedious, but if the problem is severe enough, at some point it takes a lot more time to create a new video than to block one. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, each video would have to be blacklisted individually, which is doable, but would probably be a slow process. That said, they do use links to specific website articles as citations to justify the videos' inclusion ([277] and [278]), so blacklisting those specific articles might be helpful. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I gathered up a list of URLs that might need to be blocked, in addition to the aforementioned news articles. While blocking all 50-ish tour videos isn't really viable, here are the three videos that start each tour "series", which have been linked before ([279] [280] [281]). All the playlists on their channel include "list=PL0HKt-kbL9s" as part of the URL, so blocking that string would theoretically prevent any of their playlists from being linked to. And unrelated to the Yakuza stuff, these three videos ([282] [283] [284]) are the only other ones he's attempted to add to any pages. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if it's possible to have a filter that prevents a non-autocomfirmed account from adding YouTube links. Would save so many headaches across the project, not just in this case. Canterbury Tail talk 16:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I like that idea. A more general approach (to be argued out at the Village Pump for years before actually happening) would be to have something like that tied into the

WP:RSP list. Gusfriend (talk

) 07:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Nuwordlife0rder: violates BURDEN, adds FICTREFs, restores OR

I had removed what was unsourced and FICTREFed from the page Philippine Independent Church.

The user Nuwordlife0rder proceeded to add those information back (some of which are OR), sometimes by sourcing them properly, other times by not sourcing them, most of the time by sourcing them with new FICTREFs. I then rolled back to the version I had made, and the user added the same information with the same problems again.

I then attempted to Talk:Philippine Independent Church#Violating WP:BURDEN, adding FICTREFs, OR discuss with the user at the talk page, but it was to no avail: the user kept the unsourced and FICTREFed data, and said done. Veverve (talk) 10:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I had responded accordingly. The sources that "I added" are not

WP:NOTBATTLE and everyone are welcome to edit. Thank you. Nuwordlife0rder (talk

) 10:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The sources that "I added" are not WP:FICTREFs as those are legit: I strongly disagree, the user has added numerous FICTREFs, and has kept them.

The user has now accused me of bullying, stating asking for BURDEN to be respected and FICTREFs to be removed was a form of bullying.

The user has added recently: Original research (OR) and Refimprove tags were already added. I humbly believe that a revert is not required. Thanks again. Thus, the user clearly assumes breaking the BURDEN rule. Veverve (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute. I'd give the article talk page discussion more time to develop. It wouldn't be out-of=place to place a very neutrally worded notice on a relevant WikiProject inviting participants to participate in this discussion. Sorry you haven't gotten much feedback here but sometimes there is a very low response on ANI if the issue doesn't appear to be urgent and this one doesn't appear to be. Just don't let this fall into edit-warring. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: while I agree the issue is not urgent, there seem to be no way I can make Nuwordlife0rder comply with BURDEN. Veverve (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

LeesjyM3 False Accusation and distruptive edit

This user LeesjyM3 had publicly claim that i try to impersonate another user Leesjy2kin this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Malays_National_Organisation&action=history and inciting that my statements isn't true. I seek resolution for this matter above. Francabicon (talk) 08:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@

Contact me | Contributions

). 14:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Repeated WP:V violation by Goanoa

User:Goanoa has repeatedly changed Aries (astrology) for the dates the Sun is in the Aries sign from the values provided by dictionary.com to different values, while leaving the citation unchanged. This intentionally misrepresents the views of dictionary.com. I issued a warning against edit warring in November. A warning for similar behavior was issued by User:Aloha27 in February. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Jc3s5h, given the multi week edit war over this, I find it amazing that no one has opened a talk page discussion or sought out a better source than dictionary.com. Slywriter (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

My favorite online dictionary before dictionary.com was lexico.com, which was published in conjunction with Oxford University Press. They went offline and designated dictionary.com as their replacement. lexico.com now redirects to dictionary.com. It isn't really about what the dates are, because that will vary according to which time zone the person doing the computation considers their "home" time zone, and how they want to average out the differing results; the Sun moves from one sign to another at somewhat different times and dates each year. It's really about saying a source says X when it really says Y. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Editors coming along making changes to the dates that the Sun enters and leaves signs, without providing a source, and without worrying about contradicting the existing source, has been happening several times a month for years. I made a talk page post about it in 2018. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Need to undo a bunch of recent edits by User:Meatballspino

I don't know if this is deliberate vandalism or lack of clue, but Meatballspino has made made several hundred edits with the Wikipedia:Correct typos in one click tool. I've checked 14, and 12 of them were wrong. I don't have time to check and fix them all. I think admins have a tool which can rapidly undo a long string of edits and I think that's what's needed here. I've left messages to explain the problem on the user's talk page. Thank you.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike, I've mass reverted these with WP:Kill-It-With-Fire. — Qwerfjkltalk 22:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl: Thank you. Nice tool well used. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Editor whose only purpose here seems to be to prove that Jews established the African slave trade

To quote them, "i am going to add all the information about the exiled Jews moving to Africa, starting settlements, marrying the African women and then started selling the slaves to Euros. This is how the slave trade started (all sources agree in all countries and languages)". There's a discussion at User talk:Freshairbreath about their sources. I thought hard before brining this here but finally decided that this editor needs eyes. [285] Doug Weller talk 16:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Someone with more expertise than me should check Lançados for accuracy. The user edited a lot there. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

They have a single source which they appear to be misrepresenting, they are here for one purpose, they are big into

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, they are not assuming good faith (accusing anyone who disagrees with them of censorship, rather than showing any inclination of working with others). I say punt 'em. --Golbez (talk

) 16:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

That's already been done. One of our more obvious cases.

Phil Bridger (talk

) 16:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Well that was fast. @Orangemike:, thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks folks. Andre🚐 19:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

{](non-admin passerby) I am going to delete the statement that Portuguese Jews and forced converts *often* traded in slaves in Africa. I am sure examples of this existed -- and in fact recall one slaver in Brazil that was probably a converso, but yes, it does seem like the editor had some sort of confirmation-bias fixation at work. Yes, there was an exodus of Jews from Spain and Portugal and yes Portugal had colonies in West Africa with a flourishing slave trade, but those two truths as far as I know just barely overlap. I sometimes work with Portuguese and have done some relatively extensive work with (French-speaking) West Africa, as well as a little on the slave trade to Brazil. I do not describe myself as an expert in these topics, but I am pretty certain that most of the slave-capturing was carried out by Africans, and I know that the British and the French also bought these slaves, and they generally wound up on plantations, not in the homes of the Portuguese gentry, so that statement is a red flag also.

It would be best if someone who reads Portuguese really really well reviewed the source, but I agree that it is probably misrepresented, and would urge that this person also check the article. I will delete the egregious stuff that I can identify but could well miss some nuance, and apparently it's a hot-button topic for some Elinruby (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

My opinion is that the editor in question,

good faith and needs to be treated accordingly. MurrayGreshler (talk

) 03:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Boomerang this to the complainer. Policy-wise, there is nothing wrong about stating the Jews might have initiated the Atlantic slave trade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madame Necker (talk • contribs) 14:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  If your understanding of Wikipedia’s policies is this uninformed, you should not be involving yourself in Noticeboard discussions. Your editing history appears to be tendentious at best. This proposal would suggest that you are

  WP:NOTHERE. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:F589:D21A:47A2:82D0 (talk

  ) 14:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  Given that Madame Necker has volunteered here, it may be time to consider that user's history and take this opportunity to consider sanctions on them. SPECIFICO talk 14:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  I've indefinitely blocked them; we need to nip editors like this at the bud quicker. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 00:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  Great job, thank you, sorely needed for months Andre🚐 01:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, there is. Whilst the involvement of certain Jewish people in the Atlantic slave trade is a matter of academic discussion, when people talk about Jews and the slave trade, 99% of the time, they're pushing

  Black Hebrew Israelite nonsense. It doesn't matter if it's being pushed to the forefront as of late by some rapper who hasn't released a good track in a decade and is choosing to deal with his divorce by shouting about his ex-wife's boyfriend on Twitter instead of going to a therapist, racist fringe theories are still racist fringe theories. Sceptre (talk

  ) 00:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Mamade Necker: There is a big difference between claiming that some specific Jews were involved in the Atlantic slave trade (which nobody is disputing) and claiming that Jews in general were responsible for it. Partofthemachine (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Undiscussed mass article merging and redirection by BilledMammal

TRAINWRECK

This discussion reached the "more heat than light" phase weeks ago. There's very little consensus on how to proceed, as the same people are shouting the same arguments back and forth past each other, and the entire discussion has gotten far too TLDR to make any meaningful close. There have only been two proposals that have any meaningful chance of passing 1) Develop (in a more appropriate forum than this) guidelines on how to handle species stubs and 2) A proposal to close the discussion with no result. #1 can be handled by someone else. I'm enacting #2. This discussion is closed without any result. --Jayron32 14:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has unilaterally decided to mass merge and redirect hundreds (perhaps thousands) of articles on insect species and genera to higher level ranks (i.e. genera and tribes) without discussion. Admittedly there are a lot of insect species stubs with very little content, but a mass action like this should have been discussed beforehand to gain consensus for it prior to implementation. This has been previously discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Ongoing_disaster:_a_heads-up Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Note: I have rolled back the lot as a highly disruptive and ill-advised (or rather, non-advised) mass change against established and well-known consensus. Not sure we need any ANI action here as the damage is undone and I assume BilledMammal will agree to discuss this kind of thing henceforward. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Most or at least a lot of them seem to be sourced (only?) to Bezark, Larry G. A Photographic Catalog of the Cerambycidae of the World, which is now a deadlink. Is it considered unreliable? Mccapra (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

No discussion at WikiProject insects that I can see. Mccapra (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

None at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beetles either. Bezark is an academic entomologist [286], so I would think he is reliable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Larry Bezark migrated the entirety of his site to a different URL ([287]), but it is all still online, and all very authoritative. The dead URL is part of the text of several thousand articles, changing them all will take a very long time. Dyanega (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Larry Bezark's site was used for long-horned beetle articles and I updated the refs for many of them when I went through them systematically earlier this year. Loopy30 (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

If there's a systematic correspondence between the two sets of urls Wikipedia:Link_rot/URL_change_requests, can probably use a bot to fix all the links. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I will point out that BilledMammal has participated at an Arbcom sanctioned discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale, but that is still open as best I can tell, so any implication of taking mass action from that is not appropriate. I know there was a recent discussion on some page (can't find but was within last 2 months) about the mass creation of fish species articles which was pointing away from mass creation of similar articles (minimal facts, sourced to the same source), but I don't BilledMammal participated in that. --Masem (t) 18:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion Masem refers to was on village pump (linked here). That discussion was instigated by BilledMammal when they had suggested that a user "request permission" to continue their low rate production of stub fish articles (all notable species). Loopy30 (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• (
  If a page is very short (consisting of perhaps only one or two sentences) and is, in your opinion as editor, unlikely to be expanded within a "reasonable" (unspecified) amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it into a page on a broader topic. but "upmerging a bunch of stubby articles into a list" is quite literally the guidance we give people as part of normal editing practices. 2) The OP is being a bit disingenuous when they say "this has been previously discussed". That thread was started less than 30 minutes before this one. That is not "has been previously discussed". Given that no attempt has been made to reach a consensus on this one way or another, and that the user being dragged here is quite literally doing what guidance tells us to do. So given that A) No real attempt has been made to have a discussion and B) The user is LITERALLY DOING what the rules tell them to do, I am at a loss as to why you want to see them blocked, banned, or whatever. --Jayron32
  18:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

It was my understanding that an article for a species was, by definition, notable, no matter how short. Species articles include unique features - especially categories they belong to - that are lost if they are merged. Dyanega (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Consider just one example of one of the pages this user deleted: Berosus undatus. It contains references, wikidata links, taxonomic synonyms, and categories, all of which should be maintained but would not appear in the genus-rank article. Dyanega (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Not according to

WP:NSPECIES. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk

) 18:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Today I learnt Their names and at least a brief description must have been published in a reliable academic publication to be recognized as correct or valid. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Not only does

WP:NSPECIES state that species articles are "generally" kept at AfD, in actual practice "all" (yes, 100% in the last 6.5 yrs) of the valid species articles nominated for deletion have been kept (see here). Loopy30 (talk

) 19:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Is this meant as a reply to me? I don't see the relevance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

No, it was a response to Gråbergs Gråa Sångn, whose addition to Dyanega's comment seemed ambiguous, if not the inverse of what they might have intended to convey. Not sure of the connection of your original comment though, unless you are just trying to support the notability of all species articles based on what you have "just learnt today. Loopy30 (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I meant nothing more or less than I said. Best way to avoid confusion is to reply to the right comment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@Loopy30 ...actually, I know of at least one beetle species article that was deleted 6 years ago (Syagrus atricolor, if you must know), but it was not listed on the Organisms deletion sorting archive but only on the Animal deletion sorting archive. Not sure if this might be an exception to the rule or not though. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. The original description appears to have not been subsequently recognised by any other authority after Pic (self-) published it. As such, it was effectively not a valid species and not covered by NSPECIES. Even if it was kept, it is likely to have been synonymized with another species eventually and them turned into a redirect. (As an aside, this shows the value of sourcing to a taxonomic database that has sorted out what is recognised as valid or not.) Loopy30 (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

And in 2019, Zoia finally published his revision of African Eumolpinae which reclassified Syagrus atricolor as Afroeurydemus atricollis, facts that are now reflected in Wikipedia. Loopy30 (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Interesting as that may be (I don't want to go on a tangent), my point was that AddWittyNameHere (unless I am mistaken) appeared to have overlooked that the Animal archive has pages not covered by the Organisms archive ...and this may also be true for plants, bacteria and other organisms if they have their own separate deletion sorting archives. That's something to look through to confirm if species articles truly have a ~100% keep rate as per

WP:NSPECIES. Monster Iestyn (talk

) 21:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, accurate stats over a wide range of kingdoms/phyla would be beneficial to inform other editors of the rate at which species articles are kept. (Sorry for going down the Syagrus sp. tangent, I find Wikipedia is full of such hidden rabbit holes.) Loopy30 (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

(No worries, I would have loved to talk a bit on it too, but then I remembered this was not the place for it) Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

That is an essay, not a guideline. If the various species projects want it to be a guideline, they should make an RfC on it. JoelleJay (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Given that

WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES has been treated as a de facto guideline encouraging the creation of individual articles for all recent species for at least a decade (probably further back) - this was an obviously controversial mass change. I don't advocate any action against BilledMammal but that was a dumb move that had no chance of going unchallenged and shouldn't have been implemented at this scale. For further attempts, get consensus. --Elmidae (talk · contribs

) 18:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

For the record, when I suggested a block, I meant as a temporary measure to prevent ongoing merges until someone got their attention. Dyanega (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

There wasn't ongoing merges at the time that this was discovered by Elmidae. BilledMammal had stopped editing close to 6 hours ago. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

OUTCOMES is absolutely not an allowance to create article on the belief they will be kept. OUTCOMES allows for existing article to be kept but still allows merges and AFD to be performed. Masem (t) 19:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The rate at which this was done is impressive - for example, at 01:57 at 28 October 2022 they redirected 25 articles in one minute, or one every ~2.5 seconds. Is this an unauthorized bot run? Spicy (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no record of 01:57 at 28 October. Perhaps you meant 01:37? — Nythar (💬-🎃) 20:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

That's correct, sorry. Spicy (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

What you don't see is the time to set up those redirects before I press "publish changes" in rapid sequence. Entirely manually. BilledMammal (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

OUTCOMES in not a policy or guideline, it's just an observation of happenings at AFD. And such a summary is generally for individually created articles. Mass-creation or mass major modification of articles certainly needs prior discussion as a minimum. North8000 (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

These mergers were appropriate per

WP:MERGEREASON. Look at the last five articles I redirected (four created between 00:40, 3 May 2014‎ and 00:43, 3 May 2014‎, the other created at 22:58, 2 May 2014), for the reason Duplicates content at Cotyclytus

:

1. Cotyclytus scenicus
2. Cotyclytus sobrinus
3. Cotyclytus regularis
4. Cotyclytus stillatus
5. Cotyclytus suturalis

The only information these give is the name, that it was a species of beetle in the family Cerambycidae, and who by and when it was described. The same information that is given at Cotyclytus. How is removing the duplication of information controversial?

The mergers are similar. The last five articles I merged (created between 23:30, 1 May 2014‎ and 23:34, 1 May 2014‎) are:

1. Sphallotrichus spadiceus
2. Sphallotrichus setosus
3. Sphallotrichus sericeotomentosus
4. Sphallotrichus sculpticolle
5. Sphallotrichus puncticolle

These give the name, that it was a species of beetle in the family Cerambycidae, who by and when it was described, the range, and in one case a list of subspecies. The first three were already available at Sphallotrichus, and I created a table to contain the rest. How is replacing boilerplate micro-stubs with a table containing all of the same information controversial?

BilledMammal (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Because the merge destroys unique species-specific information that is not being exported to the genus page. For your last set of species, for example, for

Sphallotrichus sculpticolle you deleted Taxonbar|from=Q14718823 and Category:Beetles described in 1852; for Sphallotrichus sericeotomentosus you deleted Taxonbar|from=Q14718824 and Category:Beetles described in 1995; for Sphallotrichus setosus you deleted Taxonbar|from=Q14718821 and Category:Beetles described in 1824; for Sphallotrichus spadiceus you deleted Taxonbar|from=Q14718818 and Category:Beetles described in 1892. By merging articles you are removing links to Wikidata, and wiping out members of viable categories. For other articles your bulk edits merged, you deleted lists of synonyms, you deleted categories defined by geographic distributions, and categories linked to authorships. In addition to removing synonyms, you also removed the parentheses around authors' names that indicate that a species was described originally in a different genus. That's a lot of valuable information being lost to your arbitrary merges. Please stop. Dyanega (talk

) 20:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Other information removed included images of the the article subjects. Examples at Ochraethes viridiventris, Coleoxestia sanguinipes, Ochraethes palmeri, Ochraethes brevicornis Criodion tomentosum, Ochraethes citrinus, Ochraethes obliquus, Ochraethes pollinosus, Ochraethes tulensis, Ochraethes z-littera, Chlorida festiva and Criodion angustatum) Loopy30 (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Valuable to species project editors and...who else? Wikipedia is not a directory/database, and even less so a meta-directory. JoelleJay (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

It's valuable to the kind of people who would be looking up articles in the topic area. What more justification do we need?

talk

) 13:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Working through that list:

• parentheses around authors' names that indicate that a species was described originally in a different genus - I wasn't aware that was deliberate. They can easily be preserved in the merged articles.
• wiping out members of viable categories - The categories could be left in the redirects
• Taxonbar - Wikidata is not permitted in article text, and we are writing for the reader, who isn't going to benefit from having to go microstub by microstub to look at all species within a genus just so that we can include a few external links.
• lists of synonyms - Can be included in the merged article.

I've done these for Sphallotrichus; given your concerns can easily be addressed, I believe the correct response would have been to ask me to address them, rather than misusing rollback and dragging me to ANI. BilledMammal (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

No, the correct thing would be for you to discuss this sort of bulk editing and achieve consensus from - for example - the Wikiproject Tree of Life people whose hard work you're deleting, BEFORE you go deleting it. Again, all species articles are considered notable, by definition. You'd find little support, as noted above, given several existing policies. Additionally, your tabular format only works when ALL of the species in a genus have limited amounts of information, including limited lists of synonyms. Look at Sternotomis pulchra for an example of just how impractical that sort of "one size fits all" approach is likely to get. Dyanega (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I didn't merge that article? No one is suggesting that every article on a species should be merged into its genus.

I'm also not deleting anyone's hard work; the information is being kept? BilledMammal (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

You don't think it is a lot of work to find and attach the correct Wikidata links to articles? You don't think it's hard work to create redirects for long lists of synonymic names? One of the articles you merged had a pile of species-level redirects that suddenly pointed to a genus article instead of a species article (e.g. [288]). That's not trivial, and you STILL seem to be avoiding taking the responsible step and discussing this approach with the editors who are most directly involved and getting consensus that your approach is an improvement. Dyanega (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Given that it took the creator approximately one minute to create each of these articles, no, I don't think it is a lot of work. And we don't create articles just so that we can create redirects to them. BilledMammal (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

When did I say I was talking about the creator? I'm talking about all the editors who worked to improve these crappy stubs AFTER they were created. A high proportion of the articles you merged were created by a single user, Wilhelmina Wil, who probably shouldn't have done bulk stub creation on that scale. But, instead of merging/deleting those stubs, many editors took the time and energy to do things like adding Wikidata links and lists of synonyms, and adding categories, and fixing spelling, and all sorts of other labor that you're wiping clean (e.g, [289]). If these had been articles created and never improved after their creation, maybe you could claim that no one's work was being lost, but that's simply not true for many of these articles at this stage of the game. Dyanega (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

We've already established that we can keep all of that except the Wikidata, due to there being a consensus against including it, so what is your point?

Also, the amount of effort that went into creating an article, regardless of whether you think it is a lot of work or not, is irrelevant to whether it should exist as a stand-alone article. BilledMammal (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

No, we haven't, and you haven't - you ignored Loopy30's very valid point about losing species images when you merged pages containing them. I'm sure we can find other editor-added content that is being lost by bulk merges. Dyanega (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Please

WP:AGF

. I missed Loopy30's point because they posted it out of order; I didn't ignore it. And we don't keep standalone articles to give us a place to use images any more than we keep articles to give us a place to include external links.

In addition, only a small minority of articles I merged include pictures; that argument cannot be used to suggest my up-merger of the rest, such as Cotyclytus scenicus, was inappropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal I just wanted to add that I think you are underestimating the value of the wikidata in the taxonbar. They provide links to many different good external sites, such as GBIF or iNaturalist (many people, such as myself, use iNaturalist for taking pictures of animals they find). Those sites can provide more detailed range maps, for example, as well. And I guess I just don't understand the problem with having species stub articles. What is the harm? Cougroyalty (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

underestimating the value of the wikidata - that's a separate discussion about the use of wikidata generally.

What is the harm? - Because our goal is to benefit the reader. The reader receives more benefit from data being easily accessible by being up-merged rather than having to look at dozens of micro-stubs to gain the same understanding. This isn't controversial per

WP:MERGEREASON, particularly for the articles that currently only duplicate the content of the list. BilledMammal (talk

) 21:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Couldn't we just have both? Your "merged" genus-level articles are fine. But can't we keep the species-level stubs as well? Cougroyalty (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

When they are stubs I normally do keep them, as they normally contain information that cannot be merged into the genus level article, but for the sub-stubs like the ones I linked above, which duplicate the content either already or after the merge then

Wikipedia:Content forking tells us not to do that. BilledMammal (talk

) 21:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Taking the first in your list, if someone were to do the work of looking in the Biodiversity Heritage Library for the reference Pascoe 1866, maybe they could add a redirect neoclytus scenicus, write the Peter Bouchard article [290], expand Francis Polkinghorne Pascoe and end up with a bit of article prose and a figure. From seeing various Afd's this work looks sometimes pretty difficult and the existence of the species article might help. fiveby(zero) 22:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

This is an incorrect understanding of that RFC, the intent of which allows Wikidata for authority control, taxon bar, and similar, as well as infoboxes and a few other places (Template:Official as an example). What it bans is the use in article text-proper and I think it's been reasonably interpreted to list articles automatically updated by Wikidata changes (though I recall no direct RFC on that point). --IznoPublic (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The relevant list of edits is here. Now, BilledMammal, what you wrote above looks like the sort of proposal you could have put forward to the relevant wikiproject to see if there'd be consensus for it. Personally, I don't think there would be, and such a project would be impractical for a number of reasons (some of which have been listed in the two threads so far). All that is a content matter though, and what gets discussed in this board is instead behaviour. I join those above who have expressed the view that no sanctions are necessary, but it would really help if you could appreciate the reasons why what you did was a misstep. I'll just point out one thing. There's a stark contrast between, on one hand, your stance in the recent fish species discussion, where you demanded that one editor get community approval first before going back to creating 3-4 articles per day, and, on the other hand, your decision here to unilaterally redirect 459 articles in the space of 25 hours. – Uanfala (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:MASSCREATE, which requires consensus to exist for their mass creation. BilledMammal (talk

) 22:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

So in your view, the bot policy, which you've just linked, prohibits one editor from making 5 article creations a day, but somehow also allows another editor, you, to remove 500 articles in the same period? I don't want to belabour the obvious anymore, but you really need to grasp the (very obvious) thing that you got wrong here. – Uanfala (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

the (very obvious) thing that you got wrong here - Given that no-one took the creator of these articles to ANI when they created 201 sub-stubs in one day, I'm assuming that what I did wrong was to clean up a mess, rather than create one. BilledMammal (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• Seems like normal editing to me. Hundreds of bold edits were reverted; per
  WP:BRD they should be discussed before being reinstated. This is not ANI- or sanction-worthy. Also, editors who start ANI threads shouldn't advertise them off-wiki. Levivich (talk
  ) 22:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing "normal" about this. I've been around WP a long time, and as far as I'm aware the wholesale merging of several hundred articles on valid species has never happened before. Again, there is a vast community of people who work on taxonomic articles in WP, and none of this was ever discussed with any of them before the merges commenced. Dyanega (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

This was done during the late 2000s to topics of fictional nature. It was somewhat controversial then but a decade later and consensus is basically that the choice there was correct in the general. It took a particularly determined editor to see those changes through but I think that editor was vindicated by current attitudes.

Species are not all that dissimilar, and the path taken here was one prompted by actual guidelines on the point.

Anyway, the general discussion is soon to be had, but don't think species are special. IznoPublic (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• Basically, this is not difficult. If you're going to start bot-like editing on large number of articles, it is always a good idea to gain consensus for those edits first. Otherwise, you may end up causing a problem, like we see here. I have no view on whether BM's edits were useful or not, but it is the concept of mass editing that is the issue. Black Kite (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree completely with Black Kite. How can one go ahead and make so many edits that one could realize would not go unchallenged, without even trying to sense whether the community would agree with them? It just goes against the very spirit of everything. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
    • The information was retained, in a format that is much more convenient for readers. I genuinely thought this wouldn’t be controversial - and looking at the AFD’s, where no one has objected on the grounds that it is not an improvement (except for one editor who has made the bizarre claim that a 6000 byte article is too long) I still don’t understand why it is, although I recognise that it is. BilledMammal (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

      You're experienced enough that you should have known that not everybody was going to be happy with 500 articles being turned into redirects. I hope that moving forward you'll start discussions with others in relevant WikiProjects prior to these types of mass changes. We're a collaborative effort and discussions help to bring out alternative points of view that others may not have considered. The longer I'm on Wikipedia the more I'm realizing just how useful starting discussions in the proper places can be in helping to guide what large scale changes I make or don't make. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• It looks like BilledMammal has now gone ahead and nominated all the species articles for deletion at AfD. Cougroyalty (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  That is very much POINTy given they are involved in this conversation. Masem (t) 00:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  Ive opened two AFD’s, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bothriospila and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adalbus. Given that this isn’t a content discussion, and editors are saying I should get consensus before repeating those edits, I don’t see opening them as pointy or in any way disruptive? BilledMammal (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  Nominating these for deletion looks pointy and, without a link to this discussion where the consensus is running against a merge, a lot like forum shopping. Jahaza (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• Avilich (talk
  ) 01:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  Making an AFD when there is a large number of complains about previous merges (read: keeping the status quo until a discussion can be had) is definitely making such edits. Its clear the proper action is to open a discussion about how to handle these articles. I mean, I agree on the principle of merging, but

  WP:FAIT is also required. Masem (t

  ) 01:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  'Its clear the proper action is to open a discussion about how to handle these articles'... which is exactly what he did?

  Avilich (talk

  ) 01:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  Except that there were already two ongoing discussions, here and at

  WP:FORUMSHOP. Jahaza (talk

  ) 01:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  WP Tree of Life can’t come a consensus on this, per

  WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and ANI only discusses behaviour, not content. BilledMammal (talk

  ) 01:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  There's nothing at

  WP:PROPMERGE, you should have notified interested wikiprojects (rather than accusing them of canvassing when they self-notified!). Jahaza (talk

  ) 02:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  The notification posted at TOL was not neutral. BilledMammal (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  It's not the regular process when you don't tell people that there's an extensive conversation about the topic going on somewhere else. And your reading of

  WP:POINT needs additional subtlety. WP:POINT specifically says that it's edits with which the person does not agree "as a rule," which means "usually, but not always."[291] Jahaza (talk

  ) 01:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• POINTy actions like the AfD nominations do seem like they can and should have an actionable response at ANI. Silverseren^C 01:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
• I have no dog in this fight but nominating an article for deletion and proposing a merge, after a bold redirection was reverted, is the right and proper course of action. It's not POINTy at all. It's the legitimate next step to gain consensus for a controversial change. Mackensen (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  Not really, because while a merger can be an outcome at AFD, nominating dozens of articles for deletion isn't the right way to propose a merger. Proposing a merger is described at

  Wikipedia:Proposed mergers for discussion of mergers." Jahaza (talk

  ) 01:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• For those who say "this is just normal editing", what would you say if someone did this for all species articles? Or every stub across the project that has a clear parent article? Just "normal editing"? The rate/quantity does matter. BilledMammal is one of the more active participants in the ongoing discussions about the rate of article creation. With so much of that predicated on when permission/discussion needs to happen before taking some sort of mass action, it's ... weird ... to see BM mass redirecting subjects (species) that have among the strongest consensus of any subject for having stand-alone articles. That's not to say that species articles can never be merged up, or even that these shouldn't (I'm not weighing in on that), but the number combined with absence of discussion does matter.
  It makes me feel old that I'm starting to feel like there's a relatively small but growing and very active group of people who are primarily here to cleanse Wikipedia of stubs and anything without inline cites. They used to call me a deletionist; maybe being around a while makes you a bit softer (or just me)... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I see a difference between the two;

WP:FAIT

situation as evidenced by the fact they have been reversed.

that have among the strongest consensus of any subject for having stand-alone articles. I would be interested to see if that was true; I would suggest TOL draft an SNG saying that species should almost always have a standalone article, and see if there is a consensus for it. BilledMammal (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Posh. Your redirects were reverted, then after you saw the concerns laid out here at AN/I, you tempted

WP:FAIT by going ahead and nominating some 30 of those stubs for deletion. gobonobo ^{+ c}

04:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't really think there was any risk of

WT:TOL

was not neutral. AfD is probably the most appropriate place for these kind of content discussions.

Whether BilledMammal should stir the pot while there is an ANI thread open, well, that's a different conversation. EDIT: Not to imply that creating upset was intentional: just that it is a bit escalatory and they could have maybe waited longer. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 10:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• I think we would be well served by finally holding a general RfC that develops
  WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES into a solid SNG, which may well turn out to be more restrictive than the current interpretation. As long as there is no more than a vague observation of "this is what usually happens with species articles" we will keep getting these issues (which admittedly don't normally extend to such an ...unwise 500-article chainsaw approach.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs
  ) 09:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'm still very new to Wikipedia and basically only interact with parts related to taxonomy, and I think what Elmidae suggests would be very useful. Certainly there's a lot of "implied knowledge" when it comes to interpreting

  WP:NSPECIES. It is a very short essay based on observation that is brought into AfD conversations as de-facto policy and it would be a great idea to hash out where everyone stands on the issue. NeverRainsButPours (talk

  ) 10:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'm in agreement with Elmidae. We need more solid footing, even if it changes the scope of allowability. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  How would this address the current situation. I don't think that BM has actually asserted that lack of notability was the reason of these merges., Codifying long standing consensus, while possibly useful for other reasons, wouldn't do anything to prevent merges on the same basis BM based these on. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• These merges were legitimate BOLD edits and the use of rollback was inappropriate. AfD is a normal next step after a redirect is challenged. Tree of Life project participants are reminded that there is no requirement to consult Wikiprojects before making changes; disciplinary and anti-vandalism processes should not be misused to challenge edits that one disagrees with; and editors are expected to participate in content discussions in good faith without accusing others of misconduct. –dlthewave ☎ 17:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Where do you draw the line though? What is the upper limit on the number of established notable articles that an editor is free to boldly redirect each day without seeking consensus? – Uanfala (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
    • Same as the number of articles an editor is free to boldly create each day without seeking consensus. Levivich (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
      • Isn't the entire point of the ArbCom discussion going on now about how there should be consensus made in both cases and trying to remove or create a large amount of articles without some form of community approval beforehand is disruptive? Silverseren^C 18:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

        And notice how that's not getting consensus in the ongoing discussion. The entire point is: anyone can make as many articles as they like as long as the articles are policy-compliant without having to ask permission first. There is no rate limit, nor is there consensus to implement one. Similarly, anyone can merge as many article as they like without having to ask permission first, as long as the merges are policy-compliant. Similarly, anyone can revert BOLD mergers without any rate limit. Similarly, anyone can nominate as many articles as they like for AFD with no rate limit, again, as long as it's all policy-compliant. This is normal editing, and people do it all the time (mass creations, mass moves, mass mergers, mass category changes, mass AFDs, mass this and mass that and mass everything else too), and they've been doing it for decades. We have no rule against it. We should, but there isn't consensus for it. This isn't directed at you, silver, but I notice that WikiProjects cheer and celebrate when someone mass-creates articles in-scope, then those same projects recoils in horror when anyone else mass-nominates them for AFD or mass-merges them, etc. This notion that, once created, a mainspace page is somehow "sacred" or "protected" from being "destroyed" by deletion or merger -- see above and in the WT:TOL discussion, how people are talking about information being "lost," "hidden," or "destroyed," as if

        WP:BEBOLD doesn't just apply to content creation, it also applies to content curation. Levivich (talk

        ) 20:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• Further action needed? I was just alerted to the carnage disrutption through the AfD alerts, and seriously? What sort of
  WP:HERE
  editor would even think this kind of behavior is ok on a mass scale?

The mass redirects without any discussion when such structure is the norm was already bad enough. It's not quite the volume as when we had mass disruption of insect articles by Mishae when I had to go back and fix 10k insect talk pages (something about insects sure attracts this behavior), but this is affecting actual mainspace.

WP:MONOTYPICTAXON), and instead they're trying to wikilawyer about it. It looks like BilledMammal is also harassing editors like Hey man im josh

commenting on this ANI too.

I'm not very familiar with BM, but given that they're causing major disruption in taxonomy articles, is that what a potential topic ban needs to be tailored towards? Based on the attitude and "warnings" they are giving out now, it's like they're just itching for a block they narrowly avoiding when they stopped making mainspace edits. Not sure on what action is best at this very moment, but hopefully this nth whack BilledMammal's noggin that they are on ridiculously thin ice sticks. I'm not up to speed on the ArbCom case, but usually continuing disputes related to the locus of the case are expressly forbidden during a case. Someone more familiar with it would know how/if clerks need to be involved. KoA (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

were already warned that species articles are inherently notable There is no guideline that says that, and in any case not every notable topic warrants an article, per

WP:PAGEDECIDE

.

It looks like BilledMammal is also harassing editors like Hey man im josh commenting on this ANI too. That was related to them going through my contributions to find all the AfD's I had recently opened to oppose them, including those unrelated to species. I believe the warning about

WP:HOUNDING was appropriate. The fact that they ignored the warning and instead used rollback to remove it was less appropriate. BilledMammal (talk

) 22:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. I did not respond to you because I did not believe it would be a constructive conversation given how you've been combative against others during this process. That was related to them going through my contributions to find all the AfD's I voted in two additional AfDs (this and this). Given the nature of your two species related AfD nominations, it's not inappropriate to question if there were other inappropriate nominations.

I used rollback as, per

WP:ROLLBACKUSE point #2, the edit was in my userspace and the reason for reverting I felt to be clear (point #1). The warning was retaliation and inappropriate. If you feel my behaviour was as well, then I do encourage you to open up an ANI because, while I believe my actions were not inappropriate, I'd adjust and learn from it others believed they were. But that should be its own discussion. To be honest this is why I usually don't participate in ANI, I'd rather be a no drama llama. Hey man im josh (talk

) 00:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

None of the nominations were inappropriate; you can disagree with them, but that doesn't make them inappropriate. However, if you had stuck to the species nominations I wouldn't have objected; they are sufficiently related that I can see the argument that they are an appropriate use of an editors contribution history. What crossed over into hounding is when you used my contribution history to follow me into unrelated discussions and oppose my position there. BilledMammal (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

For those following along on the "none of the nominations were inappropriate" comment , this is part of the major problem with the disruption BM caused despite multiple cautions. They are basically ignoring their own behavior. They made mass nominations without following

WP:NOTHERE

behavior (extreme lack of self correction in this subject).

BM, you need to take your behavior seriously here. While it may be a red herring if you are going to make accusations against Hey man im josh, you need diffs. I don't see anything obvious in your interactions that would be to follow me into unrelated discussions and oppose my position there. If there is, you really need a diff at this point that actually shows it. If not, that is a

WP:ASPERSION and is just giving the community another reason to block you. That is why I'm saying you need to take this seriously because it really comes across as you trying to escalate things more and more as we try to work with your behavior here. KoA (talk

) 00:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The section of

WP:RF

.

Hey man im josh !voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bothriospila at 03:23, 29 October 2022. Two minutes later, they !voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adalbus. I consider both of these votes to be appropriate.

What was inappropriate and a violation of

WP:HOUNDING is that they then went through my contributions to find and oppose other unrelated nominations which they did at 03:38, 29 October 2022 and 03:39, 29 October 2022. BilledMammal (talk

) 00:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

BM, you're talking past again and ignoring what you're actually doing in your edits, that's becoming disrutpive. You're just ignoring what multiple people have told you should have done in terms of process and that ATD directly points you to and are instead cherrypicking. Not to mention you're edit warring at Bothriospilini to add to your issues. This is not the time to joke around like that.

For for your actions with Hey man im josh, that's hardly harassment. When you had issues with disruptive use of AfD, of course someone is going to look in on other cases and comment independently if they notice something. In that case though, you aren't mentioned at all, and they are just reflecting what the rest of community is also saying at the AfDs. You on the other hand are adding to the case that you are treating AfD like a battleground the more you link to these interactions. KoA (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Can we assume good faith, please? I doubt BilledMammal has bad-faith intentions, and it doesn't appear to be good-faith disruption either. Okay, maybe it wasn't a great idea to unilaterally redirect hundreds of articles without prior consensus and many of you disagreed with the deletion nominations, but I don't see disruption or sanctionable behavior on BilledMammal's part. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 22:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think their original edits to turn the pages into redirects were in bad faith. I just think they should have known better given their experience. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

When someone is engaging in patently disruptive behavior, especially given the battleground attitude they are injecting, we call a

WP:SPADE

a spade, so it's rather oblivious to just reduce it down to name-dropping good-faith. That happens all too often with tendentious editing like this. Either way, it looks like ArbCom doesn't have an active case that would involve BM like I assumed from previous comments. Some have commenting on solidfying some taxonomy standards in guidelines, etc. to avoid wikilawyering that's going on, but that also seems somewhat independent of BM's attitude.

Given the ongoing pointy attitude I'm seeing on comments from BM though, it is increasingly looking like a sanction will be needed to prevent disruption at some point. Especially given the cluelessness above in their harassing of Hey man im josh above, it's really coming across as a how dare you clean up after my mess mentality while trying to use

WP:HERE when someone's behavior issues are brought up, so I'm increasingly convinced sanctions will be needed to curb disruption BM is injecting into the taxonomy subject. KoA (talk

) 20:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing is closed and BilledMammal was not a party. There's currently a related ongoing RfC but creation/deletion tasks are continuing as usual. –dlthewave ☎ 22:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Looks like this would be the appropriate venue then. KoA (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm back and have a little time, so I have a number of things to point out, please bear with me. (1) BilledMammal accused me of canvassing. I originally posted to exactly one page -

WP:TOL has, within it, space EXPRESSLY DEVOTED to such changes as proposed merges, and to which BilledMammal did not submit any such proposals. (2) Given that WP:TOL does, in fact, have space dedicated to approving/rejecting merge proposals, I think it is entirely understandable that I would be under the impression that the WikiProject does, in fact, have an established policy and legitimate claim to authority over such actions, and I acted accordingly, reacting to what I saw as a massive and unprecedented policy breach. Being accused by BilledMammal of acting in a non-neutral manner is predicated on his actions NOT being a breach of policy, and WP:TOL having no authority at all, and all the evidence I had in front of me is that it WAS a breach of policy. Others here and elsewhere have stated that WikiProject policies have no authority or enforceability at all, and I find this surprising, and apologize if I assumed too much. (3) Likewise, BilledMammal accused me of not assuming his actions were in good faith, but breaches of policy such as not getting approval for article merges, especially when they delete unique content do not appear to be good faith actions, unless an editor is acting in complete ignorance of policy. An editor acting in good faith who is bulk-deleting content, especially when all of that content is flagged as belonging to a specific WikiProject, should be consulting with that WikiProject in advance. Just because an edit is bold doesn't mean it isn't genuinely destructive, and I would argue that demonstrably destructive edits should be rolled back until they have been discussed and approved. (4) Policy and rules aside, BilledMammal admitted, directly, that they did not know what content in the articles being merged was or was not valuable, as well as admitting, directly, that they did not look at each such article to assess whether there WAS any unique content that would be lost. That sort of bulk editing, when you don't understand what you're causing to be lost, is not just bold, it's reckless. If there's a fire, you don't adopt a neutral stance and wait to see if it will go out on its own; you call the fire department. (5) When it was pointed out what deleted content was valuable, and what was unique, BilledMammal dismissed the point, saying that once he was made aware of the problem, some of it could be salvaged, and the rest, like taxonbars with Wikidata links, was not worth salvaging. Again, the time to learn what content needs to be maintained is BEFORE one removes that content, not after. Second, despite attempts to dismiss things like Wikidata links as not worth salvaging, I would argue that for many of these articles the Wikidata links are the single most important and unique source of information in the article, and - most importantly - ONLY Wikipedia species-level articles contain and make use of the full cross-referencing capacity of Wikidata. (6) Consider just one of the articles BilledMammal has proposed deleting; Knulliana, containing only a single species. The taxonbar was added by an editor after the article was created, and via Wikidata it links this record to Wikimedia Commons, Wikispecies, BioLib, BugGuide, CoL, EoL, EPPO, GBIF, iNaturalist, IRMNG, ITIS, and NCBI. Not a single one of those linked sources crossreferences to the others. For that matter, Wikidata records themselves do not cross-reference to other Wikidata records; you cannot look at a species entry in Wikidata and determine from that how many species are in the same genus, or what family it is in. ONLY Wikipedia species articles serve to provide a reader with all of the information available for a species, and the information available through the Wikidata crossreferences is VAST - it includes not just the taxonomic information, but the geographic distributions, phenologies, host associations, biological notes, photographs, and records of actual physical specimens and their data. Just go to that Knulliana article and click on those Wikidata links to see how much information is contained there - all of it lost if the article is deleted. It is precisely this information that BilledMammal has specifically stated is not worth including in Wikipedia, at the same time complaining about how these stubs contain nothing useful or unique. Wikipedia species articles that contain a Wikidata linked taxonbar do NOT simply "duplicate the content" of a genus-level article (because the genus-level articles do not contain those Wikidata links), and they contain far more than just what is immediately visible in the text of the article. Despite comments I've seen some people post, species-level articles do NOT simply duplicate or mirror what is found in Wikispecies, they do MUCH more, because they contain a Wikidata link, while Wikispecies cross-references to almost nothing, not to Wikidata, and not even to Wikipedia. (7) As others have noted, deleting or merging articles not only does nothing to improve them, but it makes it harder for anyone else to improve them, just like deleting the brackets from a redlink makes it harder for anyone to know that an article needs to be created. All existing redirects pointing to species articles will no longer have a proper target, because you can't target individual entries in a table. (8) Designing a table format that can accommodate for all the possible permutations is not practical; BilledMammal's initial attempt had only three fields - species name, "first described", and range. If you wanted to have an actual table that could accommodate existing species article stub content, it would contain (a) present species name, (b) past names/spelling variants/synonyms (of which there can be be 50 or more), (c) authorships and years for all these names, (d) the geographic distributions, (e) host associations, (f) existence of subspecies, (g) images, (h) descriptive notes, and (i) references, at a bare minimum (i.e., without having to omit existing content of merged/deleted stubs). Even for a small genus, nine columns, and the possible amount of content in some of them (especially considering how many would have to be left blank) would be unwieldy enough, but for groups like beetles, there are some genera with over 3000 valid species! Those genus articles are bad enough as just lists, they will become impossible to use if they are converted into tables, and the unfortunate truth is that all but a literal handful of the species articles for those enormous genera are stubs. We are MUCH better off with 3000 individual articles than a gargantuan table. (9) Something else that is overlooked is HOW DO MOST USERS ARRIVE AT WIKIPEDIA? To continue the example above, if you google "Knulliana" the #1 Google hit is the Wikipedia article - the same article that BilledMammal has just proposed to delete. Call me crazy, but you shouldn't go around deleting the #1 source of information on an organism on the entire internet just because you assert that species stubs are wasteful and inefficient. (10) For me, the bottom line is this: once a species article referring to an actual valid taxonomic entity has been created and crossreferenced, it should not be subject to arbitrary decisions to merge or delete it. If the name is synonymized, then it should immediately be changed into a redirect to the valid taxon name, but that's about the only way a species article should ever be made to disappear. BilledMammal has not engaged with the relevant Wikiproject, and has dismissed the concerns about the effort of editors who have helped to improve a page, as being irrelevant to whether a page should be maintained. Well, Wikipedia is a community effort, for one thing, and the community should have a say in the matter. The other side of this is that an editor who does not understand what the content is that they're removing should not be making such a decision unilaterally, especially when there are editors who DO understand what the content is, and how valuable it is. (11) I will echo the calls by others to establish, once and for all, an explicit AND OBJECTIVE policy regarding species articles, however high up it needs to go in the WP administrative hierarchy to make it enforceable. It is hard enough to keep the existing articles organized and curated without some existential threat that if an article does not have some arbitrary amount of arbitrarily-defined improvement by some arbitrary deadline, it can be wiped away by anyone who feels so inclined, without discussing the matter in advance. That's a recipe for disaster, and I don't regret categorizing it as such. Dyanega (talk

) 22:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a little difficult to read, but three points:

1. I accused you of canvassing because you posted a
   non-neutral message
   at ToL directing editors to the AfDs.
2. The only content whose value I missed was that parenthesis around authors' names had a specific meaning, a mistake that was easily corrected.
3. I did look at every article I redirected to see what content needed to be preserved.

BilledMammal (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

No, you missed images, you missed synonyms, and you missed wikidata links - all were excluded from the genus/tribe articles you merged to. These are all important, you apparently still don't accept that Wikidata links are important. Dyanega (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

You admitted that you did not look to see if an article had images, nor did you look for synonyms, until after it was pointed out that these were important. Dyanega (talk)

Please provide diffs for these admissions. BilledMammal (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Your pre-rollback edit of Bothriopsilini is this one: [292] showing that you imported no images, synonyms, or taxonbars, in addition to not importing the properly-formatted authorships, or recognizing that authorship is not at all the same thing as "first described". As for your comment admitting that you didn't pay attention to whether or not there were images, it was here: [293]. If your comment means that you noticed that there were images, but decided not to use them, then that's effectively the same thing, if not worse. You continue to trivialize things that are not at all trivial. You even said that Wikipedia had no responsibility for giving external links a home, which ignores that the crossreferenced sets of links in a taxonbar can't be found anywhere else. Dyanega (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Escalation and edit-warring by BilledMammal

Despite warnings above, we're getting more pointy behavior by BilledMammal at Bothriospilini. Without using the talk page at all until just a few minutes ago, they've tried to insert their preferred version three times now over a few days.[294][295][296] They're basically trying to partially start the merge they're proposing in the AfD ahead of time. One diff is particularly odd where they try to reverse the burden for consensus: Restore content while AfD is ongoing, to prevent disruption and confusion. If the AfD closes as "no consensus" or "keep", then please reinstate your reversion and I will open an RfC on the preferred content.[297] Basically, they're trying to edit war in the new content for the page and trying to justify it because it would complicate their AfD if it wasn't there in some strange circular reasoning. More on that at the talk page.[298]

This attitude is clearly wasting time at this point, so this is partly a request for admins to monitor for future edit warring, but to also indicate we're still dealing with timesink behavior issues even after the mass redirects stopped above. Too much battleground mentality being projected from this editor. KoA (talk) 05:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

try to reverse the burden for consensus - I asked you to delay your edit a few days, in order to avoid disrupting an ongoing AfD whose debate is related to the existence of the content you removed. That isn't an attempt to reverse the burden for consensus.

I also find it surprising that you're accusing me of edit warring. While I have reverted twice, it was across several days, and the first was to restore content that appeared to have been unintentionally caught up in the rollback. Meanwhile, you've reverted twice in a single hour.

Finally, while I didn't use the article talk page until after you opened a discussion there, I did try to open a discussion on your talk page; rather than engage with it, you removed it. BilledMammal (talk) 05:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

KoA, could you explain how adding species tables to an article is

WP:POINTy? Such tables appear to be a standard practice (eg. Ibis). CMD (talk

) 07:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

That's not really an accurate description just saying it's tables. For the article itself, BM has been repeatedly told that the species articles already handle the information they are trying to insert, and that sections like this were not helpful in terms of structure and prose. If they had simply engaged on the talk page and stopped edit warring from the start, that part of the behavior would not have been as pointy.

I already mentioned it above, but repeatedly restoring disputed content is what is also pointy, especially when they are trying to edit war in the content merge they're trying to accomplish at the AfD before the close. It should be self-apparent when reading their edit summary I quoted or their comment just above this how much they are doubling down on abusing the process they've been blocked for before.[299] It is literally wiki-lawyering to not get consensus on something only to start an AfD and accuse others of disrupting the AfD because those other editors won't let BM edit war in content they actively chose not to get consensus for. The short of it is that BM is just inflaming the topic independent of content that could be worked on and sucking time away from editors trying hold their behavior issues at bay. KoA (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

How would you describe it? It appears to be tables, or where the table would be one row, text that covers the same material. On disputed content, until now there has been no indication that the Bothriospilini content was disputed. The version you have chosen is literally a single sentence, I do not understand how that is an improvement. CMD (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

That is not addressing the behavior issues. KoA (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

That may be so, it would nonetheless be helpful to get answers to my questions to understand what you feel is pointy (to be specific, disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point). I have asked because in the situation you raise I see one editor expanding an article and one reducing it back to a single sentence. An explanation for how the reduction is helpful to that article remains outstanding. CMD (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome to read this ANI and the relevant AfDs you're already at for that, but the disruption doesn't change based on what someone thinks of the content question, and that's really a subject for the other venues. BM was already alerted multiple times the content belongs at the species pages, not the tribe, and BM was well are of their approach to trying to merge that content in was disputed. You don't just keep charging ahead with edits then. Avoiding relevant talk pages and their onus to get consensus for the content even when pinged[300] is already disruptive. Trying to do the mass merge through an AfD is one thing (not to mention the many comments on procedural issues with their nomination there), but then insisting they get to start that merge ahead of time at the target articles and act like those trying to deal with BM avoiding getting consensus are somehow disrupting the AfD is just plain escalating and projecting. It's disruptive

WP:GAMING no matter how you cut it and why we are here rather than solely dealing with the content in the other venues. If it wasn't for that, we wouldn't see the basic non-responses like at Talk:Bothriospilini

when we finally got them to comment at an article talk page only yesterday.

At this point I'm spending time on this because whenever it looks like there might be a little reprieve, BM has another stunt that comes up, and that's reviewing what I've seen even before I stepped in here too. Given past ANIs and blocks on BM, it's clear that trend is just continuing even in their most recent comments. That's why we now have a section on escalation and starting to queue up preventative measures. We do have to respect the community that shouldn't have to deal with the behavior time-sink at some point. KoA (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Having read the ANI and relevant AfDs, it is not explained anywhere how reducing Bothriospilini to a single sentence benefits any particular editor, the relevant Wikiprojects, the reader, or Wikipedia. Given you also do not appear inclined to explain it here after being asked directly, I do not think your AN/I case on pointy editing will get very far. CMD (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi CMD, the reason that the Bothriospilini article was a single sentence is that often very little of the literature is written at that taxonomic level (tribe), and this is reflected on WP where we generally have articles at the species, genus, family, order, class (and higher) ranks, but not at any of the many "in between" ranks. Where these articles do exist, they are often placeholders to assist in navigation through very large taxonomic trees.

KoA did not "reduce" the article to a single sentence, so much as to restore it to its pre-edit warring and pre-AfD launching state. Although BilledMammal failed to follow the prescribed sequence of gaining consensus for obviously contested moves (obvious to them because they had participated/instigated the fish stub "mass" creation discussion and recent RfC on the mass creation), they instead tried to back-door the process by filing two AfDs (one of which would have been enough for a test case) by requesting a merge as an alternative to deletion as a goal of AfD. Rather than wait for the AfD closing result, they then started their intended merge by moving material up to the desired target page and claiming that their AfD goal (ATD-M) was correct based on a supposed WP:CONTENTFORK, a duplication of material that was both their own creation and against consensus. This gaming of WP procedures without engaging other involved WP editors is neither collegial nor helpful to the encyclopedia. Seems POINTy enough to me. Loopy30 (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Articles should not exist to serve as categories, that's what categories are for. At any rate, this continues to not explain how having more detail on the members on the tribe page is bad for that article. The pointy edit here appears to be the blocking of the improvement of an article (in a way that reflects many other articles) because of an AfD for other articles. CMD (talk) 03:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Tribes are less notable than genera. If low-notability taxonomy stubs are going to being merged, tribes would be better candidates than genera (in this paticular case, the next level up, Cerambycinae, has well over 600 genera, so there are some practical reasons for keeping tribe stubs). Plantdrew (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I think this is also a good point for a potential SNG. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

On disputed content, until now there has been no indication that the Bothriospilini content was disputed. KoA, can you explain why you believe the content was disputed before your revert? This question is prompted by your recent revert at Bimiini where your edit summary indicates that you also believe that content was disputed.

If you are referring to the rollback, the summary was focused on the redirects, and I don't think it is unreasonable to believe that it was not disputing the content at the target articles. BilledMammal (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

You've already been made aware you're making false statements. Elmidae reverted the entirety, not just the part you mentioned before I did the same at both articles. You knew it was disputed. Trying to wikilawyer basically saying you're sure they didn't mean to revert it all in order to say you should be able to edit war is just indicating you're trying to be disruptive at this point. You seriously need to step back from taxonomy articles if you intend to double down on tendentious editing like this at ANI of all places. Otherwise the community will be forced to do that for you at the rate you are going. KoA (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I have seen species lists routinely included in the article about the genus that contains those species (the next level up the taxonomic hierarchy), and, much less commonly, at higher taxonomic levels (like Ibis). I do not recall ever seeing a species list, certainly not at a higher taxonomic level, that attempted to give more data than the name of individual species; in almost all cases, such a list or table would grow unmanageably large as it was filled out with information. To give an example, if someone created List of communities in New Jersey and started filling it with short entries about individual communities, we would (I hope) recognize that the article was too broadly scoped, and disperse it into sections of articles on individual counties, or narrower standalone lists like List of municipalities in Sussex County, New Jersey. This would be true even if many of the communities were deemed non-notable or at least not worthy of having a separate article.

My general impression of the situation, from the Village Pump discussion of fish stubs and the subsequent mass article creation RfC, is that BilledMammal favors a fairly aggressive upmerging of taxonomic stubs into larger higher-level articles. This is a defensible position, but has not yet obtained consensus and is a reasonably

WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Again, re-examining these conventions is a legitimate activity (cf. NSPORTS), but I think they've shown increasingly poor judgment in how they approached it. I think we've reached the point where it would be better to see what position can gain consensus by discussing it with people familiar with this content (e.g., at the Tree of Life project) rather than by filing more AfDs and trying to judge the consensus position based on (possibly conflicting) outcomes there. Choess (talk

) 17:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Restricting notability consensus discussions to wikiprojects is exactly what caused all the problems with NSPORT, trains, GEOLAND, porn, etc. Notability/article creation conventions should reflect global community consensus, not LOCALCON. JoelleJay (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

JoelleJay, you had a clear chip on your shoulder attitude the way you came charging into those AfDs, but you need to slow down to avoid mistakes as I've repeatedly told you. No one is talking about restricting discussions to wikiprojects, but avoiding subject-matter experts entirely as has happened results in even more problems. Choess had a very even-handed summary, and launching into hyperbole after that isn't helpful.

WP:BEFORE was very clear to do things like fix the articles yourself, use article talk pages, and consult with relevant Wikiprojects to get an understanding of how the nuances of a specific subject works rather than trying to steamroll the community. That didn't happen, which is largely in part due to the behavior issues we're focusing on at this ANI. KoA (talk

) 20:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

My comment was only in response to the suggestion to gain consensus at, e.g., the Tree of Life project. SCHOOLOUTCOMES, NSPORT, NPORN, NTRAINSTATION, etc. demonstrate the global community should decide consensus on inclusion criteria because subject matter experts/enthusiasts tend to develop walled gardens that contravene our broader P&Gs, in particular WP:NOT and WP:OR. JoelleJay (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Choess: Here is one, Panthera, where the table gives images, names, scientific names, synonyms, authority and dating of scientific name, similar info on subspecies, and ranges. The table for extinct taxa even has a notes section. CMD (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The genus Panthera is vastly smaller than the majority of insect taxa, and given that the big cats draw much more interest and editorial attention, as well as being more taxonomically stable, the table there is easy. Comparing Panthera to insect taxa is apples and oranges. SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

In the particular insect taxa case in question, some of the genera were monotypic, so much smaller than Panthera. At any rate, it is merely an example of practice; there are many more. CMD (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

While I agree the prior AFD after the ANI thread was started dies fall into pointy behavior, this expansion of the lists to include relevant information pulled from the species articles seems wholly appropriate, regardless if the species pages are kept or not individually. I would expect a hierarchical list article like this to help guide me on going down the list in more than just name. That right now it seems to be repeating everything found on the species pages is a fault of the species pages being only stubs and not full articles. Masem (t) 21:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Masem and Chipmunkdavis: My perception of a modal species list is still "simple list in genus article", but paddling around a bit in mammals suggests that more complex lists are more common there (and I assume also in birds and some other charismatic and well-documented taxa), which I hadn't realized until now. I don't think species lists have to be bare lists of names, but I'd point out (from experience dealing with some articles in another content area) that the more material you add to these lists, the more maintenance burden you create to keep them synchronized with standalone articles. If someone cruises by and adds a newly published paper that updates the distribution of a species, they won't necessarily think to update summaries in articles two levels of taxonomy up. That's not to say that we can't have more expansive species lists–we are here to help the reader–but adding more information to the lists is not incontrovertibly a good thing. Plantdrew made a fairly succinct case on Talk:Bothriospilini for why these actions were mildly disruptive, so I'll refrain from belaboring the point here. I do appreciate your bringing the more expansive lists in mammals, etc. to my attention. Choess (talk) 02:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

When vertebrate genus articles include tables, existing species pages are kept, not merged - as such, these are much more obvious targets for criticism under anti-forking policies than articles that simply offer lists of species names. I have yet to see a single article anywhere within the WP:TOL sphere that has a genus-level article with a table containing multiple species all of which are only linked via redirects. Also, as noted earlier, much of the species-specific information linked to by the taxonbars is not duplicated in the genus articles with tables. That includes comprehensive geographic distribution data, host associations, phenology data, potentially hundreds of photographs, and up to several thousands of specimen records in museums, all linked to individual species and accessible only on the kinds of species pages BilledMammal has been trying to convert to redirects or calling to delete entirely. The accepted practice is to redirect only when a genus is monotypic (or a synonym), and then the general practice is to redirect to the species. The comments above about certain ranks (species, genus, family, order) being treated preferentially is also true: if a tribe contains only one genus, the redirect is to the genus article. If a subfamily contains one tribe with one genus, the redirect is to the genus. If a superfamily contains one family, the redirect is to the family, unless that family is monotypic (see, e.g.

WP:TOL, is that tribal ranks are probably the least stable of the well-known taxonomic ranks; they are the most prone to being created, sunk, or redefined. As a general practice, then, most of us who are taxonomists avoid creating tribal articles entirely, because they will - over time - generally require more maintenance than they are worth, and almost never contain any content other than a simple list of constituent genera, so it makes more sense to let them linger as redlinks in automated taxoboxes, and not even include them in manual taxoboxes at all. Case in point, the subfamily Cerambycinae, to which Bothriospilini belongs, contains over 110 tribes at present. That number is in constant flux, with many of those tribes only having been established as tribes within the past decade or two. You'll note that many of them are redlinks, even though in a few cases one or more of their constituent genera have articles. Despite this, editors who work within WP:TOL will almost never delete or redirect an article once it has been created, until and unless it has been brought up on the project page. Dyanega (talk

) 16:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that BilledMammal's actions were harmful and not in good faith. He should at the very least get a formal warning, or if enough people agree be taken to ANI. Ortizesp (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ortizesp: This is ANI. Levivich (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

This isANIBurma-shave — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I've read through this discussion and I fail to see why taking this matter to ANI was appropriate. The (very) bold merges have been reverted, and the discussions have been started. ANI doesn't need to be involved in this issue. --

Spekkios (talk

) 01:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

You literally were just at an AfD where more disruption had to be cleaned up. [303]

• Still continuing. Now BM has taken to edit warring at
  WP:TEND behavior. KoA (talk
  ) 13:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  Revising the comment of someone who you're already in disagreement with seems like something that is only ever going to get a hostile reaction. Not commenting on the appropriateness of the edit, just that is hardly surprising that it wasn't warmly received. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  For anyone's reference this appears to be BilledMammal original edit that modified the link. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  I think everyone should take some steps back and do something else for a while. Nobody in this dispute looks very good in the above diff. Being right is not worth a

  WP:BOOMERANG. NeverRainsButPours (talk

  ) 17:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  BM already established they're acting tendentious in most interactions, so it's also no surprise they'd act this way regardless. I think we need to be careful about the lashing out at those actual trying to hold BM's disruption at bay though. BM was the first one to modify the comment well after the start, and other editors including myself were simply restoring to the original due to complaints of BM actively misleading editors.

  A few of us editors were alerted to issues with BM through this ANI, so while we're trying, we still need help given the constant doubling down on BM being disruptive. Until that happens, it's going to be the same trend of BM lashing out at whoever tries to deal with their tendentious behavior that day though, so all that us non-admins can do is try to clean up and report. It's a drain on the community when those reports aren't taken seriously and BM still thinks it's perfectly ok to ignore all the warnings they've been getting in the past few days about their behavior. The more editors try to stop disruption, the more BM escalates, which is why we're still at ANI asking for admin help. KoA (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  KoA, what exception under

  WP:TPO do you claim as justification for repeatedly editing my comments? My justification for editing my own comment is to preserve context, by ensuring that the link continued to point at the same content. BilledMammal (talk

  ) 18:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  Updating a link in one's own post in this fashion is not disruptive. Blowing it out of proportion, edit warring on that basis, and then coming back to ANI in a hyperbolic fashion with statements like actively misleading editors might be, though. Please consider the damage you are doing to your own cause.

  MrOllie (talk

  ) 18:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  While the repeated reversion of Billed Mammals post is not great, I've never seen linking to old versions done in deletion nominations. It goes against what people generally expect to be happening in a deletion discussion, which has to do with the current state of the article, its potential for improvement, and whether it should be deleted. (Which is, I guess, yet another problem with misusing AFD to propose a merge.) This editing is, at best, very strange and unexpected, which is generally not a good way to handle a public process. I don't see what it overtly accomplishes that a comment wouldn't have done better. Jahaza (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed, BM had actually been warned at the Bothriospilini talk page about misleading at the AfD already, so it was very odd that they'd double down on it by changing the target to their diff. Plantdrew already summarized that well It is disrupting the AfD, in that the AfD is predicated only on WP:CONTENTFORK. But I've never seen another AfD predicated on CONTENTFORK, where the content forking was performed by the AfD nominator shortly before opening the AfD. Nobody in the AfD has yet brought up the fact that the nominator did the forking (I plan to do so; I had started writing my !vote, but it referred to BilledMammal's version of this article, so now I need to rework it (but I don't mind the disruption)). Performing a content fork and then arguing for AfD based on the content being forked is an...interesting tactic. That context mattered a lot in how pointy the later AfD changes were and really came across as thumbing their nose at any cautions about behavior they were getting.

  I still don't see any real acknowledgement of the problems they cause, just lashing out like above. BM had also been repeatedly warned that is was inappropriate to claim

  WP:TALK#REVISE. It's pretty standard to undo a major change like that to an active process like an RfC and pretty strange to see hyperbole calling it hyperbole. They had the option of outright saying, "Hey, here's a version I'd prefer" in a separate comment and being upfront about it, but BM should have known better to continue masking the state of the actual target considering the warning Plantdrew gave on the talk page about "tactics" shortly after the edit warring there. KoA (talk

  ) 21:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  This ANI thread, much like that AfD, is a mess that is unlikely to achieve any consensus. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I was. That's how I found this. I don't see how that edit is disruptive; I would consider the constant interference with another user's comments to be more disruptive. I also don't see where users are being confused by the change in link targets. I strongly agree with NRBP when they say to take a step back for a while. From my reading, there are about 2-3 users who very strongly disagree with BM's conduct in this matter, and it's fine that they do, but I don't see any behaviour that requires ANI to be involved. It seems like BM is more than willing to follow the

  Spekkios (talk

  ) 20:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  +1 Levivich (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  +1 –dlthewave ☎ 03:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  +1 JoelleJay (talk) 03:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  +1 -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Move to content discussion?<ec> I was going to suggest that given BM's recent declaration that they had ceased edit-warring on Bothriospilini (here) and their willingness to now engage in discussion on the WP:TOL project page to achieve consensus before continuing with any further merges of taxonomic articles (here), that this is becoming less of a conduct issue and more of a content issue that could possibly be resolved outside of ANI. Or maybe not... Loopy30 (talk)

I would agree. There isn't any need for this to be at ANI any more. ANI is for urgent issues, and chronic and intractable behaviour problems. None of those apply here. --

Spekkios (talk

) 20:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

We've been discussing intractable behavior by BM throughout all the problems that came up, and most of those haven't been resolved, just us trying to hold the line against them. It's not helpful to just declare nothing to see here when we just had more edit warring break out yesterday. KoA (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Which problems haven't been resolved? The bold edits have been reverted and discussion is taking place. The only possible issue I see at the moment is that BM and users who have very strong opinions on this matter are modifying BM's comment. --

Spekkios (talk

) 22:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

That was my hope originally, but the edit warring that revived this broke out just yesterday at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bothriospila and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adalbus happened after that dicussion on El C's page. That's just to clarify compared to the earlier edit warring you mentioned at Bothriospilini since it's easy to get lost in which was which. I'm hoping they knock it off and use talk pages collaboratively now. That said, I'm worried by the lack of self-examination and trajectory of ignoring cautions when editors have tried to work with them on behavior. A warning would help, but if there are future issues, it might help to summarize what happened above:

1. Mass redirects of beetle articles without discussion that had to be restored.
2. Followed by mass AfDs
   WP:CONRED
   ) by consulting on relevant talk pages or Wikiprojects
3. Edit warring at Bothriospilini and Bimiini described at the top of this subsection. They continued edit warring the content in despite multiple editors disputing it and didn't come to the talk page until well after.[305] As part of this, BM insisted on focusing that they came to my talk page to discuss the content, but ignored cautions that it needed to be at a central location so those involved could comment. Little interaction at that talk page by BM.
4. Again at
   WP:CONTENTFORK that had been inserted just prior to the AfDs, AfDs that were predicated on the idea that redirects should happened because of the articles had content fork material (see comment
   at a talk page for more). In short, multiple complaints about that edit-warred material misleading editors at the AfD.
5. BM then changes the target link at their AfDs[306][307] well after they had started in violation of
   WP:TALK#REVISE
   and the expectation that you don't substantially change an RfC, AfD, etc. part way through, especially without notification.
6. Multiple editors tried to correct the violation and notify respondents at the AfD[308][309][310], resulting in BM edit warring at AfDs[311][312][313][314] to restore the WP:TALK#REVISE violation and point editors solely at their preferred version rather than the current state of the articles. BM also tried to justify their reverts by claiming
   WP:TPO
   excludes anyone from correcting the WP:TALK#REVISE violation.

That's the overall summary of what has happened and been linked/diffed at this ANI so far. Hopefully that finally gets BM to review what they were doing and we can move on, but if the same issues continue in the future, we at least have a summary here on top of BM's last block for disrupting wiki-process. It seems like we have the mass revert/noms somewhat under control now, so if the edit-warring and wikilawyering, etc. stop where they actually pay attention to issues brought up on talk pages to the point they self-correct blatant instances of ignoring guidelines, there may be potential we don't have to come back here at a later date. KoA (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Then put forward a proposal on what should happen and see if there is an appetite for it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Uh, I suggest reading what I said at the end. It was an opportunity to move on if no further disruption continued as long as we had a summary of what happened so far. KoA (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

What you wrote is that everything you've said was correct, many have disagreed with you so your summarisation is not correct. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with almost all of this, for reasons already expressed elsewhere, but I want to point out that any accusation of edit warring at

WP:TPO was, per your failure to provide a justification under the listed exceptions. BilledMammal (talk

) 22:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

This is the example of wikilawyering I was getting to. You're still trying to fight tooth an nail about

unintentionally.

The correct thing to do at the AfD would have been to link correctly to the target articles, and then say in a later dated comment with the diff "Here's a version I want to see, but I haven't gotten consensus on the talk pages yet."

So again BilledMammal, please step back from the brink, take a breath, and sincerely review what issues you were causing instead of denying and lashing out. This is an opportunity to move on, and your opportunity to show you can self-correct through reflection. KoA (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think BM has handled all this the best way, but I agree with them and several other people here, that you shouldn't have edited their comment. What exception at

WP:TPO do you claim justifying those edits? Not only BM has handled this poorly. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords

° 22:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

What you're proposing is

pointily alter any RfC, etc. I start and just claim TPO if someone rightfully cleaned up after my disruption in that example. KoA (talk

) 04:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Casting

Ass

Persians

-EEng

I'm not proposing any sort of gaming, please don't evade having to answer questions by casting aspersions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Close as No Action

ANI is for cases where our normal discussion and dispute resolution processes have proven unsuccessful. Although the actions of several editors have been less than ideal, the conduct and content issues raised here are being resolved through discussion and there is no need to continue the play-by-play narrative that has emerged. Gentle reminder for all involved to focus on content and avoid personal attacks. –dlthewave ☎ 03:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support per my comments above. There is no further need for this to be discussed here. --
  Spekkios (talk
  ) 05:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. If it wasn't clear, this is a !vote to close, but with a short summary reminding BM that their actions were problematic. I think this is going to close without any additional action (edit: sanctions) as long as editors actually let the process wrap up, but we do need to be careful about wording the proposal as if there haven't been ongoing issues this whole time (and still are unfortunately in the section below). The main thing is to formally summarize the issues with BM's behavior in a no action close, and I took a stab at covering things the closer could choose to weigh in on in the section above with those 6 bullets.[315] In multiple attempts from editors, much of the underlying behavior wasn't really resolved, but the one area there was progress is that BM will at least avoid mass redirects and use the relevant talk pages.

The remaining attitude issues still leave major concerns about how behavior will be at talk pages for me though. That's why I'm hoping a decent summary close will get across to BM (the real purpose of a warning) so they can self correct rather than embolden them. Those of us who tried to stem some of the issues with BM put up with a lot of flak here, so if we can do our best to make sure BM gets that guidance with a close, that would go a long way to keeping them away from ANI again. KoA (talk) 06:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the section below concerns a different editor and does not show ongoing disruption by BilledMammal. –dlthewave ☎ 12:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

When I mentioned that here, it was that the dispute was being continued by other editors regardless of who, and it was clear from the start of the text it was not BM. I updated that header to make it super super redundant though. KoA (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is a clear consensus here that BM's actions have not been appropriate, and these actions have apparently not yet stopped, so "no action" is very much the wrong outcome here. Whether this needs to close with a warning or something stronger is not yet clear (to me at least) but it definitely needs at least a warning. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

It might help if you specify which actions are meant, because other than the claims of POINT and forum shopping, which have not been substantiated, you're basically left with a large-scale content dispute and a possible edit war over a diff. Your "clear consensus" is also clearly fanciful.

Avilich (talk

) 13:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I too fail to see any such consensus. Much less a clear one. nableezy - 15:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

There's a point where comments like this reach

WP:BEFORE

with their AfDs in a pointy manner to continue the mass redirects, and edit warring at the article pages claiming it was ok because they could restore anything not specifically mentioned in a revert edit summary rather than go to talk pages. Here's the summary again from that diff (collapsed) in case it was missed.

Extended content

1. Mass redirects of beetle articles without discussion that had to be restored. 2. Followed by mass AfDs WP:CONRED ) by consulting on relevant talk pages or Wikiprojects 3. Edit warring at Bothriospilini and Bimiini described at the top of this subsection. They continued edit warring the content in despite multiple editors disputing it and didn't come to the talk page until well after.[316] As part of this, BM insisted on focusing that they came to my talk page to discuss the content, but ignored cautions that it needed to be at a central location so those involved could comment. Little interaction at that talk page by BM. 4. Again at WP:CONTENTFORK that had been inserted just prior to the AfDs, AfDs that were predicated on the idea that redirects should happened because of the articles had content fork material (see comment at a talk page for more). In short, multiple complaints about that edit-warred material misleading editors at the AfD. 5. BM then changes the target link at their AfDs[317][318] well after they had started in violation of WP:TALK#REVISE and the expectation that you don't substantially change an RfC, AfD, etc. part way through, especially without notification. 6. Multiple editors tried to correct the violation and notify respondents at the AfD[319][320][321], resulting in BM edit warring at AfDs[322][323][324][325] to restore the WP:TALK#REVISE violation and point editors solely at their preferred version rather than the current state of the articles. BM also tried to justify their reverts by claiming WP:TPO excludes anyone from correcting the WP:TALK#REVISE violation.

Thryduulf hit the nail on the head. I made it clear above that regardless of action, there's clear consensus there was disruption by BM that took awhile to sort out. That latter part is the thing that cannot be hand-waved away even if we decide to see how things go forward as opposed to sanctions. KoA (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Only one editor has opposed closing this with no action, there is and never was any such consensus. And reposting your highly partisan "summarisation", will not change that in anyway. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

On the other hand, there hasn't been a proposal against the user. I agree that BM should have known better given their experience. I don't want to see a ban, but a trouting at the very least feels necessary. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

As AD said yesterday, put forward a proposal and see if it gains consensus. That would actually be a productive move forward--towards closure--rather than what's been going on so far, which is a bunch of bludgeoning in the hopes that some admin will act unilaterally. Levivich (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Levivich, you're in the proposal where exactly this is being discussed. KoA (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

This proposal is to close with no action. Josh pointed out that "there hasn't been a proposal against the user", and I'm saying: so go ahead and make one if you think there's consensus for action against the user. Levivich (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Warnings and just saying that something was disruptive in the close are generally considered as no action. It's not uncommon to see confusion or disputes over what "action" means sometimes at ANI, but here is where we are discussing how it should be closed regardless of that. KoA (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

No, warnings are not generally considered no action. Quite the opposite. I'm 100% sure that this proposal is not a proposal for a warning. Levivich (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm pretty sure everyone who has actually been actively working on the behavior issues here don't want to see them banned (I've made that clear multiple times). Something

WP:PREVENTATIVE is needed, but most considering that need agree a basic "these things were problematic, knock it off" statement would go a long way instead of formal sanctions at this moment. KoA (talk

) 15:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

"Most"? I think you should count again. Levivich (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

This is the reason originally posted, KOAs summarisation of the situation posted above (twice) is so slanted as to have little to do with the thread that came before it. Apparently any who disagrees is deliberately ignoring their wisdom. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

AC, the rhetoric isn't helpful, and please be mindful of

WP:BLUDGEON when I was trying to draw back from the thread. KoA (talk

) 16:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I would apologise, but then you brought up

WP:BLUDGEON again. Go jump, the only person who has bludgeoned this discussion is you. Please stop. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords

° 16:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Since you brought it up with despite a few editors trying really, really hard to get BM sanctioned [326] and it actually helps in assessing consensus, which of us that have been pushing for addressing their behavior are trying to get BM sanctioned? Even I've made it clear that a good summary of the problem issues would be best over blocks, etc., so that wouldn't be me obviously. At my count just maybe Thryduulf? They did say definitely at least a warning with uncertainty of possibly needing more, but that's about the most "extreme" I've seen.

The whole point is that embellishing and casting aspersions about the editors trying to get a pretty conservative resolution does not help, and only increases the likelihood that BM is given less leeway to improve instead. It just disrupts ANI and results in editors having to spend even more time clarifying what was actual said or done. You were already warned about this at an ANI about you.[327] KoA (talk) 16:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Stop bludgeoning the discussion, make a proposal or drop it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Two when you count me when you actually read my

WP:BEFORE

violations, nor the edit warring that resulted in page protection.

Other casting aspersions about editors just being out to get BM just contributes to the disruption and is an indication we do need a close with a good summary/warning. Had it not been for that behavior, we maybe could have gotten away with just letting it go as an informal warning if BM took the comments to heart. Instead, those comments are creating the the necessity to be a bit stricter now. KoA (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I have not been actively ignoring anything, I think your interpretation is wrong. Stop casting aspersions. If you don't agree with this proposal oppose it, and post you own proposal. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Im pretty sure the entire internet is aware you feel your actions are correct and BM's are disruptive, and repeating that position, at great length, more times does not make that position stronger. The only problem Ive seen in the entire time youve been spamming my watchlist is that youve been spamming my watchlist. Please stop. nableezy - 16:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Support

WP:BOLD is not against policy, AfDs and editing articles are normal pratice. The edit waring by BM at Bothriospilini was one revert. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords

° 14:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

More than one revert if you actually look at Bothriospilini. Here was the initial edit[328] followed by Elmidae reverting it was disruptive[329] followed by BM reverting[330], my restoration of the status quo[331], and BM's additional revert[332]. More than just one revert, and BM's actions resulted in page protection. Just trying to say it was one revert with edit war in quotes misrepresents what actually happened at the page. KoA (talk) 15:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

If you want a different proposal put one forward. Otherwise I'm not reading your replies any longer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

To be clear my support is meant in complete opposition to the overly slanted summarisation of events by other authors. Anyone closing this should discard such comments as not reflecting this discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support - I don't think there is clear consensus here at all, nor will it develop. This is and has always been a content dispute, and nothing productive is coming of this discussion, despite a few editors trying really, really hard to get editors on the other side of the content dispute sanctioned. Oppose warning or any other sanction. Levivich (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support I think BilledMammal's behavior is mildly disruptive, but obviously people disagree on whether that's the case. BilledMammal has indicated at
  WP:IDONTHEARTHATon their part, it can be parsed out at some future point. @KoA: I don't think persevering in this is going to obtain consensus for a warning or sanctions and is turning otherwise uninvolved editors against you at this point. Choess (talk
  ) 17:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Responding to the ping, but to be clear, I was pretty clear about planning to step back once some misrepresentations of me were taken care of, but those "uninvolved editors" are also sniping at other uninvolved editors like Thryduulf with similar rhetoric. The closer can decide how to weight comments from those editors at this point now, so there's not much need for me to address those issues further.

I will say that I agree with you that we can support closing this while still saying that their behavior was disruptive. If that is acknowledged, that helps to move forward with your plan, which is pretty much what I've been endorsing for the going forward part. KoA (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Question - I'm surprised by the lack of action here. After the merging started, a discussion was started at WT:WikiProject Tree of Life#Species article merges, and that BilledM was notified about, but didn't participate. Then the ANI started. Not long after that, BilledM nominated many articles to be merged, at WP:Articles for deletion/Bothriospila and WP:Articles for deletion/Adalbus (which surely isn't the right forum). I'd think that these nominations are very pointy, given the ongoing discussion here, and the discussion on the topic at the project, that BilledM has ignored. I feel I'm missing something - why is there not even a warning for this? Perhaps there's a fifth discussion going on that I haven't found yet? Nfitz (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  Note: the discussion at ToL was started only half an hour before this one at ANI. --

  Spekkios (talk

  ) 07:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support: a revamp of
  WP:NSPECIES has been necessary for a long time. The BRD process seems a process explicitly designed to start such a discussion the clue's in the third letter. Honestly, I've almost seen more potentially disruptive editing in this thread from anguished subject writers than I have from BilledMammal at all.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk
  ) 14:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support: Sure, I can see the issues, but this is best resolved outside ANI. As stated above, a gentle reminder about civility and personal attacks for all involved wouldn't go astray. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 00:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  A reminder about civility and personal attacks is not closing without action. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring resumed by Avilich

I thought editors were going to try to move on until I saw the pings and literally facepalmed, but now

WP:TALK#REVISE to alter those comments from the originals.[336][337]

I don't know what's gotten in people's heads thinking it's ok it edit war at AfDs or alter them partway through.

It's probably best if an admin restores the original proposals of both AfDs since editors are being attacked for trying to clean up that up. I'd also just prefer to call it moot instead considering the status and time left of the AfDs, but I'm just astounded by the pointiness of other editors restarting at about the same time as Dlthewave's section above. There's just a cycle going on of someone at ANI saying nothing is going on and close this followed by another dispute being restarted shortly after. KoA (talk) 05:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Adding oldids to links is not a violation of WP:REDACT. While not always used, such links do the opposite of "deprive any replies of their original context". Much like returning Bothriospilini to a single sentence, raising the use of oldids as an issue is not helping the behavioural case you are trying to make. CMD (talk) 05:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

You keep repeating that, but adding the oldids changed the meaning of the proposal from the actual target Bothriospilini (more than just a single sentence) to presenting something entirely different in the middle of the AfD while making comments as if their version was the established version. The background on that was pretty unanimous,[338] and it doesn't help BM to encourage them that this was ok. The advice BM was already given would apply to you to. If someone wants to make a change to their comments, but WP:TALK#REVISE prevents it (i.e., you want to make a change to an already commented on AfD), make a new dated comment that says, "Here's a version of the page I would like to see, but I haven't gained consensus on the talk pages for it." You don't go back and alter comments like that to make it seem like that version is the actual target.

Anyways, the point here in this section is that someone else has started up edit warring again away from what the original proposal was. If it's something to take action on is for someone else to decide, so I suggest dropping the

WP:STICK as myself and others have been trying to do so this can wrap up. KoA (talk

) 06:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

What am I repeating and from where? CMD (talk) 09:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Just noticed the "more than just a single sentence" remark. For the record, it here is where it was turned back into a single sentence, a nice example of the value of oldids. It is good that someone has taken the initiative to add more content to it since then, a positive content outcome to the dispute that had seemed at risk. Some small expansions have also been made to other articles involved in this, which has also been positive and seems an optimal result for such disputes going forward. CMD (talk) 10:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you have made your position on that already quite clear. --

Spekkios (talk

) 07:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• I went ahead and notified Avilich of this discussion. KoA, I think you've accidentally posted two copies of the same diff. Another editor repeating the disputed edit is not edit warring; has anyone reached out to the editor to try to resolve the dispute before bringing it to ANI? –dlthewave ☎ 12:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Avilich was already a participant here and was aware of the issues with their edits already based on warnings at the AfD. When someone tries to jump into edit warring related to an already open ANI, especially one looking to wrap, of course it's going to get brought up here as pointy editing as a sort of closing potshot. KoA (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• The discussion isn't deprived of context because the article is still linked (if anything, whoever changed the article after the AfD started has altered the context); the idea proposed in the AfD remains the same regardless of the diff displayed.
  Avilich (talk
  ) 13:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
• Please answer my question above, under what exception are you editing of people comments? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

There's a point

WP:TPO

that we don't change the meaning of comments. It's standard practice to undo such changes. If someone tries to claim a loophole that nothing can be done to correct violations, that's practically by definition wikilawyering.

If editors don't like that multiple editors alerted to the issue at this ANI like myself did some standard cleanup, ANI probably isn't the best place for them. This is where we get alerted to disruption and try to fix the problems, not encourage them by denying that the disruption occurred. Continuing to try to rehash this just adds to the problems. KoA (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

tl:dr. That you mention

WP:BLUDGEON is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords

° 14:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.