Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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)

20SS00 categorizing by cause of death

User:20SS00 has recently created over 200 categories to classify biographical articles by cause of death and, particulary, by cause of death by location. I'm not the first to find that these are not generally defining categories, WP:CATDEF, and I just filed one collection of them to be considered for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 20#Cardiac arrest deaths. It seems I'm not the first to bring this concern to the 20SS00's attention:

• The user was asked in April not to create such categories because they aren't defining.
• At least two categories have been submitted for speedy deletion under WP:CSD G4, indicating (I think) that the user would have been notified on bringing the category up for creation that it had been previously deleted. One of them is Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Thailand; see the user notification for one of them.

I'm posting this here out of concern that these are indeed undesirable categories and that the user may continue to create large numbers of them. Examples of earlier deletion discussions of such categories, suggesting that my concern about the inappropriateness of these categories is legitimate, include Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 12#Deaths from cardiovascular disease and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 15#Cardiovascular disease deaths. Largoplazo (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• I share Largoplazo's concerns. 20SS00 did not respond to my suggestion on their talk page that they stop creating such categories, which had previously been deleted by consensus, and went on to create more today. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I share these concerns. 20SS00 has committed a further infraction my mis-spelling infarction for the whole new hierarchy Category:Deaths by myocardial infraction. I propose to tag all these for speedy deletion. – Fayenatic London 09:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't usually LOL in serious discussions, but I'm going to LOL. LOL. Largoplazo (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Category:Myocardial infraction deaths in Connecticut [9] -- Really, how stupid can you get? But honestly, why are will still bothering with categories at all? They're never even 20% complete and correct -- you always get some error-prone subset of what you want. I don't think I've ever found them useful, period. EEng 17:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  I'm with @EEng this is patently fucking ridiculous and unencyclopedic. I'd suggest topic banning this person from categories but at that point, they may as well just be outright blocked. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  It's actually worse than it seems at first blush: infarction is misspelled. EEng 18:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  This also appears to be a problem cross-wiki as well. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to block 20SS00

I started cleaning up their mess only to realize they haven't bothered to address any of these concerns or respond here despite editing since this was filed and they were notified, so I'd suggest a block indefinitely from mainspace or outright until they can demonstrate an understanding of these concerns and commit to not doing this. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support ban on any category related editing. To include creating them or any adding, deleting, or recategorizing involving mainspace articles....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• I've partially blocked 20SS00 from both category and article space pending their participation here. They have been dismissive of the concerns raised and have continued editing without addressing this thread.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support ban on any category related editing. In April I removed his addition of the category "Stroke-related deaths in Arizona" from Lillian Moller Gilbreth. On his talk page I warned him not to do this and explained defining and non-defining categories, specifically mentioning the Gilbreth article. Today he added the category back after stating yesterday on Fayenatic london's talk page that The fact that it’s considered "non-defining" is purely based off of opinion. The editor seems to be unable to abide by editing guidelines such as WP:CATDEFINING or to follow consensus in this matter. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Obviously I support my own proposal but I think it's probably worth noting for anyone on the fence, beyond the silly category disruption, this user just simply appears to be unable to adequately collaborate based on the fact that they have over 30,000 edits and less than 0.1%, a whopping 34 total, of those edits are to talk pages (user talk, article talk or any others) which indicates to me that they absolutely do not understand that communication is a requirement here. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support a global ban from categories given the evidence provided. This is outrageous. – The Grid (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  Unfortunately we can't have a global ban enacted via discussion here, though it would be nice. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  Even if it was just for categories? It's just the powers are really for the English Wikipedia? – The Grid (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support block from categories at the least Given unresponsiveness, would support ban from en Wikipedia and even, if indicated, global block to stop damage elsewhere. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support Per the above, but it could be a moot point with them p-blocked now - unless they care to respond here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:21, 25 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 [10]. 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 [11], 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 [12]. 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. [13].
• 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 [14], on 27 March I added allegations of illegal detention [15] and I created a section on detention of civilians and torture [16], on 29 March and 2 April I added many contents and sources about deportations [17] [18] [19]. Lastly on 2 June I added contents and sources on forced deportation of children [20]. 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 [21], Of course I agree with this! Forced deportations of civilian is a serious war crime. [22], n. 2 [Kidnapping is not a war crime] is entirely false: where did you get this from? [23]. 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 [24]
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 [25] [26] [27]. 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. [28]. 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 [29] [30]. 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!!!!") [31]. 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: [32]. 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 [33]. 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 [34]. 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 [35].
• 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. [36] Seriously anyone who tries to claim that the murders in Bucha are only "alleged" needs a quick trip to WP:AE [37] 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 [38] undo the obvious POVing and obnoxious attempts at whitewashing [39] you REALLY need to stop with this awful POV and white washing [40] 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 [41]
• 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 [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] [71] ).
• 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 [72] [73] - seriously? They asked for RS stating that kneecapping is torture, they were given a lot of them [74] [75] 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., [76]), making gross misrepresentations of reliable sources [e.g., [77]) and removing an "alleged" here and there [e.g., [78]).
• 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 [79]
• 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. [80]
• 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 [81]. 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 -->[82] - 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 [83] [84] (what many sources refer to as "kidnapping" [85] [86]). 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 [87], 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 [88]. 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". [89] 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 [90]. 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 [91], 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. [92] (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 [93]. There Dunutubble claims "HRW, Reuters, Guardian etc. all called it a siege". This is just straight up, blatantly, unashamedly, false. Here is HRW [94]. 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 [95]. 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 [96]. 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" [97]. 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. [98] - 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 [99]. 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" [100]. 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 [101] 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 [102] [103] [104].

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 [105]. 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 [106], and when reverted they went on [107] and on [108] and on [109] and on [110], again [111] and again [112]. 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 [113]. 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: [114]. 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 [115]: 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 [116]. I used Wikivoice when I created the section on destruction of Ukrainian cultural properties [117], when I described Russian attacks to medical facilities [118][119] and when I described the Bilohorivka school bombing [120]. 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 [121][122]. Re lead section, you might be interested in knowing that apart from Bucha I also added by my own initiative both forced deportation [123] and kidnapping and torturing [124]: 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 [125]. 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 [126]).

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" [127] [128]. I thought that the sources (at the time, the following two [129][130]) 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 [131]. 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 [132]. 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 [133]. 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[134]. 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[135]
• 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)

Disruptive POV-pushing in Marcos articles

For several weeks, there has been a slow edit war in several articles with language such as "She is the adopted daughter of the late former Philippine president, Ferdinand Marcos and former first lady Imelda Marcos." changed to "She is the adopted daughter of the late former Philippine president, dictator, and kleptocrat Ferdinand Marcos and former first lady and graft convicted Imelda Marcos."

This is not impartial and these "descriptors" are clearly non-neutral and don't belong in tangentially related articles, even if sourced. This has happened in Imee Marcos, Irene Marcos, Aimee Marcos, Bongbong Marcos, Sandro Marcos, Ilocos Norte, Matthew Manotoc, and possibly others. These changes have been removed multiple times, and re-inserted with edit summaries including "revert vandalism" and "revert whitewashing". There are multiple auto-confirmed accounts involved.

With multiple articles and multiple editors, what is the best way to deal with this. MB 01:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @MB: Link some diffs and/or talk page discussions pertaining to this behavior. Are there any specific users that seem to be causing recurring disruption? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

A few of these articles were brought up at WP:NPOV/N, see specifically Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 96#Dictator and kleptocrat ? and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 96#Bongbong Marcos lead. At least in considering the Bongbong lede, it was determined to be coatracking to name-drop the terms that are associated with the parents. This is not saying the terms can be appropriate to include related to their parents elsewhere in the body, but they should be shown the relevance and not just "name dropped". --Masem (t) 02:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

MB, please list the editors involved. Cullen328 (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Just looking at Sandro Marcos, it started with this edit by Siuhl10 who added first added "kleptocrat" and "convicted criminal".

Then Firekiino added "dictator" here, and reverted removal of these terms five times:

• restore June 8 (no edit summary)
• restore June 19 (Reverted descriptor removal)
• restore June 20 (→‎Early life and education: Readded descriptors. The said descriptors are used in all other articles of related indiciduals. Thus i see no reason not to include them.)
• restore June 22 (no edit summary)
• restore June 22 (no edit summary)

It would take quite a bit of time to do this for all the articles. In glancing at the others, I know that Firekiino is involved in all the articles I listed above. I do believe there is at least one more editor who has made similar reverts. MB 02:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I just checked my watchlist and found that RPC7778 just put this language back in Irene Marcos and Aimee Marcos but self reverted a few minutes later. MB 03:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello! It was not my intention to start an edit war. I was reverting what I thought was vandalism due to the removal of terms without clear consensus on their respective talk pages. As far as I can tell, the descriptors, specifically those used in the Bongbong Marcos and Imee Marcos articles have been present for some time now. For Bongbong, the earliest usage of some of these descriptors date back as far as 2019 here. For Imee Marcos I found that the descriptors were added as far back as 2019 as well. Although I believe the term kleptocrat was added much later.

Over the pass few years these terms have been added, removed and re-added numerous times now especially by unregistered IP users or newly created accounts. The Philippines has also had its national elections recently and these pages seemed to be repeatedly targeted generally by new unconfirmed accounts and unregistered IP users. Which is why I was especially vigilant towards these pages. While my edits do not contain edit summaries I have tried to request sources from users who removed said descriptors to explain their removal.

Regarding the descriptors being against WP:NPOV,I checked their respective talk pages, and the impression I got was to keep these terms in the article. Most of the discussions held specifically on Bongbong's talk page seemed to be about the usage of the said descriptors. With the general conclusion of those discussion being to retain their use. With most dissenting opinions lacking the sources to back up their arguments and using arguments along the lines of "No. marcos was a great president" and such. Some examples can be found [1] [2], [3].

I might also add that the talk page of Bongbong Marcos also mentions in its FAQ that any removal of the descriptors should at least be discussed first in the talk page.

Might I also add that some well known dictators' relatives are described "as relatives of the dictator x" in their intros. Some examples being most of Mussolini's listed relatives (Edda Mussolini,Vittorio Mussolini, Bruno Mussolini,Romano Mussolini) and even Hitler's parents (Father,Mother). I believe even Hitler's birthplace is described as the "birthplace of Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler" [4].

tldr; I do not believe adding these descriptors breaks WP:NPOV as these are well established to be facts and not a point of opinion by the consensus of editors on the respective talk pages. Firekiino (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Dictator is a very subjective term, therefore you should not be restoring it. >>> Extorc.talk 12:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Extorc: If you think that the term dictator shouldn't be restored, then the term should be changed from the pages of relatives of Hitler and Mussolini as well. RPC7778 (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

See links to discussions at NPOV/N. "Dictator" can be a subjective term and should not be assigned by WP editors just because they think it fits. But as long as there is clear expert backing (in this case, those in pol-sci circles) that have determined the term is appropriate, then we can use it, though there is still a COATRACK issue to bring up the "sins of the parent" on the children/related people. --Masem (t) 13:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I would just like to weigh in that Ferdinand Marcos was a dictator and kleptocrat are established neutral objective historical facts, supported by all of all of the authorities on the subject: Historians, Political Scientists, Economists and Journalists. (edit: copy pasting citations for kleptocrat. Can put citations for Marcos=dictator here, but am too tired right now.) These are just a drop in the bucket of reliable sources that back these up. There was no consensus at the NPOV Noticeboard that these terms were not neutral. -Object404 (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@MB: I reverted my edits because I saw your complaint. I still believe that the said descriptors are well-established facts that have been referenced by several credible sources and are neutral. I do not see why there is a need to omit them. If ever the descriptors needed to be modified or removed (from the articles of Ferdinand Marcos' relatives), at least retain the term dictator when referring to the former president. This is based on the examples made by Firekiino when describing Mussolini, based from the articles of his relatives. RPC7778 (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@RPC7778: See WP:POINT. If you think that Mussolini or Hitler article is causing problem then go fix it instead of using these articles as example to cause problems elsewhere. >>> Extorc.talk 14:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Masem, The discussion here has ended. It looks like bringing this here has had an affect, all of the above articles appear stable for now. Going forward, should there be an Edit Notice on these articles? MB 01:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Certainly on the talk pages to point to establishing discussions on this topic. --Masem (t) 17:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

References

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[136].

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. [137] 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." [138] 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 [139]. 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. [140] 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[141], 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[142]. 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[143]; 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[144]; started giving advice to other editors[145], 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.

WP:NOTHERE by 2A02:A458:447B:1:0:0:0:0/64

2A02:A458:447B:1:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP is clearly not WP:NOTHERE, and shows a bothersome sign of anti-Iranian behaviour, something that has been rampant in Wikipedia this month, and frankly, not dealt with well enough. Imagine doing this kind of stuff in 2022.

5 June 2022 Removed dozens of WP:RS that mentioned the word "Turko-Persian", with the edit summary "Stop inserting that Iranian nationalist content, stop claiming that heritage like that."

6 November 2021 - Removed sourced mention of "Persianized"

26 May 2022 Replaced sourced mention of "Persian" with "Arabic"

5 June 2022 Replaced sourced mention of "Turco-Persian" with "Turkish"

6 June 2022 Removed sourced mention of "Iranian"

6 June 2022 Removed sourced mention of "Persian"

You are an Iranian nationalist who is concerned with inserting a Persian claim all over the space. Everything under the sun becomes Persian. I've seen it all. It's not healthy, HistoryofIran. One (Iranian) historian does not set aside the multitude of sources that make no reference to a Persian link. It's one of those subjects. Iranians will make a big deal of it, trying to lay claim on anything they can.

...overly enthusiastic Iranian contributors have edited the page a month ago to suit their nationalist feelings. / And you people being outraged at me. Where were you when the Iranian contributor changed the page a month ago to have it claim a Middle Persian origin? You weren't outraged when he just flat-out inserted this nationalist claim.

You don't have pure motives. Why did you edit this page to say that the Quranic term is of Middle Persian origin? You wanted to achieve something right? You have your source or two, and you come in and just own and claim that term for your nationality, but you don't care about what the mainstream of historians say about the term. You are well aware that the vast majority of historians make no mention of a Middle Persian origin of the Quranic term. But you don't care, you've claimed the page for your own. And I'm not anti-Iranian, I just don't like when nationalist tendencies are pushed here. I just edited the page of the Samanids to call them 'Arab-Persian', just to make a point, including references, and you immediately came in and removed that. You like to insert all these claims because it suits your sense of nationalism, but when I go an call the Samanids 'Arab-Persian' you immediately object and have that content removed.

"Stop inserting this Iranian nationalist stuff."

This is not the first time I have reported this IP at ANI, but nothing was done here [146]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Should be blocked for their unfounded and racist comments alone, this is a no-brainer. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the diffs, its clear that this disruptive IP hopper is obsessively trying to force other users into kow-tow by focussing on their supposed ethnic background. Simultanteously, they are desperately trying to discredit books written by highly regarded academic publishers simply because they do not like it. Looking at the words they use, it is clear that they are here to pursue IRL-related grievances. As they clearly haven't understood since last time, I suggest a lengthy range block this time. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The ban-evasion by IP-hopping seems to violate rules even by itself. --Qahramani44 (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Can someone review this IP range's edits[147][148] on Farang and other articles? I saw he mentioned Farang[149] on Talk:Rûm and then he edited that article. Seems like a nationalistic crusade against any mention of Iranian/Persian on English Wikipedia. I don't think this case is random stuff. The IP range could be a blocked user/sockmaster who uses anonymous editing for block evasion. --Mann Mann (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

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.[150] >>> 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,[151] 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,[152] the episode of problematic conduct continued to the extent that Venkat TL was topic banned from DYK on May 2022 as already noted above.[153]

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)[154]
• 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.[155]
• Not sufficient reason to censor content, discuss on talk. Add Thackeray[156]
• "just because you dont like what he said, does not make it undue"[157]
• "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."[158] (came after request to stop assuming bad faith)
• "Why do you wish to make this page a one sided BJP POV?"[159]

Other users are clearly following WP:BRD while Venkat TL is responding with edit warring and incivility. He is now tag bombing this article,[160] and falsely accusing editors of complying with "Pro BJP and Anti-Shiv Sena, anti MVA Godi media bias".[161]

The above is from today alone. False accusation of "whitewashing and censorship",[162] "whitewashing content",[163] and that others are out to "revert me and then they will file some kind of case somewhere against me"[164] 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., [165], [166], [167]) 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[168][169] 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. [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] 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 [175] [176] [177]
  • 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 [178], 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.

• [179][180] 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.[181] 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 [182] [183] 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.[184][185][186][187] On 2022 Maharashtra political crisis, he is still edit warring to retain his spurious tags[188][189] even after being told by every other editor to keep them out.[190]

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".[191] 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)

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 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 [192].
• 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)

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: [193], [194], [195]. 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: [196]. 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: [197], [198], [199], [200], [201], [202], [203], [204], [205], [206]. At Lelang Commandery, they have made the same reversions four times: [207], [208], [209], [210]. Qiushufang (talk) 09:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Compare Traineek and GoldenTaurus' recent edits: [211], [212], / [213], [214], [215]. 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: [216], [217]. 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: [218]. 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: [219], [220]. 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: [221], [222]. 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)

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)

Sockpuppets at Steve Harrington

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

---

Someone please protect Steve Harrington. High number of apparent sockpuppets adding nearly the same unsourced thing again and again. Nythar (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Nythar: Protected for a week. In the future WP:RFPP is the best place for these requests :) Sam Walton (talk) 08:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Thanks! As for WP:RFPP, someone did, but it was taking too long. Nythar (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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 [223] or when you edit-war with multiple people to make a change that is pointless [224], 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 [225]? 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[226] 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.[227] 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 ([228] [229]) 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 [230] [231]. 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 [232]. After being challenged, they kept restoring their edit [233] [234] [235]. Their edit summaries accuse another editor of edit warring, without basis in my view. I have nudged them [236] to look at WP:BRD. On top of other issues, they recently restored incorrect charge counts and other information about the defendant [237]. Thundercloss have used some unjustified words such as bootlicking [238], disinformation [239], 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 [240] [241] [242], whereas mine allowed changes [243] or added to their older version [244]. 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 [245], 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 [246] [247]. What is telling is that the source already says "amended ... to add a hate crime enhancement" [248], but Thundercloss seems much happier with upping the charge count than exercising due care [249]. 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)

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)

Ancient Macedonian language

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

---

The first paragraph of the article mentions things that are different from what the reference is saying. I'm trying to summarize what the reference is saying and they don't let me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelenHIL (talk • contribs) 20:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC) HelenHIL (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @HelenHIL: Please discuss this issue at the talk page, not ANI. It is a content dispute, and the other users do not like what you wrote because they do not perceive it as suitable for the lead. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:44, 28 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: [250].

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)

Coop Users on Wiggle pages

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

---

ok this is my first time Reporting Someone, Please forgive me if I make some Mistakes, ok So there are Coop socks vandalizing The Wiggles, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Coop2006 , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Coop40493 , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Coop6666 they Keep Editing The Wiggles and Phillip Wilcher‎ Saying Wilcher is going to return to the Wiggles, I think the IP Addresses should be Checked for Sock Puppet Thank you! Jena (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• In their defense, there was a "Rach" too. I should get paid per block. Drmies (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I wish they would always make it so easy. Canterbury Tail talk 23:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Me too, CT. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy I did it right!!! cool! thank you guys! Jena (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Ps Please Close this Jena (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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)

JArthur1984 at Michelle Bachelet

The user has persistently and disruptive restored illicit content to the article, the latest example being this edit [251]. 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)

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.[252]
• Being a sock-puppet.[253]
• Edit-warring.[254]
• Being a single-purpose account.[255]

As well as demanding I register an account[256], reverting three of my edits in a row[257], reverting my mention of this[258], reverting a source[259] added through consensus[260] during an active DRN where the moderator asked us not to edit the article further.[261]

For context: most of the content dispute has been centered around usage of drugs.com as a MEDRS-compliant source[262] and inclusion of sources showing lavender oil capsules as treating anxiety symptoms.[263]

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 ([264]), your second edit was at 7:37, June 29, 2022 ([265]), your third edit was at 7:48, June 29, 2022 ([]), your fourth edit was at 7:51, June 29, 2022 ([266]), your fifth edit was at 16:44, June 29, 2022 ([267]) and your six edit was at 17:57, June 29, 2022 ([268]), 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)

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.[269]

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)

Continuing personal attacks and edit waring 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... [270]"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)