Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Venkat TL mass page moves

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

---

Since the last topic ban from DYK on 5 May, [1], Venkat TL has been doing mass page moves despite a couple of warnings to stop it. The first warning was mild and another warning was final. However, none of these warnings helped Venkat TL to stop.

In just 1 month, Venkat TL has made over 16,000 such page moves that are nothing but WP:DE because his page moves have no basis other than a "proposed" convention over which multiple editors have disagreed with Venkat TL.[2]

The participants of the last ANI thread assumed that this user's disruption won't stop with just a topic ban from DYK.[3] I agree they were correct. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• There are only 4000 constituencies as per State legislative assemblies of India#Current State Legislative Assemblies, and I have only moved some, So this guy is making up stories by claiming 16000 pages were moved. --Venkat TL (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
• Context thread: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indian_politics#Constituency_titles
• This was debated for 7 months at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles.
• Another 4 months of debate occurred at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indian_politics#Constituency_titles
• This proposal came out after above debates and discussions at WikiProject India and WikiProject Indian politics. Please refer to the Proposal thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics#Proposal_:_Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_Indian_constituencies
• The proposal was advertised as advised by the the debate participants of that time at WP:Noticeboard for India#Assembly_constituencies_article_title, |WP:Noticeboard for India# Proposal : Wikipedia:Naming conventions Indian constituencies. Along with Wikiproject talk pages of all Indian states and major cities, like WikiProject Delhi#Proposal : Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_Indian_constituencies [4] [5] and so on.
• A previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles where this discussion had occurred in past was also notified duly. At that time 'all places where I could think of, and others could think of, were notified.
• After 2 months of voting on the proposal there was a Consensus with 7 supports and one oppose. After the discussion had petered out with clear consensus, The proposal was implemented accordingly. --Venkat TL (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

But still none of this fulfilled the actual requirement you were told about some 11 days ago[6] which you recognized[7] but you are still continuing your page moves without fulfilling the requirement. Srijanx22 (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• On different occasions, by different editors, Venkat TL was reminded that propsal is not formally closed, and it is not a policy yet. They were also asked to stop moving pages. They should have stopped. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
• Further context: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal for new article title naming convention - RfC or local consensus, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 189#Wikipedia:Naming Conventions, and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Indian constituencies) — especially the two RMs. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
  • After your !Vote I, put the implementation on hold, stopped moving new pages and focused on fixing the disambiguation pages. There was no votes in those threads for another 10 days, so I re-started the moves yesterday.
  • I also noticed that you were admin shopping 12 days ago and have older axes to grind. Venkat TL (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

    @Venkat TL no votes doesn't mean it is ok to just go ahead and do whatever you think it is ok. let someone close the discussions and move on from there. You were jumping the gun. – robertsky (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

    Look, the proposal had been open for 2 months and had clear consensus, which is why I proceeded. In my opinion 2 months is a good long time for an open discussion to judge the consensus. that said, I have no problem to wait for another 2 months. I will not make any more moves. Venkat TL (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Venkat TL: you still havent answered why you started moving pages again. You were very well aware that the proposal was contested. There is difference between not badgering, and going unresponsive/avoiding scrutiny. It is looking like you are doing the latter. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  My openening comment in that thread was "Hi. If there is an RfC regarding a policy change, and it is tainted, what will be the appropriate venue to ask for a procedural close? Given the editor who started it is retired. AN, or ANRFC? —usernamekiran (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC) I was asking for next appropriate step. That is not admin shopping at all. I didn't even mention you, or the RfC. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• Venkat TL Can you explain the moves from, for example, Chittorgarh (Lok Sabha constituency) to Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituency. Because the former looks natural to me. If you can supply reliable sources that show that the latter is the well known form, then everything is OK. If you can't, then we have a major problem. Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• Black Kite, you are asking to discuss content dispute here. It would be off topic, but since you have asked, here you go. Please look at the quotes below from reliable sources. Please refer to the explanation of WP:NATURAL that I have made on the proposal page (link). These quotes below show how the constituency is commonly referred to in mainstream reliable sources.

• If a Rajput candidate is fielded in the adjoining Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituency, chances are a Brahmin would be fielded here and vice-versa. Mar 17, Geetha Sunil Pillai / TNN /. "Rajsamand seat too complicated for caste equations | Jaipur News - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 23 May 2022.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

• Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituency comprises of following Vidhan Sabha (legislative assembly) segments. "Chittorgarh Lok Sabha Constituency, Rajasthan: Current MP, Candidates, Polling Date and Election Results". Newsd.in. Retrieved 23 May 2022.

• Ladpura and Ramganj Mandi Assembly seats were added from Chittorgarh Lok Sabha seat in 2008. "Lok Sabha Election 2019, Rajasthan profile: With BJP having all seats, Congress faces tough fight ahead; Bikaner, Dausa key seats-Politics News , Firstpost". Firstpost. 4 April 2019. Retrieved 23 May 2022.

• Vallabhnagar and Mavli Assembly seats were moved to Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituencyin 2008. "Lok Sabha Election 2019, Phase 4 today: State-wise guide to constituencies going to polls and election schedule-Politics News , Firstpost". Firstpost. 29 April 2019. Retrieved 23 May 2022.

Venkat TL (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• Black Kite I may have not pinged correctly in my reply. Venkat TL (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
• Chittorgarh is the name of a geographical entity (a settlement). "Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituency" is the name of the entity related to elections. The border of the geographical entity is never the same as the Lok Sabha constituency, though they may have some overlap. The bit "Lok Sabha constituency" is not just an attribute, it is an essential part of the name. When you just say "Place" for example Chittorgarh, it will be understood as the geographical entity (city), Never as constituency unless you mention it clearly. One has to mandatorily state the full name Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituency if they are talking about the constituency. The examples from the reliable sources above show this. Wikipedia disambiguation guideline WP:NATURAL says According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary... Natural disambiguation: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title...Comma-separated disambiguation. With place names, if the disambiguating term is a higher-level administrative division, it is often separated using a comma instead of parentheses. The suffix "Lok Sabha constituency" or "Assembly constituency" serve as WP:NATURAL disambiguation from the city name, so they do not need to be inside brackets. The parenthesis also add an overhead of extra work to add the piped links whenever using the constituency name in prose. The piping issue due to disambiguation bracket is huge. there are close to 4120 Indian assembly constituencies and 545 Lok Sabha constituencies. Each of them gets linked on an average 100 times on Wikipedia. That is 5,00,000 unnecessary piped links. This is exponential damage and waste of efforts which can be saved by dropping the unnecessary bracket. I face this issue everyday while working on constituency and biography articles. Venkat TL (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

erm... So you decided to move thousands of pages while multiple editors had asked you to stop it — because you found the current naming system a little out of your comfort zone during article editing, while knowing it (the moves) will mean editing around 500,000 links? Actually, it is your page moves that are "exponential damage and waste of efforts". This is nothing but WT:DYK incident all over again: proposing changes to policy because you dont like it, not listening to other editors, casting aspersions, battleground behaviour, and now moving thousands of pages even when told to stop. Thats nothing but disruptive behaviour. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

That's my take too. This is simple disruption and unless I see a genuine reason for editing 500,000 links here apart from WP:ILIKEIT, I don't see any other option here but to prevent Venkat TL from causing any more damage. Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I think they have already moved almost all the pages of that field. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Other than wikipedia and its mirrors, very few sources use brackets (I chose a constituency that has received more coverage). I haven't gone through every category in Category:Constituencies_by_country, but even on Wikipedia, a lot of constituency articles do not use brackets (see for eg, US, Mexico, France, Australia, Srilanka, Philippines) Hemantha (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hemantha: Hello. "appropriate title" is not the main point here. The proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics#Proposal : Wikipedia:Naming conventions Indian constituencies was disputed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Indian constituencies)#Proposal state, Venkat TL was aware of that (they participated in the latter discussion), later DaxServer expressed their concerns about the process of the proposal at Proposal for new article title naming convention - RfC or local consensus|village pump - policy. In that discussion there were only four participants including Venkat TL, and three of them were in favour of a fresh RfC. Venkat TL was reminded a few times that the "proposal" was not formally closed yet, a fresh RfC was required, and the proposal wa not accepted/converted as policy yet. Still, Venkat TL performed mass moves, which were being discussed/disputed, that is simply put - not listening to fellow editors (WP:IDHT?), and disruptive. For someone who quotes/brings up policies, guidelines, and essays so often, saying "I did it because there was no participation in a long time" is not acceptable. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes I think enforcing edits without consensus, ignoring warnings, doing mass moves while ignoring complaints on talk page and denying any wrongdoing even after the complaint here is disruptive and does not guarantee any assurance since enough damage has been already done. Srijanx22 (talk) 04:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I see Venkat TL was provided with page mover user right on 15 April 2022 by Swarm. I think this user right should be removed because of the abuse documented in this report. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

accountability/communication is a very important thing on wikipedia. Not responding here even after a ping shows lack of it. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• Hm, as best as I can tell, per WP:RFCEND Venkat should have formally closed the discussion, but involved users are explicitly allowed to implement a clear consensus themselves in an RfC. I do think that this was the case here. So I don't see the discussion not being closed to be an issue. That leaves the matter of whether the proposal was sufficiently exposed to the community, per WP:AT and WP:PROPOSAL. While the proposal was not advertised at village pump, it was extensively advertised to the community, and that's a pretty strong consideration as well. Mass changes are almost always contentious to some extent, and it's good to have community oversight in these situations. But I do find Venkat's defense here reasonable. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with you on the first part. But when the proposal was disputed, and there were suggestions for starting a fresh RfC, at that time Venkat TL should have listned to fellow editors, and should have stopped moving pages. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  It all boils down to whether the objections were legitimate in the first place, i.e. whether the fact that this wasn't posted to village pump is enough to consider the discussion illegitimate, in spite of extensive community notification efforts. I would say the letter of the law was violated, but the spirit of the law was satisfied. Is that enough? According to WP:NOTBUREAU, WP:5P5, and WP:IAR...yes, actually. This is a complicated situation, Venkat failed to follow the proper procedure of advertising the RfC, he failed to close the RfC and initiated an involved mass move (which, again, is allowed, but a bad look altogether), then didn't stop when objections were raised. On my first reading, I was on the same page as the other outraged admins. I considered immediately revoking PM, even procedurally prior to looking into it, and then I strongly considered blocking. However, after actually vetting Venkat's argument against policy requirements as objectively as possible, everything seems to check out. Venkat TL should implement the formal close since he's already de facto formalized it, but his doing so, in my reading, was allowed.

  I'm not saying the dispute should be considered resolved. Let me be clear, there is never anything preventing you from immediately starting your own RfC with whatever proposal you want, you can do it right now. If a new RfC is needed, then hold a new RfC, and make sure the proper procedures are followed to avoid future drama. The naming dispute clearly is just as alive as ever and I doubt we're going to solve that here. But this is just my response to a ping with a request that Vinkat's PM user rights be revoked. In response to that request, I conclude there is no violation. But this is a community noticeboard, anyone is free to disagree with me. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with you on the first part. What I am saying is they should have stopped when multiple editors had asked them to, no matter the reason. As they said above themselves, they stopped for a while, and then resumed it. And then there is their overall attitude. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  a closure is requested. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• @Venkat TL: there was nothing sneaky with my edit, stop accusing other editors. You were asked a few questions here, and you were also pinged, yet you didn't respond. But you saw my "sneaky" edit. Would you kindly respond to the questions posed here? —usernamekiran (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• Venkat TL is now engaging in the same obfuscation at 2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy where he is being a lone edit warrior, retaining his POV but opposing the content he does not like.[8] He happens to be throwing a bad argument and then throwing it over and over even after getting rebuked. This has happened multiple times on this particular subject. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

  These things bear no relation to one another. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• Bump. Levivich 15:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• I can't comment on the procedural element to this, and not following procedure is not great, but (thinking WP:NOTBURO) isn't Venkat 100% right on the actual naming - the use of the brackets just doesn't seem to have any grounding in actual practical usage, and the available sources, short of circular linking back to Wikipedia, appear to entirely validate these page moves. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Iskandar323: Hi. Like I have mentioned in my previous comments in this thread, it is not about the accuracy of article titles. It is about going against consensus. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see Venkat clearly going against consensus, only the requests to stop/wait. The RFC, though unclosed, was firmly in support of the changes. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  yes. But there were at least at least five editors who objected to the moves/RfC. Under such circumstances Venkat TL should have stopped. When the proposal itself was disputed, the firm support to that proposal becomes disputed/immaterial as well. Venkat TL should have stopped. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  There is no point saying he should have stopped more than 20 days after the fact. Swarm, a veteran perm admin did not find any sanction worthy violation in Venkat TL's actions. Venkat TL is a highly productive editor who has done a lot of good improving Wikipedia's content related to India. I recommend closing this thread as no action necessary. 2409:4071:D0A:78D1:0:0:43C8:108 (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  Every ANI thread is created after the incident. This one was created soon after the incident. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

  bump —usernamekiran (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  bump —usernamekiran (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  I have closed the RFC in favour of the proposal. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Post-close discussion

• The RfC, and this ANI thread was closed improperly, a related discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Improper acceptance of a new proposal as policy. —usernamekiran (talk) 06:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
• Everyone should be reminded: there was never an RFC. People keep saying "RFC" but it was never an RFC. It was just a WikiProject talk page discussion. Based on that discussion, 16,000 pages were moved. When folks objected, saying "hey we need a real RFC to change the policy before we move 16,000 pages", those objections were ignored (worse, some suggested those suggestions were wikilawyering or otherwise disruptive... but it's not disruptive to follow global consensus, such as WP:AT and WP:PGCHANGE). That's why this ANI thread is here, and why I and others having been "bumping" it. We can't have 16,000 pages moved based on mere local consensus, over objection. At this point in time an RFC tag has now been applied to the content discussion, which remains open, and the RFC has now been advertised at the appropriate places. If the RFC comes back ratifying the change, then all's well that ends well, but if not, 16,000 pages will need to be moved back. The big bottom line here is: don't move 16,000 pages without an RFC!. Venkat TL, can you please acknowledge that you won't do this again? Then we can (really) close this. @Mellohi!: can you please unclose this or update your closing statement to be accurate? Thanks to both, Levivich^[block] 17:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Levivich Won't do what? I believe I have already said everything there was to say, Please check my comments. Venkat TL (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Venkat TL: Won't move 16,000 articles without an RFC. Levivich^[block] 17:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  WP:FAIT 100% applies here. If there was no clear RFC, then the onus on justifying all the moves -- and undoing them -- if they were found to be a problem, which seems to be the case. If there is a discussion that consensus suggests that >100 pages would be affected in a partially irreversible way, there really should be an RFC to determine the process (including grandfathering or sunsetting that may be needed) of how to do that. --Masem (t) 17:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Masem Please check the Special:Diff/1089420021. At the time of the move, the Move discussion had been open for 2 months, had 7 supports (including me) and 0 oppose. Which is why 3 editors (including me implemented the proposal). All the brouhaha was done later to grind axes. Venkat TL (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  But it had no formal close (and now reopen)? And with less than a dozen editors participating, that's still not showing wide consensus that would give reason to make mass moves. FAIT still applies. --Masem (t) 17:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) @Levivich I have already said that in my reply to Robertsky at 5:53 pm, 23 May 2022 (diff) please check. Morevoer, Dont take their claim on their face value. They have not given any evidence that I have moved 16K pages. I have not moved 16000 pages, folks above have misrepresented 16000 number of edits as 16000 pages. Pages is not the same as edits so please correct your comment. I dont know why 1 page moves shows up as 4 edits but it does. 1 page move shows up as 4 edits and also invovles 2 post move clean up edits, if you do the Maths the actual moves were ~3k. Venkat TL (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Venkat TL: OK, it wasn't 16,000 pages. I have no idea how many it was exactly, but do you deny that it was a lot of pages? Because move logs are public, and I can see that you moved a lot of pages on May 23, and I don't know if it's 16,000, but it's a lot. Thousands, for sure.

  Your comment that you linked to does not address the concerns. You say there that you waited 2 months and are willing to wait longer. It's not about how long you waited. Frankly, at this point in time, I do not believe you understand what the problem is. It's not about how long you waited!

  I will say this again, with bold and all caps: Don't move [16,000 or howevermany] pages WITHOUT AN RFC. Do understand the problem is that it wasn't an WP:RFC, it didn't have the {{rfc}} template, it wasn't advertised at the required locations, it didn't follow WP:CONSENSUS and WP:PGCHANGE and WP:AT and other policies. Again: it's not about how long the discussion is open, it's not about how many supports or opposes there were, it's about how widely it's advertised. It's about local consensus versus global consensus. You acted with local consensus when you needed global consensus. Please tell me you get this, and that you will not mass-move pages without global consensus which requires a properly-advertised RFC. Levivich^[block] 17:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Levivich: Yeah, there is Venkat TL's comment in the above thread, After your !Vote I, put the implementation on hold, stopped moving new pages and focused on fixing the disambiguation pages. There was no votes in those threads for another 10 days, so I re-started the moves yesterday. [...] Venkat TL (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC) I am not sure what they are learning from this discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Levivich Please strike 16,000 in your comments above, as it is false and misleading by an order of magnitude. Those 3k pages were not moved unilaterally, but only after community consensus at WP:INDIA and Politics task force, 'after' an overwhelming consensus of 7 support vs 0 oppose. No one in that discussion (including me) was aware that in order to write a WP:Naming Convention one would need to do a RFC 'despite' the wikiproject community consensus. DaxServer who had participated in the discussions realized the rfc requirement a week 'after' the moves were made. Yes I got it. And I have since then not made any such moves nor do I plan to do any such moves WITHOUT AN RFC CLOSURE. A properly advertised RFC has already been initiated. Venkat TL (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  Great, thanks! :-) But it's "without an RFC", not "without RFC closure".

  The closing statement right now says "Since this entire thread revolves around Venkat mass moving without formally closing the RFC first, the issue at hand appears to be resolved", but that's just not right.

  It's not about whether the thread was closed or not; WP:RFCEND specifically says "If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable", and a unanimous discussion is one that is not contentious and the consensus is obvious.

  It's also not about an involved editor closing a thread; WP:RFCEND #5 explicitly allows an involved editor to close an RFC if the outcome is clear, and a unanimous outcome is a clear outcome.

  The problem, rather, was about not having the right level of consensus (WP:CONLEVEL) to change a naming convention page (and to implement that change).

  Sorry to hammer away at this, but I think it's important that this ends with the right result, or we will all be led astray: formal closes aren't required, involved closes are fine, but conlevel must be followed. Levivich^[block] 17:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC

Updated my comment to say "Without an RFC". Now your turn to strike "16000 pages", it is false and is bothering me. Thanks.Venkat TL (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

You can even look at the total number of constituencies in India, (Hint : They are much less than 5k), Find exact number at State_legislative_assemblies_of_India#Current_State_Legislative_Assemblies. So even in someone's crazy and wildest dreams it is not possible for me to move 16K pages. The number has been deliberately pumped up to cause an outrage. Devious. Venkat TL (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll fix the closing statement, but the closure itself stands. I do not think this specific dispute needs admin intervention. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Take my word for it. It's best to have an uninvolved editor (preferably an administrator) to formally close, any RFC. It's also preferable to formally open an RFC, too. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek and Gitz6666

• On 9 June Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) said that according to me Kidnapping of children after murdering their parent and forcibly Russyfying them is not a "war crime" but benevolent adoption by loving Russians [9]. I immediately told them that this was a gross misrepresentation of what I'd been arguing for and asked them to strike through their comment [10], but they didn't comply.
• On 20 June VM repeated that claim and made it even more ludicrous: I had made comments, they said, in which I claimed that kidnapping Ukraine children should be described as "adoption" and "naturalization" and that carrying out murders as part of a genocide aren't a war crime [11]. I asked them to provide a diff, they published this comment of mine and repeated that it proves that I am proposing to refer to the kidnapping of Ukrainian children (after their parents were murdered by Russian soldiers) as "Naturalisation" and "Adoption". In the same comment your wording actually manages to imply that it was in the interest of the (Ukrainian) child to have their parents killed and then be adopted by some Russians. [12].
• VM was referring to this discussion. Note the following:

1. As I mentioned in that discussion, I was one of the first editors who inserted in the article contents on forced deportations to Russia and arbitrary detention of Ukrainian civilians. On 24 March I added a reference to deportations in the lead [13], on 27 March I added allegations of illegal detention [14] and I created a section on detention of civilians and torture [15], on 29 March and 2 April I added many contents and sources about deportations [16] [17] [18]. Lastly on 2 June I added contents and sources on forced deportation of children [19]. All these edits show that I believe, or rather know, that forced deportation is a war crime.
2. Apart from knowing it, I also repeatedly said it. In the discussion VM mentioned, I said again and again that forced deportation of children is a war crime: This is a Wikipedia article on war crimes, thus we use "deportation" (or force displacement), we don't use "kidnapping", just like we use (wilful) killing of civilians, not assassination (or murder) of peaceful citizens [20], Of course I agree with this! Forced deportations of civilian is a serious war crime. [21], n. 2 [Kidnapping is not a war crime] is entirely false: where did you get this from? [22]. AdrianHObradors (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) even warned VM, @Volunteer Marek please, try to refrain from making personal attacks and assumptions. @Gitz isn't arguing that kidnapping children is or isn't a war crime, that is not the subject of discussion there [23]
3. In that discussion I made the following points.
   1. First, we'd better use the "forced deportations" terminology instead of speaking of "kidnapping". This view got consensus but unfortunately VM kept on forcing the "kidnapping" terminology upon the article, as they claim that "deportation" is an euphemistic weasel word for kidnapping [24] [25] [26]. I soon gave up reverting their edits simply out of boredom and frustration.
   2. Secondly, I argued that the Russian Duma drafting a law on adoption does not amount to a war crime in itself, no reliable source claim that it does, and therefore we should not report it. I wrote the following: I don't think that this decree is an act of generosity by the Russian state - not at all. But we cannot even depict it as a war crime (...) There are many different interests at stake here, and the interest of Ukraine in avoiding Russian naturalisations is only one (and relatively minor compared to the interests of the child). So this kind of content belongs to an article on Naturalisation during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine or Adoption during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. We cannot just say that it is "background and context" to an alleged war crime (forced deportation) and report it without any scrutiny directly from the Facebook account of Denisova. [27]. I haven't changed my mind on this; apparently I did not get consensus and we didn't drop that reference to the new Russian law on adoption. Maybe I was right, maybe I was wrong, but anyway editors must be allowed to share their views in an open discussion without being offended, trivialized and denigrated.
   3. Finally, I argued that genocide is not a war crime - which is simply true, genocide is not a war crime (see here a discussion and here a few references). For some reason this view (which is not a view actually, it's a fact) didn't get consensus either, and we still have a section on genocide. But no one could ever maintain that carrying out murders as part of a genocide aren't a war crime. Contrary to what VM claims, I've never said or even thought something so absurd.

• In attributing these views to me VM was deliberately and grossly misrepresenting my arguments. This way of doing is contrary to our policies and guidelines (WP:CIV, WP:GF) and is especially disruptive in a sensitive area as this one.
• This was not a one-off. VM is used to attributing mean intentions to fellow editors. A few examples.
• On the 18 June VM repeatedly removed a section on a missile that fell on Donetsk killing 23 civilians [28] [29]. As Donetsk is controlled by a self-proclaimed secessionist republic, it's possible that the missile was fired by the Ukrainian army. The incident was reported by Reuters and The Guardian, among others, and the section had been there since mid-March. Other editors, including me, didn't agree on removing the section and asked VM to discuss on the talk page. Which they did in the following way: we absolutely must have an article and text in this article about THAT ONE maybe-Ukrainian missile!!!!!! Because "balance" or some shit. I'm sorry but that kind of approach is just sick. And it's the quintessence of violating WP:UNDUE to push a POV ("both sides do it!!!!") [30]. VM claimed that there had been constant and repeated attempts to turn this article into a piece of Russian propaganda, and that If we were being honest here we'd have text on every single one of those tens of thousands missiles fired on civilian targets by Russia (actually we have nearly 20 sections on indiscriminate attacks by the Russian army, some of them with much smaller casualties that this one; we've basically been reporting what WP:RS say, that's it). In fact VM is now trying to have the main article March 2022 Donetsk attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) cancelled and in the meantime they are making a total mess out of it: [31]. But the point is: whitewashing Russian war crimes, not being honest, attempting to use Wikipedia as a Russian propaganda vehicle... how dare they say so?
• On 3 June, Of course genocide can be a war crime! Wth? Do I need to draw a Venn Diagram here? (...) This isn't hard and removing this info looks insanely bad faithed [32]. What, whose bad faith is VM talking about? On 22 May, speaking to Luizpuodzius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), If you're gonna come to an article in order to push a particular POV it helps if you actually bother reading it first, otherwise the WP:ADVOCACY and the WP:NOTHERE are kind of obvious [33]. And it goes on and on like that, VM's behaviour is unacceptable: talking to me and to Ilenart626 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), they said What you and Illenart are doing here is trying to give the readers a very skewed presentation of what reliable source say and falsely convince them that reliable sources portray Ukrainian war crimes as on par with Russian ones [34].
• Also their edit summaries are often unnecessarily offensive, threatening and contrary to Wikipedia:Assume good faith: Please stop trying to whitewash war crimes by sprinkling "alleged" in front of everything. That's a pretty clear violation of POV. [35] Seriously anyone who tries to claim that the murders in Bucha are only "alleged" needs a quick trip to WP:AE [36] these may very well be (are) human rights violations and crimes, but they are not "war crimes" and none of the sources actually label these as such. This is just another attempt at bothsideism [37] undo the obvious POVing and obnoxious attempts at whitewashing [38] you REALLY need to stop with this awful POV and white washing [39] no, these are obviously highly POV changes, they are not supported by sources and frankly, given the nature of this topic the changes amount to some very problematic and disruptive attempts to whitewash some horrendous shit [40]
• I find the accusation of being a Russian POV-pusher quite insulting. First of all I'm a friend of the Ukrainian people, also my family originates from that region, I think that Putin is a violent dictator, that the war is an unlawful aggression, that the Russian army has committed hideous war crimes in Ukraine, and I'd very much welcome if the perpetrators will be held on account. I wrote nearly 1/3 of the article War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which means that I've spent dozens of hours documenting and describing horrible war crimes committed by the Russian army (here a selection of some of my edits on Russian crimes [41][42][43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] ).
• On the other hand VM, who always speaks about POV and WP:UNDUE, is the most blatant and disruptive POV-pusher I've ever encountered. They even reached the point of questioning whether shooting Russian POWs in the legs amounts to torture [71] [72] - seriously? They asked for RS stating that kneecapping is torture, they were given a lot of them [73] [74] and it's all ok, but it takes time and it's disturbing and frankly there's no need of it. On multiple occasion I had to revert VM pushing badly sourced war propaganda into the article [e.g., [75]), making gross misrepresentations of reliable sources [e.g., [76]) and removing an "alleged" here and there [e.g., [77]).
• I've tried to address their tendentious editing on their talk page, but what I got was not very encouraging Explain to me why I should bother reading past your first two and a half sentences [78]
• VM's edits summaries and comments show the basic and constant features of their contribution to the article (and possibly elsewhere): aggression, rudeness, lack of cooperation and a prevailing almost exclusive concern for the question "who is more guilty?" (the obvious answer being the Russians). VM gives a comparatively small contribution to the writing of the article and an enormous, often disruptive contribution to finding the "right balance", which for them always falls in one direction: emphasising the responsibilities of the Russians (which are indeed huge and catastrophic) and downplaying those of the Ukrainians (which occasionally are serious and worrying). They like playing the role of the self-appointed political commissar on that article, and they've done so in the most offensive, uncooperative and partisan way, always attributing mean intentions to fellow editors ("obnoxious attempts at whitewashing", "awful POV", "attempts to whitewash", etc.). They cannot even imagine that others might have good-faith reasons, different from "whitewashing", for mentioning Ukrainian war crimes in the lead and reporting them elsewhere in the article: e.g. trying to be objective and detached, trying to gain authoritativeness through independence, and trying to do justice to all the victims, no matter their nationality.
• In what follows I was not the victim of their insults, but still seeing a fellow editor Dunutubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) treated in this way is humiliating and intimidating: For fuck's sake, this also restores the idiotic notion that two Russian soldiers being poisoned by some pies is ... ... CHEMICAL WARFARE!!! Gimme a break. There's absolutely no source for such a claim (probably because it's patently ridiculous). The given source certainly doesn't say anything so stupid. But it's also frankly offensive (...) even attempting such a comparison is offensive, vulgar and dishonest. I am very tempted to report this fairly transparent violation of WP:POINT. [79]
• This is the way they express their view and I find it aggressive, even abusive. We have a policy (WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL) that aims at protecting us from belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap"). No editor in good faith should ever be exposed to such a treatment.
• Luckily User:Dunutubble is very calm and reflective and reacted like a true pro saying that Throwing a WP:TANTRUM is not the correct reaction to someone who made an effort to restore many of your edits. But unfortunately Anonimu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was less cool-headed. They reacted very badly to VM's editing style and started to repeatedly call VM a "vandal". So on 12 April VM submitted a request for enforcement and Anonimu was topic banned. Anonimu brought it upon themselves, no doubt, but I think that they were reacting to a deliberately provocative and contentious approach, which proved to be highly destructive on that article and talk page.
• I had warned against the risk of escalating the inevitable conflicts among editors: We are working here on a delicate article and we need to discuss in a peaceful and argumentative environment [80]. It's incredibly time-consuming and stressing to work in an environment poisoned by VM. I know they've been around for a long time, but I'm asking you to protect from them both the editors as individuals and the editorial processes taking place in an article as delicate and controversial as War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  It appears to me that you are bringing here a content dispute Gitz6666. There are other ways to resolve disagreements, you know. You may want to consider outside input to assist in resolving your disputes such as asking for participation from uninvolved editors to create consensus for your desired modifications. Consider also Neutral point of view noticeboard – you can submit inquiries about the objectiveness of articles or Request for comment (RfC) to request replies from a number of editors. If you have an issue with the behaviour of a given editor, the first step would be to talk to them on their user talk page in a polite, simple, and direct manner. Have you tried that other than confrontational accusations of disruptive and tendenciousness editing? I will not be suprised if this report ends up in a WP:BOOMERANG -->[81] - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with everything Gitz has stated about Volunteer Marek’s conduct. In addition to VM’s abusive language, pov pushing and disruptive edits, he constantly writes misleading edit summaries and when you review his changes you find other changes not mentioned buried in the edits. Plus I have also noticed for any article he does not like he will place a pov tag without leaving any comments in the talk page. Ilenart626 (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

All of these accusations are false (note that not a single diff is provided by Ilenart626). Volunteer Marek 07:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Since you asked, here are the diffs that indicate the above statement is true:

Missleading edit summarry

[this one] VM's edit summary talks about "alleged". Scroll down and you find most of the actual edit is removing a section where the Ukrainian Parliament dimissed Ukraine's human rights chief Lyudmila Denisova, nothing to with with alleged.

adding pov tag without explanation on the talk page.

[|here ] Note that VM added the tag on the 9 May but only provide an explanation on the talk page on the 15 May after the issue was raised by another editor.

Ilenart626 (talk) 04:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm only going to reply to a couple points here because most of this is simply tl:dr territory.

• The context here is the forced abduction of Ukrainian children by Russia in the current Ukrainian-Russian war [82] [83] (what many sources refer to as "kidnapping" [84] [85]). Contrary to his assertion Gitz666 was NOT the first editor to add this info to the article - you can see here in the diff they provide that the section is already there [86], he's just adding a lot of "according to Zalensky". Once they added the "according to Zalensky" stuff in the very next edit they REMOVE the existing text [87]. So this is basically a sneaky way to remove well sourced text which simply states what is happening and replace it with a WP:WEASEL version of "it's only happening according to the President of Ukraine". Gitz666 has repeatedly tried to remove this info from the article under the very strange pretext that the Russian Parliament (Duma) passing a law which legitimizes this practice of kidnapping of Ukrainian children itself is "not a war crime". [88] Parse that. Since passing a law which gives legal cover to a war crime is not itself a war crime, according to Gitz6666, we cannot include that info in the article. Huh.

• But so far this is plausibly just a content dispute. The real problems are in some of the comments Gitz666 has made on the talk page [89]. The mildest one here is the " But we cannot even depict it as a war crime, can we?" "just-asking-question" strategy. The more problematic parts areGitz6666's assertion that There are many different interests at stake here, and the interest of Ukraine in avoiding Russian naturalisations is only one (and relatively minor compared to the interests of the child). Think about what this is saying. Gitz6666 is saying that the only reason why Ukraine is reporting on the kidnapping of its children is because it wants to "avoid Russian naturalisation" of its citizens. Not because, oh I don't know, kidnapping children's whose parents' you killed is freakin' a bad thing to do?!?! The part about the "interests of the child" is even more disturbing. The clear insinuation here is that while this kidnapping of Ukrainian children is not in the interest of Ukraine, it is "in the interest of the child". Excuse me???

• Along the same lines [90], Gitz666 proposes to remove the text on the kidnapping of the Ukrainian children entirely from the "War crimes" article (but remember, they say that they acknowledge that it is a war crime, so...? yeah, i don't understand either) and instead to create articles called Naturalisation during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine and Adoption during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Because armed forces abducting children whose parents they have killed (either through shelling, direct military assaults or worse) is just an issue of "naturalisation" and speedy "adoption". I guess the article on Kidnapping of children by Nazi Germany should be moved to Adoption of children during World War 2 as well, right? Sorry, not going to apologize for my view that this kind of framing is simply f'ed up. And it's pretty clear and blatant attempt at POV pushing. WP:CPUSH but POV push nonetheless.

• The assertion that "forced deportations" rather than "kidnapping" or "abduction" had consensus by Gitz6666 is simply false (it's a claim of false consensus). Note that this phrasing also tries to minimize the severity of what is actually happening.

• Then we have the whole "is genocide a war crime issue". Yes seriously, that is being actually debated. The thing is, yes, genocide as a concept is indeed distinct from the concept of a "war crime" simply because genocide can take place outside of war. For example the Rwandan genocide was not a "war crime" because there was no international war there. But to then use that to pretend that if genocide IS happening during the war it is not a war crime because sometimes it happens outside of war is just sophistry, pure and simple. And when you start using that kind of argument to try and remove reliably sourced info from the relevant article then once again you're clearly in POV pushing territory.

• For someone who claims that their views are being misrepresented, Gitz6666 really has some nerve to accuse me that I "even reached the point of questioning whether shooting Russian POWs in the legs amounts to torture [178] [179] - seriously?". Look at the diffs they provide. I say nothing of the kind. I am merely pointing out that the sources they use say absolutely nothing about torture.

• Gitz6666 also brings up another editor User:Dunutubble, whom they praise as "very calm and reflective". Right. This is the user who edit warred to try and pretend that Russian soldiers getting food poisoning from some pie they ate constituted "chemical warfare" by Ukraine. Seriously. [91] (bottom of the edit - but note also the top where Dunutubble tries to deny that the Bucha massacre was committed by Russian troops (something no serious source questions) and instead pretends that this is only a claim made by the Ukrainian government). Honestly, I should have reported Dunutubble right there and then (diff is from April) because this is just such over top WP:TENDENTIOUSness it really takes the cake (or pie, I guess) but I was busy at the time. Dunutubble has also been trying to move/POV the article on the Moura massacre by pretending it was just a "Siege of Moura" (with some unfortunates deaths as a side effect). Virtually ALL reliable sources call it a massacre. What's the connection? It was perpetrated by the Russian Neo-Nazi affiliated mercenary Wagner Group. So more attempts at whitewashing. What makes it even worse is the use of flagrantly false edit summaries to justify it [92]. There Dunutubble claims "HRW, Reuters, Guardian etc. all called it a siege". This is just straight up, blatantly, unashamedly, false. Here is HRW [93]. The title of the article is "Mali: Massacre by Army, Foreign Soldiers". The word "siege" does not appear at all in the article. Dunutubble is simply... telling untruths. Here is Reuters [94]. It says Survivors said white mercenaries suspected to be Russians took part in the massacre. The word "siege" does not appear at all in the article. Here is Guardian [95]. It's titled "Russian mercenaries linked to civilian massacres in Mali". The word siege does not appear at all in the article.

But Dunutubble claims "HRW, Reuters, Guardian etc. all called it a siege". How are you supposed to interact with someone who will just sit there and make blatantly false statements like that to justify their POV and edit warring? And this is the editor that Gitz6666 holds up as an example of someone wo is "very calm and reflective" and, you know, I'm being mean to them, by pointing out the problems with their edits (never mind that calling someone's comments a "tantrum" as Dunutublle does is not very civil, nor "calm", nor "reflective" - it's just a passive aggressive personal attack).

Gitz6666 also holds up editor User:Anoimu was another editor that I supposedly "provokoed". Anonimu is topic banned so I don't want to discuss them here since they can't reply, just want to note quickly that cotnrary to Gitz6666's assertion, Anonimu was NOT topic banned for calling me a "vandal" (which yes, that was bad), they were topic banned for "tendetious editing" [96]. Basically for making edits in the same vein and similar to the ones that Gitz6666 has been making.

The fact that Gitz6666 is holding up these two very problematic users (one of them already topic banned) as paragons of virtue in this topic area pretty clearly illustrates where the problem really lies here. Volunteer Marek 08:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Point of information, there was a war going on during the Rwandan genocide. The Rwandan Civil War. Some (but not all, maybe not most) of those killings were probably classic war crime scenarios, but I'd need to doublecheck with the scholarship. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• I'm definitely concerned by Gitz's clear attempt to slide in content with weasel word caveats while sliding out reliably sourced content in Wikivoice. I'm similarly concerned by the pushback on the idea that abducting Ukrainian children (and adults), i.e. the deportation or forcible transfer of population, is a war crime. This is a very clear war crime, and has been since 1948. Now perhaps the timing of this comment was just unfortunate, but just a day later, the war crime association was made plain as day by Reuters. However, the subsequent comment, after Ukraine had officially announced its war crime investigations into the abduction of children, is less excusable, and points to something else at work. Finding and assessing the readily available sources - like the Reuters one, which explicitly explain the nature of crimes related to forcible displacement - at this point was not hard. Should anyone who can't perform this basic function - availing of the information that sits in plain sight for all to see - be throwing their weight around on the subject? And yet Gitz was pushing the 'forced deportation' terminology (don't agree with VM that his minimizes it), which makes this yet more odd, since 'forced deportation' is precisely the type of technical language used to classify these activities as war crimes. So Gitz is espousing the technical war crime definitions even as he pushes back against the classification. Bizarre. Meanwhile, trying to tow the Russian line of masquerading these abductions as naturalizations or adoptions is a fairly extreme example of POV pushing. Is there anyone outside of the Kremlin's propaganda department and particularly gullible members of the Russian public that genuinely views these events this way? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  I did not pushback on the idea that abducting Ukrainian children (and adults), i.e. the deportation or forcible transfer of population, is a war crime. I've never NEVER said or implied that forced deportation does not qualify as war crime and/or falls outside the scope of the article. I just said that the info on Russia passing a law on easing adoption of Ukrainian children should not belong to the section on forced deportation of children in the article on War Crimes in Ukraine; that information - I argued - requires more context and more sources, and basically should be the subject of a dedicated article. That was my argument, it might be right or wrong, but it was an honest argument, and I made a good-faith edit with a clear summary; once reverted, I exposed my views on the talk page and I abode by consensus. So I don't see why I should get flagged and blamed for that, let alone be grossly misunderstood and misrepresented. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I have edited at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and related articles but I was unaware of this particular dispute. I am specifically aware of interactions with Volunteer Marek. I am pretty sure that I have interacted with Gitz6666 but would be pressed to specifically recall. Most editors on these articles have partisan views on the invasion and I would observe that VM is not an exception. However, my recollection is that, while they might be forthright in their opinions, their contributions could not be considered exceptional wrt civility or POV. I have found them to be generally acceptive of broader consensus. These particular discussions might be "tense" but I am not seeing anything exceptional in the circumstances. This is essentially a content dispute and most content disputes can be attributed to a differing POV. It should be resolved through the normal pathways. However, bringing the matter here with a claim to WP:CIVIL is another matter and I'm not seeing that this claim is clearly being substantiated. If there is anything to be addressed here, it would be incivility. But from what I read, it has been used as a throw-away add on. The case attempted focusses on the content dispute, which is a "not here". Waving the civility stick around is a matter that should be considered here. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• This should probably be at AE rather than here. I am of the general opinion that that Gitz6666 is POV-pushing problematically here and I note they have had an ARBEE alert in April, so going to AE is possible. Black Kite (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Yeh, Gitz666 has a POV here. [97] - reverting to say that "The Russian military allegedly exposed the civilian population to unnecessary and disproportionate harm by using cluster munitions" instead of just "Russian military attacked the civilian population using cluster munitions". Is anyone in doubt that they in fact attacked the civilian population using cluster munitions? Or this - including word "alleged" 6 times where it arguably does not belong and well poisoning by including irrelevant content about living person. My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  The second diff you just shared is actually User:Ilenart626 reverting Volunteer Marek. Note, by the way, VM's edit summary there, where no mention is made of the removal of contents about Denisova's dismissal. When I added those contents (22:33, 16 June 2022, diff. not available) I made it clear in the summary: Denisova's dismissal (+ sources) is relevant here as it was determined also by her unverified allegations of sexual crimes involving children. So that diff actually shows the difference between cooperative editing and POV-pushing. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  Agree I specifically reverted Volunteer Marek’s edits as the edit summary was missleading, refer my comments and examples above. Ilenart626 (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

No, I think what you both did was misrepresenting or at least editorializing the sources because the inline references did not say and did not even imply a number of "alleged" you restored (a couple of the "alleged" could be fine), as I explained on article talk page [98]. My very best wishes (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• Given the lack of qualified observers on the ground in the Ukraine, and how much misinformation (even if unintential) from both Ukraine and Russia sources, we should be careful on stating certain events as facts on Wikivoice until proven out through time. Eg much of the discussion would be better handled if NOTNEWS and RECENTISM were respected, knowing that a clear picture of events is unlikely in the short term. We don't need to include every detail particularly if there lots of questions around it. --Masem (t) 22:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  Well, this is not about "sides", but about fairly describing what mainstream RS say on the subject. If they say "alleged" about something, then yes, sure. But if not, this is POV-pushing. What I mean is explained in more detail here. My very best wishes (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Dunutubble tries to deny that the Bucha massacre was committed by Russian troops

Read Talk:Bucha massacre, I've been one of the main contributors to that page and if you somehow see how any of my edits there "deny" the Bucha massacre (especially since I was one of the first editors to support the removal of the words "alleged" from the lede), I don't know where you got that idea from. The reason why I changed the text in that link was because I had used Twinkle to restore an earlier version of the page (and restoring doesn't mean you can pick-and-choose words like that).

Dunutubble has also been trying to move/POV the article on the Moura massacre by pretending it was just a "Siege of Moura" (with some unfortunates deaths as a side effect)

You didn't read the summaries I gave where I said that There was a massacre but it happened during the siege and Article also covers the siege; massacre occurred during the siege. Why somebody would cherry-pick my edits (coupled with the fact that it was I who actually started the article, so it doesn't make sense to think I'm tryin to deny what happened) is beyond me. It's not uncommon to have "Siege of X" or "Battle of X" instead of "X massacre" article titles which we can see with "Raid on Dartmouth (1751)"/"Dartmouth Massacre", "Siege of Tel al-Zaatar"/"Tel al-Za'atar Massacre", "Siege of Badajoz (1812)"/"1812 Badajoz massacre", etc anyway.

calling someone's comments a "tantrum"... it's just a passive aggressive personal attack).

I was pointing to WP:TANTRUM, which is a real Wikipedia essay on civility. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 20:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Dude, the diff is right here. In that diff, you:

1. Pretend that Russian soldiers getting food poisoning from eating some Ukrainian food is equivalent to Ukraine "using chemical weapons". Like, that right there, gives away your POV simply because it's so over the top and crazy that someone would try to put that into a Wikipedia article. Of course the source you pretend cites the information says absolutely NOTHING about "chemical warfare" [99]. So there's another instance of you blatantly misrepresenting sources and pretending they say something they don't.

2. You change the text "(Bucha massacre was) committed by Russian forces, including torture and deliberate killings of unarmed civilians, including children" which is well sourced and beyond doubt in any mainstream source to (Bucha massacre was) attributed by the Ukrainian authorities on the Russian troops" as if the culpability here is in doubt.

You say that you only restored someone else's edit and you had to restore all of it, including the POV parts, because you were using Twinkle. I'm sorry but "I was using Twinkle" is not a valid excuse for reverting problematic text back into the article. Just. Don't. Use. Twinkle to edit war.

And here is the other diff [100] for the Moura Massacre.

In the edit summary there you explicitly claim that "HRW, Guardian, Reuters" despite the fact - that as I've already shown above - this is blatantly false. All of them call it "massacre". NONE of them even use the word siege. I don't care if some other articles on "sieges" WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, how is that relevant? Volunteer Marek 21:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Disclaimer: I'm the creator of this article; not currently active in maintaining it. I do not think that this is purely a content dispute. I think that almost all of the active editors of the article who are involved in this discussion at WP:ANI each have some valid edits and valid points in discussing the edits. However, some of the comments are either misleading or outright wrong (verifiable by checking the evidence), and several violate WP:AGF. We are now getting WP:WALLSOFTEXT. I think that as Black Kite said, going to WP:AE might be better than ANI, thanks to the tightly constrained format. Gitz6666's opening comment here is about 2388 words and 70 links (mostly diffs?), and Volunteer Marek's responses are long too. WP:AE's limit of 500 words/20 diffs would make it easier both for the participants and for uninvolved people willing to comment or propose sanctions or constraints (such as 1RR). Despite the abhorrent nature of the content of the article, constructive editing and respect for each other as Wikipedians should be possible. This is not the first, nor will it be the last, of Wikipedia articles on XXIst century war crimes. Boud (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• I have protected War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine for two days to prevent edit warring there. Please help the editors to find a compromise if you can. All editors of the article a good people, working in good faith. The topic is very emotional and occasionally good faith content disputes can offend participants. I implore everybody and especially Marek to assume good faith and before putting an emotional summary to an edit or an emotional entry to the talk page to think that that the other participants a live people who have their emotions too. I do not think any other administrative actions are useful at this time. Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Alex Bakharev good judgement.👍, I think the same. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  There is not a compromise here. Gitz purpose (in this area) is to edit in and promote Russian propaganda and excuse/deny war crimes, that is clear from their editing. Just broadly topic ban them from the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not aware of this particular dispute but VM accused me of trying to push a certain POV that I wasn't trying to push, which I wasn't- I was simply separating the two to be more specific on who holds what. This probably falls under WP:AGF IMO. --Firestar464 (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I have vehemently disagreed with Volunteer Marek on a number of occasions and occasionally contemplated filing my own complaint against him. Some of the issues raised elsewhere about his behavior are well-founded, particularly his habit of dropping unexplained NPOV tags, then stonewalling when asked to explain them. HOWEVER on the article about war crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of the Ukraine, to the extent he pushed anything, it was *back* on Gitz6666’s extremely consistent advocacy of a Russian narrative on every single detail, minimization of sexual misconduct, and attempts to include vague Russian allegations of Ukrainian misconduct. Gitz is aware that he does this and discussed on his used page with another editor how uncritically he felt that the Ukrainian narrative was being accepted. This would be a respectable concern if evenhandedly applied, but it is not, and I as a long-standing editor perceived a chilling effect from Gitz’s behavior. I was involved in the article, first as a copy editor, without incident, then, after expressing some trepidation about the war crimes article, in particular, to ErnestKrause, in an initiative to move some material from 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine to this and several other spin-off articles. There were few confrontations as I was determined to avoid them, but I do remember one about the video of Ukrainians allegedly shooting prisoners in the leg where the article text simply did not match the source. I was also involved at WP:RSN in the discussion about Denisova as a source, (Raping and killing a 1-year-old in Ukraine as alleged by Ukr. politician and reported by Daily Beast and Yahoo News)and had to stop editing the thread after Denisova was fired, as I found the grave dancing revolting. I agree with My very best wishes that she was not accused of falsehoods, and I will add that most sexual assault is by its nature very difficult to verify. It seems to me that the Rada felt that there were more provable war crimes that were being neglected. Perhaps this is my own bias, but that is what I believe. I am deep in travel on unrelated business, and this whole thread is TL;DR already, but I have felt cowardly for not yet speaking up. Yes, VM can be aggressive and impatient etc etc but his actions in the War crimes article were a net benefit to the project, whereas Gitz’ were not, and I personally agree with the editor above who said that Gitz should be topic-banned from articles about the current war in Ukraine. I am not certain what is appropriate for VM, as his actions also pose issues, but in the context of the war crimes in Ukraine article I am very glad he was there. Elinruby (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that DESPITE all the comments here pointing out to User:Gitz6666 that there are problems with his editing (by User:GizzyCatBella, User:Black Kite, User:My very best wishes, User:Only in death, User:Cinderella157, User:Iskandar323 and User:Elinruby), pretty much as soon as the protection on the article expired, Gitz6666 immediately began edit warring AGAIN. Last time they made 3 reverts in 4 hours. Now we got 3 reverts in less than 24 hours, pretty much tip-toeing up to that 3RR bright line [101] [102] [103].

This is getting ridiculous. There's a serious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problem here. Volunteer Marek 08:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Although I am now inclined to modify my position given the confusion that I have now come to believe stems from the MOS:ALLEGED guideline, which fails to draw several important semantic distinctions between "alleged" and "accused", and which I think may cause real problems among nan-native English speakers. I've subsequently raised the issues I believe it presents in a MOS talk page discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek should learn how to follow the WP:BRD cycle, seek consensus, not to force their own will upon other editors. When their edits are reverted, they systematically re-revert to their version, and then re-revert again and again. It might take a bit of time to prove this, but it's also very easy: VM's contributions to War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine could be described as a relentless edit war with multiple editors [104]. Unfortunately that strategy is often effective, and editors get bored and let them have it their own way.

We shouldn't deal with contents here, but the recent controversy on using "alleged" vs Wikivoice in the lead section is a good example of POV-pushing, disregard for consensus and lack of civility. VM started to "de-weasel" the lead, as they say, on 18 June [105], and when reverted they went on [106] and on [107] and on [108] and on [109], again [110] and again [111]. While doing so, they were reverted or criticised on the talk page by some of the main contributors to the article: apart from myself, User:Ilenart626, User:Alaexis, User:AdrianHObradors, User:The Four Deuces. VM were using the edit summaries to attribute mean intentions (stop trying to whitewash war crimes by sprinkling "alleged") and to make fake accusations (Are you seriously saying that the mass murders in Bucha didn't necessarily happen and were only "alleged"????); they were constantly adding new contents to their original edit (+ missile in Donetss + attacks on nuclear power plants) making it even more difficult to mediate and reach a consensus. This is their battleground mentality: it had to be a capitulation and they were raising the stakes.

As I've decided to expose their behaviour here, I've also decided to block this relentless POV-pushing in that article. Therefore on the talk page I proposed to open a RfC on the issue "alleged vs Wikivoice" in the lead with regard to indiscriminate attacks [112]. What is VM's reaction to this? They post on that talk page all the comments here at AN/I by editors who have accused me of being a Russian POV-pusher: [113]. Those editors were seriously ill-informed about my contribution (please read here) but the point is that none of them had said or implied anything about the issue "alleged vs Wikivoice" in the lead (apart from User:Iskandar323, who however just said they are inclined to modify their position). So VM is blatantly breaking WP:TALK by publishing on the talk page of that article seven comments by fellow editors who think I'm biased. Moreover, VM is also misrepresenting what those editors said by concluding that That's seven editors right there telling you're in the wrong here, as "here" (on that talk page) the issue under discussion was the use of the "alleged" terminology. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to note that I was the editor that first removed "accused of committing" from the opening line of the lead, replaced with a more accurate, neutral, and sourced "documented committing". There's also a very deliberate and biased application of standards from Gitz when it comes to use of the words "alleged" and "accused" in the article. For example, accusations against Ukraine that are reported by a third party like the UN monitoring mission are described in vikivoice without "accused" or "alleged", but he injects "alleged" for similar instances of third party reports documenting Russian crimes. Selective application of standards is a persistent issue with Gitz and this article; small scale Ukrainian war crimes get detailed explanation in the lead whereas large scale Russian war crimes get sliced into small summaries that leave out key commentary like the notion that Russia is not just committing sexual violence but has weaponized sexual violence as a tool of war. Furthermore, Gitz and llenart routinely ignore talk page discussions when editing, claim their edits are not disputed while there are talk page threads actively disputing their edits, and never actually try opening an RFC thread to see where consensus really lies. The sidelining of talk page discussions to make disputed edits has become so problematic that I have withdrawn from actually trying to participate in the talk threads because it accomplishes nothing; the only way to contribute to that article at this point is to engage in edit warring.

And this may be besides the point at this juncture, but individual Russians have in fact pleaded guilty to committing war crimes in Ukraine, so the continual insertion of "alleged" or "accused" is becoming increasingly tendentious. But like always, I'm sure the goalposts will be moved and double standards will be applied to justify a POV that is much kinder to Russia than the actual reporting from reliable sources. Shadybabs (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

For what it is worth I have no objection to being quoted by VM, and agree with Shadybabs that the sealioning on that page is exhausting. I am here again however because Gitz6666 suggested on my talk page that I had misunderstood him with respect to the Russian prisoners. I have several things on fire off-wiki today, but felt the need to chase this down, as it is actually only fair that I be certain that it was in this article, and not me conflating with some exchange I had with, say, Ilenart626. I was in fact talking about the section on kneecapping, which I have found in the text, sourced to Le Monde.

This edit by Gitz again misrepresents the source, which does *not* say that the video was *verified* but that it was *geo-located* to a specific farm in Mala Rohan. There is in fact some nuance and hedging about what it appears to depict. It is not absolutely certain that a Ukrainian pulled the trigger, for example, although Le Monde seems to believe this. But no, “verified” is not really true, and French language is one of my fields of expertise. I initially thought there might have been a language misunderstanding — the discrepancy with the text at that time was about whether another video from about a kilometer away was part of the same incident. Le Monde does not say so and I translated the full passage on the talk page to make this point. This was dismissed as a minor issue, but, the source does not say this! And the passage is translated to English on the talk page so language is not an issue. I will dig the talk page section up later, if any of this is further disputed, but right now I really cannot.

Incidentally, as I was going through the history, I noted that on this page Gitz has also been denigrating Denisova as described in the current AE complaint about Mhorg, and btw, Mhorg is one of the two editors with whom Gitz discusses on his talk page how unfairly editors give more credence to Ukrainian statements than Russian.

I have not been involved in the dispute about “allegedly” but I see this as an example of what I have called minimization of Russian war crimes. I do not think that in his case this is a language issue, although this may be true for some languages. Glitz is an Italian speaker, and based on Google Translate, Italian, like French and Spanish, has precise equivalents for “allegedly”. Elinruby (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Elinruby says that this edit misrepresents the source, which does *not* say that the video was *verified* but that it was *geo-located*. However, Le Monde did verify the video, as they explicitly say, meaning that the video is not a fake, it hasn't been staged, people there are real Russian POWs and they were actually shot. Elinruby is right in saying It is not absolutely certain that a Ukrainian pulled the trigger, but I have never said or implied the contrary. In fact, in my immediately following edit I did not remove from the article "a video purportedly showing Ukrainian soldiers torturing Russian prisoners" and in the edit summary I explained I leave "video purportedly showing" for extra caution, but because the authenticity of the video has now been confirmed, I dropped video "likely" shot in Mala Rohan (RS say we know for sure where it was shot) which "purports" to depict (it actually depicts what it depicts, and the Russian POWs it shows were really Russian POWs. Both my edits and my edit summaries were correct, and Elinruby's allegation Gitz again misrepresents the source (by the way, why "again?) is simply wrong. I never said nor implied that the video (as verified by "Le Monde" and others) demonstrates that the trigger was pulled by Ukrainian soldiers.
Elinruby then says I translated the full passage on the talk page to make this point. This was dismissed as a minor issue and here they are referring to a different article and a different talk page: Talk:Torture of Russian soldiers in Mala Rohan. But I didn't comment in that thread, maybe I didn't even read it. However, it's quite funny because there Elinruby says that Le Monde is damning and leaves little doubt (...) I would have preferred it if the video was found to be fabricated, but if a Ukrainian unit went rogue and tortured prisoners, then a Ukrainian unit went rogue and torturted prisoners. So basically had I read their comment and followed their interpretation, I would have removed the "purportedly" in the sentence "a video purportedly showing Ukrainian soldiers torturing Russian prisoners"! But I understand Elinruby is now very busy in RL and maybe they can't be bothered with all these details.
Finally, my brief exchange with User:Mhorg is still there on my talk for everybody to see. Elinruby's statement Gitz has also been denigrating Denisova is simply false. The translation of what I said there is the following: Thanks, Mhorg, I was aware of this [Denisova's dismissal]. Perhaps one could place the information in the appropriate place of the War Crimes article. The discussion at RS/N took a surreal turn as the news spread and some users continued to say that the information [rape of a 1-year-old, etc.] was still sufficiently verifiable! Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

please don’t patronize me thankyouverymuch. I am dealing with a number of logistical problems in another country related to my dead parents’ estate, and need to leave by the first, so yes, that is considerably more urgent than debating the nature of reality with you. I do think that Ukrainian soldiers may have shot these Russians, keyword “may”. I find your assertion that you were hoping otherwise unlikely, as it goes against my experience with you, but never mind that. My point is simply that Le Monde did *not* say they had “verified” the video as you claimed. I said “again” because of the prior misrepresentation, but ok, if you insist on a blow by blow we can do that but not right now as I just loaded a van full of household goods I need to donate before I can take a shower, so good night. Elinruby (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're continuing to misunderstand my comments and make inaccurate statements.

First, I've never said that I hoped that the Russian POWs had not been shot by Ukrainian soldiers. Here above I was quoting you verbatim [114]: it was you who would have preferred it if the video was found to be fabricated, and it was you who said that a Ukrainian unit went rogue and torturted prisoners. While I feel deeply sorry for this Russian soldier and his family, I literally don't give a damn about the nationality of the perpetrators. I have no political allegiances in this war, I just would like it to end as soon as possible and not escalate further. To that end, I think that we should report war crimes accurately, without exaggerating them and without sweeping them under the carpet.

Secondly, contrary to what you claim, "Le Monde" did write that they had verified the video: L'analyse ... confirme son authenticité, they wrote. That doesn't mean they knew the nationality of the perpetrators, so I didn't modify the sentence video purportedly showing Ukrainian soldiers.

Most importantly, if the point here is the use of cautious, indirect language ("allegedly", "reportedly", "accused of") vs direct language (Wikivoice), one can see that I used Wikivoice myself to debunk Russian propaganda about the Mariupol hospital airstrike: a disinformation campaign that started trending on Russian Telegram and was repeated in a tweet from the Russian embassy in the UK, I wrote [115]. I used Wikivoice when I created the section on destruction of Ukrainian cultural properties [116], when I described Russian attacks to medical facilities [117][118] and when I described the Bilohorivka school bombing [119]. I also used Wikivoice when I accounted for Bucha in the lead section, which I made already on 3 April with the edit summary Bucha massacre is well-covered in the article and accounting for it in the lead might be appropriate [120][121]. Re lead section, you might be interested in knowing that apart from Bucha I also added by my own initiative both forced deportation [122] and kidnapping and torturing [123]: all crimes attributed to the Russian army. I know that I'm not a pro-Russia supporter and I know that you're completely misunderstanding three months of work on that article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

You’re still patronizing me with your fr-1 language skills. If you didn’t read my big caveat on the talk page about the translation of the Le Monde source before you used it in the article lede, perhaps you should have checked the talk page, hmm? I re-reviewed the article last night and watched the video, and as a native-level French speaker, educated in French, I stand by my statement that they do not say they “verified” it. This is just one of many examples, and arguably one of the more subtle inaccuracies, so I will go to the article talk page to explain the fine detail of whyin case anyone else is interested. I am going to be arranging shipping for artwork for most of the day so it may not be until quite a bit later or even tomorrow. Elinruby (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

This type of dispute is better handled at WP:AE. I have formally notified Volunteer Marek of the sanctions. Notification btw does not imply an allegation or accusation of wrong-doing. I suggest we close this thread and take any future disputes to AE. TFD (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

+1 - should go to AE, but I also agree with Masem about RECENTISM. WP is an encyclopedia, NOTNEWS. If facts cannot be added to an article in a dispassionate tone per NPOV, or the material is not factual but rather, it is conjecture/journalistic opinion/supposition/state propaganda, then it doesn't belong in the article unless in compliance with WP:REDFLAG and WP:INTEXT. Atsme 💬 📧 13:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

OK what is up with this argument about whether Le Monde said in its article that it authenticated the video?

Here is a link to the Le Monde article. This sentence:

L’analyse, par « Le Monde » et des enquêteurs indépendants, d’une vidéo censée montrer des soldats ukrainiens tirant sur des prisonniers russes, confirme son authenticité.

translates to The analysis, by Le Monde and independent investigators, of a video supposed to show Ukrainian soldiers shooting at Russian prisoners, confirms its authenticity.

This sentence:

Une vidéo, diffusée le 27 mars 2022 et que Le Monde a pu authentifier et recouper avec d’autres images, documente une probable exaction commise par des volontaires ukrainiens contre des prisonniers de guerre russes.

Means A video, broadcast on 27 March 2022 and which Le Monde was able to authenticate and matched with other images, documents a probable abuse committed by Ukrainian volunteers against Russian prisoners of war.

I don't understand how this is in any way unclear? This edit by Gitz says On 13 May French newspaper Le Monde verified the video and confirmed its authenticity. I think "verified the video" overstates it a bit, but to claim that this edit misrepresents the sources is ... well, itself a misrepresentation. Levivich^[block] 16:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

No. It is not a misrepresentation. Your translation is somewhat inaccurate and I will not have time to fully spell out why exactly until somewhat later. And will do so on the talk page so as not to belabor a thread that people are already saying should go to another board. But let’s mention that although I have some doubts about this incident, Le Monde appears to tentatively believe it is “plausible” (vraisemblable) and therefore so do I. I didn’t like at the time but was talking to someone I thought was trying to minimize it. The video narration is couched in a grammatical form used to carefully attribute statements to others without endorsing them, for one thing, particularly in formal French such as used by this publication. “Censée” is the one of the most dubious of the possible forms for “allegedly”, for another. As I said, there is a great deal of nuance and hedging in the source and “verified” is inaccurate. More later, somebody is waiting for me and literally tapping his foot. Elinruby (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry about your loss, and really, if you don't have time for this, you don't need to spend time on this.

I do not see the word vraisemblable in this Le Monde article. However you translate vidéo censée montrer -- whether that's "video supposed to show" or "video allegedly showing" or "video purportedly showing" or "video meant to show" or "video expected to show", or whatever variation... it doesn't matter, because the clause confirme son authenticité means "confirms his authenticity" (in English, "its" rather than "his").

According to Le Monde, whatever that video was censée to show, l’analyse (the analysis) par « Le Monde » et des enquêteurs indépendants (by Le Monde and independent investigators) confirme son authenticité (confirms its authenticity). While I would write "Le Monde and independent investigators authenticated the video", and not "verified the video" (because in English verified means something different than authenticated), "verified" is hardly "misrepresenting the source". Levivich^[block] 17:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

It’s in the video narration. “Vraisemblablement”, actually, which just makes it an adverb. “Seemingly” is a better translation, on second thought. It literally means “seems true”.

You seem to be making some fine distinctions between an overstatement and a misrepresentation, but ok, I am saying that “vérifiéé” does not mean “verified”, so while it does not, (feel free to ask someone about this this, and other perils of cognates) I am down for the discussion. But I don’t know that the ANI board is all that interested in this one example, so I still think I should refer you to a lengthy discussion that I need to post on the talk page anyway.

However, since you are still politely explaining to me the meaning of words in what my country considers my native language — the US thinks it’s English — I will just mention a few things. I am not offended, mind you; the world is full of unfounded claims of expertise and I don’t believe that we have interacted before. I also thank you for your concern, but I am merely on an announced wikibreak, working on something with an immovable deadline. I realize I do not have to be in this discussion; all I was saying above was that I am simply very short of time (while at the RSN thread Gitz seemed to have enormous energy available to argue ad infinitum).

And yet. I feel strongly about the accuracy of information and given this thread, felt it was important to say that as angry as I have in the past been with VM, mostly recently over some editing he did about a pogrom in Poland, in this instance he persisted when I allowed myself to be intimidated or maybe just exhausted. I am sure Gitz finds VM frustrating. And yet. Gitz feels Russians are being demonized, and dismisses many claims about their behavior, in my opinion on very flimsy grounds. This is also extremely frustrating to other editors including me. And also no doubt to VM.

So. I will tell you again that “verified” is the wrong word, and creates a misleading impression, in the lede of the article about the incident. Language fact: The use of the conditional tense here indicates attribution and a distancing from the statements being made. It precludes endorsement, but does not necessarily imply the falsehood of the statement. The video “supposedly” or “seemingly” shows Ukrainians shooting Russians. Le Monde specifically says that the video came from Russian propaganda sources. I am not completely certain what they mean by authenticated here, but in general, in English, it means that the person is who they claim to be. Ask any information security professional; it is a term of art. Here, most likely, I believe that it means that the purported author is the purported author. I am not aware of linguistic drift with respect to this term. I believe it is a reference to social media videos shot nearby by the commander of the regiment, which *do* show him with these prisoners at a different but nearby location.

Basically, Le Monde checked the story (vérifier) and neither confirms nor refutes it.

They did determine some things. Based on weather, they say, the video was shot on the 25th at sunset. The unit accused of these actions was in military control of the vicinity on that date. The commander of the Ukrainian unit sounds like a piece of work and had just lost a brother to Russian shelling nearby. The particular video discussed and showcased by Le Monde does not offer enough detail to make out insignia on any of the men, they say, but the armbands indicate that the prisoners are Russian and the unit is Ukrainian. They slso say they could not determine the truth of this with certitude. Everyone in the video is speaking Russian. Le Monde quotes an expert who says that based on the pronunciation of the word for “what”, the captors would seem to be native speakers of Ukrainian. (There are some questions about this in other sources and btw, the BBC said sunup not sundown. But here, we are talking about this source.)

What Le Monde *specifically says they are not saying* is that these unidentified soldiers are from the unit named in the Wikipedia article, or, as I recall, that they were Ukrainian at all. I currently believe that this seems likely, but Le Monde definitely didn’t “verify” this in any sense of the English word and specifically declined to agree with the claim repeated in the lede of our article, supported by Le Monde as a source.

You don’t specify your own proficiency in spoken French, so I hope it will not seem condescending to mention that the article says that the video has optional subtitles in English, but I didn’t locate that control and so cannot speak to their accuracy. I am sure that in a Le Monde production they would be well-done. I apologize for the wall of text, everyone.

I will go into this further on the article talk page, and if anybody really is all that interested in this one issue they should follow it there. I brought it up here because it is the instance where I have looked into the detail.

Personally, I think that kidnapping children, and what Shadybabs had to say about sexual assault, are both more important. Elinruby (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

“verified” is the wrong word, and creates a misleading impression, in the lede of the article. "Verified" is not used in the lead of the article, it is used in the section Kneecapping of Russian soldiers. You can improve the linguistic quality or accuracy by editing there. Re Shadybabs on sexual assault (better: rape as a weapon of war) I intend to reply soon. Re kidnapping children, it's not clear what you're referring to because there were a couple of different issues (using "kidnapping" or "deportation", and reporting about a Russian decree/law on easing adoptions). We had various discussions on this, the main one being here. You're welcome to comment there if you have views on these two topics. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I do not need your permission to edit War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, but thanks for the invite. Life is short though, and I have stuff to do in four hours. My remarks above about translation concerned Torture of Russian soldiers in Mala Rohan. The remark about kidnapping and sexual assault refers to the comments of other editors in this thread here. I am going to sleep now; feel free to refrain from explaining further to me. I am not in your time zone, I do not want to talk to you and I am done here, goodnight. Elinruby (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Replying to Shadybabs (here above at 18:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)) is more difficult than to Elinruby because they conveyed a comprehensive assessment but did not provide any diffs. I'll try to address all the points they raised while also producing evidence of what I say.

First, Shadybabs laments that in the lead section accusations against Ukraine that are reported by a third party like the UN monitoring mission are described in vikivoice without "accused" or "alleged", but he [Gitz] injects "alleged" for similar instances of third party reports documenting Russian crimes. This is not accurate, as it is easy to check. The lead section has always used Wikivoice for many Russian war crimes, such as "damage or destruction of civilian buildings including houses, hospitals, schools, kindergartens, nuclear power plants, historic buildings, and churches", "overwhelming evidence of rape, torture and summary killings by Russian forces of Ukrainian civilians", "evidence emerged of a massacre perpetrated by Russian troops, including torture and the deliberate killings of civilians". As I demonstrated in the discussion with Elinruby (see the diffs there), I myself added those contents in Wikivoice to the lead. Moreover, the lead uses Wikivoice for one common war crime ("Russian and Ukrainian prisoners of war have been repeatedly abused and exposed to public curiosity...") and for the killing of Russian POWs ("...and on at least two occasions Russian prisoners have been tortured and killed"). The result is IMO well-balanced and broadly aligned to the coverage in RS: the vast majority of war crimes were committed by Russian forces and this clearly emerges from the lead. Wikivoice is supported by multiple sources and is the outcome of discussions to which several editors took part: see 21 March 2022, 23 March 2022, 27 March 2022 (all on having Russian POWs in the lead), 5 April 2022 (on Bucha), 30 April 2022 (on the talk page of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, notified here), 7 May 2022 (again on POW in the lead) and 20 June 2022 (ongoing, on the "alleged" language).

So I think that when Shadybabs talks about the use of the words "alleged" and "accused", they are referring to the first two sentences on indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks by Russian forces, which Shadybabs modified two days ago so as to use Wikivoice [124]. It's a topic we've been discussing on the talk page in the last few days, where I argue that the "alleged" terminology is preferable at this stage. It's not a matter of bias on my part - I've spent hours describing indiscriminate attacks by the Russians and I'm also intending to write an article on the topic of indiscriminate attack. The point is that ascertaining this kind of war crimes requires delicate assessments, such as balancing human rights with military necessity, and two of the sources we quote on this (BBC and the Monitoring mission) use themselves a relatively cautious language. So the debate is still open and it's not at all clear if there's consensus for Wikivoice.

Secondly, according to Shadybabs Gitz and llenart routinely ignore talk page discussions. I strongly disagree. On many occasions my views did not prevail and I abode by consensus: e.g., with regard to targeting humanitarian corridors in Mariupol, ill-treatment and torture of Russian supporters and marauders, ill-treatment and humiliation of Russian POWs, attack on nuclear plants, ill-treatment of migrants in detention centres, use of human shields, genocide as a war crime, and possibly other discussions we had where either my arguments did not prevail, or they prevailed but a small group of like-minded editors succeeded in forcing their views via edit war (the missile on Donetsk being the last clear example of this [125]).

Unfortunately what I just said cannot be proved by simply sharing a few diffs. To have an informed opinion one needs to read the discussions we had in the talk page, especially in May/June. What one finds is that, on the one side, there's a relatively small, very cohesive and determined group of editors (Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes, occasionally Shadybabs and Adoring nanny), and on the other there's a larger but less cohesive and active group of editors (myself, Ilenart626, AdrianHObradors, Alaexis, The Four Deuces and Dunutubble, often IP 187). Members of the second group don't always join the discussions and occasionally have different views among themselves. The first group wins almost on every occasions, no matter if they are trying to remove contents (e.g. torture of Russian supporters and marauders, humiliation of POWs, ill-treatment of migrants, use of human shields, missile on Donetsk) or to include contents (targeting of humanitarian corridors, attack on nuclear plants, genocide as a war crime, Russian Duma's law on adoption). In fact, one of the reasons why I opened this discussion, apart from VM's incivility, is the frequent disregard for consensus on that article and talk page. In this sandbox I keep contents that have been removed from the article and that I would be happy to restore.

3) Finally, Shadybabs mentions "rape as a weapon of war" to demonstrate that consensus is disregarded by Ilenart626 and me. Yesterday I read the discussions again and I'm sure Shadybabs is wrong. What happened is that Volunteer Marek and Shadybabs had added to the lead that Human rights organizations have also accused Russian troops of using mass rape as a "weapon of war" [126] [127]. I thought that the sources (at the time, the following two [128][129]) were not good enough to support such an exceptional claim, first because the claim had not been made by several "human rights organizations" but rather by Ukrainian officials and (possibly, the point is not clear) by a human right organisation called "La Strada-Ukraine", and secondly because "rape as a weapon of war" doesn't mean "massive rape": it is rape used for military ends, with the complicity of the chain of command, and it is not at all clear that that is occurring in Ukraine. So I opened a discussion on the talk page and rather clumsily also a discussion at RS/N. In favour of modifying the lead there were Volunteer Marek, Shadybabs and My very best wishes (and possibly also Xx236 and Ixtal, who just shared sources); against including a reference to sexual violence as a weapon of war in the lead section there were Gitz6666, Hawkeye7, Boynamedsue and Otr500. So it was 3 (or 5) for including against 4. As per WP:ONUS, we didn't include it, and I can't see any violation of consensus in those discussions and outcome.
Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

tl;dr, sorry. But I do not think your diffs support your statements. After quickly looking at this ANI thread, I have an impression that you are trying to catch others on minor imperfections and legitimate disagreements, instead of trying to improve the page. For example, you accused VM of misrepresentation becase he included a comparison of Russian filtration camps in Ukraine and Chechnya. However, such comparison is a common place and was used in a number of mainstream RS, for example [130]. In the first paragraph of the thread you accused him of misrepresenting "of what I'd been arguing". No, he was saying this about your actual edits on the page, rather than your arguments on talk. And what he said was a reasonable interpretation of your actual edits. You are coming to ANI with such diffs and walls of text. This can be a reason for "boomerang". My very best wishes (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I understand that you are referring to this edit of mine [131]. I wrote that there was a misrepresentation of source because the quoted source, Politico, did not support the comparison between filtration camps in Ukraine and in Chechnya. I didn't look for other sources on that comparison, you are right, but I read the source we were quoting and - as you can see - I added "modern day" concentration camp so as to better use the reference VM had just added. I don't see how I could be blamed for that, as my edit was both useful (I removed a mistake) and cooperative (I retained as much as possible of the new text and source). Surely I could have done better - looking for further sources and retain the comparison - but what I did was not bad at all. As you are among the most active editors on that article, I thought you could have come up with a more serious shortcoming from my part. What you just mentioned is fully defensible. Plus, with regard to your second point, I don't see how "Kidnapping of children after murdering their parent and forcibly Russyfying them is not a "war crime" but benevolent adoption" (that is what VM reproached me for) could be a reasonable interpetation of this edit of mine [132]. At the most I could concede that it was a malicious, spiteful interpretation - the kind of interpretation you make when you want to pick up a fight rather then seek an agreement. And VM repeated it after 11 days, completely out of context, in a different discussion. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I recommend you use {{no ping}} to mention editors like me that have nothing to do with the dispute, especially in massively long blocks of text that are hard to read through, Gitz. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 17:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, Gitz6666}, please do not claim to have demonstrated this or that in a discussion with me, as it makes it sound like you claim to have demonstrated these things *to* me. Perhaps there is an idiomatic issue there on my part or yours, or perhaps I am merely sensitized by our prior discussion of child rape on the RSN board, which I found upsetting enough to ask a friend’s opinion of it. If it is me, I do apologize, but nonetheless I do still make this request.

Also, a friendly suggestion if you are willing to hear it: I note that you are involved in Wikiproject Law. If your work or training is in this field, perhaps this would shed a somewhat more favorable light on your rather disputatious discussion style. Please do not ping me if you answer this; I wish to disengage from the thread. But for the record, if you said anything to me about alleged or wikivoice, it was TL;dr, as I was not in that dispute and still do not wish to join it, simply because life is too short. I stopped myself from saying that your remarks were off-topic, as I did say that I agree that you seem to advocate for the Russian military, so AGF, I guess you were trying to provide examples of you not doing that? I was, fyi, in this article to see what it covered that could therefore be slimmed down in 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Only.

I did carefully read the entire article at the time, and do a copy edit. And I also read the recent talk page postings, which is good practice, btw. I saw a lot of disputes and formed an opinion about them but chose not to engage. I took issue with the representation of the Le Monde source because I could be absolutely sure of what I was saying about it. Only. Thank you for your cooperation and I hope the suggestion is helpful. Elinruby (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Recent influx of problematic articles on Arabian language novels

The last few weeks, we have seen a large influx of new articles on Arabian language novels. Most of them seem to be notable, so should normally be welcomed, but the creations, even though done by different editors, have serious issues which have seen many of them draftified or speedy deleted already (including very poor translations leading to unintelligible prose and factual errors). This seems to be related to a #KMUOS project or drive from the University of Sharjah[133]. Other editors who have dealt with this include User:Moonswimmer, User:Praxidicae, User:Timtrent, User:Doug Weller, User:RandomCanadian, and User:Liz. This is a recurring problem, see also Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard/Archive_21#Project_#KMUOS which indicates that it was run in February 2021 and again in November 2021, with the same issues. See Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard#Resurrected_from_the_archives_(#KMUOS) for a short recent discussion. Many of the articles are unattributed, copyright violating translations from Arabic sources, so at worst a mass deletion may be necessary, apart from some method to deal with the editors and the project as a whole. Examples:

• User talk:Reyami.Alsalman, an endless list of deletions and draftifications, with zero posts to article or user talk by the editor involved
• User talk:Farah Afana, again a long list of issues with articles, and again not a single edit to talk or user talk
• User talk:Shahdmurshed, same story, same complete lack of interaction
• User talk:Hanan Wadi, same, but 1 user talk message[134]
• User talk:Aisha abdulsamad, same, no talk page posts
• User talk:Fatimah Al Ani, same
• User talk:Sanabaghhh, same

The creation, and recreation, of this many problematic articles is seriously taxing New Page Patrol (and other processes). All help is appreciated. Fram (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

If it really is a case of a lecturer instructing their students to do this, then sanctioning the individual editors (students) involved presumably won't help much; next term or year there will be a new cohort. And if (per Timtrent's earlier comments) contact with the lecturer has been attempted but they're not responding, then is it possible to prevent new article creation from the university's IP range, at least temporarily just to get their attention? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

- @DoubleGrazing, @Fram I tried reaching out to the putative instructor by email and was totally ignored.

We have several options:

• Sanction the students - fruitless and likely to hurt us, not the student
• Getting WMF to contact the university and tame this instructor - my favourite, but will they, and how do we initiate that?
• Treat each article on its merits and delete - solves the short term issue, but takes work and is a dostracton
• Block the university - Will only work if they receive a targeted message requiring the errant instructor to get in real contact.

I suppose there are other routes. What I am not in favour of is any special treatment of the students nor their articles. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The problem VAST. I just looked at one editor's contributions. I was tempted to AfD, but, but but..... So many 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Who was it that you reached out to? Was it the one Dana Khalil mentioned here, or someone else? It's odd, because in theory, the brief says all the right things! Iskandar323 (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

One, perhaps more, of

Prof. Sane Yagi (most likely)

Dr. Najib Jarad

Ms. Dana Khalil

Ms. Serine Brahim

No response at all 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

They should be blocked as they come, just as we do with problematic contest editors. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Considering that User:Aisha abdulsamad alone has created 3 more articles since they were notified of this discussion, I agree. No use in letting them continue if they don't communicate at the very least. Fram (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Preventative blocks, followed by article inspection do, now, seem to be the right way to proceed 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocking will also at least bring to their attention that something is wrong and may lead to them or their instructor communicating with the rest of the community. I'm doing some NPP today, but I'm skipping these article (a few more of which have been created since the article creators were notified of this ANI thread). Singularity42 (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

If they're not responding to any talk page comments or this thread in a timely manner, I don't see an issue with blocking them all as a preventative measure. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

This raises a couple of general questions. Do such drives ever produce positive results? If so, do they constitute a net positive or negative to Wikipedia? Wouldn't we do better to disband the WMF department that encourages educational projects and spend the money on more important things like making the mobile interface work for editing? I know that these questions are not directly linked to the problem here but they need to be asked. I still, after many years of saying such things, think that the WMF would get more bang for the buck by employing a few highly-skilled and highly-paid technicians than these armies of unskilled "outreach" workers. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger I fear this project is outside the WikiEd remit, so is an instructor doing their (very poor) best. Surely a discussion about extending WikiEd might bear better fruit, but elsewhere and away from the problem this instructor is causing their students.

I feel sorry for the poor students. But not sorry enough to object to blocking them and deleting the unattributed translations which must thus be copyvios. Or, I suppose, attributing them and keeping or deleting in their merits 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I have not considered the copyvio issue. I don't read Arabic, so I rely on machine translation (I know, I know) to get a feel for what the sources say. In an article I just looked at, Embrace on Brooklyn Bridge, I even have a concern that that isn't the English title of the book—or at least, it's only the editor's original research of what the translated title should be.

I do have sympathy for the students, but when I've crossed paths with education-related projects and student editors in the past, sometimes the only way to get the instructor's attention is when they have students coming back to the instructor complaining that their articles are being deleted or their accounts are being blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Given the similarity of this and this, and the fact that the articles all seem to the same odd table at the end, I'm wondering bifn they have been pointed to arabicfiction.org and told to translate it. Can a translation be so bad and to avoid copyright infringement? - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

A retired IP lawyer writes: A colleague once remarked that the great principle of copyright law is, "Go and write your own". A dreadful translation still violates that principle - it's freeloading on someone else's work. Narky Blert (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I have been draftifying these articles as I see them show up in the edit filter log, I feel like it would probably be best to draftify most if not all of them, see if they have merit, and then clean up the translation as fit, but that is certainly a lot of work to do so. I'm not even sure these articles have a place on English Wikipedia, but that's my own opinion. ~XyNq^t_c 19:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that if there aren’t copyright violations, draftification provides a safe place to save and fix those articles worth saving. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

...but most are copyright violations, so draftifying is not the solution (though better than nothing of course). Preventing the creation of new articles would be nice though. Fram (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe then just a block from Article space so they could still use Talk pages and Draft space would be a good solution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Yep. Or as a wider fix, block the university's entire IP range from mainspace, with AO off and ACB enabled. Obviously, this would need a CU to determine the IP range, but if as suspected they're all coming from a named university that IP range is unlikely to be private information anyway. Black Kite (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Draftifying just means they'll go through AfC and be accepted by reviewers who are unfamiliar with this problem, though, right? I've accepted at least one of them (but this one was a translation from ar-wiki as far as I can tell). I share @C.Fred's concern about the titles though (in my case, why not The Sail and The Storm instead of Sail and Storm?). It never occurred to me to check if the editor had ever edited a Talk page - so much the fool me, I guess. Unless there are some Arabic-speaking Wikipedia editors handy to rope into dealing with this, I think blocking (in the hopes of getting the attention of the professors) is probably a good call. -- asilvering (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I've left an alert at WT:AFC which others may wish to embellish or correct. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• I have blocked User:Aisha abdulsamad, User:Reyami.Alsalman and User:Sanabaghhh from mainspace as they were still creating articles after being notified. Will look at the others later. Black Kite (talk) 05:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  Good and pragmatic call. To get the attention further I have suggested Draft:Death bed number 12 for CSD as a copyvio referencing this discussion.

  However, doing this individually to each such suspected copyvio seems arduous. I believe admins have tools to perform certain actions on user edits en masse. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 05:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  Distressing case; if only the instructor(s) would have the decency to respond. Meanwhile, we are forced to punish their students and destroy their well intentioned work. I had a look at Draft:Death bed number 12 and looking at our article on the author, Ghassan Kanafani, and searching on the urls of 2 references the editor removed led me to conclude the draft is a translation of موت سرير رقم 12 on Arabic Wikipedia (we translate the title as "A Death in Bed No. 12"). Pretty obviously notable, and I'm not sure an unattributed translation from another language Wikipedia is speediable, especially since the editor may have intended the first edit summary, "translate from arabic to English", to mean just that? But the translation obviously needs clean-up (and no, I can't read Arabic), and if I'm right it's a good illustration of how formats and expectations differ between versions of Wikipedia. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, this is why I've moved the articles of the pblocked editors to Draft: space, so they can continue to work on them. But we simply can't have them bombarding us with dozens of articles ranging from tolerable to utterly non-notable. Black Kite (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• Hanan Wadi (talk · contribs) is still going on with creating articles after the notice. ~Styyx^Talk? 19:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  And very close to getting blocked for copyright violations. —C.Fred (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• CU comment I've just taken a look at the first two accounts listed above. They all geolocate to the same city, but they are both jumping around multiple different ranges - preventing just those two accounts from editing would require eight different wide range blocks. In other words, anything less than drastic and wide-ranging action is not going to be effective if we go off the IPs they're editing from. If we want to address this, we're going to have to go at it from the 'block the accounts to get their attention' angle. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Girth Summit Grateful for the news, challenging though it is. I've not been around for a good few hours. At what point do we move from individual administrator action to a consensus set of account blocks to block to get attention?

  Do "we" then mass draftily the creations by these editors? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  There isn't a set formula for this type of thing. All administrators have a mandate to use their discretion to block accounts that are causing disruption. If one is going to block lots of accounts over the same issue, I'm sure that a consensus here that it's a good idea would make one feel more confident, but it isn't a requirement that we have a !vote, or even a discussion. Similarly, any experienced editor can draftify multiple dodgy new articles in the same way they can draftify a single new article - you don't need a formal consensus for that until someone challenges you. Given that these accounts have been uncommunicative, a challenge might be seen as a good thing - we want them to engage in communication, one way or another, so that we can discuss it with them. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Girth Summit Were I an admin I would now be considering preventative blocks from Article space of 100% of the students in order to prompt that conversation. By 'considering' I mean 'implementing'. (I am not, and do not wish to be, so cannot do so) I would then undertake the labour to draftily on the basis that doing so does no harm. AFC reviewers are alerted to the block by the AFC Helper script, and I have alerted at WT:AFC to seek to avoid a reviewer accepting without considering this discussion

  I am glad that a formal consensus with !vote does not need to be built. It appears that we have an informal consensus of "Something must be done" to work with. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, I know you're not an admin - I was just trying to answer the question as you posed it. I'm not going to take any action here myself - I'm too busy trying to figure out who's who in an SPI case at the moment to look at this, and once that's finished I'm going to bed. I hope that somebody else, who has looked in more detail at the articles in question, will decide on the best action to take. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  Hello all I am late seeing this discussion. I reviewed the article June Rain for NPP, and I also worked to improve the article. The article was started by an editor who is being discussed in this thread. Today, I saw that an editor in this discussion sent the article to draft. I moved it back to main space. I read the above thread and I know that there is serious issue that you all are working out. I thank you for ensuring that there is less rubbish in the encyclopedia: I do not believe that applies to this article. Bruxton (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  I advocate indefinitely blocking all the student editors from mainspace, with a message on all their talk pages that communication is required and that their instructor(s) also need to communicate with us. It's become apparent to me at least that some have been attempting to give attribution when translating from Arabic Wikipedia, through the creation edit summary "translating from arabic to English", but because that doesn't say what was being translated from, it doesn't satisfy the requirement and is not being understood as an attempt at attribution. Other students are translating from other sources and violating copyright in so doing. And all that I have seen are producing poor translatese; note the sentence The events of this novel revolve around the June rain, which was based on bullets and sectarian strife that characterized the civilian war that happened in northern Lebanon in June Rain even after it's been worked over by experienced English-speaking editors. That's so unclear, it has to be based on translation. These belong in draft space except where copyvio is obvious and not copyvio from Arabic Wikipedia with an attempted attribution statement (I put a comment on Draft talk:Death bed number 12 in hopes of staving off deletion on those grounds, but Primefac deleted it nonetheless). In mainspace, they fall into the category of machine translations that we do not tolerate and cannot tolerate. If they're in draft space, someone with dual language competency has the option of improving them (although the rules on re-mainspacing outside the AfC process are murky at best). As with any other bad translation—or copyvio—it's not a matter of notability, it's a matter of not imposing an urgent task on a limited number of competent editors. However, what has instead started to happen here is that we're not being fair to these students. We're draftifying and sometimes deleting some of their work, and have blocked some of them from mainspace, but we're enabling at least one of them who has not attempted attribution or responded to our concerns in any other way to get what they want and need for the course, one or more articles in mainspace. P-blocking is a tool that we haven't had until recently and that's well suited to this situation. Please apply it across the board; and for fairness and because it's still dubious, re-draftify June Rain. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir:I removed the sentence that you called out - it may have been the only one that was not edited. It belongs in main space in my opinion. I am afraid this article just got caught up in this vortex. Bruxton (talk) 02:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Action briefing

We have talked a great deal. We have suggested actions, some of which are being taken by some of those who have the rights to do so. Might we be briefed, please, on what actions under way to seek to curb this issue and bring the instructor(s) walking happily towards us in a collegial manner? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• I don't know who the instructor is, so I think we're still case-by-case with the users. I've been monitoring Hanan Wadi and, after the last message I left them, am ready to partial-block them from article space if they create another poor article in mainspace. —C.Fred (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
  • C.Fred, I just blocked Hanan Wadi from Article and Draft space, cause they just wouldn't stop. God knows we need an article Sugar Street (Mahfouz novel), but Draft:Sugar Street (Novl) isn't it--and they did that after your final warning. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:CIR block needed

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

---

User:N1TH Music has created too many problematic articles and redirects, and shows no signs of improvements. Past articles include the endless List of Comunal Documents of Santa Margherita Ligure (and its AFD, or others deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loch Urigull or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Underground Driving Motor 3701. I was looking through his other creations, after I noticed that too many of his articles still had such issues. I nominated a few for deletion already and tagged others as having major problems, e.g. Trudlerbaach, about a small brook which is filled to the brim with badly written original research: "The source is elevated at around 305 metres (1,001 ft) as opposed the Syre which it joins to having an elevation of 283 metres (928 ft). In addition the Syre flows 1.3 kilometres (0.81 mi) from its source to where it meets with the Trudlerbaach while the Trudlerbaach itself flows 2.6 km (1.6 mi) so it is believed by some that the source of the Trudlerbaach is in fact the source of the Syre." is sourced to... Google Maps[135].

Then followed yesterday Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abellio, Ellesmere Port, with their very worrying explanations for why they created it (they found it on a Wikipedia list, and basically made up everything around it based on poor reading of maps).

I hoped that tagging, redirection, deletion discussions... would be sufficient, but after their latest comment, I think it is utterly hopeless, and letting them contribute further will not improve Wikipedia, as they have no idea or care about even the basics of reliable sourcing.

Today, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackslough Wood, they want to keep because of this. Hopeless. Fram (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

That's not why I wish to keep this, I was just stating why I though there was a building there, earlier I though there was something else N1TH Music (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I feel the need to make it clear that I am very much aware of my mistakes but I've read the notability guidelines and I'm certain some things which supposedly aren't notable enough are. But I digress and I apologise for my faulty work. I'm sure I can improve because I've certainly made good articles in the past. Loch Hope, Loch Rimsdale, Loch Nan Clar. I think my problem was trying to take the topics which I believed were just about notable but the very least so and thrusting myself into the deep end trying to work there. If I write about something more notable, I will and have done a better job. Look at Abbas Combe. Also I admit that I can do much better work than what I have done previously, please give me a little more time. I have started working more seriously since what happened with Santa Margherita Ligure but Fram keeps uncovering stuff from the beginning of this year. N1TH Music (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Earlier ANI thread on the same issue. [136] AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump I think I have made improvements with referencing but the problem was as I said myself I was taking not notable enough topics. If they were written perfectly, they would be accepted but it was simply setting myself up for a fall. I have shown improvements since then when I made Loch Rimsdale or Loch Hope. Even Abbas Combe or Loch Brora both quite recent were at least ok. I realised folllowing my mistake in Santa Margherita Ligure where I wasn't exactly sure as to how the copyright regulations worked that I needed to work better. Hence why now I've been working on drafts and broader topics and larger article. E.g Geography of Santa Margherita Ligure where work has been gradual. Also Draft:Combino (Pasta) was something I initially wanted to put on the main space but in the end I knew well it wasn't good enough and I needed time. Also Blackslough Wood and Aaron's hill were from March, I think I've changed my editing style since may, to work harder. So what I wrote before then is less important. I stand by that work because I still believe that both those article Just about clear being notable I know they have some big issues. But I'm already taking steps in the right direction I think. Recently I've also been editing more by going on Special:Short Pages and Special:New Pages and redirecting unsourced and too short articles. N1TH Music (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Abellio, Ellesmere Port was created yesterday... Fram (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fram I've explained my mistake to that, I have thought for the longest time, that that list was an official list, which was different. You are right I should have looked into it to realised Abellio didn't belong there. I have already apologised I do not stand by that. Same with the original Loch Urigull. N1TH Music (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure you want to use Geography of Santa Margherita Ligure as an example of good work. All you're doing is creating unsourced cruft, because believe it or not, we do have higher standards to writing an article than simply proving something exists and google maps isn't exactly a beacon of journalistic excellence or relevant to an encyclopedia. In fact, that article is a prime example of why you should be manispace banned/blocked - it's a hot mess and needs to be nuked from orbit. All you've done is create content based on your own observations as opposed to summarizing what reliable sources say, and that is called original research. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean, it's not original reasearch, if it was oposed to something, I'd change it. Also no it's not a very good example of my good work it's just an example that I understand notability. Some might say that is overdetailed slightly but it's not done most sections aren't done. It's C class now it'll be worthy of B at least once finished. Also there are many sources N1TH Music (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

For example, you say "xyz is the tallest mountain" yet none of the sources state that. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I say Monte Portofino is the tallest in the commune and I cite Openstreetmap, Peakvisor and I think somewhere else all of which gave me simple statistics. I assumed Peakvisor is a valid source, no? Also if references are bare, I could find more because everything I wrote is correct. N1TH Music (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The fact that you do not understand that this is precisely what I was referring to is the exact problem. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Then what are you referring to. I'll fix it I haven't looked at that part of the article for a while, it's old I'd write better now I'm telling you N1TH Music (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Given you are asking for specific advise, I would suggest that if you want to improve that article, you remove any content cited to google maps, peakvisor, OpenStreetMap, and any other non-text source. In addition, remove any content cited to clearly unreliable text sources, such as Tripadvisor. I would then advise sticking only to reliable text sources for any future edits and page creations. CMD (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Wait Peakvisor is an unreliable source? N1TH Music (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

It appears to be a website for a phone app. Why would that be a reliable source? CMD (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Abbas Combe is definitely a settlement, I improved the article stating that it still exists. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I think a ban from mainspace page creation could be an alternative, but looking at the history of Don't Believe the Truth Tour makes me think that might be too generous. —Kusma (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Kusma Well Don't Believe the Truth Tour remained on the mainspace for years and I thought those references were ok, didn't look like a wiki of sorts to me. Other than that a ban form mainspace page creation seems fair and I would be willing to accept that so long as there was a way it could be reverted in future If I can prove change N1TH Music (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

It is in the reference title that setlist.fm is a wiki, and the other source reveals after one click that they take their content from setlist.fm. Perhaps you should improve your critical reading skills before you continue attempting to write an encyclopaedia. —Kusma (talk) 12:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abellio, Ellesmere Port is really concerning. This is an article which is effectively completely made up, as the settlement doesn't exist. Yes, it had an erroneous entry in Wikipedia itself, but Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for anything, and certainly wasn't in this case. Black Kite (talk) 12:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I thought that list was a special page at the time. I never tried to edit is and it looked different format-wise so I assumed everything there was perfect and verified and I apologise for that. N1TH Music (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

For some reason, they continue to provide evidence of the massive WP:CIR issues during this very discussion: at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackslough Wood, they defend one of the two articles up for deletion with "I think I got more eveidence as This states what language the "people" of Aaron's hill talk in which implies it is or up until recently was populated." Please keep them away from the mainspace or from Wikipedia in general. Fram (talk) 12:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

There certainly seem to be severe competence issues. See e.g. their recent addition to the Non-government reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article: Russian Youtuber "Life of Boris" has hinted at being against the invasion however has not publicly spoken against it. He has stated that he is safe and that "things are bad, but could be a lot worse." [137] There are too many things wrong with that edit to even contemplate... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Alright I'll take some time off editing to learn in better detail what I'm doing but you don't need to block me. N1TH Music (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

You've been editing for two years. That is more than enough time to learn simple things such as "don't use Wikipedia as a source", especially after numerous warnings and deletion nominations [138]. I think some sort of sanction is warranted, and I'm not sure if a partial block from mainspace would be sufficient - there is a history of copyright issues, which are still a problem in draftspace, and some AfC reviewers do not do their due diligence and accept anything that superficially looks notable (e.g. a geographic location) without checking to see if the sources support the content - this is a concern given the large number of GEOLAND articles that they have created with faulty or misleading sourcing. Spicy (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Spicy That's not quite it, I understand my misleading sourcing and I have truly learnt my mistake but at first nobody pointed out that what I was doing wrong was wrong. Most of the problems listed here I have already learnt my mistake from within the last few days I've been overconfident in my definition of notability. At first much of my articles got "reviewed" so I assumed everything was good. That hapenned after Aaron's Hill, Somerset and with my edits of Contern. So I was confident in making Backslough wood and expanding Santa Margherita Ligure. Nobody ever told me to stop until now. I made some slips ups which had been noticed before a few days ago and I have fixed that and also I only really started editing a year ago and even then it was simple articles where I just googled the topic and wrote about it. Recently I picked up tasks where I don't have that many sources and many. My copyright violations hapenned with one article and I have already expressed why I mistakenly thought that they weren't actually copyright at first. Most of my new edits have been nothing but good contributions. N1TH Music (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Spicy Also I know very well that Wikipedia isn't a source just I thought that was a well maintained page and the existence of one obvious red link to a settlement in gazetteer of place names, with coordinates and an OS grid references on what I initially thought was a page with limited access was strong enough evidence to so little as the settlement existing. N1TH Music (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

N1TH Music, I think you'll need to convince people that you are actually capable of learning. Which you won't do by making posts like your last one above. [139] You seem to have no understanding of basic Wikipedia concepts, like notability and how to assess sources for reliability. You habitually use maps and other sources for original research. You add badly-sourced and off-topic trivia to articles. Why should we assume that you are capable of learning now, given that you said much the same thing in the previous ANI thread, to no obvious effect? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I think there is an effect, but I believe I may have become overconfident in my ability and in my knowledge of what counts as Notable. I think it is the Dunning-Kruger effect and now I've learnt what's wrong with much of what I did. How about I create an article now and I'll show you all I can make a competent well made article. N1TH Music (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

You say you have "learnt what's wrong with much of what I did". How about demonstrating what you have learned, by taking a look at the "Life of Boris" edit of yours I linked above, and then explaining what you think it was that led me to describe it as having "too many things wrong with that edit to even contemplate". AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fram well it does say that, and I didn't hold it infront of you as huge evidence I just said multiple webpages such as Ordnace Survey, Streetmap and that all are worded to believe that Aaron's hill is a human settlement, which they are. I see that is might not be inhabited but what I had read from lead me to believe it was. N1TH Music (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't claim that it didn't say that, I just believe anyone who is capable of editing here, anyone who truly believes they have learned from past mistakes and has improved their referencing shouldn't look at that page and believe for one second that it is a reliable source or that there has even been one second of human intervention while making that page. The same site creates e.g. also a page for Abellio[140], you know, the "place" you created as well and will be deleted at AfD. Hey, they also speak English there! And the nearest train station is only, er, "2931.3 Miles" away, oops. Still better than for Aaron's Hill, where the nearest train station is "2870 Miles" away. Their script page generator seems to have some flaw. You claim Openstreetmap as a good source, yet e.g. Blackslough Wood was added to it by a user accidentally the same day you created the article for it here[141]. It's a wiki, and you are using what is likely your own addtion to a map as a source for your own article. Fram (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Relevant xkcd — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

1. Fram I know it's not a good source and I agree with you now, I understand I'm not dumb I've learnt my mistake. Also no that wasn't me it was somebody I knew who when I was talking about Aaron's hill saw that there was no Anecdote for Blackslough wood while there was one on the OS maps. I didn't need that as a source also Notes mean nothing, if I really wanted to, I'd make a Node not a note.

Also at this point I agree that the article isn't very good I always did, I just thought it would need a few edits to just about be passableN1TH Music (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

To All of you who have taken part in this discussion. I have seen all your points and am actually surprised of the magnitude of my errors which have come about from various reasons. However I am certain now that if you do not block me, nothing of the sorts will happen again. I know for sure all of my mistakes as all of you were kind enough to explain in detail. I have just made Loch Naver to show that I am in fact capable of creating a conpetently made article. However I need to note it still isn't as good as I could make it, I just wanted to prove that I can make a real article with sources besides maps and I did there so please all tell me if I would be able to continue if I made more like that. I regardless of what happens will take a break from Wikipedia and when I return I will create much less but I must make it clear that all the problems came about as I was trying to make articles of super obscure topics which lead to me being bored which meant I'd work less efficiently and would make more mistakes. I also kept only finding poor references because the topics were non-notable. I have reread the Notabilty guide and am certain I can work well. Even Loch Naver although quite a barebones article I'm sure has few mistakes, good information and isn't overdetailed and has reliable secondary sources, I'm sure you all will agree. Anyway I'm fine with a mainspace creation ban and I believe that's fair however and outright mainspace editing ban i believe isn't because especially recently I've been making some good small contributions. From there I can prove that I can be a good, valued editor that will improve wikipedia. Again I apologise for my numerous and constant screw ups, but if I just don't make obscure or overdetailed things I'll be fine, especially since I don't even enjoy writing that kind of article. N1TH Music (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

And now Loch Naver is up for deletion. Is this being done because I wrote it? There's 50 references 30 of which have nothing to do with openstreetmap or Google maps or anything like that. N1TH Music (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I nominated it. I do New Page Patrol and came across it as it was just created. As per my comment below, I found this ANI thread afterwards (after notifying you of the AfD and then seeing the link to this ANI thread. Singularity42 (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment. I came across Loch Naver which was created two minutes prior to the OP's last comment above, which I have nominated for AfD. I saw this ANI thread after I tagged it for AfD. Singularity42 (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Loch Naver is not a good example of competent article creation. Most of the article is not about the loch itself but a list of the hills and rivers in its vicinity, based on WP:OR interpretation of maps. I checked this source, which is used to support the statement that Fishing is very common not only in Loch Naver but also in the River Naver, as it is a top place to catch trout. The Stathnaver area is often referred to as one of the best areas for fishing in the country. Besides not being a reliable source, it doesn't say anything of the sort. Spicy (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

If N1TH Music wants to have any future on Wikipedia, they need to stop making articles on non-notable Lochs and villages which may or may not exist. You don't make an article and then look for sources. If you get an article idea, you look for the sources which show GNG is met first and then if and only if you find such sources, you create the article. The level of WP:REFBOMBING in Loch Naver is appalling and makes me doubt your competence to edit here. About the only way you can survive this thread and continue to edit here is to agree to stop creating new articles, and demonstrate you are learning by improving existing articles. And this is me giving you a lot of rope and assuming good faith. N1TH Music did create Wester Pipe Railway at the suggestion of another editor, and did a fairly good job for a newer editor. That's what keeps me from calling for your head on a platter right now like other editors are. I think there's still some chance you can be a productive editor. But, if you truly can't comprehend the concept of notability, maybe Wikipedia isn't right for you. There's plenty of Fandom sites which would accept the sort of articles you're writing, but they don't belong on Wikipedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I understand that, but Loch Naver is similar to say Loch Urigill which has been here for a year so what made Loch urigill stay is Loch naver must go. Other than that I'm going to stop doing much editing for the forseeable future regardless of what happenes. I need a fresh start. N1TH Music (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I didn't come across Loch Urigill. The article I cam across during NPP was Loch Naver which is the one I nominated for deletion. If someone else wants to deal with the other article (or any other article) so be it. Singularity42 (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

No, you need to commit to editing in a collaborative, appropriate way. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Your statement that there are "50 references 30 of which have nothing to do with openstreetmap or Google maps or anything like that" immediately begs the question of what those other 20 sources are doing. I will repeat the advice I gave above, as it seems to have been ignored in the writing of the Loch Naver article. Do not touch any map source, or in general a source which is not reliable prose, for any reason. I will add here that this includes sources which are just really poor lists of statistics. If you implement this very simple rule, you'll probably find things go much easier, and maybe you won't find yourself writing overdetailed articles you don't enjoy. CMD (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I thought a verified map citing a place is at the very minimum evidence that the place exists but nothing more, no? N1TH Music (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

A place name on a map isn't evidence for anything, beyond the fact that someone has put a name on a map. Since it uses community-generated content, OpenstreetMap isn't WP:RS. Google Maps are marginally better, but should never be cited to prove the 'existence' of something - there is far too much erroneous data to rely on in the absence of corroborating sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

See, for example, Argleton. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I've heard of Argleton that's why I made sure to find at least 2 sources per peak. Because despite the issue of map copying I thought you could be quite confident that if 2 map sites say something exists, it exists. Also I cited often Francis Firth, which deals with Old historic maps which are less likely to have mistakes and if they did have trap streets they would have been notices and fixed after literal decades. So that's why with Loch Naver, I knew the sources weren't so good so I sought to deal with that through sheer numbers. I understand now that 1 reliable source is better than 5 mediocre ones. N1TH Music (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I have offered to help N1TH Music with finding reliable sources and checking references for any future articles they might want to create or edits they might want to make - if they take me up on the offer I believe we could work well together and improve enWiki rather than create any more articles that go straight to AfD. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that someone with less than 100 edits to Wikipedia should be offering assistance in this particular situation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Despite the many statements about getting the message, improving, being more careful, ... we have had over the weekend this reinsertion of their preferred version, which includes among many poor sources like review pages from Tripadvisor even the use of Wikipedia itself as a source (not to mention the many other issues with that section, from lots of WP:OR to bizarre descriptions): sadly they were unable to find this in their own edit[142]; This expansion of an article, stating that "Éitermillen is elevated 265.35 metres above sea level " which is sourced to this map which a) doesn't mention Éitermillen and b) gives "Élévation 263.72 m"; did an incorrect draftification[143]; started giving advice to other editors[144], with claims like "Listen, everything must be sources. Even if you write London is in England, you need a source."... How much longer will we let them continue? Fram (talk) 10:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fram the last one this: "Listen, everything must be sources. Even if you write London is in England, you need a source." was a typo I meant to write "Listen, everything must be sourced. Even if you write London is in England, you need a source." Saying that you must use a source which surely you can agree with? N1TH Music (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fram also concerning Eitermilen. The "Map" I sited is quite official. When I spoke to a local asking about this kind of stuff they said "Use Geoportail" to find information on settlements it's all historical and it's got everything. It looks quite official so I thought it's not just a map. Also I searched in Eitermillen into the search bar in this site and that's where it brought me. N1TH Music (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support indef or alternatively indeffed from article creation based on CIR Here we are at ANI, where N1TH is doing wall-of-text rebuttal (not necessarily proof of CIR problems, but a common indicator of CIR problems nonetheless) and in classic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT says above Loch Naver is similar to say Loch Urigill which has been here for a year so what made Loch urigill stay is Loch naver must go. This is a sign they either have ignored or just don't understand WP:NOTABILITY so either way, they'd likely be happier doing something else, or at a minimum being restricted to improving already-existing articles, instead of creating more articles.....ones that again might become headaches for the rest of us. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  Yes I am ok not creating for a while, I'm fine with simple editing in fact that's what I plan to do regardless so that I can obtain time to learn and fill many holes in my knowledge. N1TH Music (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support restrictions. I advised above not using map sources twice to avoid difficulty. Nonetheless, map sources were used again after each time, and now both of these instances have been raised here and seem problematic. Examples have been provided above of the creation of places that do not exist, and that seems likely to continue occurring if no restrictions are put in place. CMD (talk) 08:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Chipmunkdavis I don't plan to write more articles about places for a while. And especially not about obscure ones where maps are the only available "sources" if you can even call them that. I in fact plan to stop citing maps, and clarify beforehand that a place actually exists before writing a single character on an article. Besides I don't plan to be creating anything new until at least August. However I am aware that some restrictions probably should be put into place anyways and I shan't complain because I understand it is deserved, N1TH Music (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Why are we still allowing them to edit? This is from today: they even claim to have looked at the history ("In the history I can see some information but it’s all just a mess really and doesn’t belong on Wikipedia.") even though the last version before yesterday's vandalism looked like this and made it clear that the economic crisis lead to a government crisis. I reverted the prod, but please, make them stop. Fram (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support Indef per WP:CIR. Their editing here seems to be almost entirely a time sink. Their actions since the opening of this discussion shows that they do not understand policy or what is problematic about their contributions. We cannot have editors writing articles full of fake and incorrect information because they do not know how to use sources properly. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked as NOTHERE/CIR reasons. They really need to stop and listen to what everyone here has been trying to tell them. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Good block. I've been politely explaining the same issues (check the page history before doing something) and "prod must be substituted" on their and my talk page more than once in the last few days, and it did not help. Competence is required indeed. —Kusma (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Unusual Voting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sopnendu Mohanty

This IP Address has voted 'Delete' and that is the only contribution of this IP Address.

Because of the above when I tag, NO SPAM, @John Yunshire:, has removed the tag, stating that is disruptive but along with my remark on the IP Address. I reinstated the tag that I will notify at ANI of the removal.

There is another User voted 'Delete' who has hardly any edits and returned after 9 months and after the AfD was initiated only. I notified of his SPA nature but he removed and I reinstated that I will notify at ANI if it is removed without explanation.

A while ago, @John Yunshire:, has reverted my remarks of this SPA and then again removed the NO SPAM tag and asked me to go to ANI.

This is very unfair, I am reinstating back. If I am wrong any Admin can revert it.Eesan1969 (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

[non-admin/previously IP editor] IP addresses change all the time, unless they is any other reason to suspect the IP the fact that it has never editted before means nothing. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I note that you didn't raise your concerns about their editing on the talk page of John Yunshire or the talk page for the AfD discussion and you forgot to inform them of this thread (which I have just done for you). Gusfriend (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought pinging is enough.Eesan1969 (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I believe the IP-in-question, has been blocked. GoodDay (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Singapore FinTech Festival

The above festival was initiated by the subject under deletion discussion; it is the world's largest FinTech festival and visited by world leaders across the world. Recently a large sunk of content was removed without any reason after the Afd was initiated by @Justanothersgwikieditor: who voted 'Delete' at Afd and the nominator @Scope creep: now comments, "...organising a festival or a conference is not a big deal..."

Please note @Justanothersgwikieditor: and the other editor @Robertsky: who is actitively partcipating in the deletion discussion are Singaporean Wikipedia Editors and there was a petition on the subject on COI after he assumed adviser position in his native state in India.Eesan1969 (talk) 11:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Eesan1969 : The previous issue was already resolved with the IP editor being blocked for usage via VPN proxy. The provided diff is my merging of one to three liner sub sections into a general history section. This is a very common merging of short sub sections to a bigger sub section. The deleted section is literally a WP:QUOTEFARM (while it is not a policy or guidelines, quotes are usually typically limited to a few for an article) with a total of 5 quotes for year 2020, two quotes for year 2018 and one for year 2021. All in all, this is a content dispute that should be first handled at the article's talkpage and not ANI. If you are intending to haul me to ANI, you are supposed to leave a message on my talkpage as already advised by Gusfriend. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 11:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I was mentioned here for some reason. I was planning to send this to Afd this weekend. I saw it mentioned at coin last week or the week before and sent the other article that was associated with it, to Afd at the time: Sopnendu Mohanty, but never got around to this. There has been some off-wiki canvassing on the Afd, although I don't have any direct evidence to back that up. The whole time the Afd has has been running, Eesan1969 has been WP:BLUDGEONing folk since the get go and has a bit of battleground behaviour going as well. The article Singapore FinTech Festival is one of the least encyclopedic articles I've seen this month. It is full of puff, link spam , has a non-standard layout, has tone issues and an excessive quotes section that don't look like quotes. The article looks like a brochure article and is designed to promote. Why its like that I do not know. The edits to update Singapore FinTech Festival look perfectly decent, but there has been no attempt to achieve consensus by discussion on talk page by Eesan1969. scope_creep^Talk 12:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Justanothersgwikieditor:, @Scope creep: Sorry that I haven't notified into your talk page of this ANI discussion, but only pinged.

Any Admin or a neutral editor knows which side the canvassing is going on.

Ignoring WP:BEFORE just going to AfD straightaway will alarm every other editors who are here on Wikipedia for years.

If Justanothersgwikieditor might have cleaned up well before the Afd, I might have not contested him....even I might be wrong out of enthusiasm ....but the timing is wrong after his 'Delete' vote.

Anyway something is wrong here, please check the subjects page history, an IP Address is vandalising the page constantly. So how can someone assume this is a proper AfD discussion, someone or a few have deep hateness towards the subject, and professionalism and ethics can't be expected under this nature... that's why I have brought this issue at ANI.Eesan1969 (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

(Note: Though I mentioned 'Singaporean Wikipedia Editors', I am not biased towards any ethnic communities in Singapore...one of my relatives was a close colleague of Lee Kuan Yew and played a major role in independent Singapore....and I have declared my real world identity when I gave permission to this image.)Eesan1969 (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I think Eesan1969 is extruding a copious amount WP:NOTHERE. He cast asperasions of/at editors at the AfD for Sopnendu Mohanty, and had been gently reminded not to do so and assume good faith by me. Despite that they continued to do so at this venue, after when the original thread is largely resolved with the IP address being blocked as for being a VPN node, this time for bringing in JASWE's editing behaviour at Singapore FinTech Festival, which was wholly unrelated to the IP address and other 'suspicious' vote at the afd.

I should also say that they disregarded Gusfriend's earlier (just a day or less!) notice to them that they should leave notices on the talk page of editors they deemed involved promptly, and had to be called out by JASWE for it again. I should note that I was aware of the ping here earlier when I was out and about exercising, but I chose not to engage until now, when I am done doing the post workout ritual of cleansing myself the dirt and sweat. ... I digressed.

Back for SFF, they chose not to assume good faith, and wham, I get mentioned under the SFF heading even when I didn't even touch the SFF article in any manner? What's this for? Calling me out so that I don't vote for deletion in any possible AfD for the SFF article, out of what? Fear of getting dragged back to ANI again?

On AGF, they are not doing so as well, for linking an off-wiki Change.org petition about a conflict of interest made apparent by the subject being appointed into his current role at MAS, and calling out me and JASWE as Singaporean Wikipedia Editors. I am proud to be called that, but I am miffed at the way it is being used. The petition (which I did not read before this, but now have. I had read the links they had linked though) as mentioned, do not and should not affect the AfD since (my rationale, which I didn't state earlier): 1. it was not used in the article as a source; 2, change.org can be considered as WP:SPS, and the links he linked in the AfD and here are of poor quality sources, thus the petition won't have been a factor in (at least) my decision in casting my vote and reasons for casting it. The petition, if I may, seemed to be written by disgruntled Singaporeans, which I clearly am no part of.

By bundling me and JASWE with the petition, I am taking that they are insinuating that both of us are casting delete votes because we are disgruntled Singaporeans who want Sopnendu Mohanty no amount of publicity on Wikipedia. This is far from the truth. Both me and JASWE have good intentions to see Singapore related articles to thrive on Wikipedia as much as possible. For those who aren't in the know about Singapore editing community, Singapore had an active editing community in the 2000s, in part due to an earlier education outreach Wikipedia had, but it mostly faltered since. JASWE, at least for the time I have been actively editing here since 2019, have been gnoming, improving current articles as much as possible, bringing many of them up to the current MOS and notability standards. I too, help in that. Additionally, I am an AfC and NPP reviewer, in part to hasten the process of bringing up notable drafts and articles into the mainspace and allow search engines to search them (within reasonable limits). My crowning achievement, if I may: maintaining the Index of Singapore-related articles. I brought it up to date and have been keeping it current, in part to help fight vandalism on Singapore related articles, and in part to give exposure to Singapore-related articles that would have been buried and languished under the millions articles here.

Casting delete votes is never a easy decision. In addition to WP:BEFORE, I will also see if it is possible to reform the article to something that's passable for the notability test. Sometimes... it would be too successful. All these take time and effort, which may seem trivial to others, given the short duration of time between launching the AfD, and the casting of the vote. Nonetheless, one has to recognise that most editors here strives to be as impartial and neutral as possible.

Back to AGF issue, what's with the canvassing accusation? As far as I know, JASWE and Scope Creep work independently. For that matter of fact, I work independently of them as well. Both of them are fine members of the community here, and have been contributing positively in the areas they have been contributing for a long time.

On this note, I take this as an non-apology. I cannot see this in any other way unless he comes out to say that the insinuation is wrong, and he meant something else.. whatever it is. Also, I have a particularly high bar on respecting other editors for disclosing oneself on Wikipedia, publicly. I don't encourage anyone to do so, but I have my own reasons for doing so. (Another topic for another time.)

All in all, I feel that Easan1969 should disengage from here, and from the AfD, away from thinking (and assuming/writing) the worst of other editors, lest WP:BOOMERANG hits them back. As for the SFF article, it is a content dispute, for now. Take it to the article's talk page and trash it out between you and JAWSE, and get consensus among those involved, maybe Scope Creep even. I do think JASWE's edit makes the article less promotional, less puffy, and more likely to survive a possible afd. That being said, it is without looking at the sources yet. – robertsky (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Robertsky: Sorry that I have pinged you though I later notified in your talk page.

JASWE is a good editor but the timing(after the Delete vote at AfD) of the pruning at the SFF article confused me.

I might have not come here at ANI if there were no IP and SPA voting at AfD and the follow up vandalism on the subject's page.

Thanks for your statement on the petition, though I am not an Indian nationality.Eesan1969 (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Eesan1969 yes you did notified me, hours after and at the time which I wasn't active on Wikipedia, which is why I didn't continue to harp on it further than saying JASWE had to remind you again.

I can understand the timing may confuse you, but admittedly, it can actually be easier to deal with articles written by the same editor, or articles of similar topics at the same time. Not sure about JASWE, but personally, it is like reading a series of books, i.e. LOTR, Harry Potter, Games of Thrones, or the legacy Star Wars novels by written different authors etc, consecutively. He could have done worse by just simply bringing the SFF article to AfD, but he chose to improve on it in his own way.

The only wrongs I saw on the AfD and the article was the VPN IP address and vandalism by another IP address. As for the SPA accusation, it may not be so. For all we may know, they may have been editing while logged out all these while for reasons known only to them, and only to log back in to register their votes and rationale. There's no policy against that for as long as they don't engage in IP sockpuppetery. In any case, the closing editor/admin should and will take into account of the arguments, not the vote tally, per point 2 of WP:CLOSEAFD.

As for the statement on the petition... Did I ever say that you are of Indian nationality? 🤷🏻 I don't assume other editor's ethnicity. For all I know, you could be a COI or UPE editor, but since you had said on COI/N earlier that you weren't, I am taking that as it is. – robertsky (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Please note that I had done a brief reply in the early part of this subsection. My edit at Singapore Fintech Festival here clearly indicated that the edit was to merges one liners into History, remove all the quotes which are common copyedit to merge 1 to 3 liners into a paragraph, similar to WP:PARAGRAPH and also as mentioned above, removing WP:QUOTEFARM. John Yunshire had subsequently reverted Eesan1969's revert stating that my edit summary was clear. Eesan1969 however claimed otherwise, Reverted a large sunk of content without valid reason / explanation and mentioned at ANI.

Again Eesan1969 mentioned Recently a large sunk of content was removed without any reason after the Afd was initiated by @Justanothersgwikieditor: who voted 'Delete' at Afd and the nominator @Scope creep: now comments, "...organising a festival or a conference is not a big deal...", the AFD was not initiated by me but Eesan1969 later said did say scope creep was the nominator. There is quite a fair bit of confusion here. I voted delete with clear reasonings. Also the AFD is about Sopnendu Mohanty and the article that I edited was Singapore Fintech Festival. While they were related in terms of Mohanty being the organiser of the festival, it is common for editors to read and clean up surrounding articles over a subject matter when editors click on wikilinks and fix articles. Also, I had it found familiar as I did review it previously, see here and here, interacted with Kwansss who was editing the article at that time and I decided to clean up the article finally (similar to what I did at Shangri-La Dialogue recently).

The initial ANI report by Eesan1969 was about the AFD for Sopnendu Mohanty with no mention of the festival, Eesan1969 later added a subsection in the report about the festival and said that he reverted my edits and said it was mentioned in ANI which is an untruth (The ANI was about the AFD) and unrelated and there was no message informing the three of us about the ANI report. Even if an article is being mentioned in ANI or any noticeboard, editors would have no idea it is being mentioned here unless otherwise informed. Eesan1969 had twice failed to inform editors about an ANI report, which needed to be prompted by another editor and me again (after I noticed the ping) to do so.

The edits were done by me and Eesan1969 chose to pull scope creep (nominator of the AFD for Mohanty) and robertsky (voted delete in the AFD and followed up with Eesan1969) into this subsection of an ANI report. This is quite a baffling action by Eesan1969.

As noted by robertsky, Eesan1969 has cast aspersions on other editors on the AFD and even on this report and is simply WP:NOTHERE. Also, even if the timing confused Eesan1969 and Eesan1969 claimed JAWSE is a good editor and I might have not come here at ANI, Eesan1969 had not retracted this ANI. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 03:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Continued misconduct of Venkat TL

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

---

This thread was started under the above thread "Venkat TL mass page moves" but has been moved to bottom by another editor.[145] >>> Extorc.talk 17:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The above thread has certainly failed to solve the bigger problem with Venkat TL's disruption in this area.

Starting with February 2022, when he was edit warring,[146] and not giving up his imaginary concept of "Neo-Nazism in India" (see AfD) and I had to file a WP:AE report to deal with the disruption. The admins expected that Venkat TL would not cause disruption after the report. After the report closed with a reminder,[147] the episode of problematic conduct continued to the extent that Venkat TL was topic banned from DYK on May 2022 as already noted above.[148]

Now, just today, what I am seeing he is continuing with his uncollaborative approach towards other editors and engaging in edit warring. From today:-

• Reverting edit(s) by Dympies (talk) to rev. 1094846872 by Venkat TL: Totally due and relevant quote from a minister was removed just because the editor did not like what was said. This is reliably sourced, Discuss on the talk page. (RW 16.1)[149]
• Undid revision 1094886299 by Dympies (talk) Totally due and relevant quote from a minister was removed just because the editor did not like what was said. This is reliably sourced, Discuss on the talk page.[150]
• Not sufficient reason to censor content, discuss on talk. Add Thackeray[151]
• "just because you dont like what he said, does not make it undue"[152]
• "Totally due and relevant quote from a minister was removed just because the editor did not like what was said. This is reliably sourced, if you want to discuss copy edits or rephrasing without changing the meaning of the word, I am all ears. This user is here for redaction without sufficient reasons. Follow WP:DR."[153] (came after request to stop assuming bad faith)
• "Why do you wish to make this page a one sided BJP POV?"[154]

Other users are clearly following WP:BRD while Venkat TL is responding with edit warring and incivility. He is now tag bombing this article,[155] and falsely accusing editors of complying with "Pro BJP and Anti-Shiv Sena, anti MVA Godi media bias".[156]

The above is from today alone. False accusation of "whitewashing and censorship",[157] "whitewashing content",[158] and that others are out to "revert me and then they will file some kind of case somewhere against me"[159] have been rampant from this user throughout this month. The WP:BLUDGEONING attitude and failure to WP:LISTEN to others can be also seen on a very recent AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punjab Assembly Committee on Local Bodies.

I believe that this long-term uncollaborative approach and disruptive editing will only waste time of the community and it warrants a topic ban from ARBIPA. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it is very difficult to deal with Venkat TL on articles. Ping Abecedare for review. >>> Extorc.talk 17:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• (Difficult to deal with?) For the record, I never had any interaction or dispute with Abhishek0831996 yet this is his second frivolous Administrator complaint against me. From 200 AfDs that I have participated in, this guy (on mobile) recycles a 4 month old AfD that he had already once posted at his 4 month old ARE (on mobile) and failed to get support for his allegations. On the 2nd AfD he listed above not sure what policy crime he is trying to imply. In that AfD I had replied to Visviva, @Visviva: did you feel offended by my AfD response? This guy above is calling my reply to you 'a failure to listen', (whatever that means). The rest of his diffs above are WP:CONTENTDISPUTE currently being discussed on the article talk page, and not to be discussed in an ANI thread. Please post on WP:DRN where I can respond to these diffs. The linked article had multiple issues which is why yesterday I had posted on India Noticeboard to inform other editors of the wikiproject India. Regarding this complaint, it is very obvious to me that this is an attempt to use content dispute to grind their axes. There is a proverb: Throw enough dirt and some will stick, Abhishek083199 seem to believe that if he keeps filing pumped up charges, something will eventually stick, his recent comments and actions only proves this. That is all I have to say in my defence here. Venkat TL (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

  • DRN does not handle a dispute that is also pending here at WP:ANI until the WP:ANI dispute is closed somehow. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• My only interactions with Venkat TL have been on a handful of AFDs, but for whatever its worth, I have not had any issues with him and have seen no particular problems. The arguments he made on the above-linked AFD were a bit heated, but in my opinion they were cogent and persuasive -- indeed, I was persuaded by them. (I have some opinions on the general state of discourse on AFD, but that's a whole different matter.) -- Visviva (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
• I agree with Extorc. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
• Venkat TL have been casting aspersions whenever they get an opportunity. The most recent ones are on their talkpage, special:diff/1094906699, where they said (for no reason) that me and DaxServer have axe to grind. Later, at village pump, they said There was nothing improper in the close. If it is not obvious from the opening statement yet, please be aware that User:Usernamekiran holds a massive grudge against me, in past he had been stalking me and Admin @Abecedare: had clearly asked Usernamekiran to avoid me, yet he continues to hound me and grind his axe, looking for possible opportunities. He went admin shopping and then on ANI where he failed to convince the admins and kept bumping the thread every other day for a month. Now that the thread is closed, he continues to wikilawyer at other noticeboards with intentions to spite others. Venkat TL (talk) 08:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC) diff. It looks like they comment in these ways in an attempt to besmirch reputation of the editors they dont agree with. Even though I am neither stalking, nor hounding them, they keep on accusing me of that. I had also explained to them that it is not admin shopping if I hadn't even mentioned the discussion I was asking advice about. And all this happened while Venkat TL were pretending to be retired. Their behaviour of casting aspersions, and battleground mentality is visible in the comments of this thread as well. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
• (responding to ping) While some of the issues raised in the original complaint are stale or, IMO, not that big of a deal, I am concerned about Venkat TL's repeated assumption of bad-faith and battleground attitude; for example, most recently at Talk:2022 Maharashtra political crisis (e.g., [160], [161], [162]) especially since it recapitulates the issues brought up at the Feb 2022 AE. Pinging @RegentsPark, Stifle, and Seraphimblade: for input on whether the conduct is sanction-worthy; personally I don't believe it merits a topic-ban but I would like to at least see some efforts by VenkatTL to acknowledge and heed the feedback. Abecedare (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  Hi @Abecedare, I dont know if you checked the multiple refs, but did you at least check the veracity of the concerns about the content that I had raised in the diffs you showed. I believe this is crucial before making conclusions about conduct of the users involved in this controversial article. These 3 RS provide a good overview of the event, please check these short articles about the topic BBC BBC, SG 10 facts and then compare the state of the old version of Wikipedia article, at the time when those talk page comments were made. This will give you a complete picture of the context of the talk page discussion and then you can then properly judge if the concerns of neutrality that had I raised were appropriate or not. The Wikipedia article of that time was only showing one sided version of the events and the other sides version even though covered by the RS was completely overlooked in the Wikipedia page. Venkat TL (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Venkat TL: Kindly prove how I am stalking/hounding you, or apologise for the false accusations and dont ever make baseless accusations against me. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Venkat TL: I am not commenting on any of the changes you proposed to the Maharashtra crisis article or even to tagging the page as POV; all that can be settled through talkpage discussion and/or dispute resolution. My only objection is to your accusing the other editors of POV etc, which just raises the temperature of the discussion and makes it harder to reach consensus. If you have concerns about other editor's conduct use one of the admin boards or admin talkpages to raise them and, as RP said, "comment on content not on the user" on article talk-pages. Abecedare (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  Because the original report has so many exaggerations and even outright lies (falsely accusing editors of complying with "Pro BJP and Anti-Shiv Sena, anti MVA Godi media bias" isn't borne out by the diff produced), it is helpful for onlookers like me to know exactly what diffs you mean, when you say accusing the other editors of POV.

  The issue about editor POV is that, in the current Indian political context, bias of most of the editors is generally quite visibly on display. For example, one of the editors arguing against Venkat in the Maharashtra crisis talk page was informally warned at AE recently and his pro-BJP bias was discussed. It was even concluded there that having a bias wasn't a big deal. Another editor there had recently gone on a spree to remove any references on en-wiki to an upcoming Muslim-run news website, based on nothing but his opinion. And these other editors have also posted their share of conduct comments. These - an undue cry of bad faith, how can you so blatantly misrepresent diff, This is clear disruptive editing, You are being unnecessarily difficult here. diff - had already raised the temperature before Venkat's allegedly "non-collaborative" diffs presented above.

  After the DYK issue, Venkat has indeed moderated his responses and nothing shows this better than the fact that the filer here, who specialises in patrolling + SPI/ANI reports and has very little content contribution, had to resort to such weak and exaggerated claims. Hemantha (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Calling this sensible report "outright lies" is WP:NPA and misrepresenting yourself as "onlookers like me" when you are deeply involved in these feuds[163][164] only speaks of your deception and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Instead of poisoning the well you need to find something else to do. >>> Extorc.talk 10:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for so succinctly demonstrating what I was trying to explain. Hemantha (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• @Abecedare: My first reaction is that all this is probably just a lot of heat in a controversial topic and a "comment on content not on the user" style warning may suffice. But, if this is a consistent pattern (i.e., evidenced in other articles), then a sanction may be necessary. More immediately concerning, is the accusation against usernamekiran. Accusations of stalking and hounding should not be lightly made and definitely not without also providing evidence, which I don't see provided? --RegentsPark (comment) 23:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  @RegentsPark: I believe I am aware of the background of the stalking allegation: see this ANI report for what I believe was the original negative interaction between the two editors, and the follow-up on my talkpage. I haven't scrutinized the editing history of either of the editors in the following 3+ months to know if usernamekiran has been deliberately following Venkat TL or just running into them as a matter of course since then (both are prolific contributors in the IPA area). Abecedare (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Abecedare and RegentsPark: Hello. My overall activity on enwiki itself has been extremely low in last few weeks/months. Since the first incident with Venkat TL, and discussion on my talkpage (involving Abecedare) I have tried to avoid to interact with Venkat TL. The only interaction comes from the naming convention proposal, and I haven't interacted there personally either. My involvement in regards to that proposal was nothing personal, and purely about the proposal itself. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  Without combing through your contributions, just from what I know, you've elided

  • your extensive contribution to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Venkat TL mass page moves, where you argued at length to multiple editors about his behavior and bumped the thread a number of times to keep it from archiving.
  • name drops of Venkat at high visibility forums like VPP, in terms that can hardly be described as non-personal
  • vote against him in an AfD of one of his articles

  Hemantha (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Hemantha: that is about naming convention proposal. That talkpage is on my watchlist since before Venkat TL created their account. I saw the proposal, I deemed it to be flawed, I was under impression Venkat TL had retired. I commented on that proposal, rest is impersonal follow-up unlike I also noticed that you were admin shopping (diff-link) 12 days ago and have older axes (diff-link) to grind. Venkat TL (talk) 11:13 pm, 23 May 2022. In that thread, Venkat TL made accusations against me, and stopped responding to valid questions. I would have done the same no matter who was the subject of the thread. I dont see what is problem with VP thread. I thought VPP was the appropriate venue for that discussion. I pinged Venkat TL, and User:Mellohi! out of formality. There was no name calling, I described everything in factual, formal, and neutral language. But even then Venkat TL accused me of wikilawyering, stalking, and hounding. Regarding the AfD, I was not aware that Venkat TL had created it. I was on mobile at that time. I saw the nomination, went through the article, went through Venkat TL's comment but failed to see their signature, did some thinking, and commented. It was only after saving my edit that I realised it was created by Venkat TL. I did not name call or hounded/stalked Venkat TL. They have no right to say so without evidence. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  I thought that in the original Anupamaa issue, Venkat went overboard and have even told him so (somewhat indirectly but still). I'd even say that some amount of resentment would be justified in your case. But I suggest that the gracious thing to do is to drop the stick, which will free you from having to make convoluted explanations like the above. It's hard to believe you stumbled across that afd, given that you aren't an afd regular (19 afds since the beginning of this year). It's also hard to reconcile your unstinting focus for the past two months on the naming proposal with the fact that you have little or no focus on Indian elections/politics and the fact that you have raised not a single substantial point other than bureaucratic ones about it. The ANI thread on moves was as much about the proposal as this thread is about 2022 Maharashtra political crisis. Hemantha (talk) 10:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  you are getting off topic. I moved on long time ago — soon as it happened. No matter who had started that naming discussion, I would have done what I have done. While we are discussing here, Venkat TL is again running away from the discussion, making edits elsewhere. They still need to provide evidence of me stalking/hounding them. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  No, Usernamekiran never moved on, Since he has repeatedly harangued me for the evidence please see below.

  Usernamekiran's stalking

  • After Usernamekiran's disruption at Talk:Anupamaa was reverted, Next day you
  • followed me to Arunachalesvara_Temple to revert me.
  • Usernamekiran then reached Pegasus Project revelations in India and made revert of my edit.
  • I asked Usernamekiran to stop following me. Abecedare also advised on Usernamekiran's talkpage to keep distance
  • Usernamekiran returned a month later to Arunachalesvara_Temple to revert me
  • Last week Usernamekiran was voting merge on AfD on article I created.
  • Usernamekiran's Edit history of WP namespace shows that since March Usernamekiran has been bludgeoning every thread on different WP namespaces created by others or Usernamekiran. [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] where he keeps grinding his axe, never admitting his past involvement and seeking sanctions.
  • On the DYK related thread about me Usernamekiran made 12 comments despite his past involved history. And kept bumping the thread repeatedly disrupting archive bot
  • Commenting on different noticeboards about page move [170] [171] [172]
  • The ANI thread on Page moves deserves a special mention, because Usernamekiran made 20 comments in 1 thread, where he would login to Wikipedia only to comment every third day for a period of one month, to defeat the bot archiving parameter of 3 days. Participating in a discussion 'as an involved user' is one thing but bludgeoning the thread by making as many as 20 comments is obsession. Venkat TL (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Not seeing anything actionable here; Abecedare however is at risk of WP:OUCH. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  I think you mean Abhishek0831996, and I'll support. At a minimum, his serial filing of superficial and exaggerated ANI/AE reports should not be indulged any more. Hemantha (talk) 10:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I was going to avoid this thread just like I have avoided every other report concerning Venkat TL since February, because Venkat has in the past made allegations (though unfounded) against me of hounding. However,After Hemantha's notice for this ANI on my talk page [173], I feel compelled to comment.

This is just the latest in a long list of articles where Venkat has, through stonewalling and through battleground behaviour, ground constructive edits to a halt. Some of the articles I can remember have been listed, though if I look into it probably more will be there.

• [174][175] Repeatedly calling a recently deceased political activist a "terrorist" despite being asked to desist from doing so. It took an ANI complaint to make him stop that time as well.[176] Instead of accepting his mistake he instead focused on telling me that my "sole purpose" is to "file false cases against" against him. We can see that he is making similar false claims against UsernameKiran now.
• Even after his claims of non-notability were amply rejected on Talk:Nupur Sharma (politician)#Notability, he was still repeating the same arguments again [177] [178] in an AFD for a related article. See WP:IDHT.
• On 2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy he made 4 reverts concerning the same content in just 14 hours this month.[179][180][181][182] On 2022 Maharashtra political crisis, he is still edit warring to retain his spurious tags[183][184] even after being told by every other editor to keep them out.[185]

It has become obvious now that Venkat TL is clearly treating Wikipedia as a political WP:BATTLEGROUND. Another admin Cullen328 on DYK topic ban thread last month had said that "Venkat TL is warned that taking this type of behavior to other areas of the encyclopedia is likely to lead to an indefinite sitewide block".[186] Venkat TL was supposed to be more careful since it was merely last month that he got topic banned from DYK and was just subjected to a huge ANI thread this month but he has proven in this thread as well that he would hate to reform. His conduct warrants a topic ban at least from Indian politics if not ARBIPA as a whole. How does that sound RegentsPark, Abecedare? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Lot of garden variety of WP:CONTENTDISPUTE is being thrown in this thread in the form of Diff in desperate attempts to over exaggerate and pass off these content disputes as Policy violations when they are not. I will ask the readers to independently verify these diffs and claims of policy violation and not take these claims on their face value.

• CapnJackSp has once again copy posted his comments, that he had posted in the previous AE case, Since I have already responded to these diffs in past case, I wont recycle my past replies for it.
• In his second line he said "claims of non-notability were amply rejected on Talk:Nupur Sharma (politician)#Notability". On that talk page I had expressed my opinion on the lack of notability of the subject, another user replied to me expressing disagreement with me. I disagree but I move on. This was a garden variety of dispute on notability that did not reach an AfD yet. There has been no AfD yet to decide the notability of Nupur Sharma (politician). The notability is neither approved nor rejected. So my opinion on notability is as good as any other editors of the page. I am not sure what rejection CapnJackSp is claiming about. In the Related AfD of a different article when a suitable merge target was being discussed, I opposed the merge to "Nupur Sharma (politician)" as I noted that I consider the merge target as not notable. CapnJackSp may believe they are notable, this is a content dispute and a difference of opinion he has with me. How CapnJackSp is citing this as a policy violation on ANI, and then seeking sanction for it, is beyond my understanding. Perhaps another example of pumped up charges of this thread.
• The third line with the set of diffs, is another garden variety of content dispute. Firstly the diffs show different content each time and I was the one who started multiple talk page discussion threads to resolve the different associated content disputes, while User:REDISCOVERBHARAT and LearnIndology, were continually edit warring to add the lines without getting consensus first to add it. (CapnJackSp was reverting on another dispute) CapnJackSp LearnIndology, had to be reminded by @TrangaBellam: that the WP:ONUS of getting consensus for content to be added was onCapnJackSp LearnIndology and REDISCOVERBHARAT. So in the third set of diffs if there is anyone violating Wiki policies it is CapnJackSp LearnIndology and REDISCOVERBHARAT. After relevant talk page discussion, there was a consensus to not include the content on Dutch Politician, and it was not added. Please refer to Talk:2022_BJP_Muhammad_remarks_controversy/Archive_1#Opinion_of_Dutch_politician for the consensus discussion for this removal. 2 other threads related to the diffs of this content dispute are Talk:2022_BJP_Muhammad_remarks_controversy/Archive_1#Addition_of_unreliable_sources and Talk:2022_BJP_Muhammad_remarks_controversy/Archive_1#Qatari_Minister. As you can see in these threads, I have followed WP:DR and successfully created consensus for removal/edits that CapnJackSp wanted to make. This should have been used as an example of showing how Dispute resolution is achieved on a controversial article, but CapnJackSp instead has used the same set of diffs as examples to seek for sanctions and "Massive Topic ban" because he had content dispute with me over these diffs. Venkat TL (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

While the entire three paras show Venkat is not taking responsibility of his actions, I'll keep it short, because while the first two are misrepresentations, (3) is a blatant misrepresentation. He links a comment by Trangabellam, which was made to some random editor, not me. Venkat then accuses me of edit warring to introduce the Dutch lawmaker's comment - but included no diffs, because it never happened. I would like the admins to check the history of the page - the falsification will be easily exposed.

This sort of misrepresentation and bad faith editing is exactly why people seek sanctions for Venkat TL but he does not understand this. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I corrected my comment above, that the reverts of Dutch Politician was made be REDISCOVERBHARAT. CapnJackSp did not make those reverts although CapnJackSp was also a participant in that content dispute, discussed and resolved on Talk:2022_BJP_Muhammad_remarks_controversy/Archive_1#Opinion_of_Dutch_politician. I note that on the same day, CapnJackSp had also been edit warring and made 3 reverts on 11 June Special:Diff/1092605187/1092605720, Special:Diff/1092606725/1092607117, Special:Diff/1092607682/1092607964. Venkat TL (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• I've looked over this rather confusing discussion and I really don't see any actionable issues here. There are, however, a few helpful suggestions I think worth making and I'm noting them below in the form of mild warnings.

1. Abhishek0831996 is urged not to reopen closed discussions in where they have no apparent interest. Apparent, because there have been previous negative interactions between Abhishek0831996 and VenkatTL but I had to go as far back as February to find them.
2. Venkat TL is warned that they should comment on content and not on users. In a tenure of less than one year, Venkat TL's contributions show that they are a dedicated content editor. But, they may not be aware that many a prolific and useful content editor has ended up banned precisely because they were unable to resist commenting on editors and I urge them to take this warning seriously.
3. usernamekiran is warned that they need to be careful not to give the appearance of stalking and hounding. To be clear, the evidence for stalking is uncertain at best (mainly because usernamekiran is an editor with a wide range of interests). But appearances are important and there is not always the need to comment on incidents that involve Venkat TL nor is it necessary to edit the same articles.
4. CapnJackSp is, somewhat similarly, warned that they don't need to show up and repeat the same diffs and accusations at every report that involvesmultiple reports that involve VenkatTL.

--RegentsPark (comment) 16:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Racial bias at Talk:List of best-selling albums

• Talk:List of best-selling albums#Question
• Markus WikiEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Apoxyomenus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Harout72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These comments concern me, all of which are from the article talk page thread linked above, except the last one:

• Markus June 14: It seems common among artists of this genre (black music, R&B, Hip Hop) to inflate sales enough to value the artists and place them above other artists, especially white ones.
• Markus June 15: No, I'm not saying that there aren't fans of white artists who want to inflate their idols' sales around here. But most of the cases I see and also the ones I've had problems with are artists of this genre.
• Apoxy June 17: Certainly, artists related to urban music have IPs or other editors increasing the sales with the next available higher sales. That's not racial issues, but a true fact. See Janet Jackson history.
• Apoxy June 20: He doesn't said, black people, and as far I can see, genres related to the scope of urban music which it reads different. Definitely, if you start watching massive other titles, that perception will change.
• Harout June 17: I think Markus clarified what he was saying very well.
• Harout June 24 (at a recent ANI thread that tangentially mentioned this): As for Markus, he clarified in that thread what he was saying, he was clearly speaking about a group of people editing a certain genre.

"Black music" and "urban music" are both associated with people of color (POC). Maybe it's just me, but it does not sit well that editors are saying that POC musicians inflate their sales more than white musicians, or that editors who edit POC musicians' articles inflate their sales more than editors who edit white musicians' articles. Racial bias should not be tolerated, whether directed towards POC musicians or towards editors who edit articles about them. I'm also concerned that this was raised at ANI and not really dealt with, but I think it may have been lost in the noise of the larger thread. Levivich^[block] 06:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, the first comment ("It seems common among artists of this genre (black music, R&B, Hip Hop) to inflate sales") is completely out of order, I can see no evidence of this whatsoever. Of course, sales inflation is a common thing (especially with the recent trend in streaming manipulation) and much of this does indeed go on in popular genres, but linking it to race is clearly not tenable. As to the second part, yes we do have a number of editors whose raison d'etre here is to make their favourite artists' pages as positive as possible, and that does include sales inflation, but I whilst two of the most obvious ones are Michael Jackson and Nicki Minaj, it has also occurred at the articles of white artists as well. Going from "there are editors who inflate the sales of their favourite artists" to "most of these articles are R&B/rap/hiphop etc." is far too much of a stretch and it doesn't sit well. Black Kite (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
• There is a persistent LTA dedicated to inflating Matt Goss's sales figures; I'm pretty sure Goss is white. This is a general problem with articles about popular musicians - I see no reason to think that it is in any way linked to race, as these comments seem to suggest. This is indeed troubling. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

(1) Too much was said there, that it was forgotten add this diff in the summary above. At any rate, I equally assumed good faith in what Markus said (and let me put a broader context below), while maybe I failed a bit or much in generalizing too. At most, there exist a possible boomerang of interchangeable things in various of these similar discussions (both sides), and perhaps this context can shows that there is no a bias related to a race, album (Thriller) or an artist (in spirit of TruthGuardian's ANI claims: "I now suspect there could potentially be racial bias against black artist, music, and editors of color").

(2) As a music editor, of course I have noticed Markus' contributions as both of us follow several music-related articles, regardless artist, genre, language, race and a large etc, as well as participations in Wikiprojects of music over a decade. Naturally, the List of best-selling albums has been a must. However, it brought to my attention that the same RfC's nominator proposed to increase (reasonable) sales almost 1 year ago, and months later proposed "doubling" its sales.

(3.1) In this journey, some involved user accounts in both sides have seen a tag of calling "fan" of an artist like to blur views or for assumptions of inflate/deflate sales; it can be seen on archives such as Janet Jackson talk page, or at the List of best-selling music artists (Archive 41, 42 or 44 etc).

(3.2) However, I feel contrary to Levivich's counter-suggestion at the previous ANI thread, as the nature of "appeal to the stick" of supporter users was notorious in many ways (at least to me). E,g The 100 million was pretty much regarded as the only "truth" from their side, and it can be attached also to the activity of supporter users: mostly involved in highly pro-MJ edits (WP:POV) and SPA-oriented style.

(3.3) Strikes me, as the charges against a bias (to race or an artist), goes to be ironic, when editors like Markus, have provided to be collaborative instead, positively adding in these matters of sales for the cited artist/album: example 1, example 2 or example 3; also "correcting" the "other side" that was supposed to be "positive" example 4. In my case, I also contributed to add sales by countries in the cited album: example 1, example 2 or example 3, and overall for his entire career: example 4, example 5, example 6 or example 7 or contrary with the artist-most associated to: example 1 or example 2. But as one goes against these views, usually "you're" many things.

(3.4) As a corollary, this is one of my reasons I've advised to the grouping (notoriously there are various with same interest) focus their energies in finding sales in other countries, instead largely discuss other figure that is also backed by reliable sources (and then pretty much oriented to the visible math), as well find related-reports to support their assumptions. Instead, that could be a more-positive way to support changes.

(3.5) Myself, I never said anything about black people but more-oriented genre (genres can be performed by every human. Isn't Adele a soul performer?). And as far as my perspective and background can say, it is like saying artists-related to classical/pop music titles have seen an increase of vandalized sales changes. Or Latin/Brazilian/French related pages and so on. It was largely generalized, but also depends on what perspective you see, as well if you follow or not, just a couple of article or even, an specific artist. Wikipedia is big as a whole, and this include the world of music-related articles. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 11:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

For anyone reading through this and having the same fundamental questions I did, I opened a couple sections on the article talk page: If claimed sales are so unreliable and vary so much, why are we using them? and Methodology?. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry for for my speech, but when I meant black music I was talking about the musical genre, here in Brazil when people talk about black music they talk about North American's creations: rap, hip hop, R&B, etc... and I had problems with some Wikipedia's user who edit these styles: on Aaliyah's page, on Janet Jackson's (a fan even made a YouTube post attacking me), among others. I never had problems with racial issues, in fact I edit the pages of Janet, Michael Jackson, among others because I like these artists too. I didn't mean to offend anyone's ethnicity/skin color, I should have been more specific and not use "black music". I'm sorry.--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Might I suggest rewording your statement here. This is basically the equivalent of "but I have black friends." PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Of course, no problem, my bad. My apologies have to do with my mistake in the sentence in which I put "black music". I apologize, I should have restricted myself to specific styles instead of using "black music" because it had a double meaning. If I suffer any retaliation I will understand.--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Here there has been apologies from the user Markus WikiEditor, and that constitutes a very good action. But apart from that, I want to say several things that have to do with a situation that has been going on for a long time. There is something that is negatively affecting the atmosphere of debate on Wikipedia regarding these articles. And it is that users are too often being labeled as fans of a specific music artist, mainly by the side that opposes any increase in these artists' claimed sales. They can be Black artists or White artists. I don't like to categorize artists according to their physical qualities. One music artist with whom this situation has happened is Michael Jackson. There are people who, apparently, consider that if a user has a big part of his contributions about a specific subject (a specific artist (Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley, Madonna), a music genre, Black music, Country music...) it means that he is a fan (and/or a hater) of something or someone. Can't it just be that he/she is interested in contributing to the encyclopedic coverage of that subject?

Even if a user is actually a fan of an artist, it does not mean that his/her contributions are always biased. For example, all the contributions I've checked in Madonna-related articles made by the user MadonnaFan (whose username makes it clear who he/she is a fan of) have seemed correct and objective to me. I said it before in another discussion, there are users who systematically label others as Michael Jackson fans to discredit the points of view that they don't support. One example: User A is Catholic. If User A say that he consider the Catholic Church as the most important and relevant in history among all the Christian churches... Is someone going to tell User A that he can't discuss about it because he is Catholic? How can we know if other users are fans of other artists? or haters? I think that personal attacks and labeling should be stopped, and the focus should be on the matter at hand.

Finally I want to say that, while there may be Jackson fans on Wikipedia (as there may be fans of other artists, and as there may be haters), one shouldn't think that any change that apparently seems like a more positive treatment is automatically a pro-MJ biased contribution. To date I have found an anti-MJ biased encyclopedic coverage in quite a few Jackson-related articles. For example, the footnote about his total claimed sales in the Michael Jackson article included, until not too long ago, a statement about an alleged official denial by the IFPI of the 750M total claimed sales figure. The IFPI never made that statement. The one who disputed the 750M figure was The Wall Street Journal, and that article labeled the 750M figure as inflated only if it referred to albums instead of units. However, that incorrect information remained on Wikipedia for years (and was also translated to Wikipedias in other languages). In that same WSJ article Jackson was also described as "second only to the Beatles" in terms of total sales. Why was so much importance given to that article? And if it was a correct decision, why wasn't it also included in the Presley's article when referring to his highest claimed sales figures?? In The Beatles article the 1 billion claimed sales figure is included in a footnote, in Presley's case it is included in the main text of the article (not in a footnote), and in Jackson's article it does not appear at all. Who then has an undervaluing and who has an overvaluing encyclopedic coverage? For that reason I understand that there are users who think that there may be a systematic racial discrimination, intentional or unintentional, or perhaps an appearance-based discrimination in Jackson's case, or of any other kind. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and there should be objectivity and equality of treatment. Even Charles Manson's music should have an objective (neither undervaluing nor overvaluing) encyclopedic coverage. Salvabl (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I concur with many thoughts. But as long I can remember the same treatment has been applied to any album/artist from the "opposite votes" of the RfC. The above list, is just a couple examples with the artists and its related-problem, at least from the users accused here (me or Markus). And the list outside with others individuals goes and goes over more than a decade. I can pretty much resume, the problem with MJ has been the woozle effect. It has been problematic as with him, third-party sources are telling us about an inflation on his overall sales or with Thriller (the album/RfC that started all); so aren't a thing of playing with original research with Wikipedia's users, or a bias or if someone is hater or not. That's the "other truth", and adding that this "true" is also backed by reliable sources as well, which encompasses the current figure.

With the other associated artists in this topic (aside are other scenarios), I'm also in general not sure why were re-inserted or remained the fact of 1B in both Beatles and Presley biographies, but at least were lowered at the best-selling artists. Regardless WSJ mentioned the cases of the Beatles, ABBA among others (all of them have matched sales at the least), the case with MJ was in-depth covered. There was actually two pieces from WSJ; one from the print column (full access) and a blog-opinion; the latter may be valid per WP:RSPSS guidelines. Further adding, there exists more third-party sources talking about the issue related to his sales, like The New Yorker. At the end, sources remarked the problems with circular reporting (Wikipedia was a help in this according to these articles). Regarding the IFPI statement as I can be noticed, was condensed/simplified, and perhaps would it be better with a quote attribution, like the source cited: "When we were asked how many albums Michael Jackson sold, we were as embarrassed as anybody, says Adrian Strain, a spokesman for the the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry". Or perhaps not, but brings a general picture from an authority person about his sales (described as inflated as a whole).

As I maintain, there is not MJ-bias. And same treatment is applied to every title/individual as long is humanly possibly; humanly because it's impossible to keep an eye on everything or every-single-case. This could affect your health even, in focus only with something so problematic and dealing with other users, either new or with tenier in Wikipedia. Also because WP:ONUS/WP:BURDEN in our side. And when it comes to sales, is hard to find another matching figure and to the extend, MJ's sales case has been more mainstreamed than other assumedly titles proved with that background. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:MEATBOT and Guarapiranga

Guarapiranga restored a massive list of nearly every victim of 9/11 (2,944 people!) to List of victims of the September 11 attacks without any prior consensus, following that they created several hundred redirects on June 21 (in just a few hours, no less) I lost count after 900+, which were promptly fixed by a bot and then undone by Guarapiranga, causing them to have 509 edits from 23:11-23:54 today. This is an insane amount of edits for a non-bot (and non-approved, non-consensus based creation fiasco, imo.) I don't know that I can even take several hundred redirects to RFD without breaking the script, so I'm bringing it here. I tried to ask Guarapiranga about it but their response was rather lackluster. I'm at a loss for what to do - I don't see how having what will eventually be 2,944 redirects is useful to anyone and there doesn't seem to be a precedent for it, given other similar level terrorist attacks do not have redirects of every victim. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

And to put this in more perspective, when they created the redirects, they had more than 1000+ creations in less than 60 minutes. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm also asking for a quick block of the creator in mainspace, at minimum now, to prevent further disruption until this can be sorted out. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

On one hand, this is clearly a WP:MEATBOT and WP:FAIT issue. On the other hand, my experience at AfD and RfD regarding non-notable early Olympians suggests that current policy tolerates these redirects, to the point of sometimes creating disambiguation pages when there are multiple articles mentioning different non-notable individuals by the same name. I'm not certain what is to be done here without a broader discussions of when redirects and disambiguation pages are appropriate, although the temporary mainspace block proposed by PRAXIDICAE may be appropriate to prevent further MEATBOT and FAIT issues in the short term. BilledMammal (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Honestly the merits of the redirects at this point are the least of my concern. This editor made over 1000+ edits in 60 minutes - and that's without looking at previous hours (I just took the 11th hour on June 21 to get some stats.) That's insanely disruptive, especially when combined with their current attitude. I think a mainspace block is absolutely necessary right now so we can actually figure this out. Regarding the merits of the redirects, while I won't go fully into it, it appears they created this with some sort of script in order to avoid draftification and/or deletion of the above referenced article they created, which is definitely contrary to policy. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not clear to me whether Praxidicae is raising the issue bc of the "massive list", bc of the redirects, bc of the semi-automated editing or bc it's about 9/11 and not other "similar level terrorist attacks." She seems upset about a lot of things at once. In any case, for background, those interested in this may find this particular edit being discussed at:

• Talk:List of victims of the September 11 attacks#Redirects to this list
• User talk:Onetwothreeip#List of victims of the September 11 attacks
• User talk:Guarapiranga#List of victims of the September 11 attacks

  — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Stop attributing emotion to me that doesn't exist and focus on the argument. And the argument is that all of the above are extremely problematic and you do not seem to understand this. PRAXIDICAE🌈 01:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• That wasn't the response I was hoping we'd get from Guarapiranga. The two talk page threads linked above show that Guarapiranga was well aware of the issues ("it turned out a bit of a mess as I started to bump into parsoid's time constraints"). As for what to do? 1) Return List of victims of the September 11 attacks back to a redirect to Casualties of the September 11 attacks; the expansion was reverted, and per WP:BRD, whether we have a list at all (instead of the current prose redirect target) should gain consensus before we decide to do that. 2) Delete all these redirects. 3) Warn Guarapiranga to observe WP:MEATBOT and WP:FAIT in the future. I think the first step should be a warning, not a block. Levivich^[block] 01:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  What was the response you were "hoping to get", Levivich? Yes, I was "aware of the issue" (not "issues"), and it arose, as you correctly quoted me, when I endeavoured to expand the simple to the detailed list, not when I replaced the redirect by the simple list, or bc the list is "massive", bc of the semi-automated edits, bc it's about 9/11 and not other "similar level terrorist attacks," or bc of the redirects. The issue with the redirects only came up when Onetwothreeip moved the article to draftspace, rather than simply reverting it to the last stable version, which is what I should've done when the editor starting faultering on me, instead of endeavouring to fix it online, perhaps bc s/he did not mean to convey that the article should not be expanded (s/he said he'd done this for now as the latest versions of my draft are extremely large (over 700,000 bytes) and would need improvement before it can be in article space). Having fixed the improvement issues with the detailed list, I restored it to the article, and started fixing the redirects, which had been corrupted by the draftification. I stopped when Praxidicae took issue with the cleanup for all the aforementioned motives. — Guarapiranga ☎ 02:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  The issue with the redirects isn't just your "fixes" it's the fact that you created over 600+ of them in a single hour period without any discussion or consensus and no bot flags. PRAXIDICAE🌈 02:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  If there indeed is an issue with creating redirects semi-automatically, I'm happy to oblige, Praxidicae, but AFAIK, as I've pointed it to you on my talk page, WP:MASSCREATION excplicitly applies to all "content pages", broadly meaning pages designed to be viewed by readers through the mainspace, including articles, most visible categories, files hosted on Wikipedia, mainspace editnotices, and portals, not redirects (which were explicitly excluded in the original discussion referred to in the policy). Your reponse to my quoting policy was:

  You had over 1000 creations in mainspace, with absolutely no consensus to do so in less than 60 minutes. Do you not see how this is a problem? In any case, I'm done discussing it here, you can do it at ANI.

  ... not any other policy ref, or problem with my understanding of it. All you did was express outrage (am I really attributing emotion to you, or are you quite clearly expressing it?), say you were "done discussing it," and tell me to "do it at ANI." So here we are.— Guarapiranga ☎ 03:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  As there is currently a New Pages Patrol backlog of over 13,000 creating over 2900+ redirects in a short period without prior discussion at the AfC or NPP project talk does not seem to be taking the additional workload it would apply to others into account. Gusfriend (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  I hope they are not indexed, because they're all people's names. It might affect Google search results. Levivich^[block] 04:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  Plus making it just that little bit more effort to create a page for someone notable of the same name in the future. Gusfriend (talk) 04:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  I fear that any living person who shares a name with any of those victims will instantly become known for sharing a name with a victim, if these redirects hit google. Levivich^[block] 04:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think we should take the NPP backlog into consideration when deciding whether articles or redirects are valid or appropriate to create. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  I totally agree about not taking the backlog into account when it is a low level of redirects but when there is such a large number in a very short period I would certainly feel uncomfortable creating them without reaching out to the NPP team first if only so that they had some context when they say them come in. Gusfriend (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Hey man im josh, @Gusfriend, users can be whitelisted so their redirects are.automatically patrolled, and it's.fairly easy to do with a script. ― Qwerfjkltalk 06:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  To add onto what Qwerfjkl said, admin's on the NPP team can add users to the autopatrol list. For non-admin adds, users can apply or be nominated at the talk page here. DannyS712's bot, DannyS712 bot III runs every 15 minutes, marking pages created by users on that list as patrolled. In my opinion this makes the number of redirects created not an issue. If getting added to the list needed to be expedited they could also reach out to Rosguill, provided they had a good history of creating redirects, or wanted to explain the intention or plan. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  The response I was hoping for was that you understood you shouldn't have reinstated your reverted bold edits without consensus, per WP:BRD, and should not have created 2,900+ redirects without seeking consensus first. Levivich^[block] 03:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  Since I have commented at the related AfD, I am involved and cannot take action as an admistrator. Since I cannot act, I recommend that an uninvolved administrator take whatever action is necessary to stop this disruption. Cullen328 (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  You would have seen in the threads I linked above that the issue raised by Liz, Cameron Dewe and Epicgenius were against the list's draftification, not against the list itself, Levivich. None of them raised any issue about the list being "massive", being about 9/11, or having redirects created semiautomatically. Those are issues Praxidicae—and apparently now you too—are now raising. If there is an issue, sure, let's deal with it, but:

  1. Please don't say I ignored anyone's concerns; and
  2. I'm yet to see a ref to any WP:POLICY I've broken (where's that "Google search results" part, for instance?). — Guarapiranga ☎ 04:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, I was surprised to see the draft list returned to mainspace on the rationale that draftifying the list broke the thousands of redirects. Levivich^[block] 04:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  You know, I'm going to say more @Guarapiranga. First, I didn't say you ignored anyone's concerns. Second, don't give me this bullshit about "policy" vs. guideline vs. just common f'ing sense. You created redirects in the names of almost three thousand people and directed them to a list of 9/11 victims. If you create a redirect, "John Doe" and target it to "List of 9/11 victims", when people Google "John Doe", it's gonna come up with information saying John Doe died in 9/11. Do you not see how that's at least potentially something we should discuss before we do this to almost three thousand names? It's fucking common sense, OK? Stop arguing with us and realize what you're playing with here is serious shit that affects living people. Thank God you're not autopatrolled! Levivich^[block] 04:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  1. Be WP:CIVIL.
  2. Stop arguing?? Am I not being asked to explain myself here?
  3. The list wasn't returned to mainspace on the rationale that draftifying the list broke the thousands of redirects; I returned it bc I fixed the problems that led Onetwothreeip to draftify it in the 1st place (which had nothing to do with the redirects whatsoever; those only became an issue after Onetwothreeip draftified the article instead of reverting it).
  4. You say you didn't say I ignored anyone's concerns, yet you said I was well aware of the issues, and reinstated my reverted bold edits without consensus. You're contradicting yourself (on top of completely misrepresenting the facts).
  5. If you create a redirect, "John Doe" and target it to "List of 9/11 victims", when people Google "John Doe", it's gonna come up with information saying John Doe died in 9/11.
     1. It's gonna come up with information saying a John Doe died in 9/11.
     2. What's the problem with that?
  6. Do you not see how that's at least potentially something we should discuss before we do this to almost three thousand names?
     That's not WP:EDIT. Editors are encouraged to WP:BE BOLD, and WP:MASSCREATE applies to content pages, not redirects.

    — Guarapiranga ☎ 05:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think one should tell others to be civil exactly one edit after casting aspersions on the motivations of another editor. - Aoidh (talk) 06:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  Of course mainspace redirects are content pages. Redirects are pages - there'd be no need to distinguish pages and articles otherwise - and they're in the main content mainspace. Wikipedia:Content, for all that it's tagged as an essay and you were just about to wikilawyer about that, too, spells it out rather succinctly, with the same definition used everywhere else. That explicit exception in WP:MASSCREATE for "redirects from systematic names" doesn't mean what you think it means. —Cryptic 06:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

On a related note, what is the process to request bulk deletion of the redirects? Gusfriend (talk) 05:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Probably Wikipedia:Bot requests but you may need to show consensus first, I'm not sure how the potential issue of these being people's names might affect things. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 06:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

No need for a bot, Special:Nuke/Guarapiranga will let any admin who's not on his way to bed deal with it. —Cryptic 06:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

But what if I want to delete the Main Page? :) Jokes aside, thanks for that I didn't know about it until now :) PHANTOMTECH (talk) 06:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Guarapiranga did not create the main page, so no issue there. I have deleted the A-Z creations of redirects. So the R of BRD has happened. Discussion can continue. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

No worries, Graeme. I'd still like to understand what was wrong with them (before they were mangled by the draftification). Levivich was concerned they might affect Google search results, but why is that a problem (and not a good thing)? Gusfriend said they were a burden to the NPP backlog, but Hey man im josh, who reviewed most of them (as did DannyS712), said this shouldn't be a factor in deciding whether articles or redirects are valid or appropriate to create. Cryptic says redirects are content pages, but the discussion linked in WP:MASSCREATE explains that they added the qualifier content to pages precisely to make redirects the exception to the rule. He says explicit exception in WP:MASSCREATE for "redirects from systematic names" doesn't mean what I think it means, but doesn't offer any clarification either. — Guarapiranga ☎ 22:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Basically I am acting on behalf of those discussions above. I notice that no one supported the creation of all those redirects. Since it would be too hard to do an RFD, the complaint about indexing ( suppose WP:UNDUE would apply), and WP:MEATBOT applies. Perhaps the exclusion of redirects from should be removed. But I think this needs its own discussion. Bot like editing could result in a block. but I do not think that is appropriate, as that has stopped, and you are talking. Any very fast rate mass-editing is likely to stir up controversy, so should be supported by a discussion prior. Slow mass editing is usually not a problem, as people can object before too much has happened. Wikipedia:Bot policy applies if you are using an automated tool, whatever you are altering or creating on Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, @Graeme. I don't see any restrictions in WP:MEATBOT though (which, admittedly, I only became aware through this incident), other than an advice:

Editors who choose to use semi-automated tools to assist their editing should be aware that processes which operate at higher speeds, with a higher volume of edits, or with less human involvement are more likely to be treated as bots.

It does say that if there is any doubt, the editor should make a bot approval request, and in such cases, the Bot Approvals Group will determine whether the full approval process and a separate bot account are necessary. Had I been aware of WP:MEATBOT prior to creating the redirects, I don't think I'd still be requesting approval, as I don't think a separate bot account would've been necessary for it. Now, all this relates to WP:BOTPOL; I'd still like to understand what was wrong with the redirects themselves. How does WP:UNDUE apply? AFAIK, WP:UNDUE is about striking a balance of POVs across sources, when they differ, that is proportionate to their reliability, not about redirects. Is it? — Guarapiranga ☎ 23:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The UNDUE nature of the redirects, is that out of all the people with those names, the most important are those that are 9/11 victims. A separate discussion should take place about that in a more appropriate place, rather than here though. There has also been discussion whether it is appropriate to list victims of death causing events, and the outcome was on a case by case basis. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Graeme, I really don't understand that UNDUE argument.

1. WP:UNDUE clearly states its requirement is to:

   fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

   I don't see anything there about redirects causing undue weight to different people (or things) with the same name, do you?
2. Isn't that easily resolved with a dab page?

Now you bring up yet another discussion whether it is appropriate to list victims of death causing events, and the target keeps moving. — Guarapiranga ☎ 02:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Not started by me: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the September 11 attacks. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Right. That's a whole other discussion, no? I'm still trying to understand what is the incident being reported here... With such a variety of claims and accusations, from the redirects to the semi-automated editing to alleged undue weight and bias, with little to no ground in actual policy, and lastly but not leastly the attempted character assassination below, I'm befudlled at what the point of this whole topic really is. — Guarapiranga ☎ 05:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

If you cannot see your problem, you are at risk of getting into trouble again. You must not do rapid mass editing without getting approval first. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok. So the problem is not the redirects, Google search results, UNDUE, NOTMEMORIAL, or any other of the allegations above? Understood. Then perhaps WP:MASSCREATE should be made clearer that of course mainspace redirects are content pages, as Cryptic says (in spite of what the policy's linked discussion says), bc my understanding was the same as Qwerfjkl's when I asked about it on JWB's talk page. In fact, given the profusion of allegations that have now turned out blanks, it's still unclear to me whether I did indeed misunderstand the policy, or whether this is all an outburst of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, demanding prior approvals where none are policy required. — Guarapiranga ☎ 22:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm seeing a concerning pattern:

• G's account was created in March 2019 and started editing regularly in May 2019 (first 500 edits). Within their first 25 or so edits are talk page edits like their first one ("...Are you crazy?? I'll return you the same amount of time you gave my contribution to respond before undoing this vandalism (WP:DONTREVERT). "), this one accusing an editor of bias ("If you have a horse in this race, refrain from negatively campaigning against other candidates from the SAME party."), and doubling down ("And you say you don't have a horse in this race?! I find that very hard to believe.")
• June 2019 edit warring with combative edit summaries (accusing editors who revert of WP:DISRUPT) on multiple pages: bold, 2, 3, 4; another article: bold, 2, 3, first talk page comment on that article: "If you don't like the way I configured the map, why don't you get off your high horse of "not good enough", and help improve it? Move things forward, not backwards."
• First edit-warring warning in June 2019; G's response: "Did I start the war? No, I didn't."
• Second edit warring warning is the next section on that page, in October 2019. They file an ANEW report: "It is clear he has a POV on this topic, and that he is determined to impose it on Wikipedia by whatever means." (the page was protected)
• December 2019, they're blocked for a week with TPA revoked
• G made less than 20 edits over 14 months between Dec 2019 and April 2021, when they returned to active editing (xtools)
• A few months later, August 2021: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1074#Disruptive editing by User:Guarapiranga
• On August 3, G makes this edit, same tone as their 2019 edits, and took another effective break. On August 18, they archived some thread on their user talk page [187].
• G made <75 edits for six months between Sep 2021 and May 2022, when they again return to active editing (see xtools linked above).
• And here we are at ANI again a month later in June 2022.

This editing pattern is not sustainable. Levivich^[block] 03:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• I agree. They don't have a great attitude for a collaborative environment and every time they return to sustained editing they run into problems. They probably should have been indeffed in December 2019 (as the blocking administrator said at the time) and the discussion above is just more evidence of a time-sink WP:IDHT attitude. I would be minded to indef here and would welcome feedback. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  +1, warnings and time limited blocks have already been tried, and this is too broad for a tban. Levivich^[block] 15:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree that it is not sustainable. Gusfriend (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• My thoughts:
  Firstly, mass editing on its own is not necessarily disruptive. The rate limit is 90 edits per minute, so theoretically the maximum pages you could create in an hour is 5400, over 5 times as much as 1000 (not that I endorse high volume editing, but it could have been much worse). I agree with G's comment above that WP:MASSCREATION does not apply to redirects - redirects can be mainspace pages, but they aren't content pages, and the policy could certainly be clearer. The only valid problem I can see is the fact that a lot of pages for people's names have been created, of which some probably would be better served with a dab page. This discussion might have gone better, and not escalated, if G had started a discussion first about these redirects - that would probably be good future advice; that being said, I don't think this justifies a block. If the pages don't already exist, then the chances are they're not going to be dabs in the future, and redirects can always be turned into disambiguation pages (in my opinion, for what that counts). The main problem here (in addition to the only problem above) is not being WP:CIVIL. My own viewpoint may be somewhat biased - I've mass created redirects in the past, such as here. ― Qwerfjkltalk 15:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• There's far more aggressive language from you just a few comments above than what you've been able sleuth out of 3 years of my editing history, Levivich. You're grasping. — Guarapiranga ☎ 23:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Guarapiranga, Which parts of Levivich's posting are aggressive? I appreciate it does not make your editing history look good, so this would be a good moment to explain which parts are misleading or inaccurate. Black Kite (talk) 07:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  You know, I'm going to say more @Guarapiranga. First, I didn't say you ignored anyone's concerns. Second, don't give me this bullshit about "policy" vs. guideline vs. just common f'ing sense. You created redirects in the names of almost three thousand people and directed them to a list of 9/11 victims. If you create a redirect, "John Doe" and target it to "List of 9/11 victims", when people Google "John Doe", it's gonna come up with information saying John Doe died in 9/11. Do you not see how that's at least potentially something we should discuss before we do this to almost three thousand names? It's fucking common sense, OK? Stop arguing with us and realize what you're playing with here is serious shit that affects living people. Thank God you're not autopatrolled!

  At best, this is a simple case of disagreement over WP:MASSCREATE's scope (especifically, whether or not redirects classify as content pages, which could've been dealt with at the proper forum), as other allegations (of UNDUE, NOTMEMORIAL and Google search results) seem to have pitted out without basis on policy; at worst, it's unnecessary WP:HOUNDING, WP:HARASSMENT and lynching. — Guarapiranga ☎ 08:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed sanctions

• Support INDEF - It's high time that WP:MEATBOT was given teeth. Especially when the behaviour is paired with WP:MASSCREATE it is the most disruptive behaviour possible on this website, since creating such articles is the work of a minute or less each, whilst deleting them is often the work of a week+. It can result in thousands of man-hours of editor time being thrown away trying to clear up the mess created by others. We saw this in the Carlossuarez46 case. We saw this in the Ruigeroeland case. We're seeing this in the Lugnuts case. Clearly warnings have already been made and the subject of them did not listen. This community needs to protect itself against and stop these time-sinks. FOARP (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
  • @FOARP, I don't want to be too argumentative, but it is the most disruptive behaviour possible on this website seems unnecessary, and deleting them is often the work of a week+ seems wrong; apparently "any admin who's not on his way to bed [can] deal with it". This doesn't exactly seem like thousands of man-hours of editor time. Please try to check your statements before posting them. Thank you. ― Qwerfjkltalk 16:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Qwerfjkl - I stand by my statement. Anyone can just go and look at the massive task created by, for example, Ruigeroeland for his clean-up team, and Carlossuarez46 for the California GEOstubs clean-up team, can see the issues that it has created for them. Thousands of hours is an entirely reasonable statement for the impact of abuse of WP:MEATBOT/WP:MASSCREATE given that the two teams above have been operational for years and their tasks are still not yet quite finished. The seven-day period needed for deletion of an article via AFD is of course well-known. FOARP (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@FOARP, thank you for clarifying your points above. ― Qwerfjkltalk 19:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support indef per FOARP - reading their latest responses and complete lack of understanding of how disruptive their rate of editing is and was leads me to believe that we're going to wind up exactly in this situation again if action isn't taken, combine that with their combativeness and it's a recipe for disaster. At minimum, a mainspace block and outright ban from creating redirects and any automated or semi-automated editing should be prohibited, either by edit restriction or block. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• In case I didn't make it clear above, I oppose a block (though not necessarily some other sanction of some sort). I don't believe a high edit rate is necessarily disruptive. ― Qwerfjkltalk 19:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Multiple sockpuppets

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

---

User:No Bad Man, User:Mr. Sharkpants, User:Dr. Greeny Platypus are sockpuppets; same edit summaries in Mass (2021 film)'s revision history. Nythar (talk) 00:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I came here instead of WP:SPI because it takes a bit long there. Nythar (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Page protected. I'll block the accounts too. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppets

There are multiple sockpuppets on this page 1, part of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ezidishingali. Nythar (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Handled by Materialscientist. The topic of Yazidis / Kurds has suffered badly from sockpuppetry via use of VPNs in the past few days. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Korean Nationalist NOTHERE

User:GoldenTaurus is a WP:NOTHERE account. Nationalistic WP:POVPUSH on various historical articles related to Korea and Korean territory.

Recent history shows deletion of warnings for edit warring and disruptive editing citing WP:VD, WP:HA, and WP:POVPUSH in his edit summaries: [188], [189], [190]. Deletion of Chinese polity in the successor box for Goguryeo. Deletion of Classical Chinese as a literary language in Goguryeo using WP:FRINGE reasoning: Classical Chinese is not language. Deletion of map of Chinese successor polity claiming vandalism and povpush. No effort to engage in talk resolution except a short one sentence comment, "Tang did not succeed Goguryeo." Despite being pinged prior, he only responded after he was reverted and asked to explain his reasoning. On Four Commanderies of Han, he reverted to a prior version with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH after a protracted edit war starting in August 2021: [191]. No reason was given in the edit summary.

Prior history is also suspect. Made similar edits to now blocked User:Traineek (another Korean NOTHERE account) at Four Commanderies of Han in August 2021. This was reported as possible sockpuppeting by User:Esiymbro. Another user, User:MarcofuUSA, created two days after Traineek's ban, who edited the same page immediately prior to GoldenTaurus was also accused of being a sockpuppet of Traineek. A later talk discussion between me and GT revealed that GoldenTaurus and MarcofuUSA are the same person, but GT never mentioned this in the one comment they made on their sockpuppet report, which was a general denial of ultranationalism.

The edit war on Four Commanderies of Han ended with GT's content staying until 18 March 2022 when Esiymbro removed parts of GT's content for WP:OR. GT noticed on 10 April and restarted the edit war. It subsided again once it became clear this time that GT could not provide sources which supported his additions at the talk page for Lelang Commandery, which he had also added the same content to. As of today, MarcofuUSA/GoldenTaurus has made 10 reverts at Four Commanderies of Han over several months to restore the same material over multiple users: [192], [193], [194], [195], [196], [197], [198], [199], [200], [201]. At Lelang Commandery, they have made the same reversions four times: [202], [203], [204], [205]. Qiushufang (talk) 09:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Compare Traineek and GoldenTaurus' recent edits: [206], [207], / [208], [209], [210]. Qiushufang (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

User:BNParibasguy also participated in the edit war reverting in favor of GoldenTaurus' version with no reason given. Didn't think much of it at first, but they have not responded to the talk discussion either and instead requested a page lock. Looking at their edit history, their very first action as an account was to revert an IP edit in a talk discussion involving MarcofuUSA with the reason: Undid - edit spamming and ad hominem attack using anonymous ID. It seems likely that this not a user new to wikipedia editing and their topics of interest are also similar to GoldenTaurus. I don't know if there's a possibility that they're a sock or meat puppet, but this seems highly coincidental. Qiushufang (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Wrglahl LCD söz

• Wrglahl LCD söz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I think this user has severe CIR issues. They speak in broken english, post incomprehensible things on talk pages, and have no idea how to properly format a reference and often do not add references at all. They have already received numerous warnings on their talk page for their incompetent editing. I have asked them repeatedly to give a page number for their citations, but they just ignore me and continue to edit war in their reference unaltered with the exact same edit summaries as if I don't even exist. I am at my wits end with them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Here is an edit where they inexplicably remove 5,000 byes of references and text with the nondescriptive edit summary an information. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I have pblocked the editor from article space for 48 hours. Let's see if that gets their attention. Oz\^InterAct 15:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Syrriana

Syrriana has been warned five times (including three final warnings) at their talk page about adding unsourced content to articles, since their 25 May block for the same thing. But the user is still at it: [211], [212]. Storchy (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Storchy in the two diffs you listed, those infobox entries dont normally include refs alongside, since the article body generally contains those refs. @Syrriana I have explained you to add reference, please remember to add refs in the article while editing. Venkat TL (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, if the article body contained referenced text about the change in role, I'd have left it alone. Storchy (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Those two diffs were just the latest; their contributions to article text are also entirely unsourced. Here's another one from today: [213]. In all cases, it's a matter of posting up the day's political news as quickly as possible, always unsourced. Storchy (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes @Storchy, I know, half of the Sourcing related notices have been posted by me. @Syrriana are trying to help by giving quick updates, but end up making unsourced WP:BLP edits most of the times. Syrriana, please understand that making edits on articles about living persons without a reference is basically not allowed. Is this due to laziness or you need technical help? Please respond. Wikipedia:VisualEditor is very straight forward, which you can enable and use to quickly add reference. Venkat TL (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Excessive vandalism at Monkeypox-related articles

Requesting some administrative attention on Monkeypox-related articles following a spree of replacing Monkeypox with racial slurs. See Special:Contribs/Jekdifj, Special:Contribs/2601:40:3:21F4:79E8:40AE:6CC4:E61D, Special:Contribs/2601:40:1:111:14DC:15FE:BA9E:252D, Special:Contribs/2601:40:1:474:E889:35DA:36CE:FF7, Special:Contribs/2601:40:1:F08:E88B:2852:5EA:D3A8, Special:Contribs/2601:40:1:FE5:B88C:52A6:955C:4B6, Special:Contribs/73.81.154.47 and possibly more if I dive into page histories. They're all blocked now (some due to range blocks) but the vandalism still continues. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) (Redacted) seems to be a racist term that is circulating on far-right social media outlets. I'm not going to provide any example links, but the vandalized Wikipedia articles appear in search engine results (e.g. DuckDuckGo, at time of writing, returned 2022 monkeypox outbreak in the Netherlands with the slur as the first result for (Redacted)), and no news search engine results mention the slur. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

You won't provide the links but will post the slur for all to see on a page with 8500+ watchers? I've redacted the offending words from your message above and will take a look to at possible rangeblocks/protections. Perhaps an edit filter?-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I see that a number of admins have protected some discrete /64 ranges, but it's Materielscientist's block of the /48 that will likely be the most effective. I've semi-protected the target articles but it's likely an edit filter set to disallow that will be most effective. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a good solution to me. Are there any recent cases of Wikipedia editors using racist terms for COVID-19 or other diseases? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The details are too sensitive to be made public, so I have emailed the edit filter managers about this ANI. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I've added the offending word(s) to Special:AbuseFilter/260. If this doesn't help please let me know. Sam Walton (talk) 08:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: See Special:Diff/1095617901. The vandal has started inserting it in all caps. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 11:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@CX Zoom: All caps wasn't quite the issue, but given the added complexity of how they're attempting to circumvent this I've started up a new filter at Special:AbuseFilter/1209. Leaving it log only for a while until we get some hits. Sam Walton (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

We got some confirmed hits so I'm moving to disallow. Sam Walton (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

During an discussion at the wikipedia-en-revdel IRC, several admins noticed that the behavioral evidence of some of the IPs — in particular, their edits at List of One Piece characters and List of economic expansions in the United States — suggest that they are the same person as Jekdifj (talk · contribs), who is themselves a confirmed sock of Weeebatowj (talk · contribs). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Sahil193319

Sahil193319, blocked twice previously for disruptive editing, has been repeatedly warned at their talk page about adding unsourced content to articles, but is still at it: [214], [215]. There is significant overlap between their unsourced edits and those of User:Syrriana listed above. Storchy (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Could I get some admin help on this please? Sahil193319 is still repeatedly adding long lists of unsourced claims to BLP articles, especially infoboxes, and I don't want to breach WP:3RR reverting them: [216], [217]. Thanks. Storchy (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

IP editor in 2402:8100:2000::/35 range tied to sockmaster Qaumrambista

Since an indef was made permanent on sockmaster Qaumrambista last week, an IP editor in the same range (2402:8100:2000::/35) and the account യോഹന്നാൻ have made edits to a number of articles relating to Indian Christianity. The character of the edits and IP range involved made me suspect sockpuppetry. I am aware of the shared nature of the range, but the overlap in pages edited and sources inserted raised suspicion. Following edit warring by the IP on the article List of major archbishops of the Syro-Malabar Church, I filed an AN/EW report resulting in a semi-protection of the page. The IP has since continued edit warring with multiple edits on articles including Synod of Diamper and India (East Syriac ecclesiastical province). Once more instances of overlap between the sockmaster and this IP editor became evident, I filed a sockpuppet report that returned a possible to possilikely following a check user. The IP editor has also made uncivil remarks, including intentionally misspelling names of religions (even after being asked then warned to stop that). Editor repeatedly disengaged from requests for discussion on Talk:Syro-Malabar Church and resumed edit warring despite warnings from myself and an admin, resulting in the page being protected.

When I initially brought the original sockmaster to ANI a couple months ago on issues of incivility, POV, and edit warring, the behavior was not met with any sort of serious action (besides talk page reminders of the discretionary sanctions involving articles related to India and Pakistan). It took a month for the SPI team to recognize and respond to just one of the editor's abusive behaviors. The AN/EW team, while effective for single-article issues, can only play whack-a-mole with such disruptive editors. I am here because I have been targeted by this editor with uncivil comments and WP:HOUNDING for three months now and this project really is not that fun when your watchlist is populated with targeted edit summaries and unexplained reversions.

I have two requests: extended page protections on the articles mentioned above and prohibition of that IP range from editing these articles. The latter request should be considered with caution because, even though that range is already subject to specific blocks, the range includes a significant proportion of the people who might want to edit pages on this topic. Further diffs, details, and other material may be provided upon request. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I am the admin who semi-protected Syro-Malabar Church. The IP user had contacted me on my talk page. I pointed out my concerns that they were a long-term abuser who had caused an IP range to be partially blocked—which, curiously, led to the next contact coming from an IP4 address outside the /35 range. The IP asked why I was removing good content; I explained at that point that I was not editing in regards to their content, but their conduct, and I would not take responsibility for the content by letting it stand. I feel that behavioural signs point to this being either Qaum or another LTA, so semi-protection is in order. I've only hit the one article where I saw an issue last night my time, and I welcome other administrators' eyes looking into this. —C.Fred (talk) 13:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Requesting further action as the IP has continued edit warring my despite request for discussion on a talk page, as well as escalating the POV language of their edits. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: I just semiprotected that article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Thank you! If IP wants to discuss on the talk pages, I am willing to engage (even if that's not standard protocol). ~ 01:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Requesting a semiprotection for the article India (East Syriac ecclesiastical province) too. Same IP series is continuously reverting the edits supported with genuine references. --John C. (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Johnchacks: Also semiprotected. —C.Fred (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Thank you. --John C. (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Belittling behaviour and bad faith on several currency related articles

User talk:Oppa gangnam psy has been following me around for several days, getting extremely angry with me and refusing to listen to the points I have to make. Once OGP threatened me with a ban, and when I showed they could not do that they resorted to some of the most childish behaviour I've ever seen from an editor.

The most egregious of OGP's behaviour is at Talk:Soviet ruble. Where in response to evidence I provided in support of my statement they became extremely unpleasant and abusive.

• OGP has a biased preference for American English, and refuses to acknowledge all contrary evidence. See: Add to that post-1945 media torch passed from UK to USA, that's how the consensus for ruble was arrived at. and it's best to issue the check in RUBLES lest you risk a bouncing cheque in Roubles
• After I provided citations disproving OGP's assertion they threatened me with a ban. See: Being a difficult topic, the 2006 debate duly consulted various parties on this and they arrived at 'ruble'. And it's not within my powers to reverse this outcome. Dunno what's the penalty to reversing a settled decision like this. You'll very likely be banned and Above Talk:Soviet ruble#Requested move constitutes prima facie evidence of WP:CON arrived on this - move it to Soviet ruble and no more discussions. Breaking this WP:CON is a terrific way of getting WP:BAN.
• After it became clear OGP could not have me banned merely for starting a discussion, they started behaving in an extraordinarily childish way. See: With 2006 WP:CON firmly in place, what you feel about "rouble" is exactly just that... Feelings... nothing more than feelings... woe woe woe feelings... and Pursuing suggestions to write consistent with milieu, proposeth thee to write William the Conqueror artickle in Old English? ET IVLIVS CAESAR EN LATIN? Practible it maketh not. But MMVI WP:CON achieveth and Soviet ruble declareth it to be.

TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Complainant questions the finality of WP:CON arrived at in 2006 to finalize Talk:Soviet ruble which goes against what he wants 'rouble'. I can't answer how to reverse 'ruble' consensus and complainant piles pressure to get his way.

Complainant even wants a wipeout of the history of the pound sterling in Talk:Banknotes of the pound sterling by making "sterling", "banknotes of sterling" etc the final page names of "pound sterling" and "banknotes of the pound stering". Completely ignoring to billions worldwide that British currency is most famously known as the "pound".

So complainant wants to engage in historical revisionism by wiping out "pound sterling" and "ruble" from Wiki vocabulary. He wants "sterling" so Wikipedia sticks out like a sore thumb in the Google Search "What is British Currency"? And "ruble" for refusing to acknowledge the end of Pax Britannia.

Isn't it the pettiest of revisionisms to force to audience an unfamiliar word "sterling" and to force that "o" in "ruble"? Wiki audience declared "ruble" final in 2006 as per Talk:Soviet ruble consensus. Faced with an impossible task and an incessant pressure campaign, can I be blamed for running around the circles until complainant realizes the futility of it all?

And do look at complainant's recent edits re: Reichsmark symbol. What is his right to make dozens of Wiki pages look like an unreadable 1940 book with that Reichsmark symbol - without WP:CON? All those unsolicited edits deserve a citation at the very least. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 07:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with complaint mechanics. But the complainant's name is TheCurrencyGuy and he's vandalized dozens of pages with irrelevant symbols unrecognizable to Wiki readers to make it look like 1940. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 07:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Many of those pages already used the Reichsmark symbol, all I did was to add the Reichsmark template I made to make it easier for other editors to use the symbol. I adhered to the guidelines suggesting using a link in the first instance in a paragraph. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 07:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

ADMINS - MONITOR EDITOR TheCurrencyGuy FOR ULTRA RIGHT WING NATIONALIST DEVIANT BEHAVIOR. He already has a morbid fascination for the Reichsmark era. I wonder why. Add to that his penchant for wishing to rewrite history to how he wants it. That's precisely how we got to war last Feb 2022. Thank you. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked you for 31 hours for this personal attack on another editor. Please calm down. Oz\^InterAct 13:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I decided to temporarily focus on one currency for which I made a template. This is bad faith (and bad taste in referencing an ongoing military conflict). Am I also a "FAR LEFT DEVIANT" for deciding to focus on the Soviet currency? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I trust the admins to identify signs of ultra nationalists, historical revisionists, and imperial chauvinists. They can review your talkpage arguments as potential signs of that. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 08:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Admins are also free to review Talk:Pound_sterling#STG_abbreviation on how the modern world has fallen short of your ideals. And how you wish a Final Solution by wiping off Pound from all British Pound references. Wiki admins deal with deviants like TheCurrencyGuy all the time. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 08:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Believing in factual accuracy is not the same thing as believing in racial extermination. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 08:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Calling an editor an "ULTRA RIGHT WING NATIONALIST" for editing Reichsmark is an unacceptable personal attack, particularly since all they appeared to do on that article was replace some content with templates that produced the same content. BilledMammal (talk) 08:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Admins can make that assessment based on the totality of his actuations. Requesting a name wipeout of the British POUND. Reversing final Rouble consensus. And all those Reichsmark edits. It's normal for Wiki to attract folks wanting to rewrite history, no? And to even assume all of us have a revisionist agenda. Our edit history should be evidence what our real agenda here is. Thank you. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 08:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, when I look at Talk:Soviet_ruble I see that it is you who often posts in a passive-aggressive manner (not to mention that you don't appear to understand WP:CON), whilst TheCurrencyGuy appears to make their points calmly. Meanwhile here, you're spouting personal attacks with no actual evidence in all capitals. What are we to make of that? Black Kite (talk) 09:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh my goodness the bludgeoning, lack of good faith, aggression and not thinly veiled threats, in that discussion by Oppa gangnum psy is pretty off the charts. TheCurrencyGuy raised valid points and was asking a reasonable question, and OGP just jumped all over it. Not what we expect from a cordial discussion. And looking at all Oppa's other discussions, this is a serious pattern and they simply cannot seem to accept that someone may not see things their way. They clearly cannot accept good faith, or have any discussion without excessive bludgeoning and strawman arguments and seem to have WP:OWN issues as well. Additionally only blocked for 31 hours for those comments? Generous. Canterbury Tail talk 13:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

If they indicate no lesson has been learned from calming down a bit, I have no trouble extending the block much further. Oz\^InterAct 15:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

He is now attempting to influence an article move under discussion by attempting to declare some editors "disqualified" when WP:RMCOMMENT clearly states that all editors are welcome to contribute. IP addresses are liable to change and a user might have regularly contributed but only recently made an account. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

And he's attempting to fillibuster again, making disjointed statements in all-caps and superfluous bold that are deliberately intended to take up space and be difficult to respond to since he just dumped so much text. This is extremely frustrating. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Your behavior isn't much better. See WP:BLUDGEON and let the conversation flow. As for pointing out new editors, there's a template that is regularly used to highlight new editors joining a conversation as the chances of WP:SOCKPUPPET, WP:MEATPUPPET, or off-wiki WP:CANVASS are high and a valid concern. However, The method they are using is less than ideal and their belief that consensus is required to accept the opinions those users or that such accounts are automatically discounted is false and a judgement to be made by the closer. Slywriter (talk) 04:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I may have to simply give up on WIkipedia, he seems absolutely intent on sabotaging me at every turn. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi all, I've been good since suspension lifted 30th June.

We can't trust folks online and I'm new here so I just had to do lucha libre last 28th June. No regrets if my worst suspicion is indeed true.

And now it seems @TheCurrencyGuy just sockpuppetted his own RFC. Can someone announced adjournment here for heaven's sake? What kind of ban does it warrant?

Oh yes TheCurrencyGuy I'm tracking your edits in real time. Because spider senses. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 05:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

You seem absolutely intent on driving me off the website in your obsessional ways, accusing me of being an "ULTRA RIGHT WING NATIONALIST" and now accusing me of sockpuppetry. I have rarely encountered someone as frustratingly petty as you. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi admins see @TheCurrencyGuy sockpuppetry investigation ongoing now. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sockpuppetry_-_developing_story Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 05:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

You yourself admitted that you intended to keep hounding me and frustrating any and all edits I may make. Your behaviour is completely beyond the pale. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry - developing story

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

---

Sockpuppetry suspected in this ongoing consultation. Talk:Banknotes_of_the_pound_sterling#Requested_move_28_June_2022

I put in a note to this effect and user:TheCurrencyGuy defended "they are welcome to comment".

• Voting record: I and all other commentations voted "OPPOSE"
• While user:TheCurrencyGuy and the three new accounts voted "ACCEPT"

Below editors not notified so you can investigate. This happened just 1 hour ago. Thank you.

Commentators disqualified for making their first and only comment in this survey as per contributor records.

2600:1700:1961:AC00:157E:3EC4:901A:BE9E https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:1700:1961:AC00:157E:3EC4:901A:BE9E 88.144.12.208 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/88.144.12.208 Vulpelibrorum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vulpelibrorum Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 03:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

According to WP:RMCOMMENT all editors are welcome to comment. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oppa gangnam psy (talk • contribs)

• Noting that there is currently a connected discussion on ANI, WP:AN/I#Belittling behaviour and bad faith on several currency related articles. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 04:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

You can see that none of my 30 June comments violate the guidelines. CurrencyGuy must have reported to you even if I've been good now. It's in anticipation of a sockpuppetry complaint coming.

Also FYI: RFC is opened by CurrencyGuy. He and three new accounts are voting the same way. Is there any way to shut that RFC after you investigate this one? Thanks. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 04:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

user:GoodDay now suspecting sockpuppetry and asking RFC suspension - check here. Talk:Banknotes_of_the_pound_sterling#Requested_move_28_June_2022 Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 04:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, that RFC should be closed down. Something just isn't quite right. GoodDay (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Note that you are being disingenuous and ignoring the fact John Maynard Friedman endorsed two of the suggested moves. Trying to claim "ALL" other commentors were opposed is demonstrably untrue. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thats not the point, Friedman can vote freely as he is not a SPA. Your claim of being disingenuous is unfounded, the two IP edits and that other bloke whose username I cannot remember for the love of my life have never made an edit outside that specific talk page, and the fact all three accounts said Support all definitely warrants suspicion. The consensus appears to be oppose anyway... X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 05:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned in an earlier incident, OGP has already been suspended for his bad behaviour towards me and appears to be intent on sabotaging me at every turn. I might as well just frigging give up for now and come back years later when OGP has either been banned or lost interest. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully, TheCurrencyGuy, I do not care about his behaviour, you can create a new thread about OGP's behaviour and I will comment on that. It looks like they're violating WP:HOUNDING and WP:BLUDGEON to a smaller extent. But for now, we are looking at SPAs and possible meatpuppetry at the banknote article. You can also file a request for an interaction ban if you feel like OGP's actions are disrupting your editing. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 05:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I did not report to PhantomTech, I am not out to get you. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I've tagged those three single-purpose accounts, GoodDay & Oppa gangnam psy. Hopefully this speeds the process up. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 05:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

You are required to notify affected users when you open an ANI thread about them - I have done so on your behalf. That said, this is a complete mess. The timing and contrib history behind the "support all" comments are suspicious enough that I'd have brought that directly to SPI. Worth noting that Vulpelibrorum (talk · contribs) was created in 2019 but never edited until today. —{Canucklehead} 05:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I wish to close the RM now, I may reopen it at a later date when OGP is no longer pathologically obsessed with me.TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@TheCurrencyGuy I will not give you to make major edits anywhere on Wiki. I'll keep this ANI sockpuppetry thread as evidence you cannot be trusted. May your efforts be richly rewarded in Wiki purgatory lol. And oh yea it's really Pound Sterling. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 05:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Now you are just incriminating yourself, WP:HOUNDING, WP:BLUDGEON TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

FWIW - To the best of my knowledge, nobody has opened an SPI on anyone. GoodDay (talk) 06:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I have been closing a few RMs for like past 4 months. Never seen so many many new accounts jump in to cast a !vote. Even on high viewership articles like '22 Rus v Ukr or Muhammad remark controversy. Something is very suspicious, so I'll open a SPI anyway. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 06:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Oppa gangnam psy's continuing bad behaviour

While OGP was suspended I took the opportunity to open a move request that he had opposed in an extremely visceral and uncivil way. He has since posted multiple walls of text and is now trying to get the entire request shut down anyway. For this reason I have decided I do not want to pursue the move at this time.

I believe his behaviour constitutes WP:HOUNDING and WP:BLUDGEON and it may be worth looking into putting a WP:IBAN on him, as he has admitted he intends to continue hounding me indefinitely.TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: OGP seems intent on WP:BATTLEGROUND with TheCurrencyGuy, whilst the SPI investigation is ongoing, I'm assuming good faith and maintaining his innocence, but I do think OGP's behaviour needs some serious scrutiny. Various aspersions, slinging of various politically charged terms around, gives off a very people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks feeling. I am getting Mrbeastmodeallday flashbacks... X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 05:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  Hi @X750 my edit record have been near-negligible. It's @TheCurrencyGuy in bad need of multiple edits. But I'm an expert on the subject matter so his unorthodox edits were highly suspicious. I'm new here don't even know all your acronyms but I'm offering my very, very negligible contributions to Wiki to humble scrutiny. Thanks. Special:Contributions/Oppa_gangnam_psy Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 06:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  You've already just come off a suspension for your behaviour towards me, do you want to make it permanent? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 06:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support 2-way WP:IBAN per WP:BOOMERANG and OGP's conduct in the above threads. I don't know how many more threads these two intend to make about each other, but I think it would be unwise to find out. —{Canucklehead} 05:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  I have no issue with this, I do not wish to interact with him anyway as he does not appear to be interested in constructive discussion. He has admitted that he seeks out negative interactions with me, I have done my best to keep a civil head, but it can be very difficult. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Canucklehead my edit records have been near-negligible. It's TheCurrencyGuy in bad need of multiple edits. But I'm an expert on the subject matter so his unorthodox edits were highly suspicious. I'm new here don't even know all your acronyms but I'm offering my very, very negligible contributions to Wiki to humble scrutiny. Thanks. Special:Contributions/Oppa_gangnam_psy Oppa gangnam psy Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  there! Special:Contributions/Oppa_gangnam_psy Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 06:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  @User:Oppa gangnam psy The issue which the IBAN proposes to solve has nothing to do with your respective edit counts. Rather, it's the fact that you two have chosen to continue filling ANI with this WP:LAME bullshit instead of walking away and letting other uninvolved users look into the concerns you've both raised. You've been feuding with this guy for 2 weeks and you're doing the same things that got you blocked. The more you WP:PEPPER every comment critical of you, and the more you pre-emptively dance on TCG's grave even with the issue completely unresolved, the more negative attention you're going to draw to yourself. Just stop. —{Canucklehead} 06:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support 2-way IBAN, as both editors might end up getting each other banned from the project. GoodDay (talk) 05:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi admins FYI @TheCurrencyGuy just caught in sockpuppetry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Sockpuppetry_-_developing_story Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

First I was an "ULTRA RIGHT WING NATIONALIST" and now I'm hosting sock-puppet theatre, what will be your next accusation? That I assassinated Franz Ferdinand? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 06:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi all, feel free to peruse @TheCurrencyGuy edits. His Reichsmark Germany edits have been... hmm fascinating :) Considering I know very little of that era. Since we're all strangers here, your guess must be good as mine. See if I could still trust my spider senses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/TheCurrencyGuy&offset=20220626145322&limit=100&target=TheCurrencyGuy Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 06:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I made my panicked URWN reaction based on appearance of above edit record. 31-hour ban wasn't bad since hey I have negligible Wiki edits as of late! I'm relieved to see this is coming to a conclusion actually. How's his sockpuppetry case going on? Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sockpuppetry_-_developing_story Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 06:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

You've used the word "negligible" in every single reply, playing the victim when infact you're the aggressor is not a good look. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 06:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

You are getting back to that unfounded accusation of me being an "ULTRA RIGHT WING NATIONALIST", do you want to be banned? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 06:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Admins can say if my panic was justified. You WP:ANI 'd me so I wanted to be out however I could. We're all strangers here so your edit track record is all we have to judge character. They can review mine as well as yours. My goodness I'm almost tourist level here with mostly boredom grammatical edits! Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 06:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

You have already been suspended once for WP:NPA against me. And now you're doing exactly the same thing all over again, same WP:STRAWMAN even. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Hi everyone review my edit record before June 15 Special:Contributions/Oppa_gangnam_psy I wanna leave Wikipedia alone man! Real life & socmed is more fun lol but then this bloke came along with multiple wrong edits. You'll see I'm not worthy of any further ban. And looking forward to the day I won't even bother with you all. Though for now I feel compelled to clean up this bloke's his mess before I go on much-deserved vacation. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 06:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  This is one of the most insanely obvious cases of WP:HOUNDING I have ever seen. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 06:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  Goodness how come you know so many wiki acronyms? I can't even recite five. Still reading in WP:SOCKPUPPETRY right now how long you'll be blocked (hopefully over 31 hours). I just understand the three sockpuppets are banned forever. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 06:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  The amount of naked aggression from you is unbelievable. This isn't even passive-aggressive anymore. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support 2-way IBAN per above, at least until this whole mess gets sorted out. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support 2-way IBAN - these two editors can't stop sniping at each other. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 06:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  I'm emotionally drained from it all. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 06:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• At the very least the two editors should stop posting on this noticeboard until the behaviour in question is sorted out. If that doesn't happen voluntarily then there should be a formal ban. Their positions have been stated ad nauseam, so there's no danger of anyone not knowing where they stand, and nobody has time to look properly at the underlying issues while such bickering and opening of new threads continues. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support 2-way interaction ban AND a topic-ban from the article(s) in question AND a ban from administrative boards until this is sorted out. If all they're going to do is snipe at each other like sanctioned belligerents, they need to be removed from the area and their attempts to weaponise AN(I/3) need to be nipped in the bud now. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 08:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

OGP is still being abusive, and is trying to start an edit war @ Irish pound. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 08:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked for 1 week for personal attacks. They already served a 31 hour block for the same reason just two days ago, so the message doesn't seem to be getting through.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

TheCurrencyGuy, Oppa gangnam psy will not be editing for the next week at least, and I think it would be a good idea for you not to post anything further here. This will give admins a chance to look at the behaviour that has been identified already without these constantly shifting goalposts. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• 1-way IBAN - OGP only There's only one editor persistently getting blocked here for personal attacks, and if OGP comes back from the latest block and carries on, they'll be indeffed and this will be moot anyway. As far as I can see TheCurrencyGuy has been generally polite even when ranted at by OGP and when consensus on the talk pages has been against them. Black Kite (talk) 10:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• 1-way IBAN - OGP only, broadly per Black Kite. Also acceptable would be no i-ban and just indef OGP when they come off their current block and immediately return to the same behavior. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• I would not have opposed a WP:CIR block for OGP having seen their behaviour but that seems inevitable. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• I would have indeffed them as soon as I saw the threats to TheCurrencyGuy that they wouldn't let them edit again [218] and the very suspicious sockpuppetry allegation which they then spread all over Wikipedia as a fact with zero evidence. The week's block was extremely lenient. Black Kite (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  I'm almost tempted to open an SPI for joe jobbing based on the section above. That seems more likely to me than a user editing in a way that they know will draw a pile of attention when something is already under discussion at ANI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  There is an SPI open but I don’t think it’s clear cut. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

OGP has been blocked for 1-month. I think this thread can be closed. GoodDay (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• I dunno, given their last comment, which happened just before 1 week block was applied, it seems that this is behaviour that cannot be tolerated on Wikipedia. I did warn them that if they say anything like that again their block would be extended, but given their behaviour I'm kinda regretting that and think they should just be outright indeffed for their comments. Canterbury Tail talk 13:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Since I have been mentioned by both parties above, I suppose I should leave a comment with no expectation that it be taken into consideration. (In case it is not onvious, I am not an admin.) My experience is that both these editors have strongly held views and have a rather confrontational style. In general, TCG is able to support their assertions with citations (though, as I have told him, examples of usage don't make satisifactory RSs, but only descriptions and explanations of that use): OGS just seems to make firm assertions without evident foundation and tries to bully changes through. [See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fiat_money&action=history in May, for example.] OGS writes with total but unfounded confidence and has had to be asked to stop contributing to some articles related to finance and economics because WP:competence is required. (Pinging @SPECIFICO: if they wish to comment but who I suspect has better things to do with their time.) Each seems absolutely convinced that there is only one correct analysis, in a worldview that is remimiscent of religious fundamentalism in its expression, though TCG is more likely to acknowledge alternative views. IMO, OGS should be at least TBANned indefinitely on all finance economics articles broadly construed; TCG should take a week to cool off or ask for a voluntary 30-day TBAN on same topics. I have no idea how an interaction ban can ever be realistic. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  I agree, at least with the last sentence. The two editors both seem to be interested in the same narrow topic area, so, if the editors want to game the system, a two-way interaction ban will simply lead to a race to get to an article or talk page first and so exclude the other. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• As an FYI even after being warned they continued to make claims that other editors are radicalized and related attacks. They were clearly warned that if they continued their block would be extended, and they kept going. So I've now indeffed them and removed their talk page privileges. Such speech has no place on Wikipedia and it's quite clear they are completely incapable of editing in a collaborative environment. Canterbury Tail talk 18:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

A somewhat puzzling topic

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

---

• FrB.TG (talk · contribs)

This editor / user along with two or more of their friends try to take over articles. On top of that they seek to draw other users into a debate, argument, conflict, or such and get them into a difficulty with 3RR or other reverting.

There is no recourse other than going to ANI or almost canvassing for admins to stop the problems. Said users ignore their talk pages, often pay no attention to efforts to get a consensus through talk pages on a page, etc.

These users evidently aren't going to go anywhere. Must we leave 2 or 3 dozen "pop culture" articles to their usurpation? No good options here.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Diffs please. And you will have to name (and inform) these supposed 'friends' if you expect anything to be done about them here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I'm surprised that the penny hasn't dropped yet, but the reason that multiple editors are reverting you is because you're wrong. And I'm surprised that when you're told by experienced editors that you're wrong, it hasn't occurred to you that perhaps that's the problem. The fact that you added material to a BLP which was based on two sources which were no good (one unreliable per RSP and the other one didn't back up the text), and then you put them straight back [219] or when you edit-war with multiple people to make a change that is pointless [220], I too am unsurprised that more than one person reverts your edits. Black Kite (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The user did it again. Sigh! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

That's not what happened. It's common now for users to look for "better" references and delete old ones. That's not always a good thing. Sometimes it's as simple to add a reference leaving the old one. Czello causes problems and is instigating here. They frustrated and drove off a longtime harried editor. Also Black Kite I never claimed to be perfect but there is a cabal on here. They have taken over (hold hostage even) something like 25 pages now. You can't edit on some very known actors and performers pages because it will be removed.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

That's exactly what happened, actually. If you're adding material with two references, and neither is actually usable - as was the case here - then not only should you delete them and find better ones, but you must do so - and if you can't find usable ones then the material cannot stay in a BLP. If you don't understand that, then you probably shouldn't be editing biographies at all. Black Kite (talk) 13:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with what you said but I am bringing up a very large topic. You seem to not see it which is like not seeing a barn and finding a microbe. Do you get that dozens of articles are being taken over? I can prove it.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

By all means. Diffs please, as has already been asked for. Oz\^InterAct 13:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we need diffs here. As I said, I looked at two articles where your changes were not an improvement, so I've now looked at a third where I see things like this, which is just introducing a grammatical error. So if we could have a list of those articles where your contributions are positive but other editors are removing them for no reason, that would be very useful. Black Kite (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Note their response after I explained their errors and punctuation mistakes (which I also did here and got a similar response). FrB.TG (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I mean without spending 630 hours on this I would show you articles including Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Emma Stone, Tom Cruise, Michael Jackson, Anne Hathaway, Nicki Minaj, Taylor Swift, Oscar Isaac, Taron Egerton, Pablo Schreiber, Mariah Carey, even Madelaine Petsch (sort of obscure).

I may be able to show diffs. I guess the point is editors spend enough time adding and "improving" articles; they won't allow errors (factual or otherwise) to be remedied.

I am not against having quotations in articles; they're interesting and add substance, also flavor. A problem becomes articles are almost movie review style pieces and stuffed with quotes. I guess there are other errors I haven't mentioned too.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The largest problem is the quest to make an article good, featured, today's feature... They overdo things. There's nothing wrong with great journalism.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, I really tried to fix the Pablo Schreiber one, same for Taron Egerton.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Would that be the Pablo Schreiber where you edit-warred to reintroduce errors, even after the other editor had pointed out why your edits were not an improvement [221]? Whilst I do think you're acting in good faith, there actually doesn't appear to be any conspiracy or clique here, just lots of different editors on lots of different pages reverting some of your edits (not all of them) because they are problematic. Black Kite (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Also on the Scarlet Johansson page I removed a reference which was questioned. The user was correct about the Glamour ref not mentioning the divorce.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

OP has also been unhelpful in his comments to AndyTheGrump. After Andy removed a thread that OP made on his talk page, he chose to create a new thread where he called Andy two-sided and unhelful. OP also seems to want to pick a fight with a user who closed a duplicate report at WP:AN. I think @Pictureperfect2 needs to perhaps take a breather and return without the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. — Czello 12:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

They way any editor can avoid difficulty with 3RR is simple, just don't keep reverting. No matter how sure you are right, unless it's urgent and you're sure it's something covered by WP:3RRNO like a clear cut BLP violation the moment it's clear there is dispute, open a talk page discussion rather than reverting. If you're right it hopefully won't take long to establish that. And as Wikipedia is a collaborative project, any editor who us willing to discuss disputes is at the wrong place. Also WP:NYPOST is a generally unreliable so should almost never be used. All editors should be aiming to replace it where it occurs and should almost never add new instances of it. Nil Einne (talk) 13:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

At least two editors just ignore talk pages, both the topic page and their own talk pg.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

This coming from an editor who has deleted almost every single attempt by other editors to engage with them on their talk pages, completely dismissing their concerns? Canterbury Tail talk 16:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Now they used their talk page via their unblock request. Very ironic. --MuZemike 02:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Pictureperfect2: if you open a discussion on the article talk page and establish consensus for your changes among those who do participate, then it's irrelevant. Once you have consensus, if any editor keeps reverting while still refusing to take part in the discussion you can ask for them to be blocked. Still no need to violate 3RR. If you can establish a pattern where you try to make edits which are reverted and there's an easy consensus for your edits on the article talk page which is reverted by editor A and editor A never even participates, we can reasonably consider sanction on editor A, but not now. In all your edits here, the only article talk pages you've participated in not counting any where you only did so in the past day or so (which isn't enough time to be certain other editors are not going to come), seem to be Talk:Oscar Isaac, Talk:Madelaine Petsch, Talk:Sig Hansen, Talk:Nicki Minaj. I'm ignoring any comments you only left on user talk pages since ultimately the article talk page is the place to establish consensus so while direct communication can sometimes be useful especially with new editors, unless you opened a discussion on an article talk page you can't say you've properly tried to discussion. And well there's also Talk:Taron Egerton, but I'm excluding that as your sole contribution was a highly flawed suggestion not based on BLP policy. (I have not looked at your contributions to other article talk pages, just happened to notice this since it was a single edit which was reverted so I was wondering why.) This is way fewer than the number of articles you're going to edit, therefore it's impossible for you to know that any editor is not going to participate in a discussion on the article talk page. And further, your own track record on discussing disputes on the article talk page is terrible, even if we put aside your responses here on when editors have tried to talk to you on your talk page. So at best, it's a case of pot, kettle, black. Nil Einne (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Short Boomerang Block per WP:BOOMERANG and WP:TENDENTIOUS; The OP was asked for diffs (Andy @11:01 June 28, above). Instead, the OP added cast another diff-free aspersion[222] and made a WP:VAGUEWAVE You seem to not see it which is like not seeing a barn and finding a microbe. Do you get that dozens of articles are being taken over? I can prove it.[223] The OP was again asked for diffs (by Oz @13:09 and Black Kite @13:12, June 28, above). Instead the OP came back saying I mean without spending 630 hours on this I would show you articles including.... and then rattled off a long list of article titles. The OP is not taking feedback on content, and the OP is not taking feedback on process. If their feedback immunity persists, a longer block based on WP:CIR would seem appropriate. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Given their history of dismissing my concerns for their comma-removing spree ([224] [225]) where I always have to justify the status quo instead of them, I'm not surprised with their responses here. FrB.TG (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Gotta say, I'm a real fan of this one. If this isn't indicative of their attitude, I don't know what is. And here is another classic. I think that an outright block of Pictureperfect2 for pure Wp:CIR, not WP:AGF, WP:OWN and just pure time wasting is probably in order. Canterbury Tail talk 16:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Indef'd for CIR, NOTHERE, general time wasting, take your pick. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Oooh, can I gamble it all for the washer and dryer where the lovely Smithers is standing...?! There was this report at the EW board too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Mussme adding inappropriate external links without discussion

Mussme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user has repeatedly added external links to many articles, all from an online library from the University of Virginia. While the site appears to have an appropriate CC-BY 4.0 International License, at the top of each addition (see article history of their contribs), they all contain the clause: 'Transcription, correction, editorial commentary, and markup by Students and Staff of Marymount University.' This seems to be an inappropriate external link, per WP:ELNEVER, as it may add external commentary. Additionally this is a duplication of what Project Gutenberg has, which is a fair use transcription of non-copyrighted works.
I've asked twice on their talk page to explain how this is appropriate. They've continued to add the links, which I see as disruptive. Additional eyes on these links is requested. Thanks! Jip Orlando (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree with OP Those links tend to show unverifiable research/commentary by folks at that one college, and so they should be deleted per WP:LINKSTOAVOID (see #2). If the editor won't stop littering like this, a block for WP:Disruptive editing is in order. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC) PS as the Mussme's contribs consist exclusively of spamming this site in external link sections, they are obviously a single purpose account that is WP:NOTHERE to generate content. So maybe just indef them until they decide they want to do that? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

It's linkspamming pure and simple. Canterbury Tail talk 15:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I have indef'ed them for pure link spam. If they wish to recant their ways, they are free to appeal the block with a good explanation. Oz\^InterAct 15:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

"recant their ways" ... what are we, the Spanish Inquisition? :-D Levivich^[block] 17:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I like the word, what can I say. :> Oz\^InterAct 20:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• I think referring to their additions as litter and linkspam is a little harsh. I can see why they might think these links might be appropriate; they're not, but it's easy to see how someone without a clear understanding of our policies might not understand that. EEng 16:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

If they engage in any discussion, I'll gladly agree with you, and if asked I will help them learn their way around. But so far it looks like a driveby activity to me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• To me this looks like a student whose job or internship at UVA library includes making their stuff more easily accessible online or something. This person probably doesn't even know they have a talk page. They've never edited any talk page. I'm guessing this is 100% well-intentioned, just the product of their supervisor not really understanding how WP works. Pinging Ian (Wiki Ed) in case they have input, but anyone know how to ping GLAM? valereee (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah but they're also edit warring to keep the links in. (example) I can understand someone not understanding that these links aren't appropriate per our PAGs, but I don't understand someone thinking it's OK to repeatedly re-add them when they've been removed. I don't really believe there are any American university students (or people under 25) in 2022 who do not know what edit warring on Wikipedia is, but maybe I'm being naïve about that. In other words, I think this person knows, or should know, what they're doing is wrong. Levivich^[block] 16:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  They've made 34 edits. They could literally think they aren't saving correctly. :D valereee (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  I've emailed them and given them the link to their user talk. valereee (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  Now that I look again, they're all manual reverts, not using the "undo" button, so yeah... you're right, that could be it :-) (Also, all edits are using visual editor, another sign of unfamiliarity.) I don't really understand how people (on desktop) miss the notices at the top of the page about new user talk page messages, but the block notice certainly doesn't tell them what's wrong. I'm glad you emailed them; thanks. Levivich^[block] 16:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Valereee I don't know anything about this project - my recommendation would have been to email them. The project itself looks like a duplicate of Wikisource, without the aid of an edit button to fix errors. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

217.149.161.160

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

---

Special:Contributions/217.149.161.160 is an IP editor that has been leaving some nice messages of encouragement on my user talk page (exhibit 1, exhibit 2, exhibit 3). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

IP blocked for 1 month. Oz\^InterAct 15:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I think talk page access needs to be revoked [226] [227]. ComplexRational (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I have revoked talk page access. Cullen328 (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Issues involving Thundercloss

There is an editor who has persisted in re-reverting 2022 Laguna Woods shooting. In short they made contentious changes [228]. After being challenged, they kept restoring their edit [229] [230] [231]. Their edit summaries accuse another editor of edit warring, without basis in my view. I have nudged them [232] to look at WP:BRD. On top of other issues, they recently restored incorrect charge counts and other information about the defendant [233]. Thundercloss have used some unjustified words such as bootlicking [234], disinformation [235], and appear to have had an editing dispute in the past that also began with deletions. It might be helpful for them to be made more aware of their contentious editing and incivility. Vacosea (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

the claim that I made contentious changes does not appear to me to make sense because (from my point of view and as I have made clear many times in my edit summaries) I am restoring the article to its state prior to the persistent edit warring by another user. I would also point out that prior to the filer’s involvement on the talk page, I had been extensively discussing the edits themselves which have been the source of the alleged contention. The claim that I restored incorrect charge counts and other information is certainly nonsense because it is information that can be found in the multiple independent sources which they are cited to. And I would point out that the prior dispute which I was involved in has been successfully resolved, in large part because I was consciously and continuously incorporating the suggestions made by the opposing interlocutor on the discussion page into the edits I was making on the main article. This was the same strategy I tried to use to break the deadlock on this discussion page, but the complainant didn’t even pretend to pay attention to my compromise efforts as evidenced by the wholesale, totalizing reverts of my edits they have been making Thundercloss (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The article has only existed for 1.5 months so realistically there's no version that is truly a stable version. Besides that, by definition if you're continually being reverted by another editor editing in good faith, there seems to be something contentious about both your edits even where you are reverting to a stable version. Discussing the dispute is good, edit warring is not and this applies to everyone involved. Nil Einne (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Hold on, in reality they were the one making totalizing reverts, practically restoring 100% their own edits [236] [237] [238], whereas mine allowed changes [239] or added to their older version [240]. Ask JArthur1984 whether Thundercloss' past "strategy" is as claimed, but as far as I can see, they don't understand that BRD means discuss before re-revert, not re-revert then discuss. They unfoundedly accuse others of what they themselves commit. Their eager reverting has brought back inaccurate information about the case. At least a month ago [241], the manifesto date was corrected from mailed one day prior to received one day after the shooting. It is now back thanks to Thundercloss. In California, enhancements are not separate charges but added on [242] [243]. What is telling is that the source already says "amended ... to add a hate crime enhancement" [244], but Thundercloss seems much happier with upping the charge count than exercising due care [245]. Vacosea (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Even if you were right about these two revisions, it still doesn’t address the elephant in the room which are the totalizing revisions you made on other parts of the article where you either removed entire chunks of properly sources and summarized information or restored entire chunks of poorly sourced and summarized information in the same way the other edit warring user did. Your story is making less and less sense the more and more your complaint develops. Thundercloss (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

On my prior issues with this user's categorical deletions, I think Talk:Michelle_Bachelet pretty much speaks for itself. That's the best place to look, instead of how anyone characterizes it.

To me, the key part of Nil Einne's comment is continual reversions by another editor "editing in good faith."

To me, good faith means a user should be able to respond to specific questions about why they made categorical deletions, and offer a specific rationale. For example, I was accused of "cherry-picking" a few times, but although I asked the user what I was "cherry-picking" I never got a response. Same when I was accused of offering a "tendentious" view. Good faith means being able to explain the principles behind an edit, particularly a mass deletion or reversion. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong but WP:BRD is an essay. It doesn't literally mean you have to follow the BRD cycle. The point is that editors should follow the talking and editing policy. I think a discussion is being had on the talk page and that's good. Both editors believe their version is the stable version based on their perspective of what is factual in the sources. I can see where a consensus can be had but it doesn't appear there is one at the moment. Like @Nil Einne, I see how both edited versions are contentious. I also think all editors involved are acting in what they view as "good faith". Rather than arguing that neither side is following BRD to the letter, try reading over the actual policy and even looking at WP:BRB. There may be a different solution found there. What is not the solution is continuing the edit warring either way. Disruption whether done with good intentions or not is still disruption. Admins may have a different view but I don't see anything urgent, chronic or intractable about one side over the other at this point. --ARoseWolf 15:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC) --edited 16:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Nil Einne meant both Thundercloss edits. I wish them the best but it's difficult when mistakes fixed, not just by me but other editors as well, come back to life after a month or so. While everyone else during discussion leaves the article alone or incorporates changes, Thundercloss must have their version exactly at all times no matter what. I shall hope that they at least learn from this. Vacosea (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

You are correct. I read @Nil Einne's comment incorrectly. I struck that comment as it was not their expressed view. --ARoseWolf 16:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Since Thundercloss' involvement, the article has been pushed back and stalled for weeks. Not only have old contents been put under new debates, but absurdly, the very fact that Thundercloss initiated extensive deletions is being denied and turned around as accusation against others at Recent rewrites. After I corrected a date that they had repeatedly and erroneously restored, all a good faith editor had to do was to leave it alone, following the source which clearly says "the World Journal said late Wednesday" and "arrived at the paper’s office late Monday" [246]. But unbelievably yet predictably, Thundercloss had to remove the date of arrival and change the paper's statement to Monday (one day after). They call this "more accurately reflect what’s in the sources" [247]. It is as if I'm engaging with someone who insists on a different reality. This has progressed from contentious editing to tendentious even disruptive editing. Vacosea (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I will add this to my comment. WP:Good faith doesn't state that a person need be particularly eloquent in their explanation of their edits, though, when conflict arises an editor is instructed to try as best as they can (emphasis my own) to explain their edits and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict. Editors are also encouraged to assume good faith, even when their own good faith is questioned. --ARoseWolf 16:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

CCING @Vacosea, @ARoseWolf, and @Nil Einne

@Thundercloss has unfortunately responded to the above discussion with retaliation by opening an issue below on the notice board. ("JArthur1984 at Michelle Bachelet").

This retaliation is regrettable, and I ask admin to please step in. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

JArthur's edit was nowhere close to being "disruptive", "illicit", or "egregiousness" as claimed by Thundercloss. They don't seem to understand good faith or aware of its absence from some of their own actions. They appear to be learning the wrong lesson from this. Vacosea (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Thundercloss: since the below discussion is (IMO correctly) closed I'll leave this here. If you were learning the "rules" you should know you should not be editing warring period rather than simply refraining from edit warring while there is an ANI thread about you. Editors who think they can escape sanction simply by being on good behaviour when there is a thread about them generally quickly learn they are wrong. Unlike many editors who make it to ANI, you seem to at least do an okay job at discussing disputes on article talk pages. However you still need to learn to concentrate on reaching consensus rather than worrying so much about getting you way for the few days or whatever before consensus is reached. Who cares if the article is the WP:WRONGVERSION for a few days especially when as in both these cases, the particular page is not reaching abnormally high attention at the moment? Isn't it much more important you get it right in the long term? That requires consensus not dumb edit warring. Nil Einne (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

JArthur1984 at Michelle Bachelet

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

---

The user has persistently and disruptive restored illicit content to the article, the latest example being this edit [248]. I was very tempted to revert the changes given the egregiousness of the transgression but decided against doing that in light of the ongoing ANI case against me. Background information for this case can be found on the Bachelet talk page (under the “Repeated Deletions in UN Human Rights High Commissioner Section” section) Thundercloss (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a retaliatory complaint by Thundercloss. An editor named Vacosea opened a topic above called "Issues Involving Thundercloss." Thundercloss tried to defend themselves by citing the prior interaction between Thundercloss and me as shown on Talk:Michelle_Bachelet. Vacosea tagged me and suggested to the admin involved in that dispute, "Ask JArthur1984 whether Thundercloss' past "strategy" is as claimed, but as far as I can see, they don't understand that BRD means discuss before re-revert, not re-revert then discuss." I related my own experience with Thundercloss, and shortly thereafter Thundercloss made this complaint.

I am correct about the issues at the Michelle Bachelet page. There is no "illicit" content. The consensus on the page (and under the policies) are that the primary source I have cited is appropriate. Although I have been respectful of his edits, Thundercloss has made many mass deletions and reversions to eliminate any quotations from Bachelet's own statement. Thundercloss refused to engage in good faith dialogue, instead repeating themes like "cherry picking" and accusing me of being "tendentious" without explaining the basis for his claims. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

there is no “retaliation.” If I wanted to file a retaliatory complaint I would be filing a complaint against Vacosea, not you. This complaint was filed due to your persistent and disruptive edit warring on the Bachelet article. As the talk page discussion makes clear, the issue isn’t about sourcing it is about weight (as in wp:weight). your misrepresentation of the problem is yet another example of how you dont even pretend to pay attention to what is going on Thundercloss (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

No merit to this claim, imo. It seems purely retaliatory. I am curious about why the OP thinks the content is illicit but I encourage them to engage that on the article talk page. Again, I see nothing chronic or intractable here other than perhaps the OP's WP:IDHT tendencies. --ARoseWolf 18:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

there is no retaliation. If I wanted to file a retaliatory complaint I would be filing a complaint against Vacosea, not JArthur1984. I filed this claim because they unilaterally decided to restore disputed content as explicated on the discussion page and because I wanted to demonstrate I was learning the rules by not further edit warring while an ANI case against me is pending Thundercloss (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Fresh off an EW block, resuming EW

Fresh off @Acroterion:'s 48 hour block for edit warring on Medieval technology, Mpaniello resumed the edit war, just removing the piped alias. While that's their 6th revert, it's not within 24 hours so I didn't take this to WP:AN3. Toddst1 (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

It's time for Mpaniello to have a month's long vacation. Block wise. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Page fully protected for 3 days in lieu of several blocks of several editors who are all edit warring. While Mpaniello's edit warring was the most egregious, they were not edit warring in a vacuum. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Vehbikerem2010

Vehbikerem2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This new user was brought to AN/I earlier this month due to uncooperative and disruptive editing. Behavior has not improved since.

They started out with this outburst in response to a level-1 warning.

Most of the disruption by this user involves misusing infobox fields, replacing images with lower-quality ones, and flooding articles with superfluous images. Another user attempted multiple times to engage with them on the first point, to no avail: [249].

I gave the user a final warning on the 24th. The infobox disruption and image disruption continue. The user is clearly unwilling or unable to heed the concerns with their editing. They have also begun trying to write articles, but the prose is barely comprehensible.

In the previous AN/I discussion, another editor suggested an indefinite block with a return contingent on completing some sort of editing training. I think that's overly optimistic, but worth a try - in any case, this user is not a net positive to the project with their current behavior.

(As an aside, there is some resemblance between this user and an LTA sockpuppeteer - Zerolandteam385 - but some telltales aren't there.) --Sable232 (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Pictures of cars. Why do they seem to spark off so many conflicts? It's very difficult, if not impossible, to train a bull in a china shop, so I would agree that it's overly optimistic, especially since it's not our job to replicate what parents or guardians should do in the first few years of life. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I wish I knew - seems like people are more possessive when it comes to pictures.

Nevertheless, the user read and deleted the AN/I notice from their talk page and continued on with disruptive editing, so I doubt they are interested in improving the quality of their contributions. --Sable232 (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP violations at John Corbett

Apparently a Canadian pollster with the same name posted a racist tweet, and now the actor's bio is being vandalized. Maybe page protection is warranted, but definitely rev/deletion of the offending edits. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:8AC6 (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected, and revdeletions done. Thanks. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Inappropriate content has also been posted to the article talk page. It's too bad he shares his name with someone who made offensive comments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both. The problem, of course, isn't that the names are the same. It's that folks either can't or choose not to read things through. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:NLT violation at Damian Barr

2A00:23C7:E912:601:E9E3:C23B:EE:77C8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has made a legal threat in an edit summary here. They also made a blatant legal threat here, but reverted. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked by Canterbury Tail. DOLT-wise, everything seems verifiable to reliable sources, although as a matter of WP:DUE perhaps someone with a Times subscription would like to check whether that Bindel quote deserves the space it gets? Normally we're not in the business of "See what people said on Twitter about this" coverage, but maybe her take was a big deal. In a similar vein I've pared back the stuff about the Savoy (which was also WP:CLOSEPARA, although not, I think, to a revdellable extent). Yes, I know, that's all content, but legal threat situations tend to blur the line between conduct and content. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I looked over it before the block and it all seemed perfectly covered even by reputable sources. And it seems the IP is not connected to the subject so it’s a pure bravado claim. Canterbury Tail talk 15:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty strict, BLP-wise, and from my review there was nothing that I thought needed immediate removal, and certainly nothing meeting the threshold of WP:DOLT. The content stuff could definitely have been tightened up though, and thanks for taking a whack at it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Harassment/Hounding

Hello, long time reader here that recently started editing last weekend. Most everyone has been helpful and friendly so far, however in my short time here Zefr has accused me of:

• Having COI.[250]
• Being a sock-puppet.[251]
• Edit-warring.[252]
• Being a single-purpose account.[253]

As well as demanding I register an account[254], reverting three of my edits in a row[255], reverting my mention of this[256], reverting a source[257] added through consensus[258] during an active DRN where the moderator asked us not to edit the article further.[259]

For context: most of the content dispute has been centered around usage of drugs.com as a MEDRS-compliant source[260] and inclusion of sources showing lavender oil capsules as treating anxiety symptoms.[261]

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.170.185 (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Zefr has now also opened an admin noticeboard discussion against me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:50.45.170.185_reported_by_User:Zefr_(Result:_) 50.45.170.185 (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, as for Lavandula your first edit was at 6:56, June 29, 2022 ([262]), your second edit was at 7:37, June 29, 2022 ([263]), your third edit was at 7:48, June 29, 2022 ([]), your fourth edit was at 7:51, June 29, 2022 ([264]), your fifth edit was at 16:44, June 29, 2022 ([265]) and your six edit was at 17:57, June 29, 2022 ([266]), you already went pass WP:3RR and it is now a violation of the three revert rule. Chip3004 (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

He has opened another against me after User:Pyrrho_the_Skipper and I tried to revert his disruptive edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:50.45.170.185_reported_by_User:Zefr_(Result:_) 50.45.170.185 (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

This isn't going to go the way you think, it's quite clear you're edit warring to add in this material. If you add something, and someone reverts you, you take it to the talk page and discuss. You do NOT revert and edit war for your preferred version, you discuss. Canterbury Tail talk 19:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

Just to clarify, there already was quite a lot of discussion (including on DRN) for another page that contained the same content/sources. I was merely syncing this page's content with the one where the discussion already happened. Also I honestly don't think my changes count as reverts as I was trying to address Zefr's concerns as well as having opened up a talk page discussion about a revert he made (removing the Research section). 50.45.170.185 (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Also I'd like to thank everyone that participated in the DRN, including the moderator.[267]

Moderated discussion was definitely going well and I think was a great way to talk. Unfortunately, due to Zefr's actions the moderator had to close the DRN. I really wish we could have just continued with moderated discussion to reach a consensus. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Zefr was not misusing the Warring template for 3RR Warning, you have gone past the Three Revert Rule. Chip3004 (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG is the likely the result, here. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• One-time DRN moderator here: I don't know whether the IP user has a COI involving lavender oil. I don't know whether the IP user is a sockpuppet, and if CheckUser knows that, they aren't allowed to say. I do know whether the IP user is a single-purpose account. They are one. I know one when I see one. We know that the IP user was edit-warring. I can also see that the IP user is being tendentious about lavender oil and lavandula. I don't know whether drugs.com is a medically reliable source. I closed the DRN because the dispute was also pending at SPI, and it is now also pending at ANEW and here at ANI. I can also see whether the filing editor is harassing or hounding the IP user. They are not. They have a right to report an SPI, which may be closed without action by CU, and they have a right to report edit-warring when there is edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the reply Robert.

  I am not a single-purpose account. I have only been editing for 3 days and I've already participated in other things besides lavender discussion. I do not hold strong personal opinion about lavender oil, a substance that until less than a week ago I didn't even know you could eat.

  I believe my requests for MEDRS-compliant sources is not tendentious.[268][269] but feel free to point out how they are.

  Yes, of course every user has the right to report any other user. But when taken as a whole in the context of a content debate, where Zefr was the only one strongly opposed to the outcome, and additionally the short-time frame that the reports occurred as well as the other personally-targeted actions listed above, I would say it is very harassing behavior...

  Man, I asked for a moderated discussion and he got it closed down, this whole time we could have been improving the content of the encyclopedia. Such a shame. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not to mention WP:NOBITING and WP:SPATG and WP:NOSPADE. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  Continuing behavior of attacking me personally[270]

  This time to try to argue that he was right to remove the "Research" section once it contained information (cited by a MEDRS-compliant source) he personally disagreed with. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  • The statement by the IP user that they have only been editing for 3 days is misleading, probably deliberately misleading, as is indicated by their discussion on their IP user talk page. Don't cite BITE. If you have been editing long enough to use that guideline as a cudgel, you are not a newbie. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

    Sorry Robert, your assessment is incorrect. I simply love reading, and have been reading all those fancy "WP:" things people keep linking everywhere, and in turn clicking links on those pages as well. I find user pages also sometimes contain good links to resources as well. If you go through my history you will find my knowledge of various things increasing as time goes on as well as today I finally figured out how to make that cool green quote text instead of "quoting everything like this" which was useful for my RSN posts.

    Also recently I've read WP:NOTCLUELESS, which you may find interesting.

    An example, I was reading WP:BURYES recently which links to WP:SENIORITY which had a nice quote by User:Paulmcdonald whose page linked to WP:ADMINGUIDE which I am now reading through even though I will never do such work for Wikipedia for free. I'd say you dodged a bullet with that one. Twice. (yes I read them both) 50.45.170.185 (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  • The request for medically reliable sources is not tendentious. It is the general pattern by the IP user, and especially toward User:Zefr, that is tendentious. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

    Could you be more specific about the details of this "general pattern"? 50.45.170.185 (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

    • • Look up Wikipedia's article on sealioning. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) While the IP has gone seriously overboard in their reaction, it's worth pointing out that both sides are exhibiting bad behavior (as is often the case). It would nice once in a while to see admins have a little more backbone when it comes to the less-than-civil behavior of long-standing editors. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Continuing personal attacks and edit warring from WilliamJE

User:WilliamJE was just blocked for edit warring. But that's the tip of the iceberg. This is on top of such personal attacks as :

• "To thick skulled IP editor. Your reference does not corroborate what it is on."
• Oh there is this shit of yours I had to clean up
• After his block writing "Serious you fail reading comprehension.... And as always the incompetent or clueless administrators, punish the editors who take this shit out of the article... Now prove to me you can read what I just wrote."

WilliamJE was blocked in October 2017 (one week for harassment), May 2018 (31 hours for edit warring), August 2019 (48 hours for personal attacks), November 2019 (48 hours for edit warring) and May 2020 (two weeks!!! for edit warring), with an indefinite IBAN in April 2021. The current block for yet another 3RR violation is for 24 hours.

The edit warring is chronic and hasn't gone away. The personal attacks continue on a regular basis and keep on escalating, usually in response to suggestions that editing issues need to be addressed. Alansohn (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I still wish WilliamJE would fix the way he signature appears on his posts. It's quite (likely deliberate) confusing. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Here's another edit caption typical of how WilliamJE addresses those with which they have a disagreement... [271]"Moronic IP editor showing their total ignorance when it comes to categorizing. See this you idiot before you threaten someone with a block- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1087#Problems_with_an_editor_removing_placeholder_categories" Jacona (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Not only being uncivil and edit warring, but also either incompetence or trolling (can't tell which):

• Here's the last 10 edits to the page prior to full protection.
• An IP adds "Flight 250", and it's reverted by someone else as "unsourced" (which is true, it was unsourced). The IP re-adds "Flight "250" with a source: the source is an article by United Press International and it does say "flight WT-250".
• William reverts with edit summary "IC says no such thing". Assuming "IC" is "incline cite", it clearly says "flight WT-250". IP reinstates it, and William reverts it, for multiple rounds.
• The IP posts on the talk page (with all-caps bold "read the source", etc.); William's only response is the "thick-skulled IP editor" remark quoted above.
• Mifter fully protects the article and blocks William for 24 hours, and provides a second source corroborating the flight number, to boot
• William's next edit is the "Mifter Serious you fail reading comprehension" one quoted above, but look at the rest of it: it's arguing about the number of dead, which isn't at all what the edit was about; the edit said nothing about the number of dead, it was the flight number, 250, which was in the source. Did William think "250" was the number of dead? And he's saying other people fail at reading comprehension?

This is another one of those, either it's WP:CIR because he doesn't understand that the edit was properly sourced, or it's just bad-faith trolling, and it's hard to tell the difference. What I do know is that Mifter has spent a lot of time trying to patiently explain William's error to him, while receiving nothing but insult and abuse from William. That is something the rest of us should not tolerate: Mifter's time is too valuable to be spent dealing with this. William hasn't edited since making that comment at Mifter, but if there were to be one more instance of incivility or edit warring, I would support a siteban, because this has been going on for years now. This should be the last time. Levivich^[block] 20:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

WilliamJE has made considerable contributions to the project and a site ban would be a loss for our readers. Notwithstanding, WP:CIVIL is a core tenant of Wikipedia and WilliamJE's pattern of personal attacks leaves the community with a difficult choice. I support a WP:Civility restriction, but oppose a community imposed site ban. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 22:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with User:BillHPike, WilliamJE is a valued editor, especially in a number of WikiProjects, although his abrasive style and tendency to revert without reading the refs added are a detraction. As noted, an indef block or ban would be a net loss for Wikikpedia as, in balance, his contributions are helpful to the project. If he can improve his civility that would be helpful, though. - Ahunt (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

This is something I'll never understand. No editor is so valuable and important that people need to continually suffer their personal attacks. As Alanshon points out, WilliamJE's been blocked for this time after time after time, and it hasn't sunk in that the behavior is wrong. Civility restrictions have largely went the way of the dodo for a reason, they don't work and are too hard to enforce. I'd support a site ban for one year as a sort of last chance block, and if it continues after, a full block. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 23:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

One less jerk on this project would be a net gain not a net loss. If you're uncivil and edit war for years, I don't care if you write better than Shakespeare, get the eff out. It kills recruitment; it's why we don't have enough editors. That IP is less likely to continue editing because of this (nevermind register an account). Support civility restriction or siteban, either way is fine with me. Levivich^[block] 23:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree with this general take. Climbing the WP:REICHSTAG still counts if you do it slowly and deliberately. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Seeing a WP:CIVIL failure (see [272]) in responding to an administrator block notice is very disappointing. I also agree about their signature (and was going to write that anyway) when I saw that their talk page has a notice at the top saying I'm aware that my signature is confusing, and I don't care. I like it. which concerns me as it seems to present a long standing editor that is not concerned about confusing others because they like it which goes against the collegiality embedded in WP:PILLARS and all the good stuff that flows from there. I would certainly support a civility restriction and suggest that changing their signature and removing the associated notice from their talk page would be an excellent way for them to show that they intend to be less confrontational in the future. Gusfriend (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment There has already been a lengthy and inconclusive discussion on the signature in question, details can be found here. There was a suggest that it could be change in some minor ways, but that it would not be enforced with a block if it wasn't change. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The reminder about the unconventional signage, is to point out a possible symptom of the editor-in-question's behaviour towards others. GoodDay (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I have been aware of this editor's disruptive behavior for quite some time and took a much deeper look in recent hours. I recognize that several editors are of the opinion that WilliamJE makes some useful contributions to the encyclopedia. However, the editor's propensity for personal attacks, harassment and edit warring is corrosive to a collaborative editing environment. Plus, their refusal to consider changing their signature which many editors consider disruptive is an aggravating factor. Accordingly, I have indefinitely blocked WilliamJE. Indefinite does not mean infinite. If WilliamJE agrees to an indefinite 1RR restriction, and makes an irrevocable, rock solid personal commitment to refraining from personal attacks and harassment, and agrees to change their signature to something uncontroversial, I will not oppose an unblock. Those are my minimum conditions. Cullen328 (talk) 05:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I agree that this is necessary at this point. Many editors are occasionally snarky or sarcastic, but persistent unprovoked outright personal attacks cannot continue indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 07:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I fully support this move. While in theory, WilliamJE's contributions are useful, the damage they have done to the project is much harder to measure. They can choose to be collaborative and continue, but if they choose continue with the "up yours" WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, I believe the damage far outweighs the good. Jacona (talk) 12:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Supporting this action. Gusfriend (talk) 12:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I really don't give a shit if someone solves Fermat's Last Theorem as a result of their work on Wikipedia; if they resort to repeated personal attacks and have been repeatedly warned for it, then yes, a block is absolutely warranted. This is not 2010 anymore. WaltCip-(talk) 16:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Behaviour of User:Sabbatino

Again, this user sabotages the figures, presented in a page made by professional map makers and official statistical data presenters, who use EXCEPTIONALLY official data (this is always presented under every their map and figure), removes explanation on 3,7 mio. figure (which is, if one looks at it – obviously made up, claiming, that all the people in Lithuania are Lithuanians, as per census of 2011, but also only those, born in Lithuania, but living abroad are "Lithuanians", which ignore actual census results of these countries, e.g. Poland, Belarus, Russia, etc.; for example, there was massive repatriation of Poles from Lithuanian SSR in the 1940s and 1950s and this "3,7 mio" counts all these persons, born in Lithuania as "Lithuanians"). So he deletes this explanation, again attacks mapijoziai page as "garbage" with no reason for it whatsoever. Also, he just removed an info, that a specifically Lithuanian religion, called Romuva, is getting omore popular, what really belongs to the article. This person does this again and again and belittles other participants and added sources. Is it normal for Wikipedia to not try to make articles better, more understandable for everyone, but to delete notes with explanation and any data that one "does not like"?

Everyone can see clearly, that under every figure there is an official source, from where it was got. But this user just keeps misbehave, deleting this data. 78.56.247.147 (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

That is not an reliable Source Per WP:RS Chip3004 (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

How is it not reliable, when it uses exceptionally only data from official government agencies as department of Statistics of Lithuania, Ministries, et. al.? Are Wiki maps, for example, reliable source, then? These are created by the users of Wikipedia, but based on some official data. This map is based on Zigmas Zinkevičius work, but it should be considered as unreliable, because it was prepared not by Zinkevičius himself, but by a Wikipedia user? I strongly believe, that the same is true to this data of mapijoziai as they only make maps and present statistics from official sources. Sadly, the inscription to the their page is lost, maybe saved somewhere is Wayback machine and only the map itself is , but this does not mean it is so-called "garbage" or not reliable. Figure of "3,7 mio" is truly unreliable if you inspect it closely, where everyone born in Lithuania are automatically called "Lithuanians", but Lithuanians, born abroad are excluded, etc. 78.56.247.147 (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Also Back on June 20th and on June 11th You were edit war as well, and you violated three revert Rule on both days. Chip3004 (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Because deleting this data with an exclamation/remark "stop putting garbage" is a legit revert? Haw is it so-called "garbage" and chasing a user by reverting every one's contribution to the project (sourced material and important info) – a good will of cooperation? 78.56.247.147 (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Chip3004, I appreciate your vandalism efforts but I'd just like to ask if you understand the conventions around capital letters in English? X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 05:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

NOTHERE editor MegaMack02

Could someone look at this edit from MegaMack02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) relating apparently to this Commons block? Notifying editors next ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Adding this edit from slightly before. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

A few copy/pastes of the same angry message 1, 2, 3, 4. #1 is in response to a copyright CSD. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Deleting angry message now MegaMack02 (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

As a summary of the misbehaviour that precipitated this section (thank you for raising it, Sandy): I am a Commons administrator. MegaMack02 was blocked on the Commons (not by me) for vandalism 27 June 2022. I reviewed and declined a unblock request as failing to meet our unblocking criteria 28 June 2022. Today (30 June 2022), MegaMack02 removed the declined request (not allowed on the Commons until the block has expired), and posted a new unblock request that also failed to address our criteria. As MegaMack02 had also been making nonsense talk page edits, I removed talk page access for the duration of the block (which, being a 3-day block, was due to expire in mere hours). As a response, MegaMack02 came here to my en.wiki talk page requesting to be blocked indefinitely and saying "Get a life sucker". I honored their request. They then responded here with "F**k you and your stupid **s life". This is, of course, problematic on its own and a continuation of the attacks and insults referenced above; it should also be noted, particularly for assessment of NOTHERE, that MegaMack02 has contributed significant amounts of plagiarised/copyrighted content (the same issue as on the Commons) that has been rev-deleted as such (see Draft:Ecosse Heretic history) and, despite related warnings, has nevertheless continued. For example: MegaMack02 added "to bear all of the cutting-edge marque’s expertise in the design of innovative, limited bikes"; Topspeed.com says "to bear all of the cutting-edge marque’s expertise in the design of innovative, limited bikes". It would seem action is needed. Эlcobbola _talk 02:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Elcobbola: - "I honored their request" - nice! I hope you made the most of it. And yes, not much purpose keeping MegaMack02 around. Not that it matters much, they'll just be back as an ip in any case.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I had a bit of a run-in with MegaMack02 a couple of days ago, as seen in PhantomTech's first post. MegaMack02 cooled down and apologised, and if that had been an one-time thing it wouldn't really have been a problem. I can understand someone flying off the handle in the heat of the moment. But they did the exact same thing today, cursing Elcobbola roundly and then apologising in an unblock request – two days after they cursed me roundly and then apologised. And a few days earlier (they only registered a week ago!) they had posted a personal attack on an IP's talk page and made this rather rude edit summary.

So there is 1) the attacks; 2) the copyright violations; 3) the addition of unsourced content despite multiple attempts to explain (24 Jun, 27 Jun, 29 Jun, and various people on MegaMack02's user talk page), and 4) some UPE vibes: "This is crucial" (and evasive non-answers as to why), and over at Commons, "I was in a severe rush to finish my pages before my deadline". MegaMack02 might be incapable of understanding things like verifiability and copyright, they might be ignoring them, they might have a very short temper, they might be doing it for the lulz, they might be an undeclared paid editor, but whatever the reason, they don't seem to be able to edit collaboratively, at least at this time. I see their unblock request has been declined now. Cross-wiki disruption – should they get a global lock? --bonadea contributions talk 09:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Behavior of User:Tsikhotskyi19

Not sure what triggered this personal attack from Tsikhotskyi19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), but I don't particularly appreciate it. Could someone warn them, please? Thank you.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Done. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Braehead Park; Joe Rutherford

After the inevitable user block, we'll need rev/deletion of the racist/homophobic drivel. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I would have been happy to do it, but another administrator has already blocked, and revision deleted the grossly offensive edits. Thanks for pointing out these problems. Cullen328 (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Behavior of Sly Catalyst (NOTHERE, vandalism)

• Sly Catalyst (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

This user has contributed in blanking articles (1, 2) and vandalism (1, 2) for a rather contentious article area (Philippine politics). In addition, they created this attack page (now deleted) against another editor. Edit summaries and talk page replies also seem rather uncivil. The problematic edits span a few weeks. I understand that they may be frustrated but Wikipedia is not the place for petty squabble. Given their problematic edits, a temporary block might be in order for this user (despite their somewhat constructive work on Philippine high schools). Chlod (say hi!) 04:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Mandomanny313

• Mandomanny313 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Mandomanny313 has a talk page full of warnings. He's recently been on a spree of adding unsourced content. For example: adding unsourced genres, saying a film got "generally negative reviews" when a reliable source says it got "mixed reviews", and demanding that other editors "do not edit" his unsourced claims. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Explaining the "do not edit" thing: I was going to add a source after my initial edit, which I did. I didn't mean that nobody should edit. Also I apologize for the reviews mixup. I have bettered my editing from when I first started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandomanny313 (talk • contribs) .

Mandomanny313, a couple of words of advice. Firstly, cite sources in the same edit as adding content, especially when an edit concerns a living person. Then there is no need for such a "do no edit" comment that could reasonably be interpreted as being longer-term than you intended. Secondly, if you have to ask others not to edit temporarily (meaning minutes rather than hours) then use the {{inuse}} template. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

To add on to this, there's no need to rush when updating information in an article. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 07:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Mandomanny313 (talk) 07:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Our Lady of Medjugorje - unarchived as it needs closing

• Our Lady of Medjugorje (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Red Rose 13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Governor Sheng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Red Rose 13 started editing Our Lady of Medjugorje back in 2019. The reason for they starting editing here is my effort to rearrange the article, apparently without prior discussion. So I agreed to discuss the whole issue with them and thought there's a possibility for us to make this article a GA [273]. I was wrong.

At first, they doubted me misusing sources when I would translate them from Croatian (Talk:Our Lady of Medjugorje/Archive 2#Google Translating to English?), but when it turned out my translations were authentic, they continued doing that for which they accused me - Using google translator to translate from Croatian In regards to your concern about translating. I have been using Google Translate or Bing Translate to be able to read this pdf. If you want feel free to double-check me."; they using google or bing is way older than that, but this is one of the comments they mention that). So we went through that charade where I spent hours re-translating, inviting other Croatian-speaking editors to check me, only to see that Red Rose 13 has been using google as a translator (nota bene I'm not using google translate, I'm a native speaker and well versed in English).

The initial issue was - as I said - me rearranging the article, ie doing major changes, without prior discussion. Nota bene, when I first started editing the article, most editors were quite disinterested in that subject, so I felt there was not much to discuss (boy I was wrong). Because, then, this hell broke loose. Red Rose 13 rearranged the whole article without any discussion, especially when they noticed I'm not around.

So, I was inactive from 9 October 2021 to 9 January 2022 [274]. Let's look at the history of Our Lady of Medjugorje in that period [275]. Article totally rearranged without any discussion.

Maybe the best description of their editing here is this.

Not only that but Red Rose 13 edits the articles exclusively I'm involved with. These are limited to: Our Lady of Medjugorje, Jozo Zovko, Pavol Hnilica, Frane Franić, Tomislav Vlašić, Pavao Žanić.

That in itself might not be problematic if it didn't involve malicious editing.

Namely, both of us were recently blocked for 24hrs for edit warring. After the block ended Red Rose started bullying and malicious editing.

This, this, this and this are the examples in only last two days.

Ever since the block ended I noticed this passive-aggressive stance from them with comments "let's work as a team", and then they went on to rampage to call me out to fix some shit at Romanis Pontificibus, an article I made 1 edit in total back in 2020, and to fix some refs I haven't even added on other articles Talk:Catholic Church response to the Medjugorje apparitions#Reference Issues; reverted my edit because she thought it was "my mistake"; changed the meaning of the sentence I added, misusing the source (visible at the Our Lady of Medjugorje talk page), and what not.

Now, parce mihi Domine quia Dalmata sum, I did this.

My opinion is that Red Rose somehow tried to "press" me with these ref fixes because they saw this discussion on the talk page. And then they joined in with comments like: "Governor Sheng. You have had enough time to see these comments. Please correct your errors."; "Governor Sheng. You just did massive edits on Our Lady of Medjugorje with some source called Gontermann 2021 and you used the short form reference and did not add any cites for this link. It needs to be fixed immediately."; "Do you plan on fixing it within 24 hours?". These aren't "friendly" questions, but imposing ultimatums.

We've been quarreling over Our Lady of Medjugorje for three, and it exploded on other pages I edit as well. Red Rose 13's talk page is filled with complaints from other editors [276], so I know I'm not crazy here. User:Manannan67 has also been editing Our Lady of Medjugorje and has encountered similar issues with this editor. --Governor Sheng (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I was in the middle of preparing a post for ANI about this situation, but Governor Sheng has beaten me to it. So here is my take/history.

I would like to ask for the eyes and opinions of more administrators on the editing at Our Lady of Medjugorje and related articles, and in particular the tendentious behaviour of User:Red Rose 13 and User:Governor Sheng. There has been a very long, 3 year history of conflict between these two editors including in December 2020 a declined request for arbitration. [277]]; in Dec 2020 Third opinion request, which I answered.[278]; in April 2021 DRN: [279][280]; February 2022 I fully protected for edit warring [281] and warned them ; two days ago, I blocked both of them for days of edit warring. Now they are immediately back at it again the tendentious editing, including reverting, insulting and accusations against each other.

A quick look at the main article will show a bloated, virtually incomprehensible article which is the result of the editing of these two editors. Other editors (including myself) are quickly exhausted and give up. Dispute resolution has gone nowhere, multiple times.

In case it helps, here is my understanding of the topic. In the 1980s some teenagers claimed that they received and in some cases are still receiving messages from the Virgin Mary. The Catholic Church is divided in its response. Some are convinced, but some local bishops/clerics, were cautious/unconvinced, particularly when "Mary" came out against them in an ongoing internal local church dispute (the bishops vs local Franciscans). The place has become an massive pilgrimage site, and lots of money and power/prestige are at play.

As noted above, I first became involved via a third opinion request in December 2020. My experience is that many disputes can be resolved by using the best possible sources, so I spent several months attempting to coach them about how identify good quality, independent secondary sources and to make an outline.[282] I even attempted to model how to source and write one of the sections of the article, but I soon realized that there was little hope that either of them would take up the mantle and actually write a neutral well-sourced article.

From my observation:

• User:Red Rose 13 would like to include as much positive information and endless detail about the alleged apparitions and the 'seers'. They have had problems with plagiarism, use of poor sources, synthesis.[283][284] they edit war [285][286]and posts walls of text to talk page [287] They are pointy, following Governor Sheng to articles to post complaints [288][289]. In my view, Governor Sheng's concerns about possible harassment are legitimate.
• In contrast, User:Governor Sheng would like to reduce the fancruft bloat (understandable) but replace it with inappropriate negative/skeptical detail from the bishops’ perspective. They are frequently rude/dismissive/uncollegial. [290][291][292] They edit war.[293][294][295] However, to my mind, what is most impeding progress on the article is that the sources used for this are primary, involved sources written and published by the clerics/dioceses directly involved in the dispute e.g. Ratko Perić;Pavao Žanić;Dražen Kutleša) and Nicolas Bulat. When evaluating the sources, I recommended that these primary, non-independent sources only be used with extreme caution, particularly as living persons are involved. Governor Sheng has repeatedly tried get other answers at RSN [296][297][298], and despite never getting a clear green light, to this day continues to pronounce that the sources are fine to use.[299] [300] A quick look at the reference list of the Our Lady of Medjugorje shows just how frequently they are used. In contrast, he has tried to get other secondary sources dismissed because they are "biased" (in the opposite direction, of course).[301]. I should mention that there are many independent high quality secondary sources that could be used to write the article in the level of detail needed for an encyclopedia article.

On a positive note, on my talkpage yesterday, Governor Sheng accepted fault in editwarring, and wondered if they should both be blocked for a month.[302] I won't go that far, but I do think perhaps if they were both topic banned for 3-6 months of so, it would give a chance to other editors to clean up the article in relative peace. Your thoughts on this or any other solutions? Slp1 (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I was preparing a response explaining the problems I see with Governor Shengs references when you posted Slp1. I think your idea to topic ban us would be a relief. (Would that include the OLM and its related pages? If you go to bottom of page and click on OLM, it shows all the related pages) And if you were to oversee the page as editors clean it up, would allow me to let go. Also btw I am not "following" GSheng to post about the references on the OLM related pages. I have been watching all the OLM pages for a very long time and do edit on most of them as well. They are all interconnected and not owned by GSheng. Also a reference problem was being discussed on his talk page which gave me concern and I thought it was important to look at all the OLM pages to see if there were problems there to. I thought I was being helpful to list the problems that needed fixing and leave it on the talk page rather than take it to his personal talk page. I was not being malicious. I am just so burned out that I am beyond frustration. It has affected my personal life with the stress. Also I find positive posts from secondary sources to counteract/balance out the large amount of negativity using primary sources that is on the page. Perhaps I over did it. Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

It is important to point out that the article by Mato Zovkic is also a primary source because he was appointed to Zanics commission as noted in his article. Translated from page 77 in the last part of the first paragraph. "Furthermore, I was not very interested in Medugorje until the Bishop of Mostar, Pavao Žanic, appointed me a member of the Episcopal Commission for Research of Events in the Parish of Medugorje." [[303]]Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Lots of discussion on the article's talk page but unproductive. It's kind of like a pendulum: one perceives the other going in one direction so goes a bit further in the other to counterbalance, which results in the first going further yet in the first direction to counterbalance etc etc etc. I think Slp1's idea to pban both from the article for awhile to give other editors space to work on it would be the best solution for the article. Schazjmd (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I can completely see how this happens. Wikipedia attracts/has an institutional bias in favour of scepticism. You can't fight them all, sometimes you need to put yourself first and withdraw. Secretlondon (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I haven't looked at all the ins and outs of this particular article, but must say that scepticism (towards anything, including claimed visionaries and the established church) is a lack of bias, and part of a neutral point of view. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I don't think the skepticism/faith balance of the article is the real problem here: the actual issue is the longterm breaching of multiple policies, including NPOV. Many editors with a point of view can and do edit without problem as their edits reflect "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." And that has not been happening. Slp1 (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

And again... [304]. This kind of behaviour shouldn't be welcomed on Wikipedia. As I said these kind of requests from Red Rose 13 are malicious. So, I noticed everytime Red Rose 13 goes around, maliciously editing here and there, they complain how "they're stressed". This kind of hypocritical behaviour was explained earlier - they call me to work as a team, then afterward call me out on so many articles to do some fixes (the articles I barely edited), giving ultimatums and requests. This was a subject of previous discussions here, where they talk how they're "becoming a nervous wreck and I don't think editing on Wikipedia should cause so much stress.", to which another editor responded with: "Other comments: Red Rose, you do not have the competence to judge who is or is not capable of reading, writing, speaking, or translating from Croatian. English sources are preferred, not mandatory. I am incensed by your attempts to portray Sheng as a danger to you. If anything, they've been unnecessarily patient with your insulting conduct.". I'm just saying - there's a very, very long history of them "chasing" after me, and then portraying themselves as some kind of victim of harassment. I intended to stay away from this discussion, and let others conclude what they can (I could have been subjective and accuse someone too harshly), but this just doesn't stop, even after reporting the incident(s). --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I have been editing sporadically in this general area since about 2014 and made Catholic Church response to the Medjugorje apparitions "easier to read", according to its Talk page. (I'm not sure it still is.) much of this could be trimmed, as it's already covered there, as well as under Herzegovina Affair. I have not done so, as I am not particularly interested in engaging in endless, pointless debate.

I have had little direct contact with Governor Shang, probably (because I am not conversant in Croatian), but I have on a number of occasions simply walked away from the article currently under discussion for extended periods of time due to difficulty in editing with Red Rose 13. While she frequently quotes wiki guidelines, I find her application of same woefully subjective. Apparently if a known publisher decides he can sell a book about Medjugorge, that makes it RS regardless of the author's qualifications. Kengor is a political hack with no apparent experience in the Balkan political scene. (Next, I expect to see that the moon landing was done on blue screen.) Continued to push Mart Bax as RS even after being referred to Bax's article where he is discredited. A litany of hearsay, and in some instances suspect, "private" endorsements by JPII which cannot be verified, but have been contradicted. Red Rose 13 focuses on the visionaries and the alleged apparitions with little or no interest in context or ramifications. If a source supports her views, it's RS.

An inability to grasp the influence of Croat nationalism in either the timing of the apparitions, nor the funds generated from the pilgrims and directed through the Hercegovačka banka to the ultra-nationalist HDZ. ("I am wondering if a couple of sentences couldn't be put in the Political section under Background and then link to the Medjugorje page for the bulk of the information? We are trying to keep the page organized and streamlined."[!]) If anyone thinks Vatican oversight is only to do with "pastoral concerns", I have a bridge in Brooklyn in which you might be interested. I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone at SFOR dropped a hint.

It's an interesting and nuanced subject. I listed a half-dozen fine sources but to no avail, The article at present is a waste. Like so many others I just can't be bothered and leave. Manannan67 (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not comfortable bashing fellow editors but I do need to say something in my defense. Fyi... GSheng is referring to his edits on the Jozo Zovko page where he edit bombed Sullivans(secondary source) citations with a citation needed tags. I spent many months looking at every single edit and every single source to check for distortions in editing. I found many with Governor Sheng and a couple with Manannan 67 and when I found them I would correct it and then either leave what happened in the edit comments or mentioned on the talk page. They would either leave out critical information from the source or not reflect what was in the source and write their own bias. This just happened with GSheng as you can see on the talk page. In regards to our discussion about Max, I took Manannan67 objections and found a link that supported what Manannan 67 was alluding to and I removed the reference. He forgot to tell you that. I completely support reliable secondary sources even when I don't like what it is saying. I don't know what he is talking about that he presented many sources but to no avail. GSheng actually reverted one of Manannan67 edits thinking it was mine and ridiculed his source. Also I use a primary source for basic information like OConnell because she had basic information about the seers that others did not have. I never removed a post using a secondary book source from this page. Just because I ask a question about what someone is posting, doesn't mean I am trying to block it from the page. The rest of Manannan67's judgements are so off base, I don't feel a need to respond. If an editor is upset because I post something positive on the page using a reliable source, to me that just shows their bias. Thanks for listening. I am looking forward to the page being trimmed way back and will watch in delight.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I got dragged into this and was asked to look into this here, and in short my response was basically for Red Rose to go edit other articles for a while, and if that failed, an interaction ban. See here for that. The very next non-user talk page edit was right back where we started so clearly I wasn't listened to at all, so at the least an interaction ban would be needed, which would in effect be a topic ban on this article because I can see no solution where one user edits the article and the other does not given the history here. As an aside, I don't know the source material well enough to determine which user is "correct" on what sources or viewpoints should be used, and honestly I don't care, I'm just looking at the user conduct itself. Wizardman 14:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Wizardman for your input but I do need to communicate a couple of things since you are completely new to the problem. I have been actively editing on this page and other related pages for 2 + years and editing Wikipedia for 10 years. The recent edits you saw on this page was a recent flurry of activity by GS after our edit block was lifted. So your statement "where one user edits the article and the other does not given the history here" is completely incorrect. Go further back in the history of editing. After his flurry of edits it is hard for me as an editor to correct the page because I can't revert his edits that are a problem and it is impossible to discuss every single edit with him. I experience him as an edit bully who doesn't want to work as team and insists on using primary sources for controversial edits and refuses to remove it. In fact he refuses to admit that 4 of his sources are primary sources.[[305]] In fact I had to put a tag (secondary source needed) after a few of his primary sources that he was using for a controversial post. He then attacks the reliable secondary source with tag bombing of citation needed [[306]] Jozo Zovko page and reverting edits that use this source as well. Also I did listen to you I was cleaning up one last bit that needed to be exposed. I am hoping that Slp1 puts both GS and myself in a subject matter ban for at the very least 3 months and hopefully longer. I am exhausted. Here is a sampling of documentation of Governor Shengs edit bullying from a variety of OLM related pages. Remember it is just a sampling:

False accusation and uncivil communication bullying

• Accusing me of malicious editing when from the concern of errors in references found and discussed on his talk page with 2 other concerned editors, [[307]] I thought I should review all the OLM connected articles listed at the bottom of OLM page. Many of those pages I have been editing since Feb, March or April 2021- Jozo Zovko, Tomislav Vlašić, Frane Franić, Pavol Hnilica, Pavao Žanić, Catholic Church response to the Medjugorje apparitions(editing since Nov 2020). Out of courtesy I brought the problems I discovered and left them at the page and did not take them to his personal talk page. I did make a couple of errors and I apologize for that but it did not come from malicious intent.
• Right below this post, Governor Sheng again calling me borderline hypocritical.
• Right in his opening statement he calls me passive aggressive
• Here "What the f is wrong with you? " [[308]] Scroll down almost to the bottom.
• Here inappropriate words: "I pooped vs. it was pooped in my toiled during my pontificate" [[309]]
• Here he is accusing me of removing a sentence that had a secondary source using the word malicious - "*Someone* made a little mess... :) Who is it I wonder... Deleting properly referenced sentence... hmmm. Very malicious editing" [[310]]. All he had to do was read the paragraph and see the sentence. You can see it about halfway down. This is on a OLM related page.
  
• User Rotten Rose deleted the source in her rampage [[311]] Just look to the left and you will see Manannan67 did it legitimately. Not only did he falsely accuse me but called me Rotten Rose.
  
• Two more: [[312]] and [[[[313]] For F's Sake]]

Disruptive Editing/Deletes secondary sources and post:

• Deleted a photograph of a statue of the Gospa instead of moving it, saying sandwiched [[314]]
• Here he is deleting sections of this page including two secondary sources one of them being the author Klimek.[[315]]
• Another one [[316]]
  
• Disruptive editing - Here he is rearranging and deleting properly sourced information from the section without a discussion and at the same time adds a new reference with no cite. [[1] Also when making the edit he gives no comment and claims it is a minor edit. At the same time there is a discussion on his talk page about the cite missing on his references on many other pages reported by two other editors as well as myself. [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Governor_Sheng#Short_form_references] I took this new non working reference to the talk page to ask about it. His response: “…there was no intention on my side to keep the non-referenced inserts I added.” The question is why disrupt Wikipedia and rearrange and delete words and then revert it? [[317]]

Self started edit warring [[318]] and [[319]] and [[320]] and [[321]] Calling primary sources secondary sources

• [[322]]
  

Adding references without the cite to many pages

• Talk going on at his talk page. [[323]]

Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

References

No. 271 is me reverting myself, so the comment for F's sake was implied for myself. :) Rotten rose is german for red rose? Maybe I'm wrong. Other than that, finding an example of a year-old edit warring... I don't know why is that even relevant anymore. As for "spamming" "secondary sources", you did that before I have to Kutleša's books, didn't you? ([324]; even though there was an ongoing discussion about this exact subject; when both of us were just out of 24hrs "jail" for edit warring, this was a clear provocation). Like the other user said, "borderline hypocritical". It is my legitimate right as an editor to question sources. --Governor Sheng (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE: [325] Really? During an ongoing discussion where I clearly stated my disagreement, and after both of us were just unblocked? Governor Sheng (talk) 00:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• Not again!?! I will comment within 12 hours. This was a long unsuccessful moderated discussion at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

There is history at [[326]] and at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/OLM . I will review the history and comment on it within 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Some Thoughts from a Former Neutral Party

I will try to comment on my involvement with this controversy, without having read any of the recent history except to observe that there was edit-warring. This was one of those cases where the disputants both wanted me to read the history of lengthy talk page exchanges, and I repeatedly told them to be civil and concise. What has changed in the past one-and-one-half years is that they are much more openly uncivil.

I first became aware of this dispute on 2 December 2020, when User:Governor Sheng filed a Request for Arbitration. It was a good-faith erroneous request, because they were not really requesting a quasi-judicial process, but help. The statement by User:Red Rose 13 is a good summary of what they wanted at the time: "We desperately need an unbiased, expert editor to guide us." I later came to understand the significance of that request. I said at the time that this was a content dispute with no conduct issues. At the time, it was. I said that they should request a Third Opinion, and maybe use one or more Requests for Comments. ArbCom rightly declined the case as not requiring arbitration. It appears that they then did request a Third Opinion, and that User:Slp1 answered, and worked with them at length, for which thanks are due. They then requested mediation at DRN, and I spent a month trying to mediate. The mediation was largely about Pavol Hnilica, a bishop who was involved in the controversy about the reported visions, and also about Our Lady of Medjugorje (OLM). It was excessively difficult to get either or both of them to identify specific article content questions to be resolved by RFC or specific sources about which the reliability could be evaluated at RSN. One of them, Red Rose 13, continued to insist that sources had to be either in English or translated into English. They never did answer my question of why they were asking to ignore Wikipedia policy on sources. After about a month, they said that what they really needed was an expert editor to guide them in rewriting the OLM article, and the articles on some of the clergy. I concluded that they had the idea that Wikipedia has a reserve pool of editors who are identified and rated as experts who are available for assignment to assist in rewriting articles. I was not prepared to work with them in rewriting the article to their satisfaction, and ended the mediation. They said that they would try to work on improving the article. Based on what Slp1 and other editors have now said, it appears that they have been worsening the articles by quarreling.

It now appears that they have been arguing for another year. They are no longer being civil, because Governor Sheng has said that Red Rose 13's edits are malicious.

At this point, my opinion is that whatever sanctions are imposed should be for at least a year. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

At the very least, agree with the above. Wizardman 00:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I do need to make a correction Robert. I never recall ever "asking to ignore Wikipedia policy on sources." In fact if you read Slp1's section above there is a link (#37 - then scroll down to Ogledalo pravde) where I am analyzing a book in great detail providing links to all the Wiki Policies. Thank you. Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Red Rose 13 - It is true that you never explicitly asked me to ignore the Wikipedia policy on sources. But you did repeatedly argue that we could only use English-language sources or sources for which there was an English translation. When it was pointed out that Wikipedia policy allows non-English sources, you ignored this policy statement, and continued to insist that only English-language sources could be used. I asked why you were asking to ignore the policy that allows non-English sources, and you didn't answer, but said that only English sources should be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I remember eventually realizing that there was a policy which allowed non-English sources on Wikipedia. I apologize for not communicating that to you at the time. We were communicating about so many things. Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Partial Block

• Our Lady of Medjugorje (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Pavol Hnilica (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Governor Sheng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Red Rose 13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In the absence of any other proposal, but since something should be done, I will propose that both editors be partially blocked from Our Lady of Medjugorje (OLM) and Pavol Hnilica for six months, and topic-banned from all topics related to the Catholic Church in Croatia and Herzegovina, broadly construed. I suggested above that there be sanctions for a year, but am offering a shorter version to see if the community will agree to and act on something. Something needs to be done. This has gone on too long. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I oppose such a block because my area of editing is mainly the Church in Croatia and Herzegovina. I don't see how blocking me on writing about the church events from the 18th century could be constructive. Such a block would effectively only affect me, which is not justified. Governor Sheng (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support as long as the topic-ban also includes all the pages related to Our Lady of Medjugorje that are listed at the very bottom of the page - not all were in the Croatia and Herzegovina area. I am requesting and hopeful that @Slp1: will agree to oversee these pages. Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Partially support but only the topic ban regarding OLM, Hnilica and connected subjects, excluding broader ecclesiastical topics in Croatia or Bosnia and Herzegovina. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support, but based on Governor Sheng's comment, I would be fine with the topic ban being for the Catholic Church in Croatia and Herzegovina post 1970. One other idea, It is unusual for both editors in these situations to accept restrictions so willingly. Would you both be willing to promise not to edit any of the articles/talkpages about Catholic Church in Croatia and Herzegovina post 1975 for 6 months. ie make a voluntary restriction and topic ban yourselves? It would be a serious commitment and breaching your promise would have serious consequences, but if you can make that promise and stick to it, it would be much better for your reputation as editors.Slp1 (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  I could agree with that. Governor Sheng (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Question will the related pages of Our Lady of Medjugorje be included? Some of these are not in Croatia and Herzegovina diocese: Catholic Church response to the Medjugorje apparitions, Pavao Žanić, Ratko Perić, Petar Palić, Jozo Zovko, Slavko Barbarić, Tomislav Vlašić, René Laurentin, Frane Franić, Pavol Hnilica, Herzegovina Affair, Romanis Pontificibus, Catholic charismatic renewal, and Medjugorje International Youth Festival. (Listed at the very bottom of the OLM page) Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

All of these should be included; and anything related to the Catholic Church in Croatia and Herzegovina post 1975. Manannan67 (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I can oblige myself not to edit articles related to the Catholic Church in Croatia and Herzegovina post 1975 or articles related to the Medjugorje phenomenon. As Slp1 (talk · contribs) said, avoiding "official" block may be the best solution, since Red Rose 13 (talk · contribs) and I have voluntarily agreed to abstain from editing the said articles, to preserve our reputation as editors. The risk of sanction for breaking this obligation is in itself a good and efficient corrective measure for both of us I believe. Governor Sheng (talk) 09:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Slp1: Would it be possible to reword your proposal to include the 14 pages related to OLM page that are listed at the very bottom of the OLM page and listed above? Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I am glad that this might work for you both. It certainly would be best for you if it works out. I want to be very clear that you would both be promising not to edit anything to do with Our Lady of Medjugorje and the Catholic Church in Croatia and Herzegovina after 1970, broadly construed. It is not a good idea to name some articles: the onus is on you to understand that anything related to either topic is off limits for 6 months. That means no edits to any articles or talkpages even faintly related to the topic, no posts to noticeboards about the topic, no asking other people to intervene or take a look at edits, no emailing others. Nothing. Take the pages off your watchlists and forget about the whole area. You are also strongly recommended to promise to avoid each other on Wikipedia: do not to follow each others edits, do not follow each other to other articles and topics, do not comment or make complaints about the other. Again nothing. Slp1 (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• I agree. I assume the time frame would be 6/23 - 12/23/22.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Slp1: I do need to say that the reason I can easily let go is because I completely trust you and if you are overseeing all these pages all will go well.Red Rose 13 (talk) 10:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Red Rose 13, you've made variations on this comment several times, but I have not addressed it, but I will now. I may or may not follow or engage in those articles, but I will not be overseeing them in any formal way. Robert McClenon noted that you seemed to hope that "expert" editors would write/rewrite the article, and this seems to be part of the same mistaken impression. Editors and administrators will self-select to improve (we hope) the articles. There is no hierarchy or ownership of articles.Slp1 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• So, we have an agreement then - no editing of the said articles till 23 December 2022. Governor Sheng (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

How about January 7th 2023? I am sure you would both like to get through Christmas etc without worrying about what would happen if you both start engaging again?Slp1 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

7 January is good for me. Governor Sheng (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• Other editors and administrators, do you agree with this voluntary topic ban and interaction ban? Is it adequate? I have never before been engaged in brokering one, so ideas and advice about what has been missed (or if it is worth trying) would be gratefully received.Slp1 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Interaction Ban

• Governor Sheng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Red Rose 13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Just like Slp1, I find it very strange that the two editors who started this quarrel are both agreeing to be topic-banned. I still think that they don't understand that there is no guarantee that neutral expert editors (who have been appointed by the Editorial Board as traveling experts) will rewrite the articles, and so no guarantee that they will be better in January 2023. I think that part of the problem is that each editor insists on cleaning up behind the other editor, so that each of them would prefer to have the other one excluded. I had avoided proposing an interaction ban as the first remedy because interaction bans provide a first-mover advantage. Now that they are agreeing to be banned from the articles mainly in contention, I think that we should avoid allowing them to spread their apparent antagonism for each other to elsewhere in the encyclopedia. So I will propose that, in addition to the topic ban, the two editors be subject to an interaction ban for twelve months. Each of them should find a topic area to edit, and can edit it without interaction with the other editor.

I am aware that this is an unusual remedy, but this is an unusual case. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
• Unnecessary We are already agreeing to not engage as you can see above. I have no desire to engage or interact with Governor Sheng anywhere on Wikipedia. And the reason I am agreeing to a topic ban is that I am completely exhausted and secondly, now that many people see the problems on that page I have hope that it will be improved. But you are right, who knows what will happen. The future will take care of itself.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral. Whatever you decide. Considering that our antagonism stems from Our Lady of Medjugorje and related pages, I this the self-imposed topic ban is good enough, though, if admins think the antagonism might spill over to the other articles, I have no objection to the interaction ban. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support. The first proposal is mostly useless without this one, since I don't have confidence that this won't spill over to other topic areas even if they both follow the topic ban perfectly. Wizardman 21:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support. I think it is a good idea to officialize this, unfortunately.~~~~ Slp1 (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Question: I think I understand the proposal. We are topic banned and interaction banned for one year. Is that true? Or is it, topic banned for 6 months and an interaction ban for one year. I see what you mean about first-mover advantage. I just read about WP:IBAN and it said that editors can edit on the same page but have absolutely no interaction with each other, so first mover might not apply. I just need clarification. Red Rose 13 (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Persistent WP:NAT behavior that has escalated to WP:NPA - User:Botushali

Botushali has been warned by multiple editors for nationalist POV pushing behavior for many months. Their recent violation of WP:NPA in the course of their actions has triggered this notice. In November 2021, Botushali was warned by other editors for edit warring in the context of nationalist POV pushing.[327] In February 2022, Botushali was warned for disruptive edits across four pages in the context of nationalist POV pushing.[328] In June 2022, Botushali was reminded of the discretionary sanctions at hand for disruptive editing in the area of Balkan/Eastern European articles, an area Botushali dedicates 100% of their efforts to.[329]. Examples of Botushali's behavior includes use of extreme emotive language across talk pages and edits [330][331][332]. Botushali in recent times has had a fixation with the demographic history of Kosovo. Botushali has removed text that referenced Serbs living in the region in the Middle Ages on the basis that the Ottoman census at the time didn't mention ethnicity.[333][334][335][336] Botushali unsurprisingly added text that references to a historical presence of Albaniains in Kosovo during the Middle Ages, using references from the Ottoman census which they themselves claimed didn't list ethnicity.[337] [338][339]. Such one-sided edits create significant disruption and in defense of similar content, Botushali called another Wikipedia editors actions in removing such content as "pathetic" and that of "stupidity".[340] A sanction is requested in order to curtail this ongoing behavior. ElderZamzam (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Hajar2022 and copyright violations

• Hajar2022 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user does not have a lot of edits yet but all of the mainspace ones so far have been substantial copyright violations, from Britannica or elsewhere. They either haven't seen the copyvio warnings on their talk page or haven't acknowledged them, and continued today with a +4.4k addition of copyvio to Cairo. I think a block would be helpful for preventing future instances of copyright violations and for hopefully getting them to see and respond to these concerns. DanCherek (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Well, they definitely saw this report... DanCherek (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  You beat me to the revert. I think an indef until they show some understanding of copyright is in order, and if the behavior continues after an unblock, they should be immediately indeffed. No reason to waste other editors' time checking all of their work and fixing the copyvio issues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Hajar2022 has just posted on my talk page (User talk:DanCherek#Block) saying that they are editing as part of a weekly school assignment. I'm hoping that they have gotten the message. DanCherek (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

School assignments and editathons should be banned, they cause so many issues. Canterbury Tail talk 13:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

IP hopper back to vandalism after block expired

• 2601:C6:C580:6B20:895B:1CAF:7E5F:742 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2601:C6:C580:6B20:B028:EFB8:F80B:2A2B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I was told to post here after providing the info at WP:AIV. IP range to check is 2601:C6:C580:6B20:D1C:E6A:F395:CD1B/64, they are evading block and been blocked previously. Their vandalism continued once the month block was over. - WP:NOTHERE – The Grid (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Intransigent source removal at Nuh Ha Mim Keller

On the page Nuh Ha Mim Keller there is a problematic editor that has repeatedly insisted on deleting reliably sourced material here, here and here from Middle East Eye based on the claim that it is defamatory (not proven or supported with sources, and in defiance of WP:NOTCENSORED), and more recently under the premise that it is irrelevant and unverified - obviously sub-standard reasons. A talk page discussion has been opened, but ignored, despite invitations in edit comments here and here, and on their talk page as part of edit warnings. Here they also removed a reliable book source, and here inline primary source tags, again described as "irrelevant". The user has recently only been logging on to vet the information and I can only really conclude that they are WP:NOTHERE. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

User:AlsoWukai

User:AlsoWukai is engaging in disruptive editing, which often includes incivility. I raised this at the Edit warring section of ANI, but have been informed that is not the proper forum, so I am bringing it here. AlsoWukai was recently edit warring at the Katzenberger Trial article to maintain their preferred wording; myself and two other editors reverted their edits, yet they continued to revert back. The article was then temporarily protected, but it continued afterwards. I raised the issue at AlsoWukai's talk page here and at the article's talk page. Thankfully, they appear to have ceased edit warring at that article.

There has also been similar recent behaviour by this editor at [341], see [342] and [343].

However, AlsoWukai appears to have started reverting my edits with no reason given. The one thing both these reverted edits (below) have in common is that they were both undoing small wording changes I made to the articles the day before. It feels as if they are doing this merely to provoke me into starting another edit war. See [344] and [345]

Previously, I raised this editor's behaviour at their talk page here, and at ANI here - in fact I note that the outcome of the ANI case I filed was "FINAL WARNING" for AlsoWukai. There are several examples of warnings at their Usertalk page for edit warring since that warning. Their language in the edit summaries is also contentious: "smh" (shaking my head), referring to me as a "troll" etc.

AlsoWukai's general attitude is that they are right, to the exclusion of others, which is not constructive for building an encyclopaedia. User:Futurix pointed out in the Katzenberger Trial talk page that AlsoWukai seems to be replacing "however" with "but" in their edits. There is no mention of preference at WP:MOS, but most articles appear to use "however" rather than "but" to start sentences. My edits have simply been to comply with what I perceive to be the norm at WP. I would be grateful if any administrators could help with this please, as I do not wish to spend my time on AlsoWukai's edit wars.--TrottieTrue (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

User:AlsoWukai seems to be reverting a number of articles with no justification other than they want their version to be published. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and no user has ownership of an article. However, the general consensus seems to be that the use of "however" is preferable over "but". There is no merit in edit warning over minor changes or using contentious language towards other users. Denham331 (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Concerns about Johnpacklambert's "corrections" of birth dates

Johnpacklambert appears to have been working his way through birth date categories for some time now. He goes through a category at a time and edits birth date categories if the text and category do not match. A few days ago I asked him about how he determined which of the dates was the correct one. His response was I assume text is more correct, especially when there are multiple statements in the text.. From this, I take him to be saying that he does no research other than looking at the article. He does not check what sources say. He does not do a Google search. He does not look at the history of page to see how the dates became different. I have asked him twice to confirm these assumptions, but he has ignored the question both times.

I will give the clearest example of the problem - Mr Lambert changed the birth date category for Julia Adler from 1897 to 1898 so it matched the text of the page. There is only one source used on that page. The source is an obituary which provides the birth date of "July 4, 1897". After I questioned him about this change (giving him the date in the source), Mr Lambert edited the date to "c. 1898".

I am concerned that Mr Lambert, with the best of intentions, has "corrected" many many birth date categories without taking the time to research the problem. He appears to trust Wikipedia text over the sources. What prompted me to finally report this here is that Mr Lambert has stopped replying to my questions on his talk page and has deliberately changed the way he edits birth date categories so that there is no edit summary showing the category change. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• I am correcting the birth dates to match the stated contents of the text of the article. The issue that is brought up above has since had people look into the text more and more sources have been added. I have tried to make sure that I am fully consulting the text of the article, and in multiple cases have reviewed the articles more indepth. I have tried to create discussion around topics in response to the issue as can be seen at [346]. Beatrix Bulstrode is an example of why insisting that someone do extra research to correct these problems is not reasonable. The article text makes it clear that the existing date was a transpostion error, she clearly was born in 1869 as the article says and not in 1896. The claim above that I have "stopped replying to questions on the talk page" is diningenous at best. The most recent ask on the talk page was about Eleanor Winthrop Young. After the question was asked on my talk page, I opened a discussion at Talk:Eleanor Winthrop Young which discusses the matter of when she may have been born. I maybe should have posted about that on my talk page to notify him of it. He further attacks me for doing a direct edit instead of using hot cat, and clearly is ignoring edits like the one I made on Beatrix Bulstrode where I explicitly state this was a correction of the birth year. With hot cat one does not have an easy option to explain the edit, so if I use the general edit I can explain the edits and somewhat anticipate the questions about them before they happen. I would also point out my previous attempts to explain the full issue, such as the case of Louise Little, where I explain why it has been changed to 1890s births, and he responds the way he does. I explain that I had gone to the touble of looking for more sources on Little's birth, and identify one I was able to find which justified the move to the 1890s birth category. When I initially found the article it had multiple statements in the text that said Little was born in 1894 and nothing that indicated any other year was the year of birth. When Polycarpa aurata asked about this, I dug further and was able to find the source, which I mentioned in my talk page and made the edits. His response was a set of questions you see there. I really could not find a good way to respond to those questions. So I figured that a response was not needed, especially since the issue at hand was what birth year Little should be categorized in, and based on the most recent New York Times source I think we can only place the article in the 1890s births category. Johnny Broderick the opening explicitly tells us that sources differ on the year of birth. From now on I will explictly make a note of changing the birth year in my edit summary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Harry Caples is an example of having such an edit summary explaining what I am doing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I think if an editor were to go through every Category:Births in year page and change the cat to match the text, without checking any sources, it would be a net benefit to the project. If JPL is doing even an occasional source check, even better. Polycarpa aurata, if you intend to go through the cats and rigorously check all the date sources, I would counsel JPL to stop his work to avoid duplicating efforts. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. This looks to me to be simple good-faith and non-controversial editing. If there's a mistake, fix it. It seems that if there are mistakes it would be much less work to just fix it than to bring it up here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I am correcting the birth dates to match the stated contents of the text of the article. Please don't do this. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, as you well know. — TREY MATURIN has spoken 18:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I am afraid I come down on this side of the issue--though I will say that I do not doubt JPL's good faith here. If there is such a discrepancy, it means there must be an error somewhere along the line, and I am not convinced the text will always be more reliable. This process may in fact be hiding errors which should be rechecked and which would otherwise be plain to see. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. If there is any disruptive, or bad fait, editing historically which may change birth dates etc (happens all the time) then 99.99% of the time it's in the text. I don't think I've ever seen such a bad actor alter the categories. While I don't condone using it, I'd say it's possible in many cases that the category is more likely to be correct as that would have likely been set up at the article creation and sourcing stage rather than the maintenance editing stage. Canterbury Tail talk 19:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe the intent of "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" is with regards to being a source for other Wikipedia articles. I'm not sure the spirit if that pertained to categories of the articles in which they are referencing. I could stand corrected if specific text states the intent of that statement also included categories. I think I'm in agreeance with @Firefangledfeathers and @Paulmcdonald here. --ARoseWolf 19:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC) -edited 19:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The relevant guideline here (WP:People by year) states that categories should be added according to the date of birth and date of death in the article. I'm not seeing anything particularly actionable in terms of sanctions for John Pack Lambert - synchronising categories with article text is a useful thing to do and the comments he has been leaving on talk pages suggest that he is putting some level of checking into his edits. There is also no requirement at all to perform category edits using hotcat.

I do, however, think that this is a case where the behaviour of the filer is worth looking at, and WP:BOOMERANG sanctions may be appropriate. In the 400 edits they have made to date they have spent a significant amount of time baselessly accusing other editors of disruption and conduct.

• In this AFD [347] Polycarpa aurata uses an unnecessarily combative tone and suggests that it's the fault of the other editors commenting there that no coverage except an interview cannot be found (is not notable because *you* can't find sources?). Later in the discussion they admit that they have made no effort to find sources themselves and imply the deletion is due to racial bias.
• This featured picture delisting nomination [348] was opened because of concerns about quality that were raised when the picture was scheduled to run on the main page [349]. Polycarpa aurata shows up, admits they have little knowledge of the process, and baselessly makes the accusation that the discussion was opened in bad faith to undermine another process [350].
• Here [351] they are criticised for taking an unnecessarily agnostic tone that implies bad faith in a discussion about a mass shooting [352].
• Here [353] They refer to another editor as "creepy" for adding information on a celebrity board member's involvement in a charity to an article.
• In this deletion review [354] they misrepresent an admin suggesting that they userfy a page as being unwilling to restore the page and refer to a couple hour delay for a response as I tried to follow up with them but they stopped replying.
• In this discussion [355] an editor tries to reach a consensus as to whether an image is suitable to run on the main page. After a few messages the op lays out a numbered list of the positives and negatives of the image. Polycarpa aurata ignores the message for 4 days, then turns up to accuse the OP of starting the entire discussion in bad faith [356]. Before the image is run the OP starts another discussion on the main page talk page to try to get feedback [357]. Polycarpa aurata again shows up to claim that the entire discussion was stated in bad faith [358]. FWIW consensus was essentially unanimous that the image was OK to run.

Polycarpa aurata badly needs to stop accusing everyone and anyone they come into conflict with or disagree with of acting in bad faith or with misconduct. They also really need to reconsider the tone that they use in talk page messages, and avoid agnostic language that is simply going to inflame tensions. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I've spent ages trying to understand your repeated use of the word "agnostic", and have come to the conclusion that you probably actually meant "antagonistic". Is that correct? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

TPA revocation request for User:Prokeypc

Thought I could just do this at AIV, but because the user is already blocked the bot at AIV won't let me :(. Anyway, this is a blocked user where the username is a company name, and prior to their block they were spamming their userspace and user talk page with copyvios from their company's website about their products. Although blocked, still spamming their talk page: [359]. Thanks. Singularity42 (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I think we should. Maybe salt the user page as well? (Non-administrator comment) weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 18:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, they're blocked so they can't recreate their user page anyway. That's why they have now resorted to spamming their own user talk page. Singularity42 (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh. They're posting spam on their talk page because it's the only page they can edit? weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 18:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes. This is a situation of a blocked user where I am requesting their talk page access be revoked. They were spamming on both their user page and user talk page. They were blocked for this on June 27th, which means they now only have the ability to edit their talk page. Their response is to continue to spam on their talk page. Singularity42 (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

It looks like Orangemike revoked talk page access. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

personal insults when discussing a wiki page

User https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Newimpartial responded with insult to logical, source-filled comentaries : If you are using your own, apparently limited, literacy in 21st-century English as a basis to argue that the singular they is confusing and should be avoided - well, I'm afraid you're going to need a more convincing argument. The idea that this article, and others using the singular they, are misusing the pronouns is fairly WP:EXTRAORDINARY in 2022 and would require something more than an editor's strongly held personal opinion / private language to back it up. on the page Demi Lovato.

I wish we could have calm discussions without having to bring out personnal insults in an effort to make a point when one has run out of arguments. Editor is invalidating my comentaries based on a red herring falacy tactic. I am indeed a native french-speaker, but I have always gone to english schools and university. I think my english skills are at least the same level as most americans, and this insult hurts deeply. Especially when I brought concrete examples from both wikipedia articles AND guidelines to make the article better. This is just a personnal attack that has no place here, and I feel deeply insulted. I have gone to an english university, but my efforts have been cast aside based on 'my limited literacy' ? Emli89 (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Emli89 made an argument based on the premise that using the singular they in the article in question - reflecting the BLP subject's genderqueer identity and pronoun preference - was misusing the pronouns. In fact, the editor intervened at some length to defend this position, interpreting phrases with which most native English speakers would have no difficulty as though they were ambiguous.

As I have argued elsewhere, this is not Simple English Wikipedia, and it is more appropriate to provide appropriate scaffolding for readers when needed than to allow the requirements of less-fluent English speakers to override accuracy and policy compliance in Enwiki articles.

As far as my phrase in question, my argument was that no editor should be making that kind of argument from personal experience, and that it was particularly unwise to so so in a situation where their examples would not be persuasive to a person more familiar with contemporary English. I made no personal insult, nor were my comments anything other than calm. Unnecessarily wordy perhaps, but not emotional. Newimpartial (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Emli89 pointed to a couple of ambiguous sentences, in a discussion that noted that the BLP uses both "they" and "she" pronouns while the article continues to use "they". Wikipedia isn't meant to be read only by native English speakers. One can disagree with a specific proposal, but it doesn't justify insulting someone's language competency for bringing up a reasonable concern.

Newimpartial seems to have a pattern of this; they also recently attacked Jdbrook here, saying, Do not bring your own WP:FRINGE perspective into this, please while reinserting a medical claim cited to a non-WP:MEDRS. That was part of Newimpartial edit warring against 3 different editors, [360][361][362][363] making 4 reverts in a little over 31 hours (compare WP:3RR: Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior.) Crossroads ^-talk- 20:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, this isn't the first time you have intervened on a dramaboard to say, essentially, how about this unrelated thing Newimpartial did. One might think you were trying to remove an opponent from the topic area, or something.

As far as Stella O'Malley is concerned, the relevant issues - and consensus on the underlying matter of the dispute, as set out in the MEDRS - are clearly presented here; why you would revert this sourced material twice without even answering my question on Talk about the grounds for your objection - well, it doesn't really lend credibility to your intervention here IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads your own recent edit history is quite aggressive:

• June 4: Claiming stable text from a date shortly before a disruptive editor was topic banned did not exist and was WP:FAITACCOMPLI as though this were the status quo is what is WP:GAMING
• June 10: Calling out a single editor by name, in this case Newimpartial in a discussion about suitability of a set of older studies, despite as WhatamIdoing succinctly pointed out such objections on suitability are beyond those of a single editor
• June 10: Slightly later in the same discussion, calling out a single editor by name, in this case again it was Newimpartial, claiming WP:POINTy disruption for removing text that there was consensus to remove, and for which WhatamIdoing was writing up a recommendation to remove
• June 13: Threatening one or more users with a trip to WP:AE

You also have a recent history of edit warring:

• June 1: Removing text, that had previously been stable prior to a disruptive editor's edits, claiming "the distant past does not matter", while picking an arbitrary date in the middle of the disruptive editor's disruption
• June 8: Starting an edit war with aggressive edit summaries against consensus
• June 30: Starting an edit war over a fringe opinion within medical sources, then continuing the edit war while saying "Mind the 3RR." to the editor they are warring against

Based on this month alone, I would argue that you have a particularly acrimonious and antagonistic attitude to Newimpartial. As such I'm not really sure you want to be casting any stones here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The singular "they", is confusing. But, I suppose its usage is here to stay, on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Oddly I find this confusing. I grew up in a not progressive English speaking country and I've been using singular they as a pronoun for people in general my entire life (and that's from the 1970s.) It's normal English where I come from and not even related to people's pronoun preferences. It's perfectly regular English English for situations where someone's gender is not relevant to the point being made. Difficulty with it seems to be a North American thing. It's been part of regular British English for centuries. Canterbury Tail talk 21:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, as I pointed out on NewImpartial's talk page, it was good enough for Bill Shakespeare. Dumuzid (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

(e-c)In my experience, there are two, slightly overlapping, categories of editors who "find the singular they confusing": (1) ones who were taught "rules of English" in which "they" only takes plural referents; (2) ones who will go to great lengths to object to the preferred pronouns of nonbinary and genderqueer people (the ones most likely to prefer "they"). I WP:AGF by placing editors in the first category, rather than the second, where the evidence is unclear. Newimpartial (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC

Sorry, relevance? I was taught the rules of English and I know fine and well that they can be used singularly and plurally, I do not see how this contributes to the discussion at all & it actually seems to be discriminatory, some people have not received the same level of English education as others but putting that down to WP:CIR is trudging close to WP:BITE, it is possible to let someone know in a friendly, or at least civil way that a word can be used in another way. I'm not one to brag about my own English literacy but unless someone's English is bad to the point where understanding them becomes difficult, there is no grounds for incivility. Like if someone places the odd capital letter in the wrong place or misses a comma, I'm not gonna throw the whole kitchen sink at them, however if there is a prolonged misuse, there's grounds to at least gently question them. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 22:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

On the surface, this is a content dispute over pronouns. This is sadly pretty common in trans and non-binary BLP articles, particularly for those who use either they/them or neo-pronouns. Based on reading the discussion at Talk:Demi Lovato#Demi using female pronouns again, Emli89 has explicitly mis-gendered Lovato when saying There is nothing surprising about refering to a woman with 'she/her'. (diff) Based on reliable sources, Lovato is non-binary and does not call themselves a woman at present.

There is also some relevance here when Emli mentions their cultural background. French, as a language, is heavily gendered, and while one dictionary has added a gender-neutral pronoun it has, unsurprisingly become part of the current anti-trans culture war. As such, I sympathise to a degree with the lack of familiarity with singular they due to it not having an accepted French counterpart, however that sympathy ends when it comes to our policies and guidelines which fully support its use in biographies where appropriate. I'd also like to point out that this is the only time that Emli has revealed that they are not a native English speaker. As such any implication about Emli's literacy as a result of this, while unfortunate, is purely unintentional.

Multiple editors at Lovato's talk page have disagreed with Emli's requested change, with many saying that the recent addition of she/her after they/them on Lovato's Instagram profile is a clear indication of preference to use they/them pronouns. I agree with that assessment, as pronoun order in social media bios is pretty frequently done so to indicate order of preference. When contrasted against MOS:GENDERID, I see absolutely no reason to change the state of the article at this time.

While I would not use precisely the same language that Newimpartial has used, I do agree with the broader points they have raised. As a frequent contributor in the GENSEX content area, I do find it to be a fairly extraordinary claim that many of our biographies on trans and non-binary individuals are as Emli asserts misusing pronouns (diff). Changing that practice would require a substantial discussion and RfC on amending MOS:GENDERID, as well as substantive and weighty evidence to assert that singular they pronouns should not be used. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello Sideswiped. I would like to make some things clear first. I am NOT in any kind of anti-trans culture war. PLease do not accuse me of such. As for my use of the word 'woman', I did use it reflexively , it was unintentional. It is true that Demi does not view herself as such, but her DNA is still very much XX chromosomes. So while I might have mispoken, accusing me of mis-gendering people is a bit far-fetched. I am careful with words, but will be even more so going forward.

Second, I do not disagree with the use of singular they, I disagree with abusing it. Singular they is used when the person is essentially unkown. For example: I wonder who stole my identity, they emptied my bank account... But in this case, we know clearly who we are talking about : Demi. Using singular they again and again where unnecessary is adding confusion. That was my point.

Now, I understand that a lot of editors do not find the current wording confusing, and that I accept. I can agree to disagree with y'all ;).

I am not here to make war, but I will absolutely not stand by when my literacy is, very intentionnally , being insulted. Newimpartial was very clear in his wording, and his attack against my english competency was very much a directed personnal attack. It had nothing 'nonintentional'. Just like people saying mother*ucker without knowing anything about the other person's mother still being an insult.

While I simply meant to increase conciseness and clarity, I understand that other editors do not wish to proceed as it would be too much work and time on their part.

I look forward to the discussions you have mentionned in order to change the current practice, in an effort to make writing more concise and clear. If you have the link, I would like to read those!

Lastly, thanks Sideswiped for the links you added to my page ! Much appreciated :D. Emli89 (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

but her DNA is still very much XX chromosomes. I can see why you are having trouble with singular they. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 22:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Disruption and Edit warring by new account

New account Agney Mendon has been disrupting article Kundapur, removing citations [364], [365] and information supported by them. Even after warning on user's talk page [366], continued to remove citations and information on the article and replacing them with unsourced, and poor writeup, further committing edit warring. [367], [368], [369], [370], [371]. An administrative action needs to he taken to stop disruption by this user. MehmoodS (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

MehmoodS In the future, please report edit warring to the edit warring noticeboard, or general disruption to WP:AIV.331dot (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the report, MehmoodS. It's not easy to find one's way around Wikipedia's noticeboards. I have blocked Agney Mendon indefinitely from Kundapur, and pointed out that they can still edit the talkpage. Bishonen | tålk 21:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC).