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

Constant disruptions by User:TheWikiholic, User:TruthGuardians and User:Salvabl at the Talk:List of best-selling music artists

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

---

We've been having constant disruptions by TheWikiholic, TruthGuardians and Salvabl at the Talk:List of best-selling music artists for quite some time now. I'd like to mention first that all three editors are always involved in promoting Michael Jackson.

• Their initial joint involvement began at Talk:List of best-selling music artists to promote Michael Jackson at this discussion. In that discussion, all three clandestinely begin to discuss the general system of the list, and gradually switch to discrediting Elvis Presley and The Beatles, claiming that neither deserves to be listed at the top of the list.
• The second main discussion I'd like to point out is this, wherein all three initiate the discussion pretending their concern is within another area of the list, but again they quickly turn to discrediting The Beatles and Presley in hopes that they could replace at least Presley’s spot on the list with Michael Jackson.
• TruthGuardians' Michael Jackson promotions continue in ways like this.

Since they haven't been successful in achieving their goal, they come up with comments like "The list has a systematic bias against black artists". "Currently there is far give too much consideration given to the Beatles and Elvis on the basis of the lack certification system in a time when the consumer market worldwide was a lot less diverse and a lot smaller in markets like today", "I will also initiate a new discussion to use lower claimed sales for many artists, including the Beatles and Elvis Presley, as the gap between their claimed sales and certifications is the most egregious of all". "This benefits the most US-oriented artists such as Elvis Presley", "and that at the same time that is the reason why Presley keeps his 500M figure and is above Jackson".

I'd like to mention that not long ago, I reported TruthGuardians here at ANI for Off-wiki Canvassing, which was a discussion at the Talk:List of best-selling albums where both TheWikiholic and TruthGuardians were involved in promoting Michael Jackson's Thriller for having sold 100 million units. The discussion was closed to their disadvantage by an admin. Ever since then, both have been either engaged in wikihounding me at Talk:List of best-selling albums or targeting my work at Talk:List of best-selling music artists.

Topic ban proposals

I would like to ask our community to ban TheWikiholic, TruthGuardians and Salvabl from editing and/or commenting at the Talk:List of best-selling music artists and its main article as their only goal is to promote Michael Jackson and demote Elvis Presley and The Beatles. Thank you.--Harout72 (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Strong support For topic bans.

Akhiljaxxn aka TheWikiholic was given final warning after a community discussion earlier on ANI.[1]

TruthsGuardians's conduct was discussed extensively in the earlier ANI thread.[2]

It is now time to topic ban all three of these since Salvabl is also acting disruptive and frequently violating WP:POINT[3]. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

First of all, I've had to go username change for the reason of privacy and protection. I was subjected to legal and violent threats on and off of Wikipedia from the ruling party of India because of my edits on Wikipedia. I had explained all of this before undergoing a name change. You need to remove the name of my old account here as you are putting me at risk. I would also like you to show me these so-called disruptive editing or edit warring because these examples by Harout72 are examples of said behavior. TheWikiholic (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Abhishek0831996:@TheresNoTime: WP:OUTING. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 10:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Mako001: I have no dog in this fight but that was no violation of OUTING. Read WP:REFACTOR and don't modify others post. Editorkamran (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Editorkamran: Cheers, I am aware of WP:REFACTOR, however it struck me as potentially a case of outing, so I removed it out of an abundance of caution. If you do not consider that other editors privacy or safety is compromised by the material I removed, by all means reinstate it, I do not object. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks for the response. Editorkamran (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Strong oppose I was not able to independently verify Harout72's allegations that he was being hounded or that the other users engaged in canvassing. If someone is able to verify that, please notify me. Madame Necker (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose topic bans based on the analysis presented below. Gusfriend (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Statement by TruthGaurdians

Here you go again… more false accusations and another failed attempt to weaponize the ANI board against editors who constructively disagree with you as to not have to work towards a resolution with editors who point out the fundamental issues with the articles that you are in clear violation of WP:OWNERSHIP for. The RFC you mention was not closed to anyone’s disadvantage. It was closed because “without prejudice as it was considered a clusterfest that was going nowhere.” So of it was to my disadvantage, it was also to yours as well. Furthermore, I would like to add that you falsely accused me of off-wiki canvassing as is evident by the results and non-action. I told you then you were making false accusations and I’m asking you now to stop making that same false accusation. What you claim to be disruptive editing is not the case. Agreeing with other editors who have voiced the same concerns as I have is how Wikipedia works. Talk:List of best-selling albums#Methodology shows multiple editors bringing up some of these unresolved issues that I have had for years and that is that you are also in violation of WP:NOR. Also, I did not start this discussion. I only constructively added to the discussion started by Rhododendrites. Finally, other issues that have been reported by other editors is what they deem as racial bias found here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1102#Racial bias at Talk:List of best-selling albums reported by Levivich.

So while once again you are making a false assumption that all of these genuine concerns is about the position of one artist over the other, it’s not. It’s about how one editor gets to control the narrative of these pages while in clear violation of WP:OWNERSHIP, WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTHESIS. Instead of wasting the time of the admins by weaponizing the ANI board, I’m asking you to stop with the false accusations once and for all, and work with the many, many editors (old and new) who have been reporting the same issues for years. There are many great suggestions in the works here right now: Fundamental Article Issues TruthGuardians (talk) 05:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but as someone who just started a conversation on the above talk page, I can confirm that Harout has not been receptive to constructive criticism on the talk page here historically, and the only interactions I've had with the three users mentioned above by him have been respectful and attempting to find a common path forward. I was the one who started the Fundamental Article Issues section on the talk page there, and I've never interacted with these users before now. I think Harout is the one being unreasonable here. Pacack (talk) 05:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• What the pluperfect hell? Being an utterly uninvolved editor who's never participated on those talk pages, I just looked over the first linked discussion Harout cites, and his reaction is little short of hysteria. It is not a sinister act to question the criteria used to make a determination, nor is it a thought crime to deem Michael Jackson to be more popular in his time than the Beatles and Elvis were in theirs. (I disagree, but it's certainly a justifiable stance to take.) Harout absolutely gives the finger to WP:AGF in that year old discussion, with this opening salvo: "Finally, you will be Boldy reverted as many times as required and be reported to ANI for edit-warring and disruptive behavior. In fact, let me remind you that your hateful comments here at this talk are disruptive enough." Ironically enough, such an unprovoked statement -- the alleged "hateful comments" had to do with questioning the methodology involved -- would've been ANI-worthy itself.

  Then we go to the second linked discussion, where far from being the monolithic front Harout is claiming, TruthGuardians supports Harout's stance: "I find myself in agreement with Harout’s argument above, “The higher claimed figures should be looked at and considered on individual bases, it's not all that black and white.” He’s absolutely right, there can be a lot to consider and a lot of gray areas depending on the artist and situation." Once again, it's a long, long, long dry discussion of methodology and numbers. I don't remotely have the interest or expertise necessary to parse them out myself, but gosh: that'd be a content dispute, which has no place at ANI.

  Then we have the sockpuppet investigation involving TruthGuardians [4], which was closed by the checkusers as being unrelated to TruthGuardians. Abhishek0831996 deserves one hell of a trout slap for claiming THAT as the basis for a topic ban on pretty much anything. ANI is not a venue to tear down people who disagree with you on content. Ravenswing 08:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

You need to check the talk page archives. This WP:IDHT by these editors is happening for years of years. They don't even understand what is being discussed and keep pursuing their fan-based POV just all the time. Topic ban is necessary now. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

"You need to check the talk page archives." This is adjacent to "'check revision history.' You've essentially made an allegation, then pointed at a mountain of paperwork and told others to prove it for you. Please provide some diffs. GabberFlasted (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Abhishek0831996 is correct, others including Bluesatellite have provided explanations to them also in those discussions, but those three are simply not interested in listening to what anybody explains. Their main focus remains demoting Elvis Presley and promoting Michael Jackson. This can still be seen in their comments today Harout72 (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

These are confusing diffs to include because from what I've reading, including these two diffs in a vacuum, the users you are reporting are being more civil and respectful than some of the people lambasting them. In particular that diff of Salvabl at least to me seems a very civil and thought-out attempt at collaboration and sharing ideas. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

See, like GabberFlasted, I see those diffs and come to a different conclusion: that they think the current way of assessing things is biased in favor of some artists and against others, and they are doing so in a civil fashion. IDHT does not mean "Wahhh wahhh, they're not agreeing with me, so they're Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!" Ravenswing 22:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

No, what you need to do, Abhishek0831996, is sharply ratchet back your rhetoric and accusations before we start seeking topic/interaction bans against you. Reading that diff from Salvabl, which you characterize as "disruptive" and a POINT violation, is nothing of the sort ... unless you're one of those provocative types for whom "disruption" means "The other guy disagrees with me!!!" By and large, ANI regulars are not stupid. It would be extremely unwise of you to treat us as if we were. Ravenswing 22:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

It's one thing to start a topic about methodology or the way list operates as whole and to stay on that issue, but it's completely another thing to start a discussion pretending your aim is to discuss list's methodology, and quickly/clandestinely turn it into yet another Michael Jackson records sales promotion. And this is what these three editors are constantly using the list's talk page for. If these three want to engage in promoting Michael Jackson records sales, they shouldn't be allowed to that on wikipedia. Harout72 (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• The last dispute was closed with the instruction that all involved parties stop bringing these sales disputes up. If we're still talking about this, that means someone is violating that... Sergecross73 msg me 12:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
• Pinged, but I don't have much to add. I saw another dispute about this page pop up, and was struck that the inclusion criteria seemed to rely on more OR than I'm used to seeing. It was a bit too involved, with a lot of apparently strong feelings, to really pursue, though. No comment on the behavioral issues. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
• Another uninvolved observer here and I'm really struggling to see a strong basis for this. A lot of the opening of this report centers around Michael Jackson specifically, and Harout (OP) seems to perceive any talk of Michael Jackson as what amounts to paid promotion. The link in the third bulletpoint listed is nothing more than TruthGuardian (TG) saying that they should expect upcoming news that would alter the article contents, but the bullet words it as if TG is unfairly promoting views in articlespace. OP also brings up an ANI discussion that ended in a 'Knock it off, all of you' but claims it specifically targeted the reportee. OP claims that the reported users are hounding them on a single talk page, instead of the logical conclusion that it is a talk page that all involved users are, well, involved in, and they would naturally contribute. This is a very confusing tangle of talk page archives and ANI threads but what I can be can be certain of is that this thread was written deliberately uncharitably, almost to the point of deception. GabberFlasted (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  Having read TW's statement, and Talk:List_of_best-selling_albums#Methodology? I am inclined to agree with my peers above and below me that this methodology smells of, at the very least, synthesis. This, combined with Harout72's at times confrontational and condescending attitude, do seem to paint a picture of perceived WP:OWNership. The claims of a double standard being upheld by Haruout72 are also of significant concern, as this type of discrimination would border on NOTHERE in my eyes (this is not an accusation). TW has put together a very cohesive argument, and I would commend them on keeping a level head and assembling it. GabberFlasted (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Uninvolved editor as well here, I also don't see any overt Michael Jackson POV pushing. Questioning methodology isn't POV pushing. TruthGuardians even agreed with the reporting party in one of them. All three users comments above appear to be mostly civil, so I'm not sure where the basis comes from.

From the reporting party, however, I have seen open accusations of off-wiki canvassing, socking, meatpuppetry, and more. I don't believe I've seen any evidence to support those accusations from the accusing party. There is also a slight misrepresentation of the information included in this ANI. I find calling a RfC that was closed as this clusterfest is going nowhere as "To their disadvantage" to be disingenuous as best, misleading at worst. There's no way any editor can look at the way that RfC and go "Yup, it was these three editors that were wrong". If it was closed to their disadvantage, it was closed to your disadvantage as well. Also, I would point out, that if you've had an admin come into several threads about this topic and essentially go "Nope" (User:EvergreenFir did it with both the ANI, and the RfC) due to civility issues, there is a severe issue with the way this conversation is going. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, in follow up to all of this, this seems like a topic and methodology ripe for controversy. It appears, according to the page itself, to be leaving off some significant artists, because it doesn't meet their criteria and methodology. I feel like including "Claimed numbers" at all flies in the face of WP:V. The verifiable numbers are directly from the organizations certifying sales. Any artist, label, or news organization can claim an artist has sold a certain amount....but that's not the amount they are verified to have sold, which are provided, and listed, on the page. To have a formula to allow for claims outside of reliable, verifiable, sources is....weird to me. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Uninvolved contributor here also. I want whoever is reading this to know that Harout72's first edit to the page List of best-selling music artists is this one, in 2007. Since then (15 years) he almost owns the page, making possibly hundreds of edits; see the edit history for yourself. So now he arrives at AN/I requesting three users be banned from editing this article. Why? A content dispute, apparently, accusing the three other editors of attempting to "promote Michael Jackson", along with several potentially misleading and/or exaggerated diffs. Reporting three users with whom you are possibly engaged in content disputes with to AN/I, and requesting bans for them, is potentially disruptive; you could have simply walked over to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Harout72, I think it's about time you take a break from that article, and give others a chance to contribute to it, because it's unfair for one user to control the contents of a page to their liking, and it violates WP:OWN. Nythar^T.C 01:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Statement by TheWikiholic

It's been more than a decade now since Harout has been single-handedly maintaining the page List of best-selling music artists. On the list, he includes artists that began charting before 1973 who are required to have a minimum of 30% of required certifications.

• Between 1973–1990 artists are required to have their available claimed figures supported by 30-70% in certified units. (That is 2.35% for each additional year after 1973)
• Between 1990–2000 artists are required to have their available claimed figures supported by 70-77% in certified units. (That is 0.7% for each additional year after 1990).
• Between 2000–the present artists are required to have their available claimed figures supported by 77-80% in certified units. (That is 0.14% for each additional year after 2000).

Throughout the years a large number of editors have expressed their concerns over this calculation method with the last instances being here. If we research the archives of the talk page we can easily discover that Harout72 has completely made up these definitions and the minimum required percentage for artists to be on these respective lists. Even if we follow the above method, we can see that Harout has been showing bias against black artists. For example, according to the edit history, talk page archive, and Harout’s own method artists who began charting in the 1980s might have at least 60% certification to support their claimed sales. Both Madonna and Whitney Houston began charting in 1984 and 1985 respectively. It was in 2010 that an article was being used to support the 300M claimed sales of Madonna. During that time she only had 153.3M certifications, which was only around 51% of her 300M claimed sales. Keep in mind, according to the page’s own rules she should have been at 60%. Last February when Whitney Huston reached 153m certification one user requested to update her claimed sales to 200m instead of 170m per the page’s own rules. Harout was not willing to do so. He told the editor to wait until Whitney adds another 7 to 8 Million certified sales and thus brings her total certified sales to 160m. Last June there was a similar instance of raising the claimed sales of Ariana Grande by 5 million. Interestingly, he had no issue by then as you can see here Similarly, on Feb 8, 2019, the article began using the 200m figure for Taylor Swift. Back then, Taylor's total available certifications were only 201.1M. Currently, Artists like Kanye West and Beyonce have 251.4M ad 222.7M Certified sales respectively, but they are still in the 160 M claimed sales title, whereas Taylor Swift with only 238.9 still has 200m claimed sales. I'm astonished to see that some artists enjoy such privilege, while other artists do not. Every time editors raise their concerns over the calculation method of Harout 72, he falsely accuses the editors of being disruptive, which is why we are here now. He also once called me by my old user name, even though I had a name change on the grounds of privacy and legality. You can also see from this discussion from last June 2021 that Harout has been stating to different users under this thread that the discussion is futile and you guys are wasting your time like he is the owner of this page. Here is another instance where Harout72 was changing the rules to the article’s definition that supports his arguments and then asked me to refer to the definition in a vain attempt to prove me wrong. I've been editing Wikipedia for a while now and I'm also an admin on a local Wikipedia. I have never seen a single editor have so much control over the policy-making of a page by his WP:OR and WP: SYNTHESIS. By allowing Harout72 to continue to do this, the community is allowing him full control of all the Wikipedia pages related to the List of best-selling music artists and albums and every single pages of both albums and artists listed in these two lists. The problems will continue to exist and, editors will continue to discover the same fundamental issues with these pages and, he will continue to claim that they are disrupting simply by them pointing out the obvious on a talk page. This is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be, but Harout has turned it into such a toxic situation. TheWikiholic (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Alright, hang on. Question here. There are obviously a number of editors interested in the topic; I see numerous names listed in the various discussions. What is stopping you -- or any other interested editor -- from opening a RfC to establish a fresh methodology? Set forth the options, have people comment on the options, see if a consensus can be built around one option or another. I realize (having written some notability criteria myself) that one editor can set forth criteria which are taken as a given from there on forward, but no such criteria is immune from changing consensus, and no editor-author gets a veto over the process. Despite Harout's assertions, those so-called "rules" are not set in granite. Ravenswing 22:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

This situation is similar to one at List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation where there were issues with ownership of the inclusion criteria in a way that many saw as WP:OR. Once these issues were publicised to the wider community (in that case through a failed AfD) a consensus on the article talk page emerged and issues were fixed. In this case there was no need to sanction any individual editors and more eyeballs on the issue made consensus forming easier. In other words, an RfC might be the way to go. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it may be beyond that. Read this thread on the talk. I have significant concerns about an editor who tells other editors to disregard the RIAA and instead download a mediafire link. I will not download that link, nor should anyone else, but like...come on, he's using a .doc, with no author listed on the file, for sourcing. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

It is also worth pointing out that the link attached to Rihanna for certified sales is a link to a database to search. If you search by artist, she is no where near the claimed amount on the page. Is "Converting certifications into sales and then converting those into a number we display on the page" a "routine calculation" allowed in OR? Because if the number that the editor comes up with is different than what the RIAA comes up with for official total sales, that appears to fall pretty cleanly into SYNTH, correct? FrederalBacon (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree there are significant WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:OWN issues here and maybe admins should look at these. My example really was about how a critical mass of editors turning their attention to a topic can overturn these issues without resorting to bans etc. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the proposed topic bans have a snowballs chance, and considering the fact that more editors are gonna have eyes on this, you're absolutely right. The issues with the article appear to be a content dispute, backed with some pretty strong feelings and desires. If an RfC produces a consensus that moves away from the current methodology, then that is what will happen. But, my concern with being beyond that point is that, given the above examples, I don't believe an RfC on this issue would remain civil enough for other editors to engage in. The fact that, when Evergreen closed both the RfC and ANI linked in the report, they called them a "clusterfest" and "timesink" respectively, doesn't exactly encourage the idea of holding another RfC where all of the editors involved can do their apparently normal thing, even if other editors would be involved. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I thought we were heading to an RFC for a resolution, per Apoxy’s suggestion and the last comment under Fundamental issues section, but here we are instead. TruthGuardians (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I’ve now put forward a draft of an RfC for discussion on the talk page. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Nuclear option: Fully protect the article

Let every change be run past an admin first. It's fairly obvious that a number of the regular editors on the article, many of whom have ulterior motives for inflating or deflating the figures of various artists, can't be trusted to maintain it accurately themselves. Short of partially blocking everyone (which in some cases may be unfair) I can't see any other way of making sure we won't be here yet again in a few months. Black Kite (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• WP:SUPERPROTECT. Something this important should be left to the Foundation Office to handle. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Not really. We regularly fully protect articles when they're the subject of serious disruption, and that's certainly the case here. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

the foundation definitely shouldn't be getting involved in content disputes like that. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

It was an attempt at humor. See my user page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, I still have yet to see any evidence that any regular editors with the alleged ulterior motives. There needs to be an RFC (or consensus) to handle Harout’s WP:Synthesis and WP:NOR issues as other uninvolved editors pointed out above. Furthermore, there are no disruptions. There is only one editor that keeps coming to the ANI board. Since the last time we were here 4 or 5 other editors have pointed out the same issues that has been getting brought up for years. These fundamental issues must first be corrected. Once corrected, future editors that discover the page won’t have the same concerns. TruthGuardians (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

So START a RfC. (I'd do it myself, but I don't have the expertise to phrase the various options adequately or accurately.) Nothing prevents you from doing so. Ravenswing 03:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not seeing "many of whom have ulterior motives." I'm seeing that Harout routinely claims that his self-declared opponents have ulterior motives, but that's not the same thing, and he could really stand a strong warning to AGF. Ravenswing 03:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

That's what I see, too, but not just lack of AGF, also WP:OWN issues; maybe an WP:ABAN is in order. Levivich 05:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not just Harout (indeed, they are almost certainly not the worst offender). You may both want to search the archives for the multiple previous threads about this article. Though, to be fair, it's partly the problem of the article. There are multiple different sources for "facts" regarding the subject, so it is easy for multiple editors to cherry pick the ones that suit their POV, and they can then say "We must say X, it's sourced". Well, it is, but there may be many sources that say Y. Black Kite (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

You want me to see things beyond the archives and discussions I've already read, come up with some links. Having read the links supplied by Harout and Abhishek as Proof! of their foes' dastardly intent and behavior, and seen nothing that causes me to so much as blink, I'm going to need something considerably stronger. Ravenswing 14:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Abhishek is not even an involved editor. His disdain for me comes because of a non-music related edit, and the fact I ignored him on my talk page. This is the level of harassment that I have been subjected to by some editors. It’s exhausting. By the way, I have no issues if they protect the page for admission only. Also, as far as an RFC is concerned, please refer to the ongoing discussion found Talk:List of best-selling music artists#Fundamental Article Issues TruthGuardians (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to very much second Ravenswing on this one: if this is really just the tip of the iceberg, then there must be a gargantuan amount of disruption that probably should have been addressed a long time ago and should be brought to the community's attention now, whether some of it is stale for purposes of sanctions now or not--if only for context and deciding what needs to be done here. Because my inclination after a non-trivial quasi-deep dive into the record here over the last couple of days (as a community member with no previous experience with the relevant articles and parties), is that I have seen a great deal of concerning behaviour from one editor in particular, and very little in systemic problems that do not in some way involve that user. Not that I'm dismissing Black Kite's observations, but I'm just not seeing live issues from other parties that even remotely rise to the same level. Here, for the record, are my thoughts on the matter (again, as yet another non-involved editor looking at this issue fresh):

We have an editor here who has devised an idiosyncratic methodology for inclusion criteria that is either "merely" 100% synthesis, at best, or probably just better described as pure OR. It certainly isn't consistent with any policy or guideline promulgated by this community, nor am I even seeing the support of a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to apply it as an ad-hoc rule on those articles--even if such a decision could have been used to support diversion of an article's content towards an inclusion criteria separate from WP:WEIGHT and WP:V, which is a dubious proposition it itself.

And from all appearances, that editor thereafter used this made-up standard to bully-boy their way into complete ownership of the article for a truly discouraging amount of time. And then that same editor (and here I'm about to join a veritable chorus of editors above with similar concerns) spun the content of their arguments arising out of this approach to stitch together an ANI complaint that highly spins (if not outright misrepresents) the course of the interrelated disputes to seek sanctions against their rhetorical opposition and remove them from said editor's sphere of influence on the related articles. What's truly telling about this course of conduct though, is how Harout seems to be genuinely oblivious to the fact that their perspectives would not be endorsed. Seeking sanctions against three separate editors at once was always going to put the dispute under a microscope, and you'd expect any experienced community member attempting such a proposal to present an airtight case, instead of a tightly wound boomerang in a box. Yet Harout seems to have genuinely thought this would come off well. That suggests to me that this is not just a case of a badly calculated effort at misdirection, but someone who fundamentally does not understand the deep flaws with their approach to the content, to the consensus process, and their interactions, at least in this subject space.

Are the actions of the other three editors to blame for some of the mess here? Possibly they were suboptimal in places I have not seen. I think they made at least a tactical error in accepting the inclusion framework forced by Harout and then getting in the mud to argue in those terms, and possibly letting their arguments also get tainted by subjective standards--the very thing our sourcing-based verification and weight processes are meant to avoid, and why this ad-hoc, idiosyncratic replacement standard is so problematic. But at the end of the day, I am seeing one major problem editor here, and thus one very simple fix that will begin to sort the situation on these articles faster than anything else. Is an RfC warranted to officially rollback this bizarre franken-monster of ginned-up inclusion criteria that has been foisted on these lists for years? I guess it couldn't hurt, but then it also shouldn't be necessary, since these rules were substantially the passion project of one editor and never passed anything remotely like local consensus, let alone a WP:PROPOSAL threshold. More to the point, I don't see any such RfC going over well if Harout is a party to that process--if my review of the talk pages in question here is any guide.

In short, I am very much in support of a TBAN of Harout72 from all lists and articles concerned with music as a commercial product, broadly construed, as the simplest first step here. I do not see much cause for hope that the substantial and overlapping issues with WP:OR, WP:OWN, or WP:AGF are likely to be alleviated by anything short of this with regard to this editor and that content area. If I am blunt, I'm not sure Harout has sufficiently internalized a number of Wikipedia's most crucial policies regarding consensus and collaboration for productive editing anywhere. But this is a place to start. Apologies for the jumbo post on this one. Regardless, I do broadly support an active community response here, whether focused mostly on Harout or not. Clearly a blind eye was turned to this situation for far too long, whoever is ultimately responsible for the disruption. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Am I the only one noticing that comments on the talkpage clearly show ownership? Editors are addressing new sections directly to Harout, they seem to have the sole voice of what gets added to some of these people, so many unreliable sources listed on the page, and then, there's this comment.

@TJ What's your poin? I think, Harout's explanation already good enough to show the reason why we let Taylor Swift hang out with Mariah, Whitney, and Celine in the table. She deserve it. As for Beyonce. The new claim of 160m is good enough for her at this moment.

That is a heck of a talk page comment. "Why we let" "She deserve it" "Good enough for her". Is this how this methodology is on the page? FrederalBacon (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

You are not alone in your observations. Editors will need to be in Harout’s good graces to get what they need and should be done. If an editor question his arguments you will be falsely accused of sock puppetry, disruptive editing, and working for the Michael Jackson estate… and then bring these claims here to the ANI board, or at least threaten to do so. He has about 4 editors that back his every word and allow him veto power in that article along with any article that is about music sales. I don’t want to list those other editors here, but you can check almost every discussion and/or RFC he’s been apart of and see the same editors echo his words, without merit and sources. I’ve even seen sources, like an Academic journal, being dismissed for what it was because he made up an entire POV for the article in order to try to protect is WP:OR. TruthGuardians (talk) 03:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, let's not get carried away here. You're conflating issues. You have brought some reasonable suspicion upon yourself by your own actions - you almost exclusively POV-push positive slanting content to and and all things Michael Jackson as your main area of interest outside these disputes. That's what gets people suspecting things, not just because "you dared question Harhout" or whatever you're driving at here. Sergecross73 msg me 18:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

What's with this recent trend of admins casting evidence-free aspersions like "ulterior motives" and "POV-push"? "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence...". If that applies to anyone, it applies to admins. Levivich 18:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't know, as I don't spend much time here, but in regards to my comment, I'm not reporting him or calling for any action to be taken on him, I'm talking to him, saying his recap of events was incomplete, and lack awareness of the full scope of the situation. Sergecross73 msg me 18:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I am astonished that I just read that. An admin claiming POV pushing from an editor, with no diffs for evidence, while pretty much the entire ANI (except for involved editors) is saying that the editor has a good point, and that there are significant problems with the page, ownership being chief amongst them? And TG is POV pushing? How about all the editors in here of the opinion the methodology is synth, at best? Are we all MJ POV pushing? FrederalBacon (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

You're ...astonished about that? Are you guys reading into something I didn't intend or something? I said he got suspected of things because he writes exclusively positive content about a subject. It was an observance I saw back when I did some digging at the WP:SPI filed on him. It was a passing observance when I saw what I interpreted. It was not a rationale for an administrative action taken, nor a proposal for administrative action towards him. Your reaction is truly baffling to me. Bizarre interpretations like this are certainly why I usually tend to stay away from ANI though, thank you for that reminder. I'll get out of your way and let you all argue into oblivion without resolution, as is the trajectory of these discussions yet again. Sergecross73 msg me 00:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I've struck the comment since it appears the point is being missed. Sergecross73 msg me 00:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Your exact words were You have brought some reasonable suspicion upon yourself by your own actions - you almost exclusively POV-push positive slanting content to and and all things Michael Jackson.

You didn't say he got suspected of things, you flat out said he did the things he was accused of, with absolutely no evidence or proof. You said he did it by his own actions. This isn't reading into anything but your own words, and I absolutely reject the "Bizarre interpretation" line, because it was your words. Thank you for retracting. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I said consistently editing positively about a single subject eventually leads to suspicions of other things. If I spent the bulk of my time writing positive content about Tom Petty across Wikipedia, people would be accusing me of being tied to his PR team. Sergecross73 msg me 01:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

And if they do, we can all agree they should provide diffs or other evidence backing up those accusations. Thanks for striking. Levivich 01:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Especially considering the fact that this ANI is about POV editing regarding MJ. Multiple uninvolved editors have looked at the evidence presented above, and just don't see it. An admin coming in here and going "Actually during my SPI of this editor, I noticed they do POV edit alot" would be extremely relevant to this discussion, should there be proof of the same. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I really urge that this line of discussion go no further. First off, this is doing no favours to anyone who wants to demonstrate that the disruption here is entirely (or at least in the majority) caused by Harout and not the parties he has brought to ANI. And this is coming from someone who just lodged the single longest and most vociferous post of any non-involved community member to yet look into the issue, in support of that proposition. Before Serge posted the comment to which such umbrage is being taken, I was about to post one myself with advice that dovetails with that given by Salvabl below: namely, that when someone brings multiple parties to ANI and then those parties are lucky enough to benefit from multiple random community members looking into the issue, dismissing the complaints and calling for possible boomerang action instead...that is not the moment in which the parties should be filling the thread with constant broadsides and defensive responses. Because these kind of WP:INVOLVED responses are just going to muddy the waters precisely at a time when you really want the comments of the uninvolved parties supporting your position to shine through. Especially if the involved comments appear even slightly histrionic or questionable. And note, for the record, that TruthGuardians didn't provide a single diff to support their accusations in that post--and yet the un-involved admin who responded to that highly accusatory post is getting lambasted for the same thing? I'm afraid I don't track the reasoning at work there...

And let's also recognize too that whether Serge took the time properly diff it or not, we are in fact talking about an editor who has two entries in their block log (the only two entries, in fact) for disruptive behaviour associated with articles relating to Michael Jackson. Nor is Serge by any stretch of the imagination the first person to suggest that TG has a POV in this area, as can be easily confirmed in mere minutes merely by looking at their talk page edit history. I also saw it in discussions in the involved article talk pages while looking into Harout's problematic behaviour. So if we're going to be forced to get into those weeds to defend an admin's off-hand comment of caution (which seemed to me to be very much in TG's own best interests to hear), it's really not going to improve the case for Harout being the prime issue on these talk pages (a position I still support, incidentally). Quite the opposite, in fact. The group of editors who has been put into opposition with Harout by virtue of this unnecessary thread should really 1) learn to recognize when they are ahead, and benefiting heavily from the due diligence of uninvolved community members, 2) not over-egg the pudding of counter-complaints, when the course of the discussion is already favouring them, 3) not overreact to a comment from an admin merely suggesting that someone is not perfectly, 100% innocent of any errors in the dispute, and 4) not thereby bloat the discussion with combative exchanges with admins which can only serve to distract from the scrutiny being placed on the other party to the dispute. In short, don't look the gift horse in the mouth... (And yes, I understand that not all of the enumerated behaviours above are attributable to involved parties, but also some un-involved community members, but the advice is nevertheless valid). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

First off, this is doing no favours to anyone who wants to demonstrate that the disruption here is entirely (or at least in the majority) caused by Harout The thing is, I'm not here to demonstrate that. I'm seeing that conclusion based off of what I have seen looking through talk, archives, and other history regarding the page and methodology. I'm objective, I'm just following the evidence, which is why I wanted all evidence to be introduced, if there was any. Part of this discussion that has led me to that conclusion, in fact, is that Harout's evidence is (in my opinion) lackluster, and requests for more specific examples as to his claims haven't been fulfilled.

But as for the discussion itself, I had absolutely no intention of continuing. The statement was retracted. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

This admin is not an uninvolved editor. The admin has voted along side Harout a number of times. I have never POV pushed anything. I literally have only question, with evidence and using Wikipedia rules and standards the fundamental issues with these articles. While I am a bit of an expert in all things music and Michael Jackson, I am not a single purpose editor as proven via my edit history. I am a facts based, no non-sense editor and I just wanted to clarify that. Here are two recent examples of the admin being involved: here they vote in the favor of harout per harouts comments. here too. While I am a bit of a tenured editor now, when I first started editing I in 2019 (I think) I didn’t know anything about edit warring or disruptive editing. So while my history my reflect such behavior on a couple of occasions, that was awhile back on an unrelated topic. The accusations of disruptive behavior now is about wiki articles related to all things sales. There is no evidence of that behavior on the topic at hand, because it does not exist. I learn from my mistakes and I think that is made clear through my edit history.TruthGuardians (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I participated in a recent related RFC, and found the proposed change to be logistically unlikely. If I commented elsewhere I don't even recall it. (Edit: checking the 2 difs, they're both from the same discussion.) I have no particular interest in Jackson or the list, I just respond to a lot requests for input at the music Wikiprojects I'm active in. I've already struck my comment and have no interest in any further involvement - I already turned down a request on my talk page to get more involved earlier this week. This is not my interest in the music content area at all. Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

If you check the talk page of the Talk:List of best-selling music artists we can see that none of the discussions were related to Michael Jackson. So I am not convinced that the Michael Jackson argument stands here. Before Harout72 took this issue here, there were three different active conversations was going on. One was about one of the editors finding the 600M claimed sales of The Beatles being inflated. I nor TruthGaurdians even participated in this discussion. The second one was about raising the claimed sales of Beyonce from 120M to 200 million because a few days ago RIAA certified almost her entire catalog equal to another 104M. Neither Salvabl nor TruthGaurdians participated in this. The third one was about the fundamental issues of the list. Harout72 never participated in that discussion. So I don’t see any evidence of his accusations of a Michael Jackson POV push. Ever since the issue was taken to the admin's noticeboard some editors have expressed concerns over the calculation method that was invented by Harout72. So I guess he may feel as though he is losing his WP:OWNERSHIP if the third conversation gathers more attention and that is the catalyst for the accusations against us and the reason why we are here now.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Those discussions referred to by TheWikiholic are not related to Jackson in any way. I just think that Harout72 makes Jackson's name appears frequently (this ANI report is an example of it) in an attempt to discredit and label as disruptive the behaviors of other users with points of view that he does not support. And this is systematic since long ago. I, for example, the last thing I suggested and that has led me to be here was to decrease the claimed sales figures of several music artists (including Jackson). On the other hand, if we take into account all the discussions in which Harout72 has been involved to date, I think there has been an attitude of preserving Elvis Presley's inflated figures by Harout72, or even of defending inflated sales figures fabricated by him (Harout72 stated "The same goes for Presley, just the UK has 17.3 million certified units, which generates under 10% of the global music sales, and the UK has launched its certification system in 1973, surely it would've been close to 50 million if they had been certifying since 1958, like the US."), resulting from speculation. And it is exactly the same with the current methodology that governs the List. However, this situation is not limited to that, as Harout72's negative attitude towards other users' perspectives can be seen even in discussions that are not related to specific artists, like this one about multi-disc albums sales figures, where users provided references to a Rolling Stone article or even an email from RIAA confirming the double counting. Salvabl (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I Support a TBAN of Harout72 as suggested by user:Snow Rise. I've caught up on reading all this drama, and he seems to be the recurring issue. Pacack (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Support topic ban based on the analysis by Snow Rise above. I had skipped over this discussion but noticed it last night and wished to provide my perspective. Gusfriend (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Salvabl

The user Harout72 has brought this "matter" here again, as he has done in the past, but this time is different from the others. In the List's Talk page there is a discussion about the certified sales percentages requirements that user Harout72 has defended on several occasions, but he has not added a single message to the discussion this time, as can be seen in this section of the Talk page.

He is just doing the same thing he has done in the past: labeling our behavior as disruptive when we express a point of view that he does not support. This is not the first time that user Harout72 has refused discussion and the search for a common consensus, as last February the content of the "Definitions" section of the List (which contains conditions for the management of the List now and in the future) was unilaterally changed by Harout72, even though the matter was being discussed on the List's Talk page at that moment. One of the goals of that change was to prevent any possible future increase in the claimed sales of artists such as Michael Jackson, Madonna or Elton John. And I, despite that attitude, made proposals so that part of the text added by Harout72 could stand, even when direct removal would have been the most appropriate action due to the unilaterality of his action (because of that, and because of statements made by him such as "you guys are wasting your time" directed to other users, it is appropriate to assert that this is a case of WP:OWNERSHIP). I think there has been too much collective patience with user Harout72. And what he did after I objected to that change was to start this discussion at ANI, which was centered on accusations about the possible existence or non-existence of racial bias in the List, which was simply a red herring to divert attention from the unilateral change made by Harout72 in the "Definitions" section.

I have always offered him an open door to dialogue, which he has rejected through accusations about alleged intentions to inflate Jackson's figures. Did I vote in favor of increasing the claimed sales figure of the Thriller album in this recent RfC? No, because I didn't even think it was the right time to discuss it, and to avoid possible conflicts between users. My only involvement in that RfC consisted of short messages providing information that I thought might be useful; to which the user Harout72, if he disagreed, did not even reply. Despite his knowledge about music sales, he simply refuses to get the point, and maybe that is the reason why his impartiality, and therefore the impartiality of the List, has been questioned. I, in my recent messages (see here) supported an eventual removal of The Beatles' 600M figure, stating at the same time that the coherent would be to remove Presley's 500M figure as well, since, I think it is a fact that it would be incorrect for both music acts to have the same highest claimed sales figure (500M) when The Beatles' certified sales are almost 60M higher than Presley's. Considering Harout72's words this idea must seem bad to him, but what he has not remarked is that I also stated in my message this: "and there would have to be a discussion about what to do with Michael Jackson's 400M figure, or change other figures", as I see as a good option to leave only the 350M claimed sales figure for Jackson and the 360M claimed sales figure for Presley; I think it would make the list more accurate. But leaving all that aside now, I think this new accusation made by Harout72 is just another attempt to maintain full control over the List and its claimed sales figures. Salvabl (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

While I agree with the three of you (editors named in this complaint) on the merits, just some friendly advice: the length of your comments is hindering resolution of this issue (and it was the same at the last ANI). It's not your fault, but there's three of you, and while individually your comments aren't too long, together it's 3x for the rest of us to read, and the substance of your (collective) message is getting lost amidst the total length. Just my opinion/advice. Levivich 05:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I almost said the same thing myself: These responses are so lengthy and bogged down with music methodology lingo that it scares people potentially offering outside help away. I think it's part of the reason why this still isn't resolved after so many prior discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps there could be a word limit placed on an RfC on the page, for any one reply. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the length of my messages, I'll try to write shorter messages in the future. The problem here has its origin years ago, and retrospective is necessary in order to have context about this situation. Yet, there are many actions by Harout72 that I've had to omit in order not to create an extremely long message, and which are relevant, such as his opinion about a racist message, or his silence after being asked for sources to support the inflated figure of 24M that he added to the certified sales of Presley's Christmas Album. The worst part of all this is that I'm being compelled to not talk about music sales as we should because Harout72 himself has also stopped doing so, choosing ANI reports instead. Salvabl (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Skippo10

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

---

Skippo10 (talk · contribs) has a long history of disruptive and poor editing, including adding unsourced content to BLPs, and has been blocked twice before (2007 for 3RR, 2018 for removing AFD tags from articles). They continue to add unsourced content to BLPs and me and another admin (@ChrisTheDude:) have recently tried to explain to him about repeated OVERLINK violations. I fear this editor lacks the competence to edit. GiantSnowman 15:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I will say that sports articles in general are huge violators of WP:OVERLINK the way they're structured and generally edited. Especially sports teams. Canterbury Tail talk 17:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I have been editing for a number of years, and feel on the whole I do things pretty well, I believe this is a personal attack from GiantSnowman on me, I'm not sure why, every so often I make the occasional mistake, and feel a bit of guidance sometimes would be enough, but it appears that GiantSnowman is following my every move, and waiting to find any opportunity to get me blocked from editing and I feel ultimately I am being bullied by this user. Skippo10 (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Skippo10 do you see how some of your responses (e.g. I don't know what you are talking about. [5], thanks for trying to get me blocked...really nice of you to essentially find ways to bully people who work hard editing and bringing articles up to date, but some admins like to flex their muscles don't they [6]) do not endear you to uninvolved users who view these disputes? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your talk page - going back 16 years - is absolutely littered with warnings and comments from multiple other users regarding your poor editing - violation of MOS (mainly OVERLINK), not using edit summaries, adding POV, poor page moves, edit warring, adding unsourced content to BLPs - the list goes on. It is not the "occasional mistake", it is a clear lack of competence. I am not trying to get you blocked or bully you, I am trying to stop your ongoing disruption. Your attitude here says everything we need to know. GiantSnowman 21:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Contrary to the above, I don't feel Skippo "does things pretty well". They have a massive problem with WP:OR; they spent the summer updating club articles with lists of "unregistered" players (see e.g. this or this), which were completely unsourced (and to my knowledge, unverifiable). They did something similar in 2020 too when the listed players as 'out of contract' despite this not being verifiable. Number 57 21:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I feel I learnt from that terrible mistake, very difficult at the level of football I update to get everything right, anyway if you lot want me blocked I guess its going to happen, its a shame you admins can't offer support to us non admins really instead of ganging up and going through the archives to prove your points. Skippo10 (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

If you learnt from it, why did you do pretty much the same thing (on at least a dozen articles) two years later??? And I have offered advice on a few occasions. The problem is that in most cases you react to anyone disagreeing with you by claiming you're being bullied (I see at least three claims of being bullied on your talkpage). Number 57 21:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand how editing and generally adding links to what I do is an ongoing disruption. I feel it is bullying, I am not going to cower down in the corner because the admins are ganging up on me. Skippo10 (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

These essays may be of use to you: WP:1AM, WP:TINC — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Skippo10's talk page shows years of editors trying to get them to understand the problems with some of their edits, and a lack of receptiveness or willingness to learn on Skippo's part. Refusal to improve or change their editing practices based on feedback indicates a lack of competence, particularly for an editor with Skippo's longevity on the project. Schazjmd (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Refusal to improve or change their editing practices based on feedback indicates a lack of competence. Sadly, I am forced to agree. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Indefinitely block Skippo10 because competence is required

Skippo10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See above thread. This user's talk page depicts years of other editors attempting to help them understand the rules around here. Plus 2x temporary blocks for failure to actually correct that behavior. And all of that advice is met with empty pleas, WP:IDHT, or promises to improve, without evidence of actual improvement. Add to this the user's continual appeal that, in essence, all admins are aligned against me. [7] [8] This wiki is not a no-holds-barred cage match. It is a project which requires competence and careful attention to the rules. For this reason, we should indefinitely block Skippo10 via community consensus, as a preventative action to inhibit future disruption. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll save you the time, I have retired on Wikipedia, I'll delete the app and move on to different pastures, I don't need this shit. Skippo10 (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC) (now retired)

I'm afraid retiring in the middle of an ANI thread is often seen as an attempt to avoid scrutiny. How do we know you won't quietly un-retire later on when the heat is off? Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Support - This is extreme levels of IDHT and CIR. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Support A scroll through the talk indicates 15 years of editors trying to collaborate, notify, and improve, and there has been none. Probably should have been blocked after this, TBH FrederalBacon (talk) 07:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Support Per link above and users comments here. Although- points for the irony of them calling users trying to warn them keyboard warriors when they are infact warrioring from their keyboard.... Points lost for them failing to realize the irony on their own. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Support Years upon years of disruption without improvement despite other editors trying to help, yea at some point you have had enough chances. --TylerBurden (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Atlanta IPs violating BLP

2600:1700:D390:2DF0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Some Atlanta-based IPs have added falsehoods to BLPs. The person changed the first wife's surname and added a child to Ted Nugent.[9] They are also clumsily adding biography info[10] and changing England to UK and back. WP:CIR is an issue.

Last January they were busy whitewashing the Ted Nugent biography, removing negative material, for which they were rangeblocked for six months.[11]

The IP range is Special:Contributions/2600:1700:D390:2DF0:0:0:0:0/64. Can we set a longer rangeblock? Binksternet (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Still a problem! Today the person added unsupported political party affiliation to Stevie Nicks.[12] Let's get this thing capped. Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing. Looking at the range contributions for last 2 days but it appears an IP block is appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Combining the ongoing disruptive (or at least not constructive) editing through current time, and the history and IP range's prior block history, I have applied a 1 year block on editing article space and linked to this ANI for discussion. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Reference Adding Account

Reference Adding Account (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was created 3 June 2022, and in the time since, has made 86 edits (and counting). When it's "up and running" (as in today between 12:31 UTC and 13:33 UTC), it made an edit, on average, every 2-3 minutes. It has done so every Tuesday and Wednesday in August as far as I can tell [13]. It refers to itself in the plural (e.g. "we") All it does is add references to (mostly) scientific articles.

En face, this doesn't sound like a problem (if we overlook possibly being a bot, etc). But there are moreover many issues with some of their references. It appears that many of the citations added are proximal to the content the citation is added to verify, but, upon further inspection, do not actually verify that content. All of the cites (at least all the ones I have combed through) are added to sentences which already have citations (curious...) and many are also WP:PRIMARY.

Examples of blatantly incorrect citations

is added to "Words that are commonly spoken or learned early in life or easily imagined are quicker to say than ones that are rarely said, learnt later in life, or are abstract" [14] despite being a paper about reading, not speaking. is added to "Subsequent studies found that ivermectin could inhibit replication of SARS-CoV-2 in monkey kidney cell culture with an IC50 of 2.2–2.8 μM." [15] despite being a paper about an in vivo dose-ranging study in rats. is added to "As it has become possible to study the living human brain, researchers have begun to watch neural decision-making processes at work. Studies have revealed unexpected things about human agency, moral responsibility, and consciousness in general." [16] despite this being a review of a textbook (as in evaluating the book itself, not the arguments therein). is added to "Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptions of race are untenable," [17] despite the paper making no claim on the consensus for essentialist or typological conceptions of race. It's a paper about the sociological impacts of racial hierarchies. See what I mean? adjacent but not correct. is added to "There is evidence that distribution and/or function of this receptor may differ between sexes" [18] despite having only one very passing mention of sex differences, which does not refer to either the "distribution" or molecular "function" of the receptors. is added to "Each atom in a graphene sheet is connected to its three nearest neighbors by a strong σ-bond, and contributes to a valence band one electron that extends over the whole sheet. This is the same type of bonding seen in carbon nanotubes and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and (partially) in fullerenes and glassy carbon." [19] despite the paper having no mentions of sigma bonds, valence bonds, or differences in bond makeup between the listed types of carbon nano-structures. is added to "On November 2, 2017, scientists reported that significant changes in the position and structure of the brain have been found in astronauts who have taken trips in space, based on MRI studies. Astronauts who took longer space trips were associated with greater brain changes." [20] despite the ref being a comment (and therefore not only PRIMARY but also non-peer-reviewed and only 2 sentences long, but also completely unrelated to the question of whether structural changes occur, but instead disputing which type occur. is added to "Neanderthals made use of a wide array of food, mainly hoofed mammals, but also other megafauna, plants..." [21] despite the paper being about human teeth and not related to Neanderthals at all. There are probably more errors, these are just the ones I could find in about 30 minutes of looking. Sources

Some of the added citations are actually good, and do verify the content, but are still added to sentences which already have 2 or 3 (or even 4) citations already! (e.g. [22] [23] [24] [25] [26])

Doug Weller has pointed out the user has also employed very low-quality journals (e.g. Advances in...) and the user replied they were unaware that a list of predatory journals existed anywhere.

Is this an unauthorized bot? Or just multiple users all logged in to one account doing this one task? My best guess is that it's a semi-automated process, wherein current cites are examined, diagramed (e.g. CitationGecko), and high-connectivity cites are added. Could also be papers which reference current citations? Truthfully, it could be a variety of things.

Bottom-line, is this something we want on Wikipedia? Is this user HERE to build an encyclopedia? Are they here to run an unauthorized machine learning experiment? I am very curious to see what this user has to say! All in all, it could be something that is very useful to the project, but the current incarnation has fatal flaws (imho). — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure this account is WP:HERE for a variety of reasons but I think it should at minimum be blocked from mainspace until it can be determined how many people are using it since it really does appear to be shared (or a bot) PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Blocked from article space indefinitely. Told to respond here. Doug Weller talk 18:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I think, at baseline, I also would love some help combing through their remaining edits and figuring out which ones need reverted. I'm going to go ahead and revert the ones I pointed out above as problematic. We may need a full scale revert if consensus is that auto-adding citations to places that already have many multiple cites is also unacceptable. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Looking at some of these, I don't understand how they're remotely related to the subject, it looks like they just searched one keyword and threw in a ref, but I don't have full access to the sources themselves (or honestly the knowledge of a lot of those subjects) to make a determination. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

In the back of my head I have a very fuzzy memory of another editor adding references that were mainly useless, like a third or fourth ref to a fact. But I have no idea when that was. The Banner talk 19:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, once again. I am surprised that you are calling these references "useless", they do expand and further verify content which Wikipedia claims. It took a great effort finding them. Once again, I truly think that a few minutes skim of this account activity can back the claims being raised here. I truly don't see which Wikipedia rule is being broken. If you have reverted any of the citations that were added by this account, I kindly ask User:Shibbolethink to undo the reverts you have done, and please, in future opportunities to raise a query in my talk page instead of unilaterally deleting this account's contribution.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Reference Adding Account (talk • contribs) 15:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, this is user Reference Adding Account writing. I am a researcher at Universidad Torcuato Di Tella (link to my webpage here). This account is of my own, but currently being managed on a day-to-day basis by a research assistant working with me. This is why I refer with "we" in the responses. We are adding references to Wikipedia, and we are taking great care in no infringing any of the Wikipedia rules. I am open to suggestions. In fact, as you can check, upon being informed not to add references to journals listed as predatory by Wikipedia, we stopped adding citations from these journals. I am quite surprised that some editors found the references added as not relevant, given that we took a great work in checking for their pertinence (something I am not completely sure the editor(s) raising concerns really did). For sure this account is not a bot nor part of a machine learning experiment. Please tell us if there is any infringement on the Wikipedia rules and we will take that into account. At least as I see it, highly pertinent citations are being added to the articles, which is positive to the community overall. More comment below.

Hello, Reference Adding Account (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) writing here again. As mentioned above, these references were carefully selected, they do expand on the references where they were placed and are highly related to the topic being discussed. We checked this using different sources. Finding these references took months of work and I am surprised that just by a simple 30 minutes check the editor is so confident in its claims. If you feel necessary, we can defend each of the examples listed above. Regarding the references listed below. I know these are good references. I would like to know why it would be a problem to expand on sentences already having citations. Does this violates any Wikipedia rule? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reference Adding Account (talk • contribs) 15:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Noting here that I moved comments by Reference Adding Account that were added without signature in the middle of the discussion to the end of the section. - MrOllie (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Reference Adding Account, I don't know if your edits violate Wikipedia policy but please read WP:UN which states in the second sentence "It also specifies that a user account should be used only by one person...". You allowing your assistant to use the same account as you is a violation of one person/one account laid out in Wikipedia's username policy. --ARoseWolf 19:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

You may also want to read WP:OVERCITATION, for an explanation of why adding too many sources to one sentence is often problematic. I spend a lot of time checking if sources verify the sentence they are put next to, to remove misleading claims or figure out if a better source is needed. This is a common way editors improve the accuracy of Wikipedia. This becomes much more difficult if I need to check more sources, especially when they are not immediately relevant. Femke (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Aside from the problems pointed out above, which include citations in Neanderthals to an article exclusively about homo sapiens (Neanderthals did not live in Peru [27]), among other clear mis-cites... there are also a great deal of WP:PRIMARY article citations. Do you understand, @Reference Adding Account, the difference between primary and secondary journal articles? On wikipedia, adding a primary article where a secondary article is already referenced is not compliant with WP:RS, as interpretation of primary sources is considered original research, which is not permitted on wikipedia.

I would also like to point out, your webpage states you are a researcher studying how state-of-the-art machine learning and natural language processing (NLP) techniques can aid in understanding social, business and economic phenomena.. Is this account part of a research project into Natural-Language Processing? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, Reference Adding Account, I noticed that some of your research is about references. Is your activity on Wikipedia part of a research project? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah good catch: [28] [29] [30] [31] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

And this comment by Reference Adding Account really makes it sound like research: This account is of my own, but currently being managed on a day-to-day basis by a research assistant working with me. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Apparently the account used to be named "Citations researcher" [32] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Update: I have gone through the user's edits and reverted those which were:

• A) explicitly WP:PRIMARY where a secondary scholarly source was already cited, or
• B) the citation did not verify the content, in an obvious way.

Overall it appears 39 of 84 edits met explicit reversion criteria. I didn't do them all myself, so thanks for the help those of you who did! Some remaining edits may still be unjustified, but would leave it up to everyone else to see for themselves and weigh in (i.e. I did not revert WP:OVERCITE, though that is in my opinion a good reason to revert). — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Update: JJMC89 has indefinitely blocked the user from all namespaces given that it is, as admitted, a compromised account.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/9937 maybe related to this? It’s a “field experiment” where citations are added to Wikipedia articles and then (the description is a bit weird) tracked somehow - lead by the researcher that used to operate the bot/account above. Mvbaron (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Interesting find. They were going to add 980 references to Wikipedia and track metrics on those as compared to 1960 "control references" not added to Wikipedia. The trial was supposed to start Sept 1, but perhaps he jumped the gun, or was doing a test run. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

What's interesting is that if this is indeed the research project that was going on here, there's nothing inherently that prevents this person from doing it... They don't need to put citations only where there already are some. They don't need to put in bad ones which don't actually verify the content. (both of which, btw, I suspect would alter the results in a not great way). They don't need to use any automation to do it. I suppose our requirement of secondary review articles could bias the results some, but still worth doing. If they did this while following the PAGs and not disrupting the project, it could be interesting and personally, I would be curious to see the results. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, thank you all for your suggestions and for taking the time to review all the added references. For the moment I will stop any work on this version of the project, and see if it can adapted in some way so it further goes in line with Wikipedia mission. Sadly we have a huge collection of citations that could have been added to existing pages that will not be added at all. Note that you considered most of them to be pertinent and that in some cases the citations you removed were those that were already present in the article (notable). I truly believe that by having taken this course of action we are all wasting an opportunity to directly improve articles, but more importantly, of scientifically understanding and measuring the impact of Wikipedia.

Additionally, I would very appreciate if this incident could be archived. In good faith I have shared a great deal of personal information here. In retrospective I think this was a mistake, as somehow now, in what I see as mob behavior, you started sharing information about me or my work, which I don't feel comfortable with (that's on you). I think we can all move one. If you have any inquiries, please write in my talk page.RamiroHGalvez (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I can hardly imagine your shock on learning that we volunteer editors don't wish to made be unwitting guinea pigs in your half-baked "experiment". And see WP:NOTLAB. EEng 08:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

If good faith and Mob behavior are now in play, and it is obvious that a large number of humans, by your own characterization, have been affected by this project, has any supervisory committee at your educational institution approved your research project? Did you ask or guidance from any Wikipedia organ? Can we expect an offer from you to repair the damage caused (volunteer time wasted), (propagation through the internet of suboptimal citations)? And reconsideration of the correct object of that's on you? Informed consent beats stealth—it's more ethical. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 21:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC) —

in what I see as mob behavior, you started sharing information about me or my work, which I don't feel comfortable with (that's on you) pretty sure that ones on you when you decided to operate a shared account that mass-spammed your own work in an attempt to do an experiment on Wikipedia without anyone's consent. PICKLEDICAE🥒 21:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

RamiroHGalvez, does your institution have an institutional review board or similar? Did they approve this experiment? If no to either, that's a major problem - since this is an experiment involving humans and human behavior (and apparently not one involving consent), it is the sort of study that really needs an IRB sign-off. If so, please share with us exactly what they approved you to do - you certainly should be able to share the IRB approval information with us on request. And if you do have approval but don't feel comfortable sharing the IRB details with us...then what business do you have conducting the experiment at all if you aren't willing to share your approval with the subjects? GeneralNotability (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

MatthewS.

MatthewS. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have attempted to engage many times through many channels to get this user to talk reasonably instead of edit-warring over a content disagreement on Egyptian pound and Template:EGP, however all my attempts have failed, with them refusing to acknowledge that they may have come to an incorrect conclusion. It feels as though I am arguing with a brick wall because no matter what I say I either receive silence or the defence "it was like that before you joined the website". Many times I have attempted to demonstrate to them how inaccurate content has sometimes slipped under the radar for years, but I never get any substantial engagement beyond a demand for agreement with them, claiming their edits are "here to stay" and that they "won't give up". TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey @TheCurrencyGuy, it would help if you elaborated further and provided additional dif links. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@MatthewS. has indeed been edit-warring on Egyptian pound again today and has violated the 3RR policy. @TheCurrencyGuy is dangerously close to violating the 3RR policy. This has become a repeated occurrence on that page. Both @MatthewS. and @TheCurrencyGuy were temporarily suspended a few weeks ago for edit-warring on that same page, although @TheCurrencyGuy does seem to be making an effort to communicate on both the article talk page and @MatthewS.’ user talk page. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It is difficult to provide a full list as he has made many MANY reversions to the article since 2006, but in the past other editors seemed to give up on it as a lost cause due to fear of ending up in an edit war, the edit history affirms this [33]. He seems intent on including some poorly sourced and potentially spurious material (he keeps adding back in completely unsourced statements, such as the etymology of "geneih", this may be true, but despite my asking him to offer a source he never has), and whenever its presence is questioned he defends it on the grounds of having been in the article a long time if he responds at all. All I seek to do is to include verifiable factual information in the article and try to prevent things such as citogenesis, which the "currency converter" sites he cited appear to do. The main one he relies on is Investopedia, whose page on the Egyptian pound appears to have been copypasted from an earlier version of the Wikipedia article.

To give one of the more minor examples of an error he is intent on retaining, the caption on the LE 200 banknote at the top of the infobox currently states it to be the "obverse", when the image file itself states it to be the reverse.TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• These two editors had been edit-warring at Egyptian pound and were both given short blocks, and were then told to seek dispute resolution, which they did at DRN. The issue seemed to have to do with what symbols can be used to represent the Egyptian pound. It appeared that an RFC would be necessary, and that subsequent discussion should clarify exactly what the choices should be in the RFC. After more questions, it appeared that maybe they were only arguing over what symbols they preferred, in which case an RFC might not be necessary. I then asked if I should close the DRN thread as resolved. The Currency Guy then posted a complaint about MatthewS, and then posted this thread. I failed the discussion at DRN before I had seen this thread, but I would have failed the discussion if I had seen that it had gone to WP:ANI. I have tried to mediate the dispute, and am not getting clear answers as to the scope of the disagreement. I don't know what should be done. I know that DRN didn't work, and I don't think that was my mistake. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  Apologies that I did not make myself entirely clear.

  I became frustrated at MatthewS.'s statement that he "saw no issue with the way the article currently is", of course he's happy, it reflects his personal preference, and he seems determined to keep it at a standstill, so I became a bit personal.

  It is just extremely frustrating to me the way he takes out verifiable sources because they detract from his personal preference for the dubious "E£". He seems to think I have an obsession with "forcing" £E, when infact my preference is for LE because that is the abbreviation used by the Central Bank of Egypt, currently issued Egyptian stamps, and the World Bank, and is the most common representation used by the Egyptian press. £E is supported as a rarer variation by reliable sources such as older Egyptian stamps (though as recent as 2002), the CIA World Factbook and Encyclopaedia Britannica.

  The version of the article I wish to see is one where LE is the main symbol used, reflecting actual use, with alternatives mentioned but not given the same weight. In the introduction I added a wiki note for editors stating "This appears to be the most common abbreviation for the currency and should, therefore, be the style generally used for identification", with other forms cited after that. MatthewS. took this out and replaced it with a string of potentially dubious sources, citing websites that seem to have got their information from the Wiki article, thus being a form of circular reporting. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  • I now see that I did make a mistake, but that it wouldn't have made any difference. I didn't check the article Egyptian pound to see if MatthewS. and TheCurrencyGuy were edit-warring. They were. The rules for DRN say not to edit the article while discussion is in progress, because the discussion should decide how to edit the article. I still don't know what should be done. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

    @Robert McClenon Another user has tried to start a conversation on the article talk page about pooling sources, which seems like a good idea. Otherwise, I suspect one or both of these squabbling users will be blocked from the article if they continue the edit-warring. Bgsu98 (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• What the fuck is it with the Egyptian pound? We've had two ANI threads, two MOSNUM threads, and a challenge to pistols at 20 paces -- and that's just in the past two weeks. Maybe it's the Curse of Tutankhamun at work. EEng 10:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  User:EEng - There have been other mummified Pharaohs whose tombs were raided, of whom Tutankhamen was only the most recent, or most recently documented, and Cleopatra was the last, and maybe the most attractive. So take your pick from four millennia of ancient history. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, but Tutankhamum turned away from the worship of the all-powerful Aten, and he had a really cool meteorite dagger, so, you do the math.... Dumuzid (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  Part of the problem is that none of the Pharaohs authorized the use of the Egyptian pound, so that they disapprove and may be causing trouble. There are gold bars in gold depositories that are marked with the signets of certain Pharaohs. They verified that those gold bars are money. And many of them were mummified by a process that took 140 days. It could be any of various Pharaohs. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  "E£" was added to the article in August, 2005, without a source given.

  The claim about the etymology of the Egyptian name was added in November, 2005, again, with no source given.

  These two claims appear to have no supporting verifiable citations. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  We are not going to resolve the editing dispute here. Please stick to discussing what behavioral issues we're supposed to be dealing with. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikix645 for long-term and profane abuse

• Wikix645 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Wikix645 is a long-time, low-frequency editor (first edit 2012, last 50 edits go back to 2015). However, over their edits in the last year and a half, the editor has repeatedly appeared on articles relating to Catholic views on sexual morality to delete content and leave uncivil edit summaries, many of which take a deeply sectarian tone. The editor was repeatedly warned following an edit war just over a year ago to cease behaving in this manner. However, despite later acknowledging fault (and deleting the evidence), the editor has returned to reinsert similar material from the initial edit war. A serious penalty would likely be excessive, considering this editor's frequency and intensity of disruption. However, the repeat and exceedingly profane nature of the edits following a prior final warning suggest that some sort of formal response is needed. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Delete my account, I wish to be dissociated with the account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikix645 (talk • contribs)

Accounts cannot be deleted. PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for the profane edit and would like to have my comment deleted if possible. ~ Wikix645 (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2022‎ (UTC)

See WP:VANISH. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• This user's comments are beyond the pale and extremely rude. I would suggest allowing them to vanish, and then permanently blocking them, honestly. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  Blocking them precludes taking advantage of VANISH. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Sunderland Renaissance

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

---

• China Global Television Network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• CGTN (TV channel) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sunderland Renaissance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Antonian Sapphire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (acknowledged secondary account of Sunderland Renaissance)

I cannot show publicly because WP:OUT but I have strong suspicions that this user is a contributor to China Global Television Network (CGTN). The user has been editing CGTN articles in a more positive manner for some time, trying to remove negative information about them. Pinging @Amigao since they have experience dealing with this user. The Account 2 (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I share your concern. If the non-public evidence is what I think it is its pretty darn ironclad. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I should also note that if this account really belongs to that person, they (through their blog) have attempted to dox a fellow Wikipedia user (won't name names here), which is a very serious violation of WP:PRIVACY The Account 2 (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

If thats the case I think this needs to go to WP:ANI. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

How should I do that? (haven't been editing for three years so forgot a lot of procedures :D) By this I mean what kind of report should I write. I fear I may make a mistake so... Thanks in advance! The Account 2 (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@The Account 2: I have moved it. Sunderland Renaissance has a long history of bashing their wikipedia "opponents" (myself included) under their IRL identity in opinion pieces published by fringe tankie outlets. That they're going beyond that to doxxing is inexcusable, I extended them the benefit of the doubt again and again and I'm tired of the bullshit to coin a phrase. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

If there is off-wiki evidence of doxxing, it might be best to contact ArbCom regarding this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I found the tweet. I can confirm The Account 2's assertion that doxxing has occurred, not going on the person's personal blog for obvious security reasons. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I would definitely send to ArbCom then to let them investigate further. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

How does one go about doing that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Here. Black Kite (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I categorically deny all of the associations above and the user who have posted this is a throwaway account (created 7th August) who is someone with an extensive history of pushing a long-term grudge/harassment against this respective person who I am accused of being. It is also ludicrous to assume this "person" is in the interests of defending CGTN when he was in fact famously dismissed by them nearly one year ago after publicly criticizing them for their perceived incompetence. Also, not all edits I have made to the article are positive, here are edits from this account adding critical content [34]- Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Am I missing something, or are you trying to WP:OUT them? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I also have behind the scenes evidence (which also I cannot post) which demonstrates that the original poster "The Account 1" is a throwaway single purpose account belonging to someone who has a long term grudge against the specific person he is targeting, including a long term and extensive history of harassment which involves the creation of scores of parody accounts (both on and off Wiki) as well as single-purpose harassment accounts. "The Account 1"- created his account on August 7th having seen a twitter post about a dispute related to a specific user that day (who also cannot be named) wherein accusations of Doxing are being lodged. The report has been made entirely in bad faith, and Horse Eyed Jack has also been looking for respective excuses (through political differences) to get me banned for a long time. I do not know who he is and I do not have an off wiki agenda against him to declare- Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, your position is that you cannot be this person, who was dismissed by CGTN (apparently being rehired some months later) because around the same time that he was dismissed you added critical content about CGTN to Wikipedia? MrOllie (talk) 01:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Just because the same high profile (Peng Shuai) was ongoing does not equate to such being an implication of guilt, but I am not aware this person was rehired. But either way, there is no COI and no doxxing on my behalf, and the original poster of this thread is doing this is absolute bad faith, which can be verified privately- Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Are you referring to the email you sent me? No I am not "Alek" (whoever that is). I edited "Juche" and North Korea articles because I have an interest in East Asia in general (and the ideology section of DPRK needed serious updates). I didn't "claim ignorance" but was genuinely confused on how to take this to WP:ANI and no, I did not start Wikipedia just to attack you (I did it because many of the China articles were pretty outdated and missed editing Wiki after 3 years). I have not ever collaborated with ASPI member Fergus Ryan. Are you preparing an "article" about "me" (or the person you think I am) on your blog? Also I happened to edit Wikipedia some time ago, since 2019 (but took a break for 3 years). The Account 2 (talk) 10:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

EDIT:here are the emails if anyone's wondering [35] The Account 2 (talk) 11:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Who said anything about writing an article about anyone? For a supposed random account you do seem to have a lot of background knowledge on something you otherwise claim to know nothing about. It is your choice to publish such emails but as they contain nothing inapropriate it only serves to consolidate this particular case that the original poster is acting in blatant bad faith and clearly trolling. I am otherwise happy to cooperate in private and provide any information necessary admins are seeking in their investigation regarding this. This will be my last post on the matter and will otherwise avoid topics of respective sensitivity in future in the bid to preventing any further accusations- Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

FYI I didn't claim to know nothing about anything. I have some knowledge about these things since I happen to follow China-related accounts on Twitter because I happen to be interested in China. The Account 2 (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE:The article that included the doxxing was removed, but the article is archived on WebArchive The Account 2 (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Are you seriously threatening another outing? Those emails are highly inappropriate, also please note that repeatedly and aggressively emailing someone who has not responded back is generally perceived as harassment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Also they seem to know A LOT about the person they're being accused of... and an additional note, their blogs Twitter account became private the same day he responded... very interesting... The Account 2 (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

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

White Beard 1 edit warring and persistently adding a non-reliable source

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

---

White Beard 1 (talk · contribs) is persistently POV-pushing and using using a Youtube Video as source at Moab Man. They have not replied to comments other than accusing editors of "silencing the truth." [36] I would suggest that this user is WP:NOTHERE. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• Good grief. Indeffed as NOTHERE, though I may have to answer to a higher power, it seems. Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite: Jimbo Wales? TornadoLGS (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Legal threat on userpage

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

---

2A00:1370:8172:2AA3:49BB:C027:26F7:EE7F has posted a legal threat - acknowledged as such in their own text - on their user talk page. The /64 for this IP is already blocked, may need to pull TPA as well. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Done, Special:Contributions/2A00:1370:8172:2AA3:0:0:0:0/64 blocked without talk page access. I also removed the rant. Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Makes a change from the accusations of extreme liberalism that we normally get accused of. Nthep (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

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

User:None Business123

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

---

None Business123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): [38] legal threat, WP:NOTHERE Andre🚐 04:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Should probably be blocked for illiteracy too... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

172.243.89.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as well, [39] Andre🚐 04:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Note that they also made an edit via this IP: 172.243.89.92. ––FormalDude talk 04:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – Muboshgu (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[40]

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

Disruptive Editing (User Blocking Request)

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

---

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

the following user did many disruptive editings to National Resistance Front of Afghanistan's page without engaging with other editors such as removing the official website of NRF [41] with no sourced information just a WP:POV editing and instead the official website of NRF replacing a fraud fundraising scamming website that even not mention at any sources[42]. I did leave a warning on his talk page to stop vandalism and edit war but looks like he doesn't care about Wikipedia community guidelines and the kept reverting and removing or replacing the official website, and ignoring all reliable sources and three-revert rule, I request to block this user from editing to learn something about policies - — Preceding unsigned comment added by IranicaEditor (talk • contribs) 07:02, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

As a note to admins, the reporter is doing the exact same edits as a previously banned account ([43]), and even is making “I will block you” threats to the exact same user (Dan Wang). Generic CoI that learns a few terms in adminspace. Juxlos (talk) 07:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• without engaging with other editors - I see exactly one of you two on the article's talk page & asking the other (by edit summary) to discuss there, and it ain't you. (The only editor to express any disagreement there with the edits in question is the indef'd account Juxlos mentions in the comment above mine) So if there's anyone here failing to engage, it's you. You also failed to notify Dan Wang, as you're required to. Did it for you. AddWittyNameHere 07:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Juxlos is a proxy or supporter of this violated user Dan Wang[44] here I explained the whole subject of the official website with sources, but after ignoring all @Juxlos threated me to blocking, the user is his abusing power on me, instead of see the truth into the reliable sources and explaination. Is that WP:POV of powerful editors have priority rather than reliable sources? @AddWittyNameHere IranicaEditor (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  For what it’s worth, I had let the edit you wanted to put in pass, and then you acted sufficiently like a sockpuppet for me to become unconfident that you (or for that matter the organization you obviously are affiliated with) are doing it in good faith at all. Congratulations. Juxlos (talk) 07:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  moving topic to another discussing won't hide your power abusing, adding an official website to related article is what wrong?, in on your fact, adding https://www.nrfafg.org (fraud fundraising scamming website) is right and the official website NRF https://www.nationalresistance.org (no fundraising but a latest updates about NRF) is wrong, correct?

  so easily everyone can understand your main purposes IranicaEditor (talk) 07:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  As amusing as watching someone clearly without actual understanding of Wikipedia try to bureaucrat their way into COI, this is getting old. For the admins, I don’t think this user has a sufficient command of English (or good faith) to actually engage in talk page discussion beyond name-calling. Juxlos (talk) 08:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  Let the admins investigate on this matter, I have no further talks with you and with your sockpuppet users. The main subject is about abusing power, sockpuppet and violating guideline just for replacing the official website of NRF[45] into a fraud fundraising website[46] IranicaEditor (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG... IranicaEditor appears to be a sockpuppet, or a meatpuppet. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  maybe I appear as an amateur user but it won’t be sockpuppet, you check and see my all contributions, let’s come up to the point and see the truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by IranicaEditor (talk • contribs) 09:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I checked your contributions, and found this. Brunton (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

all I want to say on this issue is about the scam and legit website of NRF article, wikipedia should be a better place on internet for legitimate information, do you consider wrong information within an article of wikipedia? on that email I received [47] I will provide the copy if you required, the whole email explained about the legit website of NRF that all sources mentioned and confirmed. after I manually reviewed sources tuen I compromised to contribute the right or real website of the following article. so what is wrong if consider the real website of NRF on article? IranicaEditor (talk) 11:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• IranicaEditor indef blocked for a history of disruptive editing, meatpuppetry, possible IP socking, and NPOV issues. Generally, WP:NOTHERE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

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

SpacemanSpiff allegedly creates many conflicts between templates and transclusions

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

---

User:SpacemanSpiff edited many astrology sign articles, such as this edit, which eliminated the parameter varna from the inclusion. I don't understand what varna is, but I see that it has been in Infobox zodiac since 2012. I asked about this on SpacemanSpiff's talk page and he/she blew me off. He/she said he/she would stop editing Wikipedia but this turns out to be untrue. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Jc3s5h - User:SpacemanSpiff never said that they would stop editing Wikipedia. They said you reminded them why maybe they shouldn't be editing Wikipedia, but that was sarcasm, and, on the Internet, no one recognizes sarcasm. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• There has never been a parameter called varna in that template until five days ago. It was also added to the documentation here by the same now-blocked editor that SS was - quite correctly - reverting. IIRC, varna is fringey nonsense. Black Kite (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
• By "blew you off" you mean "responded completely appropriately to your officious demands"? JBL (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
• Just for context, the "varna" parameter was added by a now-blocked editor who was intent on making a connection between Varna (Hinduism) and Zodiac/birth charts, wanting to change the meaning on Wikipedia to the idea that people born certain times of the year fell into certain castes, which is not how that works, to put it mildly. The parameter doesn't belong in the infobox because it's a single editor's fringe idea. - Aoidh (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for that context, Aoidh. I know little about Hindu astrology but do know of the concept of varna in Hinduism, and was trying to work out what the connection was between it and the signs of the zodiac. You have expained very clearly that there is none, so SpacemanSpiff was correct in his actions. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• The 2012 diff doesn't show varna at all, not sure why you think it does. I frankly don't understand why you approached this the way you did. Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think the 2012 diff was pulling in the current documentation, because it did display "varna" in the infobox earlier when the OP posted. I think the OP (like me) isn't too familiar with how certain technical aspects of how templates work. Schazjmd (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• First, the OP came running to my talk page in an accusatory tone without doing a basic check of the history and I did not take kindly to that (although I did point to them that they should check the history and also that they were wrong on the template history), that the OP isn't happy that I haven't quit yet isn't something I'll do anything about! If the OP had just asked what was going on instead of coming in with the accusatory tone, I'd have given some explanation on the lines that Aoidh has given above, albeit not as eloquently! —SpacemanSpiff 01:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Persistent genre warring

User:Stojo bruv has been genre warring on the page In Flames persistently and hasn't provided any sources. He won't use the talk page either for a consensus to be reached. It is time for a blocking to be in order. FireCrystal 06:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

It may go even further than that too. An ip range was just blocked for the same thing so could be one and the same. Possible IP socks. FireCrystal 08:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, FireCrystal. I looked at that editor's contributions and noticed that they have been edit warring. Then, I looked at your contributions and see that you have been editor warring too. I could block the other editor but I would have to block you too. Stop the edit warring and use legitimate forms of Dispute resolution instead. Cullen328 (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Both editors have now received warnings about edit warring. Cullen328 (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Exclusive world records (and words to that effect)

There have been several attempts to create an article on a publication/platform called Exclusive World Record(s), using different variations of capitalisation and with singular and plural of 'record'. I'm aware of at least the following:

• Draft:Exclusive world record
• Exclusive world records
• Draft:Exclusive World Record
• Draft:Exclusive World Records

Would it be possible to protect (assuming it is felt this is warranted, of course) the whole name space so it catches all variants? I have a feeling we've not seen the end of this yet.

Also, I can't remember or see who the users were who created the already deleted copies; the latest ones were made by two (apparently) different users. Could be just a coincidence, of course, or could be ducky? (I've not taken this to SPI.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

No, that's not possible. Unfortunately it's always hard to catch all spelling variants when a user is determined to get an article published. But of course it's disruptive to keep creating variants in such a way. Looking at the versions with my admin glasses on, I can see that three out of the four accounts have already been indeffed for advertising. I have blocked the fourth, User:Dhilloncharan, as a sock. There's no doubt in my mind that these accounts all represent one individual, likely an UPE. Thanks for reporting, DoubleGrazing. If you should see further variants, it may be expedient to take them straight to my page. Bishonen | tålk 08:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC).

Thanks @Bishonen! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing If you can come up with a reasonable regex you could ask for it to be added to the spam section of MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, but that's probably overkill at this point. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 09:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:AF? casualdejekyll 22:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

• Couldn't we make an edit filter to flag stuff like this? jp×g 10:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

  @JPxG - WP:EF/R's the place to go for to request such a thing casualdejekyll 22:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and block evasion by various editors on children's TV series

Hi, I've noticed that various IP editors have been disruptively editing pages for various children's TV series by erroneously changing e.g. broadcast years, production companies, and broadcast regions. For example: Strawberry Shortcake (2003 TV series), Polly Pocket (TV series), Babar (TV series), The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!.

This has been going on for at least the last two months; their edits have always been reverted, they have been warned against vandalism, and many times one of these IPs has been blocked, only for another such IP to make similar edits a few days later. Given the nature of these edits, it seems clear that this is just one individual repeatedly evading IP blocks.

I'm not too well-versed with Wikipedia policies, but aside from whack-a-mole-blocking each such IP as it crops up, is there any other action that may be taken here?

P.S. The notice on the ANI edit page tells me that I need to notify the editor(s) on their talk pages, but I don't know how many IPs are involved here, so for now I'm only notifying the four IP editors who have made the edits I'm linking to. Edderiofer (talk) 11:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

• This is quite a wide range (2601:602:8705::/48) but looking at their contribs, pretty much every edit made this year from that range is clearly that person. Therefore, I have blocked the range for 3 months. Black Kite (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, well that's a relief that the collateral damage from blocking the entire range is so small. Thanks! Edderiofer (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

  They appear to be back again on a different IP. See here. Maybe at this point we could consider semi-protecting a bunch of pages? (I unfortunately don't have a full list of which pages they're targeting, although perhaps you have a better idea of that if you can see all the edits that the 2601:602:8705::/48 range has made.) Edderiofer (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content to children's films and cartoons

Continuing after final warning a few days ago, CoreyRobbo (talk · contribs) adds their own alternate titles and episode summaries that appear to have been copied from other wikis [48]; [49]; [50]; [51]; [52]; [53]; [54]; [55]; [56]; [57]; [58]; [59]; [60]; [61]; [62]; [63]; [64]; [65]; [66].

I've actually attempted to be selective in adding diffs here. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Just out of interest, did you ever ask them why, or did you immediately raise ANI? A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 15:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I reverted them several times two days ago, and left multiple warnings. I Googled and found no support for the alternate titles, but did find episode summaries that appeared to have been lifted from other wikis. When I saw the pattern of WP:OR titles continued yesterday, I went to AIV. There was no action taken there, so I opened this thread. You're welcome to ask them why--I was struck by the edit summaries stating they 'had to' add this or that bit of unsourced content. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

See also 58.178.64.76 (talk · contribs), presumably CoreyRobbo when signed out. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

New editor taking ownership

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

---

Pnngnn (talk · contribs · count)

New user is reverting multiple times, not communicating, blanking warnings without replies. Needs to calm down and open discussions and not just be a bull in a glass shop. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I made a very simple, uncontroversial edit. I stated what I did in the edit summary. This user FlightTime accused me of making a test edit (it was perfectly obviously no such thing), then accused me of not having a consensus for this simple uncontroversial edit, then simply reverted without explanation. If they had any actual reason to object to my edit, doubtless they would have said what it was. Pnngnn (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

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

User Ïvana in a very suspicious attitude

Ïvana (talk · contribs · count) is removing content from the Alberto Fernández article that I just posted. If I were wrong, I would accept it, but this is very SUSPECT, given the fact that she is Argentine and may have political or even economic affinity with the Fernandez regime. I'm putting sources that came out all over the international media and she's taking it down on the grounds of not complying with BLP, but it smells like censorship. If you want, feel free to adjust my text, but erasing it completely is trying to remove the information, which is very relevant in this guy's biography. 2804:14D:5C87:8C5D:F8C8:349D:F216:1C7E (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

You found this page, how about finding the talk page to the article and discussing there? You might have a point, but a bunch of edits and then straight to ANI is not collaborative. As we have WP:NODEADLINE, we can take time to discuss and get it right. Slywriter (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

That is highly contentious material added to a biography of a living person that needs consensus to be restored. The matter should be discussed at Talk:Alberto Fernández. In one of your edit summaries, you wrote Please ban this Argentine who works for Fernandez?. Never single out an editor for their nationality and accusing an editor of being paid without solid evidence is a personal attack which is not permitted. Cullen328 (talk) 19:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

After exactly four edits, all of them to the Fernandez article, we have considerably more reason that your editing pattern is suspect and that you have an agenda than we do for Ivana, who has been here four years and has 8,000 edits. Nor are accusations -- devoid of any evidence beyond that she doesn't like your edits -- such as "Please ban this Argentine who works for Fernandez?" remotely helpful. Ravenswing 19:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Are we to denounce any American because she "may have political or even economic affinity with the Biden regime" or any Brazilian because she "may have political or even economic affinity with the Bolsanaro regime"? Who is not very SUSPECT? Just drop the conspiracy theories and discuss what should be in the article on its talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

• I edited a compromise and opened Talk:Alberto Fernández#Luciani comments. User:Ïvana sent me a thank you for the edits. 2804:14D:5C87:8C5D:F8C8:349D:F216:1C7E's edits were mixing fact and opinion. The opposition parties slammed the comment, but Wikipedia can't take one side. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 20:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
• I see the edit-warring continues. Please use the talk-page discussion rather than do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Mass Infobox disruption

80s Sam (talk · contribs · count) Second time here I see.

User is changing Infobox formats on musical articles willy-nilly. No discussions, no consensus, just wants to I guess. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@FlightTime: are you going to provide any WP:DIFFS per the page notice and the big wall of text at the top of the page? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 17:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Repeated accusations of POV and COI without evidence

Zefr accuses me regularly of Conflict of Interest as my opinion regarding a specific subject (Polyphenol) does not meet his approval. @Zefr is now threatening to report me to Administrators if I do not adhere to his requests - and I believe such a behaviour is not appropriate. Disagreements about content should be resolved in a discussion without accusations of inappropriate behaviour.

The edit I refer to is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Health_effects_of_phenols_and_polyphenols

"There is a disclosure process at WP:DISCLOSE which you have not followed on your talk page under the COI section, and minor information, albeit with your admission of being "terribly biased" from your own research program on polyphenols, is on your user page. Specifically from the COI guide, "you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." You attempted to create an article about the Department of Food and Nutritional Sciences, University of Reading, which publishes a bioactives guideline, indicating professional association you may have with this department and university where you are employed and compensated - this violates the COI policy. If you don't clear this up, I will report you to admin. Wikipedia has hundreds of related articles you could be working on other than those related to polyphenols or bioactives where your "terribly biased" views would not raise questions about biased editing for unproven health effects - which you admit, rather than neutral editing, as I have emphasized. Zefr (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)"Ggux (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

This has been raised at the appropriate noticeboard without resolution:

[[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 189#Ggux conflicted about polyphenol research]] Ggux (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

• By your own admission in that previous discussion, you have a POV and a COI, so I'm thinkin that is enough evidence to make the claim. You even spoke as to needing help determining what is encyclopedic and what isn't. To top it off, on your own user page, you describe yourself as "Terribly biased.". I appreciate that honesty, but it is what it is. On articles where you have a conflict of interest, you would be better off using the talk page if there is contention about the edits, and building a consensus, rather than editing directly. Most of us have COIs of one kind or another. Mine is in UV lamps and how they are used on animals (including humans) and horticulture. I've been in the field 30 years with a few inventions and innovations to my name. Last time I did a major rewrite on an article, there was someone there along side me, to keep me honest, SlimVirgin (who has since died, sadly). In the end, the article didn't look like I was hoping but it was factual and sourced, and I was wise enough to defer to outside opinions on what should belong and what shouldn't. The same would hold true for you. You aren't likely to convince everyone of every point you want to make. What is important to YOU, might not be what is the most important to the reader, as least as that is determined by a consensus of editors here. And we ARE a consensus community.

• So yes, you are POV and COI. That doesn't mean you can't contribute, but it does mean you need to change how you contribute in areas where that POV and COI exist. This is true for all of us. You are not an exception. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you - I appreciate that I am biased, because everyone is. A good expert is not one who isn't biased, but one who realises the own bias. The discussions with @Zefr have been going on for some time: they included RfCs which went against their opinion but were ignored Talk:Catechin#RfC:Is historical overview appropriate? or which did no result in a decision Talk:Flavan-3-ol#Request for Comments (2). As far as I can see, the main disagreement is whether there are data to support any health effect of polyphenols and @Zefr by own admission was not aware of recent research (Talk:Polyphenol#In vivo biomarkers) - the claim "There is no reliable source used in the article for that measurement, which would be a significant breakthrough for assessing the fate of digested polyphenols." has been wrong for some time, probably at least a decade. Interpreting results through that lens, i.e. the state of science several years ago and a summary provided by one organisation, the Linus Pauling Institute, resulted in most of the disagreements.

  I have no problem to have a scientific discussion on topics and adjust them based on consensus - this is how I understand the process works. But I don't think that accusations of COI or POV are very helpful. @Zefr has not engaged on the talk page with discussions about the content and largely ignored scientific arguments. One might disagree with the concept of bioactives, but this is an ongoing discussion for which I have provided references. And I believe threatening to report me to the administrator, as @Zefr has done, is one step too far. Ggux (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ggux and Dennis Brown: I don't doubt that editors can have biases, but Ggux is right that there is behaviour of concern from Zefr. It's concerning to see the section Talk:Health effects of phenols and polyphenols#Removal of more recent literature reviews on health effects. It appears that slightly less than 3 years ago, the user Signimu tried to add a systemic review to the article on the potential benefits of polyphenols. [67] They were reverted by Zefr [68] (who said "cohort studies are unreliable primary research") and tried repeatedly to engage with Zefr on the talk page, saying that the source (which repeatedly described itself as a review) was not a primary source but a systemic review. Zefr dismissed these asking for the consensus of "3+ editors on the talk page"[69] and only replied on a talk page once Signimu started a thread on WT:WPMED. [70] When that thread began, Zefr changed their opinion, acknowledging that the dispute was over a systematic review, and switched to claiming that the included studies in the review were flawed. At no point on these discussion pages did Zefr provide sources for their claims (besides linking to the disputed review), and some of Zefr's points were at odds with reality. This isn't appropriate.

I'm including this because Zefr often doesn't seem to be engaging on a good-faith basis with editors on the talk page and their edits are interpretable as pushing POVs on phenols by taking creative interpretations of sources, so I disagree with the recommendation by Dennis Brown here. The current dispute appears to be following the same pattern as the last one. Ggux made an edit saying that "some polyphenols are considered to be bioactive compounds" + a point about with a reference to a source, and attempted to engage on the talk page. [71] [72] Zefr replied [73] describing the word "bioactive" as a "buzzword" with no sources, makes the claim that Ggux is trying to "push a positive viewpoint". These are unhelpful and are possibly disruptive comments. Later on in this discussion, Zefr makes accusations of POV-pushing and ignores the underlying content dispute by repeatedly bringing up Ggux's conduct as a reason for why Zefr doesn't have to listen. This is not productive behaviour.

This occured on Talk:Flavan-3-ol as well (which is a polyphenol). [74] Ggux wanted to add in a study with 21 442 participants on the safety of this compound. Zefr was at odds with reality again, and falsely claimed that "The COSMOS study here had only 410 subjects taking the cocoa extract". [75] This is incorrect from reading the abstract, 410 people taking the extract had cardiovascular events, but there were many more people taking the extracts. [76] When called out on this, Zefr double downed and said "Because the primary outcome of the study was a possible effect of the cocoa extract on "cardiovascular events", it is only the group of 410 people that provide the results - no effect on the primary outcome." [77]

There's a pattern here with Zefr's behaviour on polyphenol related pages. Zefr uses terminological inexactitudes in talk page discussions on occasions when someone includes information that reflects favourably on polyphenols, and these facts derail discussion of the underlying content dispute. They're also derailing discussion by focusing on conduct problems or not engaging in talk page threads. While Zefr on the whole is a very productive editor and I'm not taking a position on whether these instances were intentional, they seem to have their own beliefs about polyphenols and it is impairing their judgement. I would recommend to @Ggux: to continue trying to seek outside opinions if they feel they have irreconcilable differences with another editor on a subject, and to consider using Template:UserboxCOI on their userpage as that is generally accepted as an appropriate COI disclosure. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

IamNasirZaman - CIR?

IamNasirZaman (talk · contribs) seems to be a poor fit for the English-language Wikipedia, generally abusing the autoconfirmed right to post utter junk and plagiarised content into mainspace, as well as responding to any attempts to quarantine or push back against this with essentially a copy-pasted responce crossposted to a few venues and non-argument arguments (such as the all time classic hit "They're famous so they deserve an article"). Their talk page is populated by warnings and notices from other editors, but has never been touched by Iam themselves and they do not reply to rebuttals to their posts otherwise. I suspect they're a mercenary, but even then that does not justify the complete lack of engagement with the community, with the talk page and noticeboard posts they make being more a case of talking at someone rather than to them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 21:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

(Diff of notification, as a precaution: [78]) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 21:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

"Iam"? I think their name is Nasir and they just missed a capital A. I might be wrong. casualdejekyll 22:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

As an addendum, they've just re-created the draftified Sikander Ghuman by (what looks to me) like copy-pasting the draft as it currently sits and changing the image. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 22:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

IamNasirZaman seems to not be here to constructively contribute to an encyclopedia. Despite multiple warnings they do not interact with others on their talk page or here. Instead they once again re-create a draftified article (this time Victory (punjabi song)).

It appears they are an undisclosed-paid editor, and potentially a sock given their strange question at Talk:Muqadas Farooq Awan#Wikipedia regarding deletion of articles created by socks. – NJD-DE (talk) 08:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

It's getting clearer with every move they make: they not only don't understand how Wikipedia works/what Wikipedia is, but also are completely unwilling to learn. Latest example is the removal of AfD-templates despite having received a warning specifically against that. – NJD-DE (talk) 11:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

They're now angry that a piece of information that was never in any live revision in a specific article was "removed". And they've attempted to remove AfD notices from same. Is it possible to block them from article space for now, so that they (1) can't create new unacceptable articles and (2) can't remove AfD notices? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I actually think that this user is a dangerous combination of WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps they are using machine translators to communicate. If they simply don't understand what the warnings say, that could explain why they aren't changing their behaviour, and "If you want any other about me news link reference link go source gender then I can provide you" sounds a lot like the garbage that comes out of an autotranslator, but perhaps it is perfectly coherent in the language they are translating from. The diff I linked is about Draft:Champ Imi (fashion model); there's been a bunch of socks creating drafts and articles about that person for at least a couple of years, at Champ Imi, Draft:Champ Imi, Muhammad Ali Subhani (Champ Imi's real name), Draft:Muhammad Ali Subhani, and a few other titles. I think that's a pretty strong indication of UPE shenanigans. Spiderone's right, this is not a good combo. --bonadea contributions talk 13:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

If they are using machine translation it'd also explain why they've been plagiarising. They don't understand English well enough to actually write an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 21:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football

There are currently 193 articles at AfD just for the football del sorting. I can't keep up, and I am not on that much. I don't know how others can keep up, plus I like to try and do research. So please, is it possible that we can have some kind of cap limit? Govvy (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Speed is surely less important than thoroughness. @Sportsfan 1234: many (most?) of these nominations are yours, slowing down the rate of nominations doesn't seem like an unreasonable ask. I see this was raised with you a few days ago: User talk:Sportsfan 1234#Footballer AFDs. Mackensen (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

It has slowed down on my end. Maybe a cap of 3 per day/per editor until the load has come down significantly? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I would just stop now until the current queue has come down to like 10-20. The participation in the current AfDs is poor. How much WP:BEFORE work are you doing before you nominate? Mackensen (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

This has been a problem for a while - not just with Sportsfan 1234, but also @Avilich:, who nominated 44 AFDs in 71 minutes the other day. I have no huge issue with the quality of the nominations (most are fine, but some are bad), it's the quantity I find an issue. 2-3 per day per user is sufficient. I appreciate Sportsfan 1234 agreeing to slow down voluntarily.

Oh, one user whose quality is bad - @HeinzMaster: - previously blocked for it. If editors won't voluntarily make fewer, better nominations, then editing restrictions will have to be introduced. GiantSnowman 08:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman and Giant: lol it was not because of the quality of the nominations that I was blocked, it was another issue that totally not related to that but is in the past. My nominations have been like 1% of the recent ones and of the ones I nominated 99% were voted delete, including many by you? HeinzMaster (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I think a limit of 5 per day is reasonable, with the caveat that if there are less than 30 listed, you can nominate more. I also think after 120 have been listed, there should be no more noms until the current ones are wrapped up. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

• The trouble is that there's no cap on the number of undersourced BLPs that people can start, so if we cap the number at AfD, the number of undersourced BLPs in the encyclopaedia just keeps on ballooning.—S Marshall T/C 17:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

  The problem identified by GiantSnowman is with articles on topics that would have had presumed notability under the old WP:NFOOTY but do not now following the recent changes to guidelines, not with new articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

  Broadly, this isn't really an ANI issue. There's a general problem of attracting good input at AfD. AfD is absolutely critical to Wikipedia; it's the ultimate arbiter of quality, and (depending on viewpoint) also a potentially dangerous black hole swallowing information at the whims of a handful of deletionists. It's often overly busy, editors who know about the subject might not log on during the critical week, or may not have watch-lists set up, and it suffers from drive-by people merely endorsing the viewpoint above. And it can get nearly as scary as ANI. Many AfD debates come down to a very small number of opinions, rather too few to reach a safe decision. AfC takes the attitude that it's better to reach the right decision than hurry, and doesn't mind if it takes 4 months; AfD sets itself a target of a week, albeit with the possibility of extension if the reviewer thinks it would be useful. Obviously quality is going to suffer if you combine time-constraints with a sudden influx of a large number of nominations. I suspect it's been discussed a lot, but it's still unsolved. I don't know how more people can be encouraged to get involved, and to do the job properly? It requires a particular disposition and skill-set that not every editor has. Elemimele (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

  All this is why Arbcom has decided we're going to have two community-wide RfCs on these very issues. Those RfCs would be the best place to propose a cap on AfD use.—S Marshall T/C 20:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that the RfC would be the best place for a proposal, but it seems we need something in the interim, because we could delete hundreds of articles between now and whenever the RfC concludes, especially given that it hasn't even started yet.--Jahaza (talk) 04:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  Or, y'know, there could've been caps on mass creations of such articles all along, without which there wouldn't be any sort of problem. When that's instituted, then caps on deletion might be reasonable. Ravenswing 08:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• If we had a proposed deletion system that actually worked, many of these could have been resolved via PROD. ––FormalDude talk 04:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• Perhaps an interim measure is a more generous relisting of sportspeople discussions, so there is more time for editors to cope with the recent influx. Based on my general observations of the Women's del-sort, what has typically been a list of under 100 noms has recently been as high as about 140 and is currently more than 120. A procedural fix to address the recent sports guideline change could be to automatically extend sportspeople AfDs from 7 to 14 days due to the anticipated influx of sportspeople AfDs, but that seems beyond the scope of the discussion here. Beccaynr (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  This will just result in there being more open AFDs. GiantSnowman 20:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  But it may help address concerns about not enough time to review and research, while we wait for the RfCs. AfD handles what PROD cannot, as well as the consequences of the recent sports guideline change, so the AfD process may need some additional slack to allow editors sufficient time to keep up while alternative solutions are considered, due to the recent uptick in AfDs. Beccaynr (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Skuma81

• Skuma81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Prof. A.C. Kuma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A.C. Kuma

This editor is blatantly defying the results of the AFD by creating the same article as was draftified in article space, although User:Liz said to use AFC when the draft is ready for mainspace. It is not ready for mainspace, and the editor may be not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. The editor's only edits have been to promote a family member. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with your contention. This article is not about promoting a family member. Prof. A.C. Kuma is not a living person. He passed away twelve years ago. It is a biography of a renowned Ghanaian lawyer and law professor, who played a measurable role in Ghana's political and legal history. Please research all the references provided. Skuma81 (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Why did you create a bio page, that was recently deleted? GoodDay (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The originator was told by the AFD closer to submit the draft to AFC when it was ready for article space, and was advised that the references should be made inline. Instead, the originator created the same article again in article space in blatant disregard of the close of the AFC. Sometimes when you are told to use AFC, it means that you should use AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

By way of (hopefully) helpful comment as someone who reviews pages at AfC, the page as it currently is would not be approved. It needs inline citations to support the individual sections which makes it hard to even consider if they would pass WP:POLITICIAN or WP:PROF. Additionally it needs to be written in a more neutral WP:POV.

There are also a number of WP:MOS issues including use of honorifics through the article, not using sentence caps in headings, the page name and more. Then with the unacknowledged source of the cut and paste move from the version in draft space and lack of wikilinks this article is not ready for mainspace. Gusfriend (talk) 05:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

• I've indeffed the user as a promotion-only account.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The subject editor says, both here and on their user talk page, that they are not being promotional because the subject of the biography is deceased. I have always thought that a relationship to a deceased family member is a conflict of interest, and I think that the community thinks that is a matter of common sense. We have had other cases of editors trying to use Wikipedia to memorialize a late family member, and I think that has always been thought to be COI. However, I see that the conflict of interest policy does not explicitly state that a relationship to a deceased family member is a conflict of interest. Maybe the policy should be clarified or revised. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I took care of that for you. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 12:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Kg673

Kg673 (talk · contribs) - warned multiple times for adding unsourced content to BLPs, also blocked previously. Also received warnings for general competence in relation to updating dates when they update athlete stats. However, they continue to add unsourced content and fail to properly update dates (see this where they don't update the stats table date, and this where they update the date but not the time. I cannot get through to them and they will not change their disruptive behaviour. No edit summaries, no talk page posts. GiantSnowman 08:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked for a month. Next time might be indefinite. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you! GiantSnowman 10:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Block evasion by WP:LTA at Covid, Monkeypox and multiple articles

Following the rangeblock by Drmies of 2603:7000:b140:3fde::/64 (talk · contribs), a new rash of disruption has been undertaken: [79], [80], [81], [82]--these are just a few of the IPs being used, but they give an idea of the range employed. I don't know whether a broader block is possible, or if several dozen articles would benefit from protection. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

New IPv6 range blocked/ Acroterion (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Acroterion, thank you. Time permitting, I may go through the IP range's edit history and do some more reverting. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Acroterion. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Drmies, Acroterion, 136.158.56.180 (talk · contribs) continues to restore redlinks for nonexistent articles to Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic. Same behavior we saw from the blocked ranges, so: is this further block evasion (regardless, the IP appears to have a largely disruptive history); and is there any merit to the persistent restoration of these redlinks? If I continue removing them it could rightly be seen as edit warring. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

What's weird is they geolocate very differently, and it's only that one small group of edits. I don't really know what to make of it. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes. But there's a focused interest--their first two edits were here [83]; [84]. Then again, restoring the links yesterday after I reverted the most recent spate as WP:REVERTBAN [85]; [86]. And again today [87]; [88]; [89]; [90]. No edit summaries, no explanation. It very well may not be the same user, but someone with similar, er, tendencies. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Ki999 is WP:NOTHERE

Ki999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is WP:NOTHERE based on his continued POV-pushing at Talk:Andrew Tate#Andrew Tate has active, official accounts on Rumble and Gettr. He's alleged a "coordinated inorganic heavy censorship effort" (diff) on the part of other editors involved in the discussion and accused another editor of lying and "fraud", which he's threatened to report, (diff) after several warnings on the matter (diff, diff). Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I wish we could just use the Chris Chan standard here and get rid of the article for causing more trouble then it's worth. Is it really worth it to fight an onslaught of Tate supporters for coverage of what's otherwise a borderline-notable kickboxer? casualdejekyll 19:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I've been monitoring that talk page for a few weeks now, and everything's been fairly peaceful until this user came around. This is about a single editor, not about a disruptive "onslaught of Tate supporters". I also don't see how the article is "causing more trouble than it's worth". Seems kind of dismissive of its contributors, honestly. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, as someone who has been involved in dealing with the onslaught of his followers trying to change his page (Please note, this is not an unsubstantiated allegation, people claimed they were asking on his behalf, claimed to personally know he was upset by the page due to contact with him, etc) for over a month and a half now, this is about the most calm it's been. Throast and I have been trying to keep things updated and in check, and it's going pretty well for the most part. Throast is accurate when they say that this is a singular disruption on an otherwise stable page. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I am denying any allegations of "POV-pushing" since the only thing I am trying to get added into the article is a single sentence consisting of factual information. This information (the fact that Tate is using Rumble and Gettr) is encyclopedic, at least more than many other claims that are already in the article. I have actually seen another user lying and pointed it out. I have said that "I am considering reporting this". Now this fact is somehow supposedly a reason to ban me, while I am the one being reported. I have made a lot of points in that message. I demand that whoever considers coming to a conclusion about this issue, reads the whole thread first, not just cherry-picked parts written above. Throast, after reading my long message decided to not respond to it at all and instead to report me. My message contains a lot of unanswered points. For example, I have questioned if he has COI (see context to understand why). Meanwhile the following was done in the same thread against me: 1. Throast claimed that I "do not know what Wikipedia is". 2. I posted around 20 different links that have covered information that I want to added. Another user claimed without pointing out to any evidence that most of these links are "outright unreliable". They said about other 3 links that they "they mostly read like celebrity gossip" (whatever that means). Dismissed another source as "advertisement" (which it was not). Falsely claimed that one of the links I posted is "dead". I have addressed this by saying "Perhaps it was unintentional but I see it extremely likely that you intentionally lied to me and regard this as a fraud. I am considering reporting it. Are you making claim (which you haven't made yet) that express.co.uk is unreliable source, too? How about independent.co.uk? I am waiting for your answer." I have addressed many other points here as well. This was a completely civil discussion from my side, meanwhile Throast decided to simply report me instead of responding to my arguments. 3. Throast made the following series of claims: "Ultimately, those [refers to social media that banned him, as opposed to those that did not] are going to impact Tate the most. I'd argue that Gettr and Rumble are fringe platforms, which is probably why virtually no reliable sources cover them in this context. In short, nobody cares that he's still on there." I regard this as a mixture of opinions and false/baseless claims. Meanwhile they accuse me of "POV-pushing". I have only few, if any opinions in the whole text I wrote on talk page and most of them are for the purpose of countering some other claims which were also opinions. For full context, see Talk:Andrew Tate#Andrew Tate has active, official accounts on Rumble and Gettr. ki999 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ki999 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Without wishing to comment on specifics sourcing in Wikipedia has a particular set of rules and reasoning behind it. Information about the criteria can be found at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and the existing consensus about the reliability of particular sources can be found at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Gusfriend (talk) 22:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, Ki999, let's take some of your points.

• As far as I can see, your "context" for questioning whether Throast has a COI issue is their opposition to your edit, rather than any tangible cause. For someone who dislikes being accused of things, you seem quite free in launching accusations of your own.

  * As Gusfriend states, Wikipedia has standards for what sources are considered reliable or not, and your laundry list of blogsites, self-published sites, social media platforms and tabloid sites almost all do not qualify. If you would like to rebut with solid evidence that particular sites do have a verified reputation for fact checking and accuracy, go ahead.

  * Those two sites Askarion reported as dead links? I just checked them, and they are dead links.

  ""Tucker show is opinion show" - by which criteria?" Wikipedia's. To quote from WP:RSP, "Fox News talk shows, including Hannity, Tucker Carlson Tonight, The Ingraham Angle, and Fox & Friends, should not be used for statements of fact." It is up to you to educate yourself on pertinent Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and it is uncivil for you to cavalierly dismiss people attempting to do so.

  "This was a completely civil discussion from my side" -- the hell? Ki999, you want to do something right now: do not assume that we are stupid here. In reading this discussion and the talk page, you accuse people of lying. You accuse people of having ulterior motives. You accuse people of being meatpuppets. You accuse people of "offensive and probably intentionally provocative." You accuse people of censorship. These are serious and repeated breaches of Wikipedia's policies against uncivil behavior and making unwarranted personal attacks, and if you genuinely think this is "completely civil" behavior, then you really do not belong on Wikipedia until such time as you can convince some friendly admins that you understand our civility policies and plan to abide by them. Ravenswing 23:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I see multiple false accusations about me in the message above. Note that definition of "accuse" implies making a claim. "In reading this discussion and the talk page, you accuse people of lying." - this is false, as I made it very clear from very beginning that I am simply suspecting it and not claiming it. The user in the question has come forward, explained what happened and apologised. This is not a problem anymore. "You accuse people of having ulterior motives. You accuse people of being meatpuppets." - These both are only your interpretations of a single sentence I wrote. I see you just intend to make your list of accusations as long as possible for some reason. Don't put words into my mouth. All I have done was to ask a question (not claiming) if a user has COI. This is iirc allowed if I am not revealing their identity. "You accuse people of "offensive and probably intentionally provocative."" - again, there was a word "I would say" in the beginning (it means I did not claim) and you conveniently omitted it. At it was not about people, it was about a single phrase. "You accuse people of censorship." - this is the only accusation here which I cannot deny so I will only try to justify what I am saying. It was not specifically about Wikipedia editors and was not personal. The fact that multiple "reliable sources" have covered the topic and omitted this extremely relevant fact seems like censorship. Regarding the actions of the editors of the article: article contains claims that are not supported by any source at all or a single source. YouTube has been used as a source. The same editors are totally tolerant to this. Meanwhile some of the sources I provided were called "read like celebrity gossip" (not "unreliable") and therefore dismissed. Is this a valid reasoning? I am going to read about reliability of sources more, but I don't remember making a claim that a source is reliable so see no mistake from my side. And as I explained, I deny accusations of uncivil behavior and personal attacks. Ki999 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ki999 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

There are no exceptions made in WP:NPA nor WP:ASPERSIONS for simply "suspecting" an editor of misconduct if the end result is the same; a chilling effect on a discussion. Our policies are written specifically to discourage this kind of chilling effect, which even just "suspecting" still causes. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 10:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

If there is content not supported by any reliable source on the page then you should make an edit request via the talk page. I would encourage you to read WP:AGF which says that all editors should "Assume Good Faith". Gusfriend (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment While I agree with Throast's concern, I feel this is more of a new editor issue. The editor seems to be completely unaware that some sources are indeed not allowed on Wikipedia. I linked them to WP:RSP to hopefully provide some clarification on why some sources aren't allowed here. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I saw this coming and warned this editor, and they came to my talk page to discuss it but have not responded to my message attempting to guide them. ––FormalDude talk 02:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  Well, at least they've been told. Multiple times, by multiple editors, in multiple venues. Now we will see whether or not they really are NOTHERE or not. Forgiveness for ignorance of policy that is built in to AGF only works for so long, any lack of improvement from this point would warrant a block, IMO. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  Given the massive WP:IDHT above, I'd say that the only way this isn't going to wind up an indef is if Ki999 just walks away from the project. Addition by subtraction. Ravenswing 12:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  Given the response to you, indef is needed. They clearly don't get it. Any of it. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Itsrahulkashyap and Copyright Issues

Itsrahulkashyap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been copying text from other websites for the article Minjar Mela, copyright violations in article that has been replaced twice. Editor has been warned before about this First time and second time. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 22:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) There appears to be at least five occurrences on that article where copyvio content was added. I AFD'd it before it was replaced with a CSD. Itsrahulkashyap's talk page is almost completely made of deletion and draftify notifications. A few drafts that I looked at were reversed and sent back to mainspace by the user. Something needs to happen here. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 23:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Found another copyright violation at Bhuri Singh Museum. Indeffed. Will be opening a Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigation. MER-C 10:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Disruption at Steven Adams and talk page

Debbie.440937 (talk · contribs), edit warring to add trivial content and remove contrary opinions at article talk page. There may be a longer history of disruption. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I left them a warning. Ping me if problems persist. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Estonian POV (again)

This issue was previously dealt with at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1093#H2ppyme and Estonian POV, which resulted in H2ppyme (talk · contribs) being banned for removing references to 'Estonian SSR' from articles (despite that being the historically accurate name at that time).

Now Plingen Plungen (talk · contribs) has appeared and is making the same edits, at the same article (Friedrich Karm), including referring to the Estonian SSR as a "scam government set up by the occupying Soviet Union. It was set up illegally and was not internationally recognized".

Plingen Plungen is edit warring to maintain their POV. Please can somebody review and intervene? GiantSnowman 10:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any decision about changing Estonia to Estonian SSR at the biographies in the ANI. I'd say GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) is edit warring to insert their POV. Soviet name was re entered into the article only on 28 June, then when reverted back to original on 24 August GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) arrived to defend the recent change.

I remain at my position, that internationally unrecognized regime that has been set up illegally by military force of a occupying country is scam government. I gave my assessment at the talk of which GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) did not answer instead they posted warning at my talk page, reverted the edits and filed this thing here.

Historically accurate name is Republic of Estonia. Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic was a scam government set up by the occupying Soviet Union. It was set up illegally and was not internationally recognized. It was same as Russian set ups in Ukraine Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic or from the same era Finnish Democratic Republic etc. While the territory of Estonia was under Soviet occupation, Estonian state still existed, it had recognized diplomatic missions in the west Baltic Legations (1940–1991) and Estonian government-in-exile.

But the important part is the widely accepted historical English name

• Library of US Congress newspaper archive 1940-1963 search Results:

• Estonia – 2759
• Estonian SSR – 1
• Estonian S.S.R. – 1
• Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic – 1

• British Newspaper Archive results from 1940–1990 for:

• +estonian -ssr – 9790
• +estonian +soviet +socialist +republic – 95
• +estonian +ssr – 24

Regards Plingen Plungen (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Plingen Plungen's statistical logic makes sense, but H2ppyme (talk · contribs) made the same point about the Estonian SSR being a "scam government." Remember, the Confederacy was not internationally recognized but has its own Wikipedia article. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 12:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Quite. There are any number of polities in world history that were not universally, "officially" internationally recognized, but which had control of its area and a de facto government in charge. We do not huffily pretend that the Confederacy, or Biafra, or the Rif Republic, or the General Government, or the Mahdist State, or countless other such ultimately ephemeral entities were "scam governments," however much the de jure owners of those territories would've loved to push that POV had there been Wikipedia at the time.

Beyond any of that ... was the Soviet occupation of the Baltics "illegal?" I think so, sure. But quite aside from that POV was not universal (numerous countries did proffer de jure recognition), so what? This encyclopedia is in the business of publishing fact, not the amour propre of POV-pushing revisionists who wish devoutly to pretend that history didn't happen. I likewise concede that all the other states I mentioned above were "illegal" as well, but that doesn't mean they didn't actually exist. As someone with Lithuanian ancestry, the occupation of the Baltics was a terrible and shameful tragedy. It also happened. Ravenswing 12:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

You are right, this is encyclopedia, that's why there are numerous articles about Soviet occupation being illegal (without quotes). It is also POV-pushing revisionism to deny that under international law Baltic states remained as internationally recognized states. The question here isn't denying that Estonian SSR existed, as it did, the question is which name should be used in the infoboxes, as stated per sources above the common name used at the time was Estonia, not Estonian SSR. Plingen Plungen (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

If people said Poland between 1946 and 1989 they meant the Polish People's Republic, when they said Estonia the state that existed at that point was the Estonian SSR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Poland is a different case than Baltic states. State continuity of the Baltic states. The legal position that sovereign title never passed to the Soviet Union, which implied that occupation sui generis lasted until re-independence in 1991.[5] Thus the Baltic states continued to exist as subjects of international law. Whatever government Soviets set up it was as illegitimate as are Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic.Plingen Plungen (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Robert Lewandowski, Place of birth Warsaw, Poland. Follow your words and go change it to Polish People's Republic.Plingen Plungen (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

As I saif previously if someone says Poland, for a time period between those dates, the that is saying the Polish People's Republic. The two are the same, you are saying Estonia during the Soviet period is not the same as Estonia SSR, which is revisionist. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Place of birth Warsaw, Poland in 1987, because wikipedia uses common name. Common name was Poland. As said before about other examples all use common name. But somehow it makes people mad if they discover that it is also used for Baltic states because you are not allowed to insult the holy Soviet Union here.Plingen Plungen (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

"...not allowed to insult the holy Soviet Union here"? Where have we read such type of observations before. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@JulieMinkai Also Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic has its own article as do the other Russian backed governments such as Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republic or Finnish Democratic Republic etc. Confederacy case predates modern international policies and it wasn't set up by some other country outside, as Soviet Union did with Baltic states.

Relevant cases here would be other countries which fell under occupation such as Norway, Netherlands, France etc. Biographies of people from this era use the common name of the country not the name of the regime set up by the occupier. For Mette Newth the birth place at the infobox is Oslo, Norway, it is not written Oslo, Reichskommissariat Norwegen, Casper ten Boom died in Scheveningen Prison, Netherlands it is not written Reichskommissariat Niederlande. Per MOS:GEO, widely accepted historical English name should be used. As per sources given above the short Estonia.

Per Template:Infobox person For modern subjects, the country should generally be a sovereign state Sovereign state has supreme legitimate authority over territory, Soviet union never had legitimate authority due to western non recognition policy of the incorporation of Baltic States. (United States Non-Recognition Policy). Estonia while being de facto under Soviet control remained de jure independent. As per Sovereign state states which are only de jure states are sometimes recognized as being the legitimate government of a territory over which they have no actual control. Sorry for the lengthy post. Plingen Plungen (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

You own link shows that the US withdraw backing to independent Estonian embassies in 1966. Anyway whether or not the US recognised the state of affairs, there was no denying the Soviets control of the territory. My grandfather was loyal to the Second Republic, whose government passed on it's responsibilities in 1990, but the Polish People's Republic existed and no amount of revisionism will change that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

No it does not. The archive is accessible until 1963. The British archive is until 1990. State continuity of the Baltic states. Johannes Kaiv followed by Ernst Jaakson served as Consul General of Estonia in charge of the Legation.Plingen Plungen (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I would rebut your statements with logic, but the more I read your statements, the more confused I get. I feel like you're arguing in circles. Why do you keep bringing up the Baltic States when this discussion is about Estonia the Estonian SSR? Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 15:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We've been over this multiple times. Using de jure arguments in Wikipedia is a dead end, because they have little if any bearing on real life events. A person that was born in the 1950s in the Estonian SSR and died in 1980s would have lived his/her entire life in the USSR. Not acknowledging this fact to push a nationalist POV is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. We have plenty of other cases were the de jure governance of a country is in dispute (for example People's Republic of Kampuchea vs Democratic Kampuchea, which has significant parallels to the Baltic case). -Soman (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Very nice. And as I posted above, the sources "bearing on real life". Commonly used name was Estonia. It is more than clear.Plingen Plungen (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

So you'd be ok with "Estonia, Soviet Union" in infoboxes? --Soman (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

That's not how other Estonian biographies are. The thing is, that all Estonian related biographies follow same style. It has been discussed since 2008 as I can see, long debates leading nowhere. The edit consensus has been to use Estonia in all bios, except ice hockey players. If you don't want to talk about vandalism on this one article but about changing all this It should be also taken to WP:Estonia. Plingen Plungen (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Don’t edit war, that never ends well. Arrive at a consensus on the article talk page. Follow WP:Dispute resolution. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  My comment on the article talk was ignored. They posted warning on my talk, reversed all edits and filed the report here. Plingen Plungen (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a quite straight forward question. Did the Estonian SSR (and the Latvian, Lithuanian SSRs) exist? If so, then it shouldn't be deleted or hidden from the bios of those who were born or died there. Personally, I find using "Soviet Union" as the birth/death place, is the best way to go in these matters. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Plingen Plungen, please take into account that H2ppyme was banned over this topic. Klõps retired over it & Nug hasn't been active on Wikipedia, all since February 2022. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, as some have directly or indirectly stated. Wikipedia is not the place to attempt to right the great wrongs. Attempts to replace "Estonian SSR, Latvian SSR & Lithuanian SSR" in bios, with "Estonia, Lativa & Lithuania"? could be construed as advocacy editing. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

H2ppyme was banned for the insulting comments. The article Estonia also has the Soviet era covered. About this case: none of the sources used in the article even mention Soviet Union, they say either Reval or Estonia. Wikilink or not, using "Estonia" is supported by the sources. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Denial via edits in bios that the ESSR ever existed, can be seen as disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

We have an article on Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic for a reason - covers the history and name of that state between 1944 and 1991. GiantSnowman 16:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

IMO, "Estonia" should be used in bios and "Estonian SSR" in body text. Changing "Estonian SSR" to "Estonia" in body text is disruptive. Changing "Estonian SSR" to "Estonia" in infoboxes is not. I'm split on whether to list the Soviet Union as the place of birth/death, since its relationship to the Estonian SSR is purely political. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 17:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes that's the way WP:Estonia editors have done. If the subject has done something that relates them to Soviet era, it is written in the article body. Adding Soviet Union to the articles about people who were born in the 1980s and had nothing to do with USSR is just clutter. Also for others like mr. Karm whose footballer career ended before the war. Plingen Plungen (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I have started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/H2ppyme. GiantSnowman 16:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The content in question is about the place of death of a footballer. At the time of his death Estonia did not take part in international competitions, but people from there had Soviet citizenship and were eligible to be part of the Soviet Union team. We may not like that, but it is the very well referenced fact. I can see reason to give the place of death as either Estonian SSR (as a subdivision) or Soviet Union, but for such practical (not de jure) purposes it was not the country Estonia. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

This hits the nail on the head for me. Estonia, after being invaded and absorbed by the USSR, didn’t exist as an independent country (despite mixed international recognition of the occupation) and to change the info box from the country that existed at the time to the country that didn’t is revisionism, at best. Estonian SSR was an administrative unit of the USSR, that is the country and “state”, not Estonia, no matter how illegitimate the occupation may have been in international eyes. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Corrections neccesary

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

---

There is public information about rob schneider that is inaccurate and when I tried to correct it, I was told the editing function is locked to prevent misuse. The standing of knowingly incorrect information for public print is actually misuse. It's actually illegal, and I actually recommend you knock it off before I actually find out who you are and Sue you until you can't actually feed your kids. Stop ruining our country and God Bless America. 🇺🇸

• Specifically rob Schneider is a republican that you have listed as an independent. He went on a talkshow and clarified that he is a republican and would care to be recognized as such, in light of the current debacle in the Democratic party.

• • Why a Comic Legend Chose His Country over Career/Rob Schneider/the Glenn Beck Podcast Episode 152/ YouTube/ August 27, 2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:80A0:500:2CD:F0B7:C07C:BDE0:73F1 (talk) 10:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

ANI does not adjudicate content disputes. If someone has reverted an edit of yours (which by the way, your contrib history has no history of), you must take it to the article talk page, not here. You have not provided any diffs or other evidence to help us help you. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 10:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• I have blocked the OP for a week for making legal threats. Black Kite (talk) 10:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE by Burtigin

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

Burtigin seems to be here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and whatnot rather than being here to actually build an encyclopedia.

Keeps accusing others of 'Pan-Iranism' and whatnot with no diffs to support it (WP:ASPERSIONS).

• "Maybe it's because pan-iranists (it can be understood by looking at the nickname) declaring everything "Iranian" by showing imprecise information."

• "I need to speak to a really "neutral" official who apparently doesn't take the side of the Pan-Iranists"

• [91] Randomly slammed the bizarrely transliterated word "İranized Turks" in this article with no source, was reverted by User:LouisAragon, went on to rant in his talk page with this bizarre argument "It's okay to say Iranian to people like the Xiongnu, but it's okay to write for Xionites, right?"

• Burtigin then restored his addition in the article, with no edit summary either [92]. I reverted him, which led him to rant on my talk page as well; "You cannot accept a people whose Turkic origin is seriously discussed as pure Iranian."

Also really loves to throw the word Kurdish propaganda/nationalism around, again sheer aspersions;

• "Moreover, to present some Turkish provinces as "Kurdish majority" for some unknown reason, by citing the pages that promote Kurdish nationalism, is proof of how neutral people like you who are on Wikipedia are."

• As a response to a well-explained and calm comment [93] by another user, Burtigin went on to rant in their talk page as well [94], calling the title "So you can use Kurdish propaganda but no Turkish", saying "if you are so anti-propaganda, delete the part based on separatist Kurdish propaganda that "the majority of the province is Kurdish"". Another example of Burtigin being obsessed with removing something Kurdish related.

• [95] [96] Created a section named "Kurdish propaganda" TWICE in Zazas where he went on to rant about the "Zazas not being Kurds".

• [97] Did the exact same at Germiyanids, where he claimed them to "not be Kurds" and that this is "Kurdish propaganda" too

Based on all this, it seems Burtigin has a bone to pick with Iranians and Kurds. He often disrupts/rants in articles related to them, not due to interest, that's for certain. Honestly, this screams like WP:NOTHERE imho. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

1) About Cimmerians:

The sources shown that the Cimmerians are Iranian are such as Encyclopedia İranica, and according to the paragraph I shared from there as evidence, Iranian origin cannot be suggested definitively and clearly, the same source also states that they are of Thracian origin. But in the title it is written that Scythian was spoken, as if a Cimmerian tablet written in İranian was found. However, the origin of the Cimmerians is also attributed to Caucasian autochthonous peoples such as the Moetains, which contradicts their claim to be Indo-European.

2) About Kurds:

I haven't corrected anything about the Kurds, it has only been claimed that the majority of Turkey's Adıyaman province is Kurdish, besides, there is no heavy Kurdish population in the province, except for the range village, mostly Zazas and Turks, as well as Armenians and Assyrians.

3) About Zazas:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaza_language

As mentioned in the same title in Wikipedia, Zazas do not speak a Kurdish language, they speak the Zaza branch of Zaza-Goran languages. Moreover, since the 1960s, especially in the magazines published by diaspora Zazas in Germany, they strongly state that they are not Turkish or Kurdish. If the Wikipedia article claims that Zazas are Kurds, then Wikipedia is self-contradictory and its credibility becomes questionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burtigin (talk • contribs) 11:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

You adressed zero of my points regarding your behaviour. Can an admin please check and close this? --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

IP user 103.58.75.198 (talk · contribs) calling me racist three times

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

---

This user called me racist three times, [98], [99], (two times in Mongolian, you can use google translate), and one time on my talk page. Claiming I am "anti-mongol", which I am not. I was reverting unsourced edits of his on Borjigin and Qarachar Noyan articles. Also here he calls me "tyrant", also claims to be even block me for years, suspecting being IP sock of Iam.i.20 (talk · contribs), having similar edits. Beshogur (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for a week for personal attacks. The IP seems kinda static (for the last few days anyway) so we'll see what happens. No comment on the sock issue. Canterbury Tail talk 16:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Looking through your contributions, I'm also seeing reversion of sourced material (eg [100]) with no justification beyond the fact it was contributed by an IP. It might not be that surprising that they got a bit cross with you. If you dispute sourced material, the talk page is your next step, not reverting. GoldenRing (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks and continued disruption + edit warring

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

• Primary diff regarding the first personal attack from July 30 [101]. Unprovoked and out of nowhere, TheTimesAreAChanging made his first comment on the Anfal campaign Talk page to cast false aspersions and make personal attacks against me since I recently had activity on the Talk page, including twisted and deliberately negative interpretations of cherry-picked diffs of mine as far back as 2020, and other demeaning verbiage. This comment was completely off-topic to the Talk page and article, being little more than a personal attack piece, and the comment was collapsed as off-topic [102]. The editor made many more off-topic comments in the same vein on that Talk page after the initial comment.
• The last time he engaged me prior to July-August 2022 was in early September 2021 when I last had decent activity on Wikipedia, and he insulted me then too, when in response to his mostly uncorrobated and commonly refuted claim, I provided many sources directly refuting this claim. [103] His response to being proven wrong on the matter was an irritated complaint [104], and then calling me a "small child" in a sarcastic and insulting response. [105] and there were other occasions of harassment before this going back to 2020. On the same day, September 3, 2021, he was given a 1 week block for personal attacks on another user. [106]
• In one instance, the admin EvergreenFir had to sternly warn him for personal attacks against me after he stalked and insulted me on multiple Talk pages. [107]
• Continued disruption on the same Anfal campaign article, most recently edit warring over the course of Aug 27-29 [108][109][110][111] contrary to consensus and lengthy discussion on the Talk page. The first revert was reverting content already removed following Talk discussions[112][113] by reverting some of the removed content into a different part of the article. The second and third were direct reverts of edits, and the fourth was in direct contradiction to Talk page discussions. Another editor intervened against this edit warring too. [114]
• On Aug 28, he made demeaning comment to me including casting false aspersions [115], which was rejected by another editor Buidhe [116]. TheTimes then attacked Buidhe with false, off-topic accusations (see WP:ASPERSIONS) [117], which Buidhe refuted.[118]

Note: An admin has submitted a report to the Arbitration Committee in early August regarding other behavior by this editor that is not included here because it is beyond the purview of ANI.[119]. I was later advised to make an ANI section if the other problematic behavior continued. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

More information about other behavior can be provided on request, but this is already getting TL;DR. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Clearly the comments of TL:DR when you brought this "issue" up three weeks ago ([120]) did not make their point clearly enough. Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'd suggest a boomerang and block for wasting editors time again with greatly exaggerated claims and another pointless ANI filing... PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Praxidicae This isn't a "pointless ANI filing" and there are no "greatly exaggerated claims". The editor's conduct has been egregious enough that an admin and ArbCom member removed the ANI report[121] specifically for the purpose of taking up the issue up with ArbCom[122] and then advised me to re-report if there's continuing disruptive behavior (as there is). [123]. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  It is completely pointless because there is no arbcom case and it seems you're greatly exaggerating every interaction you've had with every editor, including with @Barkeep49, and in looking at your interactions, I don't see any indication that they or anyone else indicated that the "issue has been taken up" with ArbCom or any other body. PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  Again, you're casting false aspersions. It's clear you're not here to be constructive. I just linked you a diff when an admin confirmed taking the issue up with ArbCom. ArbCom does not open cases for reports immediately. I emailed ArbCom too, and got a confirmation they received it. What I've learned from admins, experienced editors, and Wikipedia is that ArbCom has a backlog and things move slowly. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Praxidicae Also this ANI report is separate of ArbCom, so it's not pointless... Read it more carefully. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  Stop. pinging. me. PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  Then please don't misrepresent the situation, derail this section, and call personal attacks and edit warring as "pointless". Thank you! Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Black Kite Unfortunately you're mistaken. Look at the revision history, this is the original. [124] What you're linking to was a pared down version of the original report, which prompted those comments. After those comments, I pared it down, and people were happy with the pared down version. Now this one is even shorter than that previous pared down version.

  By the way, I pared this report down more. Is it good now? It's shorter than some other ANI reports. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• TheTimesAreAChanging certainly had a point when they mentioned walls of text. Who can read that talk page? I see content disputes, a problem that can be fixed by having more editors work on the article. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
  • @Drmies What are your thoughts on the edit warring, equating me with a Holocaust denier, describing me as a propagandist, casting various false aspersions, among other things? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Saucysalsa30, I just spent another 15 minutes looking for "you're a Holocaust denier" and "you're a propagandist". Couldn't find it in the reams of text--your opponent is pretty verbose too. You did not include diffs of such statements. If you had, I would have told you to respond, whenever someone is attacked personally in such a way, with a templated warning and perhaps a report to AIV. I do see statements like "Saucysalsa30 repeated apeshit claims"--but that is not a personal attack, though it is a pretty serious accusation, and I would imagine that your opponent would try to argue such claims, with evidence. But that's beside the point.
      I don't know who's right and who's wrong in the content disputes and honestly I don't really care. If your opponent's charges of you whitewashing atrocities has any merit, that's a serious matter, but again, I don't know. That is why that article simply needs more editors, but most of our editors are content with adding wrestling moves and soccer transfers, unfortunately. I can imagine this ending at WP:ARE or whatever, and bless their hearts, those admins dealing with those cases. You all can forestall that, by cooperating. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
      • @Drmies I did include the diff. It's in the first bullet point at the top of the section. Here it is again.[125]. That diff alone was the editor's first comment on the Talk page. has a number of personal attacks, and I refrained from adding in other commments/diffs by the user because this report would be too long. That comment was also a violation of WP:TPG, being nowhere on topic and for no other purpose but a comment for PAs by a user with a history of personal attacks against me.
        "For Saucysalsa30 to maintain that there were actually only 100 deaths and that Iran caused many of them is not dissimilar to Holocaust deniers who say that the Jewish death toll was 600,000 rather than 6 million and that Allied bombing exacerbated conditions in the concentration camps." This is equating me to Holocaust deniers.
        Users have been given blocks for similar. Other than the attack itself, this is casting false aspersions saying I am "maintaining" something that I did not, which also falls under WP:NPA. NPA gives as a specific example "comparing people to Nazis" (e.g. Holocaust deniers, Neo-Nazis, and other common synonyms).
        he "apeshit claims" of a militant/terrorist group was not made with evidence by TheTimes, and I agree it is very serious. It was a false accusation. The reality was in Nov 2020 I clarified a statement in a Wiki article to be more in line with what the source was saying. So by improving an article by what's in the source which was a published work, I'm being accused of "repeating apeshit claims" of a terrorist org. That attack was entirely uncalled for.
        Calling my "primary source for information" "official Saddam-era Ba'th Party propaganda" (Iraqi government propaganda), which is the opposite of reality too because I had used an Iranian historian's work referencing Iranian claims regarding Iranian casualties. This is a very extreme aspersion and false accusation, and labeling me as a propagator of "Saddam-era Ba'th party propaganda". I should point out this is only one diff. There's other diffs with other overt and back-handed insults and disruptive editing, but then the ANI section would have gotten too long. Then there's the edit warring, anti-consensus editing, and so on.
        My diff [126] in response to that comment refutes these attacks and false aspersions, showing them as defamatory in nature. All the details are there.
        Thanks for the suggestion for future reference. I wasn't aware that editors making their first comment on a Talk page for off-topic personal attacks and serious false accusations counted as WP:AIV-worthy.
        What's the purpose in TheTimes calling me a "small child"? Petty personal attack. [127] This editor has been hounding and harassing me for about a couple years, so these are not isolated incidents by the way. I just gave a few examples in the ANI section. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
        @Drmies Regarding WP:ARE, are you saying that's a better place for bringing up hounding, personal attacks, edit warring, and other disruptive editing? If so, it sounds like a fair recourse. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
      • That diff doesn't say what you want it to say. It's really simple. I see some serious discussion, and a few charges made about your editing, but I do not see personal attacks and edit warring. In fact I'm somewhat critical of the reverts you and Buidhe made there, but that's neither here nor there. That you have to say "I was attacked" in fifty paragraphs at ANI instead of in a single report at AIV says enough. Also, I am soooo tired of the loaded questions. I stopped beating my wife years ago, and I'm sure your opponent did too, so please just stop with the "that's a better place for bringing up hounding, personal attacks, edit warring, and other disruptive editing". And you are either willfully misrepresenting me or you don't get it. Y'all's dispute, how much you are trying to personalize it, is about content and content-related issues, and that's why I suggested ERA. Now, Serena Williams is playing and I got dishes to do, and I don't believe I get to charge you my usual rate for the time I already spent on this. Please don't ping me again in this thread; thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• A few general points for the OP without wishing to comment on the merits of their concerns about TheTimesAreAChanging:
  • You are doing yourself a disservice by posting such large blocks of text and (from what I saw) trying to change everything at once including conflating at least half a dozen into the one report. Remember that Wikipedia has no end date and you would be better off approaching it in separate bite sized chunks bit by bit.
  • You are editing in an area that is going to get people with different opinions.
  • If you have concerns about Human Rights Watch then it would be good to look at WP:RSP and if not there then raise them at WP:RSN to get consensus rather than by starting on an individual page. Gusfriend (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
    • @Gusfriend I appreciate the response. For your first point, are you suggesting making individual ANI reports for various violations?

  A point of clarification, the discussion was not around Human Rights Watch at a high-level. It was around particular reports with deep political interference from the US government to build a case for political action, and as a medium for uncorroborated and often redflag information almost entirely deriving from violent militant groups. That was only one topic of contention by the way. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Chamroshduty

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

Chamroshduty just recently received a warning for adding unsourced content [128]. What does he continue to do? Keep adding unsourced content. I went to his talk page to explain it to him [129], which in turn led him to throw slur words at me in some very unintelligible Persian, so I'll only be translating the bolded parts;

Talk:Sasanian Empire, where I reverted him [130]:

gh nkhr bnms ozgal bzn bro tarikh kshwar khodto bnwis = prick go write the history of your own country

ozgal chra ks mgi parchami k sabt shde ch sourci mkhad, az kja pol mgiri k tarikh irano tahrif mkni = prick who says that a flag should have a source.

He called the title of the section 'pak nkn tokhme tazie arab', which means 'dont remove it seed of tazi arab'. In Persian, Tazi is a slur used against Arabs. Apparently he thinks I am Arab because I reverted him, great.

And of course, on his own talk page where I opened the discussion [131]. It's even more unintelligible there, I can only translate a few words here and there (eg [132] 'ks nnt rsht tkhme rus' = 'your mothers pussy rashti, seed of a russian (?)'). Anyways, you get the idea.

This user also lacks too much WP:CIR to be editing here. In the very discussion, he asked me what a source was.. and yeah, the rest of the comment speaks for itself [133]. He did not understand/ignored the guideline of WP:COMMONAME as well, multiple times changing the name of articles to its supposed Persian spelling [134] [135] [136] [137]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)