Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. 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

Aarp65 disruptively creating categories and pages about names

I became aware of User:Aarp65 just a few minutes ago when they added "Category:Surnames of Vanuatuan origin" to Jimmy. I noticed that this category page was also added to David (surname) and John (surname) which are of biblical origin, and George (surname) which states that it has many origins, none of them Vanuatuan.

I then noticed that Aarp65 had put "Category:Surnames of Marshall Islands origin" on Joseph (surname), Peter (surname), Philip and Samuel (name).

The next thing I noticed is that for the past two months, User talk:Aarp65's talkspace is filled with at least 25 mostly successful speedy deletion nominations for creating categories and other pages. More pages have been moved to draftspace as suitable and several disrupted editing warnings posted by User:Uricdivine, User:Leschnei, User:Joy, User:Pppery and especially User: Liz.

As far as I can tell, Aarp65 does not state reasons or cite sources for the creation of so many of these pages. Probably because they are factually incorrect. In my opinion, this user is WP:NOTHERE to create an encyclopedia. Warnings have already been given, so if the consensus agrees, I propose a discussion about the possibility of a WP:TBAN on creating categories and pages having to do with names and surnames, etc. for this user. The exact topic could be decided later. I hope this makes sense. I'm open to suggestions. Thanks. Kire1975 (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Clearly, Aarp65 knows a lot about this topic and most of their contributions are very productive. I take back my WP:NOTHERE accusation but these categories and 25 warnings in 2 months are genuinely concerning. I'm going to try to talk to them more about it in their talkspace. Nothing urgent needs to be immediately addressed by others here, but I don't think it should be closed until a response can be had. Again, suggestions welcome. Thanks. Kire1975 (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Jimmy is a DAB page. Regardless of the merits or otherwise of adding such a category to surname pages, it should not be added to a DAB page per WP:DBC. Narky Blert (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC) It's either too late or too early. Origin-type categories are fine (indeed, recommended) on DAB pages also categorised as surname or given name pages. Narky Blert (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted a whole bunch of their recent edits, as they were indeed bizarre and non-constructive. Things like this, this, this, or this are just some samples of the type of edits. If they don't or inadequately reply, a topic ban from categorisation (or name categorisation) may be needed. I mean, on a long disambig where none of the entries are for Samoans, they still proclaiml that the name "Meredith" is of Samoan origin.[1]... Fram (talk) 09:05, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Considering that this is continuing while this section is open, with Raisi (disambiguation) created today and added to e.g. Category:Zimbabwean surnames despite nothing on that page relating to Zimbabwe; can please some action be taken? Letting someone continue to add such fake information to Wikipedia while this iss being discussed at ANI doesn't look good (on us, and even less on them). Fram (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I've DABified Raisi (disambiguation) (which was a needed page) and deleted the Zimbabwean category as unsupported. Narky Blert (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Any suggestions on how to avoid or minimize further such issues? The editor involved seems unwilling to join any discussion about it, giving little hope of improvemeñt. Fram (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

For a specific problem like this, the time-honoured solution is digging through contribs, and if necessary following the usual escalation procedures aimed at persuading or forcing nuisances to stop. I have no solution to the more general one of under-, excessive, or over-precise categorisation of DAB-with-surname and surname pages other gnomishly than fix when found. (A moderately common case of over-precision is labelling a Germanic surname as specifically Jewish/Yiddish when it is not specific to that community. Bernstein and Kahn (an unusual case with two distinct etymologies) are models of how it should be done.) Narky Blert (talk) 05:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Another strange DAB creation: https://en.chped.com/w/index.php?title=Wodarz&oldid=1118543166 (current version) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

That was a weird one; notably in the mismatch between title (Wodarz) and lede (Holetschek). It has already, and correctly, been WP:BLARed into an {{R from surname}} page. Holetschek exists, and is another recent creation by Aarp65; a good one, which I've minorly tweaked. Narky Blert (talk) 05:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I just added a Level 3 warning before I noticed Fram's proposal below. He's definitely been warned. Kire1975 (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

And another bizarre edit: Ranseier was redirected to Karl Ranseier, which itself is a redirect to RTL Samstag Nacht. No reasons given. Kire1975 (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

And this: why does "Category:Malagasy given names" exist? Even if it had more than one entry, Aarp65 should at least give a reason for it? Every new page gets added to his impressive list of "Written pages" created on his username. Kire1975 (talk) 08:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• It looks like User:Joe Roe granted Aarp65 the autopatrolled status. And a quick review of Joe's talk page, it looks like he has a history of ignoring ANI discussions as the discussion on his talk page from 18 days ago indicated. There is an active ANI discussion right now that has User:Bishonen pinging Joe Roe to find out why he hasn't responded. Perhaps we should be exploring possibility of removing Joe's ability to grant autopatrol status. Kire1975 (talk) 11:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Kire1975: A "history"? Please don't be ridiculous. I am one of the most active admins at WP:PERM/A (at times I've been the only person responding to request there), and I've granted autopatrolled to about 100 editors. As far as I know, the three incidents you mentioned are the only problems that have arisen. I participated fully in the first ANI thread. I had no way of knowing about this one, since I wasn't pinged and I don't have ANI on my watchlist. The third thread, below, was started on Saturday evening in my timezone, and autopatrolled was pulled by Sunday morning (also when Bish pinged me). I have no problem with that "error rate", and in any case, I can only grant or refuse to grant autopatrolled based on the criteria agreed by the community, which I have been trying to get tightened for years. – Joe (talk) 12:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  Unless evidence can be provided that the three editors were demonstrably problematic at the time the permissions were granted, I don't think its fair to point fingers at the admin who granted a right for any issues that occurred after the right was granted. Lots of editors don't demonstrate problematic actions until well after permissions have been granted, and that says nothing about the person granting the permission. - Aoidh (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: topic ban (user:Aarp65)

I propose that Aarp65 is topic banned from all name-related pages (articles, categories, templates...) broadly construed. Their recently granted autopatrolled right should also be removed again. They have been warned about their problematic edits in the past. During the above discussion, they created Lipovsky (disambiguation), with 4 completely unsupported categories, created multiple unnecessary name disambiguation pages (with only one bluelink), added name categories unrelated to the contents of the page they were placed on ([2]), and so on. They show no indication of changing their approach or participating in this (or any) discussion. Expecting other editors to check all their edits and revert this many of them is not useful. Fram (talk) 08:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Their recently granted autopatrolled right was removed once before? I'm not sure what that is or where to find evidence of that. Can you put that in the discussion please? Thanks. Kire1975 (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

No, originally they (like everyone else) didn't have it, it was granted in June or so, and should now be removed again. Fram (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The "again" is the problem, it suggests that it has been removed before. 66.44.22.126 (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

It's a colloquialism in some American regional dialects. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I know -- Kire1975 misunderstood Fram, and Fram didn't understand the nature of the misunderstanding, but at this point I'm pretty sure everyone understands everyone else or doesn't care. 128.164.177.55 (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Support: Aarp65 does seem to have some expertise in the field, or at least a lot of experience working on this topic, but the prominence of the multiple "Veteran Editor" badges in their infobox makes me think they might be just trying to create so many tiny little name pages and DAP's so they can bulk up their numbers to increase their "rank" like this is a video game. Of course, all we can do is speculate on what they're doing because they are ignoring so many warnings and invitations to participate in this ANI discussion. I don't want them to be TBAN'd but what else is there left to do? It's disruptive, not productive and makes a lot of work for other editors to fix. Kire1975 (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• No opinion on the topic ban at this time, but I see enough valid concern from editors in the section above that I've gone ahead and pulled the autopatrol permission. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support - They have not responded on their talk page or here about the valid concerns raised, and are instead continuing to create these articles with the same issues, for example Nganga (surname) was created just a few minutes ago, and these categories were added to an article that in no way supports those categories. Since this discussion has opened they have not used a single talk page of any kind, but have updated their user page well over a dozen times since then. There's absolutely nothing wrong with displaying pages you've worked on, but it's not okay to ignore the basic concepts of collaboration and verifiability in that pursuit. - Aoidh (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

...and it's still going. No discussion or addressing the issues, but they're still adding to their trophy case. - Aoidh (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support Aarp65 has also created many navigation templates about names. He clearly just dumped names in there, without checking where the links were going. Request to fix links to disambiguation pages went unanswered and seeing that he is still doing this, something has to be done. I can't see if (s)he ever responded on talkpages. The Banner talk 12:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Undiscussed mass article merging and redirection by BilledMammal

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

---

BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has unilaterally decided to mass merge and redirect hundreds (perhaps thousands) of articles on insect species and genera to higher level ranks (i.e. genera and tribes) without discussion. Admittedly there are a lot of insect species stubs with very little content, but a mass action like this should have been discussed beforehand to gain consensus for it prior to implementation. This has been previously discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Ongoing_disaster:_a_heads-up Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Note: I have rolled back the lot as a highly disruptive and ill-advised (or rather, non-advised) mass change against established and well-known consensus. Not sure we need any ANI action here as the damage is undone and I assume BilledMammal will agree to discuss this kind of thing henceforward. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Most or at least a lot of them seem to be sourced (only?) to Bezark, Larry G. A Photographic Catalog of the Cerambycidae of the World, which is now a deadlink. Is it considered unreliable? Mccapra (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

No discussion at WikiProject insects that I can see. Mccapra (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

None at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beetles either. Bezark is an academic entomologist [3], so I would think he is reliable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Larry Bezark migrated the entirety of his site to a different URL ([4]), but it is all still online, and all very authoritative. The dead URL is part of the text of several thousand articles, changing them all will take a very long time. Dyanega (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Larry Bezark's site was used for long-horned beetle articles and I updated the refs for many of them when I went through them systematically earlier this year. Loopy30 (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

If there's a systematic correspondence between the two sets of urls Wikipedia:Link_rot/URL_change_requests, can probably use a bot to fix all the links. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I will point out that BilledMammal has participated at an Arbcom sanctioned discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale, but that is still open as best I can tell, so any implication of taking mass action from that is not appropriate. I know there was a recent discussion on some page (can't find but was within last 2 months) about the mass creation of fish species articles which was pointing away from mass creation of similar articles (minimal facts, sourced to the same source), but I don't BilledMammal participated in that. --Masem (t) 18:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion Masem refers to was on village pump (linked here). That discussion was instigated by BilledMammal when they had suggested that a user "request permission" to continue their low rate production of stub fish articles (all notable species). Loopy30 (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Two things 1) Someone doesn't need permission to follow guidance we already give in our WP:PAGs. Non-notable topics with closely related notable articles or lists are often merged into those pages or If a page is very short (consisting of perhaps only one or two sentences) and is, in your opinion as editor, unlikely to be expanded within a "reasonable" (unspecified) amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it into a page on a broader topic. but "upmerging a bunch of stubby articles into a list" is quite literally the guidance we give people as part of normal editing practices. 2) The OP is being a bit disingenuous when they say "this has been previously discussed". That thread was started less than 30 minutes before this one. That is not "has been previously discussed". Given that no attempt has been made to reach a consensus on this one way or another, and that the user being dragged here is quite literally doing what guidance tells us to do. So given that A) No real attempt has been made to have a discussion and B) The user is LITERALLY DOING what the rules tell them to do, I am at a loss as to why you want to see them blocked, banned, or whatever. --Jayron32 18:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

It was my understanding that an article for a species was, by definition, notable, no matter how short. Species articles include unique features - especially categories they belong to - that are lost if they are merged. Dyanega (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Consider just one example of one of the pages this user deleted: Berosus undatus. It contains references, wikidata links, taxonomic synonyms, and categories, all of which should be maintained but would not appear in the genus-rank article. Dyanega (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Not according to WP:NSPECIES. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Today I learnt Their names and at least a brief description must have been published in a reliable academic publication to be recognized as correct or valid. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Not only does WP:NSPECIES state that species articles are "generally" kept at AfD, in actual practice "all" (yes, 100% in the last 6.5 yrs) of the valid species articles nominated for deletion have been kept (see here). Loopy30 (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Is this meant as a reply to me? I don't see the relevance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

No, it was a response to Gråbergs Gråa Sångn, whose addition to Dyanega's comment seemed ambiguous, if not the inverse of what they might have intended to convey. Not sure of the connection of your original comment though, unless you are just trying to support the notability of all species articles based on what you have "just learnt today. Loopy30 (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I meant nothing more or less than I said. Best way to avoid confusion is to reply to the right comment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@Loopy30 ...actually, I know of at least one beetle species article that was deleted 6 years ago (Syagrus atricolor, if you must know), but it was not listed on the Organisms deletion sorting archive but only on the Animal deletion sorting archive. Not sure if this might be an exception to the rule or not though. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. The original description appears to have not been subsequently recognised by any other authority after Pic (self-) published it. As such, it was effectively not a valid species and not covered by NSPECIES. Even if it was kept, it is likely to have been synonymized with another species eventually and them turned into a redirect. (As an aside, this shows the value of sourcing to a taxonomic database that has sorted out what is recognised as valid or not.) Loopy30 (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

And in 2019, Zoia finally published his revision of African Eumolpinae which reclassified Syagrus atricolor as Afroeurydemus atricollis, facts that are now reflected in Wikipedia. Loopy30 (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Interesting as that may be (I don't want to go on a tangent), my point was that AddWittyNameHere (unless I am mistaken) appeared to have overlooked that the Animal archive has pages not covered by the Organisms archive ...and this may also be true for plants, bacteria and other organisms if they have their own separate deletion sorting archives. That's something to look through to confirm if species articles truly have a ~100% keep rate as per WP:NSPECIES. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, accurate stats over a wide range of kingdoms/phyla would be beneficial to inform other editors of the rate at which species articles are kept. (Sorry for going down the Syagrus sp. tangent, I find Wikipedia is full of such hidden rabbit holes.) Loopy30 (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

(No worries, I would have loved to talk a bit on it too, but then I remembered this was not the place for it) Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

That is an essay, not a guideline. If the various species projects want it to be a guideline, they should make an RfC on it. JoelleJay (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Given that WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES has been treated as a de facto guideline encouraging the creation of individual articles for all recent species for at least a decade (probably further back) - this was an obviously controversial mass change. I don't advocate any action against BilledMammal but that was a dumb move that had no chance of going unchallenged and shouldn't have been implemented at this scale. For further attempts, get consensus. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

For the record, when I suggested a block, I meant as a temporary measure to prevent ongoing merges until someone got their attention. Dyanega (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

There wasn't ongoing merges at the time that this was discovered by Elmidae. BilledMammal had stopped editing close to 6 hours ago. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

OUTCOMES is absolutely not an allowance to create article on the belief they will be kept. OUTCOMES allows for existing article to be kept but still allows merges and AFD to be performed. Masem (t) 19:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The rate at which this was done is impressive - for example, at 01:57 at 28 October 2022 they redirected 25 articles in one minute, or one every ~2.5 seconds. Is this an unauthorized bot run? Spicy (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no record of 01:57 at 28 October. Perhaps you meant 01:37? — Nythar (💬-🎃) 20:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

That's correct, sorry. Spicy (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

What you don't see is the time to set up those redirects before I press "publish changes" in rapid sequence. Entirely manually. BilledMammal (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

OUTCOMES in not a policy or guideline, it's just an observation of happenings at AFD. And such a summary is generally for individually created articles. Mass-creation or mass major modification of articles certainly needs prior discussion as a minimum. North8000 (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

These mergers were appropriate per WP:MERGEREASON. Look at the last five articles I redirected (four created between 00:40, 3 May 2014‎ and 00:43, 3 May 2014‎, the other created at 22:58, 2 May 2014), for the reason Duplicates content at Cotyclytus:

1. Cotyclytus scenicus
2. Cotyclytus sobrinus
3. Cotyclytus regularis
4. Cotyclytus stillatus
5. Cotyclytus suturalis

The only information these give is the name, that it was a species of beetle in the family Cerambycidae, and who by and when it was described. The same information that is given at Cotyclytus. How is removing the duplication of information controversial?

The mergers are similar. The last five articles I merged (created between 23:30, 1 May 2014‎ and 23:34, 1 May 2014‎) are:

1. Sphallotrichus spadiceus
2. Sphallotrichus setosus
3. Sphallotrichus sericeotomentosus
4. Sphallotrichus sculpticolle
5. Sphallotrichus puncticolle

These give the name, that it was a species of beetle in the family Cerambycidae, who by and when it was described, the range, and in one case a list of subspecies. The first three were already available at Sphallotrichus, and I created a table to contain the rest. How is replacing boilerplate micro-stubs with a table containing all of the same information controversial?

BilledMammal (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Because the merge destroys unique species-specific information that is not being exported to the genus page. For your last set of species, for example, for Sphallotrichus puncticolle you deleted Taxonbar|from=Q16758751 and Category:Beetles described in 1870; for Sphallotrichus sculpticolle you deleted Taxonbar|from=Q14718823 and Category:Beetles described in 1852; for Sphallotrichus sericeotomentosus you deleted Taxonbar|from=Q14718824 and Category:Beetles described in 1995; for Sphallotrichus setosus you deleted Taxonbar|from=Q14718821 and Category:Beetles described in 1824; for Sphallotrichus spadiceus you deleted Taxonbar|from=Q14718818 and Category:Beetles described in 1892. By merging articles you are removing links to Wikidata, and wiping out members of viable categories. For other articles your bulk edits merged, you deleted lists of synonyms, you deleted categories defined by geographic distributions, and categories linked to authorships. In addition to removing synonyms, you also removed the parentheses around authors' names that indicate that a species was described originally in a different genus. That's a lot of valuable information being lost to your arbitrary merges. Please stop. Dyanega (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Other information removed included images of the the article subjects. Examples at Ochraethes viridiventris, Coleoxestia sanguinipes, Ochraethes palmeri, Ochraethes brevicornis Criodion tomentosum, Ochraethes citrinus, Ochraethes obliquus, Ochraethes pollinosus, Ochraethes tulensis, Ochraethes z-littera, Chlorida festiva and Criodion angustatum) Loopy30 (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Valuable to species project editors and...who else? Wikipedia is not a directory/database, and even less so a meta-directory. JoelleJay (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

It's valuable to the kind of people who would be looking up articles in the topic area. What more justification do we need? XOR'easter (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Working through that list:

• parentheses around authors' names that indicate that a species was described originally in a different genus - I wasn't aware that was deliberate. They can easily be preserved in the merged articles.
• wiping out members of viable categories - The categories could be left in the redirects
• Taxonbar - Wikidata is not permitted in article text, and we are writing for the reader, who isn't going to benefit from having to go microstub by microstub to look at all species within a genus just so that we can include a few external links.
• lists of synonyms - Can be included in the merged article.

I've done these for Sphallotrichus; given your concerns can easily be addressed, I believe the correct response would have been to ask me to address them, rather than misusing rollback and dragging me to ANI. BilledMammal (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

No, the correct thing would be for you to discuss this sort of bulk editing and achieve consensus from - for example - the Wikiproject Tree of Life people whose hard work you're deleting, BEFORE you go deleting it. Again, all species articles are considered notable, by definition. You'd find little support, as noted above, given several existing policies. Additionally, your tabular format only works when ALL of the species in a genus have limited amounts of information, including limited lists of synonyms. Look at Sternotomis pulchra for an example of just how impractical that sort of "one size fits all" approach is likely to get. Dyanega (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I didn't merge that article? No one is suggesting that every article on a species should be merged into its genus.

I'm also not deleting anyone's hard work; the information is being kept? BilledMammal (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

You don't think it is a lot of work to find and attach the correct Wikidata links to articles? You don't think it's hard work to create redirects for long lists of synonymic names? One of the articles you merged had a pile of species-level redirects that suddenly pointed to a genus article instead of a species article (e.g. [5]). That's not trivial, and you STILL seem to be avoiding taking the responsible step and discussing this approach with the editors who are most directly involved and getting consensus that your approach is an improvement. Dyanega (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Given that it took the creator approximately one minute to create each of these articles, no, I don't think it is a lot of work. And we don't create articles just so that we can create redirects to them. BilledMammal (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

When did I say I was talking about the creator? I'm talking about all the editors who worked to improve these crappy stubs AFTER they were created. A high proportion of the articles you merged were created by a single user, Wilhelmina Wil, who probably shouldn't have done bulk stub creation on that scale. But, instead of merging/deleting those stubs, many editors took the time and energy to do things like adding Wikidata links and lists of synonyms, and adding categories, and fixing spelling, and all sorts of other labor that you're wiping clean (e.g, [6]). If these had been articles created and never improved after their creation, maybe you could claim that no one's work was being lost, but that's simply not true for many of these articles at this stage of the game. Dyanega (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

We've already established that we can keep all of that except the Wikidata, due to there being a consensus against including it, so what is your point?

Also, the amount of effort that went into creating an article, regardless of whether you think it is a lot of work or not, is irrelevant to whether it should exist as a stand-alone article. BilledMammal (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

No, we haven't, and you haven't - you ignored Loopy30's very valid point about losing species images when you merged pages containing them. I'm sure we can find other editor-added content that is being lost by bulk merges. Dyanega (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. I missed Loopy30's point because they posted it out of order; I didn't ignore it. And we don't keep standalone articles to give us a place to use images any more than we keep articles to give us a place to include external links.

In addition, only a small minority of articles I merged include pictures; that argument cannot be used to suggest my up-merger of the rest, such as Cotyclytus scenicus, was inappropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal I just wanted to add that I think you are underestimating the value of the wikidata in the taxonbar. They provide links to many different good external sites, such as GBIF or iNaturalist (many people, such as myself, use iNaturalist for taking pictures of animals they find). Those sites can provide more detailed range maps, for example, as well. And I guess I just don't understand the problem with having species stub articles. What is the harm? Cougroyalty (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

underestimating the value of the wikidata - that's a separate discussion about the use of wikidata generally.

What is the harm? - Because our goal is to benefit the reader. The reader receives more benefit from data being easily accessible by being up-merged rather than having to look at dozens of micro-stubs to gain the same understanding. This isn't controversial per WP:MERGEREASON, particularly for the articles that currently only duplicate the content of the list. BilledMammal (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Couldn't we just have both? Your "merged" genus-level articles are fine. But can't we keep the species-level stubs as well? Cougroyalty (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

When they are stubs I normally do keep them, as they normally contain information that cannot be merged into the genus level article, but for the sub-stubs like the ones I linked above, which duplicate the content either already or after the merge then Wikipedia:Content forking tells us not to do that. BilledMammal (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Taking the first in your list, if someone were to do the work of looking in the Biodiversity Heritage Library for the reference Pascoe 1866, maybe they could add a redirect neoclytus scenicus, write the Peter Bouchard article [7], expand Francis Polkinghorne Pascoe and end up with a bit of article prose and a figure. From seeing various Afd's this work looks sometimes pretty difficult and the existence of the species article might help. fiveby(zero) 22:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

This is an incorrect understanding of that RFC, the intent of which allows Wikidata for authority control, taxon bar, and similar, as well as infoboxes and a few other places (Template:Official as an example). What it bans is the use in article text-proper and I think it's been reasonably interpreted to list articles automatically updated by Wikidata changes (though I recall no direct RFC on that point). --IznoPublic (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The relevant list of edits is here. Now, BilledMammal, what you wrote above looks like the sort of proposal you could have put forward to the relevant wikiproject to see if there'd be consensus for it. Personally, I don't think there would be, and such a project would be impractical for a number of reasons (some of which have been listed in the two threads so far). All that is a content matter though, and what gets discussed in this board is instead behaviour. I join those above who have expressed the view that no sanctions are necessary, but it would really help if you could appreciate the reasons why what you did was a misstep. I'll just point out one thing. There's a stark contrast between, on one hand, your stance in the recent fish species discussion, where you demanded that one editor get community approval first before going back to creating 3-4 articles per day, and, on the other hand, your decision here to unilaterally redirect 459 articles in the space of 25 hours. – Uanfala (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The relevant wikiproject has no bearing on whether this is appropriate. Further, the difference between the fish species discussion is the existence of the policy WP:MASSCREATE, which requires consensus to exist for their mass creation. BilledMammal (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

So in your view, the bot policy, which you've just linked, prohibits one editor from making 5 article creations a day, but somehow also allows another editor, you, to remove 500 articles in the same period? I don't want to belabour the obvious anymore, but you really need to grasp the (very obvious) thing that you got wrong here. – Uanfala (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

the (very obvious) thing that you got wrong here - Given that no-one took the creator of these articles to ANI when they created 201 sub-stubs in one day, I'm assuming that what I did wrong was to clean up a mess, rather than create one. BilledMammal (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• Seems like normal editing to me. Hundreds of bold edits were reverted; per WP:BRD they should be discussed before being reinstated. This is not ANI- or sanction-worthy. Also, editors who start ANI threads shouldn't advertise them off-wiki. Levivich (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing "normal" about this. I've been around WP a long time, and as far as I'm aware the wholesale merging of several hundred articles on valid species has never happened before. Again, there is a vast community of people who work on taxonomic articles in WP, and none of this was ever discussed with any of them before the merges commenced. Dyanega (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

This was done during the late 2000s to topics of fictional nature. It was somewhat controversial then but a decade later and consensus is basically that the choice there was correct in the general. It took a particularly determined editor to see those changes through but I think that editor was vindicated by current attitudes.

Species are not all that dissimilar, and the path taken here was one prompted by actual guidelines on the point.

Anyway, the general discussion is soon to be had, but don't think species are special. IznoPublic (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• Basically, this is not difficult. If you're going to start bot-like editing on large number of articles, it is always a good idea to gain consensus for those edits first. Otherwise, you may end up causing a problem, like we see here. I have no view on whether BM's edits were useful or not, but it is the concept of mass editing that is the issue. Black Kite (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree completely with Black Kite. How can one go ahead and make so many edits that one could realize would not go unchallenged, without even trying to sense whether the community would agree with them? It just goes against the very spirit of everything. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
    • The information was retained, in a format that is much more convenient for readers. I genuinely thought this wouldn’t be controversial - and looking at the AFD’s, where no one has objected on the grounds that it is not an improvement (except for one editor who has made the bizarre claim that a 6000 byte article is too long) I still don’t understand why it is, although I recognise that it is. BilledMammal (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

      You're experienced enough that you should have known that not everybody was going to be happy with 500 articles being turned into redirects. I hope that moving forward you'll start discussions with others in relevant WikiProjects prior to these types of mass changes. We're a collaborative effort and discussions help to bring out alternative points of view that others may not have considered. The longer I'm on Wikipedia the more I'm realizing just how useful starting discussions in the proper places can be in helping to guide what large scale changes I make or don't make. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• It looks like BilledMammal has now gone ahead and nominated all the species articles for deletion at AfD. Cougroyalty (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  That is very much POINTy given they are involved in this conversation. Masem (t) 00:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  Ive opened two AFD’s, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bothriospila and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adalbus. Given that this isn’t a content discussion, and editors are saying I should get consensus before repeating those edits, I don’t see opening them as pointy or in any way disruptive? BilledMammal (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  Nominating these for deletion looks pointy and, without a link to this discussion where the consensus is running against a merge, a lot like forum shopping. Jahaza (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• WP:POINT applies to "making edits with which they do not actually agree", not edits with which they agree, and sending a page to AfD after a bold redirection was rejected is the regular process at work, not forum shopping. Avilich (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  Making an AFD when there is a large number of complains about previous merges (read: keeping the status quo until a discussion can be had) is definitely making such edits. Its clear the proper action is to open a discussion about how to handle these articles. I mean, I agree on the principle of merging, but WP:FAIT is also required. Masem (t) 01:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  'Its clear the proper action is to open a discussion about how to handle these articles'... which is exactly what he did? Avilich (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  Except that there were already two ongoing discussions, here and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life going on about how to handle these articles. Since a merge discussion doesn't require posting to AFD (which is, in fact, not called "articles for discussion"), bypassing those discussions and creating two new ones without, initially, referring to either of them is WP:FORUMSHOP. Jahaza (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  WP Tree of Life can’t come a consensus on this, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and ANI only discusses behaviour, not content. BilledMammal (talk) 01:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  There's nothing at WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that says that a merger discussion can't take place on a project notice board. The point is that a local consensus after a discussion at a project noticeboard can't overrule a consensus established project wide. In the absence of a project-level consensus on these though, there was no need to create another discussion and if you did want to create one, there were more appropriate venues. And per WP:PROPMERGE, you should have notified interested wikiprojects (rather than accusing them of canvassing when they self-notified!). Jahaza (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  The notification posted at TOL was not neutral. BilledMammal (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  It's not the regular process when you don't tell people that there's an extensive conversation about the topic going on somewhere else. And your reading of WP:POINT needs additional subtlety. WP:POINT specifically says that it's edits with which the person does not agree "as a rule," which means "usually, but not always."[8] Jahaza (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• POINTy actions like the AfD nominations do seem like they can and should have an actionable response at ANI. Silverseren^C 01:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
• I have no dog in this fight but nominating an article for deletion and proposing a merge, after a bold redirection was reverted, is the right and proper course of action. It's not POINTy at all. It's the legitimate next step to gain consensus for a controversial change. Mackensen (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  Not really, because while a merger can be an outcome at AFD, nominating dozens of articles for deletion isn't the right way to propose a merger. Proposing a merger is described at WP:AFD as an alternative to listing at AFD and the instructions say "Use Wikipedia:Proposed mergers for discussion of mergers." Jahaza (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• For those who say "this is just normal editing", what would you say if someone did this for all species articles? Or every stub across the project that has a clear parent article? Just "normal editing"? The rate/quantity does matter. BilledMammal is one of the more active participants in the ongoing discussions about the rate of article creation. With so much of that predicated on when permission/discussion needs to happen before taking some sort of mass action, it's ... weird ... to see BM mass redirecting subjects (species) that have among the strongest consensus of any subject for having stand-alone articles. That's not to say that species articles can never be merged up, or even that these shouldn't (I'm not weighing in on that), but the number combined with absence of discussion does matter.
  It makes me feel old that I'm starting to feel like there's a relatively small but growing and very active group of people who are primarily here to cleanse Wikipedia of stubs and anything without inline cites. They used to call me a deletionist; maybe being around a while makes you a bit softer (or just me)... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I see a difference between the two; WP:MASSCREATE doesn’t apply here, and my actions don’t create a WP:FAIT situation as evidenced by the fact they have been reversed.

that have among the strongest consensus of any subject for having stand-alone articles. I would be interested to see if that was true; I would suggest TOL draft an SNG saying that species should almost always have a standalone article, and see if there is a consensus for it. BilledMammal (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Posh. Your redirects were reverted, then after you saw the concerns laid out here at AN/I, you tempted WP:FAIT by going ahead and nominating some 30 of those stubs for deletion. gobonobo ^{+ c} 04:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't really think there was any risk of WP:FAIT here. Those articles were not going to change by AfD for at least a week, and it would notify lots of different people to its existence. BilledMammal was right in saying elsewhere in the discussion that the post to WT:TOL was not neutral. AfD is probably the most appropriate place for these kind of content discussions.

Whether BilledMammal should stir the pot while there is an ANI thread open, well, that's a different conversation. EDIT: Not to imply that creating upset was intentional: just that it is a bit escalatory and they could have maybe waited longer. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 10:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• I think we would be well served by finally holding a general RfC that develops WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES into a solid SNG, which may well turn out to be more restrictive than the current interpretation. As long as there is no more than a vague observation of "this is what usually happens with species articles" we will keep getting these issues (which admittedly don't normally extend to such an ...unwise 500-article chainsaw approach.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'm still very new to Wikipedia and basically only interact with parts related to taxonomy, and I think what Elmidae suggests would be very useful. Certainly there's a lot of "implied knowledge" when it comes to interpreting WP:NSPECIES. It is a very short essay based on observation that is brought into AfD conversations as de-facto policy and it would be a great idea to hash out where everyone stands on the issue. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 10:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'm in agreement with Elmidae. We need more solid footing, even if it changes the scope of allowability. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  How would this address the current situation. I don't think that BM has actually asserted that lack of notability was the reason of these merges., Codifying long standing consensus, while possibly useful for other reasons, wouldn't do anything to prevent merges on the same basis BM based these on. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• These merges were legitimate BOLD edits and the use of rollback was inappropriate. AfD is a normal next step after a redirect is challenged. Tree of Life project participants are reminded that there is no requirement to consult Wikiprojects before making changes; disciplinary and anti-vandalism processes should not be misused to challenge edits that one disagrees with; and editors are expected to participate in content discussions in good faith without accusing others of misconduct. –dlthewave ☎ 17:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Where do you draw the line though? What is the upper limit on the number of established notable articles that an editor is free to boldly redirect each day without seeking consensus? – Uanfala (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
    • Same as the number of articles an editor is free to boldly create each day without seeking consensus. Levivich (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
      • Isn't the entire point of the ArbCom discussion going on now about how there should be consensus made in both cases and trying to remove or create a large amount of articles without some form of community approval beforehand is disruptive? Silverseren^C 18:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

        And notice how that's not getting consensus in the ongoing discussion. The entire point is: anyone can make as many articles as they like as long as the articles are policy-compliant without having to ask permission first. There is no rate limit, nor is there consensus to implement one. Similarly, anyone can merge as many article as they like without having to ask permission first, as long as the merges are policy-compliant. Similarly, anyone can revert BOLD mergers without any rate limit. Similarly, anyone can nominate as many articles as they like for AFD with no rate limit, again, as long as it's all policy-compliant. This is normal editing, and people do it all the time (mass creations, mass moves, mass mergers, mass category changes, mass AFDs, mass this and mass that and mass everything else too), and they've been doing it for decades. We have no rule against it. We should, but there isn't consensus for it. This isn't directed at you, silver, but I notice that WikiProjects cheer and celebrate when someone mass-creates articles in-scope, then those same projects recoils in horror when anyone else mass-nominates them for AFD or mass-merges them, etc. This notion that, once created, a mainspace page is somehow "sacred" or "protected" from being "destroyed" by deletion or merger -- see above and in the WT:TOL discussion, how people are talking about information being "lost," "hidden," or "destroyed," as if content curation isn't a part of encyclopedia building -- has no basis in global consensus. In fact, global consensus is the opposite, per WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. WP:BEBOLD doesn't just apply to content creation, it also applies to content curation. Levivich (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• Further action needed? I was just alerted to the carnage disrutption through the AfD alerts, and seriously? What sort of WP:HERE editor would even think this kind of behavior is ok on a mass scale?

The mass redirects without any discussion when such structure is the norm was already bad enough. It's not quite the volume as when we had mass disruption of insect articles by Mishae when I had to go back and fix 10k insect talk pages (something about insects sure attracts this behavior), but this is affecting actual mainspace. Elmidae, as someone who's had to do similar cleanup after mass disruption like that kudos to you. BilledMammal should have known better at that point, but doubling down with the mass AfD is definitely getting in to WP:POINT territory. They were already warned that species articles are inherently notable (not to mention guidance we have like WP:MONOTYPICTAXON), and instead they're trying to wikilawyer about it. It looks like BilledMammal is also harassing editors like Hey man im josh commenting on this ANI too.

I'm not very familiar with BM, but given that they're causing major disruption in taxonomy articles, is that what a potential topic ban needs to be tailored towards? Based on the attitude and "warnings" they are giving out now, it's like they're just itching for a block they narrowly avoiding when they stopped making mainspace edits. Not sure on what action is best at this very moment, but hopefully this nth whack BilledMammal's noggin that they are on ridiculously thin ice sticks. I'm not up to speed on the ArbCom case, but usually continuing disputes related to the locus of the case are expressly forbidden during a case. Someone more familiar with it would know how/if clerks need to be involved. KoA (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

were already warned that species articles are inherently notable There is no guideline that says that, and in any case not every notable topic warrants an article, per WP:PAGEDECIDE.

It looks like BilledMammal is also harassing editors like Hey man im josh commenting on this ANI too. That was related to them going through my contributions to find all the AfD's I had recently opened to oppose them, including those unrelated to species. I believe the warning about WP:HOUNDING was appropriate. The fact that they ignored the warning and instead used rollback to remove it was less appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. I did not respond to you because I did not believe it would be a constructive conversation given how you've been combative against others during this process. That was related to them going through my contributions to find all the AfD's I voted in two additional AfDs (this and this). Given the nature of your two species related AfD nominations, it's not inappropriate to question if there were other inappropriate nominations.

I used rollback as, per WP:ROLLBACKUSE point #2, the edit was in my userspace and the reason for reverting I felt to be clear (point #1). The warning was retaliation and inappropriate. If you feel my behaviour was as well, then I do encourage you to open up an ANI because, while I believe my actions were not inappropriate, I'd adjust and learn from it others believed they were. But that should be its own discussion. To be honest this is why I usually don't participate in ANI, I'd rather be a no drama llama. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

None of the nominations were inappropriate; you can disagree with them, but that doesn't make them inappropriate. However, if you had stuck to the species nominations I wouldn't have objected; they are sufficiently related that I can see the argument that they are an appropriate use of an editors contribution history. What crossed over into hounding is when you used my contribution history to follow me into unrelated discussions and oppose my position there. BilledMammal (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

For those following along on the "none of the nominations were inappropriate" comment , this is part of the major problem with the disruption BM caused despite multiple cautions. They are basically ignoring their own behavior. They made mass nominations without following WP:BEFORE, namely that they didn't try to improve content themselves even though the articles had sourcing to expand the articles when their complaint was that they were too short (not a reason for AfD), nor were they at individual talk pages trying to work details out or going to relevant Wikiprojects that BEFORE advises before even getting to the last step of doing merges/redirects. The mass article disruption only compounds that. To ignore that is clearly showing WP:NOTHERE behavior (extreme lack of self correction in this subject).

BM, you need to take your behavior seriously here. While it may be a red herring if you are going to make accusations against Hey man im josh, you need diffs. I don't see anything obvious in your interactions that would be to follow me into unrelated discussions and oppose my position there. If there is, you really need a diff at this point that actually shows it. If not, that is a WP:ASPERSION and is just giving the community another reason to block you. That is why I'm saying you need to take this seriously because it really comes across as you trying to escalate things more and more as we try to work with your behavior here. KoA (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The section of WP:BEFORE that recommends improving content through normal editing links WP:ATD. One of the recommended ways to improve content is merging; when the redirect aspect of the bold merge was rejected the appropriate action, per WP:ATD-R and WP:CONRED #4, is to open an AfD. You also misrepresent my nomination, which was on the grounds of WP:PAGEDECIDE, WP:CONTENTFORK, and WP:RF.

Hey man im josh !voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bothriospila at 03:23, 29 October 2022. Two minutes later, they !voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adalbus. I consider both of these votes to be appropriate.

What was inappropriate and a violation of WP:HOUNDING is that they then went through my contributions to find and oppose other unrelated nominations which they did at 03:38, 29 October 2022 and 03:39, 29 October 2022. BilledMammal (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

BM, you're talking past again and ignoring what you're actually doing in your edits, that's becoming disrutpive. You're just ignoring what multiple people have told you should have done in terms of process and that ATD directly points you to and are instead cherrypicking. Not to mention you're edit warring at Bothriospilini to add to your issues. This is not the time to joke around like that.

For for your actions with Hey man im josh, that's hardly harassment. When you had issues with disruptive use of AfD, of course someone is going to look in on other cases and comment independently if they notice something. In that case though, you aren't mentioned at all, and they are just reflecting what the rest of community is also saying at the AfDs. You on the other hand are adding to the case that you are treating AfD like a battleground the more you link to these interactions. KoA (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Can we assume good faith, please? I doubt BilledMammal has bad-faith intentions, and it doesn't appear to be good-faith disruption either. Okay, maybe it wasn't a great idea to unilaterally redirect hundreds of articles without prior consensus and many of you disagreed with the deletion nominations, but I don't see disruption or sanctionable behavior on BilledMammal's part. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 22:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think their original edits to turn the pages into redirects were in bad faith. I just think they should have known better given their experience. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

When someone is engaging in patently disruptive behavior, especially given the battleground attitude they are injecting, we call a WP:SPADE a spade, so it's rather oblivious to just reduce it down to name-dropping good-faith. That happens all too often with tendentious editing like this. Either way, it looks like ArbCom doesn't have an active case that would involve BM like I assumed from previous comments. Some have commenting on solidfying some taxonomy standards in guidelines, etc. to avoid wikilawyering that's going on, but that also seems somewhat independent of BM's attitude.

Given the ongoing pointy attitude I'm seeing on comments from BM though, it is increasingly looking like a sanction will be needed to prevent disruption at some point. Especially given the cluelessness above in their harassing of Hey man im josh above, it's really coming across as a how dare you clean up after my mess mentality while trying to use WP:HOUND as a get of out jail free card as we commonly see with tendentious editors. They've been around long enough to know better. As I linked above, that's the opposite of WP:HERE when someone's behavior issues are brought up, so I'm increasingly convinced sanctions will be needed to curb disruption BM is injecting into the taxonomy subject. KoA (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing is closed and BilledMammal was not a party. There's currently a related ongoing RfC but creation/deletion tasks are continuing as usual. –dlthewave ☎ 22:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Looks like this would be the appropriate venue then. KoA (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm back and have a little time, so I have a number of things to point out, please bear with me. (1) BilledMammal accused me of canvassing. I originally posted to exactly one page - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. Why? Because all of the merged/altered articles affected were WP:TOL pages, and because WP:TOL has, within it, space EXPRESSLY DEVOTED to such changes as proposed merges, and to which BilledMammal did not submit any such proposals. (2) Given that WP:TOL does, in fact, have space dedicated to approving/rejecting merge proposals, I think it is entirely understandable that I would be under the impression that the WikiProject does, in fact, have an established policy and legitimate claim to authority over such actions, and I acted accordingly, reacting to what I saw as a massive and unprecedented policy breach. Being accused by BilledMammal of acting in a non-neutral manner is predicated on his actions NOT being a breach of policy, and WP:TOL having no authority at all, and all the evidence I had in front of me is that it WAS a breach of policy. Others here and elsewhere have stated that WikiProject policies have no authority or enforceability at all, and I find this surprising, and apologize if I assumed too much. (3) Likewise, BilledMammal accused me of not assuming his actions were in good faith, but breaches of policy such as not getting approval for article merges, especially when they delete unique content do not appear to be good faith actions, unless an editor is acting in complete ignorance of policy. An editor acting in good faith who is bulk-deleting content, especially when all of that content is flagged as belonging to a specific WikiProject, should be consulting with that WikiProject in advance. Just because an edit is bold doesn't mean it isn't genuinely destructive, and I would argue that demonstrably destructive edits should be rolled back until they have been discussed and approved. (4) Policy and rules aside, BilledMammal admitted, directly, that they did not know what content in the articles being merged was or was not valuable, as well as admitting, directly, that they did not look at each such article to assess whether there WAS any unique content that would be lost. That sort of bulk editing, when you don't understand what you're causing to be lost, is not just bold, it's reckless. If there's a fire, you don't adopt a neutral stance and wait to see if it will go out on its own; you call the fire department. (5) When it was pointed out what deleted content was valuable, and what was unique, BilledMammal dismissed the point, saying that once he was made aware of the problem, some of it could be salvaged, and the rest, like taxonbars with Wikidata links, was not worth salvaging. Again, the time to learn what content needs to be maintained is BEFORE one removes that content, not after. Second, despite attempts to dismiss things like Wikidata links as not worth salvaging, I would argue that for many of these articles the Wikidata links are the single most important and unique source of information in the article, and - most importantly - ONLY Wikipedia species-level articles contain and make use of the full cross-referencing capacity of Wikidata. (6) Consider just one of the articles BilledMammal has proposed deleting; Knulliana, containing only a single species. The taxonbar was added by an editor after the article was created, and via Wikidata it links this record to Wikimedia Commons, Wikispecies, BioLib, BugGuide, CoL, EoL, EPPO, GBIF, iNaturalist, IRMNG, ITIS, and NCBI. Not a single one of those linked sources crossreferences to the others. For that matter, Wikidata records themselves do not cross-reference to other Wikidata records; you cannot look at a species entry in Wikidata and determine from that how many species are in the same genus, or what family it is in. ONLY Wikipedia species articles serve to provide a reader with all of the information available for a species, and the information available through the Wikidata crossreferences is VAST - it includes not just the taxonomic information, but the geographic distributions, phenologies, host associations, biological notes, photographs, and records of actual physical specimens and their data. Just go to that Knulliana article and click on those Wikidata links to see how much information is contained there - all of it lost if the article is deleted. It is precisely this information that BilledMammal has specifically stated is not worth including in Wikipedia, at the same time complaining about how these stubs contain nothing useful or unique. Wikipedia species articles that contain a Wikidata linked taxonbar do NOT simply "duplicate the content" of a genus-level article (because the genus-level articles do not contain those Wikidata links), and they contain far more than just what is immediately visible in the text of the article. Despite comments I've seen some people post, species-level articles do NOT simply duplicate or mirror what is found in Wikispecies, they do MUCH more, because they contain a Wikidata link, while Wikispecies cross-references to almost nothing, not to Wikidata, and not even to Wikipedia. (7) As others have noted, deleting or merging articles not only does nothing to improve them, but it makes it harder for anyone else to improve them, just like deleting the brackets from a redlink makes it harder for anyone to know that an article needs to be created. All existing redirects pointing to species articles will no longer have a proper target, because you can't target individual entries in a table. (8) Designing a table format that can accommodate for all the possible permutations is not practical; BilledMammal's initial attempt had only three fields - species name, "first described", and range. If you wanted to have an actual table that could accommodate existing species article stub content, it would contain (a) present species name, (b) past names/spelling variants/synonyms (of which there can be be 50 or more), (c) authorships and years for all these names, (d) the geographic distributions, (e) host associations, (f) existence of subspecies, (g) images, (h) descriptive notes, and (i) references, at a bare minimum (i.e., without having to omit existing content of merged/deleted stubs). Even for a small genus, nine columns, and the possible amount of content in some of them (especially considering how many would have to be left blank) would be unwieldy enough, but for groups like beetles, there are some genera with over 3000 valid species! Those genus articles are bad enough as just lists, they will become impossible to use if they are converted into tables, and the unfortunate truth is that all but a literal handful of the species articles for those enormous genera are stubs. We are MUCH better off with 3000 individual articles than a gargantuan table. (9) Something else that is overlooked is HOW DO MOST USERS ARRIVE AT WIKIPEDIA? To continue the example above, if you google "Knulliana" the #1 Google hit is the Wikipedia article - the same article that BilledMammal has just proposed to delete. Call me crazy, but you shouldn't go around deleting the #1 source of information on an organism on the entire internet just because you assert that species stubs are wasteful and inefficient. (10) For me, the bottom line is this: once a species article referring to an actual valid taxonomic entity has been created and crossreferenced, it should not be subject to arbitrary decisions to merge or delete it. If the name is synonymized, then it should immediately be changed into a redirect to the valid taxon name, but that's about the only way a species article should ever be made to disappear. BilledMammal has not engaged with the relevant Wikiproject, and has dismissed the concerns about the effort of editors who have helped to improve a page, as being irrelevant to whether a page should be maintained. Well, Wikipedia is a community effort, for one thing, and the community should have a say in the matter. The other side of this is that an editor who does not understand what the content is that they're removing should not be making such a decision unilaterally, especially when there are editors who DO understand what the content is, and how valuable it is. (11) I will echo the calls by others to establish, once and for all, an explicit AND OBJECTIVE policy regarding species articles, however high up it needs to go in the WP administrative hierarchy to make it enforceable. It is hard enough to keep the existing articles organized and curated without some existential threat that if an article does not have some arbitrary amount of arbitrarily-defined improvement by some arbitrary deadline, it can be wiped away by anyone who feels so inclined, without discussing the matter in advance. That's a recipe for disaster, and I don't regret categorizing it as such. Dyanega (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a little difficult to read, but three points:

1. I accused you of canvassing because you posted a non-neutral message at ToL directing editors to the AfDs.
2. The only content whose value I missed was that parenthesis around authors' names had a specific meaning, a mistake that was easily corrected.
3. I did look at every article I redirected to see what content needed to be preserved.

BilledMammal (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

No, you missed images, you missed synonyms, and you missed wikidata links - all were excluded from the genus/tribe articles you merged to. These are all important, you apparently still don't accept that Wikidata links are important. Dyanega (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

You admitted that you did not look to see if an article had images, nor did you look for synonyms, until after it was pointed out that these were important. Dyanega (talk)

Please provide diffs for these admissions. BilledMammal (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Your pre-rollback edit of Bothriopsilini is this one: [9] showing that you imported no images, synonyms, or taxonbars, in addition to not importing the properly-formatted authorships, or recognizing that authorship is not at all the same thing as "first described". As for your comment admitting that you didn't pay attention to whether or not there were images, it was here: [10]. If your comment means that you noticed that there were images, but decided not to use them, then that's effectively the same thing, if not worse. You continue to trivialize things that are not at all trivial. You even said that Wikipedia had no responsibility for giving external links a home, which ignores that the crossreferenced sets of links in a taxonbar can't be found anywhere else. Dyanega (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Escalation and edit-warring by BilledMammal

Despite warnings above, we're getting more pointy behavior by BilledMammal at Bothriospilini. Without using the talk page at all until just a few minutes ago, they've tried to insert their preferred version three times now over a few days.[11][12][13] They're basically trying to partially start the merge they're proposing in the AfD ahead of time. One diff is particularly odd where they try to reverse the burden for consensus: Restore content while AfD is ongoing, to prevent disruption and confusion. If the AfD closes as "no consensus" or "keep", then please reinstate your reversion and I will open an RfC on the preferred content.[14] Basically, they're trying to edit war in the new content for the page and trying to justify it because it would complicate their AfD if it wasn't there in some strange circular reasoning. More on that at the talk page.[15]

This attitude is clearly wasting time at this point, so this is partly a request for admins to monitor for future edit warring, but to also indicate we're still dealing with timesink behavior issues even after the mass redirects stopped above. Too much battleground mentality being projected from this editor. KoA (talk) 05:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

try to reverse the burden for consensus - I asked you to delay your edit a few days, in order to avoid disrupting an ongoing AfD whose debate is related to the existence of the content you removed. That isn't an attempt to reverse the burden for consensus.

I also find it surprising that you're accusing me of edit warring. While I have reverted twice, it was across several days, and the first was to restore content that appeared to have been unintentionally caught up in the rollback. Meanwhile, you've reverted twice in a single hour.

Finally, while I didn't use the article talk page until after you opened a discussion there, I did try to open a discussion on your talk page; rather than engage with it, you removed it. BilledMammal (talk) 05:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

KoA, could you explain how adding species tables to an article is WP:POINTy? Such tables appear to be a standard practice (eg. Ibis). CMD (talk) 07:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

That's not really an accurate description just saying it's tables. For the article itself, BM has been repeatedly told that the species articles already handle the information they are trying to insert, and that sections like this were not helpful in terms of structure and prose. If they had simply engaged on the talk page and stopped edit warring from the start, that part of the behavior would not have been as pointy.

I already mentioned it above, but repeatedly restoring disputed content is what is also pointy, especially when they are trying to edit war in the content merge they're trying to accomplish at the AfD before the close. It should be self-apparent when reading their edit summary I quoted or their comment just above this how much they are doubling down on abusing the process they've been blocked for before.[16] It is literally wiki-lawyering to not get consensus on something only to start an AfD and accuse others of disrupting the AfD because those other editors won't let BM edit war in content they actively chose not to get consensus for. The short of it is that BM is just inflaming the topic independent of content that could be worked on and sucking time away from editors trying hold their behavior issues at bay. KoA (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

How would you describe it? It appears to be tables, or where the table would be one row, text that covers the same material. On disputed content, until now there has been no indication that the Bothriospilini content was disputed. The version you have chosen is literally a single sentence, I do not understand how that is an improvement. CMD (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

That is not addressing the behavior issues. KoA (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

That may be so, it would nonetheless be helpful to get answers to my questions to understand what you feel is pointy (to be specific, disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point). I have asked because in the situation you raise I see one editor expanding an article and one reducing it back to a single sentence. An explanation for how the reduction is helpful to that article remains outstanding. CMD (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome to read this ANI and the relevant AfDs you're already at for that, but the disruption doesn't change based on what someone thinks of the content question, and that's really a subject for the other venues. BM was already alerted multiple times the content belongs at the species pages, not the tribe, and BM was well are of their approach to trying to merge that content in was disputed. You don't just keep charging ahead with edits then. Avoiding relevant talk pages and their onus to get consensus for the content even when pinged[17] is already disruptive. Trying to do the mass merge through an AfD is one thing (not to mention the many comments on procedural issues with their nomination there), but then insisting they get to start that merge ahead of time at the target articles and act like those trying to deal with BM avoiding getting consensus are somehow disrupting the AfD is just plain escalating and projecting. It's disruptive WP:GAMING no matter how you cut it and why we are here rather than solely dealing with the content in the other venues. If it wasn't for that, we wouldn't see the basic non-responses like at Talk:Bothriospilini when we finally got them to comment at an article talk page only yesterday.

At this point I'm spending time on this because whenever it looks like there might be a little reprieve, BM has another stunt that comes up, and that's reviewing what I've seen even before I stepped in here too. Given past ANIs and blocks on BM, it's clear that trend is just continuing even in their most recent comments. That's why we now have a section on escalation and starting to queue up preventative measures. We do have to respect the community that shouldn't have to deal with the behavior time-sink at some point. KoA (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Having read the ANI and relevant AfDs, it is not explained anywhere how reducing Bothriospilini to a single sentence benefits any particular editor, the relevant Wikiprojects, the reader, or Wikipedia. Given you also do not appear inclined to explain it here after being asked directly, I do not think your AN/I case on pointy editing will get very far. CMD (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi CMD, the reason that the Bothriospilini article was a single sentence is that often very little of the literature is written at that taxonomic level (tribe), and this is reflected on WP where we generally have articles at the species, genus, family, order, class (and higher) ranks, but not at any of the many "in between" ranks. Where these articles do exist, they are often placeholders to assist in navigation through very large taxonomic trees.

KoA did not "reduce" the article to a single sentence, so much as to restore it to its pre-edit warring and pre-AfD launching state. Although BilledMammal failed to follow the prescribed sequence of gaining consensus for obviously contested moves (obvious to them because they had participated/instigated the fish stub "mass" creation discussion and recent RfC on the mass creation), they instead tried to back-door the process by filing two AfDs (one of which would have been enough for a test case) by requesting a merge as an alternative to deletion as a goal of AfD. Rather than wait for the AfD closing result, they then started their intended merge by moving material up to the desired target page and claiming that their AfD goal (ATD-M) was correct based on a supposed WP:CONTENTFORK, a duplication of material that was both their own creation and against consensus. This gaming of WP procedures without engaging other involved WP editors is neither collegial nor helpful to the encyclopedia. Seems POINTy enough to me. Loopy30 (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Articles should not exist to serve as categories, that's what categories are for. At any rate, this continues to not explain how having more detail on the members on the tribe page is bad for that article. The pointy edit here appears to be the blocking of the improvement of an article (in a way that reflects many other articles) because of an AfD for other articles. CMD (talk) 03:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Tribes are less notable than genera. If low-notability taxonomy stubs are going to being merged, tribes would be better candidates than genera (in this paticular case, the next level up, Cerambycinae, has well over 600 genera, so there are some practical reasons for keeping tribe stubs). Plantdrew (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I think this is also a good point for a potential SNG. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

On disputed content, until now there has been no indication that the Bothriospilini content was disputed. KoA, can you explain why you believe the content was disputed before your revert? This question is prompted by your recent revert at Bimiini where your edit summary indicates that you also believe that content was disputed.

If you are referring to the rollback, the summary was focused on the redirects, and I don't think it is unreasonable to believe that it was not disputing the content at the target articles. BilledMammal (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

You've already been made aware you're making false statements. Elmidae reverted the entirety, not just the part you mentioned before I did the same at both articles. You knew it was disputed. Trying to wikilawyer basically saying you're sure they didn't mean to revert it all in order to say you should be able to edit war is just indicating you're trying to be disruptive at this point. You seriously need to step back from taxonomy articles if you intend to double down on tendentious editing like this at ANI of all places. Otherwise the community will be forced to do that for you at the rate you are going. KoA (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I have seen species lists routinely included in the article about the genus that contains those species (the next level up the taxonomic hierarchy), and, much less commonly, at higher taxonomic levels (like Ibis). I do not recall ever seeing a species list, certainly not at a higher taxonomic level, that attempted to give more data than the name of individual species; in almost all cases, such a list or table would grow unmanageably large as it was filled out with information. To give an example, if someone created List of communities in New Jersey and started filling it with short entries about individual communities, we would (I hope) recognize that the article was too broadly scoped, and disperse it into sections of articles on individual counties, or narrower standalone lists like List of municipalities in Sussex County, New Jersey. This would be true even if many of the communities were deemed non-notable or at least not worthy of having a separate article.

My general impression of the situation, from the Village Pump discussion of fish stubs and the subsequent mass article creation RfC, is that BilledMammal favors a fairly aggressive upmerging of taxonomic stubs into larger higher-level articles. This is a defensible position, but has not yet obtained consensus and is a reasonably WP:BOLD action, insofar as it prescribes a different interpretation of policy than has been conventionally accepted in this area, as described by WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Again, re-examining these conventions is a legitimate activity (cf. NSPORTS), but I think they've shown increasingly poor judgment in how they approached it. I think we've reached the point where it would be better to see what position can gain consensus by discussing it with people familiar with this content (e.g., at the Tree of Life project) rather than by filing more AfDs and trying to judge the consensus position based on (possibly conflicting) outcomes there. Choess (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Restricting notability consensus discussions to wikiprojects is exactly what caused all the problems with NSPORT, trains, GEOLAND, porn, etc. Notability/article creation conventions should reflect global community consensus, not LOCALCON. JoelleJay (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

JoelleJay, you had a clear chip on your shoulder attitude the way you came charging into those AfDs, but you need to slow down to avoid mistakes as I've repeatedly told you. No one is talking about restricting discussions to wikiprojects, but avoiding subject-matter experts entirely as has happened results in even more problems. Choess had a very even-handed summary, and launching into hyperbole after that isn't helpful. WP:BEFORE was very clear to do things like fix the articles yourself, use article talk pages, and consult with relevant Wikiprojects to get an understanding of how the nuances of a specific subject works rather than trying to steamroll the community. That didn't happen, which is largely in part due to the behavior issues we're focusing on at this ANI. KoA (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

My comment was only in response to the suggestion to gain consensus at, e.g., the Tree of Life project. SCHOOLOUTCOMES, NSPORT, NPORN, NTRAINSTATION, etc. demonstrate the global community should decide consensus on inclusion criteria because subject matter experts/enthusiasts tend to develop walled gardens that contravene our broader P&Gs, in particular WP:NOT and WP:OR. JoelleJay (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Choess: Here is one, Panthera, where the table gives images, names, scientific names, synonyms, authority and dating of scientific name, similar info on subspecies, and ranges. The table for extinct taxa even has a notes section. CMD (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The genus Panthera is vastly smaller than the majority of insect taxa, and given that the big cats draw much more interest and editorial attention, as well as being more taxonomically stable, the table there is easy. Comparing Panthera to insect taxa is apples and oranges. SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

In the particular insect taxa case in question, some of the genera were monotypic, so much smaller than Panthera. At any rate, it is merely an example of practice; there are many more. CMD (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

While I agree the prior AFD after the ANI thread was started dies fall into pointy behavior, this expansion of the lists to include relevant information pulled from the species articles seems wholly appropriate, regardless if the species pages are kept or not individually. I would expect a hierarchical list article like this to help guide me on going down the list in more than just name. That right now it seems to be repeating everything found on the species pages is a fault of the species pages being only stubs and not full articles. Masem (t) 21:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Masem and Chipmunkdavis: My perception of a modal species list is still "simple list in genus article", but paddling around a bit in mammals suggests that more complex lists are more common there (and I assume also in birds and some other charismatic and well-documented taxa), which I hadn't realized until now. I don't think species lists have to be bare lists of names, but I'd point out (from experience dealing with some articles in another content area) that the more material you add to these lists, the more maintenance burden you create to keep them synchronized with standalone articles. If someone cruises by and adds a newly published paper that updates the distribution of a species, they won't necessarily think to update summaries in articles two levels of taxonomy up. That's not to say that we can't have more expansive species lists–we are here to help the reader–but adding more information to the lists is not incontrovertibly a good thing. Plantdrew made a fairly succinct case on Talk:Bothriospilini for why these actions were mildly disruptive, so I'll refrain from belaboring the point here. I do appreciate your bringing the more expansive lists in mammals, etc. to my attention. Choess (talk) 02:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

When vertebrate genus articles include tables, existing species pages are kept, not merged - as such, these are much more obvious targets for criticism under anti-forking policies than articles that simply offer lists of species names. I have yet to see a single article anywhere within the WP:TOL sphere that has a genus-level article with a table containing multiple species all of which are only linked via redirects. Also, as noted earlier, much of the species-specific information linked to by the taxonbars is not duplicated in the genus articles with tables. That includes comprehensive geographic distribution data, host associations, phenology data, potentially hundreds of photographs, and up to several thousands of specimen records in museums, all linked to individual species and accessible only on the kinds of species pages BilledMammal has been trying to convert to redirects or calling to delete entirely. The accepted practice is to redirect only when a genus is monotypic (or a synonym), and then the general practice is to redirect to the species. The comments above about certain ranks (species, genus, family, order) being treated preferentially is also true: if a tribe contains only one genus, the redirect is to the genus article. If a subfamily contains one tribe with one genus, the redirect is to the genus. If a superfamily contains one family, the redirect is to the family, unless that family is monotypic (see, e.g. Rhinorhipus) and so forth. In other words, monotypic taxon redirects generally go down, rather than up. In the specific case BilledMammal has put up in the AfD, the tribal article is the one that contains the least information, and would, push comes to shove, be first to get deleted rather than adding genus and species article content to it and then deleting the sources of that content, as BilledMammal was trying to do. It is this behavior - taking articles that had no content forking and turning them into content forks - that BilledMammal has been engaged in, and which is the biggest concern. Take a look at the Knulliana article, in the version immediately prior to his first attempted merge: [18]. Now, take a look at the Bothriospilini article, the version immediately prior to his first attempted merge: [19]. There is almost nothing in those two articles that was duplicated or redundant, and these articles were perfectly fine before he tried to merge them. One other thing that would have come up, had BilledMammal ever sought consensus over at WP:TOL, is that tribal ranks are probably the least stable of the well-known taxonomic ranks; they are the most prone to being created, sunk, or redefined. As a general practice, then, most of us who are taxonomists avoid creating tribal articles entirely, because they will - over time - generally require more maintenance than they are worth, and almost never contain any content other than a simple list of constituent genera, so it makes more sense to let them linger as redlinks in automated taxoboxes, and not even include them in manual taxoboxes at all. Case in point, the subfamily Cerambycinae, to which Bothriospilini belongs, contains over 110 tribes at present. That number is in constant flux, with many of those tribes only having been established as tribes within the past decade or two. You'll note that many of them are redlinks, even though in a few cases one or more of their constituent genera have articles. Despite this, editors who work within WP:TOL will almost never delete or redirect an article once it has been created, until and unless it has been brought up on the project page. Dyanega (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that BilledMammal's actions were harmful and not in good faith. He should at the very least get a formal warning, or if enough people agree be taken to ANI. Ortizesp (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ortizesp: This is ANI. Levivich (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

This isANIBurma-shave — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I've read through this discussion and I fail to see why taking this matter to ANI was appropriate. The (very) bold merges have been reverted, and the discussions have been started. ANI doesn't need to be involved in this issue. --Spekkios (talk) 01:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

You literally were just at an AfD where more disruption had to be cleaned up. [20]

• Still continuing. Now BM has taken to edit warring at their AfDs to violate WP:TALK#REVISE related to the edit warring that started this subsection. Editors were already complaining about their links misleading readers.[21] We seem to be in a cycle of someone commenting at ANI that there's nothing to see here while practically each day we have a new issue with BM that just continues WP:TEND behavior. KoA (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  Revising the comment of someone who you're already in disagreement with seems like something that is only ever going to get a hostile reaction. Not commenting on the appropriateness of the edit, just that is hardly surprising that it wasn't warmly received. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  For anyone's reference this appears to be BilledMammal original edit that modified the link. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  I think everyone should take some steps back and do something else for a while. Nobody in this dispute looks very good in the above diff. Being right is not worth a WP:BOOMERANG. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  BM already established they're acting tendentious in most interactions, so it's also no surprise they'd act this way regardless. I think we need to be careful about the lashing out at those actual trying to hold BM's disruption at bay though. BM was the first one to modify the comment well after the start, and other editors including myself were simply restoring to the original due to complaints of BM actively misleading editors.

  A few of us editors were alerted to issues with BM through this ANI, so while we're trying, we still need help given the constant doubling down on BM being disruptive. Until that happens, it's going to be the same trend of BM lashing out at whoever tries to deal with their tendentious behavior that day though, so all that us non-admins can do is try to clean up and report. It's a drain on the community when those reports aren't taken seriously and BM still thinks it's perfectly ok to ignore all the warnings they've been getting in the past few days about their behavior. The more editors try to stop disruption, the more BM escalates, which is why we're still at ANI asking for admin help. KoA (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  KoA, what exception under WP:TPO do you claim as justification for repeatedly editing my comments? My justification for editing my own comment is to preserve context, by ensuring that the link continued to point at the same content. BilledMammal (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  Updating a link in one's own post in this fashion is not disruptive. Blowing it out of proportion, edit warring on that basis, and then coming back to ANI in a hyperbolic fashion with statements like actively misleading editors might be, though. Please consider the damage you are doing to your own cause. MrOllie (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  While the repeated reversion of Billed Mammals post is not great, I've never seen linking to old versions done in deletion nominations. It goes against what people generally expect to be happening in a deletion discussion, which has to do with the current state of the article, its potential for improvement, and whether it should be deleted. (Which is, I guess, yet another problem with misusing AFD to propose a merge.) This editing is, at best, very strange and unexpected, which is generally not a good way to handle a public process. I don't see what it overtly accomplishes that a comment wouldn't have done better. Jahaza (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed, BM had actually been warned at the Bothriospilini talk page about misleading at the AfD already, so it was very odd that they'd double down on it by changing the target to their diff. Plantdrew already summarized that well It is disrupting the AfD, in that the AfD is predicated only on WP:CONTENTFORK. But I've never seen another AfD predicated on CONTENTFORK, where the content forking was performed by the AfD nominator shortly before opening the AfD. Nobody in the AfD has yet brought up the fact that the nominator did the forking (I plan to do so; I had started writing my !vote, but it referred to BilledMammal's version of this article, so now I need to rework it (but I don't mind the disruption)). Performing a content fork and then arguing for AfD based on the content being forked is an...interesting tactic. That context mattered a lot in how pointy the later AfD changes were and really came across as thumbing their nose at any cautions about behavior they were getting.

  I still don't see any real acknowledgement of the problems they cause, just lashing out like above. BM had also been repeatedly warned that is was inappropriate to claim WP:TPO to avoid scrutiny on this to violate the rest of the WP:TPG, namely WP:TALK#REVISE. It's pretty standard to undo a major change like that to an active process like an RfC and pretty strange to see hyperbole calling it hyperbole. They had the option of outright saying, "Hey, here's a version I'd prefer" in a separate comment and being upfront about it, but BM should have known better to continue masking the state of the actual target considering the warning Plantdrew gave on the talk page about "tactics" shortly after the edit warring there. KoA (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  This ANI thread, much like that AfD, is a mess that is unlikely to achieve any consensus. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I was. That's how I found this. I don't see how that edit is disruptive; I would consider the constant interference with another user's comments to be more disruptive. I also don't see where users are being confused by the change in link targets. I strongly agree with NRBP when they say to take a step back for a while. From my reading, there are about 2-3 users who very strongly disagree with BM's conduct in this matter, and it's fine that they do, but I don't see any behaviour that requires ANI to be involved. It seems like BM is more than willing to follow the WP:CYCLE, and it's time to move on to more productive things and let this matter go. --Spekkios (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  +1 Levivich (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  +1 –dlthewave ☎ 03:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  +1 JoelleJay (talk) 03:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  +1 -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Move to content discussion?<ec> I was going to suggest that given BM's recent declaration that they had ceased edit-warring on Bothriospilini (here) and their willingness to now engage in discussion on the WP:TOL project page to achieve consensus before continuing with any further merges of taxonomic articles (here), that this is becoming less of a conduct issue and more of a content issue that could possibly be resolved outside of ANI. Or maybe not... Loopy30 (talk)

I would agree. There isn't any need for this to be at ANI any more. ANI is for urgent issues, and chronic and intractable behaviour problems. None of those apply here. --Spekkios (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

We've been discussing intractable behavior by BM throughout all the problems that came up, and most of those haven't been resolved, just us trying to hold the line against them. It's not helpful to just declare nothing to see here when we just had more edit warring break out yesterday. KoA (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Which problems haven't been resolved? The bold edits have been reverted and discussion is taking place. The only possible issue I see at the moment is that BM and users who have very strong opinions on this matter are modifying BM's comment. --Spekkios (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

That was my hope originally, but the edit warring that revived this broke out just yesterday at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bothriospila and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adalbus happened after that dicussion on El C's page. That's just to clarify compared to the earlier edit warring you mentioned at Bothriospilini since it's easy to get lost in which was which. I'm hoping they knock it off and use talk pages collaboratively now. That said, I'm worried by the lack of self-examination and trajectory of ignoring cautions when editors have tried to work with them on behavior. A warning would help, but if there are future issues, it might help to summarize what happened above:

1. Mass redirects of beetle articles without discussion that had to be restored.
2. Followed by mass AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bothriospila and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adalbus to perform the redirects without following WP:BEFORE (all the numbers before #5 WP:CONRED) by consulting on relevant talk pages or Wikiprojects
3. Edit warring at Bothriospilini and Bimiini described at the top of this subsection. They continued edit warring the content in despite multiple editors disputing it and didn't come to the talk page until well after.[22] As part of this, BM insisted on focusing that they came to my talk page to discuss the content, but ignored cautions that it needed to be at a central location so those involved could comment. Little interaction at that talk page by BM.
4. Again at Bothriospilini, editors noticed that the edit-warred content above was WP:CONTENTFORK that had been inserted just prior to the AfDs, AfDs that were predicated on the idea that redirects should happened because of the articles had content fork material (see comment at a talk page for more). In short, multiple complaints about that edit-warred material misleading editors at the AfD.
5. BM then changes the target link at their AfDs[23][24] well after they had started in violation of WP:TALK#REVISE and the expectation that you don't substantially change an RfC, AfD, etc. part way through, especially without notification.
6. Multiple editors tried to correct the violation and notify respondents at the AfD[25][26][27], resulting in BM edit warring at AfDs[28][29][30][31] to restore the WP:TALK#REVISE violation and point editors solely at their preferred version rather than the current state of the articles. BM also tried to justify their reverts by claiming WP:TPO excludes anyone from correcting the WP:TALK#REVISE violation.

That's the overall summary of what has happened and been linked/diffed at this ANI so far. Hopefully that finally gets BM to review what they were doing and we can move on, but if the same issues continue in the future, we at least have a summary here on top of BM's last block for disrupting wiki-process. It seems like we have the mass revert/noms somewhat under control now, so if the edit-warring and wikilawyering, etc. stop where they actually pay attention to issues brought up on talk pages to the point they self-correct blatant instances of ignoring guidelines, there may be potential we don't have to come back here at a later date. KoA (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Then put forward a proposal on what should happen and see if there is an appetite for it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Uh, I suggest reading what I said at the end. It was an opportunity to move on if no further disruption continued as long as we had a summary of what happened so far. KoA (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

What you wrote is that everything you've said was correct, many have disagreed with you so your summarisation is not correct. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with almost all of this, for reasons already expressed elsewhere, but I want to point out that any accusation of edit warring at Bothriospila, Adalbus, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bothriospila, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adalbus, is at best hypocritical; see my response to your post at EW3 for a fuller explanation. Further, while WP:TALK#REVISE was not breached, due to my edits being to preserve context, WP:TPO was, per your failure to provide a justification under the listed exceptions. BilledMammal (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

This is the example of wikilawyering I was getting to. You're still trying to fight tooth an nail about WP:GAMING that AfD when you are not allowed to change your comments like that when editors had already substantially commented. Full stop. You were directing editors to an entirely different version of the article with that, and "preserving" it would continue the disruption discussed on the Bothriospilini talk page. That's the tangled web you put together even if unintentionally. The correct thing to do at the AfD would have been to link correctly to the target articles, and then say in a later dated comment with the diff "Here's a version I want to see, but I haven't gotten consensus on the talk pages yet."

So again BilledMammal, please step back from the brink, take a breath, and sincerely review what issues you were causing instead of denying and lashing out. This is an opportunity to move on, and your opportunity to show you can self-correct through reflection. KoA (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think BM has handled all this the best way, but I agree with them and several other people here, that you shouldn't have edited their comment. What exception at WP:TPO do you claim justifying those edits? Not only BM has handled this poorly. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

What you're proposing is WP:GAMING, which is encouraging disruptive editing. If someone decides to violate WP:TALK#REVISE, especially at a wiki-process like RfC, AfD, etc. anyone can undo the disruption, and multiple editors have made it clear it was misleading and that the restoration of the original AfDs were needed. TPO is not a protection against that. In practice, it's fairly common to restore the original version when someone does this on talk pages. Otherwise I could pointily alter any RfC, etc. I start and just claim TPO if someone rightfully cleaned up after my disruption in that example. KoA (talk) 04:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Casting

Ass

Persians

-EEng

I'm not proposing any sort of gaming, please don't evade having to answer questions by casting aspersions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Close as No Action

ANI is for cases where our normal discussion and dispute resolution processes have proven unsuccessful. Although the actions of several editors have been less than ideal, the conduct and content issues raised here are being resolved through discussion and there is no need to continue the play-by-play narrative that has emerged. Gentle reminder for all involved to focus on content and avoid personal attacks. –dlthewave ☎ 03:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support per my comments above. There is no further need for this to be discussed here. --Spekkios (talk) 05:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. If it wasn't clear, this is a !vote to close, but with a short summary reminding BM that their actions were problematic. I think this is going to close without any additional action (edit: sanctions) as long as editors actually let the process wrap up, but we do need to be careful about wording the proposal as if there haven't been ongoing issues this whole time (and still are unfortunately in the section below). The main thing is to formally summarize the issues with BM's behavior in a no action close, and I took a stab at covering things the closer could choose to weigh in on in the section above with those 6 bullets.[32] In multiple attempts from editors, much of the underlying behavior wasn't really resolved, but the one area there was progress is that BM will at least avoid mass redirects and use the relevant talk pages.

The remaining attitude issues still leave major concerns about how behavior will be at talk pages for me though. That's why I'm hoping a decent summary close will get across to BM (the real purpose of a warning) so they can self correct rather than embolden them. Those of us who tried to stem some of the issues with BM put up with a lot of flak here, so if we can do our best to make sure BM gets that guidance with a close, that would go a long way to keeping them away from ANI again. KoA (talk) 06:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the section below concerns a different editor and does not show ongoing disruption by BilledMammal. –dlthewave ☎ 12:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

When I mentioned that here, it was that the dispute was being continued by other editors regardless of who, and it was clear from the start of the text it was not BM. I updated that header to make it super super redundant though. KoA (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is a clear consensus here that BM's actions have not been appropriate, and these actions have apparently not yet stopped, so "no action" is very much the wrong outcome here. Whether this needs to close with a warning or something stronger is not yet clear (to me at least) but it definitely needs at least a warning. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

It might help if you specify which actions are meant, because other than the claims of POINT and forum shopping, which have not been substantiated, you're basically left with a large-scale content dispute and a possible edit war over a diff. Your "clear consensus" is also clearly fanciful. Avilich (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I too fail to see any such consensus. Much less a clear one. nableezy - 15:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

There's a point where comments like this reach WP:IDHT even with the sheer volume of issues we sorted through. I just posted a link summarizing it in my above comment, but even if you ignore the AfD edit warring, there was mass redirects, not following WP:BEFORE with their AfDs in a pointy manner to continue the mass redirects, and edit warring at the article pages claiming it was ok because they could restore anything not specifically mentioned in a revert edit summary rather than go to talk pages. Here's the summary again from that diff (collapsed) in case it was missed.

Extended content

1. Mass redirects of beetle articles without discussion that had to be restored. 2. Followed by mass AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bothriospila and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adalbus to perform the redirects without following WP:BEFORE (all the numbers before #5 WP:CONRED) by consulting on relevant talk pages or Wikiprojects 3. Edit warring at Bothriospilini and Bimiini described at the top of this subsection. They continued edit warring the content in despite multiple editors disputing it and didn't come to the talk page until well after.[33] As part of this, BM insisted on focusing that they came to my talk page to discuss the content, but ignored cautions that it needed to be at a central location so those involved could comment. Little interaction at that talk page by BM. 4. Again at Bothriospilini, editors noticed that the edit-warred content above was WP:CONTENTFORK that had been inserted just prior to the AfDs, AfDs that were predicated on the idea that redirects should happened because of the articles had content fork material (see comment at a talk page for more). In short, multiple complaints about that edit-warred material misleading editors at the AfD. 5. BM then changes the target link at their AfDs[34][35] well after they had started in violation of WP:TALK#REVISE and the expectation that you don't substantially change an RfC, AfD, etc. part way through, especially without notification. 6. Multiple editors tried to correct the violation and notify respondents at the AfD[36][37][38], resulting in BM edit warring at AfDs[39][40][41][42] to restore the WP:TALK#REVISE violation and point editors solely at their preferred version rather than the current state of the articles. BM also tried to justify their reverts by claiming WP:TPO excludes anyone from correcting the WP:TALK#REVISE violation.

Thryduulf hit the nail on the head. I made it clear above that regardless of action, there's clear consensus there was disruption by BM that took awhile to sort out. That latter part is the thing that cannot be hand-waved away even if we decide to see how things go forward as opposed to sanctions. KoA (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Only one editor has opposed closing this with no action, there is and never was any such consensus. And reposting your highly partisan "summarisation", will not change that in anyway. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

On the other hand, there hasn't been a proposal against the user. I agree that BM should have known better given their experience. I don't want to see a ban, but a trouting at the very least feels necessary. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

As AD said yesterday, put forward a proposal and see if it gains consensus. That would actually be a productive move forward--towards closure--rather than what's been going on so far, which is a bunch of bludgeoning in the hopes that some admin will act unilaterally. Levivich (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Levivich, you're in the proposal where exactly this is being discussed. KoA (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

This proposal is to close with no action. Josh pointed out that "there hasn't been a proposal against the user", and I'm saying: so go ahead and make one if you think there's consensus for action against the user. Levivich (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Warnings and just saying that something was disruptive in the close are generally considered as no action. It's not uncommon to see confusion or disputes over what "action" means sometimes at ANI, but here is where we are discussing how it should be closed regardless of that. KoA (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

No, warnings are not generally considered no action. Quite the opposite. I'm 100% sure that this proposal is not a proposal for a warning. Levivich (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm pretty sure everyone who has actually been actively working on the behavior issues here don't want to see them banned (I've made that clear multiple times). Something WP:PREVENTATIVE is needed, but most considering that need agree a basic "these things were problematic, knock it off" statement would go a long way instead of formal sanctions at this moment. KoA (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

"Most"? I think you should count again. Levivich (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

This is the reason originally posted, KOAs summarisation of the situation posted above (twice) is so slanted as to have little to do with the thread that came before it. Apparently any who disagrees is deliberately ignoring their wisdom. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

AC, the rhetoric isn't helpful, and please be mindful of WP:NPA. That you had to be corrected on some very straightforward mistakes as to how much edit warring occurred at an article is not an excuse to lash out derail an ANI peppering comments in like that. This ANI is big enough already, and I already cautioned you about WP:BLUDGEON when I was trying to draw back from the thread. KoA (talk) 16:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I would apologise, but then you brought up WP:BLUDGEON again. Go jump, the only person who has bludgeoned this discussion is you. Please stop. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Since you brought it up with despite a few editors trying really, really hard to get BM sanctioned [43] and it actually helps in assessing consensus, which of us that have been pushing for addressing their behavior are trying to get BM sanctioned? Even I've made it clear that a good summary of the problem issues would be best over blocks, etc., so that wouldn't be me obviously. At my count just maybe Thryduulf? They did say definitely at least a warning with uncertainty of possibly needing more, but that's about the most "extreme" I've seen.

The whole point is that embellishing and casting aspersions about the editors trying to get a pretty conservative resolution does not help, and only increases the likelihood that BM is given less leeway to improve instead. It just disrupts ANI and results in editors having to spend even more time clarifying what was actual said or done. You were already warned about this at an ANI about you.[44] KoA (talk) 16:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Stop bludgeoning the discussion, make a proposal or drop it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Two when you count me when you actually read my WP:!VOTE above. AD, part of the problem I've been trying deal with now is your posts actively ignoring what happened at the articles (otherwise I wouldn't be posting so much) in your !vote below and elsewhere. Then you try to paint those who actually tried to deal with the disruption as "highly partisan" and we're getting into major cognitive dissonance territory. No one can reasonably call pointing out the mass redirects as highly partisan, nor the WP:BEFORE violations, nor the edit warring that resulted in page protection.

Other casting aspersions about editors just being out to get BM just contributes to the disruption and is an indication we do need a close with a good summary/warning. Had it not been for that behavior, we maybe could have gotten away with just letting it go as an informal warning if BM took the comments to heart. Instead, those comments are creating the the necessity to be a bit stricter now. KoA (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I have not been actively ignoring anything, I think your interpretation is wrong. Stop casting aspersions. If you don't agree with this proposal oppose it, and post you own proposal. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Im pretty sure the entire internet is aware you feel your actions are correct and BM's are disruptive, and repeating that position, at great length, more times does not make that position stronger. The only problem Ive seen in the entire time youve been spamming my watchlist is that youve been spamming my watchlist. Please stop. nableezy - 16:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Support WP:BOLD is not against policy, AfDs and editing articles are normal pratice. The edit waring by BM at Bothriospilini was one revert. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

More than one revert if you actually look at Bothriospilini. Here was the initial edit[45] followed by Elmidae reverting it was disruptive[46] followed by BM reverting[47], my restoration of the status quo[48], and BM's additional revert[49]. More than just one revert, and BM's actions resulted in page protection. Just trying to say it was one revert with edit war in quotes misrepresents what actually happened at the page. KoA (talk) 15:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

If you want a different proposal put one forward. Otherwise I'm not reading your replies any longer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

To be clear my support is meant in complete opposition to the overly slanted summarisation of events by other authors. Anyone closing this should discard such comments as not reflecting this discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support - I don't think there is clear consensus here at all, nor will it develop. This is and has always been a content dispute, and nothing productive is coming of this discussion, despite a few editors trying really, really hard to get editors on the other side of the content dispute sanctioned. Oppose warning or any other sanction. Levivich (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support I think BilledMammal's behavior is mildly disruptive, but obviously people disagree on whether that's the case. BilledMammal has indicated at User talk:Dyanega that they are interested in discussing guidelines about how to handle these merges, which effectively obviates the problem in my eyes. If this is part of a pattern of WP:IDONTHEARTHATon their part, it can be parsed out at some future point. @KoA: I don't think persevering in this is going to obtain consensus for a warning or sanctions and is turning otherwise uninvolved editors against you at this point. Choess (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Responding to the ping, but to be clear, I was pretty clear about planning to step back once some misrepresentations of me were taken care of, but those "uninvolved editors" are also sniping at other uninvolved editors like Thryduulf with similar rhetoric. The closer can decide how to weight comments from those editors at this point now, so there's not much need for me to address those issues further.

I will say that I agree with you that we can support closing this while still saying that their behavior was disruptive. If that is acknowledged, that helps to move forward with your plan, which is pretty much what I've been endorsing for the going forward part. KoA (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Question - I'm surprised by the lack of action here. After the merging started, a discussion was started at WT:WikiProject Tree of Life#Species article merges, and that BilledM was notified about, but didn't participate. Then the ANI started. Not long after that, BilledM nominated many articles to be merged, at WP:Articles for deletion/Bothriospila and WP:Articles for deletion/Adalbus (which surely isn't the right forum). I'd think that these nominations are very pointy, given the ongoing discussion here, and the discussion on the topic at the project, that BilledM has ignored. I feel I'm missing something - why is there not even a warning for this? Perhaps there's a fifth discussion going on that I haven't found yet? Nfitz (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  Note: the discussion at ToL was started only half an hour before this one at ANI. --Spekkios (talk) 07:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support: a revamp of WP:NSPECIES has been necessary for a long time. The BRD process seems a process explicitly designed to start such a discussion the clue's in the third letter. Honestly, I've almost seen more potentially disruptive editing in this thread from anguished subject writers than I have from BilledMammal at all.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support: Sure, I can see the issues, but this is best resolved outside ANI. As stated above, a gentle reminder about civility and personal attacks for all involved wouldn't go astray. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 00:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  A reminder about civility and personal attacks is not closing without action. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring resumed by Avilich

I thought editors were going to try to move on until I saw the pings and literally facepalmed, but now Avilich has resumed the edit warring at the two AfDs again[50][51][52] As already addressed above, it's a violation of WP:TALK#REVISE to alter those comments from the originals.[53][54] I don't know what's gotten in people's heads thinking it's ok it edit war at AfDs or alter them partway through.

It's probably best if an admin restores the original proposals of both AfDs since editors are being attacked for trying to clean up that up. I'd also just prefer to call it moot instead considering the status and time left of the AfDs, but I'm just astounded by the pointiness of other editors restarting at about the same time as Dlthewave's section above. There's just a cycle going on of someone at ANI saying nothing is going on and close this followed by another dispute being restarted shortly after. KoA (talk) 05:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Adding oldids to links is not a violation of WP:REDACT. While not always used, such links do the opposite of "deprive any replies of their original context". Much like returning Bothriospilini to a single sentence, raising the use of oldids as an issue is not helping the behavioural case you are trying to make. CMD (talk) 05:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

You keep repeating that, but adding the oldids changed the meaning of the proposal from the actual target Bothriospilini (more than just a single sentence) to presenting something entirely different in the middle of the AfD while making comments as if their version was the established version. The background on that was pretty unanimous,[55] and it doesn't help BM to encourage them that this was ok. The advice BM was already given would apply to you to. If someone wants to make a change to their comments, but WP:TALK#REVISE prevents it (i.e., you want to make a change to an already commented on AfD), make a new dated comment that says, "Here's a version of the page I would like to see, but I haven't gained consensus on the talk pages for it." You don't go back and alter comments like that to make it seem like that version is the actual target.

Anyways, the point here in this section is that someone else has started up edit warring again away from what the original proposal was. If it's something to take action on is for someone else to decide, so I suggest dropping the WP:STICK as myself and others have been trying to do so this can wrap up. KoA (talk) 06:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

What am I repeating and from where? CMD (talk) 09:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Just noticed the "more than just a single sentence" remark. For the record, it here is where it was turned back into a single sentence, a nice example of the value of oldids. It is good that someone has taken the initiative to add more content to it since then, a positive content outcome to the dispute that had seemed at risk. Some small expansions have also been made to other articles involved in this, which has also been positive and seems an optimal result for such disputes going forward. CMD (talk) 10:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you have made your position on that already quite clear. --Spekkios (talk) 07:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• I went ahead and notified Avilich of this discussion. KoA, I think you've accidentally posted two copies of the same diff. Another editor repeating the disputed edit is not edit warring; has anyone reached out to the editor to try to resolve the dispute before bringing it to ANI? –dlthewave ☎ 12:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Avilich was already a participant here and was aware of the issues with their edits already based on warnings at the AfD. When someone tries to jump into edit warring related to an already open ANI, especially one looking to wrap, of course it's going to get brought up here as pointy editing as a sort of closing potshot. KoA (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• The discussion isn't deprived of context because the article is still linked (if anything, whoever changed the article after the AfD started has altered the context); the idea proposed in the AfD remains the same regardless of the diff displayed. Avilich (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
• Please answer my question above, under what exception are you editing of people comments? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

There's a point WP:BLUDGEON applies when you've already been answered. Asking like that is WP:GAMING/WP:WIKILAWYERING of the WP:TPG. If someone violates WP:TALK#REVISE and changes the meaning of a talk comment, much less a wiki-process, it also violates the spirit of WP:TPO that we don't change the meaning of comments. It's standard practice to undo such changes. If someone tries to claim a loophole that nothing can be done to correct violations, that's practically by definition wikilawyering.

If editors don't like that multiple editors alerted to the issue at this ANI like myself did some standard cleanup, ANI probably isn't the best place for them. This is where we get alerted to disruption and try to fix the problems, not encourage them by denying that the disruption occurred. Continuing to try to rehash this just adds to the problems. KoA (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

tl:dr. That you mention WP:BLUDGEON is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Utterly horrendously written articles from an auto patrolled user

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

I have come across this user's articles and they are horrendously written. The English is awful and completely broken. I am unable to even attempt to make corrections to some of these articles. Sure English isn't everyone's native language, but this user for some reason has auto patrolled rights, meaning the articles he's creating are not even being checked or reviewed properly. How Wikipedia can allow this is astounding, there should be a basic level of English required before such articles are published. Two examples of poorly written articles that I cannot even attempt to try and fix: David Mark Hill and Samuel Hartsel. The Hill article did not even correctly name the execution method which I had to correct: [56]. There are many more. Please can an admin review. Inexpiable (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• FYI, you need to post a notice on a user's talk page when starting a discussion about them at ANI. I've posted the notice on MATF's talk page. Levivich (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I usually find that the non-native English users are better than the native editors whose English is just bad. The former are usually happy to be corrected but the latter often take great offence at anything that could be construed as criticism of their writing. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Those are indeed practically unreadable and would definitely have benefitted from an NPPer tagging them with the copyedit template. JoelleJay (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that their prose is atrocious, and that their autopatrolled status should be revoked. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree - WP:CIR. Very inappropriate for them to be an auto-patroller. DeCausa (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• Joe Roe gave the user the AP right last year. I'm reluctant to revoke the right without Joe's views.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
• Folks, before we discuss removing perms or any sanction, perhaps we could give our colleague the opportunity to respond first? AFAIK, this ANI thread is the first time these problems have been raised? It's kind of rude to jump straight to talk of sanctions without even talking to the user first, particularly when it's someone who has donated thousands of hours here. Before any of the rest of us give our opinion, shouldn't we hear what MATF has to say first? Levivich (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
• Three comments. First, we should definitely allow MATF to respond before any further steps are discussed. Second, please remember that the AP flag isn't really a right; while some stigma likely attaches to its removal, fundamentally it exists to benefit reviewers and readers, and has no benefit to the holder. Third, I would like to hear from MATF whether they have used machine translation to assist them at any point; some of the phraseology strikes me as similar to the meaninglessness that google sometimes produces. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• I agree that hearing from the editor for clarification is a good idea, but I also agree that revoking their autopatrolled status is called for and shouldn't be dependent on it. First stop the problem, then discuss with the editor. Their status can easily be changed back if it appears to be warranted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• MATF has created 1,152 articles. I just spent a half-hour 45 minutes fixing a relatively simple one, John Harllee (admiral). If that's typical, we're talking about volunteers spending something like 500 800 hours cleaning up after their mess. That's a problem that's significant enough to warrant acting first, and listening to explanations later. Please, would some admin remove their autopatrolled flag? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  There appear to be some major content issues here. For example, the article Talmadge L. Heflin states

  In 1983, Heflin won the election for the 149th district of the Texas House of Representatives. He was honored by the Alief Independent School District which it was renamed as the Talmadge L. Heflin Elementary School.

  The source [57] however states

  Mr. Heflin served on the Board of Trustees of the Alief Independent School District from 1973 to 1980. In 1982, the district honored his service to the area with the opening of Talmadge L. Heflin Elementary School.

  The article implies that he was honoured for winning the election, rather than because he served on the board of trustees, falsely states that something was "renamed" when it was actually a new school being opened, implies the school naming occurred after the election in 1983 when it actually took place in 1982 and it confusingly suggests that the school district turned into a elementary school somehow. There are other examples of exceptionally poor writing,

  In 1980, Heflin was apart of an election, in which it had involved being unsuccessful against Georgia's United States senator Mack Mattingly.

  Is an extremely convoluted and confused way of saying he lost an election, which somehow avoids actually telling us what the election was. The article is also full of grammatical errors and nonsensical sentences, MOS issues ("politician" and "business" should not be linked), and a plethora of categories that are not verified in the article text - the article contains no information on his involvement in the energy business, his religious beliefs or his non-fiction writing.

  @Beyond My Ken perhaps it would looking into running a bot to unpatrol their article creations after they were granted the right? 192.76.8.88 (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• I'm continuing to look to their articles, and indeed you are correct that grammar and construction errors are the least of the problems; the information itself has in many cases been corrupted. I would suggest that all of their articles be moved to draftspace, where they can be worked on without being generally accessible to the public. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken: Are they actively creating bad articles without responding here? If not, removal isn't urgent, though I agree it's likely to be warranted. AP removal isn't retroactive; any articles they've created would still need to be manually reviewed. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

They don't seem to have edited since last night. I understand the principal of not acting unless there is a need to stop ongoing activity, but I think the need here is obvious enough (as I continue to review their articles) that lifting the flag is warranted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with the editors above that the issues here go beyond spelling and grammar errors. I attempted to copyedit David Mark Hill before giving up in frustration. At the time I found it, the article stated He had his own The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints church. This was sourced to [58], which says The Hills' Mormon church helped pay their mortgage, utilities and groceries - obviously that doesn't mean that he ran a church!
  The next paragraph is extremely convoluted, difficult to understand and leaves out important context: Hill had began to act as a spree killer after receiving a notice from his wife to file a divorce against him. He was involved in some murders which had resulted three people being killed, in which he was suspected that Hill was the murderer since he had visited a department of social office. It was stated that he also assaulted a person which was his daughter. He killed them since it was for taking his children away from him, in which there was a restraining order against Hill. The actual story, from [59], is Hill went on the shooting spree in North Augusta after his wife asked for a divorce and a social worker accused him of molesting a child. He lost custody of his children and blamed state workers. Killed were case worker Jimmy Riddle, 52; Josie Curry, 35; and Michael Gregory, 30.
  I can understand why autopatrolled was granted because many of their articles are brief stubs where these issues with writing coherently aren't as apparent (e.g. Nicolas Becker (sound engineer), Andy Lewis (screenwriter)). However, considering the factual errors and general incomprehensiblity of their longer creations I don't think it is appropriate for them to hold this right. Spicy (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• Did the admin who granted them this permission actually review any of their work? Every single article I’ve checked so far has been plagued with the above mentioned content issues. Now I’m seeing that they’ve created over 1000 articles? This has the potential to be a massive problem. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:FC3F:FA47:1CA0:2CF8 (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  I thought the same, but then looking at their page creations before they were granted the autopatrolled right, a lot were stubs with short sentences or lists of films/shows obscuring their language deficiencies. So if Joe just looked at a handful of the stubs on Academy Award winners he wouldn't have noticed anything egregious. The typos and sentence construction chaos are only really apparent when MATF attempts to expand beyond a stub. Perhaps in the case of serial (notable, sourced) stub creators AP grantors should look for any larger page creations/expansions by the user to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen. JoelleJay (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• Remove the user right. There is sufficient evidence presented here. Additionally require that all future articles from this editor are created as a draft. Per Beyond My Ken: First stop the problem, then discuss with the editor. Donating thousands of hours here has never been a hurdle to stripping of special rights if the content quality is a serious problem and creating unnecessary work for others. Furthermore, autopatrolled is the one right that accords absolutely no benefits to the user whatsoever other than giving them another hat to wear. NPP has been acutely aware of the abuse of the auto patrolled right for a very long time. Their best suggestion to date is to deprecate this user right which having become a contentious issue has already been recently removed from the sysop bundle. To suggest that it would increase the workload of the reviewers (the usual contra argument) would be a straw man - articles of the quality expected by auto patrolled users only take a second or two to review. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with removal of AP as the first step. Per WP:AUTOPAT, "Autopatrolled is a user right given to prolific creators of clean articles". It's quite clear that this editor is not producing "clean articles". I just spot-checked six very quickly and could not identify any major problem without comparing them with the sources. But 5/6 need a copyedit cleanup minimally, with things like Born in Bentonville, Arkansas. (The sixth was a two-line stub). MB 01:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

According the autopatrolled right based on a random look at a few stubs (if that's what happened) is not the best way to go. Stubs, however clean they might be, are not sufficient to demonstrate a thorough knowledge of the requirements for producing a fully fleshed out article. I do recall that mass creating stubs to obtain the autopatrolled right has been deliberately used in the past by users with a specific agenda. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

If there's an agenda here, I haven't glommed on to it yet. The articles I've reviewed and fixed so far are about minor politicians and officials, both Democrat and Republican; the encyclopedia would not be affected in any significant way if they were all moved to draft to be worked on.

The problems I've seen are misrepresentation of what sources say (apparently because of misunderstanding), stilted writing, incorrect use of idiomatic constructions (especially in the use of prepositions), convoluted and awkward phrasings, use of infobox parameters that don't exist, nonsensical facts (such as a legislator being suceeded by three people), categorization not supported by text in the article (almost as if MATF has personal knowledge they're using), inclusion of unnecessary information, failure to update information from more recent sources (a person is reported to have 4 brothers, but a correction in the same newspaper changes it to 3 brothers; both sources are cited, but the article still said 4 brothers until I corrected it), etc., all of which are, I think, neither deliberate nor malign, but nevertheless result in sloppy articles that are well below the expected standard. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

They're also creating these articles pretty quickly - 7 articles yesterday, 10 articles on the 16th, 11 articles on the 15th. No indication of automation or anything like that, but from the results, they don't seem to be spending any significant amount of time crafting them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

So, is everybody waiting for the user and/or Joe Roe to weigh in here..? I've removed the autopatrolled right. Bishonen | tålk 08:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC).

Thank you. I hope we'll hear from the editor soon. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

There are two active ANI discussions right now regarding users granted autopatrol rights by User:Joe Roe making bizarre and disruptive edits. It also appears in his talk page from 18 days ago that he intends to ignore ANI discussions? Looks like he had a spot of trouble regarding a third autopatrolled user here. Kire1975 (talk) 11:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not "ignoring ANI discussions". I haven't been editing for a few days, and by the time I saw the pings in this thread, it had already run its course and I didn't have anything to add. WP:AGF, please. – Joe (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• Going to weigh in here briefly on some of the articles; I'm the one that's moved a few articles of MATF from a temp page to mainspace. However, I don't have AP, so all of those pages went through NPP regardless of MATF having AP at the time. The work I've seen from MATF is rewriting bad Billy Hathorn content; crap that's already got a plethora of issues beyond just copyright, and how copyright rewrites are usually done is by simply taking the content and rewriting it, not remaking an article entirely from scratch. We usually only check for copyright issues; we're not NPP 2.0. Regardless, I find the other problems troubling, but I don't think that we should be jumping to sanctions beyond AP revoking just yet. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Side discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Five questions: (1) Is some entity trying to use WP as an AI learning tool? (2) Is this an effort to discredit/disrupt WP? (3) What methods/tools can be used/invented to monitor these events (which will probably increase)? (4) Why did I receive and emailed link to this discussion? I am not an Admin and have no special privileges here (as far as I know). (5) Am I eligible for AP status? FINALLY: why did this page disappear a few minutes ago when I tried to post the above? WEIRD! Shir-El too 13:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC) If you received an e-mail with a link to this discussion, why don't you ask the editor who e-mailed you why. Your other questions make no sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC) @Bbb23Bbb23: the sender was wiki@wikimedia.org! The other three questions make sense if you view this problem as a possible trend, not just an isolated incident, and make good sense in an era of 'fake news', 'fake images' etc. Wikipedia may be this planet's best source of free, relatively unbiased information, which some minds can't stand: it makes them vulnerable. The 5th question is now moot; I looked it up and don't want it. All the Best! Shir-El too 15:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC) @Shir-El too: I can answer that last question: it's because you added your comments to a version of this page from ~6 hours ago, effectively reverting to it. Then Beshogur reverted you. I'm guessing the email you received included a linked DIFF instead of a link to the current discussion, like this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Utterly horrendously written articles from an auto patrolled user. Woodroar (talk) 14:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC) Thank you! Cheers! Shir-El too 15:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC) Three answers: (1) Is some entity trying to use WP as an AI learning tool? No. It bears very few of the hallmarks of AI article writing; also you'd not teach an AI how to learn by having it do something else. (2) Is this an effort to discredit/disrupt WP? No. There are far better ways of doing both. Writing crappy articles is a function of this being an encyclopedia anyone can edit and goes with the territory. The cock-up theory is always better than the conspiracy theory. (3) What methods/tools can be used/invented to monitor these events (which will probably increase)? Very few, even assuming we could do anything. In this particular case, not granting the Auto-Patrolled right would've made discovering this annoying-but-minor (in the scheme of things) event happen earlier. It wouldn't've prevented it because anything that prevents this type of thing also prevents people from creating good articles too. — Trey Maturin has spoken 16:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I know this is late but this is the evidence that I will provide: For Vanamonde's third comment, I write the articles in my own words and I don't use a machine translation unless I have to which I would use it for the articles that's in other different Wikipedia languages that included Àngel Casas. I would say that with my writing, I would change up my words with searching up another word to "insert word here" in a website, where I would use that word instead. With the Talmadge L. Heflin, I didn't mean that the school was renamed after him when he won the election but I don't know since like sometimes I don't notice. I didn't see anything wrong with my writing. The article Talmadge L. Heflin was a rewrite to get rid of Billy Hathorn's copyright version along with Teel Bivins and Flip Mark. You'll notice when I create them rewrites, I put recreated without copyright and what I do is I copy the categories from the archive version of Hathorn's to make it easier. Then I write it with using the cited sources in my own words. If I'm not editing in like a Saturday or for a few days then I'm like away from the computer since like I'm in somewhere else and while I'm away, I write articles in my Google Docs and then when I finally come home, I would copy-paste then fix it and then make some changes but this is how I write and with Hathorn's writing I use them but I avoid its copyright and make it my own words, but I will mention that I am a Spanish speaker but I do better in English.

With the David Mark Hill edit with the church removal I saw, it had said The Hills Mormon Church which would have meant he had his own church and with the Mormon church link it had redirected to the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article, in which its also known as Mormon church. With the sentence in the Talmadge F. Heflin article, "In 1980, Heflin was apart of an election, in which it had involved being unsuccessful against Georgia's United States senator Mack Mattingly" (which is already removed), well I didn't know what election it was but I included it since it was sourced but I don't entirely have access to newspapers.com articles but just stuff that's already clipped, like I clip another thing since there is something clipped in the article and so on, I only have the free version of it. That newspaper article came up while I searched up Talmadge Heflin and it had mentioned the surname Heflin and I just took it as a ref. I didn't mean to cause disruption with my writing but if the community says there are issues with my articles then I would like to fix it if the community gives me a chance to improve it and see what they think. I just include info that's already sourced and just add them, which I saw with the Sally Wheeler article.

With the Neil Haven Klock article, I’m gonna revert some stuff until consensus is made because according to the Louisiana House Members source it says who preceded, served alongside and succeeded him but Beyond My Ken goes along with the obituary, but the Louisiana House Members verifies that he served as a member of the legislative with other info too. It didn't say he left office during 1942 other than the obituary, since it says his term ended in 1944 and the legislative keeps the correct track of the members and years when I see it and it's verifiable. Klock was succeeded by three people according to the Louisiana House Members pdf, even in the archive version of the article, it says that he was succeeded by three people and it was sourced so I added it and just went along with verifiable Louisiana Members pdf, this is an answer to the nonsensical facts thing that has "such as a legislator being suceeded by three people". With T. J. Hooks, I’m gonna revert more stuff too until consensus is made since Hooks served along with E. A. Wilson for which they had both represented Lake. He and Wilson were succeeded by two people, according to the Florida House Membership. The one that Beyond My Ken decided that could stay is William A. Hocker, a politician who has a blue link and was succeeded by Hooker. Also there is this reason that they said was "They're also creating these articles pretty quickly - 7 articles yesterday, 10 articles on the 16th, 11 articles on the 15th. No indication of automation or anything like that.", well those articles were created normally, since it was because I created them in google docs when I didn't edit for a week so I copy-pasted them and made them into Wikipedia articles when I came back and had lots I made in google docs and I still have some leftovers that includes Donald Jonas, Vernon Peeples, Bob Terhune and many others too.

Well now I see Beyond My Ken states that "I created seven articles yesterday" which was the (27th-28th), well the first two were from Google Docs, the third-fifth were Billy hathorn's rewrites since I was gonna be gone and I took my time into writing them and the Georgia's politicians stubs were created easily since I couldn’t find anything else but I found information in the pdf so I used it since it was SOURCED. Then I left to go somewhere else. The 16th had ten articles they say and most of them were from my Google Docs and some like Barry Oringer and William Wood (screenwriter) were created instantly. The article Taky Marie-Divine Kouamé was created when I woke up, since she won a medal in a notable event and had coverage too. The article Bo Callaway was recreated since it was gonna remove lot of stuff except the beginning so I rewrote it without copyright, that I'm adding more info. The 15th is when I came back, since I started off with Andy Detwiler who I written in my google docs and then the rest I wrote in google docs mostly. This is all I could say if it makes sense. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I really hate to say it, but WP:Competence is required, and MaTF's long comment above speaks volumes about their lack of competence in writing acceptable English (as well as some basic misunderstandings about American electoral procedures); I won't embarrass them by pointing out the many basic errors it contains.

I believe that it is necessary for the following actions to be taken:

1. Move all the articles listed here to draft space. Editors who have fixed any of MaTF's creations can move them back into article space, and reviewers can whittle away at the rest of the list over time.

2. Topic ban MaTF from creating articles more complex than the most basic stub (their stub articles seem to be OK) or extensively re-writing existing articles. I'm not quite sure how such a TB would be phrased, but I do think it's necessary. They can continue to do other non-textual work around Wikipedia - there's plenty of that to be done that doesn't require extensive ability to write acceptable English. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

But can I try improving my articles like I've seen many copyedits in my articles, but can I get a chance to fix them and then see what the community thinks. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• MATF, that manner of paraphrasing sources is completely inappropriate. You need to understand what the source has said, and construct your own sentences summarizing that material. If you carry out word-for-word replacements, you're going to alter the meaning of the text and produce incomprehensible content, and you're also not avoiding copyright issues at all. If you're not using machine translation, and English is your native language, I'm sorry to say I don't know what advice to offer you; but you need to be able to understand the sources you're using, and if you lack the ability to do Wikipedia isn't the best hobby for you.
  I don't think a TBAN will achieve anything here: the issue appears to be with any non-trivial content. Either MATF can fix this approach; possibly be reducing the speed at which they work, and by taking the time to understand what they're reading and writing; or they can't, in which case, what are they doing on Wikipedia? I would suggest that MATF be required to work on and fix any five articles of their choosing from among their creations, and if they can address the issues here, we can work out a system of probation. If they're unwilling or unable to do so, we need to consider a site-ban. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't care about the AP role but I just want to still create articles, but I need to improve the others first. Can someone check how I did with James Sturch. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@MoviesandTelevisionFan: Your changes to James Sturch were improvements as far as they went, but another user (Larry Hockett) still had to make further changes, correcting some pretty basic errors in English phrasing. It doesn't speak well to your ability to fix the problems with the articles you created. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@MoviesandTelevisionFan: If you'd like, take a look at the list on my talk page of your articles which I have worked on. While not perfect, they may give you more of an idea where your mistakes lie if you compare their condition now to how they looked when you stepped away from them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I will do that, thank you. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I moved Nick Mackey to draft as some content was unintelligible, user has made numerous efforts to improve this with zero success “resigned for which he was probed from a reason" “"he was resigned due to being investigated from some issues” ”he was resigned from his duty due to being investigated from his fabricating hours" now “In 2003, he was resigned.” WP:CIR is appropriate. Theroadislong (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

That article has been worked on by several editors and is now fine. I've moved it back into mainspace. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Is this a situation where, rather than a TBAN, having a mandatory AfC draft submission for all their articles would be appropriate instead? Silverseren^C 21:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

As a reasonably active AFC reviewer, our workload is heavy enough without having more than the few mandatory AFC users we have already. All this would achieve is moving the problem around the various willing horses. Mentorship, assuming that still exists, would be a more immediate feedback and education loop. AFC has a large backlog and our role is to accept drafts that have a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. We are not meant to strive for perfection, though some reviewers do. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked the user from article space. Frankly, I don't think that's sufficient because they will just create work editing badly in draft space. I would prefer a topic ban from article creation in any space, and if my prediction is valid, I can also add draft space to the pblock.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  Bbb23, I'm not sure there's consensus here for such a drastic action. Also, it does seem both unnecessary (given that the editor has accepted the criticisms here) and counterproductive (given that they've expressed the intention to go back and correct problems with their articles). – Uanfala (talk) 08:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  Admins can take actions on their own discretion, which I assume was the case here. As for MaTF's intention to fix the problems with their articles, given the nature of their comments here, I do not believe that the editor is capable of correcting the type of mistakes their articles are replete with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I want to get the attention of what I'm gonna say. In my opinion, I think that I should create articles in draftspace that way it could be reviewed by AFC reviewers. I will read the guideline correctly and take my time into creating articles in draftspace. I'm just asking for a second chance from the community and this will be all I will say. I will mention that I should get access to edit namespace again but I would mainly just edit a bit and also add refs. I would still like to improve my articles in namespaces so I can fix it, but I didn't mean to cause disruption. I'm gonna stay back and come back for a few days to see what happens. Thank you! Please ping me if necessary. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@MoviesandTelevisionFan: Is English your first language? If not, how would you rate your proficiency in English? — Trey Maturin has spoken 23:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

English is my first language. This is how I write in English. I apologize if I'm not intelligent at it, but this is my English. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Well then that is a very serious problem for us. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe English is MATF's native tongue. Sorry but... Just got through cleaning up some of their articles. I came across Eloise Hardt on my own. The others I sought out. I will clean up/clear up as many as I can. A list of articles MATF created or worked on is here. MurrayGreshler (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@MoviesandTelevisionFan (Non-administrator comment) Hi! I wanted to give a few suggestions to you since I was at one point in your boat with regards to newer articles. Firstly, I will not be making any comment about age or grade level but if you are under 18/21, I suggest you read WP:YOUNG, it has a bit of guidance aimed at those under 18/21. Secondly, if you say that there are problems with your English, I'd suggest you find a wikitask that you can do that does not require making your own prose (like typo fixing or anti-vandalism work). If you are not comprehending a source then you should not be adding the content from that source. Some sources use extremely specialist terms that only a handful of people (like doctors, mathematicians, historians, etc.) understand, and no amount of reading those sources will make you suddenly understand them. Lastly, it is important that you understand your limits. From WP:CIR: Everyone has a limited sphere of competence. For example, someone may be competent in nuclear physics but incompetent in ballet dancing or vice versa. Some otherwise competent people may lack the skills necessary to edit Wikipedia. If one specific task you are doing is causing problems to the project, then you should cease such task and select another task that you would be able to help with. If you are unable to do that, I am afraid admins may come in and place sitewide blocks and bans. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 18:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Consensus for mass move to draftspace?

• Request - We've had numerous editors here examine MaTF's articles, and the consensus seems to be that, other than very basic stubs, their articles are in need of serious attention. Could an admin or page mover who has the ability to do bulk moves please move this list of articles to draft space? I am a page mover but I don't have the automation or semi-automation capability to do such a mass move. After it's done, I will move the 15 or so articles I worked on back to article space, and I hope other editors who fixed MaTF's articles will do the same.
  (If there's another method of accomplishing the same thing, then that's fine too.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken there are userscripts to do mass moves. Wikipedia:User_scripts/List#Moving_and_merging. – robertsky (talk) 02:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, I'll take a look tomorrow. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see any consensus for a mass move to Draft. Your list has over 1,000 articles going back over a year. MB 14:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  So it would be your preferred course to leave 1,000+ badly written and sometimes inaccurate articles (less those fixed by other editors already) in the encyclopedia, in the hope that editors will fix them randomly, as opposed to moving them to draft where editors actively vet possibly problematic articles? That hardly seems helpful to the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  Moving the articles to draft space to allow active editors to triage them seems sensible given the level of incompetence demonstrated in the creation of the articles. There are a number of editors currently working on mitigating the damage done and if moving them to draft space helps those editors willing to put in the hard work then I support the move. Not everything has to be complicated and bogged down in process, especially when the ultimate result will be better (comprehensible) articles for our readers. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  BMK, with respect (I mean that), I don't think you need to be so hot and heavy with MB. A mass move of over 1000 articles needs a clear consensus - it's fine for someone to question whether that consensus is there yet. I looked at one of the articles today myself, and did some copy editing, which essentially involved restructuring every sentence. I agree that draftifying is probably a good idea. Let's just try to avoid snarling at each other while we discuss what the best course of action is. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  I think perhaps you read more into my comment than I intended, or I did not express myself well. If MB took offense at it, I apologize. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  I've now hived off this section of the discussion to serve as a formal discussion of whether there is a consensus for a mass move of MaTF's un-fixed articles to draftspace. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• To help coordinate efforts to improve MaTF's articles, I've created User:Beyond My Ken/MaTF-created articles. Editors are encouraged to delete from the list any articles they have worked on which are of sufficient quality that they do not need to be moved to Draftspace. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Larry Hockett, Brunton, Teblick, MurrayGreshler, Spicy, and Girth Summit: Please see my previous comment on this thread. Apologies to other editors whose efforts I missed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I removed an article that I rewrote. If possible, it may be a good idea to introduce a length-based cutoff - I haven't seen any evidence that there's anything wrong with all of the basic substubs in the format "[X] was an American [occupation]. He won an Academy Award for [Y]." Spicy (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the sub-stubs I've seen have been fine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Urgh - I just looked at Nate Monaster, and it's not just poorly written, but it seems to be full of factual inaccuracies as well. The second sentence runs as follows: He was nominated for an Academy Award for Lover Come Back and That Touch of Mink and a win for Pillow Talk, and Mink won him the Writers Guild of America Award win for Best Written American Comedy, which he shared with his partner Stanley Shapiro. At first, I thought this would just be a copy-editing job, but then I checked the sources - as far as I can make out, he didn't write on Lover Come Back or on Pillow Talk. I can't read all of the sources, but the ones I can see only mention the nomination for That Touch of Mink. In short - put me down as supporting a mass move to draft space. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose strongly moving these articles to draft. NPP is the first port of call for every new article. The fact that this has been subverted by a holder of the AP right means that they should first be marked 'unreviewed' and put back in the NewPagesFeed where they will receive the appropriate first attention by vetted New Page Reviewers. Their triage will ensure their future destiny be it Draft, or any one of our deletion processes. Contrary to what is often misunderstood (including by the WMF to whom I had to explain this yesterday in a planning meeting with them), moving to draft does not automatically increase the workload at AfC; that only happens when the creator submits the draft. Beyond My Ken's work on this delicate issue - where the creator should never have been accoderd AP - has been excellent, but mass moving to draft is not the immediate solution. With their backlock at an astounding low of around 500, the NPPers have more than enough time to process a 1,000 stubs and other inappropriate articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• @Kudpung: Thanks for that information. Can articles be mass-marked "un-reviewed" or does it have to be done one by one? Beyond My Ken (talk)

@Beyond My Ken: unless a bot or a script could do it, it would need to be done one-by-one. I know this means seeing the pages twice but it's the proper way to go and would avoid inviting any new precedents that we might regret later. So proper in fact, that I don't mind doing some of it myself. The NPPers could take care of the reviewing or I could even do that on the fly too while marking them ureviewed but the New Pages Feed has to the the first logical stop in the correct workflow. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: It's worth noting that Moving to draft will not give MTF the benefit of any doubt because he is blocked anyway. There is the possibility of a little known system at NPPNE. If nothing comes of that, the articles can then be PRODed along with any other unsuitable ones. That would give them 7 days exposure to the wider community which they wouldn't get as drafts, and after that they would be deleted. That would also ward off any accusations that NPPers are using draft as a backdoor route to deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Does the article space block extend to drafts? If not, or if there was a way to make it so that it doesn’t, then moving the articles to draft would enable MTF to carry on working on them. Brunton (talk) 09:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Unless Bbb23 has extended the block, it's just for editing mainspace at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest that a move to draft is the ideal solution. It allows them to be checked before being moved back, and it will also give MTF a chance to work on them and demonstrate that the mainspace block is no longer necessary. Brunton (talk) 13:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support I mean it's just embarrassing how poorly written these articles are, not just that but the information also seems to be incorrect in most of them as if he didn't even bother to read the sources. Good job I found this user before he did even more damage. The admin who gave him auto patrolled rights really messed up here I'm afraid and should be called out for this serious error. I'll help go over some of his articles but it will take up a lot of time to go over all of them, a lot of unnecessary damage here that could have been avoided if his articles had been thoroughly checked before he was granted this right. Inexpiable (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• As pointed out above, at the time MaTF received the autopatrol flag, he had xreated primiarily sub-stubs, which -- as far as I've seen -- are acceptable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  AP is supposed to be granted based on a reliable history of creating "clean" articles. Wikipedia:Autopatrolled says an editor should have written at least 25 "articles" and specifically says redirects and dab pages don't count. It shouldn't be necessary, but that could be changed to also say the articles should at least be Start-class. MB 05:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Is this a violation of wp:soap and wp:PROFRINGE?

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

---

This section on User:Pedant’s page caught my eye a few years ago because it struck me as blatant 9/11 Truther conspiracy theorizing. I’m now wondering if that’s a violation of userspace policy as an off-topic rant and a more general violation of Wikipedia’s stance on not unduly promoting fringe theory. I attempted to discuss this with the user but as you can see I received no straight answers. Dronebogus (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

On the one hand, yes it's polemic (and dumb). On the other hand, I'm pretty tired of Dronebogus wandering around hunting for stuff to be outraged about. Any way we can delete the user page section and ban DB from ANI? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

“Dronebogus is right, so ban them”? How does that make sense? In fact when was the last time I started a thread here? Dronebogus (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

No, "Dronbogus is shit-stirring, so ban them". I would support banning you if you were wrong, too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Just going to point out that there IS precedent for banning someone from ANI for chronic shit-stirring. WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive603#concerns about too much of user:Mythdon on AN/I. And yes, it was decided in that discussion that although the user's issues weren't necessarily off-base, the community was served better by removing the shit-stirrer. 184.14.205.143 (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I’m somewhat confused why an IP with two edits is both getting involved here and showing intricate knowledge of ANI history. Dronebogus (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:IPSPA may help get rid of the confusion 166.198.198.1 (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

After I pointed out that IP editors are often experienced, why did you post a new editor template to this temporary IP address? Did you really think I was aware of policy on IP editing, but also needed a new user template? 166.198.198.1 (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I couldn’t thank you so it was a courtesy re-welcome Dronebogus (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

In that case, I apologize for misinterpreting the templating, and you are welcome 166.198.198.1 (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: I think the section is a violation of WP:BLPTALK and should be removed. RAN1 (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to report User:Dronebogus for having WP:POLEMIC content on their user page! But jokes aside, it might help resolve situations like this if there was a guideline for what to do when you see WP:UPNOT material. Right now, the way it's set up seems almost to encourage users to take every single instance here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't really have a guideline on things like this, and it leads to these exact situations! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

We should, just like how we nominate articles for speedy deletion if they violate certain guidelines. Imagine having to go over to ANI every time you saw an unacceptable page. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 02:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a minor incidents noticeboard? Dronebogus (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to see that dumb stuff deleted, but if we start doing that we'll just be enabling a worse behavior which is seeking out dumb stuff on user pages and taking it to ANI, which is also a great way to hound editors. North8000 (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Warn Pedant and more quietly tell Dronebogus to not worry so much about other people's user pages. That's my take on this before we get Pedant's input. I don't think we have enough cause here to ban Dronebogus from ANI. Sections like this probably shouldn't be on user pages, but I don't think it's at the level of banning Pedant either. Re: Dronebogus: As far as I can tell, they're not posting here more frequently than 2-3x per year anyway. That's hardly a massive drain on editor resources/time.

The april thread on this topic for Dronebogus was regarding subpages and simply requested they attempt to discuss it with the user first before bringing it so quickly to ANI and be less-confrontational. As far as I can ascertain, that's exactly what they've done in this case. If we want, we could warn Dronebogus to not bring any user page-based complaints here, at all. But I actually completely disagree with that, since most, if not all, of the claims they've brought here have had some merit! What kind of message are we sending if we punish people for doing the right thing, in the right order? (Edited to add clarity 11:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

That argument would hold more weight if Dronebogus's actions in the space of user page complaints were not so overtly partisan. The vast majority of his complaints both on ANI and MfD have been against right-wing viewpoints, and he hasn't been shy about his disdain against the political right. That's the issue. I don't see altruism in his approach. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 23:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

That’s your perception. It’s cherry-picking and seems to deliberately avoid mentioning that I’ve nominated left wing and neutral userboxes as well. Dronebogus (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't need to cherry-pick when you come out with stuff like this. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 00:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

That doesn’t prove anything. It’s a statement of bias. So yes I’m biased against conservatism but I don’t think I unduly target it at MfD, let alone ANI. In fact you’re the one targeting me over politics here. Dronebogus (talk) 00:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink:: Your estimate is low by more than an order of magnitude: since last September, they have opened no less than 38 separate AN/I threads. jp×g 00:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

There have been two since may. Dronebogus (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• I'd support banning Drone from ANI, or at least from having any opinions on anyone else's user pages. He did ask the user on his talk page about the section, which is a marginal improvement from the last time we talked about his actions... but then he went ahead and removed it anyhow as if there was some ticking clock that this material had to get removed immediately. They could be doing anything more productive with their time on Wikipedia, like actually editing and improving articles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  A marginal improvement is still an improvement. Topic bans are not punitive, they’re preventative. You’re implying you feel I am incapable of taking advice because I made an error in judgment while being overall right in both assessment and process. Dronebogus (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  David Fuchs, 1 month is not "immediate." If something violates WP:SOAPBOX and the warned user doesn't reply, it can be removed. There doesn't have to be a ticking clock, especially because of the content's nature -- a bizarre conspiracy theory about 9/11. Also, Dronebogus doesn't have to "be doing anything more productive with their time on Wikipedia"; we don't ban users because they didn't do what we think they should've done. If only we had the ability to resolve complaints faster... — Nythar (💬-🎃) 00:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  @David Fuchs: I know Dronebogus didn't bring it up, but WP:BLPRS and WP:BLPTALK apply here. RAN1 (talk) 04:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

• I think the noted subpage is probably a violation of WP:POLEMIC, and I think banning Dronebogus is not warranted at this time. I think I would advise them to not go "hunting for problems", that is to search through trying to find problems to bring to ANI. I am bothered by editors who think it is their job to play detective. HOWEVER, that being said, this is certainly not to the "ban them from ANI" phase. Honest to goodness, I'm ANI daily, and you'd think I'd recognize Dronebogus if they were a major drain on the resources of this page. I had never heard of them before this day. With the amount of time I'm around here, if I'd not heard of them, they probably aren't a problem. If I have been blind to the issue, I invite Floq and the others supporting such a proposal to build a case by showing diffs and establishing this is a pattern of behavior that needs stopping. I'm not comfortable banning someone without at least that courtesy to those of us unfamiliar with them. --Jayron32 18:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  Most of the incidents involving me are months old at the newest. It would take some digging to find them, which I think discredits any accusations of an “ongoing problem” at ANI. Dronebogus (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think Dronebogus should be banned from here. The user page section has been deleted. Hopefully this section can be closed shortly. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  It should be closed. I’ve done nothing (significantly) wrong, and the section was rightly removed by an uninvolved, respected editor and consensus is clearly against allowing it. Pedant should consider this an informal warning. No further action should be taken here. If he insists on restoring patently inappropriate content the proper venue is MfD as an abuse of userspace. Dronebogus (talk) 04:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• I think that Dronebogus should be prohibited from policing other editors' userspace, in general. Since last September, they have opened a whopping 38 AN/I threads, of which a very large amount have been requests to censure people for political content in their userspace. Quoting from the closing statement of a Dronebogus AN/I thread from April, where commenters unanimously supported a warning (and many expressed a desire for more than a warning): "Dronebogus is warned that their actions regarding user subpages have been disruptive and have wasted other editors' time for minimal benefit". Numerous people here noted extreme unease with their "apparent self-appointment as Wikipedia's witchfinder general", et cetera. Yes, it's certainly true that at least some of these threads involved people whose userpages really did have offensive content on them: the issue is that someone is spending inordinate amounts of time creating huge AN/I threads in an attempt to have people dramatically censured for things which have little to do with editing encyclopedia articles. It is also rather concerning that they are doing so selectively according to a political agenda. This is harmful to the project, and it wouldn't be "cancelled out" by having somebody with the opposite agenda do it in the other direction -- it would just give us twice as many pointless AN/I threads. jp×g 23:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, with respect to this specific thread, it should be noted that the polemic tract in question was from 2007, and the user's last 500 contributions go back to 2008, raising the question of how it was even possible to find this without a large amount of deliberate effort. jp×g 00:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I already said it was years ago that I noticed it. I don’t even remember how. Dronebogus (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

You’re using ludicrous personal attacks like “witchfinder general” as an argument? And since when is controlling racism in userspace a “political agenda”? Dronebogus (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand what you are saying in this comment -- the quoted phrase is itself a quotation from User:Dumuzid in the April thread that I linked (in which, as far as I can tell, nobody claimed it to be a personal attack). My argument is not that it is objectively correct, but that fifteen people expressed sentiments of this general nature. As for the other part of what you said, I am also somewhat confused: is your claim here that race relations in the United States is not a political topic? jp×g 01:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I wasn’t saying that race relations isn’t political, I was saying that racism is banned by the WM code of conduct so it shouldn’t be considered “political” and therefore untouchable. Dronebogus (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I was invoked, and so here I am. I had to look back at that comment, and I think I was quite transparent in it. This is the sort of thing that elicits a visceral reaction in me, and it probably was over the top to phrase it that way--for which I apologize--but it was simply because I lacked the right vocabulary to say the same thing with a lesser moral dimension. Dronebogus, I suspect you and I would agree substantively on most everything, and I wish you no ill will. But please try to take on board what people are telling you. It feels like you are saying that anything is fine until it leads to formal, logged sanctions. I think we can do better. That said, I sincerely wish you all the best and a Happy Friday to everyone. Dumuzid (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I’ve taken what people have said into account, but I also don’t like being stonewalled out of ANI in a de facto ban despite doing nearly everything right. Dronebogus (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Also note a bunch of those threads were misplaced vandalism reports and general user disruption complaints that had nothing to with politics. Dronebogus (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Or the big WP:ARS fiasco that had nothing to do with the warning against me. You can’t sanction someone over a number. Dronebogus (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

May we consider this report closed now? Seeing as it's accomplished its goal. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely I think we should. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Zhomron

• Zhomron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Not capable of observing WP:BRD, WP:CIVIL or even WP:V. Chooses to attack capable and seasoned editors such as myself about my allegedly deficient language skills, rather than address the sourceability of facts in articles.

Elizium23 (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

It is interesting to see you try and argue WP:CIVIL when you tell me to "fuck off" while attempting to undo your violation of WP:BLANKING Zhomron (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Users blanking their own talk pages is not a violation. See WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME. And why did you tell Elizium23 to piss off? Sarrail (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Because they have consistently disregarded basic etiquette, excessively tagged ubiquitous information as lacking or needing citations, and even went as far as rashly accusing me of being a sockpuppet master for random IP editors simply because they also reverted their edits. Case-and-point, as soon as things don't immediately fall into line for them, I'm here on the noticeboard. Likewise, WP:REMOVE provides a clear (and bolded) stipulation of what should not be removed from a user's talk page. Zhomron (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and nothing Elizium23 removed from their own talk page is against WP:REMOVE. They can remove templates put on their page if they like, such as the disruptive one you placed, that's perfectly fine. Can you point out what they violated by removing your templating of their talk page? Canterbury Tail talk 00:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Additionally there is zero wrong with tagging non-English translations as requiring citations. Canterbury Tail talk 00:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I have opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zhomron as related activity to this dispute has crossed my watchlist. Elizium23 (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

CheckUsers cannot link accounts to IPs, per the privacy policy. It is most likely to be declined, as per one archived discussion. Sarrail (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Yup. However the edit interaction between Zhomron and that IP is blindingly obviously the same person. Canterbury Tail talk 00:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Correct, but WP:BADSOCK indicates that users with accounts must not edit whilst logged out to avoid scrutiny or sanctions. CheckUsers can use behavioral evidence to draw the conclusion that is not permitted by their technical tools, and it would be a blockable offense to do this sort of editing while embroiled in an edit-warring, incivil dispute. Elizium23 (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Dang, almost certainly looks like it. Looks like a false accusation or WP:DENY. Sarrail (talk) 00:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

It also would not be out of reach to identify active sanctions from WP:ARBCOM in various places Zhomron has chosen to dispute WP:V. Elizium23 (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I think I can contribute here as an editor familiar with the underlying facts. None of these are "translations", but rather original words or spellings of which the English word exists to function as a direct translation or transliteration. It is genuinely unnecessary and counterproductive to require messy citations in the lede for information available in any Biblical dictionary or edition of the Hebrew Bible, in the same way that every page whose title is an indigenous English word doesn't need to cite a dictionary entry for its spelling. There are thousands of pages about Biblical names and terms, many of which I have written or edited, and I have never seen a citation which specifically sources the spelling. In cases where the spelling is disputed or multiple spellings exist (and Zhomron and I have discussed several examples), detailed information is always noteworthy enough to feature on the page, with citations, but this is extremely rare and does not apply to any of the pages being discussed.

At the same time, the etymology section of the Shabbat page is a different story and Elizium23 was correct to tag it. And I can't defend Zhomron's attitude toward other editors, about which I have also warned him in the past. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

For what its worth you (both) might benefit from just taking a deep breath, and try to de-escalate your relationship with each other. Neither of you are being civil to each other, You're chucking WP:DENY around which does anything BUT deny recognition since you're addressing it directly. You've opened at least 3 SPIs involving Zhomron in about the past month's time, and even though it looks like the latest may be true, I don't see much evidence of a particularly WP:BADSOCK. And now you've raised talk of finding ARBCOM sanctions to throw at Zhomron, instead of just doing it. All of this because of a content dispute with 2 diffs with debatably nastygram summaries. Have either of you actually tried discussing this? Talk Page? User Talk? Don't discount the fundamentals of WP conflict resolution. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I have discussed, yes, I have followed WP:BRD, and it doesn't get traction with someone who will edit-war and then edit-war some more from an IP and then make WP:POINTy edits on my watchlist while logged out to evade scrutiny. I won't be abused and insulted by a condescending editor who can't even grasp WP:V, that is why we're here and not on user talk, and that's why their IP is blocked for a month. Elizium23 (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Found this nugget on en.wiktionary: 00:45, 28 November 2020 Chuck Entz talk contribs blocked Zhomron talk contribs with an expiration time of infinite (account creation disabled, autoblock disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Abusing multiple accounts/block evasion)

@GabberFlasted: nah, I don't AGF, nor do I attempt to reason, with sockpuppets. Elizium23 (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I refuse to dignify you – you are now mass reverting edits I've made with dozens (literally) of reliable sources in order to justify WP:V. Since you revert all attempts to contact you on the talk pages, I'm noting it here. Just as you have, conveniently, completely ignored @GordonGlottal: and @GabberFlasted:'s input, you're now ignoring WP:AGF and WP:POINT. Zhomron (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Just keep edit-warring, bro, per WP:ROPE I can't wait to file the new SPI. Elizium23 (talk) 01:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Their account at the First National Bank of WP:AGF is well into overdraft territory at this point. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2022 Elizium23 (talk) 01:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Go right ahead mate. Violation of WP:3RR and WP:GAME, I cannot wait to comment on it. Zhomron (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

No rush, no rush; I'm just waiting for @Ellin Beltz: to weigh in on why you were originally blocked at Commons for mass-uploading non-free content in 2017-2018. Elizium23 (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• Zhomron still has a bad habit of not filling out the edit summaries as stated in my ANI report against the editor. Are there any repercussions for continuous failure to fill out the edit summaries?. If not, does that mean I or any other editor not have to fill out the edit summaries either? Judekkan (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, Judekkan. This was brought up last time - summaries are not mandated, just highly encouraged. We have a whole information page on it. Zhomron (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry investigations

• BedrockPerson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BedrockPerson is a globally-locked account whose owner, beginning in 2017, engaged in sock puppetry, edit-warring, disruptive editing, uploading of copyright violations, etc. They have been blocked from Wiktionary (2020), Commons, and enwiki. They have also edited the French, Hebrew, Yiddish and Wikidata projects. I will be compiling behavioral evidence to link BedrockPerson to Zhomron so that they may receive justice. Your collaboration is welcome as always. Elizium23 (talk) 03:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Nuwordlife0rder: violates BURDEN, adds FICTREFs, restores OR

I had removed what was unsourced and FICTREFed from the page Philippine Independent Church.

The user Nuwordlife0rder proceeded to add those information back (some of which are OR), sometimes by sourcing them properly, other times by not sourcing them, most of the time by sourcing them with new FICTREFs. I then rolled back to the version I had made, and the user added the same information with the same problems again.

I then attempted to Talk:Philippine Independent Church#Violating WP:BURDEN, adding FICTREFs, OR discuss with the user at the talk page, but it was to no avail: the user kept the unsourced and FICTREFed data, and said done. Veverve (talk) 10:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I had responded accordingly. The sources that "I added" are not WP:FICTREFs as those are legit. The fict links the user is referring to are previous links by other users in the past which I tried to restore but I already removed them as requested since I fully agree and understand this user's point. I responded "done" as I have complied with his request. This user seems to be violating WP:OWN and I have no intention to disrupt the page. Everything was done in WP:GOODFAITH as a Wikipedia editor. I have no intention of WP:WAR as I believe that Wikipedia is WP:NOTBATTLE and everyone are welcome to edit. Thank you. Nuwordlife0rder (talk) 10:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The sources that "I added" are not WP:FICTREFs as those are legit: I strongly disagree, the user has added numerous FICTREFs, and has kept them.

The user has now accused me of bullying, stating asking for BURDEN to be respected and FICTREFs to be removed was a form of bullying.

The user has added recently: Original research (OR) and Refimprove tags were already added. I humbly believe that a revert is not required. Thanks again. Thus, the user clearly assumes breaking the BURDEN rule. Veverve (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute. I'd give the article talk page discussion more time to develop. It wouldn't be out-of=place to place a very neutrally worded notice on a relevant WikiProject inviting participants to participate in this discussion. Sorry you haven't gotten much feedback here but sometimes there is a very low response on ANI if the issue doesn't appear to be urgent and this one doesn't appear to be. Just don't let this fall into edit-warring. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: while I agree the issue is not urgent, there seem to be no way I can make Nuwordlife0rder comply with BURDEN. Veverve (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Undiscussed move of "Special member state territories and the European Union", apparent WP:ADVOCACY

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

Without any prior discussion, User:Micga moved Special member state territories and the European Union to Special territories of states participating in the European integration. (Just now, I have moved it again temporarily to Special territories of members of the European Economic Area, to at least mitigate the damage.) This user has done extensive edits to this, to European integration and to European Union that at least appear to be wp:advocacy for pan-Europeanism. They do not appear to have taken on board the words of caution on their talk page from User:Tunakanski and User:Subtropical-man. The article as it stood was meaningful in the real world, to change it to drag in the EFTA countries is unhelpful and just looks like POV-pushing.

I am not at this stage requesting that Micga be subjected to any sanctions, though others may take a different view. This request is only that this move (diff [ 05:26, 2 November 2022‎ Micga talk contribs‎ m 120,882 bytes 0‎ Micga moved page Special member state territories and the European Union to Special territories of states participating in the European integration] (and my subsequent mitigation move) be reverted to the status quo ante. All edits by Micga dated since 04:32 UTC on 2 November (that are based on their reframed scope) should be reverted pending discussion and consensus for change. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be a content matter. 𝕁𝕄𝔽, can you elaborate on why you took it to ANI? Your edits to the article on 2 November between 10:41 and 11:05 have been contested, see Talk:Special territories of members of the European Economic Area#Renaming of the article and change of content. 77.188.28.121 (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I moved the article to Special territories of states participating in the European integration only because the title did not match the contents. Micga (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC) But the massive rollback revert of European integration by user 77.188.28.121 is arbitrary, unexplained and simply rude - I intend to undo it. Micga (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@77.188.28.121:, No, my purpose in raising this at ANI is not about the content – that is easily resolved using the WP:BRD process, as is already happening at European integration. I have taken it to ANI because administrator support is needed to undo a page move. Micga is being economical with the truth: the reason that the article title "did not match the contents" is because of their massive undiscussed changes to the article to make that be the case. The request is only to ask that an administrator reinstate the original article title. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Now, this allegation is totally untrue. There were even more unrelated contents there before my edits (e.g. concerning the sovereign microstates). I have doubts whether you even took the time to analyze the changes.Micga (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I have not looked over the specific changes, but "Special territories of states participating in the European integration" is a very clunky phrase. The original title is an actual existing phrase, gave a clear idea of the article topic, and is understandable. It would be helpful if an admin could restore that title, and then if there is a desire to move the article, an RM should be used. CMD (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, then I‘m expecting retraction of the charge against me of being economical with truth. You can’t just throw such unfounded allegations at people and then pretend that nothing happened. especially if it was done immediately after another unfounded charge of WP:ADVOCACY Thr problem with 𝕁𝕄𝔽 is that they are guided by their impressions and emotions rather than facts. Micga (talk) 01:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Adding a comment here due to Micga's consistent non-constructive editing (especially at European integration). For several days, the user has been drastically editing content on these articles, typically with zero explanation, removing sourced content without reason, and adding unsourced material and a plethora of WP:OR information. I have had to remove the user's OR additions several times, only to find the user reinstating their unsourced edits almost immediately. At the very least, the user should have sought consensus before proceeding with such a large overhaul of this article, or at the minimum, provide edit summaries for the dozens upon dozens of rapid edits. Generally speaking, the user has engaged in what I believe to be non-constructive editing tactics against Wikipedia ethos and norms. As 𝕁𝕄𝔽 has pointed out, the user has ignored several warnings and persistently edited these article's as they see fit. My biggest concern here, is the amount of WP:OR information Micga snuck in at European integration. This should not be overlooked by the Admins. Thankfully, the article has since been restored to its last stable version. However, I don't know if Micga fully comprehends these policies. I pointed these concerns out several times (while also linking policies) in my edit summaries- all of which have been ignored with more and more unsourced OR being added. This WP:DISRUPT behavior must stop. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Upon further review, Micga's talk page clearly shows that almost a dozen other editors have left similar warnings regarding the user's disruptive editing. Plus a May 2021 block for disruptive editing. The complete lack of acknowledgment and almost no effort to self-improve this pattern of editing/learn from these multiple warnings is worrisome. Archives908 (talk) 04:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Now, could you please elaborate on this alleged plethora of OR? Apart from two-three sentences in the section „extent” at the very end of the Article, I do not see any. Please provide examples instead of general impression, as the latter is not a valid justifcation and it is rather hard to dispute it. The majority of the edits were all about sorting the chaotic layout of the Article and categorisation of integration arrangement types, along with correcting obvious errors like extending the term eurozone on all countries using euro. As for the previous disputes, the one with User:Subtropical-man was for example settled in my favor, but obviously neither you nor 𝕁𝕄𝔽 would bother to check it, would you? It’s pretty clear that you guys feel convinced that you can accuse me of lying and inventing things, without bothering to indicate the lie or the things invented. Pretty humble, honest and insightful of you. Micga (talk) 10:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Micga, you wrote: "As for the previous disputes, the one with User:Subtropical-man was for example settled in my favor, but obviously neither you nor 𝕁𝕄𝔽 would bother to check it, would you?" - no, this not settled in your favor. The fact that I have given up further discussion with you has nothing to do with winning your ideas. I just didn't have time to long discussion with you. I started a discussion (in Talk:European_Union#Controversies_and_disputed_changes_made_by_User:Micga) and the discussion showed that another user is also against your changes. Sufficient arguments have been put forward, which you didn't even answer to. Overall, probably not a single user on Wikipedia has support your massive changes to the EU topic. As indicated above, your behavior is already very bothersomeand and previous requests on your talk page by other users did not help to change your behavior, this is why I support topic ban for anything related to EU for user:Micga. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 20:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

This clearly indicates that you are in deep denial, taking also into account the percentage of your edits which are devoted to various edit wars and other conflicts - which does not surprise me at all, as this kind of attitude is regretfully inherent to this nation of ours.Micga (talk) 03:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Additionally you breaks Wikipedia:No personal attacks, with an ethnic outline. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 03:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

In conjunction with your initial post and the personal remarks included there, this reply of yours confirms my assessment pretty well.Micga (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I am asking the administrator who will close this discussion in the near future to include such user:Micga' behavior which are a personal attacks. This discussion is about dozens hundreds of controversial changes made by the user:Micga do Europan Unon (EU) and related articles, his disruptive behavior at all, no desire to reach a consensus whatsoever ... and the lack of any improvement whatsoever. The problem has lasted for 'lastmonths' and the user shows no improvement his behavior ... on the contrary - he argues with anyone who has a different opinion than himself. I have the right to express my opinion here, especially since I was called here twice with the function {ping}, however, in this discussion, it's hard to write own opinion as I am being attacked by the user:Micga. In my opinion, the topic ban for anything related to the EU is the best option because this user has the most problems in this topic. If the user continues to use personal attacks, I will agitate for block his account. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 14:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Again, my request is not for sanctions against User:Micga. It is a request to reinstate the name of the article to "Special member state territories and the European Union", which has been its long standing name and its exclusive content before this week. I did not accuse Micga of lying, but only that their assertion that they "only moved the article ... because the title did not match the contents" omits the highly relevant detail that they had just changed the content of the article so that it no longer did so. It was the truth but not the whole truth. European integration is a highly controversial topic and it is best kept in its own firepit. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not see the need for admin intervention at the moment. WP:BRD might also be cited...Micga did literally a bold move, this can be reverted/moved back and then discussed either on talk or via RM, although Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial might be probably a good way to go here, as it will (hopefully) get more eyes on the topic as a whole. Lectonar (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but an admin is needed to revert the move, because the redirect cannot be deleted automatically. Probably could have been handled at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests rather than ANI, though. MrOllie (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes...I was kind of brainstorming with myself, the link to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial being the final result :). Lectonar (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Probably my error in raising this at ANI, as it is first time in many years of editing that I have felt that I needed to so for any reason, because I consider it the last resort. Cry wolf etc. I believed that Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial is what should have been used in the first instance since it was the first move that was controversial – but it wasn't, which is why we are here. Is a move back to the original, long-standing and accurate name somehow controversial? Conversely, I believed that Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests is designed to implement a consensus decision at an article talk page, where there is some trivial obstruction to be cleared up first. I would certainly have done a BRD reversion but for the fact of the midstream move. Is this really the first time a case like this has arisen?

I am content for this ANI discussion to be closed if there is administrator consensus on a more appropriate place to take it for resolution. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record; that implies that I broadened the scope of the contents and then adapted the title accordingly. In fact, it was quite the opposite. The discrepancy between the title and the contents was most pronounced in the original form of the article before my edits. Thus, in order to reconcile them, I removed contents entirely unrelated to the subject (e.g. sovereign microstates) instead of adding any, and then tried to adapt the title to this NARROWED scope. Therefore, saying that I changed the content of the article so that it no longer matched the title, is an obvious manipulation that has nothing to do with the truth, as the mismatch was originally even greater. I assume, though, lack of insight secondary to laziness as the main cause, rather than outright malevolence. As for the move to the original title, I will not contest it, though I insist on undoing the unjustified rollback of my edits, as they went in the direction of making the contents match more closely also the original title rather than deviating from it, contrary to 𝕁𝕄𝔽′s allegations above. Micga (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: topic ban for User:Micga

• Contrary to appearances, but too bold edits that completely change key Wikipedia articles (hundreds changes in short time in article of the European Union), renaming and change of meaning important articles (like example above), removing content from one and moving to another are very controversial andvery debatable. Controversial changes by user: Micga are made without consensus and the praceder has been going on for months, this is very burdensome. As already mentioned by several users, user behavior resembles the appropriation of articles on this topic (Wikipedia:Ownership of content)?. The user, not paying attention to the opinions of others, changes freely the articles related to the EU, according to his own opinion only. Despite the fact that the procedure has been going on for months, the user has not changed his behavior and it looks like he will not change because he makes such controversial changes even during the lifetime of ANI, for example [60]. It follows that the user is completely unreformable and will continue to create problems in this topic. The most appropriate sanction to stop creating dozens of controversial changes in the future made by user Micga is topic ban for anything related to European Union. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 14:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I second the above proposal for a topic ban. Given the fact that the user has ignored so many warnings and continues to push their edits without accountability and ignoring policy (for well over a year now), a topic ban is justified. Archives908 (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

A short summary of (User:Subtropical-man and Archives908 views: we do not like the user’s edits, we consider then WP:OR, though we do not need to elaborate on the details or indicate any examples, as our expert opinion is binding without justification, and thus synonymous with consensus or its lack, so either the user deals with it, or he should face a ban. user:Archives908 additionally says: I don’t care that the user sourced his Pro-Europeanism edit with some scientific publications and one university conference, its still irrelevant because I, the ultimate authority, say so. Considering that the user already had some disputes in the past, regardless of their outcomes, this is a sufficient justofication to routinely roll back all his further edits summarily, without bothering to analyse their worthiness, as they did not get my mandatory prior approval. User:Subtropical-man additionally says: I had an edit conflict in the past with the user. Even though the majority opinion in the article discussion supported my adversary, the result is invalid and should be ignored because I stopped participating in the later phase of the discussion; thus, those edits are to be regarded as vandalism - because I say so. Besides, I have an impression that nobody ever supports the user (disclaimer: no, that was not a personal attack) as opposed to me, pretty obvious, in spite of the fact that I devote about one third of my edits to various edit wars and conflicts - its the behaviour of the other user which is disruptove, not mine. So let’s place a topic ban on this user.Micga (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Dear Micga, this type of comment will not help you in any way, and even show others your real behavior. If you think that - I quote you words: "the majority opinion in the article discussion supported my " - where is consensus for your changes? please link. I can see that in an article where you made 140 changes in a week, there is rather agree that your changes are harmful/disruptive or debatable: Talk:European_Union#Controversies_and_disputed_changes_made_by_User:Micga. The second opinion was expressed by user Furius. These are just several users (Archives908, Subtropical-man, 𝕁𝕄𝔽, Furius, CMD + other in many other EU' articles) who to disagree with your changes and opinions in various issues of EU' topic. And there are more of them. Of course we're all wrong, you're right about everything ;) Now for real. You are looking for guilt in any other users but not in yourself. Even though many users got attention to your behavior, you didn't do anything to improve you. Instead, you are aggressive and attack other users in this ANI. Despite open ANI thread in your case, you continued with your actions, even the administrator warned you that you could get blocked [61]. Sorry, but not everyone accepts your still the same controversial and debatable changes like hundreds changes in short time (for example: a week) in European Union, renaming and change of meaning important articles (like example above), removing content from one and moving to another, changes in the order of content and sections in articles etc etc, all without discussion and consensus. Your praceder has been going on for months, this is very burdensome. Your behavior resembles the appropriation of articles on this topic (Wikipedia:Ownership of content)?. You not paying attention to the opinions of others, changes freely the articles related to the EU, according to his own opinion only. Despite the fact that your actions has been going on for months, you has not changed his behavior (despite the warnings) and it looks like you will not change because you makes such controversial changes even during the lifetime of ANI, for example [62][63]. When someone notices/warn you, you react aggressively It follows clearly that you are completely unreformable and will continue to create problems in this topic. Requests to you do not help. You give no choice to other users. The above arguments are sufficient to impose a topic ban on you. And stop attacking other people who disagree with you because you only make your situation worse. To be clear, this is not about one your selected edition, it does not matter whether you entered OR or not to any article (regarding your conflict with Archives908). "Topic ban for anything related to the European Union" is the solution for all your controversial changes that have dragged on for months on this topic, and which will not end as long as you work on this topic. You will be able to edit articles of other topics. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 02:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Micga, you still really don't get it, do you? Smug and arrogant comments like that only shows that you are not open to receiving constructive criticism from other editors and serves no purpose. Have a look at your talk page, there you will see dozens of editors leaving warnings on general non-constructive edits done by you the past year. Surely, they can't all be unjustified. Unless, you want the Admins to believe that only you are above wikipolicy and everyone else is undeniably in the wrong for raising concern. Ridiculous. Instead of wasting time on such mockeries, you should take time to understand why so many editors have had concerns with your edits, learn, become a better editor, and cooperate with others. Archives908 (talk) 02:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Archives908, my point in the case of your behaviour is that you revert contents contributions of other users under very vaguely and broadly specified reasons, along with pursuing their contributors for failing to submit the changes for discussion in advance, while at the same time you exempt yourself from elaborating on the detailed justifications of these reverts in the article discussions, preventing in this way any sensible dispute and consensus-builing. Bearing in mind the above, I further regard these actions as turning the cat by the tail, in particular in case of a rollback, because instead of listing your detailed particular reservations to my contents contributions on the respective article discussion page following your revert, you demand from me in principle to seek for each of my contributions your discretionary prior approval there first, under the threat of repressive actions in case of failing to do so. Although such behaviour is permitted to some extent for an admin, it constitutes an obvious abuse in case of a regular user; therefore, I see absolutely no reason for accepting such usurpation resulting in double standards. Sub-trop is in turn an entirely different story, as they simply have not acknowledged the outcome of the discussion that took place and now consider this ANI a convenient opportunity for retaliation, yet again, you don’t bother yourself with getting into the details. For these reasons, your actions may be perceived as arbitrary, disrespectful and thus non-conciliatory, towards a user that has been around for a time almost fivefold longer, even if your actual intent was otherwise and some legitimate motives existed. They also indicate who is actually the one to consider themselves being above the wikipolicy. No surprise that it elicits anger (though not aggression), turning me sour. Micga (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Micga. Previously, I asked you to provide a link to the alleged discussion. You did nothing. So far I have provided the link to the discussion in which your changes are treated as very debatable. Besides, it doesn't even matter one discussion, because there are problems with your changes to many articles related to the European Union. The current thread in ANI is about such another example, one in many. Secondly. It doesn't matter what Archives908 is doing, you are trying to distract the discussion from your actions. The fact is that your changes are debatable and it has been going on for far too long. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 20:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Micga, could you stop revising your comments after there have been responses? That violates WP:TALK#REVISE, and you've been doing a lot of that. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

In particular, in regard to European integration, I still do not see:

• justification for this rollback, taking into account that the IP user who did it was subsequently almost immediately blocked for disruptive editing; nevertheless, their disruptive edits were initially supported to my disbelief both by JMF and by Archives908, while my attempt to revert their undiscussed rollback was undone by JMF, and later the version preceding my edits was again arbitrarily chosen as the stable one by Archives908 during the cleanup after blocking the IP user, all of these actions without any trace of discussion or at least explanation
• justification for restoring multi-speed Europe and the attacks against me that followed, taking into account that the current table in European integration is limited now to EU agreements
• legitimate justification for this arbitrary revert
• criteria for keeping in European integration some of the organisations while excluding others
• criteria for keeping some sections of European integration (e.g. Energy) while removing others (e.g. Telecommunications)

To be honest, I do not expect to get them any more, from a user that does not distinguish the eurozone from EMU, and whose audacious pattern of arbitrary actions and lack of honesty may somehow be exemplified by the fact that a user of Armenian descent feels unashamed to remove Azerbaijan from the table in European integration, naturally also without any explanation. To my opinion, this is tantamount to an attempt to exercise adminship by a non-admin. Micga (talk) 06:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Micga, as user:rsjaffe mentioned, you extreme violates WP:TALK#REVISE. You have made 45 changes to your comment to which you have already received a reply. If it was to improve typos, etc., it's ok but you added more sentences, and your statement increased threefold. Secondly: you try to attack other users, eg IP or Archives908, you analyze their edits, try to find any drawbacks of editing them but Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (ANI) is no place for content disputes. The topic ban was offered for you not because of the three examples you gave against IP or Archives908 but for the entirety of your editions on the broadly understood topic of the European Union. For months you've been making controversial and disputed changes to articles on this topic, and that's too bothersome. It is also burdensome to give you still the same warnings constantly and undo your new changes with the help of Wikipedia: BRD and Wikipedia: Stable version. You are unreformable. The problem is also that you think everyone is wrong and you are always right. Therefore, chances of improving your behavior are very doubtful. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 13:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Micga, you realize that you just violated WP:NPA by making accusatory remarks about my ethnicity? Defamatory language regarding someone's ethnicity is not allowed. If you have issues with my editing, keep it focused to the editing, no reason for you to target my background. Admins- I hope something is done about this user's poor conduct. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Micga also used similar personal attacks including personal attacks with an ethnic flavor against me above, so breaking Wikipedia:NPA is next a problem of this user. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 20:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I've given Micga a warning on their talk page for that comment. Absolutely inappropriate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing self-promotion on Yakuza franchise pages

For the last four years, the Yakuza franchise article and the various Yakuza video game articles have dealt with ongoing attempts at self-promotional vandalism by a user looking to promote their YouTube channel. There have been occasionally been other articles affected too, such as The Lost World: Jurassic Park (console game) and Aquaman: Battle for Atlantis, but the Yakuza articles are the main targets. According to the SPI case, they have gone through at least 20 different socks in their attempts to do so, and quite frankly, I'm getting very tired of it. Between the continued bad-faith editing and uncivil behavior, it's irritating to have to deal with this time and time again, especially when it immediately resumes the moment their block is up (if not before, under a new IP) or protection expires. Therefore, I'd like to request indefinite pending changes protection on all Yakuza series articles, if not indefinite semi-protection. The fact this has been going on for four years warrants at least some level of preventative measures, and it would certainly make things a lot easier on those of us who have been doing our best to curtail his activity up to this point. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I think the easiest solution, that doesn't involve protecting articles, is simply to blacklist their YouTube channel URL. Seems like the simplest action for the greatest outcome. Or would that not work with the way YouTube URLs work as they're video not channel URLs? Canterbury Tail talk 13:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

We can blacklist the channel landing page, but that doesn't really help because there's no way to blacklist the videos from a particular channel. MrOllie (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

You can also blacklist individual videos. That would be tedious, but if the problem is severe enough, at some point it takes a lot more time to create a new video than to block one. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, each video would have to be blacklisted individually, which is doable, but would probably be a slow process. That said, they do use links to specific website articles as citations to justify the videos' inclusion ([64] and [65]), so blacklisting those specific articles might be helpful. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I gathered up a list of URLs that might need to be blocked, in addition to the aforementioned news articles. While blocking all 50-ish tour videos isn't really viable, here are the three videos that start each tour "series", which have been linked before ([66] [67] [68]). All the playlists on their channel include "list=PL0HKt-kbL9s" as part of the URL, so blocking that string would theoretically prevent any of their playlists from being linked to. And unrelated to the Yakuza stuff, these three videos ([69] [70] [71]) are the only other ones he's attempted to add to any pages. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if it's possible to have a filter that prevents a non-autocomfirmed account from adding YouTube links. Would save so many headaches across the project, not just in this case. Canterbury Tail talk 16:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I like that idea. A more general approach (to be argued out at the Village Pump for years before actually happening) would be to have something like that tied into the WP:RSP list. Gusfriend (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

NotOrrio is NOTHERE

User:NotOrrio has spent much of the past two weeks removing AfD templates from articles, attacking other editors, refactoring other editors' comments, and most recently posting a pretty lame personal attack on their userpage (if you're wondering, the "nerds" in question are myself and User:Whpq).

Some highlights include responding to an AfD notice with "shut up" [72], recreating an article that was redirected at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Route 902, Victorian Bus Route, recreated as 902 (PTV Bus)) after falsely claiming to accept the results of the discussion [73], edit warring over said recreated article [74], removing AfD templates from their own articles [75], being given a temp block for persistent disruption of AfD [76], edit warring post-block [77] [78] (note the very creative modification of my username to "Nerdsandotherthings", more sad than anything else), accusing others of bad faith [79], more refactoring of other editors' comments [80], and more attempts to circumvent AfD (including by linking a specific diff in a mainspace article of one of the bus routes before it was redirected) [81]. With the latest userpage edits today, it's abundantly clear this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I won't say all of this isn't unjustified but some of it is unjustified

1. Why are you looking at my user page in the first place let alone old revisons likely a case of cyber stalking
2. The removing afd notices is already done and was addressed by an admin doesn't need to be readressed
3. There was no edit war Dan Ardnt kept on adding unneeded tags even though it was clearly adressed and resolve
4. The recreated article you mentioned in 103 was clearly reverted as it was changed to a revert without notice
5. You can't complain I am assuming bad faith while also saying "its abundantly clear this user is not here to build an encyclopedia"

NotOrrio (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I also want to point out 1 more thing

6. The time it was stated i refracted another users comments when all i did was delete my own comment NotOrrio (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact, and your actions have demonstrated you are not acting in good faith. Much of the conduct here happened after your block, showing it was insufficient to address the issues with your behavior. "I was right" doesn't change that you were involved in an edit war (and you were wrong on the merits). That you accuse me of "cyber stalking" by looking at your publicly viewable userpage (I was actually checking your contribs to see if you had continued doing what you'd been warned multiple times against, hoping I'd see no issues and we could move on) shows a level of battleground behavior that exemplifies why I am right in calling you NOTHERE. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think you've shown that the editor is WP:NOTHERE. Au contraire, I think your evidence shows they are here to build an encyclopaedia. AFAICS your evidence shows that NotOrrio doesn't respond too well to their contributions being nominated for deletion or tagged with maintenance tags. It's something they need to work on, and probably they need to accept that if consensus is against an article existing then that has to be honoured as frustrating as it may be. But this is an entirely different problem to being NOTHERE, and this particular problem is pretty common to see (unsurprisingly I suppose, a lot of people don't take too kindly to their contributions being binned). For NotOrrio: you may wish to focus your efforts on things that will pass notability guidelines? Makes them less likely to be subject to deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with ProcrastinatingReader's sentiments about NOTHERE. It's clear that NotOrrio has a passion for buses and wants to contribute to Wikipedia. Writing an article from scratch is one of the hardest things to do for a new editor on Wikipedia. One has to know the notability guidelines well. One needs to understand what are reliable sources, what constitutes significant coverage, and what type of sources contribute to notability. The appallingly bad source assessment table provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/903 (PTV Bus) did NotOrrio no favours. It probably gave the impression that the sources NotOrrio provided were pretty good for notability when in fact they were mostly not. NotOrrio needs to take the AFDs for the three bus routes as a learning experience on notability and reliable sourcing, and also remember to assume good faith. I don't see any need for administrative action. -- Whpq (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
• In my opinion, the worst NotOrrio has done, besides disrespecting and insulting other editors, is edit disruptively in response to their articles being nominated for deletion. I think NOTHERE would entail more deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt Wikipedia. As more experienced editors, we know (or should know) to stay cool in debates, not letting our emotions cloud our judgement; I suggest NotOrrio familiarize themselves with that philosophy so they can avoid emotionally driven disruption in the future. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 00:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• NotOrrio - I believe This can be settled if you will agree to try to work constructively with Whpq and others from now on, and just take the warning you've been given. Will you agree to do that? Deb (talk) 10:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Editor whose only purpose here seems to be to prove that Jews established the African slave trade

To quote them, "i am going to add all the information about the exiled Jews moving to Africa, starting settlements, marrying the African women and then started selling the slaves to Euros. This is how the slave trade started (all sources agree in all countries and languages)". There's a discussion at User talk:Freshairbreath about their sources. I thought hard before brining this here but finally decided that this editor needs eyes. [82] Doug Weller talk 16:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Someone with more expertise than me should check Lançados for accuracy. The user edited a lot there. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

They have a single source which they appear to be misrepresenting, they are here for one purpose, they are big into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, they are not assuming good faith (accusing anyone who disagrees with them of censorship, rather than showing any inclination of working with others). I say punt 'em. --Golbez (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

That's already been done. One of our more obvious cases. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Well that was fast. @Orangemike:, thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks folks. Andre🚐 19:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

{](non-admin passerby) I am going to delete the statement that Portuguese Jews and forced converts *often* traded in slaves in Africa. I am sure examples of this existed -- and in fact recall one slaver in Brazil that was probably a converso, but yes, it does seem like the editor had some sort of confirmation-bias fixation at work. Yes, there was an exodus of Jews from Spain and Portugal and yes Portugal had colonies in West Africa with a flourishing slave trade, but those two truths as far as I know just barely overlap. I sometimes work with Portuguese and have done some relatively extensive work with (French-speaking) West Africa, as well as a little on the slave trade to Brazil. I do not describe myself as an expert in these topics, but I am pretty certain that most of the slave-capturing was carried out by Africans, and I know that the British and the French also bought these slaves, and they generally wound up on plantations, not in the homes of the Portuguese gentry, so that statement is a red flag also.

It would be best if someone who reads Portuguese really really well reviewed the source, but I agree that it is probably misrepresented, and would urge that this person also check the article. I will delete the egregious stuff that I can identify but could well miss some nuance, and apparently it's a hot-button topic for some Elinruby (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

My opinion is that the editor in question, @Freshairbreath, is a semiliterate bigot operating with a blatant agenda and no trace of good faith and needs to be treated accordingly. MurrayGreshler (talk) 03:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Boomerang this to the complainer. Policy-wise, there is nothing wrong about stating the Jews might have initiated the Atlantic slave trade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madame Necker (talk • contribs) 14:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  If your understanding of Wikipedia’s policies is this uninformed, you should not be involving yourself in Noticeboard discussions. Your editing history appears to be tendentious at best. This proposal would suggest that you are WP:NOTHERE. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:F589:D21A:47A2:82D0 (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  Given that Madame Necker has volunteered here, it may be time to consider that user's history and take this opportunity to consider sanctions on them. SPECIFICO talk 14:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  I've indefinitely blocked them; we need to nip editors like this at the bud quicker. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 00:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  Great job, thank you, sorely needed for months Andre🚐 01:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, there is. Whilst the involvement of certain Jewish people in the Atlantic slave trade is a matter of academic discussion, when people talk about Jews and the slave trade, 99% of the time, they're pushing Black Hebrew Israelite nonsense. It doesn't matter if it's being pushed to the forefront as of late by some rapper who hasn't released a good track in a decade and is choosing to deal with his divorce by shouting about his ex-wife's boyfriend on Twitter instead of going to a therapist, racist fringe theories are still racist fringe theories. Sceptre (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Mamade Necker: There is a big difference between claiming that some specific Jews were involved in the Atlantic slave trade (which nobody is disputing) and claiming that Jews in general were responsible for it. Partofthemachine (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Billyball998 is sealioning

I think that Billyball998 (talk · contribs) is using WP:Sealioning at Talk:Book of Daniel. They are a case of WP:1AM and WP:SPA. They are pushing a Sangerite interpretation of WP:NPOV against the academic consensus (the consensus claim is verified by no less than four citations). tgeorgescu (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Billyball998 is raising a legitimate point Tgeorgescu's approach to excluding the description of the views of religious scholars has been problematic across a number of different articles. Interaction with him tends towards bludgeoning and often involve incivility. The only reason one could disagree with the "scholarly consensus" is because one is either "severally misinformed or a religious bigot".

It does look like Billyball998 is a SPA, which is bad. Someone with tools should probably look at it to see whether it is a sock puppet and take appropriate action. However, the 1AM issue is a red herring. Tgeorgescu drives contributors with different views away from these articles and then claims that any new ones who show up are 1AM. Jahaza (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Ryken, Leland; Longman, Tremper (2010). The Complete Literary Guide to the Bible. Zondervan. ISBN 9780310877424. The consensus of modern biblical scholarship is that the book was composed in the second century B.C., that it is a pseudonymous work, and that it is indeed an example of prophecy after the fact. N.B.: Ryken and Longman have an axe to grind against this mainstream academic consensus, nevertheless they report it for what it is.

And... I did not revert Billyball998. Two other established editors did that.

As I stated at WP:DRN, I am not against citing the Medieval Rabbi Rashi. I just oppose citing him as being on a par with modern mainstream historical research.

They may cite Rashi using WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, but they should leave the mainstream academic view undisturbed. My verbatim statement was:

I am not principally opposed to citing Rashi, but there should be no implication that his dating is on a par with the modern, mainstream academic dating. WP:NPOV is not an excuse for maiming mainstream historical information from the article.
— User:tgeorgescu

The Bible is the voice of God, not the voice of scientists. If we want the voice of scientists, we ask the scientists. Most of them do advocate the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution as the most visible means of how the world came to be. Whether or not this was God's doing is up to the reader to decide. If the scientists are mistaken, this has to be shown to them on their own grounds, which anti-evolution folks are not really doing, because they are not reading up on the same literature, they are not using the same standards and experiments, and they are not speaking in the same circles nor getting published in the same journals. If it does not walk like a duck, does not talk like a duck, and avoids ducks like the plague, there is little reason to assume its a duck. Or scientist, in this case. I'm not saying the anti-evolution folks are wrong, I'm just saying that they are not mainstream scientists. This is why they're not consulted for the voice of scientists. Now, they can be consulted for what they think if their views are notable.
— User:Ian.thomson

Same applies to those "religious scholars": they are often not modern mainstream historians, so they should not be consulted for the voice of modern mainstream historians. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to try to avoid the content dispute per se here, including the problems with academic consensus as a concept.

You've now replied five times in 30 minutes to this comment, which is part of why I mention bludgeoning. Twice I've tried to reply and had my comment edit conflicted out.

You say that you're not opposed to including other views, but you don't seem to work towards a mutually agreeable version, or edit the page in a compromise way to include them as historical or minority while restoring information about modern academic consensus. This seems to be its own kind of sea lioning, where you claim that you want to include those views, but oppose their inclusion in practice. Jahaza (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Jahaza: Can you mention examples from the past wherein I have opposed including "religious scholars" using WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV? I certainly did oppose citing them in the voice of Wikipedia, or as being on a par with modern historians, but I don't remember that I would have WP:CENSORED "religious scholars" per se. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

One hour later: my understanding of WP:TPG is that talk page posts can be edited as long as they have not been replied to. Is my understanding wrong?

And I would gladly be considered "the bulldog of the academic consensus", although more often than not I am the canary in the coalmine. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Let me spell out your choice: abide by WP:RS/AC or be gone from Wikipedia. There is no need to beat around the bush, the end result is the same: you will be blocked and banned if you don't abide by it. We don't need fundamentalist claptrap masquerading as WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Either you kowtow to WP:CHOPSY, or Wikipedia is not the proper place for you. User:tgeorgescu

• I think that this sort of discourse can stand on its own to show the chilling effect and the WP:SYSTEMIC bias that has been bludgeoned into articles on Sacred Scripture throughout enwiki. This topic area has a third rail and if its WP:CABAL rejects anything that isn't CHOPSY then I consider it to be intellectually bankrupt and not worth my editing time or effort. I really do avoid anything related to Scripture because of this pervasive attitude and WP:OWN of articles across the broad topic area. I can testify that it has a chilling effect against any actual Christian scholarly views being represented.

Elizium23 (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

No. It's a historical question. And by "theological points of view", you're not referring to the mainstream theological position but what is essentially a fringe theory held by fundamentalist theologians. The purpose of theological study of the bible is hermeneutical - it's about interpretation, and most respected theologians accept that Genesis was written somewhere between the reign of King David (c. 1000 BCE) and the exile period (560 BCE). Claritas (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ask anyone who edits in this area: scholars following a non-mainstream, fundamentalist view are regularly removed from Wikipedia. --Ermenrich (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

You linked to the article on the historical method, but did you read it? Yes, have you? Perhaps I should have linked to a more appropriate article, such as scientific consensus which more accurately portrays what Bdub is claiming to be wrong. You can't assume that because an editors is capable of making points that they are correct: Bdub's assertion is that the consensus of modern historians is wrong and ancient sources are right, which puts his position in many of the same categories as Creationism, Breatharianism, The flat Earth theory, Acupuncture and the belief in ancient aliens. No matter hos sophisticated their argument: Bdub has an extraordinarily high standard for evidence to clear, and absolutely no business doing so here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Awery, just a bit of housekeeping. When you post new comments to this thread, the newest comments need to be put at the bottom of the thread. That's the only way others can easily keep track of how the conversation has flowed. The Harvard Theological Review probably is a prestigious forum. On the other hand, the paper on Daniel that you want us to use was not published by the Harvard Theological Review. It was published by JISCA, an outlet for advocating conservative religious views. This fits with the general trend we've already observed here -- the folks saying that Daniel was written in the sixth century don't publish in mainstream outlets, generally speaking. It's entirely possible that MacGregor has published all sorts of stuff in reliable outlets. JISCA, however, isn't what most editors here would treat as a WP:RS outlet. When a journal is dedicated to a particular religious view, that matters. Just as, for example, Wikipedia does not make use of articles published in Journal of Creation when dealing with the subject of creationism. The question I'd like to see answered is, have any defenses of a sixth-century date been published in mainstream academic outlets. And if they have been, are they the work of a tiny fringe group of scholars, or do they represent a significant number of scholars. So far, it looks as is the 2d-century date for Daniel assuming its present form is the scholarly consensus, although of course there are hold-outs in the religious world, just as there are hold-outs on creationism. Because of WP:FRINGE, Wikipedia generally doesn't make much use of those who hold out against academic consensus. I don't want to speak for Tgeorgescu here, but I don't think he's saying that Christian scholars are automatically disqualified due to their personal faith. Indeed, almost all biblical scholars that Wikipedia cites are either Christian or Jewish. There's only a handful of non-Christian, non-Jewish biblical scholars out there. We don't sideline the views of Christian scholars on Wikipedia, it's that we sideline the views of WP:FRINGE scholars, those whose views have been overwhelmingly rejected by the academic mainstream. Alephb (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Attempting to picture WP:CHOPSY as an Anti-Christian cabal is hilarious. Most Bible professors from CHOPSY are either Christian or Jewish, but not of the fundamentalist sort. Such accusation is not far from the idea that liberal Christians are not Christians at all, or from the idea that Catholics aren't Christians. You could equally well claim that the historical method is the mark of the beast.

Someone has to tell the newbies as it is: what's wrong with kowtowing to the academic consensus? Aren't we all expected to do that? tgeorgescu (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I would like to add that conservative/traditional (so called fundamentalist) religious positions are not ipso facto sub-scholarly/anti-chopsy, the big 6 regularly publish conservative/traditional religious positions. Chopsy is about adhering to scholarly standards, not a rejection of religious views. I of course do not advocate for citing as evidence poorly sourced or other sub-scholarship, but published works that, for example do not implictly disqaulify the possibilty of prophecy, are not sub-scholarly, and are often published by the big 6. For example the porter young article you cited from oxford. Even Collins does not inherently reject prophecy, he makes claims as to why he doesn't believe it to be prophecy (J.J. Collins, Commentary on the Book of Daniel, with an essay, “The Influence of Daniel on the New Testament,” by A. Yarbro Collins (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993)) p. 26. I will post this on the talk page in question (Talk:Book of Daniel) also. Billyball998 (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The historical method (aka methodological naturalism to many) rejects genuine prophecies as attestable historical facts. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

That is not the historical method.. and it is not the criteria of chopsy as evidenced by the fact that chopsy do publish works that leave prophecy as a potential, such as the porter young work. Do you have a source that wikipedia abides by methodological naturalism? I know for a fact chopsy doesn't. Billyball998 (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

That applies to the World War 2? I would love to publish an article how elves and fairies influenced the battles of WW2. Or does it apply only to the Bible? Then I would love to publish an article that leprechauns have dictated the Book of Daniel. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

wp:Chopsy still applies... i doubt chopsy would consider your article, because of poor scholarship and citations, not inherently because of your beliefs, unless you could apply proper scholarship to your claims. Billyball998 (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Answer from Dr. Ehrman: I think the theological modes of knowledge are perfectly acceptable and legitimate as theological modes of knowledge. But I think theological claims have to be evaluated on a theological basis. For example, you know the idea that these four facts that Bill keeps referring to showed that God raised Jesus from the dead. You could come up with a different theological view of it. Suppose, for example, to explain those four facts that the God Zulu sent Jesus into the 12th dimension, and in that 12th dimension he was periodically released for return to Earth for a brief respite from his eternal tormentors. But he can't tell his followers about this because Zulu told him that if he does, he'll increase his eternal agonies. So that's another theological explanation for what happened. It would explain the empty tomb, it would explain Jesus appearances.

Is it as likely as God raised Jesus from the dead and made him sit at his right hand; that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has interceded in history and vindicated his name by raising his Messiah? Well, you might think no, that in fact the first explanation of the God Zulu is crazy. Well, yeah, O.K., it's crazy; but it's theologically crazy. It's not historically crazy. It's no less likely as an explanation for what happened than the explanation that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob raised Jesus from the dead because they're both theological explanations; they're not historical explanations. So within the realm of theology, I certainly think that theology is a legitimate mode of knowledge. But the criteria for evaluating theological knowledge are theological; they are not historical.

“The historian has no access to “supernatural forces” but only to the public record, that is, to events that can be observed and interpreted by any reasonable person, of whatever religious persuasion. If a “miracle” requires a belief in the supernatural realm, and historians by the very nature of their craft can speak only about events of the natural world, events that are accessible to observers of every kind, how can they ever certify that an event outside the natural order-that is, a miracle- occurred? – Bart Ehrman – Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (p. 193)

“Since historians can only establish what probably did happen in the past, and the chances of a miracle happening, by definition, are infinitesimally remote, they can never demonstrate that a miracle probably happened. This is not a problem for only one kind of historians, it is a problem for all historians of every stripe. Even if there are otherwise good sources for a miraculous event, the very nature of the historical discipline prevents the historian from arguing for its probability.” – Bart Ehrman – Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (p. 196)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Given that I am involved here, I thought I should chime in at least briefly. I see a clear consensus against Billyball998's proposals, and agree that they have been a bit strident on the talk page, but I don't think they have been truly disruptive. I have great respect for tgeorgescu, and agree with him substantively almost all the time, but he tends to be a lot more proactive than I am. I am content to simply keep saying "no" to Billyball998 unless and until they provide us something more compelling than the argument to date. Cheers, all, and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I have been participating in discussions concerning Biblical articles for several years. I often find myself agreeing with what tgeorgescu is saying, but he is rather quick to start threatening other users. The conversation gets heated for no real reason. In this case, Billyball998's list of sources does not seem to reflect mainstream opinions. I would personally avoid citing Kenneth Kitchen as an authority on the Old Testament's historicity, since nobody seems to agree with his views. Dimadick (talk) 05:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

seaLioning, at the Book of Daniel? Seems we've really walked into a certain large feline's den in this one, folks.

All that aside, I agree that @Billyball998's proposals here are WP:FRINGEy and depict a serious lack of competence in this editor space. In reply to @Dumuzid I am content to simply keep saying "no" to Billyball998 unless and until they provide us something more compelling than the argument to date. I think eventually that does get tiring, and becomes a pretty clear drain on editor time and resources. Eventually we have to do something to allow editors to spend more time on, yknow, actually improving the articles. TBANs are meant to be preventative in exactly cases like this. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes indeed. The language you quoted was from a couple of days ago when I was more hopeful of a denouement. There's a reason I described tegeorgescu as "proactive" rather than doubting his judgment; it seems like time has shown him more correct than I was. Billyball998, your insistence that we keep running in circles on this really is becoming an issue. I would implore you to find another area of the encyclopedia on which to work, at least for a time. Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I fully understand that continuing the standstill-argument isn't productive, please see my last comment on the page in question from yesterday to attest to this. Thanks. Billyball998 (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussions end up being not productive in large part because tgeorgescu et al. have driven off any editors with different views than their own that are not fringey. Jahaza (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

User:tgeorgescu - It appears that you are forum shopping. You opened this thread at 1909 GMT, 3 November, after opening the FTN case at 1654 GMT, 2 November, and then also opened the RSN inquiry at 0039 GMT, 5 November. (You didn't file the DRN case that was closed.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if that really counts as forum shopping.... Each thread appears to be covering different aspects of this situation. Forum shopping would be if he were taking the same issue to different places to attempt to get a single outcome. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Understood. Then you may close any of the discussions opened by me. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Topic ban

See [83]? They're hopeless. They're not even good for rough ashlar. They lack any WP:CLUE. I propose giving them a topic ban for lacking WP:CIR. Hint: there are now 5 (five) WP:RS which all verify the WP:RS/AC requirements. Some people never learn. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
• What is the scope of the proposal, so we don't have to guess after looking through? Is it specific to the Book of Daniel, or will a broader topic ban be needed? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Scope is anything in the intersection between mainstream history and religion. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
• Opppose. Far too soon for that. As mentioned above, there are also problems with the way tgeorgescu carries on discussions (I still haven't got used to the way he uses quotes) so I would not use any interactions with him as evidence against another editor. As for the content, while there may be an academic consensus on the dating, that is in itself not a reason to put it in WP voice, and we have no policy that requires us to do so. (WP:CHOPSY, cited above, is tgeorgescu's own essay.) StAnselm (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  I am fine that instead of writing "The Book of Daniel is a 2nd century writing" we would write "The consensus of mainstream historians and mainstream Bible scholars is that the Book of Daniel is a 2nd century writing". But according to me, that is a distinction without a difference. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose i think its a reasonable proposal, even if you disagree with it, i am not pov pushing or an SPA. also obviously the spurious SPA ban on my account was lifted fyi

Billyball998 (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose While I think Billyball998 should accept a consensus against some/all of their points, the simply unacceptable approach to discussion taken by other editors should also be taken into account when assessing BB998's statements. It also looks like I'm not the only one who thinks that a very mild BOOMERANG might be needed; considering this warrantless and gossipy message on a noticeboard frequented by many editors who are already inclined to support the very standards tgeorgescu is aggressively defending. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  The majority of "facts" about Ancient history enjoy a lesser amount of WP:RS/AC than the Book of Daniel written in the 2nd century BCE. That would mean a free pass to maim most Ancient history articles. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  This is true. Does not change the fact you violated a core policy (biting newcomers) and without demonstrating any patience with someone who is clearly trying to understand policies they were only just informed of. You are very right that your objectives aren't the issue, but your approach in this specific circumstance was. You are clearly a trusted editor and I'm glad you pushed back against something that broke policy, but the last few days of bickering could have been avoided. I hope you don't get sanctioned and would disapprove of it, just as I disapprove of something towards our new fellow editor (for now). ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  That is, assuming that their inability to get a WP:CLUE is sincere (genuine) and not fake naivete. As I said: I did not revert their edits, and there were more editors telling them how we do things around here. Did you see [84]? That was their 8th edit at en.wiki and does not seem at all like how a newbie would edit their talk page. So cut me some slack that I do not believe that they are intellectually unable to get the point, they just pretend to do so. Interesting is that Étale.cohomology (talk · contribs) had a similar POV at [85], [86], and [87]. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  In fact, it's not "interesting," since @Bbb23 has stated that technical data shows that they're not the same user[88]. Implying that someone is a sock-puppet of another account after an administrator has cleared them seems quite improper. Jahaza (talk) 08:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Jahaza: Do you know that there is a substantial difference between technical checkuser data and WP:DUCK? They were cleared of using the same IP and browser, not of having similar edits. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  In fact, their edit histories are not very similar at all. Please AGF. Jahaza (talk) 08:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  As the saying goes, AGF is not a suicide pact. They usually use the visual editor, as any newbie would, but not at their 8th edit ever. WP:DUCK again at [89]. Yet another WP:DUCK: [90]. Blatant WP:DUCK: [91].

  I think that now it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that they do have the same POV. Are they the same person? How would I know? But it is absolutely certain that they share the same POV. The only difference is that they have declared Also I am not Jewish or Christian just fyi. at [92] while the indeffed accounts proclaim Jesus. And if they are neither Jewish nor Christian, I don't understand their motivation, e.g. for Muslim apologists it is very fashionable to bash the reliability of the Bible. For the Baháʼí Faith, the inerrancy of the Bible is not relevant, and Mormons consider themselves to be Christians. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  Yes I am also not muslim or mormon... as I said my motivation is an academic one because I don't believe this issue is an established fact and I believe it should be presented neutrally using wps voice. The edit 108 was an edit of the content you posted on my talk page https://en.chped.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Billyball998&oldid=1119574987 Billyball998 (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I am considering some sort of WP:BOOMERANG proposal to prevent tgeorgescu from engaging with newcomers. His behaviour even in this thread has been less than ideal, and he has a long history of biting new editors, particularly ones with Christian convictions. I appreciate that his motives are honourable, and that he is certainly here to build an encyclopedia, but the way he is going about it is, IMO, unacceptable. StAnselm (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  Christian convictions is not the stuff that irritates me. What irritates me is using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX for religious fundamentalism. There is a difference between rendering a fundamentalist opinion with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV (of which I am fairly tolerant) and engaging in religious propaganda, mainly through removing mainstream historical information from religious articles. The only difference between Billyball998's edits at Book of Daniel and outright vandalism is that Billyball998 took time to argue their POV at the talk page. Otherwise, their purpose is the same as the purpose of fundamentalist vandals who maim religious articles, namely deleting mainstream Bible scholarship from Wikipedia. And your argument holds if they are a newbie, but I have my doubts about that. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I realise there is a a problem with naive editors making edits like that to biblical articles, it's the way we treat them that's the issue. Calling them "fundamentalist vandals" is part of the problem. Yes, their edits should be reverted, but with gentle explanations. Don't you see that the very fact that you posted a thread here is an indication of biting? And even if you have doubts about the editor being a newbie, you're still not assuming good faith? StAnselm (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

It looks to me like your very first response to Billyball998 on the article talk page was "Let me spell out your choice: abide by WP:RS/AC or be gone from Wikipedia." If that's not WP:BITE, I don't know what is. StAnselm (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Why that strong reply? Because the same POV had been pushed very recently by other editors and IPs. Whether they are or not a newbie does not change the above affirmation that I consider them hopeless as an Wikipedian. And, yes, when I began to edit Wikipedia, I was hopeless as an Wikipedian, but I was simply not obnoxious as to get banned. I have matured intellectually, and only then I could become a reliable editor.

So yeah, there are three possibilities: WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT, and a very improbable coincidence. These are my reasons for considering that they are not a newbie.

8 October Jesus is God of gods 003 (talk · contribs)

18 October Jesusisourfreedom (talk · contribs)

1 November 174.242.209.149 (talk · contribs)

2 November Billyball998 (talk · contribs)

That's the timeline of the same POV-pushing at this article. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Those accounts made unverifiable unsourced claims, I would urge you to point to any edit that I made that was factually untrue, or unverifiable. I did not push any pov, i am not a Christian, I want to remove the bias that exists towards one of multiple scholarly theories, there is no reason to assume Collins is correct when it is a debated issue even and especially within biblical criticism. Billyball998 (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

[93] says that the sources you have provided have failed to make the case for your POV.

Also, not Christian, not Jewish, not Muslim, not Mormon, but purely academic interest... do you understand that even if that's true, it still is hard to believe? People with an academic interest are generally speaking not overzealous POV-pushers. Especially when defending someone's else's scholarly POV (yup, it is a POV belonging to conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists).

And less than 10 hours after the POV-pushing edit warring you offered us WP:THETRUTH of the same POV-pushing. That's also hard to believe. See [94]. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I am making no claims as to the truth of any of the views, I am advocating neutrality, saying that the c. 165 bc date is debated, is not pov pushing, i would argue that unwavering commitment to SR Drivers theory, and trying to write it as fact, is actually pov pushing. also fiveby did not review the sources, and he is not the be all and end all. Please make actual arguments against the sources (and individually) that people can check if you want them to be disqualified.

As far as my ability to produce evidence for my claims... its almost as if, as I've stated, it is a debated issue amongst scholars, and I didn't make that up. Billyball998 (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

In order of not beating around the bush: you have failed to produce any WP:Verifiable evidence that there is a controversy raging in the mainstream academia (about the dating of Daniel). And you had the huevos to call Collins's judgment extreme supposition. Well, for more than a century that's the only mainstream academic view about the dating of Daniel. Other views are simply WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

You have failed to produce any WP:Verifiable evidence that there is a controversy raging in the mainstream academia (about the dating of Daniel).

The verifiable citations I have provided? What exactly is your claim against them, all of my citations are within the last 60 years, except some of the ones borrowed from Collins.

and where did I call Collins' theory extreme supposition? thanks. All the scholars ive cited are scholarly, even if they are minority, they are not fringe. Billyball998 (talk) 18:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit summaries from Book of Daniel:

Restructuring to keep elements under correct headers, improving flow, removing jargon/unclear (?) ("wisdom circles") defining positions on authorship, added hyperlinks and citations, removed extreme supposition that Daniel was authored in the Maccabean period specifically, added minutia, additional positions, and evidence concerning modern biblical criticism scholars, aswell as rewording of some appeals to authority (ie. "some scholars believe..." in place of "the consensus is that…").

please see the talk page "consensus", please edit if you feel you can better summarize something instead of undoing. moving elements under correct headers, improving flow, removing jargon/unclear (?) ("wisdom circles"), defining additional positions on authorship, added hyperlinks and citations, removed extreme supposition that Daniel was authored in the Maccabean period specifically (OR)(?), adding minutia, additional positions, and evidence concerning modern biblical criticism.)

And you have to produce real evidence that in 2022 AD there is a debate thereupon raging in the mainstream academia. Sources from 60 years ago don't count to that effect.

If you claim that you have an academic interest then I don't have to explain to you which sources count to that effect. If you fail to get the point, then it is a false pretense that you have an academic interest. Does publish or perish tells you anything?

This is very neatly explained at Scientific consensus and arguments from authority on YouTube. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Collins does not assert that Daniel was authored under the maccabean/hashmonean dynasty, it actually goes against his dating... if it is supposed to mean "at the same time as early Maccabean revolts", it should say that but still that would be synthesis. Especially because Collins estimate of 168-165 bc is not completely with the early Maccabean revolts (which begin in 167 bc)

For you to claim a source is outdated, you have to demonstrate why, you saying they are outdated does not make them outdated. Scholarship in this area has not changed fundamentally in the last 65 years. Scholars in this study routinely cite scholarship even older, see Collins, Flint, etc.

I agree with the point of the video which talks about how a theory can be 'accepted as the consensus when the amount of evidence is overwhelming, and no one can find a serious flaw', this is not true of SR drivers theory. Criticism of the theory represents true scholarship, backed by evidence, not denialism, or anti scholarly fringe theories. Billyball998 (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

i think we should move further discussion back to Talk:Book of Daniel. thanks Billyball998 (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

This is what Google shows for the search terms Maccabean period: "The main phase of the revolt lasted from 167–160 BCE and ended with the Seleucids in control of Judea, but conflict between the Maccabees, Hellenized Jews, and the Seleucids continued until 134 BCE, with the Maccabees eventually attaining independence." So, may I ask, is c. 165 BCE during the Maccabean period? Or this: "The Maccabean Revolt of 167-160 BCE was a Jewish uprising in Judea against the repression of the Seleucid Empire. The revolt was led by a country priest called Mattathias, and his military followers became known as Maccabees." tgeorgescu (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Technically speaking, "macccabean period" is not a term historians (as far as I know) use. There is the hashmonean dynasty, which begins in 140 bc. The first revolts began in 167 bc, whereas collins claim is somewhere from 168-165. In conclusion, I would say c.165 bc is not within the "Maccabean period" (a misnomer) and also Collins claim does not even fall completely within the revolts.

If you are claiming that the first maccabean revolts are called the maccabean period, you should provide a citation, but there is still the other issue.

Now i will try not to continue on this page because this is not the subject of this page, please know in the future I will respond back on Talk:Book of Daniel. thanks. Billyball998 (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

You stated removed extreme supposition that Daniel was authored in the Maccabean period specifically (twice).

So, not only your interpretation of WP:RULES such as WP:RS/AC and WP:NPOV is confused, your interpretation that a controversy is raging in the mainstream academia is also confused, and it is you who have used misnomers twice, according to what you said yourself above. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not using the misnomer... I am stating that removed the statement that "Daniel was authored in the Maccabean period." Eitherway, the point is i was not calling Collins position supposition, only the faulty wording of the article. Thanks. Billyball998 (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Strange, since you did not use quote marks in order to show that it isn't your own view. And even if it isn't your own view, the claim that it is an extreme supposition is highly off the mark. Anyway, your interpretation of WP:NPOV is confused because when the consensus view of the mainstream academia is that something is fact, then it is also a fact in the voice of Wikipedia. I have edited for a long time and I don't know any exceptions from this rule. Since you demanded a WP:RS, here it is: Wessels, Anton; Jansen, Henry; Hofland, Lucy (2020). The Grand Finale: The Apocalypse in the Tanakh, the Gospel, and the Qur’an. Wipf and Stock Publishers. p. 150. ISBN 978-1-7252-7601-7. Retrieved 5 November 2022. The Hasmonean dynasty ruled Judea from the Maccabean revolt in 167 BC until 37 BC. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

It has not been demonstrated that there is a consensus, offhanded comments are not proof of a consensus, like in the porter young, or peter flint works. My point in providing the sources I have has been to demonstrate a lack of consensus. The video you provided from 16:27 onward might be helpful in understanding my assertion. And please remember consensus does not mean majority, it means its virtually undebated, save for pseudo-scholars and sub-scholarly holdouts.

Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable

WP:RS

I don't want to continue the debate about the "maccabean period" because it doesn't seem particularly important, but ill just say that the level of control that the hashmonean dynasty had waxxed and wained, and most people probably would not characterize 167 bc onward as a "maccabean period", it was one of multiple powers. Thanks Billyball998 (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

You do not make the call about what counts as WP:RS/AC. I have WP:CITED to that effect one full professor and three associate professors, all four published at prestigious academic publishing houses. You have WP:CITED an unpublished Master's thesis as if it would count as WP:RS. As Warshy has explicitly told you:

That is precisely what I said. Anything argued in an unknown Master's thesis is inherently sub-scholarly and unfounded vis-a-vis the high-bar biblical criticism claims that are trying to be advanced here. The simple attempt to try and make someone look up into some unknown thesis dug up from who knows where is really preposterous in my view. Since you have noone here even slightly agreeing with you on any of your claims, it is high time you stopped beating this dead horse here, in my view. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 21:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you take their advice to the heart, before admins indef you for trolling. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I have listed many more sources, any sources you don't believe to be appropriate please argue why in the appropriate location. Thanks. Billyball998 (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

But no WP:RS claiming that such controversy is raging in the mainstream academia in the 2000s, or in the 2010s, or in the 2020s. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: @tgeorgescu: You need to learn the difference between a content dispute and a conduct dispute. RAN1 (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  They violate WP:DEADHORSE.

  Let me spell out for you the basics on the dating of the Book of Daniel, and I won't even bother dropping the names of the reliable sources, since this is all rather elementary for anyone who knows some history of the period. I also don't have time for it, and this whole thing is already becoming tiring and boring to death, as anyone looking from the sidelines knows, and as I have already pointed out to you. As I already said, the Book of Daniel did not make it into the Prophets section of the Hebrew Canon. For Jews, in general, the Book of Daniel is rather unimportant as a so-called "prophet." For Christian messianic theology, on the other hand, it is fundamental, because without it there is no basis whatsoever for the Book of Revelation, which is the basic text of Christian apocalypse. However, Jews of the Second Temple period did not start speaking and writing in the Aramaic language before 200 BCE. The Mishnah, which is the basic Jewish religious law collection of the period, did not begin to be compiled before 200 BCE, and it is written still completely in Hebrew, not in Aramaic. The Book of Daniel, is the only book of the Hebrew Bible that has substantial parts of it written in Aramaic, not in Hebrew. These two basic points make any dating of the Book of Daniel before 200 BCE completely improbable. I again, for the last time, strongly suggest to you that you just drop the stick and back away from this dead horse. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 22:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  My respone to this quote on the page in question, copied here so as not to misrepresent that the above claims are true:

  Your suggestion is noted. You should know that portions of the Mishnah are written in Aramaic, portions of Ezra are Aramaic, it has also been documented for a very long time that Jews were speaking Aramaic as early as 530 bc in the elephantine papyri (see G.R. Driver "The Aramaic of the book of Daniel). Billyball998 (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  Oh boy, you're trying to pull wool over our eyes. Fortunately, Wikipedia has Hebrew language#Displacement by Aramaic. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes, nothing written there contradicts my statements. Also please remember that Collins and almost all scholars believe that Daniel's Aramaic was written well before the Hellenistic era, asserting otherwise truly is a very minority view. Warshys argument is not a logical (imo) or widely accepted one. Billyball998 (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  See also https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1707-aramaic-language-among-the-jews tgeorgescu (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  Sawyer, John (2012). Sacred Languages and Sacred Texts. Religion in the First Christian Centuries. Taylor & Francis. p. 27. ISBN 978-1-134-80139-8. Retrieved 6 November 2022. By the second century BCE, Aramaic was being used by Jews for religious purposes too, as can be seen from the Book of Daniel (2:4–7:28), which was composed c. 160 BCE [...] tgeorgescu (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) DEADHORSE is not an excuse to ignore policy. I linked two very relevant policies in my oppose, and it's necessary for you to know them. RAN1 (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  @RAN1: About WP:CONSENSUS: at the talk page of the article, nobody else agrees with Billyball998. About WP:CIVILITY: I did not called them names, at most I said that their interpretations are confused. Also, I do not beat around the bush, but I presume that isn't incivility. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  What I meant was that content disputes are resolved through consensus, but ANI handles incivility problems. RAN1 (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  You called them "hopeless" and "not even good for rough ashlar" meaning incapable being fashioned into a masonry stone, a metaphor for uselessness and/or stupidity. This doesn't exhaust the pointed personal criticism deployed and doesn't even begin to discuss the repeated accusations of sockpuppetry without substantial evidence. I suggest you drop the stick here and take the content dispute back to the talk page where it belongs. Jahaza (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  I just saw your message, and I'll take your advice to the heart. May someone close this topic? tgeorgescu (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  Also, you need to be cognizant of the difference between an essay and a policy or guideline. DEAD HORSE is an essay (as have been a number of other pages you have suggested are being "violated". Jahaza (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Jahaza: Billyball998 has lost the article talk page dispute, the WP:RSN dispute, and the WP:FTN dispute. It is high time to admit that removing the mainstream academic consensus from the article has definitively failed. They may become a productive Wikipedia editor only after publicly admitting that their attempt has failed. Otherwise they are just wasting our time with peddling claptrap. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  This is entirely untrue,

  (RSN: Book of Daniel is asking you to reformat your appeal, no one has even looked at the sources because of how you asked.

  the one comment on Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Book of Daniel is disagreeing with you (I believe).

  The talk page discussion is still underway, consensus is not reached Billyball998 (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  Billyball998, I was preparing to disagree to some extent with tgeorgescu, but that was after seeing you blocked as a SOCK. There is no way i would now because it would be completely unproductive. There are eleven pages of talk archives for that article, much filled with arguments similar to your own. Editors such as warshy are clearly tired of having to drag out the same sources and explanations over and over. The discussion has sprawled across four noticeboards and there is clear opposition to your edit and arguments. This is certainly WP:FRINGE content that would require careful handling and agreement from multiple editors. It will not be reflected in the article as you have proposed, and after a clear warning from some admin i think a topic ban would be appropriate if this continues. fiveby(zero) 01:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you, i disagree with the fringe characterization as the criticisms are supported by clear scholarship, please keep in mind fringe does not mean minority or even extreme minorty, it relates to the attitude towards scholarship. That being said I understand that I was not able to convince other editors. Have a nice day/evening/night. Billyball998 (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support This user is clearly a pretty large drain on editor time/effort, and provides very little in the way of benefit in improving this article space. a TBAN would be a good way to incentivize the user to improve other areas of wikipedia where they can be more impartial, and perhaps return back to this topic at some later date. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose a topic ban at this time. What I can see is that User:Billyball998 has views that are not supported by academic consensus and can be considered fringe, and that User:tgeorgescu is using a bludgeon to "win" content disputes. They have not made a case that the support of fringe viewpoints by Billyball998 is tendentious or otherwise disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Concern about behaviour during an ongoing RfC at Republics of Russia

The talk page of Republics of Russia has been turned into a mess by Jargo Nautilus and Cambial Yellowing during a delicate RfC. The diffs:

• At 23:44, 28 October 2022, Jargo Nautilus (JN) made a totally unprovoked and incomprehensible personal attack on Seryo93, an editor who had not even posted anything in that RfC: I caught him blatantly lying … he was gaslighting me and other editors on purpose.[95]
• At 00:01, 29 October 2022 JN stood on a soapbox: If it comes to the point that Wikipedia actually ends up endorsing some of Russia's criminal actions, then I will boycott this website,[96] Russia has brought its downfall upon itself by electing the criminal Vladimir Putin,[97] Russia ... a lawless wasteland of bandits[98] while also being unnecessarily rude to me:Gitz's logic regarding sourcing is a bit nonsensical.[99]
• I noticed but didn't particularly mind JN's soapboxing and rudeness. However, three days later I noticed the personal attack on Seryo93 and I thought it was unacceptable. I replied to it [100] and I also collapsed the off-topic and soapboxing remarks.[101] I contacted JN on their talk page to address these issues.[102] JN denied any wrongdoing and deleted the whole thread becauseThis is ultimately a waste of time, so I am wiping it clean.[103] Waste of time notwithstanding, JN stared a long conversation on my talk page (this one).
• Immediately before starting that conversation, JN removed from the article talk page both their personal attack on Seryo93 and my reply to it.[104] JN also removed the collapsible box I had applied to their remarks, and heavily edited their remarks or removed them altogether from the article talk page.[105] Note that these comments had been posted 3 days and half earlier and I had already reacted to them by applying the collapsible box.
• I reverted JN’s removal of both their personal attack on Seryo93 and my reply to it, and I explained You shouldn't delete comments! And collapsing off topic comments is fine. Have you ever read WP:TALK?.[106]
• JN made a partial revert of my revert: they deleted their personal attack on Seryo93 and left my reply to it in a collapsible box with the title "off-topic."[107]
• On my talk page Deepfriedokra commented Jargo Nautilus Please do not edit other people's talk page contents. Please do not change your own talk page comments after they have been responded to.[108] While they were probably meaning "article talk page" rather than user talk pages, the message was clear.
• Encouraged by this, I restored the status quo ante - both JN's personal attack and my reply to it. I also restored JN’s soapboxing comments in their original drafting. However, I didn't restore my collapsible box on them[109]. So this was now the talk page as it used to be before my intervention and before JN edited and removed both their old comments and mine.
• However, Cambial Yellowing (CY) restored JN's edited version of their own comments and explained restoring unreplied comments to version by the editor who wrote them[110]. CY also left a warning on my talk page (vandalism)[111] and commented on the article talk page that It's generally acceptable for an editor to amend their own comments to which there has not yet been a reply. So your editing of another editor's comments is not acceptable[112].
• I believe that JN should not have edited and removed their comments because it had already been three days (not a "short while" per WP:TALK#REPLIED) since they had posted them, and because I had already reacted to their comments by putting them in a collapsible box. CY doesn’t agree and we had a discussion on this here, where CY speaks about my inappropriate refactoring and pointless, reaching wikilawyering to try to excuse failing to observe conduct policy. CY was trying to justify JN's disregard for WP:TALK by muddying the waters and making it look like I was the one who misbehaved.
• CY has been both uncivil and tendentious in that talk page since the beginning of the RfC. They had tried to modify the opening sentence without consensus in a way that strongly affected the ongoing RfC[113][114] and had engaged in edit warring on a related issue[115][116][117][118]. Once I had expressed and argued for a view different from theirs in the RfC, they replied that If you're not keen on that policy [WP:OR] this may not be the website for you[119] provoking the reaction of a fellow editor Furius, it comes across as rude and patronising.
• Apart from restoring JN's edited comments and reproaching me for not respecting talk page guidelines, CY provided JN with "good advice" on their talk page[120]. CY encouraged JN to edit their comments yet again because your edit summary suggests you edited them at the behest of another editor. Worse still, CY suggested to JN that they were justified in calling a fellow editor a liar because of WP:IUC: you may find this section - part of WP:5P4 - of interest (note point 2(d)). Obviously CY was wrong: even if Seryo93 had lied in the past (which none of us have reason to believe) it would be entirely inappropriate to call them a liar in an RfC where they have never posted.
• I think that this is just battleground mentality, disregard for talk guidelines and lack of civility on CY's part. I contacted CY on their talk page[121] and they reverted because Not of interest[122]. So here we are.
• Final note. I'm not a Putin supporter, but I find JN's view that Putin supporters should be permanently prohibited from editing Wikipedia simply appalling. Wikipedia does not discriminate editors on the basis of political views, as I tried to explain to them in this conversation on my talk page here. IMHO these two editors should be prevented from editing in the EE area.Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Statement Jargo Nautilus

Firstly, I have not replied to the RfC in days. Secondly, I am not in "cahoots" ("you and your pal") with User:Cambial Yellowing. I have had no direct contact with that user (except very recently at my talk page). Thirdly, I am very busy at the moment and probably can't reply to this thread for the next three weeks. Fourthly, I would hardly describe your own behaviour as appropriate, including the fact that this dispute was started by you when you collapsed my comments. And also, for over a day I believe, I didn't actually respond to you. You spent a considerable length of time arguing with Cambial Yellowing in my absence, and that isn't my fault because I didn't ask him to argue with you on my behalf. So, even though you may view Cambial Yellowing's actions as an escalation on my part, they actually had nothing to do with me. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Gitz, your logic yet again does not track. You originally collapsed my comments on the charge of being "off topic" and "soapbox" (charges which haven't been verified by a third party, I will add), so I deleted the parts that I thought might have caused my comments to be flagged, since I was under the impression that you wanted me to remove the offending parts. However, remarkably, after I did this, I was only met with more outrage from you. Apparently, you actually wanted me to keep the information there, perhaps in order to make me "look bad". I'm not sure how it makes sense that you are angry at me for simultaneously "writing inappropriate things" and then subsequently deleting those things after I was told that they might cause offence. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The first edit (deleting my comments) was my original attempt at conflict resolution. Gitz has highlighted this as a "crime" or an "escalation" for unknown reasons. Clearly, with that edit, I was attempting to improve the situation, not to worsen it. I deleted the parts that I thought might be considered "soap-boxy". My comments hadn't been replied to yet, so I figured it was okay to delete them. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Note: I have not commented in the "Republics of Russia" article ever since I deleted some of my comments on November 1 (it's now November 4). Ever since then, I have only been interacting with Gitz at his user talk page. As I've said, my time is limited at the moment. | Update: I have commented on the talk page again after three days of absence, on November 4. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Statement Jargo Nautilus #2 - In light of the fact that no administrators have commented in this ANI discussion after two days and yet it is already impressively lengthy, I'm going to have to conclude that this ANI discussion has only served as a platform for derailment rather than as an actual attempt at conflict resolution. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Other comments

This extremely verbose comment from Gitz6666, which I have skimmed but not read, is I assume occasioned by reminders to both Jargo Nautilus and to Gitz6666 of the importance of observing WP:TPO, and especially so during a contentious RFC. The template used was Template:Uw-tpv2. Both editors edited each other's comments. Gitz6666 first hid Jargo's rather prolix series of comments, citing OFFTOPIC but neglecting to err on the side of caution.[123] Jargo then removed two of his own comments, to one of which Gitz6666 had responded, and removed Gitz6666's response.[124] Gitz6666 restores; Jargo then removes his own comment and collapses Gitz6666's reply.[125] Gitz6666 then removes the collapse, and changes Jargo's other comments to an earlier version.[126].

The only reason any of my comments about this are on article talk, is that Gitz6666 insisted on responding in a thread on article talk. The content of that discussion, in which Gitz6666 merely seeks to justify ignoring WP:TPO, is relevant context.

I reject Gitz6666's specious accusations above, including a fabricated charge of "edit warring" and the claim that I suggested Jargo was "justified in calling a fellow editor a liar" - a phrase and a notion of his own invention. The charges he makes are refuted by the diffs he purports to adduce in support of his claims. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Could you please explain what did you mean when you said note point 2(d) (per WP:IUC) in your conversation with JN quoted above? Who was the liar you were referring to? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I made no reference to a liar: that's yet another example of the complete fabrications you've made in your comments on this noticeboard. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Gitz, I would advise to avoid casting WP:ASPERSIONS. You have accused me and Cambial Yellowing of collaborating, which is not true aside from what can be seen publicly (which is not that much; I've interacted with you -- Gitz -- more than I have with him). This comment of yours was especially direct in this accusation -- "you and your pal". And the phrase "your conversation with JN" in your statement above is seemingly suggestive of this accusation. It certainly wasn't much of a conversation; Cambial Yellowing left two medium-length messages at my talk page, and I left one medium-length reply, and that's it. It's more of a brief "chat" if anything. Indeed, Cambial Yellowing's messages to me are not strongly relevant to the statement that he has made above, which means you are going into WP:TALKOFFTOPIC territory. | EDIT: Also, what is this quote -- "good advice" -- in the segment at the top here a reference to? Is this another accusation? I have been searching through the history of this three-way dispute and I can't find that precise phrase anywhere else but here. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

In terms of Seryo "lying", you can see what I am referring to in the most recent discussion on his talk page. Effectively, he repeatedly kept misquoting another user by changing the wording of a phrase that they had said -- specifically changing "in Europe" to "in the world". This incident occurred in a discussion on Talk:Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I have now had time to go through Gitz6666's bullet points above. The level of obfuscation, distortion, and outright fabrication in Gitz6666's post is so extreme that I am left with the impression Gitz6666 is unable to edit in this topic area without resort to totally inappropriate conduct. I suggest a WP:BOOMERANG for Gitz6666 in the form of an indefinite article ban and a twelve-month topic ban in the Russia and Russia-Ukraine conflict areas.

Re: the above -

Gitz6666 claims that I left a warning on [Gitz] talk page (vandalism)[119] and commented on the article talk page. This gives the false and inaccurate impression that a) my warning was for vandalism and b) that I commented on article talk right away. In reality my warning was the normal template for "Editing, correcting, or deleting others' talk page comments" personalised with "It's always best to strictly observe WP:TPO, and particularly so in a formal RFC. Where comments have not been replied to it is generally acceptable for an editor to make amendments to their own earlier comments." My comment on article talk was made later and only in response to Gitz6666 starting a thread on talk after he had first responded on his talk page.

Gitz6666 claims that I was trying to justify JN's disregard for WP:TALK by muddying the waters and making it look like I was the one who misbehaved. Gitz6666 gives no evidence for this groundless, dishonest claim. Leaving reminders on two editor's pages for the same thing - editing each other's comments - would be no way to "muddy the waters" were that someone's aim, but Gitz6666 does not let mere logic get in the way of his fabrications.

Gitz6666 claims comments on talk were uncivil and tendentious. The only talk diff they refer to in this paragraph is this one, a response to Gitz6666's suggestion that rather than requiring RS that support southeast Ukraine as Republics of Russia, I ought to have RS saying that the Republic of Crimea, DPR and LPR are not federal subjects/constitutive elements of the Russian Federation. Gitz6666 is at this point moving into sealioning territory. My response pointing out the absurdity of approaching sourcing this way (assuming something is true until RS deny it) remains accurate. The part Gitz6666 says he objects to is justified and objectively true, and I'm happy to repeat it here: "Content must be reliably sourced. If you're not keen on that policy this may not be the website for you."

Gitz6666 claims that CY provided JN with "good advice". He puts the phrase "good advice" in quotes, despite that the phrase is entirely his own invention. Gitz6666 claims that CY encouraged JN to edit their comments yet again. In reality I pointed out to Jargo that I had restored his comments to the last version created by him, and to check this was the right version.(see here)

Gitz6666 then claims that CY suggested to JN that they were justified in calling a fellow editor a liar. This is not a distortion, but an outright fabrication, as can be seen from the diff. I began Regarding the comment in this edit summary, linking to where Jargo says Indeed, as far as I can tell, it's not a crime on Wikipedia to tell a fib on a talk page, but it's definitely very annoying.. I pointed out to Jargo that lying is considered uncivil in Wikipedia conduct guidelines. I made no comment about another editor, Seryo, whom I know nothing about, nor about whether anything is "justified" – a word and a phrase of Gitz6666's own invention.

Gitz6666 says he contacted CY on their talk page, which is true, but they neglect to mention that I already indicated in the thread Gitz6666 started on article talk that I was not interested in attempts to justify ignoring WP:TPO in a contentious RFC. Given that Gitz6666 had seen that, it should be unsurprising to him that I had no interest in his doing so at even greater length and with even more specious arguments on my talk page. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I'm involved at the RfC, I'm not going to add anything here. I feel the situation would best be served with less heat. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I have not actually edited any of my statements in the RfC at "Talk:Republics of Russia" after Cambial Yellowing messaged me on my talk page, so it's a bit of a moot point how Gitz is suggesting that Cambial Yellowing was inviting me to cause more trouble when I basically haven't caused any further trouble over there. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Indefinite article ban and twelve-month topic ban for Gitz6666

Given the extensive degree of distortion, omission, and outright fabrication that Gitz6666 engages in in his OP here, some kind of WP:BOOMERANG is appropriate in this instance.

I note that Gitz6666 is already indefinitely blocked on both the Italian and Spanish Wikipedias for incompatibility with the Project, irredeemable violation of Wiki etiquette, and block evasion (Italian), disruptive edits, and edit wars (Spanish).

On the article talk, Gitz6666 has pushed a POV that is a common talking point for the English-language editions of Russian media: that Russian constitutional law has established southeast Ukraine as part of Russia. Gitz6666 does so

• here, saying the member states of a federation are determined by the federal constitution, not by international law or international consensus
• here, saying In fact it is obvious that the constitutive elements of a federation are determined by the federal constitution rather than international law or international consensus
• here, suggesting sourcing policy ought to be turned on its head in saying Do you have a RS saying that the Republic of Crimea, DPR and LPR are not federal subjects/constitutive elements of the Russian Federation?
• here, saying I have been asked to provide sources to support the claim that, according to Russian constitutional law [the regions of southeast Ukraine] are federal subject of the Russian Federation [emphasis added]. In fact Gitz6666 was asked for sources which directly support the notion of southeast Ukraine as Republics of Russia, which of course do not exist.

Gitz6666 has previously been civil, and his pushing of this "Constitutional law establishes fact" line can best be described as WP:Sealioning. As he has now escalated this POV-pushing to a crass attempt at WP:SANCTIONGAMING in which he fabricates actions and quotes by other editors, I propose an indefinite article ban on Republics of Russia and a twelve-month topic ban on Russia and Russia-Ukraine conflict articles. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - At this point in time, I don't support banning Gitz outright. Requesting him to get banned would make me no better than him, who has just recently requested to get me banned. I believe that the best course of action right now is to de-escalate the dispute between the three users involved. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I am an uninvolved editor who does not wish to become involved in this matter. I would like however to point out the very similar threads here and at Arbcom in late June 2022. I *was* involved in those, and still believe that Gitz misrepresented a source, as I discussed there (and do not have the bandwidth to re-litigate). As above, Gitz was filing a complaint about someone pushing back on his inevitably prolific pro-Russian spin. Perhaps that may shed some light on the matter. I will find and post links. Elinruby (talk) 02:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Links:

• AN/I

• Arbcom Elinruby (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Cambial would like to turn this dispute over behaviour on the talk page into a dispute over the content of the article. I'd be happy to oblige, but this is not the place to do so. Therefore I've just posted this comment on the article talk page. I hope it will help create some interest in an RfC that is languishing for lack of contributions. So far we have had no less than 18 comments from Cambial, 23 from Jargo and 20 from me, thus bludgeoning the discussion and hampering the participation of other users: everybody's contribution is welcome. From now on, I'm abandoning that RfC. I suggest that Cambial and Jargo do the same.

Instead of replying to Cambial about contents, I'd like to ask them the following:

1. Are you sure that it was appropriate for Jargo Nautilus to edit their off-topic comments, remove them and remove the collapsible box? It had been more than three days since they had posted them, and Jargo did not used any <ins> or new timestamp when they edited them. Most importantly, I had already reacted to their comments by putting them in a collapsible box titled off-topic and soapboxing comments. In the edit summary I had explained collapsing off-topic and soapboxing comments per WP:TALKOFFTOPIC.[127] Are you sure that, in doing so, I hadn't already replied to them (per WP:TALK#REPLIED)? I gave you my reasons on this[128] and you replied that No-one is interested in pointless, reaching wikilawyering to try to excuse failing to observe conduct policy.[129] Are you still sure you were right in point of policy?
2. In a conversation with Jargo on their talk page you said the following about editing their own comments in the box: if no-one has replied to them by all means remove/edit them. After you had restored Jargo's edited comments, you wrote to them Please check that this is the version of the comments you wish to remain, as your edit summary suggests you edited them at the behest of another editor.[130] If I understand you correctly, you were encouraging them to further edit their comments. Or do you have a different explanation for your suggestion?
3. You quoted our policy on "lying" as incivility per WP:IUC on Jargo's talk page. You also chose the subject "Fibs" as the name of the section you opened there.[131] Let me understand your reasoning: Jargo deletes from the talk page their personal attack and my reply to it, and in the edit summary Jargo writes that it's not a crime on Wikipedia to tell a fib on a talk page, but it's definitely very annoying.[132] You then feel the need to contact Jargo on their talk page to let them know (my words) "no, look, it's not just annoying: if Seryo93 was telling fibs that would have actually been against policy!" Does that make sense to you?

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Brief answers to questions: 1. Yes. Your editing of Jargo's comments does not fit any of the exceptions to WP:TPO. 2. I was neither encouraging them nor discouraging them. Your interpretation of that sentence is sufficiently removed from usual English meaning that one has to assume that either a. your level of English is insufficient to edit this wiki or b. you are WP:GASLIGHTING to try to make another editor's actions appear utterly different to reality. If Jargo had edited their own comments, that would have been acceptable given that no-one had replied to them and your immediately preceding inappropriate editing of the same comments. 3. If an editor lies that is considered uncivil. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment #1 - Gitz, your comment would make sense if I hadn't already abandoned the RfC four days ago. I haven't commented there since November 1 (except for a brief comment on November 4 saying the same thing I'm saying now). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I would like to highlight the fact that Gitz wrote a 2,427‎-character essay within the RfC merely seven minutes before writing above that he is planning to abandon the RfC. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment #2 - Based on what Gitz has written above, it seems that they are unwilling to resolve the dispute. Some of their claims just don't make sense. For example, they unilaterally (i.e. without approval from an admin or another experienced third party) collapsed some of my comments in an "off-topic" template, and they told me on my talk page that the comments were inappropriate (according to Gitz). So, I deleted around 70% of the comments that had been collapsed by Gitz, leaving only the parts that I thought were core to my point. I don't see anything wrong with this particular action. It doesn't make sense that Gitz views the deletion of these parts as some sort of a crime, especially since he was the one who told me that those parts allegedly did not belong on the talk page and needed to be hidden/removed. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Indeed it would be very much appreciated if some admins and/or experienced users were to help us clarify the point of policy here above addressed (point 1 of my last comment, comment#2 of Jorge's reply). 1) Do involved editors have the right to apply a collapsible box to an off-topic discussion/off-topic comments? 2) Once the collapsible box has been applied, has the author of the off-topic comments the right to modify them, delete them, and remove the collapsible box from the talk page? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC) P.S. Note that there is no real dispute between us about the off-topic/soapboxing nature of the comments: the point under discussion is how best to react to these kinds of situations, which I imagine are recurrent, per WP:TALKOFFTOPIC.; edited 12:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Gitz, it would be appreciated if you would stop rehashing points that haven't been verified by admins or experienced users. That would be a good start. Indeed, if you are wrong about some of your points, that would not be a good look. So, I would advise waiting until experienced users arrive and letting them tell their opinions, rather than predicting the things that you think they will say. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Quite amazing, but not surprising, that in response to my pointing out the fabrications and distortions in your original post you respond with more of the same. You claim, Cambial would like to turn this dispute over behaviour on the talk page into a dispute over the content of the article. You provide no evidence for this whatsoever: nor could you, given that it's a fabrication on your part. This is about you trying to push a completely inappropriate, Russian-government-centric POV. It's also about your pointless, unhelpful (bordering on uncivil) contrariness towards another editor and your inappropriate editing of their comments. It's also about you making things up here at ANI.

On the pushing of a Russian-government-centric POV, I've already provided diffs above where you directly state that what we include as Republics of Russia should be determined entirely by the Russian Constitution (e.g. [133][134][135] Another editor has pointed out above that you have been pushing this POV on other articles. I also note that you have pushed a similar Russian-government POV at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, suggesting we don't need a source saying that [alleged Ukrainian killing] was a war crime[136], and that the representatives of the Luhansk People's Republic called it a war crime[137] (you cite TASS); editors Volunteer Marek,[138][139] and Adoring nanny[140] have had to remind you that the opinions of Russian or Russian-puppet politicians do not establish fact.

On the contrariness towards another editor, you really shot yourself in the foot on this one. Having read Jargo's comments, I see quite how absurd your actions actually were. To wit (and for the benefit of admin):

• Jargo writes a series of posts. [141][142][143]
• You respond to one of them (about international vs constitutional law). [144]
• Jargo gives his view on Russian constitutional law, and writes another series of posts. [145][146][147]
• You reply to an earlier, unrelated post. [148]
• You then collapse Jargo's comments about constitutional law (but not your own), claiming they are "soapboxing" and citing "off-topic". [149]
• Jargo, having seen that you hid his comments about constitutional law (but not your own), and your citing of "off-topic", deletes the parts he thinks are not directly relevant and condenses the rest. [150]
• Jargo then deletes the earlier, unrelated post and your reply to it. [151]
• You restore the earlier post to which you had replied (and your reply). [152]
• Jargo deletes his earlier post (and collapses your reply). [153]
• You uncollapse your reply and restore Jargo's earlier post. You also change the series of posts by Jargo, that you collapsed citing off-topic, to their earlier version (the version that you hid saying off-topic soapboxing). [154]
• I remind first Jargo to observe WP:TPO and WP:REDACT,[155] and then you to observe WP:TPO.[156] I also stress to Jargo that with his own comments he should edit only if they have not been replied to.[157]

That you chose to first hide a series of comments as off-topic soap-boxing, and then, when the editor changes them to try to be more on-topic, you edit their comments to the version you claimed was off-topic, shows a level of contrariness that suggests you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia. Your series of fabrications in your original post here suggest the same. I have therefore struck my proposal above and propose an indefinite block. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Behaviour during the ANI discussion

Gitz, what is this? With this edit, you have amended a comment onto the end of Cambial Yellowing's comments, and you have not signed it. At the moment, it looks like something that Cambial Yellowing has written, rather than you. Please explain your edit below, and if there has been a mistake, then please fix it promptly. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, that's a weird mistake - I had intended to add that "post scriptum" to my comment. I'm now moving it to where it belongs. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Gitz6666 is NOTHERE

Gitz6666 has been pushing common talking points of the Russian government public relations machine at at least two, possibly more articles. A number of editors have also indicated POV-pushing on Gitz6666's part at this noticeboard and at Arbcom. Gitz6666 has also collapsed replies to their comments citing off-topic; when the editor who wrote these replies tried to focus them on the topic, Gitz6666 insisted on changing them back to the version Gitz6666 had claimed was off-topic: this shows an extraordinary degree of contrariness or editing other's comments just for the sake of it – highly disruptive. They have also made a series of fabricated and unsupported claims about other editor's actions here on ANI. Together, these strongly suggest Gitz6666 is not here to build an encyclopaedia. They have already been blocked on the Italian and Spanish Wikis for similar reasons.ITES I propose a similar block on this wiki. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer, for the reasons summarised above and outlined in detail in the previous section. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

This proposal looks like Battleground retaliation and raises questions about Cambial Yellowing's ability or willingness to collaborate respectfully with good faith contributors on complex and controversial subject matter. SPECIFICO talk 14:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

While your input is always interesting Specifico, your own inability to collaborate on far-less controversial topics, even though you claim to have expertise in that topic area, indicates you would be a poor judge of the nature of other editor's actions. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Apparently Cambial has serious problems with civility and is incapable or receiving the slightest criticism without overreacting, attempting to undermine the interlocutor's credibility and making personal attacks. The topic of this discussion is Cambial's, Jargo's and mine "inability to cooperate", not Specifico's. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Gitz6666: The topic that you started this under was in fact "concern about behaviour". Much of the behaviour you went on to describe turned out to be fabricated, to be sure, but the ostensible subject was different to "inability to cooperate". Neither Jargo nor I have had a problem collaborating or discussing, despite contentious disagreement, with each other or with other editors on the page. It is only you that has caused extensive problems both at that page and others, which have led to your complete ban on two other wikis. It is only you that has been difficult to collaborate with, continually pushing a notion that "Russian constitutional law establishes fact" without regard to the content policies of this website. It is only you that has moved from a simple reminder to respect the talk page guidelines, in a series of bizarre escalations, to the extensive series of fabrications about other editor's actions that you make on this noticeboard. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

So far you've used the word fabrication, which implies intentions, no less than 12 times in the course of this discussion, yet you have failed to share even one single diff showing a lie on my part. My account of our interactions was correct and, I believe, it shows your disregard for our policies and guidelines (TALK, CIV, NPA, AGV) and your battlefield mentality (NPOV) meaning your inability to cooperate in the EE area. Moreover, your remarkable behaviour during this discussion (I propose tban! - I support tban - silence follows - I propose nothere! - I support nothere - silence and coughing from the audience – more personal attacks, more accusations) is verging on the bizarre and suggests that it's time for an admin to handle the matter, possibly with some consideration for the high level of distress and discomfort shown by all editors involved.

Finally, since you mentioned my history on it.wiki and es.wiki, I intend to publish a short explanation (with diff) of these events, which I will post on my user page, so as not to burden this discussion with other irrelevant materials. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I referred to fabrications, not lies. You have made various statements above which are demonstrably false. I make no judgement about intention, but it would be interesting to see you try to explain how some of these statements were not intentional. It is again unsurprising that you exhibit such a degree of unselfconsciousness that you inaccurately accuse others of having failed to share even one single diff, after making an OP in which you make accusations for which you offer not a shred of evidence. Given that the diffs you appeal to above are your comments on this noticeboard in this section, linking them seems redundant, but for completeness they are your OP (I detail the fabrications in a post below it); your response to another post (you ask Who was the liar you were referring to? – given the number of times you've linked to my 2 comments at Jargo's page, you cannot be unaware of the fact that I made no reference to any "liar"); and this post (you claim Cambial would like to turn this dispute over behaviour on the talk page into a dispute over the content of the article - again you offer no evidence). Your bizarre speculations about an imaginary "audience" speaks to the performative nature of your posts here, which suggests they are designed largely to waste editor and admin time. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

"Audience" refers to the community and to the admins who will read and hopefully see through this better than you and me, including the semantics of "fabrication" (as distinct from lie and not implying ill-intentions) that you've just... fabricated![158] Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I referred to fabrications, not lies.

Let's not play rhetorical games. If you accuse someone of fabrications, you are accusing them of making up something they know is false, aka lying. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

It is possible to say things that aren't true, and also believe them. Gitz for example firmly believes that Wikipedia is unfairly portraying the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He also believes that Ukrainian territory is part of Russia, apparently, and that a Russian law proves that this is so. He is now complaining that these assertions weren't received as he thought they should be, shrug. As civilly as I can, I would like to say that a thing does not become true merely because Putin said so and Gitz believes it, and has posted wall after wall of text about it. Elinruby (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC) 04:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

this thread is now turning into a workshop on the notion of "fabrication". As the discussion is quite long and few editors will read it carefully, I'm forced to rectify Elinruby's claims: I've never said the things they attribute to me. It's pure (intentional? unintentional?) fabrication. Some of them are too generic (Wikipedia is unfairly portraying the Russian invasion of Ukraine) and others are entirely false (He also believes that Ukrainian territory is part of Russia), not to say insulting. They are not a reasonable interpretation of my claim that the number and name of Russia's internal subdivisions (republics, oblasts, etc.) are determined by Russian public law. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Why would Russian public law make Ukrainian territory part of Russia? For purposes of the Russian secret police, perhaps, but for purposes of the English-language Wikipedia Putin's flights of fancy are not RS for our encyclopedia. I was mercifully uninvolved in the original dispute here, and don't know who did what to whose hatnote; frankly I don't care and think you should be ashamed of yourself for whining about it here. It's hilarious that you complain, in an utter lack of self-awareness, about the length of a thread largely made up of your own walls of whatever. You routinely post torrents of legalese that exhaust those who disagree with you into just wanting you to go away. And yeah, by the way, by your own definition, you just accused me of making stuff up. But never mind all that. My point is that if you are going to maintain that the massacre at Bucha was exaggerated (see also All Russian war crimes are only "alleged") or that children taken from their parents aren't *really* kidnapped (see "interests of the child" 22:13, 5 June) because Russia passed a law that made it legal to take them, then any reasonable person would expect you to meet with a certain amount of exasperation. However "civil" you may be in your utter certitude that you are correct, you insert stupefying amounts of spin into the encyclopedia. I have dealt with hundreds of editors on dozens of highly contentious topics, and you're the only one in all these years that I have ever had to instruct to stop speaking either to me or about me. Rectify, my left foot. Obviously, it is no longer reasonable now to expect you not to answer me here, which is why I have tried so hard to stay out of this, but kindly refrain this time from the dissertations on my talk page. I have watched you intimidate or discourage one good editor after another and am unlikely to change my opinion that you are a serial bully who for some reason truly believes in irredentism, and a net negative to the project who should at a minimum be topic-banned from anything to do with Russia. Now if you will excuse me, I feel the need for a shower. Elinruby (talk) 09:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Blocking bypass

1) User:Niyskho 1

2) User contributions for Niyskho

3) User:Kist-Dzurdzuk

4) User:Ghalghai'Wiki'Editor here

5) User:Dzurdzuketi --Товболатов (talk) 08:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

One IP address --Товболатов (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Товболатов. By "blocking bypass", I guess you mean what's more commonly referred to as "block evasion". Unless this is particularly urgent, if you think these users are the same person, the best place to take this up would be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dzurdzuketi. Please do remember to provide reasons why you think these accounts are being used by the same person. You can look up how to set out a new report here.--User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 23:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Shirt58 thanks for the reply. I don't particularly want to delve into this issue there I see there was a whole investigation. However, this person created accounts and waged wars on Russian Wikipedia, unreasonably blaming other participants. Insulted with obscene language, in the end, the Russian administrators blocked him and he moved here. Here I noticed he also does not want to have a constructive dialogue with other participants.Товболатов (talk) 08:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not want to falsely accuse a person of puppetry. In the Russian Wikipedia, he definitely did this. Just keep in mind I'm warning you for the future. Have a good day.Товболатов (talk) 08:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I was blocked in the Russian Wikipedia, it's true, but I was blocked only because it was some kind of coincidence that you took advantage of and slandered me, before that you insulted me and got personal. Your reputation in the Russian Wikipedia is very dubious, and already the idea of ​​​​investigating you in the same Russian Wikipedia, again an experienced participant Anceran, will confirm your unprincipled behavior, and slandering other participants, and will also prove that you use several accounts:

Here are his accounts:

1)Товболатов

2)Takhirgeran Umar

3)Russian viki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niyskho (talk • contribs) 08:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• This was already explained to you not Russian Wikipedia. What do you want from me? I ask the administrators to pay attention to the participant without evidence accuses me.--Takhirgeran Umar (talk) 08:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Listen dear, you are slandering me and trying to block me. It is up to you to leave the user alone, and not accuse everyone of Vandalism. Now I say goodbye! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niyskho (talk • contribs) 09:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• I did not even know that this person is on English Wikipedia. I get the sees, he MIGHS to me with his accusations. I ask the admines will calm him down.--Takhirgeran Umar (talk) 09:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Niyskho Above. Even here, you know very well that these three people are completely different people, you are brazenly lying trying to mislead the project participants. Товболатов (talk) 09:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Товболатов (talk • contribs) 09:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Even here, from several accounts, he comes up with excuses for himself, how funny it is, however, nevertheless, I already said goodbye and ended the dialogue with you, I only ask the admins to reassure you, your violations will be solved by experienced Russian Wikipedia members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niyskho (talk • contribs) 09:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Niyskho here you deleted entire texts about Chechens, staged a war of edits as usual. In Russian Wikipedia, you were forbidden to edit, now you have decided to transfer your work here, misleading readers.Товболатов (talk) 11:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Nakh peoples stop doing it and you won't have any questions.Товболатов (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Durdzuks in this article, you also started an edit war with another member of Goddard2000. Why do you come to Wikipedia to make a positive contribution or start edit wars?.Товболатов (talk) 11:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Where did you see the edit war? because of the lack of arguments, you just start to lie.

1) In the article Nakh peoples I deleted only the text without a source, even my opponent with whom I entered into a discussion approved my action, saying that I did the right thing.

2) There was not even any conflict in the article about the Dzurdzuks, I just added a few interesting sources and texts.

So where is the edit war on my part? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niyskho (talk • contribs) 11:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you know how to delete well, if you didn’t answer all the everyday life of deletion about the Chechens.Товболатов (talk) 12:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I delete absolutely any text if there are no sources in it, if there was a source in this article about the Chechens, then I would not even think about deleting information from there. Chechens are a kindred people for the Ingush, I have nothing against this people, but I will not allow to distort the history of my own people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niyskho (talk • contribs) 12:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Here is my discussion with the participant I started the discussion with, I had a good conversation with him, and we solved the problem, thanked each other and ended it.here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niyskho (talk • contribs) 12:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

You want to write your fairy tales without sources about my people. On the Russian Wikipedia, administrators and other participants have explained to you several times that you can’t write such things, you still want to push it here. You will not be able to distort historical facts here.

You wrote from different accounts there and insulted other participants. Wikipedia is not the place to sort things out. Товболатов (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Why are you trying to belittle the Chechens in an article about the Ingush, write everywhere, unlike the Chechens, the Ingush people are the bravest, most ancient, did not have a feudal system. You made many insulting attacks on my people there. Everything is written without source code; there is no historical data on these publications. Mostly historical facts are distorted. Last year, a certain Anakbek created several videos on his YouTube channel, where he fictitiously accused Chechen Wikipedians. Distort historical facts and introduce these fictional materials. Remove this false information from the article.Товболатов (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Do not be hysterical, no one offends your people, and even more so I did not edit without sources, unlike you, I know history very well. In the Russian-language Wikipedia, you slandered me, I repeat again, and there I never edited without sources, when I showed you authors and books, you always justified yourself by saying "this is not true, you are lying" or "this is not an authoritative source" and now you're back to your old ways. I didn't even edit the "ingush people" article, again you start slandering people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niyskho (talk • contribs) 18:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

no need to whine there. They blocked you in Russian, so what. You have created new accounts. If you had pride, you wouldn't post here.--Товболатов (talk) 07:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• Sockpuppets, not sockpuppets... One thing is for sure, neither should be editing in the topic area. Slywriter (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• • Slywriter yes you are probably right. On the other hand, I would also think so. I am patrolling, rolling back and renaming in Russian Wikipedia for five years I have been working there and I have not been given such advantages for disputes. I assure you if I stop editing I won't be creating new war accounts. But if you block him, he will create a new account and continue his activities. If no one needs it, then even more so for me. I will not make a tragedy out of this you can block me. I apologize for causing unnecessary discussion here. Good luck to.Товболатов (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Well-meaning editor who has problems with verifiability

Maitrey M. Telang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user mostly edits on pages regarding the Indian armed forces, but most (nearly all) of the time they don't give any sources to back up their changes (see [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], and many others). Despite several warnings, they still don't seem to get the point, sadly. BilletsMauves^€500 18:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Commenting so it doesn't get archived BilletsMauves^€500 18:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Repeated WP:V violation by Goanoa

User:Goanoa has repeatedly changed Aries (astrology) for the dates the Sun is in the Aries sign from the values provided by dictionary.com to different values, while leaving the citation unchanged. This intentionally misrepresents the views of dictionary.com. I issued a warning against edit warring in November. A warning for similar behavior was issued by User:Aloha27 in February. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Jc3s5h, given the multi week edit war over this, I find it amazing that no one has opened a talk page discussion or sought out a better source than dictionary.com. Slywriter (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

My favorite online dictionary before dictionary.com was lexico.com, which was published in conjunction with Oxford University Press. They went offline and designated dictionary.com as their replacement. lexico.com now redirects to dictionary.com. It isn't really about what the dates are, because that will vary according to which time zone the person doing the computation considers their "home" time zone, and how they want to average out the differing results; the Sun moves from one sign to another at somewhat different times and dates each year. It's really about saying a source says X when it really says Y. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Editors coming along making changes to the dates that the Sun enters and leaves signs, without providing a source, and without worrying about contradicting the existing source, has been happening several times a month for years. I made a talk page post about it in 2018. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Knoterification issues with WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE

User Knoterification has been violating WP:NPOV for some time, often removing entire paragraphs backed by good sources. Example 1. What has caught my attention, where I believe WP:FRINGE applies, is that the user constantly removes or try to push a narrative against Black people. Latest example, where they didn't use the "undo" button properly in the Eugenics article, possibly to avoid being detected. Other examples include: Example number 3, where in a WP:DNR dispute, the user did not refuse any of my arguments about downplaying racial issues of a particular protest after the murder. Example 4, when they first tried to start an edit war in the previous example, I found a silly reason to remove content regarding existing struggles in Brazil.

I haven't opened a discussion here because dealing with them at DNR was quite stressful, and I wanted to focus my attention elsewhere. Tetizeraz - (talk page) 23:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

In example number 1 I have already stated that I was wrong to erase that information. We are all humans and make mistakes.

I have never pushed a "narrative against black people". I am simply trying to correct americancentric bias about subjects relating to Brazilian society and history.

In relation to the eugenics article, I am correcting a contradiction in the article itself. While it claims, correctly, that:

"the Whitening Policies advocated miscegenation in order to reduce the numbers of pure Africans in Brazil in favor of mulattos, who were expected to then produce white off-spring",

it than claimed that: "This led to the "Politica de Branqueamento" (Whitening Policies) set in practice in Brazil in the early part of the 20th century. This series of laws intended to enlarge the numbers of the white race in Brazil while reducing the numbers of descendants of African slaves.

Those two statements contradict each other. You could claim whitening policies tried to reduce the number of black Brazilians, but not that it tried to reduce the number of descendants of slaves, because the goal, as shown by the first statement, was to make black Brazilians have white descendants (as shown by the painting in the article). Those white descendants, having black ancestors, would still be the descendants of slaves. Knoterification (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

In relation to examples 3 and 4. I still believe I am correct and following a neutral point of view, because in both cases the disputed information is based on interpretations of sources, not on the information given by the sources themselves.

In example 3, you interpreted that when the interviewed man said he was harassed by people of light skin, he was meaning white Brazilians. I however, find the use of that expression, instead of "white people", unusual, therefore, I thought it would simply be better to put it in its original form. "people of light skin". It points to colourism, which has always been the main feature of racism in Brazil.

In example 4, it is nowhere "fringe" to dispute that white Brazilians are a dominant minority comparable to American-Liberians, Alawites in Syria of Afrikaners in South Africa. Fristly because white Brazilians are roughly half of the population. Secondly because what is well established by scholars, is that Brazil is firstly and foremost a social apartheid, meaning a small white elite holds the vast majority of power and resources. But among the general poor population a relevant segment is white. 30% of inhabitants of favelas are white for example. https://m.folha.uol.com.br/cotidiano/2011/12/1024312-populacao-de-favelas-e-predominantemente-parda-mostra-censo.shtml Knoterification (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

In relation to the undo button. I swear by God it was an accident, I am not that good with computers. Knoterification (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

IP range making unconstructive edits and edit warring

The IP range Special:Contributions/2402:D000:811C:0:0:0:0:0/48 has been making unconstructive edits to a number of articles, and edit warring for their preferred versions. Their edits include adding unreferenced information to BLPs. Virtually all of their edits for the last two weeks have been reverted. It has been difficult to engage with this editor because their IP is constantly changing, and they have not engaged with conversations started on talk pages.

Diffs of edit-warring behaviour at Mitchell Marsh: [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172]

Attempt to engage with the user at Talk:Mitchell Marsh: [173] (the user was notified at User talk:2402:D000:811C:5FAE:84EA:8475:FDA2:70AB as it was their most recent IP address, they've made subsequent edits without acknowledging the attempt at communication)

Questionable changes to BLPs (now reverted): falsely claiming the subject is transgender; removing virtually all content to call the subject a "show boy"

It also appears they've wanted to add unreferenced content to Mark Finchem but could not because the article is protected, so they've made edits instead at Talk:Mark Finchem, falsely claiming the subject has African-American heritage twice. OliveYouBean (talk) 05:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

This editor is still active. I've just had to revert another of their unconstructive edits to Vinodh Perera here, which had a pretty aggressive edit summary of "Those who want to change this, check real life of this mother fucker......". OliveYouBean (talk) 00:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

LeesjyM3 False Accusation and distruptive edit

This user LeesjyM3 had publicly claim that i try to impersonate another user Leesjy2kin this edit https://en.chped.com/w/index.php?title=United_Malays_National_Organisation&action=history and inciting that my statements isn't true. I seek resolution for this matter above. Francabicon (talk) 08:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Francabicon: You have failed to notify LeesjyM3 (talk · contribs) of this report, as the red box on top of this page and while editing clearly require. I have done so for you this time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 14:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Bradleyk360 copying and pasting premise from other websites

User:Bradleyk360 has been adding premise section to Tv shows which are blatant copy and paste/English translation from the network that aired the respective Tv shows.[174][175][176][177][178] He has been warned by three editors in the past regarding this issue. TheHotwiki (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

User: HotWiki has asked me to attribute the content that I was adding which I have done. it is fully attributed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradleyk360 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Lets review your edit I reverted.[179] Not only it is a blatant copy and paste from GMA Network's press release, but you are also marketing the show by keeping weasel words/sentences ("Will Celeste choose the bright lights of Manila with Tonito or will she leave her heart and live a possibly quieter life in Sorsogon with Mikoy?") which aren't allowed in Wikipedia.TheHotwiki (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

User:HotWiki has been deleting every single premise i added with my own words based on source that i have always given,accusing me falsely of copying and pasting when it was never the case. He did it repeatedly so i changed the words each time thinking he would validate them but he kept acting crazy each time accusing me of copying the press and other sources to my surprise.

User: Hotwiki sent me Multiple Times articles about attributions and as a NEW Comer i had a hard time understanding what he needed from me. When i finally thought i understood,which means i could take the Text from a public Domain if and only if i Attributed the Text thats what i did. Every synopsis that i have taken from the Website was attributed as he recommended but he still wasnt satisfied now telling me about weasel words which he never explained clearly to me before erasing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradleyk360 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

User: Hotwiki obviously takes pleasure in misleading other contributors, it seems that he doesnt want any form of premise or Plot added to these pages although it means that the page will be less attractive. Every Single Plot or premise to the Show you use, he regards it as copy and Paste eben if he has no evidence at all. He accuses contributors of things they have not done. To me it is clear and simple that he doesnt want a plot added to these TV Shows.

User: Hotwiki asked me to add the attributions to Text from public Domain, if what i contributed is not allowed on wikipedia i apologize to the admins. I would not be surprised if he sent me those links to mislead me on purpose because his attitude as an admin has been very questionable. I would like to know how can i add the plot that i summarized myself without being accused of copying and pasting as i want to make those pages more attractive which isnt possible because of User: Hotwiki. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradleyk360 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Bradley360, I do not think that you understand what public domain means. That term refers to content that is not covered by copyright, usually because it was published more than 95 years ago and the copyright has expired. The contemporary content on websites of entertainment companies is definitely copyrighted, and you cannot tag it as public domain. That is a violation of the law and must be removed immediately. You can write premises and plot summaries in your own words but you cannot copy and paste big blocks of copyrighted text and call it public domain. It is not allowed. Cullen328 (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

In addition, Hotwiki is not an administrator but I am. Bradley360, the evidence shows that you have incorrectly labelled copyrighted text as public domain at least five times. Please stop until you understand the basics of public domain, copyright and close paraphrasing. Cullen328 (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Looking at @Bradleyk360‘s comments on @Hotwiki‘s talk page, I think @Bradleyk360 should receive a formal warning to refrain from personal attacks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

User: Cullen328 thank you very much! This is exactly what i had been doing, writing the premise using my own words while associating the source which is the official Website but he kept erasing everything telling me that i'm copying and pasting press. Now i definitely understand. User: hotwiki did confuse me by erasing every word i had literally put together. The only premises User: hotwiki has not deleted is of course the ones i did wrong by copying as he Made me believe with an article about attributions that there was indeed a public Domain for a Show released in 2021! I will right away correct my mistakes and i hope User: hotwiki will stop reverting user's contributions for no reason. We are all here to learn and grow as much as possible. Thank you admin. I wish everyone was as Patient as you, i would have already become a better contributor by now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradleyk360 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

User: rsjaffe i am sorry if i could not speak in a better Manner but what you read are the comments of someone whose work has been erased for weeks by User: hotwiki by labeling my work as blatant copy and Paste for no reason At all. I knew his attitude was not right but i did not know where i could complain to. I changed my words my very own words Multiple Times in large and in shorter Texts only to please User: hotwiki so that he will not erase my work but a few Minutes later or hours he was erasing it again accusing me of the same thing. That is why i said he was abusive because his attitude was. I am sorry to have reacted in this Manner and i will definitely do better in the future — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradleyk360 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Bradley360, your edits were reverted because they contained false and legally incorrect attributions, and also too closely paraphrased the sources. I understand that you are new and trying to learn. But you should not get upset with another editor who reverts your significant errors. Just stop making the errors. Cullen328 (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Admin i have already erased all the attribution templates i wrongly used thanks to User: hotwiki and here is the premise of a page with my own words based on a youtube Trailer as i used to do before when User: hotwiki kept erasing my contribution. If you would please Review it and tell me if i am indeed wrong in the way i contribute to the synopsis or Plots of TV shows and i will improve it.[180] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradleyk360 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Bradley360, I do not know whether your premise is accurate but it does not seem to be a copyright violation, as far as I can see. Cullen328 (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Thank you admin! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradleyk360 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@ Cullen328 hello Admin again, I'm so sorry that I have to disturb you about this issue over and over again but it seems that user: HotWiki decided Wikipedia should not be a peaceful and pleasant environment for all. He erased another contribution of mine, it is getting exhausting. could you then again please review it? I added the source so you could read and see if that's blatant copy and paste as user: HotWiki insists in accusing me of. If my contribution is indeed wrong I will send my deepest apology to User: HotWiki. please and thank you. [181] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradleyk360 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

You know you were reported here for a reason. How about just stop "making premise sections". You keep adding the same copyrighted materials into those articles, with onlu small tweaks and they still look like copy and paste materials from other websites. Also you have to stop, taking this personal. You have been warned to not attack editors, and the evidence is clear here that you are still doing it.TheHotwiki (talk) 05:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

You reported me for reasons that aren't true because I do not copy nor do I paste as you claim. you even told me today after deleting another contribution of mine that I should stop editing. I don't know why a common user would say that to another one but even so I did not attack you, did i? I came here to ask to an admin so how is that attacking you? for the last few days every user that saw my premise did not undo it, some even made corrections but nobody told me to literally stop Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind that I'm asking to an admin how we should solve this matter because I want to contribute in this way and you seem determined not to let me do so unless you approve of my contribution. I don't find it fair that my contribution should depend of your approval? especially when of all users you seem to be the only one who has a problem with it.You don't bother trying to correct it, you just erase it completely.Bradleyk360 (talk)07:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

IP editor disruptive editing

62.74.23.186 (talk · contribs) has been disruptively editing the Athena Manoukian article by continuously removing information. Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. They have received several warnings and continued to revert content without discussion on the article talk page. Account clearly is uninterested in following protocol and not on Wikipedia to edit productively. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 15:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I continously explained at the summary the person does NOT own Armenian citizenship and they are notable as a singer and NOT for their Armenian roots. MOS:BLPLEAD is clear, ethnicity should be part of the lead only of it consists of the person's notability. 62.74.23.186 (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

By the way, there was already consensus with those users regarding an addition of Manoukian's Armenian roots at the main body. Thus, Jjj1238 is wrong when it comes to the discussion part. 62.74.23.186 (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

note, user is a sock of User:Dealer07 who uses multiple IPs to disrupt the article Athena Manoukian --FMSky (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell has semi'd 3mo. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Persistent addition of irrelevant sources

Across multiple articles by Myakubu123456 (talk · contribs). I've removed many, including several Wikipedia mirror sites, and asked the new editor what they're doing. I suspect they are just finding titles that look related to citation needed tags and plugging them in carelessly. More eyes, please. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• Again, I'd appreciate some help. What one assumes is an unrepentant WP:CIR issue continues. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Crickets. I've reported to AIV [182]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
• Myakubu123456, could you please take a moment to explain what exactly, step by step, you have been doing there? I really mean click by click. Imagine you're on Wikipedia's main page. Imagine you'd like to continue doing what you did until the block. Which page do you open, how do you work? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  I am really sorry; I honestly thought I was doing the right thing not knowing that i was sent some messages through the notifications. But I now understand the reason I am being blocked. I promise to adhere to the community guidelines. Thank you Myakubu123456 (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  • Per ToBeFree, I'd like to know that you do understand the reason for this block, and explain your edits, one at a time. Nearly all of your sources were unacceptable, and in many cases were either Wikipedia mirrors (this was raised at your talk page, and though you seemed to acknowledge the problem, you continued) or plainly bogus. It's also very unusual for an inexperienced editor with a new account to make a rapid series of disruptive edits of this sort. I'd like to know if there's a backstory, previous to your editing as Myakubu123456. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

    i am sorry and humbly appealing to be unblocked please, thank you. Myakubu123456 (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

    Hi Myakubu123456, thank you very much for joining the discussion. Sadly, my question currently remains unanswered. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

    sorry, what's your question again? Myakubu123456 (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

    The benefit of a written conversation is your ability to check what I've asked at "22:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)" above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  Hello ToBeFree, all I was doing was searching for articles that needed citations and then adding citations that I feel are relevant to the articles i was editing, I thought if the citations are not in line the system will not accept it automatically, but I kept seeing the insert button and publishing changes not knowing that the notifications I was receiving were signs for me to adjust. I apologize. Thank you Myakubu123456 (talk) 11:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  • Myakubu123456 ToBeFree asked could you please take a moment to explain what exactly, step by step, you have been doing there? I really mean click by click. To pick a few of many examples, how are these relevant citations [183]; [184]; [185]; [186]? Since you're not answering, I'll take a shot: it looks like you Googled a few keywords and then used whatever came up as a source, without even checking to see if it supported the content in the articles. Feel free to tell me if this is wrong. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Craffael.09

Craffael.09 (talk · contribs · logs)

Craffael.09 has been claiming to have been an editor since 2017, and that their original account was hacked and deleted. However, the account that they claim has never existed on either en.wiki or fr.wiki, and obviously accounts can't be deleted. Craffael.09 is using this fake claim of being an editor since 2017 to try and gain clout, including starting an ill-fated RfA (which was courtesy deleted) that wasn't even transcluded properly. This quickly turns from mostly harmless innocence to outright disruption. They've used their lie about having an account for 5 years to request permissions. They've adopted or attempted to adopt users with multiples more experience than them ([187][188], even though they themselves can barely edit competently. Their participation as a DRN volunteer ranges from useless to outright damaging either by their comments or their lack of ability to control the conversation [189][190] (compare that to what an actual DRN mediator does). They've now tried their hand at GA reviewing by doing this "review" [191]. They've completely ignored the advice of several users at their talk page (including Floquenbeam's very well-worded response), and are continuing to trek down this path of lying about how much experience they have to try and gain clout, which is causing real manifested damage. Curbon7 (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC) Ugh my mistake I forgot to notify them. Thank you Swarm for fixing my mistake. Curbon7 (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, one of their accounts, User:Ieohrbdnjbfgduigbrhrbjdj, was indefinitely blocked French Wikipedia for vandalism. I don't understand why User:Craffael wasn't blocked, too. User:Crffli is them, too. fr:Special:Diff/196796303 makes it pretty obvious that the account is just playing around on French Wikipedia. None of this was on English Wikipedia, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Well it seems pretty obvious that they’re just playing around here too…Floquenbeam identified these issues several days ago. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate User:Craffaeldabest, User:Craffael2021 and User:Craffael2 are also them. Same claims to be an experienced editor [192], same claims that their account was hacked [193], same interest in the lord of the rings and TV, same messing around with things they obviously don't understand (one of the accounts seems to have tries to make a wikiproject in template space?) and the obvious name similarity. I agree with swarm that their edits here seem to just be messing around. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't appear looking at those that the multiple accounts are being used to try and game anything, and looking through edits they don't seem obviously deliberately disruptive, but there's obvious issues with experience and it's weird to claim accounts that don't exist (they also claim to have been RaphLibUland (talk · contribs) at User talk:Craffaeldabest). Removal from DRN should be enforced with a partial if necessary. CMD (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I’m gonna be honest, right now I’m interpreting this as a known vandal/troll who is roleplaying (poorly) as an experienced and trustworthy member of the community, that is pretty much what we know at this point. I’m curious to see what others think about this strange situation, but I’m thinking this is a NOTHERE situation, regardless of what their motivations actually are. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

As a non-admin, I've commented three times at User talk:Craffael.09, if this comment is misleading or inappropriate do let me know. IMO this is a generally good-faith, friendly editor who is unconstructive IMO, but still edits 30% at mainspace, with these edits not being all that bad. Nevertheless, there are a couple of mistakes made IMHO.

1. Reviewing good articles- Despite warnings from multiple users at User talk:Craffael.09#Talk:Morgoth/GA1 they did not withdraw the review or improve it after seeing the message, instead ignoring it.

2. Unconstructive and poor handling of WP:DRN discussions, which require more experience.

3. Inappropriate adoptions. The user lacks sufficient experience to properly mentor others, shown by them not (or lacking sufficient experience to) teaching about the basics, e.g., WP:5P, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:VANDALISM, WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:GA to name a few I can think of), instead superfluously giving WikiLove, after the adoptee requested help at User talk:Craffael.09#First of all, the user proceeded with poor c/e that was not comprehensive, 1, 2. Further, following numerous other users recommending against adopting others, including Liz warning against at User talk:Suryabeej, diff, and warnings at User talk:Craffael.09#adminship, the user refused to accept valid concerns, and continued to offer adoption.

4. An inappropriate WP:RFA (which has already been deleted) and subsequent advertising at VPM.

In consequence, I purpose that the GA review be closed and vacated for a more experienced user to review, vacating current DRN discussions Craffael.09 is taking part on for more experienced users, and sanction the user from adopting more users (including recommending Ruwaym to select another adopter). If my summary is inadequate, improper, misleading, or confrontational, please do let me know, additionally, feel free to strike parts you believe are unsuitable. Many thanks again for your considerations and time! VickKiang (talk) 05:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the previous editors that the involvement of Craffael.09 at DRN has been problematic. They began by jumping into the Star Control dispute as the volunteer who would help out, after I had already opened that case. Their involvement in the Mary, Queen of Scots and West Herzegovina Canton disputes has alternated between overly active and neglectful. They have either tried to offer what they called a consensus solution to disputes (when there obviously wasn't consensus, or the dispute wouldn't have been at DRN), or allowed back-and-forth discussion to continue too long (and back-and-forth discussion is seldom productive at DRN, because it has already failed) before hatting it. We have a shortage of volunteers at DRN, and I want to be welcoming to any new volunteers, but this one seems not to be helping. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The multiple started and abandoned accounts with similar names (usually more than 90 days apart) are also troubling. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with Robert McClenon. While this user doesn't necessarily seem to be here to intentionally cause problems- they are causing problems. Lots of them. Never before, to my knowledge, have we had to discuss how to remove a volunteer from the DRN- but their inexperience and lack of mediation skills is.... well it makes their volunteering untenable. They are making things worse. I mean- lord knows Robert is overworked, and I am not enough help- we need more volunteers but WP:CIR. Their GA nomination? I'm sure their adoptee has worked hard- but that doesn't mean the article is ready to be GA status. They should not even HAVE an adoptee. They need to be adopted. And an RFA- no. IMO- they need to have all their rights stripped down to base and warned that if they abandon and create a new account they will be banned. Just my opinion. Take some time- learn the ropes. Work on becoming the fabulous editor you clearly want to be- and then start taking on some admin roles. Like the DRN- maybe start out by clerking there a bit. When new case is opened- check that it fits us- that all editors have been notified, and that there has been discussion- then note that, and let a more experienced volunteer mediate the actual dispute. Watch how we handle it- then start assisting with mediation- maybe mediate one with a mentor. You don't have to just jump in and go full force. I think its admirable to want to be a big help to the project, but without knowledge- your just causing more work for others. . . And please- don't just abandon this account and wait 90 days and make a new one. You haven't responded here, so I'm afraid thats what is about to happen. Please prove me wrong! Nightenbelle (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

• I started to list all the things I thought we should "make" them do to avoid a block in the future, and it got really long really fast. Stepping back and reviewing their fr.wiki and en.wiki contribs from their various accounts, is there any objection to an indef block now for disruption? They're just screwing around, and have demonstrated zero concern for the effect that this playing is having on other editors. The behavior of the Craffael.09 account on en.wiki alone might lead to suggestions of mentoring, guidance, not biting newbies, etc. But, really, this is long-term disruption that is not going to stop. Any future accounts can be blocked for block evasion. Any unblock request should be met with either a "no, come back in a few years", or "ok, subject to the following 6 restrictions...". Any objection? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Floquenbeam Please do it. They can explain what they have been doing, going back to 2007 off and on, in an unblock request. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Sad, but I would support this solution. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Need to undo a bunch of recent edits by User:Meatballspino

I don't know if this is deliberate vandalism or lack of clue, but Meatballspino has made made several hundred edits with the Wikipedia:Correct typos in one click tool. I've checked 14, and 12 of them were wrong. I don't have time to check and fix them all. I think admins have a tool which can rapidly undo a long string of edits and I think that's what's needed here. I've left messages to explain the problem on the user's talk page. Thank you.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike, I've mass reverted these with WP:Kill-It-With-Fire. — Qwerfjkltalk 22:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl: Thank you. Nice tool well used. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior from User:AndyTheGrump

User:AndyTheGrump has been engaging in various forms of uncivil behavior over an issue which started at Talk:Flying car, but has since spread to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft and FT/N. The behavior has mainly been targeted toward User:Steelpillow, as both have been in a dispute over the contents of Flying car.

The uncivil behavior started when Andy assumed bad faith and reported Steelpillow to FT/N. Throughout the FT/N and elsewhere, Andy has accused Steelpillow of engaging in historical revisionism ([194] [195] [196] [197] [198]). I requested Andy to provide evidence of Steelpillow's alleged history revisionism, but he refused to do so. Furthermore, the discussion at User talk:AndyTheGrump#Personal attacks makes it apparent that Andy is not willing to listen to warnings. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, I didn't 'report Steelpillow to FT/N'. FT/N isn't a behavioural issue noticeboard. I started a thread there on a matter I considered of relevance to the noticeboard, asking for input from others. This was after attempting to have a discussion over what I thought was a fairly simple matter, which resulted in me being told to "stop bashing your PoV rhetoric". [199] Perhaps ZLEA could explain how that wasn't uncivil? As for historical revisionism, the immediate locus of the debate appears to be whether a machine built in 1901 (two years before the Wright brothers' first flight) should be included in a list of 'flying cars' in an article of the same name. Given that the clear consensus amongst mainstream aviation historians is that Whiteheads machine (and others he built or claimed to have built, before and after) never flew, and given that the description of this machine as a 'flying car' seems to originate with a 1901 newspaper report widely regarded as more or less invention, it seemed questionable at minimum for Wikipedia to be including it in a list so entitled. And frankly, I was surprised that someone with Steelpillow's experience didn't see what the issue was. In trying to get a clear explanation I have been faced with endless bluster about a supposed Wikiproject aircraft 'consensus' on lists, which seems to actually consist of nothing more than an essay written almost entirely by Steelpillow, with no real evidence of discussion relevant to the specifics of the case, let alone any actual consensus. Meanwhile though, my curiosity was aroused, and it became clear after a little Googling that Steelpillow had an external webpage heavily promoting the fringe Whitehead-flew-before-the-Wrights claims. [200] I was initially reluctant to bring this up, but given Steelpillow's endless stonewalling, and refusal to actually explain why Wikipedia should be presenting fringe claims as fact, it seemed prudent to do so. Not that it made much difference, since little in the way of actual explanation for this has been offered beyond endless attempts to assert Wikiproject ownership on the article, and a claim that "There is no policy that forbids it, no case to answer." accompanied by accusations of engaging in an " error-riddled personal crusade".[201]. How exactly wasn't that uncivil? And how exactly wasn't Steelpillow's accusation that " the WP:FRINGE police are now wanting to turn our aircraft list style guide on its head, on the basis of one paranoid theory about one entry in one aircraft" uncivil? [202] I await ZLEA's explanation for why I have been reported here, but not Steelpillow? And why is ZLEA claiming that I failed to provide evidence of historical revisionism, after I informed them that the matter was being discussed in the FT/N thread? I provided the evidence. I merely refused to engage with Steelpillow in inappropriately spreading the same discussion over multiple pages. ZLEA is being less than impartial here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I won't pretend to be impartial. You've managed to tick off more than a few editors in the past 24 hours, including myself. This discussion is about your behavior, not Steelpillow's. I won't deny that Steelpillow has also engaged in uncivil behavior, but it's you who has caused the most trouble. If you actually read Steelpillow's website, you will notice that it doesn't claim that Whitehead No. 21 flew before the Wright Flyer. In fact, the last paragraph makes it clear that he doesn't care who flew first, only that the dispute should be settled once and for all. The case of who flew first has been the subject of legitimate controversy for a while, especially after the Wright brothers' contract with the Smithsonian. It's probably worth noting that the claims that Whitehead flew first were supported in the 2013 edition of Jane's All the World's Aircraft. For the record, I personally believe it was the Wright brothers who flew first, but I cannot deny that others have provided evidence of others flying before them. While some of the claims are fringe, the Whitehead claim is by no means one of them.

You may disagree with me, and that's fine, but the diffs I provided show that you have not been engaging in civil discussion about the matter. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I won't pretend to be impartial. Fine. Don't then. I'm sure people can take that into account. Meanwhile, I suggest you take note of how this noticeboard actually works. Which very frequently involves discussions regarding the behaviour of individuals other than the contributor initially named. And as for me causing 'the most trouble', if suggesting that Wikipedia shouldn't describe non-flying things as flying is really 'trouble' worthy of reporting at WP:ANI, Wikipedia is truly screwed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Characterizing someone as pushing historical revisionism is not a personal attack. Mackensen (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Mackensen, criticism of view does not equal to criticism of person. depicting criticism of view as criticism of person itself may amount to undue personalization. I would advice reducing direct interaction for a while. Dispute seem to need regular WP:DRN and WP:RFC.

This is uninvolved non–admin opinion. Bookku (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, cars that didn't fly can't have been "flying cars", no matter how much someone wants them to have been. I trust that will be the result at FTNB. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The fact that Andy criticizes Steelpillow's views isn't the issue, it's how he does it. Andy was very quick to assume bad faith in the beginning, as well as here and here.

And for the record, a "flying car" is simply the name of a type of aircraft which is designed to drive on the road. The term "flying" is not literal and is used in several aircraft type names and does not mean that the aircraft has to actually be built and fly in order to be described as such (other examples being flying boat, flying saucer, and flying wing). - ZLEA _T\^C 03:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

So, if someone mixes a potion, and says that it cures flatulence, calling it a "healing elixir" we should recognize it as a legitimate medicine because they say it heals? What about, you know, reality? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The term "flying" is not literal..... Not in Gustave Whitehead's case, no. Not according to WP:RS. Actual RS (eg. the Royal Aeronautical Society, for a nice summary of what has also been said elsewhere [203]), rather than a Janes article that was later disowned by the publisher. [204] However, I find it hard to believe that anyone should seriously argue that readers won't expect to find actual flying cars in a list entitled 'flying cars'. Or has WP:WEDIDNTMEANITLITERALLY become policy somehow, without anyone noticing? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken We should recognize it as the reliable sources recognize it. I have yet to see a source which refers to unbuilt and unflown aircraft as "claimed aircraft" or similar. AndyTheGrump If you want to insist on taking the term "flying car" so literally, then Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster technically counts. The Flying car article makes it clear that a flying car is a name for a "type of vehicle". - ZLEA _T\^C 04:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@ZLEA, @AndyTheGrump, if "flying" in "flying car" is the issue here, maybe you two can settle down on "roadable aircraft"? 'Cause if some aircraft hadn't managed to get airborne, it's still an aircraft, just unsuccessful one. a!rado (C✙T) 07:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

It strikes me as odd that the OP is claiming the uncivil behavior started with Andy. The linked diff presented in support of that assertion is Andy's reply to an uncivil remark from Steelpillow. This report is quite one-sided, and the OP should have taken better care to present an accurate picture. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I was referring to Andy's uncivil behavior. I was aware of Steelpillow's uncivil remark, but I did not see a pattern of such behavior from him. Feel free to correct me if I missed something. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

This strikes me as a spat rather than an actionable civility problem. There was incivility on both sides, and Andy’s explanation of the context speaks for itself. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Irrespective to ATG's behaviour, ZLEA's original post is just ridiculous.

• "The uncivil behavior started when Andy assumed bad faith and reported Steelpillow to FT/N. " What is it supposed to mean? WP:FT/N discusses not users, but fringe theories. In that sense, it is similar to, e.g. WP:RSN. Is it possible to assume someone's bad faith by going to RSN, NORN, and similar noticeboards?
• "Andy has accused Steelpillow of engaging in historical revisionism". I think ZLEA needs to go to a library, and I am sure they will be surprised to learn that "as many professional historians pointed out to the President, rather than falsifying or white-washing the past, revisionism is simply what good historians do." In other words, contrary to what ZLEA claims, the term "historical revisionism" has no obviously negative connotations.
• In the statement " to promote your pet exercise in historical revisionism" the core claim is not "revisionism" (which is a pretty neutral term), but the words "your pet exercise in " (i.e. that is an accusation of engaging in original research). Are such accusations considered PA?

I think this report should be ignored as frivolous, and the user who submitted this report should be warned.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

All other points notwithstanding, I think we all realize that Andy was using "historical revisionism" with obviously negative connotations. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Steelpillow here, the butt of AndyTheGrump's rudeness. If I have in turn been rude then I am glad to apologise. There is a fine line between robust defence against bullying and falling into the same trap oneself. I have already redacted one example, thanks to the intervention of another editor, see here. I would also reproduce the following lists of links from that brief discussion:

Examples of the repeated abuse, doubting my good faith, accusations of wacky conspiracies and deliberately misleading and lying include:[205][206][207][208][209][210][211].

[AndyTheGrump] has been warned[212][213] but continues to be defiant[214][215].

Since that post, his rudeness has continued. So you can see that this is about far more than spurious claims of historical revisionism - claims which are not even relevant to the article in dispute. Indeed, AndyTheGrump has seized on a minor difference of historical opinion (over a claasic aviation controversy) to build a clear hate campaign against me and claim that I am deliberately attempting to subvert Wikipedia. This refusal to assume good faith lies at the heart of his rudeness and his endless digressions, some of which have already found their place above here. If anybody can isolate my specific rudeness from those walls of text, please do point them out to me and I will happily apologise for them. But, since AndyTheGrump stands proud in his violations of WP:CIVIL, I feel that there is a significant issue with his behaviour. Had I not taken a night's asleep for the last eight hours, I would have raised the issue here sooner, myself. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Wow. A "hate campaign"! Have you tried reading the comments from uninvolved editors above? Johnuniq (talk) 08:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Only those AndyTheGrump has scattered everywhere, but I do not regard him as uninvolved. When someone accuses you straight out of lying through your teeth and, repeatedly over multiple discussions and in highly charged emotive language, of subverting Wikipedia, what better description can you offer? Did you check all the diffs I provided? Note that they give the lie to the claim made somewhere above that I started the rudeness. There have been more since that I can collect for you, if that would help? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Johnuniq said Have you tried reading the comments from uninvolved editors above? and you (@Steelpillow) replied Only those AndyTheGrump has scattered everywhere, but I do not regard him as uninvolved.

Maybe you (@Steelpillow) should consider reading the comments from uninvolved editors, at which point you will see that describing this as a "hate campaign" is a bit off base. Both you and @AndyTheGrump need to step back from this and cool down. It's an internet encyclopedia.

Sometimes the best way to de-escalate a dispute is for one of you (it literally does not matter which) to disengage. If you're the first person to do so, it does not make you weak and it does not admit fault. it makes you a reasonable human being who understands when things get out of hand. If either of you step away from this dispute, and find that no one is backing up your position, it may be that the position was not worth defending in the first place. If no one else steps up to defend it, among all the many zealous people on this website, it probably was not worth defending. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe a "bullying campaign" or "harassment campaign" would be more appropriate to following me around from discussion to discussion with these accusations? Call it what you will, the diffs are there to be acknowledged. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

It will be readily apparent to anyone looking into the relevant editing history that 'rudeness' began with this post from Steelpillow: The first-to-fly controversy is utterly irrelevant here. Please stay on topic and stop bashing your PoV rhetoric. An editor as experienced as you should know better. Thank you. Even ignoring the rudeness, it is frankly bizarre. Of course the 'first-to-fly controversy' was relevant. It was the reason I'd started the thread, since Whitehead's 1901 (i.e. prior to the Wright's first flight) inclusion in the list was clearly incompatible with the established perspective of mainstream aviation historians. I was being accused of 'POV rhetoric' for suggesting that Wikipedia content should reflect the mainstream view, rather than that of Whitehead's supporters. As for following Steelpillow around, it would not have been necessary if Steelpillow had not misrepresented a debate about the inclusion of a specific item on a list as some sort of conspiracy to demolish a Wikiproject style guide. I have nothing against style guides, as long as they are used as such. As 'guides' rather than a set of 'rules' to be enforced in order to shoehorn inappropriate content into articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I am the editor who warned both AndyTheGrump [216], [217] and Steelpillow [218] about incivilty. AndyTheGrump rejected the warnings, quoting DTTR [219], and when I commented that being a regular doesn't negate the requirements of NPA, and that he should comment about the subject, not about the editors [220], banned me from his talkpage [221].Should certain editors be given immunity from having to be civil or from casting aspersions against other editors? Should these editors be protected at the cost of sanctioning any other editors who dare to raise questions about personal attacks, as User:Paul Siebert seems to suggest above - if this is the case then en:wiki as a whole has a problem.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

At no point have I asked for immunity from anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Post of @Nigel Ish helped me revisit, understood where they are coming from and appreciate they took immediate and impartial interest.

Those who are regulars do have more moral responsibility to follow WP:NPA faithfully and give primacy to dispute resolution mechanism.

WP mechanism to avoid harshness and incivility need improvement and also improvement in calming down process to give deescalation a due chance and time gaps to reflect upon. Bookku (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

While you undoubtedly were well-intentioned when you issued those warnings, DTTR exists for good reason. Templated warnings to regulars generally serve to raise the temperature without really helping anyone. Moreover, given that you aren't an admin, you were issuing warnings that you couldn't enforce. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I was unaware that DTTR was policy and over-ruled WP:NPA - has anyone told WMF that the UCOC doesn't apply here. Please can someone tell me the policy-based reason why I am not allowed to warn others about civilty issues. It is clear that you think that my opinion is worthless - presumably you think that my contributions are worthless too.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Nobody has suggested that you aren't allowed to 'warn others about civility issues' when appropriate. You warned me. I responded, so you know I'd seen the warning. I merely asked you not to keep posting further warnings, since I was already well aware of Wikipedia's (rather confusing and contradictory) attitudes to incivility. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I've got to say that I'm with Nigel Ish here. If regulars who know the rules continue to break them, then repeated warnings are clearly in order. DTTR is nonsense, and the idea that regulars are somehow outside the normal rules is an exceptionally dangerous route. After framgate things definitely improved here but recently we seem to be drifting back to the bad-old-days. Nigej (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Wait, what?! When did this turn into a referendum on your contributions? All I did was offer a very mild criticism of your actions which included an explicit acknowledgment that you were acting good faith. To answer your question, no, there is no policy-based prohibition on templating regulars. I never claimed that there was. But the fact that you can do something does not automatically mean that you should. It's possible to make a situation worse without violating any policy, and that's exactly what happened here. I am sorry if my very polite criticism of your well-intentioned actions caused you to conclude that I consider your opinion worthless. Have you stopped to consider how Andy might have felt when you dropped a pair of templated warnings on his page as if he were a newbie? Warnings = criticism, so you need to stop issuing warnings if you can't accept even the simplest criticism of your own behavior. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

It's true that we are responsible for our actions and need to avoid hurting people feelings unnecessarily. However, these a massively important issue here, the drift back to regarding incivility by regulars as somehow acceptable. Nigej (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I never said that incivility by regulars was acceptable. My allusion to DTTR should not be misunderstood as an assertion that regulars should be allowed to be uncivil. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish: Stating that one should not drop template warnings on regulars ≠ stating that regulars have free reign to do everything we have warning templates for. Warning templates are not the project's exclusive means of handling user conduct. They are made generally for new or unknown users as they find their footing in the project. You and I and the sun and the stars all know that templating a regular will A) not inform them of anything they don't already know, and B) most definitely upset them, particularly when a dispute is already happening regarding the matter. If you're having a heated argument with someone, you wouldn't stop the discussion to say "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" unless you were deliberately trying to upset them. I hope I'm adequately expressing that warning templates are great and all but they don't exist in a vacuum, and if you know a template is only going to upset the regular, without informing them of anything, you probably shouldn't paste it to their talk page. GabberFlasted (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Close as a clear content dispute without action and WP:TROUT ZLEA - This is another example of content disputes spilling onto ANI. Nothing here is actionable in the slightest. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

So in your point of view, the requirements of Wp:NPA do not apply to certain superusers. Clearly there is no point in mere mortals in raising any concerns about behaviour. I suppose I should be glad that I have not already been banned from the whole of Wikipedia for not totally agreeing with certain users.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

How about we compromise? I take the slap on the face with a wet fish on your ZELA's behalf, and you find something else to be overly-dramatic about instead? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I would tell you @AndyTheGrump that describing @Nigel Ish as "overly-dramatic" is also not a great look for you. I would refrain from saying things like that. If they are true, you should, in general, allow uninvolved users to say as much. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I would second this suggestion while also pointing out that Nigel Ish should dial back the over-the-top rhetoric. See their userpage for an example of the problem. Nobody has suggested running them off the site, yet they are acting as if their future on Wikipedia is under threat. I do not appreciate having words put in my mouth, especially not in a such a blatant fashion. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

From their rhetoric, you'd think Nigel Ish wrote Wikipedia:Unblockables, but I would point them towards WP:TINC which is, in essence, a direct response to that kind of rhetoric. No one is trying to deprive anyone else of rights, no one is running anyone else out of here, no one is silencing anyone else. Incivility poisons discussions, that much is clear. And a lot of users here are at fault for participating in that incivility. But escalation of discussions always to drama boards like this or over-exaggerating everything to a personal attack is also poisonous to discussions. Overcoming incivility means not participating in it, not getting rid of everyone who was ever not nice to you so that wikipedia can be full of people who agree with you always. This is not meant as an endorsement to @AndyTheGrump or @Steelpillow or anyone else to do whatever they want. It should be clear enough that the community will be watching both of their behavior pretty closely after this episode... — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish: clearly NPA should apply to superusers, but I don't think we should be applying it so liberally for things like this. I am sorry but i disagree with you on whether it should apply here. It has nothing to do with the "level" of users involved. I just don't think the comments from anyone here are bad enough to merit sanctions from WP:NPA. Perhaps a warning to be more CIVIL to both users, regarding specific things that both users have said. But I disagree with you on whether anything more is warranted. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

You, along with User:Paul Siebert were not simply saying that the NPAs didn't rise to a level that admin action was required - which is a matter of debate, but were demanding action against editors for raising the issue in the first place. If there are no channels available to raise concerns (i.e. not allowed to warn other editors on their talk pages according to how DTTR is being enforced as policy, and not allowed to raise issues here or else risk sanction) then ordinary editors are reduced to the level of nobodies with no rights.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I misunderstand, but was I really "demanding action against editors for raising the issue in the first place" ? I said we should WP:TROUT the proposer for bringing a content dispute here. Have we really gotten to the point on this website where applying a silly joke template to tell people to be a bit more cautious about what counts as ANI-worthy is seen as "demanding an action" a la sanctions? I have never recommended any formal warnings, formal actions, bans, or blocks in this thread.

I also never made any comment whatsoever on whether warning templates should or should not have been used. I think you may be confusing me with someone else.

I think we would all be a lot better off if there were fewer threads at ANI, and if people used WP:3O and WP:DRN more often. There are plenty of other channels to use to resolve disputes like this, and shame on everyone involved for not employing them. No one here is being reduced to the level of nobodies with no rights. There were plenty of other things that could be done instead of bringing this to ANI. No one is "being deprived of their rights" here.

Overall, I would like to point out the problem with some of the behavior here. Drawing uninvolved editors (like myself) into the dispute with heightened rhetoric and high stakes accusations is the beginning stages of WP:BATTLEGROUND. As if everyone who is not with you is against you. Let's just talk about this reasonably, and allow others to disagree with whether sanctions are merited. Please and thank you. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Shibbolethink Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are happy to sanction multiple breaches of WP:AGF and even accusations of outright lies in breach of WP:NPA Moreover you think that shooting the messenger is called for? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Uh, what? I'm sorry @Steelpillow, but WP:TROUT is hardly a bullet wound. Please just cool your jets. I am sorry that I disagree with you on whether these things merit sanctions, but it is not a statement on your personal worth or conduct as an editor. I would disagree with the tone and civility of some of AndyTheGrump's statements, but I would also disagree with the tone and civility of some of yours. And I don't think either of these raise to the level of sanctions per NPA or AGF. Please respect my right to disagree, thanks — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Of course I respect your right to disagree, I was more concerned to confirm that you were on top of the behaviour issue, and you have done that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Steelpillow, I wanted to follow up on this. Above you say Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are happy to sanction multiple breaches of WP:AGF and even accusations of outright lies in breach of WP:NPA. This is akin to a journalist asking the president So, you like killing yemeni children. How does that feel, to be a child murderer? Do you see what I mean? I would urge you to avoid this in the future, please. It may feel good, or it may make people agree with you already agree with you more, but it does very little to de-escalate a situation or achieve consensus. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

With due respect, I put up the diffs demonstrating those abuses and you responded by saying they were acceptable. That does not feel at all good, especially when you confirmed it, but we have agreed to differ so please let it pass. For what it's worth, my fellow editors on the ground supported me here for a reason, and ANI has been letting all three of us down shamefully. One of them is far more upset than I am. So it goes. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• Every one of is knowledgeable, wise here and very well understand we all have much more to do, We are not here for WP:Battle of WP:EGO, all us focus is content improvement. and If every one takes a step back and WP:DEESCALATE may help everyone IMHO. Bookku (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  Agree there. Much of the discussion has actually been along the lines of "lets shoot the messenger", a classic anti-whistle-blower tactic. Let's focus on the important issue here. Nigej (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I won't be mad if I am trouted, I could have worded my original post a little better. However, I will defend my decision to bring this issue to AN/I instead of WP:DRN, as this is not simply a content dispute. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Steelpillow collapsing discussions

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Lists of aircraft, where Steelpillow has twice collapsed relevant content posted by other contributors as 'Off-topic diversion'. This appears to me to be an attempt to control discussion and to assert ownership of the page, in a manner incompatible with WP:COLLAPSENO. Would I be justified un un-collapsing the content? Or (preferably) could someone else do so, since it would seem preferable not to increase the heat even further? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

From my perspective, these were just increasingly acrimonious diversions. If others here do feel that I collapsed content relevant to improving the WikiProject's style guide, I'd be grateful if you only un-collapsed the directly relevant content. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Alsoriano97

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

User edits in portal namespace: [222]

This case was initially filed at WP:AN/3 as a follow-up to a previous edit-warring sanction, but was referred to WP:AN/I by the handling admin due to complexity and scope.

• Alsoriano97 was blocked less then a week ago for edit warring and violating 3RR as a result of this discussion.

• On 4 Nov, Alsoriano97 reverted a entry relating to the 2022 FIFA World Cup [223]. No reason was provided, with the nonsensical edit summary Uhm….

• The removal is reverted by the original editor [224]. Given that no reason was given for the removal of a legitimate entry, this seemed to be reasonable. Subsequently, the entry is removed again [225], with no edit summary.

• Given the nonsensical and unjustified removals, I re-added the entry, while amending the wording of the entry [226].

• Afterwards, the entry is edited by a number of editors to further correct wording and content. Despite the subsequent edits by many editors, Alsoriano97 removes the entry again [227], claiming A "deputy minister" is certainly unnotable.

• I reverted this removal [228], and told Alsoriano97 to gain consensus on the talk page, creating a new entry for the discussion .

Clearly notable event concerning multiple countries at a major international event. Please gain consensus for removal of the entry, worked-on by multiple editors, before removing the entry again.

I further issued a warning relating to edit warring on Alsoriano97's talk page relating to the removals.

Please stop removing a clearly notable event concerning multiple countries at a major international event. Please gain consensus for removal of the entry, worked-on by multiple editors, before removing the entry again. You may gain consensus at Portal talk:Current events/2022 November 4.

• In response to the edit warring warning, Alsoriano97 removed the warning with the following edit summary.

Ridiculous your tear down mania against me lol. No lessons you can give.

In response to the talk page discussion, Alsoriano97 wrote the below.

do you really think that a boycott by a deputy minister is a "clearly notable event"? Do you know what a "deputy minister" is? Do you know that the World Cup has not even started? Do you know that people don't come to Wikipedia to "play"?

Both replies contain egregious breaches of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA & WP:AGF against not only myself, but the previous blocking administrator and this noticeboard in general.

• A further reply by Alsoriano97 on the talk page has shown he is not willing to discuss or compromise relating to the subject-matter of the entry.

It's still irrelevant. "Announce"? Come on, I'm sure it can wait until the day of the game, right? That's what can be remarkable. Everyone announces many things and Wikipedia is a serious place. It's just that the boycott is still being done by a deputy minister from a subnational (although sovereigb) entity. Do you know what rank that is.

Alsoriano97's tone again breaches WP:CIVIL.

• While 3RR has not been reached in this case, given that it has been less then a week since Alsoriano97's last block for edit warring, and taking into account Alsoriano97's egregious breaches of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA & WP:AGF in connection with the edit warring conduct in this case, I feel that it is worth further examining Alsoriano97's conduct and considering further sanctions.

• Alsoriano97 has also directly challenged and dismissed the legitimacy of his last block, claiming it to be a tear down mania against him and that there were No lessons that could be given. Given this dismissal, and his pattern of behavior before and after the block, I believe that the previous block has not had the intended effect and will not be sufficient to stop his disruptive conduct and edit warring activities.

Background:

• Alsoriano97 has a history of edit warring, civility issues and tendentious editing on Portal:Current Events going back many years.
• A search by an administrator returned 66 potential violations of 3RR over a 3 year period.
• An AN/I filing was previously opened against Alsoriano97, where Alsoriano97 was warned to not further engage in the above issues.
• Alsoriano97 has been previously blocked for 3RR violations on Portal:Current Events.
• The majority of Alsoriano97’s removals relate to news on Anglophone countries, with a specific emphasis on the USA. These removals frequently relate to news that, while occurring in the US, are widely reported globally in many RS's.
• Alsoriano97 frequently removes or makes uncivil comments for entries which do not include the country of where the event occurred.

Previous Discussions & Warnings:

Recent

1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive460#User:Alsoriano97 reported by User:Carter00000 (Result: Blocked for 48 hours)
2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1105#User:Alsoriano97 (Long Term Violations of Edit Warring, WP:CIVIL & Tedentious_Editing)
3. Portal_talk:Current_events/2022_November_4
4. User_talk:Alsoriano97#"Too_local"_attempted_assassination_on_Nancy
5. Wikipedia:Current_events_noticeboard#Do we really have to place countries all the time?

Significant

1. Portal_talk:Current_events/Archive_12#Multi-Revert_Issue_with_Alsoriano97
2. User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1#Warning
3. User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1#Use the summary box before making an edit!
4. User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1#May 2021
5. User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1#Your use of the word "Domestic"
6. User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_2#Revert of Current Events
7. User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1#Your revert about Dwayne Haskins
8. User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1#Matt Gaetz
9. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive441#User:Alsoriano97 reported by User:Araesmojo (Result: No action)

Carter00000 (talk) 08:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• Alsoriano97’s first and only comment Let me explain. First of all, when I say "don't give me lessons". Have you seen your Talk Page? Have you seen the conflicts you have provoked in Wikipedia with other editors in such a vulgar way? Have you forgotten when in the last ANI, many editors criticized your attitudes? Do you really think you can give lessons on how to be a good editor? I can't even do it myself! Why did you come to Wikipedia? What contributions do you want to make? Or just problems with everyone? This is a serious place, away from personal whims.

Secondly. We communicate in writing. What you may misinterpret does’nt mean that it’s exactly what the person meant to say. You have to be more mature and assume that, often, we will read and listen to things we don't like without that implying that we are being disrespected and that the person is rude. Do not mix things up. It’s very serious and reckless to treat a comment as uncivil gratuitously and lightly.

Thirdly. You consider certain questions I have asked you to be uncivil. Simple questions! How should I, from now on, ask you questions?

Fourthly. "against not only myself, but the previous blocking administrator and this noticeboard in general". On what do you base your assertion?

Fifthly. Let the other editors and administrators work. Stop going to the "last instances" without even trying, in a friendly way, to get someone to explain you. Stop "playing court", out of respect for those you are forcing to resolve this.

And lastly, and very seriously. Practically all your last contributions you have made are to open processes against my edits or removing my contributions to try to provoke an edit war only and exclusively against me. This is called harassment, and it is very serious. This nomination is a clear example of it, a nonsense. What exactly is your goal? _-_Alsor (talk) 11:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Have you forgotten when in the last ANI, many editors criticized your attitudes? Do you really think you can give lessons on how to be a good editor? It is basically never a good idea on wikipedia to try and use personal criticisms of those critiquing your behavior like this to defend your own actions. Which basically your entire reply is about someone else, and does very little to apologize, acknowledge, defend, or even explain your own behavior. That's not a good look. Your reply here is very much an example of incivility, and I say that as an uninvolved editor, with no bearing on any other user's behavior here. I have no idea how anyone else has behaved in this dispute, but I can clearly see that your reply here is bad news. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Is it uncivil to state a fact? They can criticize my behavior, but I can't criticize their? Just because an editor opens an ANI, he/she is presumed to be right and correct? And those involved have no right to defend themselves or explain themselves? This is a serious question. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

They can criticize my behavior, but I can't criticize their? Not what I said. There's a way to do so tactfully while primarily addressing the meat of their accusations en face. In general, it is best to allow others to expand upon whether or not the proposer's behavior is questionable, since you should primarily be focused on telling the rest of us why you are not a problem user.

Just because an editor opens an ANI, he/she is presumed to be right and correct Also not what I said. Absolutely the proposer's conduct at ANI is questioned and examined in the dispute, same as the accused. This is to discourage frivolous reports, and to make sure our sanctions are equitable and fair. I described why you as the accused should be focused on telling us - the uninvolved users why your actions actions are A) actually not problematic, B) problematic but not to the point of sanctions, or C) problematic but have mitigating factors, etc. etc.

And those involved have no right to defend themselves or explain themselves? - The exact opposite of what I said. You should be explaining yourself and your own actions.

In general, your style of asking questions like this creates a WP:BATTLEGROUND environment of pitting you against others in an adversarial style, which portrays your emotions as heightened and volatile. I would suggest you find a less confrontational way to discuss these things. Finding a way to talk about topics with other users without upsetting them (and keeping your cool) is a core virtue on Wikipedia, and something with which you appear to be having some difficulties. Figuring out a better discursive style would go a long way towards improving the tone of discussions and how other people respond to you on this website. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

A few lines above I say this: We communicate in writing. What you may misinterpret does not mean it is exactly what the person meant. You have to be more mature and assume that, many times, we will read and hear things we don't like without that implying that we are disrespected and that the person is rude. And I don't say that in vain. I emphasize it because someone can make the mistake of thinking that a person is being challenging or aggressive when his or her objective is not, in any way, that. You can be sure that my intention is very far from turning this space into a battlefield or a cockfight, and I'm sorry that it can be understood that way.

Nor can you pretend that in the face of certain statements that are being made I cannot take them with disagreement. And being dissenting is not synonymous with being rude. And I'm glad that you say that the conduct of the ANI proponent is also scrutinized. I hope and expect that it will be.

About your statement of portrays your emotions as heightened and volatile. This ad hominem accusation is a very serious one that deserves a lot of tact before being issued. You don't know me, nor have you followed my work on Wikipedia, and four written paragraphs cannot define the personality of any editor. Statements about the menage of emotions, which have an inevitable connection to mental health, cannot and should not be made in such a gratuitous manner, especially in the face of written language. I'm especially calm, and I'm sorry, again, that I could be misunderstood. But, no doubt, subjectivity often plays against us. I take your advice that I should cool down, but, and it is scientifically probable, you can't cool down something that is already cold. On other occasions I've been able to debate with other users and they have never defined me the way you have. Again, I apologize.

In the other occasion that I was opened a process in ANI, I apologized because I recognized that Carter and the rest of editors were right when they evaluated my attitude (I insist, uncivil attitude usually very punctual). On this occasion I'm certain that Carter is wrong, and that his intentions, this time, exceed the requirement of strict compliance with the manners of a good editor. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Alsoriano97 no one can know your intent if you do not state it. We are left only with an interpretation based on what you write.

Re: This ad hominem accusation is a very serious one that deserves a lot of tact before being issued Just trying to help you understand why this has happened to you several times. If you are uninterested in that advice, I cannot help you. I never said anything about your personality as an editor, I only described why what you write here is not likely to be received well.

Overall, I am uninterested in having an extended and long conversation about this if you are not interested in improving the reception of what you write here. If you think you have done nothing wrong (which is the impression I get from your reply), then I cannot help you. You may feel free to have the last word, I will not reply. Have a great day. Please do not ping me in this conversation after this (directed to everyone, not you in particular) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I will be wrong often and I recognize it whenever it happens, but I'm sure that this time I will not. I think it's important that you read what the IP user writes a little further down and you will understand, maybe and only maybe, why this discussion has me particularly indignant. In any case, I appreciate that you had the will to want to convey to me how what I wrote could be understood. Advice is never in vain. Have a nice day. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Frankly I think it's about time we blocked Carter00000 as a timesink who is incapable of working in a collaborative environment. I do not think it would be an exaggeration to state that about 50% of Carter00000's edits are attempts to get other editors sanctioned, almost all of which are meritless and lead nowhere. Their behaviour towards Alsoriano97 is, in my opinion, little more than harassment at this point. In the short time they have been here this user has filed two rejected arbitration requests [229] [230] a multitude of meritless ANI threads (some examples [231] [232]) obviously frivolous edit warring reports [233] etc. Their modus operandi when involved in a content dispute is to try to find some reason that the opposing side should be blocked or sanctioned and file an administrative request, rather than trying to discuss and build consensus.

They are guilty of all the misconduct they accuse others of. They file complaints that others are edit warring, while edit warring themselves to reinstate contested edits [234] and insisting that other editors need to reach a consensus to revert them [235] [236]. They accuse others of being uncivil, while themselves making unfounded claims accusing others of editing in bad faith [237] or being negligent [238]. They have just received an AE topic ban for exceedingly poor conduct [239].

The actual content edits made by Carter00000 are a minority of their contributions and are certainly not worth the constant drama and timewasting they cause trying to get others sanctioned. It is trivial to find examples of poor quality, incorrect or problematic edits. Here [240] they reinsert an item which is completely wrong and is unsupported by the provided source. Here they are edit warring to reinsert utter cruft that does not belong in a global current events portal [241] [242]. Here they are removing an item on the basis of WP:OR and unverified sightings [243]. etc. 192.76.8.86 (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Quite frankly, anon, I'm wondering what exactly led you to be here? You aren't involved, you weren't notified by Carter00000 (as I was), and you don't appear to frequent ANI. I think you should log in before anyone gets any strange ideas about who you might be --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 06:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Gimmethegepgun I don't have an account and I have never had an account. If you are going to accuse me of wrongdoing provide some actual evidence, rather than just casting aspersions. There is no requirement to have been notified of a discussion to comment, and many of the notifications by carter00000 look to be canvasing anyone who might hold a grudge, rather than appropriate notifications [244]. 192.76.8.86 (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

• I can't pretend to have looked into all of the protagonists' edits, but I see that this dispute involves Portal:current events. Why do we have such a page when this is an encyclopedia not a news outlet? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:M.Ashraf333

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

---

User:M.Ashraf333 they are removing sourced content on Faiz Hameed and Nawaz Sharif. they also removed the words convicted and absconder from the intro of Nawaz Sharif which were sourced from a Supreme Court and High Court verdict but attempted to add them to Imran Khan without a source. It is ironic because the user considers it useless on one page and useful on the other? This falls under disruptive editing and vandalism due to the political bias of the editor.

• https://en.chped.com/w/index.php?title=Imran_Khan&oldid=1119191304 This is the edit where they added it to Imran Khan
• https://en.chped.com/w/index.php?title=Nawaz_Sharif&oldid=1120001473 This is the edit where they removed it from Nawaz Sharif — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cactihasbik (talk • contribs) 13:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Reporting a user much better than to be positive and constructive editing here.

I added that word on Imran Khan page and Admin removed and message me on my talk page for explanation and on Nawaz Sharif I removed after that because Panama Papers Section explained very well. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Pretty clear block evasion by the OP. See User talk: Toomanyyearskodakblack. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:E44A:4BDA:A4FA:8FF2 (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Philliptruong92 - more disruptive removals

Philliptruong92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Similar to this past April when they removed all the third place results from The Masked Singer US articles, they now recently removed all the third place results from American Idol articles. I've already reverted their edits removing the results, but it shows their behavior is still continuing since the previous ANI in April. They are also still continuing to edit via other account 'Philliptruong1990s', despite the discussion that occurred during that same ANI regarding their multiple accounts.

If they are blocked on the 'Philliptruong92' account or 'Philliptruong1990s' account, I suggest they be blocked on both as both accounts are still being used simultaneously. The other account I had previously found, 'Sabrina.carbone1970s', has not still been used since October 2020, but a block may want to be put on that account for precaution if they are blocked on their current two accounts.

I have no clue why they continue removing third place results from television articles, only their random claims of, "they normally have winner and runner-up as they are the final two", but it remains very disruptive, as it previously did when they did it back in April. I hope this does not continue on... Magitroopa (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Airline IP disruptive editing

99.233.169.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has resumed the same disruptive editing against consensus that let to previous block, and prior ones against different IPs. See their TP for further information. They have made over 100 edits today which will need to be reverted. MB 17:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Crun31

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

---

An editor who previously called someone a homophobic slur has now returned to post holocaust denial dogwhistles. The rest of their contributions appear to be right-wing POV-pushing, including the promotion of an antisemitic conspiracy theory. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste, Blocked indefinitely- they should've already been blocked indef for that Accelerationism edit. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

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

User gatekeeping a language/article to a specific country

{{atop|result= Editors advised to assume good faith, maintain calm, and resolve the content issue regarding the scope of the article through an WP:RFC. See also User:El C's related comments to User:SunnyKambojLive. Abecedare (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Unarchived seeing as disruption continued. I've indef p-blocked the user and alerted them about WP:ARBPIA: User talk:SunnyKambojLive#Partial blocks and discretionary sanctions alert. I'll refactor in a subsection below. El_C 19:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)}}

---

User:SunnyKambojLive over at List of highest-grossing Punjabi films believes that Pakistani films cannot be added to the list, as they have set this precedence that the page is exclusively regarding Indian Punjabi films, although I don't understand why - as there is no consensus or basis for this. In fact they reverted my edit, and then stated on my talk page that it was 'vandalism' when I disputed it. Not only that, they proceeded to change the article page to List of highest-grossing Punjabi (Indian) films - again without reaching a consensus (which I reverted). Punjabi is a language that is not only spoken in Pakistan, but has almost double the number of speakers in Pakistan than in India - it seems quite unfair to exclude Pakistani films from this list. نعم البدل (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Hmm... perhaps surprisingly, most of our box office lists seem to be by origin or by exhibition location rather than by language, even when the origin is somewhat defined by language. See: Template:Film box office. So I'm afraid those who say the list should be of of Indian Punjabi-language films may have a point. Jahaza (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

That retitling actually fixes the issue, by specifying that it is Indian Punjabi films. The another page could be made for Pakistani Punjabi films, if so desired. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

But I don't see why? Why not just have one article for all Punjabi films? It's not like there's a huge list of grossing Punjabi films that are from Pakistan, and I don't understand your point about origin. If we take the origin, then Pakistan has 80 million Punjabi speakers, whereas there are merely 30 million in India. نعم البدل (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Two administrators have cleared your confusion. Are u happy now? SunnyKambojLive (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

( Peanut gallery comment) Point of clarification: I'm not an admin. Neither is Jahaza. But I do agree that this should clarify things and satisfy the concerns. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

What do sources say? A quick search through WP:FILM/R-approved sources found this:

• Deadline Hollywood calls Pakistani film The Legend of Maula Jatt "the highest-grossing Punjabi movie" and also "a Pakistan-made or Punjabi-language film". In other articles, they stress where films were made rather than assuming "Punjabi" means "Indian": "The Punjabi film hails from 'Pollywood'" and "an Indian Punjabi family comedy".
• Variety also calls The Legend of Maula Jatt a "Punjabi-language film" here and here.
• IndieWire also specifies where a film was made, again avoiding implying that "Punjabi" means "Indian": "Punjabi-language Indian film".

Are Indian and Pakistani sources different? Because at least based on the above sources, it seems to me that List of highest-grossing Punjabi films should include both Indian and Pakistani films, as they're both Punjabi films. I suppose that separating them into Indian and Pakistani lists would solve that problem, although that seems like an unnecessary cross-categorization. Woodroar (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• I'm puzzled that Pakistani-made Punjabi films are eliminated from discussion, but Punjabi films made in other countries than India, but not Pakistan, are discussed in Punjabi cinema of which I assume List of highest-grossing Punjabi films is a sub-article. I'm also concerned that there are WP:Ownership issues here, and that User:SunnyKambojLive's reaction to a bog-standard notification on their talk page was unnecessarily hostile and condescending. I'm further concerned that SKL has accused User:نعم البدل of vandalism on multiple occasions (diff1 diff2, diff3 - includes templating!) but when politely asked what was vandalism, didn't provide any examples. Can you, SKL, provide some diffs? In the bigger picture, this appears to be a content dispute and is also being discussed at Talk:List of highest-grossing Punjabi films#Pakistani Punjabi film. Nfitz (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I already clarified this to Nfitz. Let me share this again.

West Bengal (India) and Bangladesh have same language. But we don't consider Bangladeshi films in the list of regional films of West Bengal. People from both sides are Bengalis. And, how many countries have films in English Languages? USA, Canada, UK ... But we sort those films according to the countries and not language.

Moreover, List of highest-grossing Punjabi films is a sub-article of "List of highest-grossing Indian films", which simply means that it can't contain data about Pakistani Punjabi films. To solve this confusion, I moved this article to List of highest-grossing Indian Punjabi films but that was reverted.

I tell u why suddenly these issues are arising. The Legend of Maula Jatt has broken records and whole Punjabi community is proud of it. But Users like نعم البدل and Nfitz are trying desperately to add it in list of highest-grossing Punjabi films, an article which has information only about Indian Punjabi Films since it's inception. And let me tell Nfitz, the source country of all the films mentioned in the list is India, whether it is shot in any country or in association with any co-production from other countries. I further doubt that these two users (نعم البدل and Nfitz) know each other and unnecessarily creating problems while defending each other like advocates.

Nfitz, let me remind you, Vandalism on Wikipedia means any modification that is hoax, intentionally. Which is clear from the modifications that u r making. I don't have to provide proof for something which is front of us and we can easily understand. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Solution =

Just move this article to list of highest-grossing Indian Punjabi films. And then, create a new article which will have list of both Indian and Pakistani Punjabi films. That will not contain just The Legend of Maula Jatt but other Pakistani Punjabi films as well.

I urge other users as well not to use this article to spread hate of any kind. Punjabis all over the world love each other. Let that remain the case.

Also, I can't understand why نعم البدل was putting The Legend of Maula Jatt on 4th place? Create a new combined article and place it on the top position, which it deserves. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

At its creation, the article included information about about Indian and Pakistani Punjabi cinema, including the claim that the first Punjabi film had ties to both India and Pakistan. Woodroar (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

We need to find a solution. Everything you said regarding creation is correct but the three films mentioned at that time were also Indian Punjabi films. Either someone needs to create a new article covering both Indian and Pakistani Punjabi films and specify this article for Indian Punjabi films. This will be easy as this article contains great information about Indian Punjabi films from many years.

(OR) Create a new article for only Indian Punjabi films and let this article be for both Indian and Pakistani Punjabi Films. And then, include other Pakistani Punjabi Films as well and not only The Legend Of Maula Jatt. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, because the Pakistani cinema isn't and certainly wasn't that big at that time - plus it's not like the article will have been completed at it's initial creation. New films are being released from Pakistan, which are Punjabi and grossing. It's quite unnecessary to have two articles regarding Punjabi films: 1. Indian Punjabi films, and 2. Punjabi films overall? I really don't understand why you feel the need to separate them. نعم البدل (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Trying to limit the list to only Indian Punjabi films seems both dumb and way over-specialization that isn't needed for such a list. And, since the sources do explicitly call the Pakistani films "Punjabi", then that means they fall under what this list article is about. Also, this conflict makes me wonder if this would fall under the India-Pakistan discretionary sanctions. Since this seems to be a really stupid anti-Pakistan action. Silverseren^C 19:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Such comment without having your facts checks, is dumb actually. Kindly read my upper comment to understand why this list can't include films from Pakistan. And, this is not a new debate. It has always been the case. Whenever page protection is removed, such users arise. Your use of word "anti-Pakistan" is enough to understand your mind set, without clearly seeing the logic. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

You need to tone it down. Nothing you have said justifies the claim that the article “can’t” include other films. The opposing view is perfectly reasonable and clearly many people disagree on the matter. Attempting to enforce your vision for an article or stonewall bold changes without engaging in consensus building is disruptive editing, whether or not something is longstanding. The accusations against you are serious, and so far you have not presented any evidence to refute the complaint. This is not the time to be arguing the content dispute, this is the time to be arguing why we should not block you. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Block? Just because I am talking about logic and trying to find a solution? Bro, I am replying in the same tone that is being used on me. What accusation are you talking about? The false accusations from 1 user? They are clearly trying to mislead others and getting successful. Are these false accusations enough to block someone who is contributing from many years? That user simply knows how to use tools/tags on Wikipedia regarding framing someone, which I clearly don't. If you are objective, just help me in tackling this. Thanks ... SunnyKambojLive (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Moreover, a total 3 people (including me) are in favour and 2 people are opposing it while Woodroar is trying to understand the situation. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

False accusation? Perhaps you should clarify which edit of mine was 'vandalism', that you felt the need to drop the block template on my talk page. Like User:Nfitz mentioned, I agree, there definitely does seem to be an issue of WP:Ownership here. Additionally, you mentioned Bengali films - in Bangladesh, the major language of Bangladesh is Bengali - which is why you can separate Bengali films and West Bengali films. Pakistan is not the same in this regard. USA, Canada, UK all have a huge movie industry, unlike Pakistan - these aren't relevant examples.

I could easily make an article specifically for Pakistani Punjabi grossing films, but it would be no more than just a stub. If you really feel the need to separate the two, then I don't see why you couldn't just add a separate column in the same table which defines the origin of the film? نعم البدل (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Swarm, User:Woodroar, User:EI_C please read this. I am giving my clarification.

A) User:نعم البدل, when I was talking about false accusations, it was not meant for you. I was talking about User:Nfitz, and I will explain why in the following.

B) About Vandalism - I thought Disruptive editing is Vandalism as I read it on "Vandalism on Wikipedia" article on Wikipedia. Though User:EI_C guided me and I got to know that it's not Vandalism.

When you (User:نعم البدل) started adding a Pakistani Punjabi film on the list which till then (and before any discussion started) only contained Indian Punjabi films, I found it disruptive and undid it. But you undid my revision 2-3 times in just few minutes.

(https://en.chped.com/w/index.php?title=List_of_highest-grossing_Punjabi_films&diff=1119779526&oldid=1119651034,

https://en.chped.com/w/index.php?title=List_of_highest-grossing_Punjabi_films&diff=1119995937&oldid=1119779526,

https://en.chped.com/w/index.php?title=List_of_highest-grossing_Punjabi_films&diff=1119997969&oldid=1119997340,

https://en.chped.com/w/index.php?title=List_of_highest-grossing_Punjabi_films&diff=1120003622&oldid=1119997969)

Then, I thought it to be Vandalism and left you a message, (https://en.chped.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%D9%86%D8%B9%D9%85_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%AF%D9%84&diff=1120065841&oldid=1120005093). Now that I have learnt that this was not Vandalism, so I apologize from you (User:نعم البدل).

Now, you found this to be threatening. (https://en.chped.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%D9%86%D8%B9%D9%85_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%AF%D9%84&diff=1120066011&oldid=1120065841). But it is a standard Wikipedia message and not something I wrote from my side. How that can be threatening? So, I asked you to search the meaning of Vandalism on Wikipedia. (https://en.chped.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%D9%86%D8%B9%D9%85_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%AF%D9%84&diff=1120190123&oldid=1120066011) Regarding which, I had wrong information or let's say, incomplete information. But that was not entirely my fault. As a Wikipedia article said so.

C) Now, User:Nfitz took advantage of this situation and falsely accused me of being unnecessarily hostile and condescending (ref. above in this same discussion. I just asked User:نعم البدل to check the meaning for Wikipedia Vandalism. How this can be hostile and condescending? We also know, it's not. For this, User:Nfitz should apologize from me.

Now, let me give everyone the proof, why User:Nfitz did this. He tried to make few changes on the page that is being discussed.

(https://en.chped.com/w/index.php?title=List_of_highest-grossing_Punjabi_films&diff=1120201100&oldid=1120196774)

According to him, we can't use the word Overseas because - "one doesn't have to cross seas to reach many of these countries".

I found this to be funny. So, I reverted and replied

(https://en.chped.com/w/index.php?title=List_of_highest-grossing_Punjabi_films&diff=1120204304&oldid=1120201100)

He just could not digest it and came to this discussion and made false accusations on me, that could have led to me blocking from editing, according to User:Swarm.

Now tell me everyone, who is the victim here?

D) User:Nfitz is still not stopping as you can read his further comments and the changes he is making on the page being discussed. Let me clear further, I did not accused him of Vandalism. I just referred him by mistake though I intended to write User:نعم البدل

For which, I already apologized to User:نعم البدل

I am sorry to write User:Nfitz by mistake. Now, we all have to see if User:Nfitz is mature enough of apologizing from me or not? For false accusations. Doesn't he qualify to be blocked after all this and wasting everyone's precious time especially mine? (just for fun or out of frustration)

E) Coming back to User:نعم البدل

There is not an issue of WP:Ownership at all. Just because I am the major contributor of the said page, it does not mean I intend to own it. It's not possible on Wikipedia. From my clarification, you can easily judge my intentions.

And, talking about the examples I gave regarding Bengali and English language are still relevant for me. We can have different opinions on it. Talking about separating the Indian Punjabi and Pakistani Punjabi films, discussion is still ON. And, I didn't think to add any column because you did not suggested earlier. Now that you have suggested, I will think about it.

F) Talking about the page being discussed, I already mentioned my times that List of highest-grossing Punjabi films is a sub-article of List of highest-grossing Indian films and adding Pakistani Punjabi movies to it will be illogical.

G) In last, I want to talk about feeling getting cornered or a case of partiality. When User:SilverserenC used such disrespectful language and strong words and wrote following.

"Trying to limit the list to only Indian Punjabi films seems both dumb and way over-specialization that isn't needed for such a list. And, since the sources do explicitly call the Pakistani films "Punjabi", then that means they fall under what this list article is about. Also, this conflict makes me wonder if this would fall under the India-Pakistan discretionary sanctions. Since this seems to be a really stupid anti-Pakistan action".

Nobody said anything to him or asked him to tone down. But when I replied to him with the following:-

"Such comment without having your facts checks, is dumb actually. Kindly read my upper comment to understand why this list can't include films from Pakistan. And, this is not a new debate. It has always been the case. Whenever page protection is removed, such users arise. Your use of word "anti-Pakistan" is enough to understand your mind set, without clearly seeing the logic".

After this, User:Swarm asked me to tone it down and even threaten me to block. I want to know the reason of this partiality.

Thanks & Regards, SunnyKambojLive (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

This isn't a vote. Content decisions are (mostly) based on our Core Content Policies, including Verifiability. We summarize content based on what reliable sources say, and so far, all of these suggest that "Punjabi films" includes films from both India and Pakistan. How you sort the films doesn't matter because that's considered Original Research.

I'll also mention that accusing other editors of vandalism, being misleading, framing people, etc. without evidence—preferably in the form of a diff—is considered a personal attack. Your behavior in this dispute has been poor and I suggest you improve it immediately before an admin blocks you. Woodroar (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, Woodroar. I've warned SunnyKambojLive for that and about additional subpar conduct, but also offered some detailed guidance, so hopefully, it resonates. Beyond that, if this content dispute has reached an intractable level, disputants should just run an WP:RFC on it, and may the best argument win the day. There's really not much more to it, except to advise everyone to be patient while it runs its course. There's also no point in continuing to discuss that content dispute here, as that's not what this noticeboard is for. El_C 22:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• I expressed three concerns in my contribution above - and only one was partially addressed - and this was done, by claiming the alleged vandalism was a hoax, refusing to provide diffs, accusing me of vandalism, and even WP:ASPERSION that I might actually be User:نعم البدل - which is aporetic. Yes User:SunnyKambojLive you must provide diffs. Right at the top of this page it says "Include diffs demonstrating the problem". So please provide the diffs demonstrating both that there was vandalism and a hoax - for both editors you've made these accusations - which appear to be false. Also please address your apparent failure of WP:CIVIL and now WP:AGF - (an apology would suffice). And also the WP:OWNERSHIP. Also you note that the list doesn't contain films from other countries - but explain why Punjabi cinema does - this seems inconsistent. In terms of the content dispute (which is mostly out-of-scope here), there's been no real explanation on why one wouldn't include all Punjabi language films; and the attempt to do so is mostly WP:OtherStuffExists. Incidentally, I'm struggling to find language-specific lists of films at sub-national levels or language-specific lists at all. Do you have examples? Nfitz (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Nfitz, RE: and even WP:ASPERSION that I might actually be User:نعم البدل — do you have a diff for that? RE: this seems inconsistent [etc.] — again, please don't discuss the content dispute here. This is not the place to do that. Also, pressing for an WP:APOLOGY isn't really the best, even when it may well be due. El_C 23:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The diff - which is from above - is [I further doubt that these two users (نعم البدل and Nfitz) know each other and unnecessarily creating problems while defending each other like advocates. diff]. Though perhaps it's just casting aspersions that we are acting in concert - but it's all very odd, given they are the first to mention it - it's trying to cast something ... Yes, it's a content dispute - and should be dealt with elsewhere ... until the point that articles on Punjabi films include non-Muslim Punjabi movies from other countries - such as Canada, but exclude Muslim Punjabi movies from Pakistan. I'm not sure we are there - hence the question. Though perhaps by being so verbose, am I too casting aspersions? Partition of Punjab is a touchy subject - especially for those (like me) whose family was impacted by it. Nfitz (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Nfitz, I think you should let that go, at least for the time being. SunnyKambojLive committed to correcting and studying, so why don't we give that a chance with a clean slate. Additionally, if the dispute is of an WP:ARBPIA WP:ARBIPA nature, then that sanctions regime can also come into effect at some point. But you keep discussing the content dispute, so once again, please don't do it here. Figure out that classification on the talk page. If it's proven that your argument is the better one, then it'll win the day and that will be that. I'm not sure what else you expect us to right now. El_C 01:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• Way forward? I believe this is a genuine content dispute with good arguments and good-faith editors on both sides, which unfortunately got heated. I second User:El_C's suggestion to resolve the debate abot the article scope through an RFC, and don't see a need for further admin action especially in light of the side-discussion on SunnyKambojLive's talkpage. Do any of the participants have any objections to closing this ANI conduct debate and starting a content RFC instead? Pinging @Swarm: in particular since they had indicated that a stronger intervention may be needed. Abecedare (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  I think El_C handled it very well and I thank them for making the effort, the user seems to be getting the message. I agree the content dispute should be kicked to an RFC since there’s clearly something going on there, and I’m satisfied with the warning for the behavioral issues. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks you guys! El_C 01:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to you. :) SunnyKambojLive (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

P-blocks

Blocked indefinitely. Indef p-blocks: User_talk:SunnyKambojLive#Partial_blocks_and_discretionary_sanctions_alert. This is basically a Last Chance Saloon. El_C 19:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

This category

Category:Police departments of On Patrol: Live has been created by HollywoodREDIRECTOR, and he is currently adding the pages about cities (not actual police departments) to it and has not responded to my question about why he is adding it to cities or what the purpose is for it. As I explained at Categories for Discussion, I find this to be a very useless addition, but maybe others would disagree. If editors here would agree that this is a useless category, I think it needs to be deleted, and this guy needs to stop adding it to pages. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

They've created these two unnecessary categories:

Category:Alphabetical lists

Category:Police departments of On Patrol: Live

They've also created Wikipedia:WikiProject Alphabetizing. I don't think we need an entire WikiProject with only one member --Nythar (💬-🎃) 22:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Seems like a natural task force for WP:WikiProject Lists. Levivich (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

• @Among Us for POTUS: @Nythar: Can you show us the prior discussions about this issue? --Jayron32 14:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Jayron32, I was just passing by here when I saw this report. No prior discussion took place because nothing happened. (I don't usually prefer immediately reporting someone before attempting to communicate with them, but there were several attempts at communication and HollywoodREDIRECTOR didn't reply.) Current discussions are taking place at two CfD discussions for the categories and an MfD for the WikiProject. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 18:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
    • If no prior discussion has happened, then why are we having the discussion here? ANI is a last resort for intractable behavioral problems and not a place to get content disputes resolved. Unless there is someone is getting blocked or banned, or an article needs to be protected or deleted, there's no reason to come here. --Jayron32 19:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

      User talk:HollywoodREDIRECTOR#Category:Alphabetical lists. GiantSnowman 19:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Explicit legal threat

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

---

By 2601:543:4401:9219:443d:e876:cea8:4cff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made with this edit on 01:04, 7 November 2022 Adakiko (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

/64 rangeblocked and edits revdel'd by Tamzin. Don't think there's anything else to do here. SkyWarrior 01:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Noting for context, just since occasionally there's confusion about whether legal threats are revdellable, that the revdel was due to defamatory content adjacent to the legal threats, not the threats themselves. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I endorse the block and the revision deletion. Cullen328 (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

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

COI violation by 56independent

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

---

More details are provided at [[245]] 134.255.241.135 (talk) 12:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The above editor has been blocked for harassment. --Jayron32 14:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Stark578

• Stark578 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been asked nicely and then forcefully to stop making spurious claims, in particular about celebrities and membership in DSA. They have a strong WP:ICANTHEARYOU bent and have taken no accountability on any of their erring ways, for instance when I first warned them about posting every random image they found of subjects that were not free, then warning them to stop adding these tweets which 1) do not demonstrate membership, and 2) are not even what the word "canvass" means. This was done scattershot in August and September, where I had to revert a dozen non-free images and maybe 20 spurious DSA membership claims. They ignored talk page request/warning, and a month or two later I had to go through about 40-50 or so of their edits to undo this same pattern again. This time they acknowledged the warning against adding it, but are doing it again. See this diff at Brian Yuzna which in no good faith interpretation of that tweet is there encyclopedic evidence of membership and that edit came a week after the explicit request to cease this practice. This has continued to be ignored as Stark578 continues to take any tweet mentioning DSA and add that to Wikipedia as proof of membership and attribute it to "canvassing" such as at Joel Kim Booster. I don't know what else needs to be said to this user to recognize that this in violation of our core rules. JesseRafe (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, they've been adding actors to the (e.g.) California Democrats category without providing any evidence that they've been associated with the party, instead of generally supporting them. These cats should be saved for politicians for the most part. Schwarzenegger, obviously, would fit in California Republicans, but Bob Newhart, not so much. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Danielle Perez (comic) is another example. It should be obvious that performing as a comedian at an event organized by DSA is not evidence of membership in DSA. But it is not obvious to this editor. This is a very serious matter. Cullen328 (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Dashtshuligkech

User:Dashtshuligkech has been creating numerous incoherent drafts, some in draft space, and some in mainspace, all unreferenced & none remotely near fit for mainspace publication. Some have been deleted, and some draftified but the user has moved them back to mainspace. The user ignores all warnings and apparently can neither understand nor write coherent English. Apparently no malicious intent, but clearly doesn't have the ability to contribute coherently to the English Wikipedia, and is wasting the time of other users to clear up the mess being created. I will notify the user. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The user has also damaged various other pages through edits which needed to be reverted, as can be seen from the contribution record: Dashtshuligkech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - David Biddulph (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Unusual accounts being created to revert edits

There are several, clearly sockpuppet accounts (with rather cryptic names) being used to revert edits to the page Unfriendly Countries List. They seem to be used only to remove notes that indicate that in the subject of the article (the "Unfriendly Countries List" published by the Russian government), "Taiwan" is listed as "Taiwan (China)" (as Taiwan/ROC is not recognized by Russia). They do not give any reasons for their edits.

These accounts include but are likely not limited to:

• Putslongz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Spurxshalt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Welhwing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Prxcesang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I request that something be done about this user(s?), such as an IP ban as well as banning from new account creation, and potentially that the page be locked to extended autoconfirmed users only. 129.97.124.11 (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I have just run a check and blocked a whole lot of accounts. It's possible I'll be imposing a rangeblock later. Salvio 20:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

My apologies, it appears I forgot one account. Lystopel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also appears to be one of the sockpuppets used. 129.97.124.11 (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)