Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143

User:Ngunalik

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

---

Further information: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141 § User:Ngunalik

After discussion about Ngunalik edits on Ateker peoples, Kumam people, and Lango people. She continued to add her old edits with an unreliable travel guide website despite being told that her edits are not credible by any scholars nor linguists. She continued for the past few days to add back her edits to these three articles. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 05:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• The user talk page is not very inspiring, we might need a block here. Ymblanter (talk) 06:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• This doesn't really agree with the diffs that I see:
  • Special:Diff/1093629022 — Added in June 2022 sans source
  • Special:Diff/1182488894 — Challenged and removed in October 2023
  • Special:Diff/1183851706 — Re-added in November 2023 this time with an attempt at sourcing
  • Special:Diff/1184878897 — Removed again, now with the claim that the source is bad, in November 2023
• This seems to be the usual they-want-a-source-how-about-a-WWW-page-that-I-found-with-a-search-engine process. It's all-too-common, but what it is not is repeatedly adding edits with a travel guide. It has happened once in that article, over a period of a year and a half. I'm not sure that we should be leaping for administrator tools unless the next edits are edit warring, because this is actually very clearly an attempt to address sourcing concerns. It's just not enough.

  And Ymblanter, you are looking in the wrong place. Try Special:Diff/1183215993 and Special:Diff/1183237408. Also see Special:Diff/1182501376 where Cookiemonster1618 takes the tack of characterizing this as "vandalism" and then at Special:Diff/1182516056 actually reports good faith but wrong attempts to provide a source for a challenged fact as vandalism, rightly declined by Bbb23. If there's an editor that doesn't know how to interact with other editors around here, we might have to be looking more in the direction of Cookiemonster1618. And I should note that this was pointed out by Robby.is.on, C.Fred, and HandThatFeeds last time that this was here. This repeated heavy-handed call for administrator intervention when the right approach was exemplified by C.Fred last time around is not on. And Schazjmd could have been less oblique about academic-accelerator.

  Uncle G (talk) 08:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  • No, this is indeed not vandalism. Ymblanter (talk) 08:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'm concerned this is being dragged back to ANI, again with an inaccurate description of the events in question. Cookiemonster1618 seems to be running to the admins when it's not really appropriate. Continued improper reporting may require more serious action. At the moment, a warning / WP:TROUTing is probably sufficient.

    That said, Ngunalik has been a member here since 2011, so the lack of understanding around reliable sourcing is troubling, and might be a WP:CIR issue. Their edit history seems narrowly focused on Uganda & related pages. Not really a red flag, but maybe they need to expand their horizons a bit if they're still having trouble with sourcing after over a decade of small edits here and there. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  • Hi guys. This editor 1618 has an attitude of edit-waring and I have picked that up within other articles. The references I have added are references which are already in the articles, they simply back what other editors have already written in those articles. It is not only travel sites I have quoted. This editor 1618 deleted the sources then added his own edits in southern luo language, where today he/she has added Lango and Kumam as part of southern luo language, then referenced it as the reliable source - is this normal? He/she cannot give us independent so called reliable source any where stating that Lango language is a Luo language, other than an old ethnologue once quoted. The purpose of the new articles in Lango, Kumam, Ateker is that these are not Luo (Lwo) groups as it was once thought or presented by ethnologue and other linguists. Before, wikipedia had Lango and Kumam all under Luo (Lwo) article. Then other editors started new articles with evidence that these are a separate groups and they speak mixtures of languages of Luo dialects and Ateker dialects. I am simply building on these then the editor 1618 reverts it, accuses me and places Lango plus Kumam back under Luo group detatching the argument detailed in the pages of Ateker or Kumam on wikipedia. Please search these articles and you will see for yourself. Thanks ~~ Ngunalik (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
    • you have been told that your edits are not sourced with a reliable source and that you add information to these articles with either an unreliable source like a travel guide website or you add information that is not sourced. At this point you should just get blocked because it's ridiculous. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
  • The reason ive brought it here because everytime i leave a warning on her talk page she talks back and when i report her to the adminstrators theres no action taken. This isnt her first time being involved in these kind of edits. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
    • @Cookiemonster1618 There is no point reasoning with someone like you. I leave that for other people to see who you are. Ngunalik (talk) Ngunalik (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
    • So your problem is that someone communicates when approached on xyr talk page? That's absurd. The problem here appears to be you, with heavy-handed approaches, which you've even continued above with that "you should just get blocked" stuff. C.Fred showed the right thing to do, which is to explain, not threaten. You should be taking this approach. And I see that Special:Diff/1184877445 is you adding things in this very topic area without sources. Do you want sauce for the goose to be sauce for the gander? No more heavy-handed threats, please, and practice what you preach. Uncle G (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

      Since when did i threaten her lol? Ive left her a warning before and we had a long reply comment section on why her edits are not credible to these articles and she kept threatening me saying that i should get blocked. Yet im the one who's thretening her? You saw the edits she added on those three articles yet your blaming me? Woww the administrators who saw the evidence yet they are blaming me and saying im threatening another user. All i can say is that you have seen the evidence for yourselves by her edits at Kumam people, Ateker peoples, and Kumam dialect. I rest my case here. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

      @Cookiemonster1618 could you please stop referring me to a "her" or "she" I do not intend to reason with you any further. Thanks~ Ngunalik (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

      No need for you to reason anyways because i wasnt even talking to you. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

      For the record i did explain at the beginning when i brought this report 12 hours ago but apparently you seem to be focused on my replies to Ngunalik and not the evidences that was shown by Uncle G. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

      The source for that was Ethnologue which anyone who is subscribed can see, if you go to Ethnologue you will see the Language Classification under the Language itself with the Language family and its branches I added what Ethnologue says. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

      btw for my edits at Special:Diff/1184877445 they were originally there but Ngunalik removed it along with Kumam on August 12 you can see the edit history yourself for evidence also most sources state this as well so my edit over there was not a problem. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• I'm somewhere between "let's all sit down for a cuppa and relax" and "let's put everybody in timeout" on this one. We have Cookiemonster1618 making a report that features the concern, [Ngunalik] continued for the past few days to add back [their] edits to these three articles. However, they have not provided any diffs to show where Ngunalik has done this.
  It would be very easy to take the approach of Ngunalik being innocent, except for the repeated comments along the lines of I do not intend to reason with you any further. If the two editors were willing to discuss the matter on article talk pages, remain civil, and focus on content and policies, we wouldn't need to be here.
  Instead, if we use the analogy of two children, whenever one child makes any mistake, we have the other child immediately tatting to their parents (the admins) over every little things. Hence CM's latest report over the edits that are adding the same material but apparently trying new sources to support it.
  I'd like to see both Cookiemonster1618 and Ngunalik work together on this matter, because if there's administrative action to be taken, neither of you will be happy, because you'll both get sanctioned with an interaction ban and/or a topic ban. —C.Fred (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  Im more than happy to work together but if they continue to add back their edits to these articles with a travel guide website or not sourced than i will revert them other than that i dont hold any hard feelings or grudge against anyone on Wikipedia. Glad for the solution and im happy to offer what i can for the most peaceful solution to this problem. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  @C.Fred my frustration comes because what I raise Cookiemonster1618 is not reading it. I keep saying I am not the one who started building these articles. All I am trying to do is tidy up what other editors have built in. I am adding references but I am not finished adding all the references. This editor first accused me of writing unconstructive sentence -which they could have corrected the grammer if that was the case. However, they are stuck on the ethnologue, 1618 has been arguing on other articles that if something is not on ethnologue then it has to be removed, 1618 always claims that other sources are not reliable. If you note, whatever I added are all referenced within the articles already by other editors e.g. on external link in the Kumam article. In addition there are other sources cited which which bring us to the same conclusion that Lango, Kumam, Teso, Ije and Karamoja belong to ethnic group called Ateker. The body of these articles support what I add simply for consistency. If I removed anything from Kumam or Lango I transferred them all under Ateker. This is because the body of the articles say these groups all belong under one Ateker. If you see what 1618 has done, has messed up all the three articles with no consistency. We cannot leave it like this, something has to be done immediately to tidy up all these articles. If 1618 is saying that Lango and Kumam are not ateker then what ethnic groups are they - and where are the evidence? It cannot just be one ethnologue citation. Ngunalik (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  The thing is none of your edits are not 'tidy up' of information you added back the information i reverted on Kumam dialect despite being told they were not sourced first than you added them back again with a travel guide website. Ethnologue is the main source that is used because it is a reliable source unlike a travel guide website. What part of that do you not understand?. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Cookiemonster1618 that is why I did not want to repeat myself. This is not the only source, if that travel guide is unreliable does not it 1)contradict the body of the article?

  2)What you have added now, where does it say that Langi or Kumam are originally Luo/Lwo and the language they speak are Luo/Lwo from origin?

  These are all non Lwo groups but live neighbouring each other. You have now put the Lango as a Luo language which is a pure misinformation that has to be removed. Lango and Kumam have so many words which are not Lwo but derived from Teso language. Which brings us to what the articles are saying that they speak a mixture of Luo and Ateker languages. There are references already quated by other editors e.g references 8,9,10 but you are still not satisfied with these? These also mention that they are nilo-hamitic, they belong to one Ateker. So where do you fit your argument in the articles? Ngunalik (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  I am meant to say, What I added, does it contradict the body of the article?

  I remember it was not just one article, I remember citing monitor article as well although now deleted.

  Please answer the question, does my contribution what were written in those areticles or not? Ngunalik (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  Your edits were not contributions because they were incorrect and also beacuse they were not support by any reliable academic research by linguists Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Cookiemonster1618 you are evading to answere questions here. Ethnologue is editable and even says that there may be new information which is not reflected in their database.

  I need you to give evidence because I do not want to waste time going over and over

  1- Did you read the body of these articles or not, i.e. Ateker, Teso, Lango, Kumam etc.

  2-Did it mention Nilo-Hamitic before or was it me who cited it?

  3-Did you read the citations there stating that they were wrok of linguists e.g. Ozoique and some Ugandan journals?

  4-What I have added does it contradict their statements or not?

  5-Above all does my edits contradit what these articles are saying?

  Langi or Lango and Kumam are not Luo/Lwo and the articles are not built to say that they are Luo/Lwo or that their languages are Luo/Lwo by origin.

  If you want to build up a new artile to say that Kumam and Langi are Luo or that the language they speak is Luo/Lwo by origin then by all means start up a new article and bring up these sources you talk about. Also show us where ethnologue told you that these groups are originally Luo/Lwo. Ngunalik (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Ngunalik Where do you see the statement that Ethnologue is editable? Please provide a link that backs up this claim. —C.Fred (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  https://www.ethnologue.com/updates-corrections/

  Updates and Corrections

  New editions of the Ethnologueare published annually. Although each edition contains thousands of updates and corrections, gaps in our knowledge persist and will never be completely filled. We aim for accuracy, but advancing knowledge from ongoing research and the continuously changing situations of the currently identified 7168 known living languages of the world inevitably lead to some inaccuracies and discrepancies. We welcome corrections and new information that will improve both the accuracy and the completeness of the data.

  Language additions or deletions. Requests for the addition of a previously unidentified language or for other modifications to the inventory of identified languages should be made directly to the ISO 639-3 Registrar since it is the editorial policy of Ethnologue to follow the ISO 639-3 standard when determining the inventory of languages to be listed. Go to the ISO 639-3 website at http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/ and click on “Submitting change requests” to find the change request form and the filing instructions.

  Corrections. If you believe any of the information about a language is in error, we welcome feedback and updated information. Please provide details about the sources of your information, including full bibliographic citations of published sources when applicable.

  The submitter of any correction can expect to receive an initial acknowledgment from the Managing Editor of the Ethnologue . Our staff will then seek to verify the proposed change before it is accepted. This process may take some time as it generally involves making enquiries of individuals who are resident in the country or region where the language is spoken. These persons may in turn make enquiries of others or consult published materials in order to perform the verification. While we make every effort to inform the submitter of the results of our research and verification, if you do not use the preferred method described below, we cannot guarantee that a report of the outcome will be sent in every case. Corrections, even after they are accepted and entered in our database, will only appear in our products when the next edition of the Ethnologue is released. However, if you use the Contribute form online, your feedback will be immediately available to readers on the web.

  The preferred method of submitting corrections and additions is to join our contributor program . With a contributor account you will be entitled to complimentary access to the website and will be able to use the Contribute form on the page for a language or country in order to propose corrections and additions. The advantage of giving feedback in this way is that it becomes part of the public record on the website. You will also be automatically notified of the editorial action.

  Alternatively, you may submit corrections and additions by means of the online contact form at:

  Contact us in the page footer

  Or submit corrections and additions by e-mail to:

  [email protected]

  Or by post to:

  Editor, Ethnologue

  SIL International

  7500 West Camp Wisdom Road

  Dallas, TX 75236-5629, USA Ngunalik (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  Ethnologue is just like wikipedia. They collect secondary data but there are primary research going on in the communities. Like what I posted before, researchers have gone among the Kumam people and the Lango people, interviews have been conducted for days. They studied their dances, their foods, interacted with the communities etc. How can we ignore this? This editor 1618 has been deleting so much work of editors all in the name of ethnologue, now ethnologue turns around says, we also have descrepencies in our data we cannot rule out errors in our data. Ngunalik (talk) 11:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Ngunalik The key point is that the contributions are suggestions to Ethnologue's editors, who make a decision based on secondary sources and their editorial review process. This is not a site that is directly editable by users like Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  That is not what I meant in terms of edition every day. I mean they get corrections or updates as well just like how we post updates in Wikipedia. Their eidtions are not daily of course but annually. Ngunalik (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  Additionally, their comment about errors is that they welcome corrections. Compare that with sites that disclaim their data and say users should not rely upon it for accuracy. In short, this is why this discussion is at ANI: you have demonstrated a lack of understanding of WP:Reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you this is their main problem they are ignorant on understanding using reliable resources and also understanding these languages classification systems. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 12:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  This is why I am having a problem with 1618 in the language and manner their attacks. I have cited references in these articles apart from the travel guide, some of which I can see still available in these articles. My point is this, the same points i.e. argued about these ethnic groups are exactly in the references already cited within wikipedia. I keep saying I have other citations as well, the travel guide is not the only one. Some of those citations I have already posted them here and asked you the administrators to check. I did not get any response that the other citations are all unreliable. Ngunalik (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  These citations are like how editors would say oral history states abcd...

  They are just additions to build up what editors have already written in those articles. I am not brining something new in here. If it was the first time that I am strting something different from what are already in the body of these articles then, you can say it is inconsistent with the work already cited. These groups may speak abit of Luo/Lwo here and there but that does not mean their ethnic language is Luo/Lwo. Just like saying if I learn to speak French because I live near the boarders of France that does not mean my ethnic language is French. Ngunalik (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  I did not see the travel guide disclaim. Also with the Uganda travel guide their contents are connected with government data and contents that are didactic in Uganda's current education system. Ngunalik (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  Government data does not classify a language linguistic family and grouping that is done by linguists and academic research by scholars. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  This is unbelievable. Did you not read when they stated clearly that they use scholars? How can anything be taught in schools without varification from researchers? It is not only language we are talking here. It is the ethnic group. You keep bringing this issue about ethnologue grouping Langi or Kumam as a luo language. I asked you what ethnic group is Langi are they Luo/Lwo in your opinion? If so where is the evidence? Did ethnologue tell you that Langi and Kumam are originally Lwo? Ngunalik (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes Ethnologue classifies Langi and Kumam as southern Luo languages because they are and also because this is what most linguists and linguisitic research say. You were already told this and you know yourself so instead of wasting my time and yours it is obvious that you are not aware of the linguistic family in which Lango and Kumam have been classified. I kindly ask you out of sincerity to do your research and see for yourself. Thank you. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  That is language and we have already stated that Lango and Kumam speak a MIXTURE of Luo/Lwo dialects because there are several Lwo dialects, in addition, they speak their original Ateker languages. Howeever I asked you aside from language, where did it state that Kumam and Langi are Luo/Lwo people? You deleted where I had stated that these two groups Kumam and Langi are Ateker and there was a citation - I still have lots of citation to back this statement. You deleted it and stated that Kumam and Langi are NOT Ateker but you did not cite anything. Where is the eveidence of this ethnicity? Leave aside the languge issue. Please quote the evidence of the ethnicity showing that they are not Ateker. Ngunalik (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  You the administrators can see that this editor 1618 has not posted any evidence

  1) That Lango and Kumam are NOT Ateker peoples as they stated after deleting my citation.

  2) Nither have they been able to prove that Lango and Kumam are Luo/Lwo by ethnic group.

  If ethnologue put it that they speak Luo/Lwo - that is only because they borrowed words from the Luo/Lwo speaking communities, that does not mean Kumam language and Lango language are Luo/Lwo languages.

  For instance Kumam counting from 1-10:-

  Acel

  Aree

  Adek

  Ongon

  Kany

  Kanyapee

  Kanyauni

  Kanyongon

  Tomon

  Only Acel and Adek are borrowed words from Lwo/Luo the rest are Ateker -no Lwo/Luo speaker would be able to recognize it as their language. When Egnologue says they speak Luo that is only if the Kumam use Luo words to say certain things. That does not mean the Kumam language is a Luo language.

  The Lango in Uganda count 1-10 as Ocele

  Oryo,

  Odeke

  Ongon

  Ekany

  Ekanyape

  Ekanyare

  Ekanyauni

  Ekanyongon

  Tomon

  None of these is Luo/Lwo. So if they were to use their Lango language no Lwo/Luo speaker would claim that this is a Lwo word.

  Nowadays they use lots borrowed words from Lwo/Luo languages - does not make it a Lango language.

  So if ethnologue says they speak Luo/Lwo language, ONLY if these two ethnic groups used Lwo/Luo words to communicate. So if you group the counting above as a Luo/Lwo language a lot of Ateker speakers would say no. Many Lwo/Luo speakers would also recognize that this is not Luo/Lwo.

  1618 is gone online trying to type here and there to asert that Lango and Kumam should be placed under Luo/Lwo languages. The facts will speak for itself. Ngunalik (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  Ive already put my explanation earlier and also borrowed words doesnt determine a language's linguistic family just because Lango has some Ateker loanwords doesn't make it an Ateker language. Just like Persian has Arabic loanwords but it is Indo Iranian and not Semitic same thing with Lango despite these loanwords it is held by most linguists to be a southern luo language of the western nilotic group not an Ateker language of the eastern nilotic group. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  I asked you you have been quiet for hours, give evidence that Lango and Kumam are not Ateker

  There are also Lango in South Sudan - those ones including Karamojong did not borrow Lwo/Luo words so they did not lose a lot of their language.

  Or

  Show evidence that Lango and Kumam are Lwo/Luo

  If you cannot show this evidence then why did you say Lango and Kumam are NOT Ateker? Ngunalik (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  The reason why I said they are not because this is what most reliable sources and research says and linguists and Ethnologue mention. You know you search it yourself? That's what Google is for. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  I had already read this work which was superficial not a proper reasearch and you talk about brining unreliable source? The author said the history of Lango is conflicting- perphaps it was something they had read online and they could pick bits and pieces. Lots of research have been done on Langi for over hundread years - not one claim that Langi are Lwo/Luo. It shows that they encounter Luo/Lwo and they fought protracted wards. Ngunalik (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  Highly doubt you read it given it was just released this year. Both sources mention that Lango is a southern luo language and related to Kumam and Acholi as well as Alur and other Southern Luo languages. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  Here are your resources that explain with evidence that Lango and Kumam are Southern Luo languages.

  https://nalrc.indiana.edu/doc/brochures/lango.pdf

https://www.canil.ca/canilewp/volume1/Swenson-101_145.pdf Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• Ethnologue and most sources say that Lango and Kumam are Southern Luo languages of the Western Nilotic group if you don't know that there's tons of sources that point to this online. An easy google search will give your answers, being ignorant about a language group is not an excuse to add wrong information from a travel guide website. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Cookiemonster1618 If you cannot answer these questions above with evidence, I politely ask you to restore my edits, and leave me to add further citations. It is upto other editors to judge too whether my citations are irrelevant or not. Ngunalik (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  I already answered your questions there were no articles you cited to back up your claims and you only added a travel guide website for your edits at Kumam dialect, Kumam people and Ateker peoples which is not a reliable source and so they were reverted. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  Both of you need to stop this bickering and let outside commentors weigh in. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  @HandThatFeeds Agreed, since this thread is turning into a prime example of shooting oneself in the foot. —C.Fred (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• Just an observation and not commenting on the merits of either position or the potential behavior issues of which there at least seems to be some concern, least of which is WP:IDHT, but @Ngunalik, if you "still have lots of citation to back this statement" then why cite a travel guide in the first place? Usually we cite to our best and most reliable sources first. I think I'm inclined to support C.Fred's idea for a "timeout" for both these editors. Give them time to cool down and try to figure out a path forward. This is going nowhere as it is and will wind up in longer sanctions for one or both if it continues I'm afraid. --ARoseWolf 21:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  (Not an admin) - Comment, I've been watching this thread and reading for about an hour, and I agree with both @C.Fredand @ARoseWolf. Babysharkboss2 was here!! 21:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks people you judge this. The link posted by 1618, does not mention at all that Lango is a Luo language, rather it says closely related to Luo. If linguists had considered it was a Luo language they would not use this word "closely related to Luo".

Finally this editor failed to show that Lango or Kumam are not Ateker as they had stated in the wiki page. No evidence given todate.

They also failed to show that Lango or Kumam are Lwo/Luo except keep talking about language which I have already explained language shift occured.

Lango or Kumam are not Luo/Lwo, they suffered language shifts to Luo groups but still retain alot of Ateker words in their languages.

There are lots of citations some are below

https://nuganda.wordpress.com/tribes-of-northern-uganda/langi/

https://www.walshmedicalmedia.com/open-access/the-values-of-polygamy-among-the-langi-people-of-northern-uganda.pdf

https://www.worldhistory.biz/sundries/48469-nilotes-eastern-africa-eastern-nilotes-ateker-karimojong.html

Thanks Ngunalik (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ngunalik Please explain why you think nuganda.wordpress.com even remotely resembles a reliable source. Answer carefully, since the response to your answer, if it's not a good answer, may be a sitewide block for inability to contribute in accordance with guidelines, including WP:RS. —C.Fred (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, a Wordpress blog is absolutely not a reliable source. The "walshmedicalmedia" link goes to a PDF by some "Global Institute For Research & Education" which... I can find no evidence of on the web. And the Worldhistory site also looks like someone's 1990s homepage. None of these qualify as reliable sources.

At this point, WP:CIR comes into play. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

ok if that is not reliable than here are other sources http://people.umass.edu/scable/LING404-SP09/Materials/Handouts/Dholuo-Basics.pdf Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

You're seriously trying to use an unsourced class handout as a reliable source? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I already gave you 3 more sources beside that. You said the pdf for that was unreliable so i sent two more in which you havent checked out the last pdf i sent before i sent a citation from Glottolog proving my main points of my argument. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The NALRC post is literally a brochure. The Swenson paper might be RS, I'll need to examine it more closely, but the fact you brought a brochure here to pass off as an RS just proves to me you have no idea what our RS policy entails.

More to the point, this is for behavioral issues, continuing to argue content here is going to wind up with you being blocked for WP:DISRUPTion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

On further examination, the Swenson paper does not appear to be published in any kind of peer-reviewed journal that I've found, and CanIL does not appear to be an accredited university. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Sigh...You aren't helping your case, @Ngunalik. I suggest you take time to read and consider why those sources you provided are considered unreliable and not fit to be a source for anything non-controversial on Wikipedia, much less controversial. Agreed with @HTF, WP:CIR seems to apply. --ARoseWolf 21:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I have never quoted any of these on wikipedia. Some of these were brainstorm for what I said we should not ignore primary research going on in the Lango, Kumam areas especially recent ones which may not be in Ethnologue. Some of these are ongoing research like the first blog a researcher from Europe but bringing the same issues like what I had posted to you C.Fred e.g. another researcher also in the village of Kumam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJo4_Yq7WZo

The one that says world history, has a key reference from list of references which I checked it, Gulliver, P. H. The Central Nilo-Hamites. London: International African Institute, 1953.Shows that Langi Teso etc are grouped as Central Nilo-Hamites

Which I am trying to say there is nothing new from what it is already stated in the wikipedia pages that Lango, Teso, Kumam, Karamojong etc are Nilo-Hamites.

G.J.I.S.S.,Vol.3(4):48-52 that is a published article the work of scholars from Gulu University and from USA. 1 Senior Lecturer and Head of History Department in Gulu University-Northern Uganda and Fulbright Visiting Scholar, Millersville University of Pennsylvania-USA. 2High School History Teacher in Northern Uganda

What they stated is that although lango speak Lwo they are not Lwo - this is just to back the communication I was having with 1618, because 1618 said we needed work of scholars and linguists. In that case you need to advise me why that article is not reliable. Ngunalik (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I said we should not ignore primary research

Stop, right there. We do not cite primary research on Wikipedia. Period. You really do not have enough of a grasp on our reliable sources policy to be editing these articles. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you talking to me or Ngunalik? If you are talking to me that last pdf I just sent is reliable and is the mainstream opinion held by most linguists and Ethnologue itself. Ethnologue bases it's language classification system on research done by linguistic scholars who have spent years studying these languages. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Cookiemonster1618 The problem is, you didn't cite a scholarly publication; you cited a handout for a senior-level class. —C.Fred (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Is this reliable for you?

https://scholar.archive.org/work/wmuqistixzeyhdy7y2loh6duti/access/wayback/https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/29330/1/10731425.pdf Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The above article actually supprots everything I stated. The anthropologists grouped the Langi together with Tesi etc as Central para-nilotes which is the same as Central Nilo-hamites. At the time of their research they noticed that the Langi were copying Lwo Acoli linguistically and culturally. They noted that the Langi were not Lwo, and that the Central Lwo were Acoli, Alur Luo Kenya and Sudan etc. And that those Lwo groups did not consider Langi at all as Lwo. Ngunalik (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

that's not what the source says it says that Lango and Kumam are Southern Luo languages that have been influenced by Ateker languages. The source still mentions till today they are Southern Luo languages. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

What you are saying it is the opposite. You read it carefully Lango are placed together with Teso Kumam Koromojong as Para Nilotes or Plain Nilotes same as Nilo-Hamites. The Karamojong, Teso and Lango of Sudan did not have language shift to Luo/Lwo. However the Lango of Uganda and Kumam did have language shift to Luo/Lwo, they still have Ateker words. Upto now All the clans of Lango and Kumam are Ateker clans none of it in Lwo/Luo clans. To be a Lwo/Luo you have to be born in a Luo clan which goes back to thousands of years genology. How can we explain that ALL the clans of Lango and Kumam are not in Luo/Lwo instead they are ALL in Teso -Ateker. Ngunalik (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Not it is not. Neither in this source nor by the previous one i provided which the admin said was unreliable nor by Ethnologue. All these sources still classify Lango and Kumam as Southern Luo languages of the Western Nilotic group and that Lango is related to Kumam, Acholi, Alur and other Southern Luo languages. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The same source i provides earlier which was considered not a scholarly source said that Lango is a Western Nilotic language of the Southern Luo branch along with the source i just sent and Ethnologue. Almost all these sources i provided cited that Lango and Kumam are Southern Luo languages. Why dont you understand that already? Are you really here to prove your points or create more arguments and waste your time and ours? Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

After this comment I will have a rest as it is getting late. What I want to say is that you have misunderstood this topic. You have gone to and fro with your arguments. We stated in wikipeida that Lango and Kumam speak a mixture of Ateker and Luo. You deleted it. Then you have provided evidence which you now says supports that Lango or Kumam speak "Southern Luo languages that have been influenced by Ateker languages." So they do have mixture of languages. I think we will have to pick this up possibly tomorrow. It gives everybody a break. In the mean time you need to be asking about the clans because in Africa there is no way you can argue that you speak Luo and your clan (which is your ethnic group identity) is in Teso Ateker peoples. ThanksNgunalik (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you blind? How many times do i have to tell you that your sources are not credible enough to support your claims and that they were reverted because they were not part of the article in the first place and that you changed the language classification and description for Lango and Kumam based on a travel guide website and an academic website with recent research that is ongoing with no mention of Lango being Ateker language in that academic website you brought up. Most of the sources i cited support my claims that Lango and Kumam are Southern Luo languages and not Ateker languages. I even brought you Glottolog which is considered highly reliable here in Wikipedia and you still claimed i reverted your edits even though they were not part of the original articles nor do you have credible sources to back up your claims. At this point this discussion should be over and the admin C.Fred will decide the final decision on this. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Here's another one

https://cms.arizona.edu/index.php/multilingual/article/download/98/145/395 Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

This also proves my point that there was language shift to Lwo/Luo language around 18th centuary. Other non-luo ethnic groups were adopting Lwo language (page 181) Ngunalik (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Admins have you reached a decision on this dispute? What is the final decision you have come to? Are my arguments or Ngunalik arguments satisfactory for you guys?. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I have never cited primary research. All I said is that Ethnologue pointed out that there are lots of research going on, which would not be reflected in their database and we should not take it that they are ontop of everything with thousands of languages. They are open to corrections.. That is why I said current information can influence what Ethnologue has. Ngunalik (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

We are not arguing the language, we had stated it already in Wikipedia that Lango and Kumam speak a mixture of Luo and Ateker. You even contradicted yourself by first deleting that statement in wikipedia page then in this administrators you stated "Ive already put my explanation earlier and also borrowed words doesnt determine a language's linguistic family just because Lango has some Ateker loanwords doesn't make it an Ateker language"

Here you are admitting that Lango has loanwords from Ateker which is not reflected in the Ethnologue linguistic family. Ethnologue put a Luo language family that excludes the "Ateker loanwords." It that information was fed to Ethnologue they would have taken that there is a mixture of Ateker and Luo now in the speech that Kumam and Lango speaks due to language shift. Speaking a language does not at all make Lango or Kumam change their ethnicity to Lwo. Ngunalik (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

So you understand than? Great this discussion is closed and im positive my case has won. Good day. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

You got the whole thing twisted up, a language borrowing words from Ateker or Lango an Ateker borrowing words from Lwo. The linguisting family is Lwo only partaining to Lwo language not Ateker words. None of Lwo ethnic groups have borrwed Ateker words. That is why I said with mixtures of dialects we cannot say it is a Luo language either. You deleted these. There were citations to back this statements. Ngunalik (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Even Glottolog states that Lango is a Western Nilotic language of the Southern Luo branch and has tons of sources to prove it. Here is one i retrieved from their website

Driberg, Jack H. 1923. The Lango: A Nilotic Tribe of Uganda. London: T.~Fisher Unwin. 470pp. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I said that a language borrowing words from another language doesn't make it from the same language family as the former why are you lying and putting words in my mouth? You yourself said that Lango has Ateker words I said even if it did that doesn't make it an Ateker language I never even agreed to that in the first place. I clearly gave you your two evidence Ethnologue and Linguistic research which is the last pdf I sent. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Please read what you stated. You said the fact that Lango has loanwords - I did not put that words in your mouth. It means you know that Lango language and Kumam have mixtures of dialects. Ngunalik (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

No what I said that loan words from Ateker doesn't make it an Ateker language and I gave the example of Persian. You clearly are here just to argue and cause drama, I don't have time for this but all I can say is that none of your sources are reliable and I provided you with the last pdf done by linguistic research that backs up my claim that Lango and Kumam are both Southern Luo languages and not Ateker languages. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

How can a language be spoken as Luo and not be Luo? That doesn't make sense at all. All earlier academic research by linguists who actually studied the language classified it as a Southern Luo language and not an Ateker language. If the realization that Lango and Kumam are Ateker languages Ethnologue and other linguists like J Leclerc would have announced it and changed the language classification of these two languages as did happen with the Kadu languages of Nilo Saharan for example when it was realized they are Nilo Saharan languages or the Nara language when it was reclassified as a Northern Eastern Sudanic language and not Eastern Sudanic like Nilotic languages. The thing is not all linguists agree that Kumam and lango are ateker languages and the most held mainstream opinion is that Lango and Kumam are Western Nilotic languages of the Southern Luo branch and closely related. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

we dont do primary sources. (not an admin, but commenting) Babysharkboss2 was here!! 22:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) That's not true. At the risk of muddying the waters even further, primary sources can be used, but in limited circumstances. Secondary sources are still vastly preferred over primary. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Tenryuu I did not even know this. As I said I have not quoted primary research. Thanks Ngunalik (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• Gods of chaos, this is ridiculous; more bytes have been expended in this thread than in the three articles in the OP combined. Given that neither of them seem inclined to give an inch, and that they'd otherwise continue this tennis match indefinitely, I propose an immediate interaction ban between Ngunalik and Cookiemonster1618. Either they have made their case or they have not, but it is high time they dropped the damn sticks and let some very patient admin sort it out. Ravenswing 02:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  (commenting, as a non-admin) I second what Ravenswing has suggested! a interaction ban between the two. Though, I believe a topic ban would also suffice. Babysharkboss2 was here!! 02:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  Please no topic ban for me im begging. I have already finished with my points for this discussion but please don't do a topic ban because it is nor fair as admins haven't conducted any action on this dispute. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Ngunalik [P]lease don't do a topic ban because it is nor fair as admins haven't conducted any action on this dispute. The topic ban would be the action on the dispute. If your conduct in a topic is causing disruption to the project (which it is), then a topic ban is a reasonable remedy. —C.Fred (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  These editors have wasted enough of the community's and our admin's time. I agree with @C.Fred that a topic ban is a reasonable remedy, in fact, I dare say the best remedy for both editors. Neither seems to understand the concept of a reliable source for use, even in discussions, on Wikipedia. Whether it be a travel guide, blogs and self-published sources or primary sources used to "verify" contentious content, both show a complete lack of ability to edit in a constructive and collegial manner on this topic. Both are exhibiting WP:IDHT and WP:CIR behavior and a complete lack of understanding what this page is for, nay, what this encyclopedia is for. This is not a battleground of ideas where editors war against each other to get what they want. I think it's time they go find something else to edit and the community, with admin support, can help them do that. --ARoseWolf 12:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• It seems that neither Cookiemonster1618 nor Ngunalik understand what this board is for. It is not a place to resolve content disputes, as the two of them have done extensively further up in this thread; it is to examine issues of editor conduct. The absence of diffs, notwithstanding a link to a previous discussion, makes it hard for admins to examine exactly what responses are being considered inappropriate. For example, Cookiemonster1618 earlier up asking Ngunalik [a]re [they] blind would essentially be a personal attack, which is sanctionable.
  Assuming both parties leave unscathed, they'd do best to refrain from discussing the content here and saving it for another venue like the dispute resolution noticeboard (which, alas, will not intervene until the issue here is resolved, one way or another). In short, they should stick to what they find objectionable from each other in terms of behavioural conduct and provide linked diffs for admins to examine in this thread.
  For future reference, if edit warring is present that should go to the edit warring noticeboard, not here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Tenryuu good morning. If you see above in the thread, I did not want to engage in lenthy conversations with 1618 however C.Fred stated that we should discuss this through which is why I responded. Also I did not bring this here it was 1618 who brought it. Everything I am being attacked for are already built up or were already built up by other editors not me alone, but I am the onlyone being attacked in here.

  Right now there is a big confusion and inconsistencies in Lango language page vs Lango people’s page vs Ateker page.

  The Lango language page as edited by 1618 is stating that Lango is a Luo languge; but the Lango people’s page is saying that this group belongs to Lango race aka Ateker strongly linked to Koromajong, Kumam Teso etc. They are also known as Nilo-Hamites. None of these is a Luo race or Lwo ethnic group.

  We cannot say their language is Luo but their ethnicity is Ateker that is why the editor 1618 went and deleted Lango and Kumam from the Ateker people’s page citing no evidence to date.

  Me and other editors had corrected all those confusion by stating that some past linguists had wrongly grouped Lango and Kumam languages under Luo language but it is not exclusively a Luo/Lwo language – There are citations already to back this up and it is still in Wikipedia on the Lango people's page e.g. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41856972

  The above researchers had stated that this group Lango speak Luo but with elements of Hamitic (Ateker) which is their language. Many researchers are not calling Lango or Kumam a Luo language but use words such as closely related to Luo language because they borrowed Lwo words over the years due to close proximity e.g “Noonan (1992) discovered this same difficulty in determining the high vowels in his acoustic study of Lango, a closely related language to Luo.”

  Even some of the links 1618 posted in this thread says the same phrase such as closely related to Luo instead of calling it a Luo language.

  I leave this now for the administrators to deal with it. Thank you ~~ Ngunalik (talk) 10:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  You did not want to engage in lengthy conversations with the OP, yet you did it anyway and contributed to the walls of text above. Everything past Everything I am being attacked for are already built up or were already built up by other editors not me alone, but I am the onlyone [sic] being attacked in here was unnecessary for the purposes of examining editor conduct.
  What you two did makes it frustrating for admins to decide on a decision, and quite a few may elect to just skip over it for being TL;DR material. Most editors at this venue (myself included) do not care about this particular subject; they care about the behaviour that involved parties exhibit, and which instances are considered objectionable to the site's policies. Basically, while the article that you're talking about may provide context, whoever has the more convincing arguments does not necessarily absolve them from any disciplinary action, and in the worst case may be seen as using them as distractions to take focus away from what this noticeboard is supposed to be doing.

  however C.Fred stated that we should discuss this through which is why I responded
  What C.Fred suggested was that [he]'d like to see both Cookiemonster1618 and [you] work together (emphasis in original), which does not mean bringing content disputes to this thread. Again, that is more appropriate for the article's talk page, or seeing how the disagreement's gotten to this point, the dispute resolution noticeboard.

  So far none of the involved parties have submitted diffs. If there is behaviour either side finds problematic, then it should be easy to find and show to others. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think either editor is knowledgable enough about Wikipedia to provide diffs. Which is concerning and may need its own sanctions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• Both editors seem to be continuing their feud whilst this matter is still being discussed, In this edit, earlier today, Cookiemonster1618 reverts Ngunalik's previous edit, and at User talk:Arjayay#Luo peoples Ngunalik tries to get a third party (me) to make the changes for him. I think something more than just an interaction ban is called for - Arjayay (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Continuing their feud where? Where did i argue with Ngunalik? Can you please show me where? I haven't even replied to this discussion since two days ago. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 13:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  That wasn't even a feud lmao I was correcting a term that is incorrect and I had the right to. Since when was correcting words a violation of an interaction ban? Arjayay do you even know what the difference between an interaction ban and a topic ban? The admins didn't even send me a notification on my talk page of the topic ban and interaction ban. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Cookiemonster1618, I suggest YOU read WP:IBAN, which includes "Alice would not be allowed to:" "undo Bob's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means" - this is exactly what you did - as stated in your edit summary "Reverted edits by Ngunalik " - Arjayay (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  I did so because it was not a correct word and is not appropriate so i had the right to and the interaction ban was not imposed at the time so I'm fine. Arjayay take a break. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed remedy: two-way interaction ban between Cookiemonster1618 and Ngunalik

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

---

Ravenswing mentioned it above, but I'm going to break it out and formally propose it here:

Cookiemonster1618 and Ngunalik are indefinitely banned from interacting with each other, subject to the usual exceptions. Based on how discussion at the administrators' noticedboard thread proceeded, it is in the project's best interest to sever interaction between the two, including—and especially—on articles where their edits to this point have created content disputes. Both editors are further warned that any edits after the sanction takes effect that give the impression they are using the sanction to disrupt or prevent the other from editing (i.e. "staking a claim") may draw additional sanctions. Either party may appeal after the sanction has been in place for six months, or six months after that individual editor's last unsuccessful appeal.

Thinking ahead to how it needs worded in the WP:Editing restrictions log if it is approved by the community. —C.Fred (talk) 12:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support - Anything to get these two focused on editing something else. I hope they both will do a little more reading of Wikipedia content policy, with a focus on sourcing, and policy on how to interact with others when there is a conflict. It affectively accomplishes the goal of a topic ban by addressing the immediate disruptive behavior. I really hope this is the last we see of both on this board. --ARoseWolf 12:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Support, i think that'll work! (non-admin voting) Babysharkboss2 was here!! 13:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

This section is for discussion about the proposed interaction ban
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why are you here if your not an admin? This is for admins to decide not you. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC) Anyone can comment here, as this is a community request. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC) well she was voicing an opinion when in my opinion it's not her place to be deciding when she isn't an admin. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC) Hi Cookiemonster1618, this discussion is around a WP:CBAN, which states, (emphasis mine) [T]he community may impose [..] [an] interaction ban via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC) Cookiemonster1618, the highest position anyone can hold in the community is "editor". Every other position on the project works in support of the work of the community editors. You do not 'advance' to any position on the project. An arbitrator does not outrank an admin does not outrank an extended confirmed editor does not outrank an editor. --ARoseWolf 14:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC) im just here to give feedback, and try and find a resolve. sorry. Babysharkboss2 was here!! 14:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC) You owe no one an apology. From one editor to another, thank you for offering positive feedback. --ARoseWolf 14:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC) @C.Fred I request you to consider whether my edits caused content disputes or it is just only this individual who is fighting me, yet everything I stated have already been written or mentioned in those pages by other editors. Also wikipedia stated that these pages have a lot of issues already they requested editors to help. Then only this editor 1618 who is attacking me using languages that is not appropriate on me. Even when I said I did not want to engage with this individual, I was asked to do so, therefore why am I being sanctioned? Clearly if anything it should have been this individual 1618, there is evidence that 1618 has been causing edit wars in other platforms NOT me, exactly the same problems, they delete edits from pages and what is causing the problem is all about ethnolouge. That if something is not in ethnologue then it should be deleted. Please check the problmes that this individual has caused as well and weigh it whether I should be dragged along. Ngunalik (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC) I also apologize to all of you especially those who have been following this since yesterday. It must have been very tiring. My sincere apologies. Ngunalik (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC) also, Ngunalik, I was back reading, and found this: " Everything I am being attacked for are already built up or were already built up by other editors not me alone, but I am the only one being attacked in here.", your not the only one being 'attacked', nobody here is being attacked. this is a dispute between editors, if people were being attacked, it'd be more then one person. (also, sorry for the green text, idk how people get the dark-green text when quoting another user, or text from a page, so I just used <color span>) Babysharkboss2 was here!! 14:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC) about that, I checked out one of your recent edits that was revetered by Cookiemonster1618, Ngunalik, and they have a point. In THIS edit summery, they point out that blogs aren't reliable sources. they are correct, by reverting your edits. You may be doing the opposite, or something else is happening on another page, but this looks like 1618 was just reverting your poor sources. so while I take back my initial statement that a topic-ban should be the solution, I now believe that by seeing both of your edits, a simple 6-month interaction ban may suffice. Babysharkboss2 was here!! 14:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC) Thank you Babusjarlbpss2 and to all of you working on this issue. I have been extremely busy on other engagements so what I will try to do from now on is invite other editors to check the references whether they are reliable or not. I do not mind really if I post somethings and editors improve on it or add further citations. I also think it is not polite to delete peoples edits whilst we can give them opportunity to add further citations. Thanks once again Ngunalik (talk) Ngunalik (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC) @Ngunalik Yes, I do think your edits contributed heavily to the content dispute. You do bring up a point that you were initially unwilling to collaborate. In light of that, an interaction ban may not be the most appropriate sanction. Would you voluntarily accept a six-month topic ban from peoples and languages of east and northeast Africa, broadly construed, in place of the indefinite interaction ban? —C.Fred (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC) What point did I bring which I was initially unwilling to colloborate on? I did not bring this topic here, it was the other editor 1618. When I asked for evidenc upto now there is no evidence of a source pertaining to the ethnicity of Lango or Kumam. What I did not want to engage in was the bad language like calling me names e.g. "ignorant", "have no idea", "go and do more research etc". Then it was you who pointed out that this editor brought unreliable source as well. Another editor Uncle G said they found out that it was 1618 that is adding edits without sourcing them. All of these is in this thread. No it would not be fair to ban me from a topic. I accept indefinite ban of interacting with this individual. The disruption that this individual has done on the pages show that there is now no conistency. I only checked these pages to bring about consistency since the articles said they are the same group. Ngunalik (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC) Infact C.Fred and other editors said whatever I was being accused of by editor 1618 was unfounded - there was no evidence. You said this editor 1618 has done it before and most of you voted against. So what wrong have I done again? It was not only travel guide I had added, I had added monitor article and others which have now been deleted. The sort of attacks and language that this individual has used on me, most people would not accept this. Then I am the one that should get banned, where is justice in this? Ngunalik (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC) it was deleted because it was a poor source, which is good! We wouldn't want an unreliable Wikipedia article, would we? Babysharkboss2 was here!! 15:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC) @Babysharksboss2 other sources were also deleted apart from the travel guide which is what I am saying. There were other sources I quoted too apart from travel guide. Thanks Ngunalik (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC) The other source was deleted because they were not credible sources that are used to justify your edits at Wikipedia. The source mentioned that Lango and Kumam have been influenced by Ateker languages and that there is ongoing research done to see if there is any connection between Lango and Kumam with the Ateker languages. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC) I'm not going to reply to Ngunalik and let the admins and others handle this. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC) my brother/sister/other in christ, Cookiemonster1618, you started this thread and report! I dont think you can just "nope out" and leave others to find a solution. Killroy was here Babysharkboss2 was here!! 16:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC) I'm not leaving out im just tired from replying to them and their lies about me. Also I'm not Christian and Ngunalik has seen the last source i sent 7 hours ago but they are still continuing to deny these evidences presented i even sent a main citation from Glottolog and they did not accept it and said that non of these point to Lango and Kumam being southern luo languages. I honestly think they are just here to waste my time and there's and create more disputes and arguments that are not necessary for this thread. I have peovided all my evidences they asked for and yet they did not accept it particularly the last pdf and Glottolog and they did not accept it. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC) i didn't mean the "my brother/sister/other in Christ" religiously, I just meant it as a term. Babysharkboss2 was here!! 16:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC) Id appreciate it if that term isnt used because i dont want to cause more problems here in this thread and be accused of a phobia :) I have no problem with the name Jesus Christ in general but for the sake of being civil and not causing another problem just dont call me your brother. Thank you for understanding. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC) Good point, my apologies. I did not mean to offend or anything anyone. Babysharkboss2 was here!! 16:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC) 1618 replaced my citations with https://minorityrights.org/country/uganda/ other editors have already pointed this before in summary that this source is not relable. Would you say it is reliable? Ngunalik (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC) this isn't the place to ask if a link is reliable. Do we have enough votes (only two people voted, but the threads continued), to reach a decision? Babysharkboss2 was here!! 16:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC) Also I'm a Male. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Babysharkboss2: Wikipedia doesn't operate on votes. It is determined by whether a consensus among editors has been established. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

thats what i meant (reffering to oppose, support, etc), but I know I could've worded it better. thanks. Babysharkboss2 was here!! 16:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Support: obviously, and I expect the interaction ban to apply here as well. Should this thread stagger on, neither should be replying to what the other might have to say. Ravenswing 17:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Support. These editors may both benefit from taking the focus off one another, but based on the back and forth above, a restriction seems to be needed to accomplish this. —siroχo 17:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Weak oppose. It's idealistic of me to hope that these two don't get sanctioned here and find an experienced editor over at the DRN willing to mediate. However, given how passionate both of them are, along with bystander observations of potential unreliable sourcing, I'd recommend a light temporary topic ban for the both of them if action is being taken. I am not sure that preventing the two of them from interacting with one another is going to alleviate disruptive editing in that area of the encyclopedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Support as these two can't seem to leave each other alone, or resist the urge to argue article content here instead of sticking to the behavioral issues. I suspect a topic ban from articles related to Africa may be necessary for Ngunalik, but we can start here. Also WP:TROUT Cookiemonster1618 for his very aggressive behavior in this dispute. Getting frustrated is one thing, but a lot of the language used is just antagonistic. Finally, both are risking WP:CIR blocks for their complete inability to understand our WP:RS requirements. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Just so you know Ngunalik has since June been editing at Lango people. I brought Minority Rights source to add that the Lango are related to other Nilotic peoples and they removed Nilotic and added Nilo- Hamites without a source back than. This same pattern than changed and later they added related to Ateker peoples so my question is do they at least know if Lango are related to Nilo Hamites or Ateker peoples who are Eastern Nilotic peoples?. Also i havent cited that pdf you said was not reliable i just brought it and you said it was unreliable so i discarded it and than i brough 2 more pdf sources in which the last one you havent checked and than i cited an online reference from Glottolog proving that Lango is a Southern Luo language and you didnt see it also. So my question is how can you claim that i will be getting blocked for sending unreliable sources when i discarded that source and sent a new reliable one?. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Please don't use this section to argue content. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Cookiemonster, do you get that this is your thirty-fourth comment to this thread?? You said in the third comment that you rested your case. On the offchance you were unclear on the subject, we do not weigh ANI disputes by volume. Your complete unwillingness to drop the bloody stick already is what's running you towards an interaction ban, and I'd be entirely willing to support a topic ban on you at this point. Ravenswing 04:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I thought hatting the back and forth between those two in this section would be a clue. I guess not a strong enough one. Is it possible to amend the IB proposal and add a topic ban? I'm beginning to think the IB won't stop the disruption entirely. An indefinite TB would be temporary (indefinite is not infinite) and allow them a chance to evaluate their own behavior throughout this discussion, acknowledge their own issues, and explain the corrective action they will take separate from the IB. --ARoseWolf 11:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. Other users, particularly HandThatFeeds, have noted that their citation of reliable sources is suspect. Even if both of them were forbidden from interacting with each other, how they're using sources would be problematic and out of scope of any interaction ban. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I have not been involved in this thread, but after reading it, I have a headache. the interaction ban would lead to less headaching. DrowssapSMM (talk) (contributions) 19:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Support, very balanced and impartial. UnironicEditor (talk) 06:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  that makes 8 supports, 1 weak oppose. I think this is enough to reach a consensus to close this, and either topic-ban and/or a interaction ban. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Shoot to thrill) (Play to Kill) 16:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• Weak oppose the problem here seems to be Cookiemonster1618 and Cookiemonster1618 alone. This should perhaps be a WP:TROUT'ing or a one way interaction ban on Cookiemonster1618 at most. TarnishedPath^talk 13:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Additional proposed remedy: topic ban from E/NE African peoples and languages

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

---

Given concerns raised above about sourcing, I also put forward an additional sanction separate from the above:

Cookiemonster1618 and Ngunalik banned from the topics of eastern and northeastern African peoples and languages, broadly construed, to include all discussions at talk pages, user talk pages, and noticeboards, for three months. Violation of the ban will result in a sitewide block to the offending user for the longer of the remaining time of the ban or one month.

I agree with the community's concerns that this providers the users time and opportunity to get familiar with sourcing in areas where there are reliable sources that may be more readily found and prevent further disruption. —C.Fred (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Strong support, if the threads above are any indication. They should consider getting a mentor willing to help them discern what reliable sources are. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Support: Especially on Cookiemonster1618, whose inability to sit down and stop arguing does not suggest they're capable of collaborative efforts. Ravenswing 20:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Support for both. This has been intractable, and I do not see either editor truly giving up in this area until they're forced to, even with the IBAN above. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Support for both. I hope both users take this time to become familiar with what a reliable source is and how to use it properly. It also gives them a chance to evaluate their conduct throughout this and other talk page discussions which has been appalling. The bludgeoning of discussions has reached absurd levels. --ARoseWolf 14:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

(Non-admin voting) STRONG support, seeing what Ngunalik wrote on HandThatFeeds's talk page, and what was said on here, I think it's justified. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Shoot to thrill) (Play to Kill) 15:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support for both, given discussions above and below. TarnishedPath^talk 03:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support Easy one. It's all heat and no light. A break from a topic in which it's so difficult for either to edit constructively would be helpful for the topic and frankly, for both of them as it lowers the chance of an INDEF. They couldn't even slight feign comity within the ANI discussion about the behaviors. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think a TBAN is enough in the case of User:Cookiemonster1618. They continue to make uncivil edit summaries[1] ("Why are you lying?") and frivolous vandalism reports[2] in what clearly is a content dispute with a very patient editor. –Austronesier (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  That was not an uncivil edit summary. I was responding to his edit because he did lie in that edit summary when he said reference number e25 doesn't work when it does. That is not a personal attack that was a sincere question. I also have discussed with Pathawi about it and he agreed. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  They said in their edit over here [[3]] that the reference link "e25" doesn't work when it does. I then responded in the next edit summary asking why he is lying which is a valid question that was free from personal attacks. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  And now they say that User:Pathawi accused them of lying[4] when @Pathawi only said that they cannot open a link that apparently works for @Cookiemonster1618. This needs to stop. –Austronesier (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  I did not say that Pathawi accused me of lying. I am answering your accusation against me for making personal attacks against Pathawi when I was explaining to you what happened. Please do not make up stories without understanding what actually happened. Thank you. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Cookiemonster1618 Let me quote your edit summary verbatim: I was responding to his accusation saying I lied against him when he is the one who lied in one of his edit summaries. If you did not say Pathawi accused you of lying, please explain that edit summary. —C.Fred (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  in their edit over here [[5]] they claim that reference number e25 doesn't work, when it does. In the next summary they start saying they were surprised that I "accused" them of lying, when it wasn't really an accusation but a question. I asked why he was lying, it seemed that I did not ask "Why are you lying saying the reference doesn't work?" Which is what I should have wrote and they probably did not understand my full question. In their previous edit they claimed that the reference number e25 from Ethnologue doesn't work when it does. I then I explained in the next edit summary that it does. This is not an accusation or personal attack against Pathawi but a question to his previous edit [[6]]. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Cookiemonster1618 Yes, it is. "Lying" carries the connotation of intentional dishonesty, when this is a situation where cached pages, cookies, account access levels, or any number of other technical factors causes links to work differently for different people. By choosing the word "lying", you have turned a question about why the link isn't working into an accusation of intentional deception. —C.Fred (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  In this revision Pathawi notes that the redirect only works if a user is logged in, and invites Cookiemonster1618 to try it without being logged in. For what it's worth, the e25 link doesn't work for me when I click on it; it only sends me to an error page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  As it happens, the e25 link didn't work for me either. If you do not get that accusing someone of lying is a personal attack, you don't have the competence to edit Wikipedia. Full stop. Ravenswing 20:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  My apologies but it seems that you guys are accusing me of making a personal attack against Pathawi when what i asked was valid because in their previous edit summary they said that the link doesn't work when it does because any reference number you add on an infobox for a language on wikipedia will direct you to Ethnologue unless there's a bug bot problem or something of that sort. I have noticed that sometimes the reference numbers does not work and i remove the reference numbers and add reference number 26 for 2023 instead. If this is the case for what is happening to Pathawi than i apologize. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Cookiemonster1618 Again, to suggest an editor is intentionally lying when they are not is a personal attack. To accuse an editor of vandalism when they make a good-faith edit is a personal attack. So, taking into account your AIV report, that's two actions by you that are legitimately viewed as personal attacks.

  You've got a choice. You can acknowledge that your comments came across as a personal attack so we can move forward from this, or you can double down on your position that there was nothing wrong with your comments and hope that an admin doesn't block you sitewide under a growing list of possible reasons that have been brought up here (WP:NPA, WP:CIR…). —C.Fred (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  I apologize for attacking Pathawi and this would not happen again. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: CBAN against Cookiemonster1618

This has been building for a week now, but given their repeated bludgeoning behavior, their refusal to drop sticks, and their personal attacks as admitted above against more than one editor, it just doesn't look like Cookiemonster1618 has the competence necessary to cooperate with other editors in a collaborative environment. It's time, unfortunately, for a CBAN. Ravenswing 20:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support: as proposer. Ravenswing 20:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wrong tool in the toolbox. User has acknowledged the personal attack was unacceptable, which is a step forward. Obviously, administrators have the blocking policy at their disposal if future actions by this user make that necessary. CBAN feels just a little too nuclear-option at this stage of the game. —C.Fred (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Request for interaction ban enforcement against Ngunalik

Can an uninvolved admin take a look at this edit? I think Ngunalik is in clear breach of their interaction ban as a result, but I'd like fresh eyes and voices involved. —C.Fred (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi everyone.

Wikipedia states what I am allowed

Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, e.g. addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. Examples include:

asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban

I raised my concern for clarification in C.Fred talk page, I am asking @C.Fred to link this to his full response for my query. Everything was already raised in this forum, there is nothing new. I was simply pointing where I said things and asked him to check if he can see it, because I think I have been misunderstood. ThanksNgunalik (talk) 13:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The only thing misunderstood is that you are no longer allowed to interact with or even discuss User:Cookiemonster1618. I was willing to overlook the violation on my talk page the other day, but this new post to C.Fred's Talk is now the second time you've brought up Cookiemonster1618's edits, so ... — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

whats the punishment for breaking an interaction-ban? Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Shoot to thrill) (Play to Kill) 16:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Depends on severity, anywhere from a warning to a temporary block to an indef. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I get that you want to defend yourself against a possible topic ban, Ngunalik, but with the interaction ban in place and your insistence that your woes are entirely Cookiemonster's fault, your best bet is to do the same thing I suggested to Cookiemonster that they do: sit down, stay quiet, let other editors discuss the merits, and accept their consensus. Your continuing repetitive, argumentative posts is no more a better look than were Cookiemonster's. Ravenswing 03:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin, as requested. I agree that the edit is an IBAN violation, although a bit close to the border. Defending oneself against a TBAN is legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, but Ngunalik's comments exceeded what was necessary for that defense. I would probably just warn for that, but then I noticed that, after C.Fred. started this subthread, Ngunalik contacted six editors to invite them to participate in this talkpage discussion, itself filed after the IBAN was enacted (but a few hours before C.Fred started this subthread). That talkpage discussion concerns the categorization of Lango people as Nilotic versus Hamitic, and as related to the Ateker versus the Luo, two things that Ngunalik and Cookiemonster have edit-warred over. The talkpage post solicits the invited editors to restore Ngunalik's edits, i.e. to revert Cookiemonster. I don't see any way to view this other than as gaming the IBAN—asking others to make a revert that they cannot. Given the explicit warning against gaming at the time of the IBAN's enactment, plus the fact that they were already on notice about potential IBAN violations and still contacted editors to point them toward the talkpage discussion, I am blocking Ngunalik for 72 hours. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 19:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a reasoned and quite restrained response. Thank you, @Tamzin. I think this user is approaching WP:IDHT territory. Every editor that has had contact has tried to help them. These edits are a clear gaming of the IBAN. I can understand defending yourself but the other editor is also in the same position and subject to the same restrictions. They have to find a way to do so without mentioning each other. The TBAN proposal was not as a result of their interaction but specific edits and editorial behavior. When Ngunalik specifically brought up Cookiemonster in the discussion referenced as opposed to the edits made it crossed that line. And the editor was warned of that. They were also warned about gaming by one of the users they wrote. Still they wanted to argue. I hope the 72 hour block will get their attention. --ARoseWolf 15:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

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

47.218.111.38 is a sock for Thespeedoflightneverchanges

47.218.111.38 just confirmed to me off-wiki that he is User: Thespeedoflightneverchanges, who was blocked back in July for disruptive editing. Feel free to run a checkuser to confirm, but the pattern of editing, including the same kind of broken English, make this pretty clear. See that user's contributions, as well as the recent block of NelsonMandelaBarnes and events on Talk:Elissa Slotkin for context. Should definitely be indeffed in my view. Cpotisch (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I know I was blocked and in fact have long done with wikipedia until User:Cpotisch tell me what happened here, and I think there are something insanely unfair on the talk page so I have to speak it out. Anyway, that account and this ip is the only two access I have to wikipedia. So don't touch anyone else because I don't want others to be harmed by what I am doing just because they happen to see my tweet or is editting the same page. 47.218.111.38 (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Also before the inevitable block I hope User:Cpotisch can speak for the fairness and stop User:Dcpoliticaljunkiefrom ome insanely biased or even lying edits, like claiming Slotkin only moved away in August while the source says February or deleting the content provided by the Detroit News about her pushing a bill that the donor she leased room from directly benefits from. 47.218.111.38 (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for block evasion because, well, yeah, and NelsonMandelaBarnes as a sock based on behavioral evidence. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Dispute in Falling from Grace (film) article

Since May of last year, I have had a dispute with Fourthords (talk · contribs) over the content on the Falling from Grace (film) article. It went from looking like this on September 20, 2020, to its current status today, it's almost a stub article. Granted, the September 2020 iteration of the article had its issues: the plot summary is a little long, the table for the cast is unnecessary, along with the character descriptions and there are entire paragraphs that were unreferenced in the reception section. But to completely revamp the article to its current status is a bit much. What's even more frustrating is that Fourthords hardly allows any constructive edits on the article. Even when I tried adding information from the film's own poster, he removes it because of "verifiability", even though adding such information like that is not controversial. Fourthords cites a rule here and a rule there, to justify his actions skating on WP:OWN territory. His dominance on the article says it all in the revision history, hardly any edits outside of his own are allowed. Here's a link to my previous discussions with this user, for reference: Talk:Falling from Grace (film)#unexplained edits and others. QuasyBoy (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

QuasyBoy, you've had 18 months to find a source for Dennis Virkler being the editor. Instead, you've borne a grudge. It took me a minute to find a review in the NYT that verifies Virkler's role in the filmmaking. If you want to improve the article, use this reliable source and go and find others. If someone objects to you adding unreferenced content, listen to them or follow dispute resolution. I can't see the need for admin action here. Fences&Windows 16:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

So I need a reference to verify a editor for a film, when that information can be found on the film poster? Should every name on the infobox have a reference attached to it, too? The article in its current form is mess, especially with the missing necessary information compared to other film articles. QuasyBoy (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, once someone objects to the inclusion of uncited information, you need a source for it. This is the mechanism by which Wikipedia fights the entropy of people adding every random thing that they personally believe to be true. --JBL (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

That's a great source, thanks! I've mined it to expand the article. I couldn't find any specific prohibition against editing the article while it and I're under discussion here, but if it was against SOP, I apologize in advance. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Those edits you made are a good start. However, on the infobox, per the film poster, Larry McMurtry is credited as a writer, there is no "Story by" credit for him. As a matter of fact, I hardly hear of a film or television production with just a "Story by" credit only. It is customary for there to be a "Story by" credit with a "Screenplay by" or "Teleplay by" credit for the writers. The actors listed on the infobox should also reflect the names on the film poster, as well (per Template:Infobox film), Larry Crane is not listed on the film poster. Little B Pictures should listed under studio, Columbia Pictures then distributed the film. These were all edits I made on the article prior to you reverting them, I'm just making this clear to you again. QuasyBoy (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

User:QuasyBoy expressed their desire for my participation here, though I don't know what to say that isn't already explained at Talk:Falling from Grace (film). I'm also surprised at this venue, eschewing both discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability (the policy at the heart of our preexisting discussion), as well as any formal & codified dispute resolution process, though I certainly don't wish to stymie their efforts. Given this page's obviously-frequent traffic, please forgive me if I don't catch any replies or updates here as quickly as expected. Thanks, all! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 07:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I've added some sources to the talk page, hope they will help. Isaidnoway (talk) 🍁 10:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Buffy Sainte-Marie

BLP problem on the wrong noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Yann

Yann, a well-respected Wikipedia editor, has been adding YouTube clips with Israeli subtitles to Disney Channel sitcom pages such as Bunk'd, Raven's Home, and Secrets of Sulphur Springs (both English and French versions). Yann argues these clips visually represent the shows for newcomers. However, I am concerned about these additions, as they provide little new information and could be irrelevant to most readers. I am suggesting a review by administrators, a discussion with Yann, and alternative suggestions to not only improve the articles, but also suit both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrickMaster02 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@BrickMaster02: (Non-administrator comment) As the text in the red box near the top of the page states, you must notify the user in question on their talk page. I have done so for you this time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) WP:YTCOPYRIGHT may be a problem, and a serious one. Narky Blert (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Note: AIV report by BrickMaster02. Charcoal feather (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

BrickMaster02, nothing we like more than hunting for diffs and userlinks!

• Yann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bunk'd (Diff ~1186171449)
• Raven's Home (Diff ~1186224476)
• Secrets of Sulphur Springs (Diff ~1186221613)

Files that were added:

• c:File:קיקיוואקה- המחנה החדש - קן לציפור - Bunk'd- Learning the Ropes.webm
• c:File:הבית של רייבן -חופשה באירופה - Raven's Home.webm
• c:File:הסודות של סאלפר ספרינגס - תחרות כשרונות - Secrets of Sulphur Springs.webm

@Yann, why are these videos so tiny? 256×144 when the original is 1080p.
These videos were shared by https://www.youtube.com/@DisneyChannelIsrael which is verified on YouTube. Some obvious possible outcomes for this discussion:

• Commons decides the license is unintentional/accidental and deletes the files. (have they already discussed DisneyChannelIsrael?)
• English Wikipedia decides the license is unintentional/accidental and disallows using these files.
• Commons blurs the subtitles or crops the video so they're no longer part of the picture. (and hopefully imports the 1080p version in the process..)
• We say "meh" and just allow this.

But the comment BrickMaster02 made on AIV that these clips "do not add anything new to the articles" is obviously false. They add a lot: they portray the kind of humor, visual style, show various actors, their voice, and help to identify the actual show: if you've watched the clip, you may recognize the show when it happens to be on. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, but I personally don't really see a need for that, as no other articles for these shows feature clips that give a visualization. And yes, I know that claim is not really allowed on this site, but that's what I was leaning towards. BrickMaster02 (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Something to consider for the case of Disney Channel Israel is where the IP actually sits. If Disney Channel Israel is owned by a subsidiary of Disney (such as The Walt Disney Company EMEA, whose website is linked from [7]), I'm not exactly sure what entity the IP sits in, or what the IP-sharing licensing agreement is between firms. But would those agreements permit the subsidiary to enter into a worldwide agreement that permits for re-use of Disney IP? Most of these sorts of structures are very careful regarding where the IP can be re-used, and I'd frankly be a bit shocked if Disney EMEA is intentionally putting these sorts of things up under a CC attribution license through merely its Israeli station. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

If we have an article on a TV show and manage to get an episode of that TV show on Commons, then yes of course we should include it. It's... the subject. Anyone can nominate them for deletion on Commons if they want to, but that's purely a Commons issue and not one that needs to be discussed here. Likewise, I see no reason not to upload the higher resolution versions, but that's also something that can be handled on Commons. Characterizing adding videos of a TV program to articles about that TV program as vandalism is the only thing inappropriate here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I will admit labeling them as "vandalism" was another huge mistake on my part, and I really should've cooperated better, instead of what I did. BrickMaster02 (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@BrickMaster02: At the very least, I expect an apology.

I maintain that these short extracts are valuable to the articles. If removed, I would like to a valid reason. Yann (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@Yann, I'm afraid this is accidental. For the live action series (all three examples that were given here are live action) an argument could be made that Disney wants people to meme the crap out of them and live action footage doesn't lend itself too well to the creation of a new work that could compete with the original. But animated series like The Ghost and Molly McGee [8] and Hamster & Gretel [9] are also Creative Commons, so anyone could reuse the characters seen in those clips, print them on t-shirts, make their own spin-off series or webcomic, etc.
While one might argue that trademarks could also protect those characters, that's a risky idea. (and would Disney trademark every minor supporting character?) I'd argue that Disney shouldn't worry about the copyright expiration of Steamboat Willie because that Mickey Mouse looks outdated anyway. But the current versions of characters being freely licensed? No, I don't think so. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

In a similar case Wikimedia France reached out to Ubisoft. Ping @Shai-WMIL and @Ruti-WMIL: any chance Wikimedia Israel could reach out to https://www.disney.co.il/ ?
Discussion on Commons: c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#CC-BY license on YouTube videos by Disney Channel Israel. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

There have been several discussions on Commons about free license by big companies. Some files were deleted, but current discussions (also [10], [11]) lean towards undeletion. Please come to Commons if you want to discuss this.

It is significant that Disney Channel Israel only released short extracts in small resolution. IMO this is a good marketing strategy. People interested will go to Disney Channel to watch the whole series. Yann (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Please come to Commons if you want to discuss this. Thanks for the invitation, but that probably wouldn't be good for my health. The resolution is not "small" in my eyes. The resolution you uploaded is, but 1080p is available from the source. While your argument could hold true for live action, animated series are completely different. If you believe this is legit, start selling lunchboxes with Spongebob and Disney characters printed on them and the CC BY license on the bottom. You'll be a millionaire. Do you remember Marco Verch? He did it on purpose, but things will go down about the same way with this.
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Spongebob Squarepants is now freely licensed! — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I doubt Disney's Israeli affiliate has the right to relicense the work. In practice this would mean that Disney has stopped selling rights to broadcast these works to television channels, which would seem a very unlikely thing for them to doing with their back catalogue. I imagine if you ran a cable channel and wanted to broadcast these without permission they would lawyer up big time. Secretlondon (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

At this point, this doesn't seem to be a chronic/unmanageable behavioral problem involving Yann. There's perhaps a question of what to do policy-wise here, but might that be a discussion better suited for WP:VPP than ANI? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Uncouth behavior by IP

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

---

2800:150:141:1AE9:4D0B:45E7:23AE:16BD made these uncouth, uncivilized and WP:NOTHERE remarks in response to a legitimate comment on Talk:2023 Dublin riot on NPOV, vandalism and false editing by anonymous IPs: [12] Asking for immediate action to be taken to prevent such disgusting users from abusing this site again. Borgenland (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

A diff would have been fine - did you really have to quote the whole thing? One edit by the IP, even if you expand to the /64 range, isn't worth doing anything at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

It's a single stale edit by an IP. Just remove it from the talk page and move on. Also, if behavior is disgusting it's not great to replicate it in whole at the most visible meta location on-wiki. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

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

199.180.167.20

Said anonymous user from New Hampshire, has been fighting with me over the Great Western 90 locomotive page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Western_90&action=history

He never provided any actual sources regarding No. 90 being taken out of service by the end of 2023 or early 2024. 611fan2001 (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

IP blocked from the page for one week for edit warring. Maybe that'll force discussion on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

He provided 2 sources and was just reverted every time. Did the sources not say what he claimed? Secretlondon (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

He used out of date sources from late 2022 and early 2023. 611fan2001 (talk) 03:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive and abusive behaviour by User:Talkadu

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

---

• User:Talkadu persistently making disruptive edits on the basis of their personal views of a topic, as seen here: [13]. I made an attempt to address this on their talk page, only to be met with the same motivated arguments. Finally, after another revert, I was treated to abusive language here: [14]. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
• I've blocked Talkadu for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

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

96.54.186.128 resuming the same behavior after two years of block?

96.54.186.128, who was blocked for two years in May 2021, came back in September of this year and has resumed making the same kind of gun-related edits that have been getting reverted. The user has NO talk page edits whatsoever (which means no replies to all of the notices on the user's own talk page either), meaning that even after a 2-year block the user isn't taking notice and trying to address this matter in any way. 104.175.78.152 (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for a 1,000 days. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

A Thousand Days? That's just a coincidence, you expect us to believe??? EEng 09:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not well up on dead leaders of minor foreign countries. Just checked the block log again it now says "expiration time of 2 years, 269 days, 12 hours, 21 minutes and 36 seconds". CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

That's just a smokescreen to obscure your part in the conspiracy. EEng 21:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Eurohunter and GA

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

---

Back in August during a GA backlog drive @Eurohunter started a large number of WP:GA reviews and then abandoned them. That by itself is only somewhat annoying; reviews get abandoned all the time and nobody is an indentured servant. The problem is that multiple people have been asking them for months to complete the reviews, or at least state that they're unable complete them, so a new reviewer can be appointed. They have steadfastly ignored all these requests. It's inconceivable to me that they're not aware of the requests; they've been pinged many times, requests have been placed directly on their talk page (for example: Special:Diff/1183801017), and they are still actively editing. At this point, what they're doing has passed the point of being annoying and is into abusive and disruptive territory. They're deliberately holding up an important process and just giving the finger to everybody who is trying to get things moving again.

Some of the stalled reviews:

• Talk:Kwyet Kinks/GA1
• Talk:Elle Leonard/GA1
• Talk:Chuck Person's Eccojams Vol. 1/GA1
• Talk:Heart Wants What It Wants/GA1
• Talk:Besitos/GA1
• Talk:Las Reinas del Pueblo/GA1

I'm involved at this point, so I'm bringing this here. I think the right response would be to WP:TBAN them from the processes which rely on peer reviews, i.e. DYK, GA, and FA, in order to prevent this type of abuse from recurring, but I'll let ANI figure that out. RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I noticed all the reviews, but I was focused on other areas. Some of them been unanswered by nominator and I have been waiting. I'm going to check the reviews now. Eurohunter (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I just answered for all mentioned reviews. Eurohunter (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The reviews are mostly about citation formatting and archives, and at times vague ("there is a problem" without specifying). These do not form part of the GA criteria. I would be in favour of a topic ban on review processes unless Eurohunter clearly states they understand they should communicate better and they can explain what they should review on. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Femke: "they should communicate better" - I'm surprised now. I tried my best to do detailed reviews and fix minor fixes myself - I have been listing everything in review, and also I was explaining all the questions and issues as much as possible. Eurohunter (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: if you list everything, you will review more strictly than the GA criteria call for. This explains some of the friction you've had with various nominators. Can you explain to me you understand what you should not review on? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Femke: I don't force higher criteria, but what is the point to stick with GA criteria if you can easily make it above without additional effort? Ultimately we agreed, and the article was improved. I know GA criteria are lower than FA criteria and I not demand it. Eurohunter (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Let's take a specific example, the review of "the heart wants what it wants". You did ask for links in citations to other WP articles, and for archives to be added. This is (boring?) work not required by the GA criteria. This can put people off nominating.

In the future, if you want to mention "extras", please let the nominator know it's optional, and not required for the review to pass. Can you confirm you understand these are optional and should not hold up a review? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Femke: It's actually good idea. Eurohunter (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain here, but what does "it" refer to? Mentioning what is optional? Or requiring archives and links? Can you explain in your own words what you should not demand in a GA review? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Femke: No problem. "please let the nominator know it's optional" - it's good idea and article could pass without perform these tasks. Is this answer satisfying? Eurohunter (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Is a TBAN really necessary to just assign the reviews to somebody else? Why can't somebody just say "okay, if Eurohunter doesn't want to finish these, we will assign them to someone else unless he does it in the next ___? jp×g🗯️ 04:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

It should also go without saying, but I may as well say it anyway: @Eurohunter: It's a massive pain in the ass if you leave review processes hanging for months. I mean, I've done it before too, it happens to everyone, and there's no shame in just saying "yeah whatever someone else can take over" -- I'd really strongly recommend you do this so that everyone isn't standing around with their thumbs up their pockets waiting for you to respond. jp×g🗯️ 04:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

On a process note, a couple of abandoned reviews were put directly back into the GAN list in mid-October, and others identified at the time (including 4 of the 6 RoySmith lists) that were not closed were shifted to second opinion status in October, so they have effectively already been assigned to others. CMD (talk) 05:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I have to echo JPxG here. Reaching for topic bans when a volunteer is unable to do a particular task is not something I've seen in any of our other processes. And Special:Diff/1176325422 shows that actually someone did offer to take over the work, back in September. As JPxG says, why not let that happen? Uncle G (talk) 06:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• The issue here is not failing to complete the reviews. The issue is digging in their heels and refusing to respond to literally months of queries (as far back as 30 August) from multiple people asking for status updates. All they had to do is say, "Sorry, I won't be able to finish this", but they kept refusing to do that. I only managed to get a response when I dragged them to ANI. RoySmith (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  @RoySmith: It sounds like you can't do mistake, never. I had hope to finish them later but it turned out to be different. @RoySmith: @JPxG: I didn't know that I has to pass the process to someone else in formal way - I thought someone could take it just if they want to. If anyone is interested, you can continue these reviews. Eurohunter (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• While the word "ban" sounds a little strong, let's be clear - the GA process is not part of the core, basic permissions of being a Wikipedia editor. And bad reviews are worse than no reviews, so there need to be some way to tell people doing bad reviews to stop. I haven't surveyed all of Eurohunter's work, so I hope I was just unlucky, but taking a look at some of these examples, these are not good reviews. With comments like "There is error in reference 3 and 31", it's nitpicking citation nonsense that isn't important and might not even be an accurate nitpick anyway ( whether to use "work" or "website" as the parameter type stuff - I'm pretty sure it all goes to the same variable at the end of the day for output). I don't doubt that Eurohunter is engaging with good faith here, but at some point, if an editor is doing something in good faith but poorly, they need to be told to improve or stop. Eurohunter, if you want to cleanup citation stuff for articles up for GA, that's fantastic, but just go do it then as a normal editor. That isn't really the core purpose of a GA review. And if you can't get to a review in time, that's fine, but don't say "someone else can continue these reviews" and make it other people's problem. Proactively withdraw and procedurally end the review yourself, maybe with an apology for wasting the nominator's time. This is something you can do directly. SnowFire (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  @SnowFire: I could try to finish reviews but at this poin't I may retire them without problem. Eurohunter (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• I would agree with JPxG and Uncle G (as I usually do) if this were just about tardiness. But these are really bad GA reviews. Looking at Talk:Kwyet Kinks/GA1, we start off with an argument about whether to call the band, which is from England, an "English band". Eurohunter spent three months, on and off, pushing their personal stylistic opinion that "British" is the correct term. The issue isn't just that they called this out, but how confident they were in their objective correctness. (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § cite note-1, while about bios, can be generalized as the correct answer here: "it depends".) Confident incorrectness becomes a recurring theme in this GA review, because next up we have a nine-comment back-and-forth over whether it's correct to summarize a review in the present tense. It is, and I would expect anyone who writes English at a professional level to know this. (I was taught this in 8th grade when learning to write essays.) I gather that English may not be Eurohunter's first language, which is all well and good, but I don't know, I'm reasonably fluent in French, and I can't imagine ever going over to frwiki and asserting with such certainty that a particular stylistic matter is incorrect.
  Talk:Chuck Person's Eccojams Vol. 1/GA1 is similarly unpleasant to read. We have Lazman321's repeated attempts to get a clear answer as to what it is Eurohunter wants him to say about the next and previous album. The underlying point there is reasonable if a bit pedantic—I'd say it's right on the line of what I wrote WP:Content that could reasonably be challenged to discuss—but the communication issues displayed are, like everything else, unfair to the nominator. (This was also an issue with Kwyet Kinks—resolved faster, but still a communication problem.) There's then a lengthy kerfluffle about the verifiability of [15], which should have been resolved when Lazman said The two sources used next to reference 28 confirm its legitimacy, but was prolonged, to a hair-pulling degree, by Eurohunter's insistence that Lazman convey this the exact way Eurohunter wanted, for no reason beyond personal preference.
  That's just 2 GA reviews. I'm not saying Eurohunter necessarily needs to be TBANned, but the apology above for tardiness falls far short. Eurohunter needs to stop demanding that other editors meet their personal stylistic preferences at GAN, needs to work on communicating their concerns clearly and in plain English, and needs to listen to GA nominators' explanation of their decisions, especially when those explanations may come from a place of greater familiarity either with the norms of the topic area or with professional-caliber English writing. If Eurohunter can commit to all of that, then I think we can tentatively be done here. If they cannot, this should probably be a TBAN. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 01:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Tamzin: I think you are right but it isn't 100% of what follows from what. TBC Eurohunter (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  I've had issues more related to general communication with Eurohunter too. I've always assumed it's a combination of a language barrier and a general sense of combativeness? I've fielded questions at WP:ALBUMS/WP:SONGS for many years, but over time I've slowed down on fielding his questions. They always start off as open ended questions, but then it always feels like he's badgering you because he didn't like your answer. Or they just get tense for no reason. I'm trying to dig up some examples from over the years. Conversations like this conversation and this conversation come to mind. I don't really know if anything is actionable here, I'm just saying...I can certainly understand the sense of frustration editor's feel with their interactions with him at least. Sergecross73 msg me 02:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Sergecross73: I often ask questions that no one asked. These are few examples of open questions without simple or exact answer and yes, I often ask additional questions. I don't know how it could be a problam. In the second case there was problem with communication but I tried to explain it in best way I could and I had hope it was clear enough. I tried but ultimatelly I'm not satisfied how ddiscussion went. We wspent more time asking was is the issue than to slove the issue. Eurohunter (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  I don't fault you, or anyone, for asking questions. I fault you for being rude to people who voluntarily take the time to field your questions. Sergecross73 msg me 23:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Sergecross73: I don't think so but what do you mean exactly? Eurohunter (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Eurohunter claimed "I had hope to finish them later but it turned out to be different." One might think that they could reply to six requests to engage on their talk page, or to two pings in a discussion they falsely claimed no one mentioned them in, or to several pings in the GA reviews themselves, across a span of several months.
  Let's be honest here: whether they want to admit to it or not, they took on many reviews in the backlog drive because they wanted the barnstars; they found out rather quickly that they had bitten off more than they could chew, and instead of asking for help/trying to work through the consequences of their own actions, they decided that the best course of action was to forget about the whole matter, childishly ignore anyone who pinged them about it, and equally childishly whine that "It sounds like you can't do mistake, never" when people grow tired of their selective hearing.
  My feeling is that Eurohunter doesn't much like the GA process anymore, and that a TBAN won't achieve much. I would, however, support a formal warning over WP's civility policy ("Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks, to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions"). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @AirshipJungleman29: I think saying "falsely claimed" is too much. Sometimes I have 30-50 notification a day and 10 notifications "on hold" and suprisingly or not other things in life. It's eazy to say if you look outside. But even if you look at page Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Abandoned reviews there is no single ping for me - and I reffered to this case. "because they wanted the barnstars", "instead of asking for help/trying to work through the consequences of their own actions, they decided that the best course of action was to forget about the whole matter", "childishly ignore anyone who pinged them about it" - these parts are your own narration. I don't see the point in saying this. I don't think that is needed. I can say that I just took many GA reviews then things started to slither around with reviews or there was no action from nominators side, then I burn out and had no time and no power to return to them so I kept postponing it until later and later and we end up in this discussion which I didn't expect. At this point I can retire without question. Eurohunter (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

    The very first word in Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Abandoned reviews was a ping to you. CMD (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

    @Chipmunkdavis: It is plain link which will not result in ping anyone. Eurohunter (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

    Plain links creates notifications, this is mentioned in WP:MENTION. CMD (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

    @Chipmunkdavis: And you think I can never miss click once among dozens of notifications evry day/hour? If you watch 10 pages and are active once a month - it could work then. Eurohunter (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

    (not sure why I'm getting involved, but...) @Eurohunter: I'm confused by your mentioning of "notifications". This isn't about the watchlist. At the top right corner of your screen, there are "alerts" (the bell). When someone mentions you by 'ping' like I did here or maybe they revert your edit, you get an alert. For me, I actually get an email too because that's what I have selected in preferences. If you're getting 30-50 notifications per day, either you have some very odd settings, or you're talking about something completely different. From the sounds of it, you're only looking at your watchlist. I've been around more than a decade and have thousands of articles on my watchlist, but I only get a "notification" (or alert, rather) maybe a couple of times per month. Do you maybe need some help figuring out your alerts so you won't miss things? Grk1011 (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

    @Grk1011: Pings are loaded to alerts but I check both alerts and notices. I just checked alerts and there are actually are two pings so I had to miss click them and others without visit and check because I don't remember them. Usually if there is ping for me I'm going to check it especially if someone would write "please give me some reason to not do that". I would answer for it if I see but for some reason it didn't happen. I proably clicked "Mark all as read" without knowledge. That's why you use user talk page if there is something imortant. Eurohunter (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

    You were pinged twice in that discussion, Eurohunter. I don't see the point in saying this oh cool, I do, so I'm saying it. Your next sentences essentially say the same thing anyway, so I don't understand why you're unhappy. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

    @AirshipJungleman29: Your version is emotionally enriched, rather negative or pejorative while my is factual. I think I know better what I have done at the time and what was my condition at the time and my thoughts and plans. You just cut one thing from a whole. In this way we can deny everything. I know many people think this way but that's how it is. In other words you could say that Max Verstappen is a bad driver because he crashed once in race and ruined it - apart from the fact that he won dozens of races, won three world champions and is one of the best drvers in history. Eurohunter (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

    Wait... Aren't races unscientific social constructs? EEng 21:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• This user has done some good work in similar processes, like the FL List of songs recorded by Basshunter for example. Perhaps, they could be let go with a strong warning that this behavior should not be repeated. The particular reviews in question should be assigned to someone else. If they end up in a similar pickle again in the future, then there would be a stronger justification for a TBAN.--NØ 21:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @MaranoFan: I think that this behavior should not be repeated is pretty obvious. Eurohunter (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not an expert on this, but to justify that the sanction is not necessary, you will have to show that you see the mistakes you made. Blaming the nominators works against this. Avoid doing that.--NØ 21:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• Summary: I see it may became very long discussion, we can go into many questions and answers. I always want to sort every and half thing out in detailed way. It depends on compexity of thread but people often summarzise threads while they need to be addressed separately so at this point in some cases I would need to analyze and answer for every sentence separatelly. I will ask simply how to solve this problem? What should I do? Eurohunter (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
• Conclusion: I started GA reviews then things started to slither around with reviews or there was no action from nominators side. There was more reviews than just these discussed above. Then I burn out and had no time and no power to return to them so I kept postponing it until later and later and we end up in this discussion which I didn't expect. At this point I can retire without question. Eurohunter (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  • You appear to be using the word "retire" in a non-standard way above. Nobody is looking to make you "retire" in the normal sense of the word, i.e. stop editing Wikipedia altogether. There's plenty of ways to be helpful other than doing GA reviews. If you solely meant "retire" as in "drop/finish the GA reviews", then fine, although it would help your case if you would assert you don't plan on doing more GA reviews in the future, given that you totally ignored some rather blunt feedback above, and I don't think it's a good idea to continue to do more GA reviews unless you can show you've read the criticism, understand it, and taken it to heart. SnowFire (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
    • @SnowFire: I mean to retire just from GA reviews, which actually happened some time ago if we look at this discussion. Instead of it I have plan to nominate few articles to GA or FA but it will take yet long time. Eurohunter (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
• As the person who started this thread, could I suggest somebody close it now? It has served its purpose of getting Eurohunter's attention. I don't see anything else productive happening here. RoySmith (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Using edit summaries for a campaign

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

---

• 1.145.73.131 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

seems to be using their edit summaries to promote some kind of campaign about blocking policy. Not a good idea? Bon courage (talk) 12:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

They're also adding the same text to their signature.[16] Interesting, can't say I've seen that before. — Czello ^(music) 12:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. Again. It's clear disruption, blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

What does the disruption consist of? Sweet6970 (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

During my time editing Wikipedia, my IP address has been subject to a range block 3 times to my knowledge. I am not convinced that the ‘remedy’ was proportionate to the problem. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Allowing campaign messages to be added to edit summaries is a recipe for disaster. Bon courage (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit summaries are to be used for well, summarizing an edit. Using the field for a "campaign" to complain about the way range blocks are used is disruptive, or for any "peaceful protest" for that matter as the IP stated is disruptive. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

It is not what edit summaries are for, but I do not see how anyone is inconvenienced. I find a lack of edit summaries to be far more inconvenient. Is there some other way to complain about the overuse of range blocks? Sweet6970 (talk) 13:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I barely use edit summaries at all, as long as they aren't lying about what they did in their edits they've given as much useful info in them as I have. Anyhow I've seen that IP before and don't remember them being disruptive at any time. Mach61 (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Editing summaries are for concise explanations of edits, not for campaigns to change practices or specific sanctions. This is just disruption of the encyclopedia to make a point, and their complaint can be pursued through normal resolution channels without clogging up edit summaries with complaints, Acroterion (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't think either you or the IP should be blocked for edit summaries that are obnoxious, but not offensive. Take that as a compliment. Smallchief (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

What is the appropriate channel for a general complaint that range blocks are overused? And that IPs are generally treated like dirt? Sweet6970 (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Your best bet would be WP:VPP. But in many cases there is little alternative to a rangeblock where a vandal is hopping across an IP range, especially if their vandalism is offensive or related to BLPs. Anyone who is inconvenienced by an anon-only rangeblock always has the option of creating an account, of course. Black Kite (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. But range blocks do not always allow you to open an account – the first range block, which I experienced as an IP, prevented the creation of an account, and the estimated delay for a special request for an account was, as far as I remember, at least 3 months. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

That depends on the rangeblock - it is possible to rangeblock IPs and leave account creation open. Perhaps that is one thing that might help in many cases. Black Kite (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there any chance that policy would be changed so that all range blocks leave account creation open? Sweet6970 (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

It is normal practice already. Account creation is blocked when there is evidence of account abuse or serial sockpuppetry, usually with checkuser participation. Acroterion (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

In July this year, my IP address/range (I have a dynamic IP address) was covered by a very large range block which also blocked account creation, and which was set at 2 years. See User talk:Yamaguchi先生 - heading 2A02:C7C:0:0:0:0:0:0/30 This was eventually lifted by another admin, after comments by myself and others. (Yamaguchi先生 does not appear to have been active since July). I suspect that the range of the block covered everyone in the UK who uses my internet provider. So if it is normal practice to allow account creation, perhaps this should be re-emphasised somewhere? Sweet6970 (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that's true for "hardblocking" (blocking edits by logged-in users). I'm not sure it's true of blocking account creation, which is a second setting. I sometimes leave account creation open on my rangeblocks, but not usually, and I have gotten the perception I'm in the minority for doing it at all. Maybe someone wants to run the numbers. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 18:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Why? Again, edit summaries can only be harmful insofar as they are intentional misrepresentations; I don't think the copypasta is having a large physical presence on-screen, because summaries are already truncated when displayed in page histories and the like. Bad block. Mach61 (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

If they start using AWB to make a bunch of minor edits for the purpose of spreading this message, that's one thing, but a handful of good faith edits with advocacy appended? Meh. Don't know that I agree with a block here. Smarter would be to write an essay and link to it wit ha smaller number of characters, though. We have a long-term admin who goes out of their way to append something like "This edit is not an endorsement of the WMF" to every single edit summary since FRAMBAN, and nobody has taken issue with it -- hundreds or thousands of edits vs. five in this case. Is it because it's shorter? Because this is only an offense a newbie can commit? Or because it depends on the kind of activism/commentary being done. (I'm not objecting to either one, to be clear). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

+1. Blocking was an overreaction. Levivich (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a death sentence for the crime of shoplifting. If this block is sustained, also block the Admin mentioned above for his "This edit is not an endorsement of the WMF" edit summary. Equal treatment under the law. Smallchief (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The edit summaries are a minimal disruption to the encyclopedia so I prefer escalating consequences. I see the editor was advised on their talk page, and then swiftly blocked before any discussion. Okay, I have opened WP:ANI#Using edit summaries for a campaign about this. Bon courage (talk) 12:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC) The block followed 14 minutes later with this timestamp RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC) I appreciate all that the admins do to protect content and content creators. I do not really see this block as protecting content. Lightburst (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Err, the "discussion" was the IP saying they weren't going to stop doing this. Bon courage (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I certainly do not see that they said they won't. Verbatum they said: So please fix the policy policy & practices. I have tried other routes with no success. You call it "abuse". I call it a peaceful protest. You cut off discussion and filed this report and then they were swiftly blocked. So it looks more like the start of a discussion and then an escalation by you and a block before this ANI discussion could begin. Lightburst (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Not really, especially when combined with their resumption of adding the summary to edits after this. "So fix it" is an ultimatum. Bon courage (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

(non-admin comment), Equal treatment under the law./Seems like a death sentence for the crime of shoplifting, they banned for less then 2 days, that's not really a 'death sentence', it's a minor inconvenience, the IP can just come back in a few days, and apologies or something. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Shoot to thrill) (Play to Kill) 17:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• It's annoying but are the edits bad? jp×g🗯️ 16:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

A 31 hour block is not a "death sentence." Acroterion (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Acroterion (and inappropriate use of edit summaries is a big problem). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

So you would favor blocking the admin who always puts "This edit is not an endorsement of the WMF" in his edits? Equal treatment for equal crimes should be the policy -- whether a person is an Administrator or an IP. Smallchief (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Who does that? Bon courage (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Neither an admin nor a "he", but I assume Smallchief is referring to Yngvadottir. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 19:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Previous discussion about that signature. Schazjmd (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

thats interesting, especially that it shows it was brought up on two other separate occasions. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Shoot to thrill) (Play to Kill) 20:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Yup, that's me (former admin, desysopped for an unrelated cause many years ago). I received an AN/I template linking to this discussion as the so-far only edit by My Kingdom for a hearse. The IP's edit summary notes are longer, and more polemical than mine, which I endeavour to keep within the bounds of WP:NOPOLEMIC or WP:USER or wherever the applicable policy is encoded. (I also fit in my disclaimer at the end of my edit summaries, which tend to be long because of my editing pattern, so as I said at the previous AN/I, if anything I believe the meat and potatoes of my edit summaries is more of an imposition on watchlist readers than the disclaimer.)

I'm glad this block is being discussed, since there is disagreement over it, but I won't weigh in on the merits except for reiterating that that edit note is a bit long. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't think either you or the IP should be blocked for obnoxious and irritating edit summaries. Take that as a compliment of sorts. Smallchief (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I would place's Yngvadottir's signature (not an edit summary) in the same category as references to death penalties and crimes - a bit over the top, but not sanctionable. Edit summaries are for explanations of edits, not for polemics. This is a tempest in a teapot. Acroterion (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

if I had a nickel for every time this has happened, I'd have two nickels, which isn't a lot, but it's strange it's happened twice. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Shoot to thrill) (Play to Kill) 15:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support block, do not support hyperbolic complaints about the block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• Seems like overkill and a bad block. I think an apology is in order. PackMecEng (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Of course you do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I think an apology is in order. AN APOLOGY?????? really? It's not so far fetched, and there's little need to apologize for. by now, the user is almost unblocked! Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Shoot to thrill) (Play to Kill) 16:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, this block seems like a textbook example of a punitive block to me. Those edit summaries, while obnoxious, aren't actually all that harmful, and even if I were to agree that they were disruptive, the IP should get a fair chance to respond to the ANI case and/or cut it out with the edit summaries before getting hit with a block, no matter the lenght.(Non-administrator comment) ----Licks-rocks (talk) 10:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'd argue that chronically misusing edit summaries to make a WP:POINT is disruptive enough to earn a block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'd say you'd still have to issue a warning first, and not one that is followed by a block in ten minutes. If this were a named user we would not be so eager to block, I don't think. It'd take a short discussion here at least before that block would be handed out. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• Not a bad block (in the way of, I don't think the block was issued in bad faith), but perhaps a bit quick with the fancy buttons. The IP made detailed comments that went unaddressed by both the filer and the blocking administrator, and somehow we've collectively decided to throw warnings out the window. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 07:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Apparent WP:NOTHERE gaming for WP:ECP

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

---

See this gaming for WP:ECP.

He is clearly WP:NOTHERE.[17][18] Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Holy userpage batman! I edit my userpage a bunch, but OMG! Yeah, this is pretty open and shut. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Shine on you) (Crazy Diamond) 18:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

HOWEVER!! looking at their talk page,you failed to tell them that they're being discussed here on the ANI. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Shine on you) (Crazy Diamond) 18:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I had. I was on my way to notify the user by the time you typed the above message. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

It's a shame that non-mainspace edits count towards the edit counts for the various protections etc. Canterbury Tail talk 18:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I tend to see things like that as a lack of automated bureaucracy usually being better than the bad-faith behavior it prevents—a structural expression of assuming good faith, to a reasonable extent. Remsense聊 00:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The gaming's already been dealt with - see rights log, usertalk before blanking, and discussion at WP:PERM. —Cryptic 19:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Weird IP editing at talk:Maddie Ziegler

There has been some odd editing by an IP at talk:Maddie Ziegler. It’s not an article, so I’m not sure page protection is the best way, but in just over 24 hours the page has seen the following edits: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. - SchroCat (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I semi-protected it for 24 hours. Weird stuff like that is becoming common although not usually focused on a single page. If it continues the trend of the last couple of years I can imagine a future where MediaWiki has to have built-in limits on liberty. Johnuniq (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Cheers Johnuniq - that’s great. - SchroCat (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Master of Reality dispute/meatpuppetry

2804:14D:5CC4:484C:610F:FCBC:75CC:4831 Has been using Mutiple IPs to change the release date of Master of Reality based on one source (Which is probably the US release date). I tried to change it and now he is trying to get other users to join him in keeping the source which is a form of Meatpuppetry 2601:3C5:8200:97E0:B88F:BB3E:D308:57FA (talk) 05:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

user:Chinnusaikrish

User is engaged in continuous edit warring and does not contribute to talk and consensus when warned and reverted by multiple users on more than three occasions. Refer to the user contributions, which primarily focus on three to four specific articles. Recently the same content has been repeatedly inserted after multiple reverts and warnings. Additionally please check the user's talk page for multiple warnings, as the user has not responded to any of them. 456legend(talk) 07:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

This user almost certainly is due for sanctions of some severity, but at the same time, you and others who were reverting them at Sakshi (newspaper) had never used the article talk page, either. In fact, at the time of my writing this, Talk:Sakshi (newspaper) has not been used by anyone, ever. Also, 456legend, you haven't informed them if this very complaint, as is required, so how would they know it even exists? El_C 09:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

@El C They never replied to the warnings when they were previously involved in Eenadu also never replied to the warnings to various other users on the user talk page regarding Sakshi (newspaper). Yes definitely the talk page of the article was not used for discussion but his user talk page was. And I didn't inform about the latest revert because this user comes and goes for a brief period of time pasting the same content each and every time on the above mentioned articles without noticing the mentions on his talk page. 456legend(talk) 09:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Also you can look here how the user is not ready to participate in consensus or provide the citations or source for the move they performed:here. Also this being my first put a incident request here about a user, I overlooked my duty to notify about this discussion. I will ensure to comply with the next time. 456legend(talk) 09:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're asking me to look at one individual problematic section on their talk page then there's obviously like a million of em. Anyway, if they ignore this ANI report, they're almost certainly getting blocked, most likely for an indefinite duration. El_C 09:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay and thank you for the guidance. 456legend(talk) 10:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

@El C The user @Chinnusaikrish tagged me on this talk page ANI notice and is of the opinion that I placed the content on the first hand on Sakshi (newspaper). Whereas I was the latest editor who only reverted his edit after the verification of the respective article edit history where many users reverted his content and he was asked to provide a rationale on this talk page. And the user is also of the opinion that I am involved in putting content on Eenadu whereas I haven't edited any thing on that article till now and only reported here regarding the respective activity. For the both articles the edit history and the user edits can be verified accordingly to determine if my involvement was present or not. And finally since the user haven't replied to lot of the notices on his talk page and has been pasting the same content again even after multiple talk page notices I have come to report here and had no plan of intiating a new discussion on the article talk page since these articles were of no interest to me and I had no knowledge of those topics and finally I am here with the conclusion that his edits are disruptive in nature since multiple users were in conflict with the same user alone and no response to those particular discussions.

Additionally, If my opinion and conclusion regarding the nature of his edits is false and if it is just for the user to not respond to them then I would like to say sorry and stay away from the discussion to avoid further conflict. 456legend(talk) 15:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@El C The user @456legend didn't follow my edits properly wherein my edits were just neutral and seemed fair. But the user repeatedly reverted the edits where the content seemed non-neutral and biased and he reported against my edits without going through them properly. He didn't initiate any topic for a consensus on the respected article's talk page as well which seemed very suspicious. He simply reverted back my edits on certain occasions without any basis or prior information to me on my talk page. His reverted edits as I said with complete malicious intent. The same user followed a different strategy for another article Eenadu and saw that there was no malicious intent in that article which appeared to me as a dubious & unfair behavior.

Requesting you to please limit or block this user on certain issues which he himself admitted that he is not aware of or interested. Didn't understand why took so interest in these issues if he is not interested. Thanks~ Chinnusaikrish (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Chinnusaikrish I have only reverted your edit once on Sakshi (newspaper) and not multiple times. Additionally I haven't been involved in any edit on Eenadu. I don't know which user you are referring to. Finally I have already made my point clear that your edits were already contested on your talk page and you didn't answer any of those notices. Thus, I safely assumed that your edits were disruptive in nature and reported here. Also you can refer to the respective articles edit history to confirm whether I have edited any thing on these articles or not yourself. 456legend(talk) 09:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

User:331dot

There is a minor dispute, and I think 331dot's use of tools was not judicious. I'm sure there are a lot of rationale admins that can handle this situation better.

First, 331dot speedy-deleted (G4) the article on Raquel Evita Saraswati based on a 10-year-old AfD, knowing that there is a lot of new coverage; the old AfD is null and void in 2023 due to this new coverage. When I pointed this out on their talkpage, they agreed to restore it in draftspace. Obviously, they don't own the article, and it is not obligatory for me to use AfC, so I moved it back to the main space. Due to these concerns, I also opened an AfD on my own initiative as I anticipated this coming, but it was speedily closed. Now, they are still insisting that I use AfC, or they will delete the article again unilaterally. I don't know if this behavior aligns with Wikipedia standards, but it certainly raises a question: Is this the first instance, or is it a regular occurrence? I won't contribute if Wikipedia operates like this. Skeus (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• The old AFD being "null and void" is a matter for discussion and I was(and still am) simply directing the user to the proper avenues for that discussion. The AFD was speedy closed since no one wanted it deleted. The only reason I knew about this article at all is that it was intially CSD-nominated as both deleted per a discussion and as an attack page(I didn't think it was an attack page, but that's why I was drawn to it). Would have appreciated some more discussion before being brought here. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I took a look at the deleted version and it's very different from the current iteration, so I don't think G4 applies. The usual course of action is to go ahead and put it in mainspace, and if anyone objects they can start an AfD (but you really shouldn't use AfD if you don't want it deleted). – bradv 20:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagreed becuase I felt that the reasons for deletion still applied- but my main beef with this whole thing was that I did something on a condition and that condition was broken. I have little interest in the article itself existing or not, I was just trying to help direct someone to what I thought was the right place. 331dot (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

How do you figure? The text is not "substantially" identical, as required by WP:G4. And the original deletion reason was lack of notability, but there are plenty of references in the new version to articles published after the date of the previous AfD. So it fails both criteria. But I would agree with your other point - this complaint shouldn't be about you, it's about the action itself. I'm tempted to rename this section. – bradv 20:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

If I've misinterpreted the criteria, I'll gladly take a trout to the face- but my only goal here was to help steer to what I thought would be the right venue. That's all. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Nah, no need to abuse any fish. The original advice to use AfC was solid and well-intentioned, and definitely would have been the less contentious approach. But AfC is not mandatory, so we still have to follow the regular processes if someone chooses to bypass it. At any rate, I've said enough here. – bradv 21:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I also will gladly apologize to Skeus for giving offense. I just thought there was an agreement here, I guess not. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

And calling me not rational is kinda beyond the pale. I've been nothing but rational here- people can be rational and disagree. 331dot (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I hope that User:Skeus will take back that superfluous insult. Many of us have got caught out while wading through backlogs and I don't think User:331dot should either beat themselves up or be beaten up for making a genuine mistake. Deb (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• Deletion review is thataway.—S Marshall T/C 20:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Immature AN/I thread (in the sense of "too soon", not "childish"). I don't think there's any need for inflammtory disagreements here. I was the person who first nomm'd for G10 because I saw that the article essentially said the subject was a fraud and the sources were somewhat questionable, but there are RS that say that too so I agree that was in error. I couldn't see the deleted version, of course, so nomm'd on G4 on the assumption that the deleting admin would compare the versions.

From the many times I've seen 331dot's work over the wiki, they are a very experienced and collegial admin, and their actions here were entirely civil as well. Skeus is also a skilled editor (thank you for doing the WP:BEFORE for me), maybe slightly unsed to the way things work around here. I think the above conversation has shown beyond any doubt that 331dot has no intention of offending anyone, and maybe Skeus felt a bit bitten by the tone of the message, which maybe does sound too much like a warning rather than informational. You don't need to leave, and please don't leave - every constructive editor is immensely valuable to the project. Fermiboson (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Also per future reference, if one has an issue with admin action, raising it on the admin talk page first instead of going straight to AN/I s generally preferred. This place is the drama boards. Fermiboson (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Renewed activity by block evading Andrewbf of Mexico

User:Andrewbf was blocked nine years ago for disruption in music articles, and is now using IPs from Mexico to evade the block. The recent IPs active at "Live to Tell" are:

• 187.145.119.93 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 187.147.221.192 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.174.18.164 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Other recent activity includes the ranges Special:Contributions/187.147.224.0/19 and Special:Contributions/187.155.128.0/19, which was blocked in August, and the following IPs:

• ‎189.141.25.196 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 187.147.213.68 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 187.147.173.116 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎189.174.2.169 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.174.5.153 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 187.161.141.186 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

In the past few months, Special:Contributions/131.196.246.66 and Special:Contributions/187.161.140.0/23 got blocked for three months, and Special:Contributions/2806:10B7:3:5309:0:0:0:0/64 got a week. The range Special:Contributions/189.172.0.0/16 is under a three-year block, and the range Special:Contributions/189.218.0.0/19 has a two-year block. All of these are Andrewbf evading his block—the focus, style and behavior are consistent.

Can we get some more blocks or rangeblocks going? It would be great to stem this recent flurry of activity. Binksternet (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I think blocking the latest individual IP address(es) will be the appropriate remedy here. — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Attention needed

On the assistance of User:Binksternet, I am requesting that the three following IPs be blocked from editing due to their continued disruption to music articles and failure to communicate:

• 187.145.119.93
• 189.174.18.164
• 187.147.242.210

These are the three latest / currently used IPs in today's disruption.

Thanks. — AP 499D25 (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Verddieta

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

This user has been a prolific creator of Qatari building stubs for quite a while. Most of them are linked only to primary sources and subject websites. Naturally, that leads to a slew of CSDs and AfDs on most of the articles. In response to attempted friendly explanations by many experienced editors and admins, the user has instead made continued accusations of bias, incivility and threats to "report for vandalism" (which you can see on nearly every section in the talk page, so I won't bother with diffs). Recently (or maybe not so recently, but nobody else has bothered to report) this editor has recreated redirects and revert warred over articles redirected at AfD. The user is now beginning to create stubs sourced only to primary material again, and revert warring again, this time without communication thus far (though I am willing to assume that, given they have been back for no more than a day, this may change). In any case, there is a longstanding pattern of problematic behaviour. Fermiboson (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC) Editor notified here.

Counter-report (what?) merged into main report. Fermiboson (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi. problem with Fermiboson. A specific question from the respected admin. Is Wikipedia a personal property some people ?!. If making articles related to entertainment, properties and buildings is not allowed then all articles related to Dubai should be removed. A certain user insults me and my constructive efforts and deletes articles in bulk with his own personal will and complains?!! What does this have to do with the law of Wikipedia?! Problematic behavior means bulk deletion of articles with valid sources. Problematic behavior means creating personal law and treating Wikipedia as personal property. It is available on my talk page that I responded to admin and user with full respect and accepted the removal of articles. But instead of helping to create articles with their personal opinion, user encourage users to be inactive on Wikipedia. 90% of the articles I have created have had wikis in other languages as well. My effort is to complete the articles related to Doha and Dubai. In the meantime, please refer to this user page, many users complain about his violence, bulk deletion of articles by him and frequent insults of this user. With respect. Verddieta (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Verddieta, if you want to create articles, you need to follow the guidelines. Read and understand Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If you cannot understand these, seek help at the Teahouse. Do not come to ANI with a feeble complaint about your edits having been removed; it is normal for sub-standard edits to be removed. Deb (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Deb, hi with respect. I explained completely. None of the articles created violate the standard. Rather, user delete it by personal desire. Verddieta (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

When everyone who has ever posted on your talk page disagrees that "none of the articles created violate the standard", in addition to three or four well participated AfDs, maybe it's time to reflect. Fermiboson (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Verddieta, in addition to the guidelines I've already directed you to, please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. For now, I would just warn you that if you continue with the behaviour Fermiboson has pointed out, you are likely to be blocked for disruptive editing. Deb (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• Verddieta - Hello. I'm not affiliated with Wikipedia and I've had a lot of articles deleted too. Basically, every article has to have at least 3 sources that are not connected to the article. So if you can find 3 newspaper articles, 3 television newscasts, 3 paragraphs from books about the article or similar sources, the article will likely be allowed on Wikipedia. The article will likely be deleted if the only sources are from the same company as the article, the articles owners or if they are affiliated with the subject in the article. I know it is frustrating to have your article deleted. I don't personally agree with these rules, but your article could be deleted if the article does not follow the rules. If you any questions, you can ask me and I will try to help.KatoKungLee (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  Slight correction to the above - 2 is enough per WP:GNG. However, the sources still need to be 1. reliable and 2. have significant coverage of the subject. For example, a directory showing the existence of a building does not have significant coverage, while a blog, web published newspaper or newspaper with questionable editorial standards are not reliable. Special notability guidelines exist for certain categories of articles; the one most relevant to you is WP:NBUILD, which also requires "significant, in depth coverage" of the building in sources. For example, rather than a newspaper article that talks about an event happening at a building, we would need a newspaper article that talks about the building as its primary subject. What is definitely not acceptable, and you know it by now, is using solely the building owners' website as sources. Fermiboson (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  Fermiboson - I think simplifying this and not getting too far into wikipedia's various rules will achieve better results here. I think the user is probably seeing older articles (or articles from other wiki's) with limited to no sources and likely is wondering what the issue is. And of course, having multiple articles deleted probably makes him feel that people are picking on him. I'm also guessing that this user is using a translator of some sort or English is not their first language. KatoKungLee (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  Appreciate you trying to help out, and I too hope that Verddieta will get the point. We are, however, past the point where should be coddling a new editor with WP:BITE, or else we'd be on the user talk page, not AN/I. If one's reaction to articles being deleted is to accuse everyone (including admins) of being vandals, revert war over AfD closes, and simply disregard other people when told that the articles don't meet notability (the word "notable" is easy enough to understand, yes?), then straight up lie about what's right in front of their face (I would really like to know what diffs exactly he thought was "many users complain about his violence... frequent insults"), then I'd start to question the editor's ability to participate in a collaborative project. Fermiboson (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure that "notable" is not easy for Verddieta to understand, along with most of our guidelines. I think this is the main problem here. Looking at his initial comments ("Is Wikipedia a personal property some people" [sic]). I think his English comprehension is probably as bad as his ability to express himself in the language. I think we should close this discussion now - he's had a final warning. Deb (talk) 09:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

User:KatoKungLee. Thank you very much for your support and message with respect and humility. I clearly explained that there are thousands of articles of this type and of poor quality, but no user has a problem with that. But I don't know according to which law and court this is being done to me?! I was born to an Iranian father and a French mother, my first language is certainly not English. Anyway, I obey the law. Let me just say that, in the eyes of users like Deb and Fermiboson. Day by day, the number of active users in Wikipedia is reduced. The passion for the right activity should be created. Not that it drove users away from Wikipedia. Verddieta (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

For example, the article Palm Towers has both multiple wikipedia's and reference. Many times people delete it without any reason and based on their personal opinion. why some user this bullying dont end?! Verddieta (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Verddieta, I warned you not to continue with this. Almost immediately, you returned to make unfounded accusations both here and on Fermiboson's talk page. I've blocked you for 48 hours to give you time to re-think your approach. When you return, you must stop doing this and concentrate on improving your contributions, otherwise you could find yourself blocked permanently. Deb (talk) 13:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice, the user also reverted two of the articles redirected at AfD and blanked an AfD notice. Those have all been reverted now. Fermiboson (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Divisive comments from editor experienced on another language Wikipedia

See [24]. An edit which we might see from a vandalizing IP. Yet this editor has more than 82,000 edits at Hebrew wikipedia. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit as WP:NOTFORUM and left the user a templated warning. I'm not sure there is much else to do here, unless they decide to continue this behavior. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 12:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

How did you come to the delusional conclusion that vandalism is being done from my IP address? חזרתי (talk) 15:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

They're not saying that an IP is committing vandalism from your address, they're saying that your edit, from your account, was of similar quality to what we see from IP vandals. Which it was, and in a WP:CTOPS area no less. If you do not make a quick course correction regarding your edits on en.wiki, you will find yourself blocked from this project. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Shahmeer123-45

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

---

• Shahmeer123-45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User appears to be an advertising-only account. They created a draft for the purpose of SEO gaming and then explicitly stated on the draft's talk that it's for the purposes of SEO gaming. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The links you provided give an error message to me, as the draft and its respective talk page was deleted. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 17:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Shahmeer123-45 as an advertising only account. Cullen328 (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Jamiebuba and their socks

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

---

Drawing attention to paid editing by an editor who's engaging in reviewing articles that are clearly not notable. But I will point out only a single case and leave the rest to you to tackle. The editor - Jamiebuba, moved a page from main space to draft space stating that the article was not yet ready for main space as it lacked reliable independent sources. They contacted the agent of the subject of the article and after being paid Jamiebuba brought in their other account Wedsslumo which they used to insert three more highly promotional sources, moved the page back to main space and in just over an hour Jamiebuba showed up and reviewed the article 102.91.72.178 (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

You are required to notify involved users when you post a notice here as per the large red banner and edit notice on this page. I have done it for you. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a serious accusation which you should not make unless you have evidence. If you believe there is sockpuppetry in action, you should report it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Deb (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Anankiaushdud

(diff): Was WP:DE initially but now vandalism at List of awards and nominations received by Samantha Ruth Prabhu. Continuously tries to create a separate Awards and nominations list for Rakul Preet Singh. First instance [25], warned after assuming good faith. 2nd instance [26] after multiple warnings [27] Initial warning, 2nd warning [28]. [29] Trying to add an awards info box. [30] Introducing factual errors on the infobox. Tries again for a separate list after multiple warnings [31] [32]. Recent vandalism on List of awards and nominations received by Samantha Ruth Prabhu [33] Where Anankiaushdud removed a source and inserted [6] and [34] back to rakul with the awards and nomination. Editor is not responding to talk page discussions. Jeraxmoira (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Pinging active admins Bbb23 and 331dot as Anankiaushdud is currently engaged in disruptive editing. Jeraxmoira (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours to stop the disruption. 331dot (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

IP user using talk page for personal rants and personal attacks (again)

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

IP user making inappropriate use of the talk page as a WP:FORUM for ranting about race and making personal attacks at Talk:University of al-Qarawiyyin.

It's very likely the same IP user who was blocked for making inappropriate rants & racist comments at Talk:Berbers; see this earlier ANI report. E.g. compare [35] with [36] (complaining about mention of Berber ethnicity/identity), and [37] and [38] (followed by personal attacks), among others. Note the recurring use of the adjective "barbaric" and "barbarian" in these and other comments on the same pages. (Pinging Ponyo who previously blocked the IP ranges in the last report, if they want to look at this again.)

Even if it's an unrelated user, I would still recommend blocking and striking/reverting their comments (as was previously done at Talk:Berbers: [39], [40], [41]). R Prazeres (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked Special:contributions/109.107.224.0/19 for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. If they return under another IP like last time, I'll mention it here. R Prazeres (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

User:OfficialBlakeTodd

Resolved

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

• Not much of an edit history, but the personal attacks, are not necessary. Neither is this individual necessary for Wikipedia. See also personal attacks towards @TLJ7863 in their edit filter log. Jerium (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Blocked. Materialscientist (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2023 (UT=)

Destructive editing in draft article.

Botushali, Draft:Military career of Mehmed the Conqueror He resorts to many destructive regulations and continues to do this despite my warnings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keremmaarda (talk • contribs) 18:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know about the content dispute here, but firstly 1. they are right in that you do not WP:OWN the draft, there is no such thing as "your draft" that only you can edit; and 2. both of you are edit warring, which is unacceptable no matter the merits of the underlying content issue. Fermiboson (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I told him to stay away from the draft article because he made ridiculous and hostile changes to it. And even though I warned him, he continued to engage in the editing war. And the user I mentioned is practicing Albanian nationalism, trying to hide, cover up or embellish Skanderbeg's defeats. Keremmaarda (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@Botushali, can you explain why you feel the overwhelming need to pick apart a draft that someone else is writing? It's not a live article – at least wait until it's moved to mainspace before critiquing it. But to both of you: it would be awfully silly to get blocked for edit warring on a draft. – bradv 21:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment: The origin of this content dispute lies in the user's inclusion of a supposed "Battle of Burshek/Battle of Buzurshek" in the article in question. This "battle" was not a real battle - at most, it was a skirmish if it even occurred, and there are barely any sources on the matter. As such, when Keremmarda attempted to create a low quality and unreliable article on the matter, the page was deleted not once [42], but twice [43] (when the article was yet again created under a different name). @Bradv - perhaps I shouldn't have engaged in an edit war, but I would be disappointed to have the draft submitted for review and to be accepted with such blatant misinformation on the page that the reviewer may overlook. I am not necessarily picking apart the draft, only removing the same three words. The editor is trying to find loopholes to get the "Battle of Burshek/Buzurshek" on Wikipedia somehow.

Keremmarda accuses me of ridiculous and hostile changes, none of which are actually occurring. These are the changes in question - [44], [45], [46], and [47]. I don't think any of these edits are ridiculous or hostile, nor are the edit summaries hostile. However, Keremmarda seems to think they WP:OWN the draft article [48] and keeps making aggressive edit summaries. A quick scan on their edit history will reveal that they have a habit of treating their fellow editors with incivility and rudeness: Go away... [49], Bro don't bother with more pages... [50], You can't count [51], Do not try to change history with your nationalistic feelings. [52] etc etc.

Now, on top of that, Keremmarda is casting disrespectful WP:ASPERSIONS and has accused me of practicing Albanian nationalism in one of their comments above. Keremmarda did not "warn" me about edit warring - instead, they threatened to report me if I did not allow them to spread misinformation on their draft article. Keremmarda has also proceeded to go on a rant on my TP [53] - unfortunately, their personal opinions (nor mine for that matter) are of no relevance to what goes on Wikipedia articles. Content is dictated and regulated by WP:RS bibliography, and Keremmarda does not seem to be very aware of that. Judging by their rant, they should also read up on WP:PRIMARY and should look at the vast array of modern RS bibliography on the topic at hand. It would seem Keremmarda simply does not like the fact that Skanderbeg whooped the Ottomans on an annual basis for 25 years, even though relevant articles are supported by RS. Botushali (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The battle appears to have not been deemed notable enough for its own page, but that doesn't mean it is forbidden to mention it anywhere on Wikipedia. WP:NOTCENSORED. However, it looks like the edit warring is about a wikilink to the name of the battle, rather than article text about it. I question why it's neccessary to add a redlink to a page that will probably never exist. The best course of action is that you both just stop it. It is also possible to have a private draft: see Help:Userspace draft

Sennalen (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by User:Justin Hurley

User:Justin Hurley has vandalised several pages here: [54], [55], [56], [57], request immediate indefinite block. Mztourist (talk) 07:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I indeffed Justin Hurley (talk · contribs). Johnuniq (talk) 08:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Mztourist (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Mztourist - in future, you can report vandals to WP:AIV instead of here. More often than not, they'll be seen by an administrator and blocked quicker if reported to AIV (typically after four warnings) than if a post is made here. Patient Zero^talk 00:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Martinevans123

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

---

This user has made several edits on the Tommy Robinson page. He has recently described Tommy Robinson on the talk page as "Ban away. He's a hate-mongering pile of shit" and "He's an illiterate thug." This user clearly is very biased and has a personal hatred towards Tommy. For this reason I do not believe he has a neutral pov and therefore should not be allowed to edit on the Tommy Robinson page, and his previous edits should be reverted. Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tommy_Robinson_(activist)#Biased? Pegasussy (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Those comments aren't really useful, but "having bias" in itself doesn't disqualify one from editing, you should know that. If the bias is reflected in the edits to the degree that it is difficult to edit the article, then those are possibly grounds for a topic ban. You should provide evidence of that, which I don't think the example presented constitutes. Both positions seem plausible.
(Frankly, you immediately leaping to blaming your fellow editors for problems you perceive is a pretty common symptom of actually disruptive behavior. This feels like a boomerang case in the making.) Remsense聊 22:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Is it allowed for him to attack and insult people on wikipedia like that? Pegasussy (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Your own comments, such as Mr Evans is clearly a very biased wokie [58] are going to be reviewed here as well, you know. MrOllie (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

How is this relevant to my point MrOllie? Pegasussy (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you think it is allowed for you to attack and insult people on wikipedia like that? MrOllie (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Pegasussy, It's much more acceptable than you doing the same to your fellow editors. Remsense聊 22:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes because calling someone a biased wokie is so much worse than calling someone "an illiterate thug" or "hate mongering pile of shit" ! got it. Pegasussy (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Correct. Because one person is a public figure and another is your fellow editor who you are actually speaking to. Remsense聊 22:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I offended your friend. Let's get back to the real issue here. Pegasussy (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

You're making it clearer with every reply that you are the real issue. Hence, "boomerang". Remsense聊 22:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

As a participant in that thread, I'd say that Martinevans123's comments were ill-advised, and that he should know better than to respond in such a manner. Pegasussy, on the other hand, should maybe take a little time to find out how Wikipedia actually works before accusing contributors who accurately mirror media coverage of Robinson's endless legal troubles of being 'biased'. If reporting verifiable facts is 'wokie', that's not our problem, and Pegasussy should perhaps consider moving to another reality, or at least another website, where facts don't matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=905779339 "yes, many folk will be laughing, I suspect"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1035084644

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1035055336 "add quote? a shame he's bankrupt"

How much more are you going to defend this guy? Pegasussy (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

And another one; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=908249355 adding his opinion Pegasussy (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

No, that is reflecting what the attached source says. If you have an issue with the sentence, it is an issue with the source attached, not with how it was paraphrased in the article. Remsense聊 23:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

As Remsense said, this isn't Martinevans123 opinion, it accurately reflects the source.[59] -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

This is not a matter of defending the guy. This is a matter of you owning up to your uncivil remarks. "Any party to a discussion or dispute might find their behavior under scrutiny." If you're not prepared to do that, you might not be a good fit for this encyclopedia. You do not get immunity through being the first to point fingers. Ravenswing 22:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I have apologised for calling him a wokie. Do we have anything to say about him being extremely unnecessarily vulgar when I brought up valid points about Tommy being a best selling author, and him being a biased editor? Pegasussy (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Pegasussy, first of all, no you haven't, unless I'm supposed to take the snark above that calls him "my friend" (though we've never spoken) above as being sincere. Second, we've already said it was unnecessary, and that being biased does not disqualify one from editing. If that's all you have, it is not worthy of being at ANI. Remsense聊 23:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

You have provided precisely zero evidence that Robinson is a 'best selling author'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

He has provided precisely zero evidence that Robinson is a "hate mongering pile of shit" or "an illiterate thug"

If he is illiterate, how can he make twitter posts, and represent himself at trial? Pegasussy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, Amazon.com refused to sell his stuff for some reason.[60] I suppose there is no way to be definitively sure if it was due illiteracy or the hate-mongering, though. There is certainly plenty of evidence of the latter in the Wikipedia bio. MrOllie (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

None of those comments appear in the article. Although Martinevans1 should have been a bit more civil Wikipedia's editors don't have to be neutral in there own person (that would be impossible for any human). They have to accurately reflect what reliable sources states, regardless of their own personal biases. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe there's any admin action required here, other than to suggest that Martinevans123 leaves the page alone in a bid to calm the dispute and to remind Pegasussy that personal attacks won't be tolerated. I question Pegasussy's own biases (wokie is a loud dog whistle, to say the least..) on the topic, so maybe they should take a break from editing the page as well? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 23:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I have never edited the page. Are you ok? Pegasussy (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm obviously talking about Talk:Tommy Robinson (activist). — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 23:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

What an interesting comment. What bias are you suggesting I have by saying the word "wokie"? Pegasussy (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Well I guess there is an extremely odd possibility you mean it as a term of endearment, but it seems unlikely. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

You seem extraordinarily exercised on the talk page concerning an article which you've never edited. It would seem that you're carrying a strong bias yourself -- with the recent change to your user page as further evidence -- and I agree with TheresNoTime that taking a break from that talk page would be a good look on your part. Beyond that, ANI complaints are not resolved by volume. Are you perceiving that you're helping your case at all with repetitive "But what about THIS word he used? Huh? Huh?" posts, or that so far you're seeing support from several otherwise uninvolved editors? Ravenswing 23:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Would you suggest the same to Mr Martin Evans?

I have never said anything that shows any bias. You do not know what my opinion of Tommy Robinson is. Martin on the other hand, clearly has a strong hatrid and vendetta against him. How interesting. Pegasussy (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on the first law of holes. You might find it worthwhile to take the time to read it - it isn't very long. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

No thank you. Pegasussy (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Pegasussy I would advise you to drop the stick and move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Imagine if I said the same as Martinevans123 on the talk page of a muslim/LGBT person. I'd be banned instantly lmao. Pegasussy (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

 Looks like a duck to me Remsense聊 23:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Getting bored now, I'm out of here. Even the co founder of wikipedia Sanger described Wikipedia as "badly biased" and as favoring left-wing and liberal politics. So I'm not surprised about this. Pegasussy (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

No one is forcing you to be here. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure you and Larry will find each other most pleasant company. He regularly starts 'alternatives to Wikipedia', and would no doubt welcome your participation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I hope some admin will recognize this self-request for a WP:NOTHERE block sooner rather than later. --JBL (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Editors who know me, know that I'm a wiki-friend of Martin's, so let me stipulate that from the start. I agree with the emerging consensus here, that we are heading towards a WP:BOOMERANG, especially given that the OP is digging in, rather than accepting feedback. And that last comment smells of POV-pushing. I've looked at the page history, and I don't think that Martin has edited the page, just commented on the talk page. My advice about that is to dial it down, and remember that even hooligans get covered by WP:BLP. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Gotta concur with other editors here, there's a boomerang a-coming round the bend. Very much WP:NOTHERE. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 23:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Fact check: Martin has edited the page 39 times, almost 1% of the total edits made to the page, dating back to 2019 Pegasussy (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

What's your point? There are twenty articles to which I've over a hundred edits, going back twenty years. Ravenswing 23:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

My point is that his statement ". I've looked at the page history, and I don't think that Martin has edited the page, just commented on the talk page." is incorrect, just letting him know. Pegasussy (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Unless you can show that the edits added material not supported by the references nothing will come of it, Martin is not required by Wikipedia policy to like Robinson. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

And the last time was only 21 months ago, so this is obviously a pressing issue. MrOllie (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I should have said he hasn't edited the page since February 2022. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment. I am sorry to learn that my esteemed colleague User:Martinevans123 has been tempted to behave in an unWikipedian manner, as in my few interactions with him I have found him to be knowledgeable, intelligent and congenial, even when we have not agreed. It looks as if the two editors have been goaded into making remarks that they might have regretted. I think that a boomerang would not be a good look as it would give the impression of Wikipedia cronies guarding each other's backs. It might be best to let the matter drop and hope that lessons have been learnt. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC).

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

Divisive editing by 142.126.112.238 in WP:CTOPS

Divisive editing in Israel/Palestine WP:CTOPS by IP 142.126.112.238, clear WP:NOTHERE. Quite busy in one day. Longhornsg (talk) 04:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• [61][62] Attacking "Zionist" editors, accusing them of being Nazis
• [63] Accusing editors of being the "White Knights of Wikipedia" (a reference to the Ku Klux Klan)
• [64] Clearly using "Zionist" as a stand-in for antisemitic conspiracy theory
• [65] Another KKK accusation
• [66] Accusing editor of being "Zionist fifth columnist"
• [67] BLP violation

• Comment I went ahead and reverted those remarks made @User talk:Iskandar323. Jerium (talk) 12:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks as a regular administrative action for trolling and bigotry. Acroterion (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Bmerrow

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

---

Not here. Has been making irrelevant and disruptive comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Satwant Kaur and their only other edits this year were attempts to promote her on a different article Mach61 (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked and AfD, um, sorted. What a mess. Daniel (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

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

WP:G7

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

---

Dear Community, I created an article to which I was connected as a COI. Before that, I engaged in paid editing for someone, which has already been deleted according to the speedy deletion criteria. I always want to avoid ANI. The last time I came here to complain about one editor, I had my draft reviewer and NPR rights revoked while I was contributing and trying to reduce NEW Pages backlog. So, here is my concern: Recently, I requested WP:G7 for Sangita Swechcha, and one admin Espresso Addict declined. I talked with them about the issue on their talk page, but they refused to discuss it further. However, when I looked at their edit history, I found that multiple editors have accused or suspected them of engaging in WP:PAID activities. Since they are admin, this is not a personal attack, but I want to know or learn if I am missing something here. I really disagree with their decision. Please suggest something or input your valuable comments regarding the issue. DIVINE 20:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Er, what? I declined to delete Sangita Swechcha G7 as DIVINE is not even the primary author by text count.

I attempted to provide helpful advice on the topic but disengaged from the discussion when it was clear DIVINE was not understanding what I was writing.

No one's ever accused me of being a paid editor to my face, as far as I'm aware. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Dear community, Is there anything written anywhere on wikipedia rules related to primary author by text count? DIVINE 20:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The G7 rubric states "provided that the only substantial content of the page was added by its author". Espresso Addict (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

As i am disagreeing you i would like to take suggestions from others. DIVINE 20:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Espresso Addict has accurately quoted the policy in question. If you aren't even the primary contributor, then it's safe to conclude that another author has added substantial content, and thus it's not eligible for G7. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I created the page. DIVINE 20:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@DIVINE, the Who Wrote That? extension calculates that your contributions to the article = 28.3%. Since another editor expanded the article after you created it, it is not eligible for a G7 deletion request. Schazjmd (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

So i was the one who published and i cannot request to remove ? What about DB Self? DIVINE 20:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

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

User:SaulGoodman6969

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

---

User is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. They have been warned numerous times in the past several months, 5 times this month alone, for original research, unexplained content removal / disruptive editing, edit warring, and misuse of minor edits. At articles such as Five Nights at Freddy's (film), they have been told to go to the talk page numerous times on certain issues, yet continues pushing their revisions and when reverted or confronted about, they consider it "bias". Specific examples of their disruptive editing are:

• [68] Readding content after given reason for removal two edits before.
• [69] Blatant misinformation or original research
• [70] Refusing to go to the talk page after being told to a few edits before, also misuse of minor edits. Also occurred earlier in the articles history.
• [71] Whatever this is supposed to be. Furthermore, when confronted about using unreliable sources here, they described sources being deemed unreliable as "biased".
• More examples of their behavior are on their talk page, where they've already been warned countless times. This is all just the surface level that I am aware of.

They have also WP:INSULT-ed other editors, such as [72], where they described their disruptive editing being reverted as "if a bunch of blind people are inspecting it" and "borderline censorship". And while this part doesn't matter too much (but could still be considered disruptive), they recently attempted to recreate a deleted article without changing anything from the deleted version, less than a month after the deletion discussion. This editor either has no WP:COMPETENCE or is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. NegativeMP1 18:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

1. You need to tag the user.

2. They are already blocked so this might be moot.

3. None of these seem THAT egregious to me.

LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

They were blocked shortly after I made this, so the concerns got addressed anyways. Gonna strike this once I get home, thanks for the response though. NegativeMP1 20:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Vmzp85

@Vmzp85: has a talkpage with many warnings against removing sources when a route starts from airports. Despite this, the user continues with this, including on Gatwick Airport, Madrid–Barajas Airport and Orly Airport. He/She seems to think that the sources only cover the start date, making the sources outdated after the start. But the sources also cover the route itself. The many warnings from many people did not yield any success up to now.

I don't know what to do now. The Banner talk 00:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

@Der Hon:, @Saucenowithnodompling:, @Dl2000: The Banner talk 23:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll admit to not fully understanding what they're trying to do, but removing sources from articles, such as in the diffs above, is unacceptable. Vmzp85, please stop this and start listening to what people are telling you or you are going to end up blocked.

P.S. @The Banner: your pings above don't work unless you add a fresh signature in the same edit. – bradv 02:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but I think the warning fell on deaf ears. See this edit and this edit, where he removed start date and source. This edit also receives some question marks from me. The Banner talk 23:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Promotional IP range on behalf of Air Force

Resolved

 – Both ranges blocked for a week for evasion Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

2804:14C:6581:5F9B:0:0:0:1001 (talk · contribs) and more accounts from this Brazilian IP range have been adding promotional, poorly sourced content to multiple articles. Much of the content appears to have been copied from US Air Force websites, so some of it may be free use. If not, there's liable to be an ocean of rev/deletion for copyright violation. At any rate, it ain't NPOV. See also long term disruption at alternate account, 2804:14C:6581:569E:0:0:0:1000 (talk · contribs). I'm sure there are more. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• I can add links to the articles involved, but first a question: are the Brazilian accounts block evasion by Jordison.francisco (talk · contribs), who had similar interests and has been blocked for copyright violations? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Um that's a blatant duck quack on that yes. I've blocked them for block evasion. Also 2804:14C:6581:569E:0:0:0:1000. We may need to go into some range blocking.Canterbury Tail talk 22:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

With luck, those two will be the only mallards. Thank you, Canterbury Tail. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

User:O recomeço and WP:CIR

I have competency concerns with O recomeço, specifically with their use of poor grammar in adding entries to Wikipedia:Unusual articles:

• [73]
• [74]
• [75]
• [76]
• [77]
• [78]
• [79]
• [80]
• [81]
• [82]
• [83]

The above examples are from this month alone. I'm sure there's more, but even after the entries added were copyedited, there has seemingly been no improvement. I'd say we block them. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 17:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I see no attempt to contact them on the talk page or their own talk. ANI is completely unwarranted so far 47.188.8.46 (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Um... [84] The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 22:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing the IP means that no one tried talking directly to the user to explain them the issue with their editing pattern. Isabelle Belato ^{🏴‍☠️} 22:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Isabelle Belato, I'm the user that you're talking about here. To tried to explain my part, i'm a relatily new wikipedian and i'm still trying to figure out how the rules really in this community, but other usernames have already wanded me abaout the, impopularity per say, that its to make mutiple small editis on Wikipedia pages. But can you ask me one big question: in average, what is the "nice scale", and the frenquency, that a user make to a page, for its edit to be consider "legitimate" amoung other wikipedia users? For the gramatical errors, I'm not a native english speaker, so that's something I'll have to improve in the future. O recomeço (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi O recomeço. The issue being presented here is not your amount of edits, but your domain of the English language. While it's no issue to misspell things occasionally, something that I do myself, The Grand Delusion is presenting here a pattern in your editing, meaning other users have to continually correct your mistakes. You should consider installing an autocorrect on your browser so that doesn't happen as often. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 11:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Belato. Thanks for trying to explain me the grand issue that you gauys are trying to inform me. I'll to make less gramticals erros in the future. O recomeço (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be better if you just stuck to editing the Wikipedia of your native language. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 13:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

O recomeço, your next two edits after your message (1 and 2) had both spelling and grammatical errors. I'll say this more bluntly: your English isn't good enough to edit the English Wikipedia. Please, only edit the versions of Wikipedia in which you have a firm grasp of the language. -- Mike 🗩 20:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

And your very next edit (3), included more mistakes that needed fixed. -- Mike 🗩 13:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour by User:Wassim Wydadi

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

User continues to engage in WP:disruptive editing and WP:edit waring by removing sourced content, despite multiple warning over months, refuses to engage or WP:Get the point.

• First edit 14 September 2023
• Second edit 25 September 2023‎
• Third edit 20 October 2023‎
• First warning 20 October 2023‎
• Fourth edit 27 November 2023‎
• Second warning 27 November 2023‎
• Fifth edit 27 November 2023‎
• Third warning 27 November 2023‎

Skjoldbro (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Skjoldbro You can't just bombard an editor with template warnings that's neither obvious vandalism or disruption. This is a content dispute, and you haven't bothered to start a disccuion on the talk pages (user talk page doesn't count). Try doing that first before making a report to ANI. Jerium (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks like they're all the same mobile edit. Could be they can't hear you although I still can't think of a good reason they're making the edit in the first place. Might take some kind of admin action to get their attention and at least figure out what they're thinking. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Skjoldbro You and Wassim Wydadi already broke the WP:3RR rule and are both eligible for blocking. Please start a discussion before this gets worse for you. Jerium (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

3RR has not been violated, although they could arguably be blocked for edit warring at this point since they've done nothing but revert for the last several days. Daniel Case (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Armies/OF/Morocco. Jerium (talk) 05:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jerium I think it would behoove you to lower your torch and pitchfork. I'm not sure what's making you say that Skjoldbro bombarded WW with templates, or that WW's contributions aren't disruptive, or that this is a content dispute, or that discussions *must* take place on article talk pages and that User Talk doesn't count as communication, or that 3RR has been violated without evidence. Reasonable minds may differ but I don't find any of these claims true. GabberFlasted (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Does somebody really have to explain to you why there’s water in the ocean? Jerium (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Ekpyros

This user signs their posts as ElleTheBelle, however we have a user Ellethebelle and that signature is violating WP:SIGFORGE. This has been raised to Ekpyros multiple times, with Drmies asking them to be more transparent and I asked them to correct the SIGFORGE issue as well. None of those complaints have been responded to. nableezy - 16:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, this needs to be actioned in one way or another. Black Kite (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
• I actioned it--in one way. All they need to do is change the signature. BTW I'll never understand why people don't respond to talk page comments. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I've made it clear to them what they need to do. GiantSnowman 18:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
    • This editor should not be unblocked under any circumstances: she is a long term civil POV-pusher who is here purely to WP:RGW (in her case, the great wrongs in question being anything that a white supremacist would object to). A significant fraction of her edits plainly misstate source material, often in astonishingly dishonest and tendentious ways, and this has been true since she first began editing here. Here are two of her recent edits; I challenge anyone to justify them based on the sources being cited: [85] [86]. In my experience these are representative examples rather than outliers. --JBL (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
      • The signature issue aside, I've looked at the source and really the problem with Special:Diff/1183162044 is that if, per the edit summary, one thinks that it's a bad source to start with, why replace one cherry-picked set of statements from a bad source with another different set? I can see both forms of the text supported by the source, and your challenge can actually be met. But both of them are from highly disparate tiny parts of it. Uncle G (talk) 11:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

        Uncle G touche, I guess -- in that instance, the issue is not that her edit misrepresents the source, it's that took material that was related to the article and rewrote it to be about some completely other topic. Is that any better? No, this is still someone who should be kept far away from the encyclopedia (even if also I should have striven to be more precise in describing the precise reasons why). --JBL (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

      • Ah yeah, I wondered where I remembered the name from. I first encountered them at Murder of Ahmaud Arbery, where they were trying to make the murder victim look bad. They have been active at a number of other articles about murders both by and of non-white people - even historical ones - and their POV is quite clear to see. Black Kite (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

They have changed their signature from 'ElleTheBelle' to 'ElleThatBelle'. I've told them it's not good enough and so I have not unblocked. If I wasn't AGFing I would say they are trolling. GiantSnowman 19:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd say that and the above information is enough to just declare them WP:NOTHERE and leave them blocked for that reason specifically. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• As the signature was fixed, and the user was told explicitly that that would suffice for unblocking, I've unblocked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with that, and I consider this issue resolved. If somebody wants to raise another issue they should feel free to do so, but this was specifically about the signature and that has been corrected. nableezy - 21:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. GiantSnowman 21:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, the one issue is resolved -- but other issues have been raised above, and also deserve consideration. --JBL (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Requesting TPA removal of User:Christom2

Pretty self explanatory. They're blocked but are adding violations of NPA and antisemitism. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 19:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, please make whatever ugly stuff they're saying stop ASAP. Remsense留 19:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Done, and edits revdel'd. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 19:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Sn.c22 not getting feedback from other editors concerning repeated Manual of Style deviations

• Sn.c22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Other editors have repeatedly asked this editor to stop adding sub-national flags to articles, random boldface, and the like. The requests have gone unanswered and their behavior has not changed. It looks like they are a mobile editor and may not have received the message; they have never communicated with another editor via talkpage, including their own, as far as I can see. Their only use of talkapages seems to be nonsensical edit requests like this and this back in March, their latest TP usage. There may be a CIR issue as well. Can something be done? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

We really should have a better way of dealing with sullen silence. I have reported a similar case above, where the editor simply ignores all messages at their talk page, including the ANI referral. It is all very well to assert WP:Communication is required but unless action is taken, what does it mean? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

They can be blocked by an admin until they acknowledge the problem, that's the usual solution. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Blocked from article space, 2 weeks, until they respond. If they do and it is a reasonable one feel free to unblock. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone know whether partial blocks prevent voting in the ArbCom elections? If so it seems a little disproportionate to disenfranchise this editor for relatively minor MoS infractions. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know but I wouldn't think so as the block should only apply to article space here. Try partial blocking me and I'll see if I can revote. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 01:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll save you a block: per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021#Partially blocked voters, partially blocked editors can indeed vote. (Under most circumstances, they can even run for the Committee.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Extraordinary Writ. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Repeated deletions and significant unsourced changes to Apple Vision Pro

I've noticed a lot of IP editors show up on this page and remove various chunks of prose and insist the device has been cancelled without any sourcing or edit summaries. They also tend to break the page completely. Should this IP be blocked or could we just protect the page? Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

It appears to be the same range that is making the disruptive edits. I gave a warning to last IP and am watching the page. If it continues a range block may be in order. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I just did a partial range block on that page. They're not going to read the talk pages. Canterbury Tail talk 16:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

And that works too. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the snappy response. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

GPTZero

@Comintell: has been removing my contributions from GPTZero page. The reason he cites is he says that even though my reference link is reliable, it can't be used because it's not primary / secondary source. The thing is, we don't need primary and secondary source for this page, the link shows a write up on an algorithm, and shows how exactly it works. Tried talking to talkpage on his talk page, but he is not listening. Moreover, 95% of his contributions on Wikipedia are pages, which are taken down as promotions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.55.68.245 (talk) 03:47, 29 Nov 2023 (UTC)

To the IP user: are you sure you want to proceed with this report? You've acknowledged that you're attempting to add original research to the article, if I follow what you're saying by a "write up on an algorithm". Further, as Comintell has said before, Github is not a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello @C.Fred, what a divine comedy the internet is! IP user 182.55.68.245 seems to be located in Singapore. (Redacted)

To me it seems the IP user 182.55.68.245 was abusing Wikipedia in order to promote a Github repo that is in no way shape or form relevant to the page. This is just my opinion. Comintell (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC) And this is outing. Don't do it again. ​ Primefac (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I aim to ensure that the article maintains a neutral tone. At present, it appears to resemble a promotional piece authored by the GPTZero team. I will provide links to pertinent articles highlighting instances where GPTZero has exhibited inappropriate behavior and produced inaccurate results 182.55.68.245 (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Not a valid argument. Maybe valid to someone who hasn't been editing on wiklpedia for even a day and doesn't know the rules. Comintell (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac Thanks, I didn't know and only had good intentions in mind. Comintell (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

No worries, it can sometimes tricky to find the balance between a generic "this IP clearly has a COI" and actually giving the details of how you know that. Primefac (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

You're right. My intention was to justify and disclose the process behind the analysis as not to make baseless accusations. I will keep this in mind. Thank you again. Comintell (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Evidence of a Battleground Mentality and possibly WP:SPASOCK user.

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

---

In the discussion on the Religious views of Adolf Hitler article, the user "Ithinkusergoeshere," who engaged in numerous edit wars with me over a minor revision addressing redundancy in the content by concise wording, has now escalated the situation by making a racist and prejudiced remark implying intellectual disability in countries associated with my background. This comment follows a series of WP:personal attacks both on the article's talk page and on the user's talk page.

Furthermore, he is now indicating his intention to exacerbate the situation by adding additional content with the explicit aim of provoking me demonstrating WP:BATTLEGROUNDMENTALITY. 182.183.53.207 (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm making racist and prejudice remarks regarding intellectual disability in countries associated with your background?? I don't know what your background is Sir or Madam. Hell I don't even know if you're a man or a woman, I was just making a simple observation regarding IQ levels. I do apologize if it caused any offence towards you.

I don't see how adding additional content to the page would be an explicit aim of trying to provoke you. If anything this should be something that you should be happy about as you have such a strong admiration for the topic. Ithinkusergoeshere (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

No comment on the content dispute, but this edit [87] by Ithinkusergoeshere on their talk page is indeed a direct personal attack. Calling another editor a "low IQ individual" warrants an immediate block in my opinion. Meters (talk) 09:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Calling another editor a "low IQ individual" warrants an immediate block in my opinion. Agreed; there are no circumstances where it is appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 09:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

(ec)Just to clarify, the talk page comment was in response to an edit warring warning about the edits to Religious views of Adolf Hitler and refers to the IP OP. Meters (talk) 09:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

your low IQ is showing . . . I'm struggling to understand your intellectual level here[88]

You've already outed yourself. You seem very upset with what Albert Speer had to say about Hitler's views on your religion. You know IQ is a funny thing, did you know that some countries in the world have an average IQ level or a borderline level that would classify them as having a intellectual disability (formerly classified as mental retardation in the DSM-5) in the United States. Nothing needed to be trimmed or anything like that, your motives have been well established by now.[89]

There's also some comments that assume bad faith that the IP's edits are solely motivated by their own personal views on Islam which can be easily found in Ithinkusergoeshere's edit history, but these are more egregious personal attacks. — Czello ^(music) 09:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• Indeffed by TheresNoTime. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Rungsung4's personal attack on me & misbehaves

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

---

User:Rungsung4 said something bad about me here in an edit summary while manually reverting my edits. It was a personal attack explicitly. During their revert, they were re-bringing the removed unsourced contents (excluding one source which is a tourism promotional material) in the article Talui, and later didn't even add any sources or citations. I left a message on their talk page here suggesting them not to personally harass me while also informing them about a revert of one or more of their edit(s). They didn't reply anything but started reverting my edit here once again. I don't want to engage in an edit war. So, I left a message regarding ANI notice in their talk page here. Regards! Haoreima (talk) 07:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

In the past, this user was remarked for violating WP:CHU by doing self renaming, which was later reverted by User:Train2104, here.

• I've indefinitely blocked Rungsung4 (see block log for details). I've also reverted the material they added to Talui, the only article they're interested in, as unsourced blatant promotion.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

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

OrangTangerang53

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

---

OrangTangerang53 (talk · contribs) has been previously blocked for the unsourced addition of content to BLPs. Despite that, and all he multiple warnings received, they continue to add unsourced content to BLPs. I think a longer block is warranted. GiantSnowman 17:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• I think so too: done. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Strongalliance

As a global sysop, I just deleted some thousand pages from pamwiki and cbk-zamwiki (copy-pasted from here) created by this user. I suppose it is Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Bertrand101. -- MF-W 21:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Possible based on some rather old information on the cuwiki, but not similar to more recently reported socks other than geolocation. Someone more familiar with Bertrand101's behaviour should have a look at this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) Whilst I am not an admin, I am familiar enough with Bertrand101's behaviour to know that this edit, this edit, this edit, this edit and especially these edits (I make particular note of the reference to Cebu in the final diff, which is a well-established behaviour pattern of theirs) are all indicative of this user being a possible sock. Looking at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Bertrand101, you can see which articles they frequently disrupt, and these match up to a few of them, plus there are some similarities in terms of editing articles on Philippine radio stations (despite the exact names of these stations not necessarily matching up to those listed). Patient Zero^talk 02:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Gologmine

Users (myself included) have repeatedly told this user not to add information using unreliable, questionable, or even no sources to articles, such as:

• Dulguun Odkhuu - repeatedly added back information after I told them it uses an unreliable source 1 2 3; they are aware of my edit summaries as proven in theirs. Claims I am vandalizing the article and wrongly templated me on my talk page.
• Khorgo - similar to the first instance. 4 Also templated user @AirshipJungleman29: 5.

There are more instances, but I have no time to list them all. Also worth mentioning is their responses on their talk page. Spinixster (chat!) 15:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• • +1. I think the prose/encyclopedic quality of this edit shows they do not meet WP:CIR standard. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• Since removing a warning is de facto acknowledgment of it, I have blocked the user for 24 hours for edit warring, based on this edit, a 3RR violation. —C.Fred (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• Edit-warring is only one of many problems this user has, and I suspect that a longer block is needed. The user not only insists on their edits, but attacks other editors (me included), calling their edits vandalism and slapping warnings on their Talk pages, some of which are completely irrelevant, e.g., accusing me of removing maintenance templates when I reverted their promotional/unreliably sourced edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Bbb23 I have extended an offer to reduce the block to a partial block on condition that they assume good faith and agree to engage in civil discussion. I think their response will be telling on how the community needs to proceed here. —C.Fred (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• Their unblock request contains accusations of sockpuppetry. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• I ask for some eyes on their talk page as well as their contributions now that they're unblocked - they're continuing to reply to users, seemingly without understanding Wikipedia's guidelines. Spinixster (chat!) 03:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax repeated canvassing & edit warring behavior.

@KlayCax: recently engaged in an edit war, violating WP:3RR at the 2024 United States presidential election article. While they self-reverted so I assume they did not mean to violate it (even though they have a history of edit warring); they actively canvassed me to try to persuade me to undo their self revert. Please also note that our article falls under a contentious topic, which makes this behavior even more pressing to address.

Here are examples of KlayCax canvassing: [90] [91][92][93]

Here are attempts by me to warn KlayCax not to canvass. (Please note that in addition to the warnings on their talk page, I have also given them several warnings on article talk pages): [94][95] Prcc27 (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I've been busy at residency. The edits were reverted days ago. @Prcc27:.

Asking what aspect of the edit you objected to is not canvassing. Per the definition: Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way. None of that has applied here. Per WP: ONUS, changes that are disputed by editors shouldn't be instituted into the article without consensus, which adding Democrats/Republicans to the infobox indisputably does, as the discussion page shows. KlayCax (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

This was unquestionably a canvassing incident. As for the other incident, I never said I objected to removing the red and blue bars; I am not the user that re-added them. However, I did tell you to self-revert, not necessarily because I agreed or disagreed with your edits, but because you made 4 (then 5) reverts in less than 24 hours. Do you honestly not see how it is disruptive to edit-war, then self-revert when you realize you crossed 3RR, but then try to bypass 3RR by persuading a user to undo your self-revert? It would have been more appropriate to make your argument at the article’s talk page, instead of pinging me at your talk page and trying to make your argument there. Also, you have been canvassing on circumcision related topics too, which I called you out for in the past. So it’s not like you haven’t been warned about this behavior. Prcc27 (talk) 06:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

User creating inappropriate pages

• KyngWilliams13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has created several pages in the Talk namespace of some (fictional?) fan film which, according to a Google search, seems to be their own creation. The user here indicates they have no intention to abide by Wikipedia's policy or editor advice. funplussmart (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you have mistyped the name of the user in question, because the link you provided does not correspond to an existing user. Remsense留 02:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Remsense, it should be fixed now. funplussmart (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

It is, thank you. Remsense留 02:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Funplussmart: when you start a thread about user here you need to notify them on their talk page. I've done so for you. On the merits, I think this is premature. You've given them adequate warning and an opportunity to learn how to edit here. If they ignore the warnings and keep creating nonsense pages then we'll have to block them, but I'd like to hear from them first. Mackensen (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

This concerns the deleted Talk:Bendy And Friends: The Adventure In Paradise Falls. An ANI report is not needed for such a new user doing something inappropriate but not particularly harmful (except that File:Bendy And Friends The Adventure In Paradise Falls.png certainly lives up to its copyright violation speedy deletion request). A new user like this would benefit from more explanation. Johnuniq (talk) 07:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Davethorp

User:Davethorp has been intractable on Talk:Strictly Come Dancing (series 21) with a steady stream of personal insults, including, for example, labeling edits as "vandalism" simply because they disagree with them (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Strictly_Come_Dancing_(series_21)&diff=prev&oldid=1185630496 & https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strictly_Come_Dancing_(series_18)&curid=64408487&diff=1187382975&oldid=1187378976, among others). Their issue seems to be regarding the inclusion of one table (an average score table) which I have long stopped arguing about since the nice folks at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard confirmed that the means used to generate the data for the table do not violate WP:OR. I don't know what they are still carping about, but today they blanket-reverted several articles to the "last good version" (whatever...) that erases the work that went into bringing those articles into compliance with the MOS. I explained the changes here: Talk:Strictly Come Dancing (series 21)#Compliance with Wikipedia MOS, and received no complaints other than that one table. In fact, other suggestions were implemented, but User:Davethorp insists on undoing everything while throwing around threats and personal insults ("If you don’t think that calculating the mean of some numbers is a routine calculation then that probably says more about your maths ability. Thankfully you don’t need to do the maths. I’m sure someone else will be more than happy to do it for you...").

I have received nothing but personal insults, harassing phone calls, my personal information posted here on Wikipedia, and a heinous death threat so severe that Wikipedia felt compelled to contact my local police department by users in the U.K. over this fucking TV show. Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Pinging User:Ponyo she since is at least aware of some of this nonsense. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) "Death threats"? "Harassing phone calls?" This user is really starting to piss me off already. @Bgsu98, read this page now, it will guide you with what to do in your case. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 22:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I already did all of that when those things took place. I enjoyed being woken up in the middle of the night by my local police department inquiring as to whether I was still alive... Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

And this has what to do with me? If you’ve received death threats that’s unacceptable but nothing to do with me or the dispute we have Davethorp (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

And this has what to do with me? But didn't you actually do it? You sent them; logically, you are the only suspect here. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 23:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea who is behind everything. But it all stems from this fucking TV show. Like, seriously... touch some grass or get some fucking fresh air. I can't imagine getting so bent out of shape over a dance show's Wikipedia article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

OK OK, slow down, what the hell? Have you read WP:PROFANEDISCUSSIONS? I'm literally the spectator in the Colosseum watching a tiger (you) aggressively fighting the gladiator (Davethorp). The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 23:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Erm excuse me. What are you accusing me of here. [Legal threat redacted] by Patient Zero^talk. I’ve literally done nothing here but have been accused of sending someone death threats which I’ve never done Davethorp (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm just trying to help. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 23:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

You literally said I was the only suspect In something that may well be made up

Sounds Like an accusation to me Davethorp (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Trust & Safety department has all the details. Nothing has been made up. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

So given this ANI and some arguments that have been made against me you have evidence that I made these threats?

Didn’t think so but if you do have evidence of that please do share. Otherwise it’s not relevant to this vexatious ANI Davethorp (talk)| Davethorp (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

By all means delete the swearing though. Not like it shows on edit histories or anything Davethorp (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Wow

Your edits on the articles concerned have been shown as going against concensus on the talk page

If anyone has had an issue with the concencus of Wikipedia it is you. You were told average score tables were compliant with WP:CALC. You didn’t accept that and ignored the opinion of two editors and took it to WP:NORN who also told you they were subject to the same

You Continued not to accept this and described the inclusion of the average score tables as “idiotic” in your edit summary. You also demonstrated incivility violations to me in that time including failing to retract a rolled eye emoji

I stated I considered your edits vandalism and got no response so started to revert them which then led to this ANI all of which is of your making ——- Davethorp (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not dignifying your garbage comments any longer. I responded by telling you that edits you don't personally like do not constitute "vandalism", yet you have continued to throw that term around. As far as consensus goes, there was an RfC in 2021 which addressed this issue: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 12#RfC about elimination-style reality programs. Per that RfC, "There is a consensus that in articles about elimination-style reality television programs... tables should comply with accessibility guidelines." Local consensus cannot override these requirements. Over the past year or so, there has been a concerted effort to bring the articles of these reality TV programs into compliance with the MOS. And again, your only complaint seems to be about the Average Chart, which the last time I checked, is ON THE FUCKING ARTICLE. In fact, after the OR people confirmed it did not constitute original research, rather than pursue the matter, edit-war, or whatever, I actually formatted the table to bring it into compliance and last week corrected it, because even though it was a "routine calculation", somehow two score totals divided by the same number of dances yielded two different averages. So, is there any complaint other than the Average Chart which was long dealt with? Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I’m not going to dignify this with more of a response than it needs to

You have demonstrated that you don’t accept that the average score tables meet WP:CALC. This is shown on the series 21 talk page and your edits on that article. This is all any objective admin needs to see Davethorp (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, you are carping about the Average Score chart, which has been present on Strictly Come Dancing (series 21) since September 23: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strictly_Come_Dancing_(series_21)&diff=prev&oldid=1176760214 Why on earth are you still going on about it when it was re-added two months ago. I am so against that table that I spent time I would rather use doing almost anything else to a) format it properly so it meets the requirements of the MOS, and b) do the math properly since someone else was unable to? Does that make any sense? Have I removed the table? You're upset that I asked for an opinion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard? Isn't that what we would want Wikipedia editors to do: seek out confirmation of policy at the appropriate forum? I don't know what on earth your grievance is at this point. Despite being informed by User:Ponyo that your blanket reversions contrary to MOS:ACCESS were disruptive and also deleted administrative protection templates (User talk:Davethorp#November 2023), you did it again. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

And all anyone with a degree of impartiality needs to do is look at the Strictly Come Dancing series 21 talk page. Right at the bottom

You never accepted the concensus against you. If you had we wouldn’t be here Davethorp (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"You guys wanted this chart, so please explain to me how two different dancers with the same number of cumulative points and the same number of performed dances have two different averages. Also, the second column says Rank by average, yet they are ranked by elimination order. Make it make sense. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)"
🤷‍♂️ Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

And as I commented then your disdain for the accuracy of the chart came 9 minutes after the published end time for the show at a time the article was being heavily edited

Hardly the attitude of someone who had accepted that concensus had gone against them when it came to the average score chart but more the attitude of someone looking for a reason to remove it despite the concensus Davethorp (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Did I remove it? No, I edited it. What is your problem? Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I’m not the one with a problem. You brought this here

I’m also not the one using foul language in their comments here which could be considered an incivility violation. Rather like the rolled eyes you declined to retract on the talk page for series 21 of Strictly Come Dancing Davethorp (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

By all means delete the swearing though. Not like it shows on edit histories Davethorp (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Stop. There's already almost no chance someone is going to read all of this. Each response cuts that already slim chance down even further. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Can someone please explain, using short, unadorned sentences, what's going on here? The next profane comment catches a block. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Davethorp has engaged in disruptive editing and personal insults (for example, describing edits he doesn’t like as “vandalism”) despite instructions from an administrator (User:Ponyo) to cease. He has also refused to drop the stick by continuing to insist that I am trying to delete a specific table that has existed intact at Strictly Come Dancing (series 21) for over two months. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

And to counter user Bgsu98 has engaged in disruptive edits on the same article and a refusal to accept concensus. The tables they mention have stayed in the article as they say but they’ve taken every opportunity to show their disdain for it both in edit summaries and on the talk page rather than just accepting it and moving on

Some wild and frankly false (Davethorp (talk)) 07:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC) accusations have also been thrown around in this ANI discussion suggesting I made death threats to the user when I’ve done nothing of the sort. Bgsu98 on the other hand has resorted to foul language Davethorp (talk) 04:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mackensen: Davethorp has been asked more than once to stop issuing legal threats yet they believe that the part of WP:NLT that says "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat" means they can keep flinging the word libel and variations around. City of Silver 05:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Very well, in the interest of avoiding something that may be perceived as a legal threat, though in no way was intended to be, I retract and apologise for my use of the word libellous or other derivatives

That said there are a number of false and misleading accusations concerning me both in the original post on this discussion and the discussions which immediately followed it and I ask that they be corrected. I believe that’s the correct way to go about it looking over the policy linked more in depth now it’s not the middle of the night here Davethorp (talk) 07:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, appreciated. Are there diffs that substantiate the various claims? Mackensen (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

[[96]] shows bgsu98 referring to the inclusion of an average score table as being “idiotic” despite it complying with WP:CALC

[[97]] shows bgsu98 again criticising the average score table as being inaccurate 9 minutes after the show had ended at a time when the article was being updated by other editors

Bgsu98 has also removed a lot of long standing information from all of the series articles on Strictly Come Dancing that they view as being “fancruft” but many editors disagreed but it’s very much become a case of we’re doing it their way and tough if you object

As for the false accusations and misleading that misled another editor into believing that I had been sending bgsu98 death threats the first few comments in this ANI should be sufficient Davethorp (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

From my original post on this thread (edited for length): User:Davethorp has been intractable on Talk:Strictly Come Dancing (series 21) with a steady stream of personal insults, including, for example, labeling edits as "vandalism" simply because they disagree with them (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Strictly_Come_Dancing_(series_21)&diff=prev&oldid=1185630496 & https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strictly_Come_Dancing_(series_18)&curid=64408487&diff=1187382975&oldid=1187378976, among others). Their issue seems to be regarding the inclusion of one table… which I have long stopped arguing about since… Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard confirmed that the means used to generate the data for the table do not violate WP:OR. I don't know what they are still carping about, but today they blanket-reverted several articles to the "last good version"… that erases the work that went into bringing those articles into compliance with the MOS. I explained the changes here: Talk:Strictly Come Dancing (series 21)#Compliance with Wikipedia MOS, and received no complaints other than that one table…User:Davethorp insists on undoing everything while throwing around threats and personal insults ("If you don’t think that calculating the mean of some numbers is a routine calculation then that probably says more about your maths ability. Thankfully you don’t need to do the maths. I’m sure someone else will be more than happy to do it for you..."). Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks all. Many of these diffs and the talk page discussion are from September. They're messy, but they're in the past. I don't think you two should talk to each other, but what's the present dispute? Mackensen (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The issue that prompted this rigamarole in the first place was User:Davethorp's blanket reversions to months-old versions of the following articles: Strictly Come Dancing (series 20), Strictly Come Dancing (series 19), and Strictly Come Dancing (series 18). These reverted to non-compliant states that were in violation of MOS:ACCESS among other MOS policies (MOS:COLOR, MOS:DTAB, etc.). His argument was that "consensus" had not been reached, when it had (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 12#RfC about elimination-style reality programs). The necessary changes were outlined here: Talk:Strictly Come Dancing (series 21)#Compliance with Wikipedia MOS. Aside from the issue of the one table (Average Score Chart) which, as you said and as I've also said, was settled back in September, Davethorp did not raise any other objections; yet his blanket reversions undid all of those MOS edits. Finally, his persistent use of the word "vandalism" to justify his reversions (describing my edits as "vandalism", etc. just because he didn't personally like them) was also what prompted this filing. Bgsu98 (Talk) 07:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

And from my side the issue is that despite the issue of the average score tables, as you say, being over two months ago there are still signs that bgsu98 hasn’t accepted that in their edits or edit summaries since which I gave two examples of. This is disruptive and Wikipedia:Listen seems to apply here.

As I said above bgsu98 has also removed a lot of long standing useful information from the articles in question labelling it as “Fancruft”. Whenever anyone has tried to oppose this, and there has been opposition from some editors, they’ve been met with an attitude of basically “tough, this is how it is now”. What should have happened before this long standing information was deleted, and one other editor confirmed this on the talk page, was that they should have sought opinions on the relevant talk pages before deleting this long standing and useful, I myself make use of it for my job, information. Again bgsu98 doesn’t seem to Wikipedia:Listen to what other editors are telling them

My edits may have been a little heavy handed, and for that I apologise, however it was done with the intention of reverting the data that bgsu98 removed so there could be some discussion, as others have said there should have been, before it was removed again and I only did it on a small number of articles to test the water rather than the whole subset of 20 articles.

I also agree Mackensen that going forward it would be best if me and bgsu98 avoided interacting. Unfortunately it’s hard when they’ve effectively taken control of articles that I regularly refer to for my day job. If bgsu98 actually listened to the community concensus concerning the average score tables rather than taking every opportunity to knock them and show that they aren’t happy with the concensus that was reached then I could probably accept the removal of the rest of the information from those articles and things probably wouldn’t have flared up in the way they did Davethorp (talk) 09:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "long-standing information" you are referring to, but perhaps you have Wikipedia confused with a fansite (WP:NOTDATABASE). Might I suggest you check out https://strictlycomedancing.fandom.com/wiki/Strictly_Come_Dancing if you want to track who has the highest-scoring tango or what dance netted Joe Schmo his lowest score. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I won’t engage with the response too much as Mackensen made it clear that it would be best if we don’t engage each other, something I’m in total agreement with

However I find it interesting that whilst I was fairly pragmatic in my last reply above and trying to work on a solution that you again go out on the attack and again declaring the long standing information you removed to be fancruft or better suited on a fan site and it has to be your way or the highway no matter how many editors object

Perhaps I’m not the problem here Davethorp (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Partial block request for 156.52.0.0/16

• 156.52.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can an administrator block the IP range 156.52.0.0/16 from the article Kepler-1649c? A user from the range seems to have a strange obsession with the article, making unconstructive or otherwise disruptive non-English edits to it, such as this and this and this. This has been going on for a timeframe of nearly a week. I feel like a partial block (of maybe 2 weeks or 1 month?) would be the perfect remedy here. — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Death Editor 2 edits

In this Death Editor 2 (talk · contribs) continues WP:TE regarding his desire to add the word fraudster to the LEAD and this violates BLP 1RR rules. Another editor GreenC (talk · contribs) has been beyond patient with Death Editor. Content currently under discussion at Talk:Sam_Bankman-Fried#Is_“fraudster”_appropriate_wikivoice? and at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Sam_Bankman-Fried_and_"fraudster". However, this discussion is meant to discuss the specific WP:TE behavior of the editor Death Editor. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I think an editor ~10 months old, with ~1,500 edits (over two accounts, see declaration on userpage) that has accumulated these talk page histories User talk:Death Editor 2 and User talk:Death editor has shown they are NOTHERE and shows every sign they will continue to WP:TE and ignore CT policy. Disclaimer: I have had issues in the past with this editor.  // Timothy :: talk  06:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment recent record:

• 6 October 2023: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1140#User_Death_Editor_2_on_SpaceX_Starship_Flight_Tests
• 14 October 2023: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1140#Death_editor2_and_edit_warring_under_WP:ARBPIA
• 14 October 2023: Blocked 1 week for edit warring User_talk:Death_Editor_2#October_2023
• 12 November 2023: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1142#User_talk:Death_Editor_2_(...and_User_talk:Death_editor)
• 28 November 2023: Reverted a BLP 1RR two times in 24hrs while talk discussions were still ongoing, about the word "fraudster": Special:Diff/1187367657/1187393930 Special:Diff/1186982001/1187273239 for which some consensus exists is a BLP violation, generally, per this RfC.

Plus other conflict boards, and various warnings and edit warring disputes (talk page). -- GreenC 07:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I noticed this as Death Editor and another editor seemed to be engaging in WP:SEALION and GreenC was doing his best to humor them at Talk:Sam_Bankman-Fried#Is_“fraudster”_appropriate_wikivoice?. But I felt it was going too far, then I chimed in, then I raised this ANI as I noticed the editor was continuing to revert while doing SEALION, so it seemed to put the good faith part into question. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• p-blocked from Sam Bankman-Fried for continuing to add "fraudster" while there is ongoing discussion of whether it's an appropriate use in a BLP. Valereee (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• I note that Death Editor seems to have followed GreenC to my Talk page User_talk:Bdushaw#Fraudster to interject an opinion. I've not been involved at all with the article in question. Bdushaw (talk) 12:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Repeated disruptive editing by Betelgueseboy

User:Betelgueseboy continues to create pages without references (see User talk:Betelgueseboy and add unreferenced info to existing pages ([98], [99], [100]. Despite warnings, they do not respond and continue to edit. glman (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Not an admin, but shouldn't this be in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism? AkiyamaKana (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I see it already is now, added by another user. It will probably be seen more quickly in the designated space, though. AkiyamaKana (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! That's my bad - I wasn't sure where this fit. glman (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

NotPeterParker

NotPeterParker (talk · contribs) has been uncivil at Talk:African Americans and related discussions. These are the most inappropriate diffs/quotes, with more available on request:

1. complaint about "non-Black editors policing" the article
2. Of good-faith contributor Rsk6400, they say: "One, you're not American. Two, you're an ethnic German who is pro-Russian (according to your page), so you have neither a cultural investment or real comprehension of this American affair and should probably refrain from making further idiotic edits on here."
3. After a warning from Rsk about ownership and a warning from me about personal attacks, they double down and describe Rsk as "a non-American based in Europe"
4. A reply to Rsk:
   • "I refuse to let you or anyone else determine what is and what is not relevent to them in regards to so-called African Americans. You not being American is trivial; you being Germanic is minor. You being a foreigner is the crux of the issue."
   • to Rsk: "Stop inserting yourself into matters you obviously know little about (probably - but not certainly - because you are a foreigner)"
   • warns Rsk that "if you keep writing unsolicited nonsense on my User page, I will ban your privileges from editing Wikipedia."

I haven't gone into the context of the content dispute, but it's definitely gotten contentious in other ways at Talk:African Americans' newest sections, and more attention from editors would be helpful. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

At the absolute best this is an astounding lack of good faith from NotPeterParker – the ethnicity or even location of an editor is absolutely irrelevant to their ability to edit an article, or the weight of their comments on a talk page.

At worst these are personal attacks that enter the realms of racism. — Czello ^(music) 15:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I'm happy that Firefangledfeathers took this here, because I think the idea that only certain editors are allowed to edit certain pages would be the death of Wikipedia. Just for clarity I want to add that I'm not pro-Putin. The statement on my user's page is focussed on Russian literature and I use it to balance my support for Ukraine stated there. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

With just a couple hundred mainspace edits, I don't see that NotPeterParker's has had so overwhelmingly positive a contribution history as to even provide the faintest of cover for NOTHERE cracks such as those. I reckon we could do without his mindset. Ravenswing 16:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Made them go bye bye. Racial gatekeeping is not acceptable. If they think they can contribute in a co-operative manner they're welcome to make an unblock request. Canterbury Tail talk 17:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, CT. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, especially for stating that racial gatekeeping is not acceptable. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

User:TruthSeeker7331

The user TruthSeeker7331, who appears to have a singular focus on removing contents across multiple pages, has a talkpage history with many warnings against removing large amounts of sourced content. Despite this, the user removes all these warnings from the talk page and continues with disruptive edits. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

p-blocked from article space for refusal to communicate. Valereee (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've reopened this thread after it was closed, as the blocked user may want to engage here so that an understanding can be reached. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

That would be my fault. Sorry! For five more minutes...^{it's just a single vice} 17:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Swalors

Swalors (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) @Swalors is disruptive and edit warring in articles Gayur-khan and Simsim despite my requests to stop. He's removing WP:COMMONNAME supported by number of WP:RS (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - here he also added AI image that he presented as the image of Gayur-khan, 6, 7) renamed the article without discussing (1). I recommended the user to use talk page to explain his concerns there but he instead continued on edit warring despite his edits being reverted by me and another user (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). -- WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Yelh ma yelh;(( Swalors (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

User:S201050066 sockpuppet

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

---

The banned User:S201050066 has gotten hold of another IP address (2607:FEA8:59E1:9D00:A8B6:2124:7F4E:206B. He's been posting draft content relating to the Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic on his talk page and also made a false report about edit warring on my talk page. When @Melcous: reverted the on his talk page, he stated that "Melcous you are amking bassless clams accusations stop attacking us and follow our rules Wikipedia is terrorist organization and you guys are all dangerous. I have reverted that edit. S201050066 has made it clear he won't stop his war against Wikipedia even after being permanently banned. Besides sockpuppet accounts, he is not using any IP address he can get hold off. Andykatib (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Edelweiß109

This user has expressed views incompatible with Wikipedia's mission. Particularly, the creation of this userbox, stating that "This user is a national socialist" next to an image of an enormous swastika. It was briefly on their userpage. The user has also disruptively edited the WP:NAZI essay (see this diff). The user has few edits but they generally relate to ethnic groups (see this edit) or far-right issues. The user came to my attention due to their !vote in an RfC concerning a Third Reich propaganda icon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillowCity (talk • contribs) 14:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

This user is almost certainly 47.219.237.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), based on their comments at Talk:Horst Wessel. However, they've been indef'd by Ingenuity. — Czello ^(music) 14:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Disruption on Talk:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign

The IP 67.82.74.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been disrupting Talk:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign for the past few days, engaging in frequent personal attacks (including this comment which has since been removed), starting two out of process, non-neutral RfCs (1, 2), and generally failing to maintain an appropriate level of decorum despite multiple warnings from other editors. They also removed a good-faith comment from another editor, describing it as "vandalism". Given that this is a pretty clear case of WP:NOTHERE/WP:RGW or whatever else you want to call it, I think it's time to show them the door. — SamX [talk · contribs] 17:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

This report is ridiculous. No one has posted on that page since April prior to the current incident. I came back to the article after many months and found that the article is now in flagrant violation of Wikipedia policy, stating in the relevant text that introduces the issue that "Trump claimed the election was stolen" without then mentioning that the claims were false, as do the reliable sources stated in the article. Since the comment section of that article is effectively dead, I have merely asked for eyes on an important issue in order to resolve it, since posting to a talk page that has not been used in over 8 months is unhelpful. Nevertheless, I have also posted these concerns, in detail on the comment section. I am frustrated by the lack of engagement with substance on a flagrant violation of Wikipedia policy. There is not a single source in the article that frames Trump's claims of a stolen election without immediately stating that these claims are falsehoods. My description of this state of affairs is neutral because there is no dispute as to whether Trump's claims are indeed false; every reliable source states that they are false and no one has denied that. Framing this as an issue of neutrality is incorrect because there is no real dispute as to the truth of these claims.

As far as the accusation that I removed an edit, this was an error as I misunderstood their vote for a close to mean that they had unilaterally closed the discussion in opposition to the prior poster who had also decided the discussion could stand after the changes that had been made to the original post. I did not realize there was a comment, I thought they had simply closed the discussion from the edit description. It was an error.

And again, all I have asked is that we restore the word "falsely" to the sentence that "Trump claimed the 2020 election was stolen," as it used to read. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I have partially blocked the IP editor from Talk:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign and its associated article for 48 hours.

IP editor - You may not use the talk page as a forum. If you wanted to ask that "falsely" be reinserted, this certainly was not the way to do that. Your edits were disruptive at best. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but can you kindly explain to me how I "used the talk page as a forum"? I was concerned solely with making a specific change to an article. To my understanding, using a "talk page as a forum" means using the talk page to discuss the topic in question. I proposed a concrete change to the article in order to render the article in compliance with Wikipedia's policies and adhere to its sources. For example, the specific article cited for that sentence introduces Trump's false claims of a stolen election as follows : "his false claims of election fraud in the months leading up to the riot." Wikipedia however introduces proven falsehoods described as such in reliable sources merely as "claims". I'm honestly shocked that not one editor has taken the effort to correct a flagrant violation of policy where an article directly contradicts the description given in the article's sources. I would have thought this would have been a priority for our editors here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.74.5 (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

No, you were not solely concerned with that. The vast majority of your edit consisted of a diatribe against Trump supporters and insults towards previous editors of the article. That is not what a talk page is for. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Certainly. The following are diffs and quotes from your edits that were forum-like, i.e., they used the page as a venue to vent your personal opinions on the topic. They were additionally WP:POLEMIC and WP:NPA.

• This page has been the target of a concerted propaganda campaign from the Far-Right and is a disgrace to humanity for its worshipful bootlicking of Trump... Indeed, the only one who attempted (and failed) to steal it is Trump, a treasonous crime for which he now stands trial, before God and all Americans. ... Grow a spine, you cowardly jellyfish.
• This page, prior to being infilitrated by narcs and other Trumpist authoritarians, used to speak the truth. ... Indeed, the only one who attempted (and failed) to steal it is Trump, a treasonous crime for which he now stands trial, before God and all Americans. ... I humbly request that this article no longer traffic in lies, propaganda, and deceit ... And yet the cowardly, weak-willed editors of this project refuse to allow an encylopedia to speak the well-documented, all-too-well-known truth. Grow a spine, you cowardly jellyfish.
  • This was made after a series of edits to soften the first linked diff
• these claims are pure bullshit, utter and total fabrications. Correct this outrage at once! Wikipedia is being used as a tool of far-right propaganda yet again.
• And yet the cowardly, weak-willed editors of this project refuse to allow an encylopedia to speak the well-documented, all-too-well-known truth.
• you apparently don't care that Wikipedia policy is being flaunted to promote known lies and misinformation in direct contradiction of the sources in the article. Truly shameful.

That was from the first half of the edits you made today. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps that is polemical, but I was all along discussing a concrete change to the article. And I changed my tone when others complained and removed the language to which others objected. The final version of the RfC was scrupulously neutral and yet the entire discussion has now been deleted under the guise of WP:NOTFORUM, which seems inappropriate. This is a legitimate issue. Trump's claim that the "election was stolen" should not be allowed to be given in Wikipedia without stating that the claim is disproven. Every reliable source we cite rigorously adheres to this guideline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.74.5 (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I would have thought this would have been a priority for our editors here. Our "priority" is to ensure that our articles have a neutral stance. We write facts, not opinions. You are blatantly ignoring this, no matter how many times you have been warned. On top of all this mess, you are also attacking other editors that are trying to say what I am. I would highly suggest you stop arguing that "our editors" who have much more experience then you are completely wrong, or you might get locked behind the gates by an administrator. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 18:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

"Our priority is to ensure that our articles have a neutral stance."

I accept that some of my comments may have been intemperate and will of course abide by the temporary block, no matter how unjust it may be. However, the text I proposed adding to the article was 100 percent neutral. I was the one in this dispute who was asking that Wikipedia include "facts, not opinions" as given by our sources. If you look at the citation for the sentence in question, it introduces Trump's false claim that the election was stolen by stating that the claim is false, describing his falsehoods thus : "his false claims of election fraud in the months leading up to the riot." Every citation in the article adheres to the same practice, and yet our article does not. Describing proven falsehoods as false IS neutral. An encyclopedia is supposed to reflect the consensus of the sources it cites. The consensus of reliable sources is that Trump's false claims of a stolen election must always be described as false, because they are. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

That's equivalent to arguing that every mention of Earth on Wikipedia must include "which is not flat", because the scientific consensus is that it is not flat. We have articles about Trump's false claims, we don't have to beat readers over the head with the fact his claims were false every time it comes up in an article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The passage in question is the very first mention of Trump's lies that the 2020 election was stolen, and this encyclopedia fails to advise its readers that these claims are untrue, despite the cited source for the passage describing them as false. For many readers, this may be the only time they see Trump's lies of a stolen election referenced in the article, and despite the sources cited rigorously adhering to the guideline that Trump's falsehoods must be identified as falsehoods, the encyclopedia does not. You will not find a single reliable source in the article that does not state that the claims are false when introducing them. And yes, in articles on flat-earth theory, we do not introduce the theory without stating that it is false and disproven. Go have a look. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

My point being that you've gone overboard. If you'd politely requested the statement be added to the article, it likely would've been. Instead, you came in like a bull in a china shop, then threw a tantrum on the talk page. This ANI is entirely a result of your behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

So you agree that there is a problem with an encyclopedia article that I've correctly pointed out, but in order to "punish" me for the way I requested it, you choose to allow the problem to go uncorrected. Fixing the encyclopedia content isn't a "reward" for me for good behavior; it is a benefit for the encyclopedia and the reader. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

THe IP should be banned from the page/talkpage, until after the 2024 US presidential election, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I have merely asked that Wikipedia adhere to its own policies and asked that Wikipedia neutrally abide by the language which the sources use. Can you say the same? Have you taken action to correct the gross violation of Wikipedia policy I have tirelessly pointed out and documented here? 67.82.74.5 (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

You're going about it the wrong way, by being a tad too passionate. Besides, such campaigns would naturally be tilted toward the positives of their candidates. Is there (for example) a lot of negative material in Biden's 2024 presidential campaign page? GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

No, it is in fact not appropriate that pages on political campaigns "be tilted toward the positives of their candidates." They should reflect the way the campaigns are described in reliable sources. That is my entire point. Since the reliable sources we cite in the article always describe Trump's claim that the election was "stolen" as a lie, so should we. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

We do call it a lie – plenty of times (more often than we don't, in fact). We don't need to shoehorn it into literally every instance, that's just bad writing. The article already makes it clear it's a false claim. — Czello ^(music) 11:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

It isn't bad writing that an encyclopedia article should state that knowingly false claims are false when it first introduces them. The passage in question should probably be put back into the lead as well. I don't know why such highly pertinent information is being buried so deep in the article. It's not the role of an encyclopedia to attempt to put a positive spin on things. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The very statement you're talking about links to Big lie and the very next sentence states that falsely asserted Trump had won the electoral college vote in those states. We don't need to beat readers over the head with it, it's pretty clear. — Czello ^(music) 11:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

All right. Let's hope so. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 12:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

This noticeboard is not concerned with whether you are right or wrong about article content, but with your, and others', behaviour. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

You are not listening, which does not go over well at ANI. Had you simply made the suggestion, I may have supported it after looking through the archives to see if this had been previously discussed. (It’s obviously accurate; but I’m ambivalent about the need.) Instead you created an RFC without prior discussion that sounded more like a Trumpian speech than an RfC. So, I removed the RfC tag as malformed. I’ve now added the question to the talk page. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm sorry some of my remarks were intemperate. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

This looks to have been a learning experience for IP. A lot of people start editing because they are Big Mad about this or that, but can get onboarded in short order. I encourage IP to register an account if they have no specific reason to avoid it. That can lower the noise level a little. Sennalen (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The IP editor is continuing to act in a rather rambunctious manner, with dubious attacks on other editors, over at Reaction video. See discussion on their Talk page at User_talk:67.82.74.5#December_2023 and Talk:Reaction_video#WP:3O, and oh-so-many over-the-top edit summaries for Reaction video. Bondegezou (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Disruption on autoloader

Autoloader (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has seen apparently different IPs repeated adding a paragraph on the survivability of NATO and Soviet autoloaders since the 28th of November. The paragraph is both original research and unencyclopaedic in tone. Although the addresses are slightly different, given that they are intent on adding exactly the same paragraph, it seems more like the same person behind a dynamic IPv6 address. Brought this here as I'm not sure whether page protection or a range block would be more appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 10:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article for two seeks, in the hope that the disruptive person will lose interest. Cullen328 (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Fostera12

I came across the article Dhootha (TV series) and moved it to Dhootha because disambiguating the article title was not necessary, as there was only a single article on Wikipedia on that topic. However, the editor has been abusive and blaming me since then. If you wish to view the diff, you can refer to my talk page and Fostera to see the history. I am totally disheartened by all this, which has led me to post the incident here. I just want clarity. Am I the one who is wrong here, or is it Fostera? Thank you for your consideration. — C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 15:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Your move was correct - see WP:PRECISE. I've tagged the redirect Dhootha (TV series) as {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Narky Blert (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I've also posted disambiguation advice to Fostera12 on OP's Talk Page. Narky Blert (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that Fostera12 has been blocked twice previously for edit warring and inability to edit collaboratively and calling other edits trolls etc. Canterbury Tail talk 16:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

( Peanut gallery comment) Their response to the ANI notice, along with their other posts there and on User talk:C1K98V, makes me think the issue here is that they don't know when we should disambiguate titles, and for some reason are combative about it. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: I don't intend to edit the article until I receive clarity and resolution regarding the incident. The Earwig's Copyvio Detector report indicates an 80% copyvio (see link here). Could someone please remove the content that has been copied from the official streaming platform Amazon Prime Video (see link here) and tag it for revision deletion. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by C1K98V (talk • contribs) 18:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Wow that's quite a lot of copyvio. I wonder how many more of their edits are like that. Seems we should take a look into them. Canterbury Tail talk 17:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted the article back to before the copyvios and removed them from the history. Canterbury Tail talk 18:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Kosovo Security Force

Since at least May this year, a variety of accounts have tampered with Kosovo Security Force to add unsourced or malsourced material. They have occasionally edit warred to prevent the removal of this unverified content. Some of the claims they consistently add are that Kosovo has an air force (one went so far as to create Kosovo Air Force, which I sent to AfD as a hoax), that Kosovo is receiving Iowan Black Hawk helicopters, and unsourced content regarding what items Kosovo's troops are equipped with (with multiple accounts repeating the claim of secret military documents 1 2). They all edit in broken English (I am leotrim that's my name diff, Please do not remove the info if you have no clues diff), occasionally edit in a foreign language, give either no edit summary or ones that are effectively nonsensical, and generally utilize usernames including some arrangement of "illy". I'm not the only one who has caught on: ZLEA noted their concern on my talk page. I filed an SPI against some of the accounts on the 18th, but the CU backlog has prevented action. If possible, admin action is desperately needed here. I would also really appreciate an expedited CU. The accounts I believe involved are listed below with diffs of their sock/meat behavior:

• Leotrimylli (1, 2, 3)
• USIllyria. (1, 2)
• Illyrianzz (1, 2, 3)
• IllyStar (1, 2, 3)
• Eron Lushaj (Created Kosovo Air Force, 1, 2)
• Elmedinhajr (1, 2)
• Possibly Uniacademic, who matches the Kosovar-Albanian military focus of the other sock/meat puppets but has a longer history of editing and their claimed German residency does not align with the couple of Balkan IP addresses associated with others in the bunch (such as 46.99.127.82 for Eron Lushaj and 185.179.31.50 for Leotrimylli). See this diff of Uniacademic repeating the unsourced claim of helicopters. Also overlaps with IllyStar on Kosovo Police.Good evidence that Uniacademic has not edited abusively.

Thank you, ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I was actually writing an SPI report for several of the accounts listed above when I was pinged here. As I explained on Pbritti's talk page, the "Illy" usernames all seem to be in reference to Illyria, a historic region that includes modern-day Kosovo. I also noticed that four of the accounts (Illyrianzz, IllyStar, Eron Lushaj, and USIllyria.) seem to share a pattern of editing various Kosovo/Serbia-related articles before shifting their focus to Kosovo Security Force within the past few days/weeks, with most of their edits to the article (which Pbritti has already listed above) being unsourced or poorly sourced changes to the equipment section. I strongly suspect there to be sockpuppetry, or at the very least meatpuppetry, to be at play here. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I have added only sourced information there but someone is trying to delete also sourced informations, also some others have provided information without source but not me check my edits carefuly you will see links in every information. Illyrianzz (talk) 07:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Where are the sources in this edit? What about this one where you falsely claim that Kosovo has an air force? - ZLEA _T\^C 14:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Now an IP from the same are has tried to delete the AfD discussion banner three times: 1, 2, 3. This is an open-and-shut case of disruptive editing that needs to be addressed. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I found two more IPs that may be connected. Back on November 8, 46.99.118.13 added the "Kosovo Air Force" to the operators section of Baykar Bayraktar Akıncı. Shortly thereafter, 185.67.177.137 added the "Kosovo Air Force" to the article's infobox as well. Both IPs are registered in Pristina, Kosovo. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Also adding 185.179.31.75 trying to add back to Armend Mehaj (unsourced) pictures of awards uploaded and previously added by Eron Lushaj. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 13:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems Eron Lushaj has kept a backup of Kosovo Air Force on their userpage and has restored the article. I've messaged the admin who deleted the original about the recreation. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Here is the supposed website of the "Kosovo Air Force" that was present on the recreated article. I find it hard to believe that anyone would think that this is real. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

That website is hilarious. I love the fact they have a photo of what is clearly a United States Air Force recruitment being used for the "Kosovo Air Force". And other photos very clearly taken from other air forces and military sites around the world. The firefighters from Elgin AFB in the US, clearly labelled and rondeled RAF helicopters, old Yugoslavia era photographs etc. Clearly something someone made up one day. Canterbury Tail talk 00:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if you have read the content, it always says that the pictures are taken with allies, anyway the Kosovo air force Instagram page claims this link as their website, it is not meant to always use your photos. About the recruitment, it is Jon Musliu an Kosovan Cadet of USAF, at the eand of the day that's how they educate their staff. The old Yugoslavic jets, those are jets in the military tunnels of Kosovo Airforce, it is not only this webpage but there is a lot more content in the internet that can prove the truth of this webpage.

@Canterbury Tail IllyStar (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

It's barely even a web page, it's more of a glorified PowerPoint presentation that you seem to know an awful lot about. In fact, I'll go ahead and state the obvious that I believe that you or someone you know made it. There is no way to prove that the so-called Kosovo Air Force created the website, and I find it hard to believe that a government that can afford to maintain an air force can't even pay for a proper domain. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, Gamma.app is just an AI powered presentation creator. It's blatantly not a website, it's something someone put together in school one day. Canterbury Tail talk 15:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I also find it hard to believe that there is no Albanian and/or Serbian-language versions of the website if it is an official website of the Kosovo government. I don't know what percentage of Kosovans speak English, but one would expect at least a version of the website in their native language if they are recruiting. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Greetings, I have been reading this conversation for so long even tho I don't recognize any of you, I have been trying to create an article Kosovo Air Force for so long, well referenced it was deleted two times. But let's see unsourced material in Kosovo Security Force article and delete it. Thank you for taking care so much, Pbritti I would like to know you and what are your real facts that you are referring to when doing these edits. With my honest regards Eron Lushaj (IllyStar) IllyStar (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I've updated the SPI accordingly. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Why am I even being mentioned here? Uniacademic (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

here are a lot of haters, ethnic haters possibly serbian that are removing everything in the page abusing with fact source and not source you can keep removing everything also old informations with dead reference(links) but you cant hide the fact that Kosovo Security Force is equipping hardly with a lot of modern army eqippment. Keep removing everything no problem. Illyrianzz (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Note I have blocked Illyrianzz for 24 hours for the above comment accusing others of being haters, ethnic haters and Serbians. That sort of language is never acceptable. I wonder if it should have been for longer. No comment on the sockpuppetry stuff. Canterbury Tail talk 15:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

If any admin have a spare moment, the 23:55 comment from IllyStar above is them admitting to being a sock with Eron Lushaj. I'm pleading for admin intervention. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

OK. Elmedinhajr is not a sock. IllyStar and Eron Lushaj are CU-blocked. I don't see much of a reason to check Leotrimylli--oh, wait, never mind. Leotrimylli is CU-blocked, confirmed with User:Tlanku and User:Uranitalo1--now also blocked. I'm looking at Illyrianzz. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• I got nothing on Illyrianzz: they're running around a bit, and they overlap with a few other accounts, but I cannot find anything fishy. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  Not exactly what I expected, but also unsurprising. Thanks, Drmies, I think we can close this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Adrinopaulindromeus "wakes up" to make an attack page

User:Adrinopaulindromeus, having had no contributions since 2019, suddenly created a soapbox user page describing Wikipedia users as having low IQ and a lot of free time, and accusing admins of being paid contributors. I quickly messaged them on their talk page to tell them it was against guidelines, but had no reply. I would have reported the userpage for speedy deletion, but I figured out it's best to signal it here too. Thanks a lot for your hard work, ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 22:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• Speedy deleted under U1. Don't get to not edit for four years then attack Wikipedians like that. Daniel (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
• I wonder how coincidental it is that an account was blocked 1 day earlier, as can be seen on this very noticeboard, for also writing "low IQ". Uncle G (talk) 08:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

As soon as I read this exactly the same thing occurred to me. Odd coincidence they'd wake up like this to use the same language. — Czello ^(music) 09:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

 Unlikely based on the technical data, but  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust and all that. @Zzuuzz:, can you take a peek at Adrinopaulindromeus? It's a range you're familiar with.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed it's unlikely. The range has previously produced a variety of ugly offspring, but none of the usual tells are present. This is a situation where more edits will probably yield more data. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Darrell Wesh

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

---

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

This user is impersonating athlete Darrell Wesh and posting libelous information about him, both on the English Wikipedia and Commons. (btw I don't know how to report an ANI because I'm not on here a lot, so excuse me for that) QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 12:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: He does seem to be inactive but I think a block is still in order. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 12:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

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

I've revdeleted it as it appears to be from the subject, although obviously childish. Secretlondon (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Vandalization by IP 68.33.4.126

The IP user 68.33.4.126 has been vandalizing the Zamorin page, mainly by deleting referenced info in the lede and replacing it with unsourced content about one of the king's suicide and pension, none of which are of any relevance to the topic, and definitely not as per WP:Lead. The last version of Admin @Materialscientist is stable and the article was restored to it, but the IP user keeps reverting it to the suicide and pension stuff. Please have a look if possible. HölderlinRem1 (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The reference added is raj era of 1938, by the court historian of the zamorin himself. The source is not reliable , instead he removed sourced content of fall and current situation of zamorin family from the article, restore the same 68.33.4.126 (talk) 68.33.4.126 (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

also the thing he added in the article is already mentioned down, so removed to avoid recursion 68.33.4.126 (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

the user HölderlinRem1 is into caste promotion. He need to portray article as a Nair king , though the history of the dynasty trace back to 1000s of years (1000ce) and it is only mentioned by court historian of zamorin in raj era times as Samanthan of Erady, one who hails from Eranad.

For the sake of the discussion that part has been retained though it is from raj era and also directly depended work by court historian of zamorin. 68.33.4.126 (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Would one of you please link to the discussion you had regarding this content before you brought this matter here? City of Silver 19:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

It is in the Zamorin page, where the IP user keeps putting the suicide and pension of one king in the lede. As per WP:LEAD, the lede should be a brief summary of the article, not on the misfortune of one particular king. And then he accuses me of promoting article, that's basically a personal attack as per WP:NOPA. HölderlinRem1 (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@HölderlinRem1: I asked where you and the anonymous user have had a discussion. That means I can't find where you and they have exchanged messages. that article's talk page hasn't been touched in about ten months so are you saying the two of you have discussed this in the article's actual text? City of Silver 20:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it was discussed in the Talk page, only in edit summary. But the content he is adding isn't per the lede criteria, and he keeps reverting without any Talk page discussion. HölderlinRem1 (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussing things like this only in edit summaries is no good because every time you and that user say something to each other, it comes in the context of you undoing each other's work. And while you might be right that the other user should have started a discussion, you should still start it yourself. It would have been a much better way of addressing this matter than using edit summaries then coming straight here. City of Silver 20:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Not on a particular king - but the last ruler , that is how the dynasty rule has ended and important in lead to point out the downfall in one sentence also their present day status.

I agree lead in little long, and can remove already written things like origin of the dynasty(from nediyiruup and their conflicts with chera king) which is well written below the article. Not the one which is not mentioned.

Lead should has a crisp idea of who,what,when of orgin and fall of a dynasty. 68.33.4.126 (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for behavioral issues, not content issues, and this reply you just left is entirely regarding the article's content. Would you both please take this matter to Talk:Zamorin? City of Silver 21:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I have added a section at the talk page of zamorin [101] 68.33.4.126 (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay thanks, that's a good thing. We can sort it out there. HölderlinRem1 (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Vidpro23 keeps removing the animated Nelvana specials

This user, Vidpro23, keeps removing the animated Nelvana specials (A Cosmic Christmas, The Devil and Daniel Mouse, Romie-0 and Julie-8, Intergalactic Thanksgiving, The Jack Rabbit Story (Easter Fever) and Take Me Up to the Ball Game) from the List of Warner Bros. Discovery television programs page. Could you please just give him a warning about it? AdamDeanHall (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Seemingly an identical ANI discussion four months ago. Remsense留 22:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Editwarring at page under Israel-Palestine arb sanctions

There's an edit war going on over a passage in Al-Shifa Hospital.

• removed, 26 November
• restored, 27 November
• removed, 28 November (my edit)
• restored, 28 November
• removed, 28 November (by administrator)
• restored, 30 November "per talkpage" (false assertion of consensus)
• removed, 30 November
• restored 1 December "patent abuse of consensus making"

There is an ongoing talkpage discussion about what to include concerning the incident, but the editwarring on the article is happening nonetheless. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

One user has made no comment whatsoever. Bri has declined to answer very basic questions asked of him on the talk page. Per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS not engaging in productive discussion about your reverts is disruptive editing. I’ve repeatedly asked him how he would like me to attribute what has three different sources for. He has steadfastly refused to engage. I don’t know what I’m supposed to do when somebody doesn’t answer basic questions about their reverts. As far as the by administrator revert, uh so what? That administrator has likewise violated NPA in their edit summary and just like you refused to answer basic questions about their edit. You can’t just stonewall and revert. But I have not restored the material since one user is at least engaging in discussion. Up to that point there was just stonewalling and classic disruptive editing by users who simply would not discuss their reverts. Bri is editing disruptively, they are not participating in the consensus making process at all, they are purely editing obstructively. nableezy - 19:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Nableezy - If Bri is under-engaging, you are over-engaging. Please turn down the heat at least 20%. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Please, tell me how to discuss this with people who won’t answer questions. If somebody just refuses to answer a substantive question on their revert what am I supposed to do? Just leave their unexplained and unjustified revert alone? For how long? nableezy - 19:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Until others start engaging as well. That article has a lot of watchers. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Fine, but that is rewarding disruptive editing in which editors who refuse to discuss the sources are able to impose their will through sheer numbers on an article. But fine. I won’t be restoring the material, and will continue to discuss the sourcing in the hope that some other editor who does follow our content policies and engage with good faith does so. nableezy - 19:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

This appears better suited for WP:DRN. AN/I is far too large a hammer. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Timtrent; I don't think a hammer is the right tool here, and I understand, from looking at the talk page, that Nableezy feels like their comments were not substantively addressed. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Although not directly involved in this, I was myself inclined to restore and said so in discussion. The issue covered by the material is not realistically in dispute, the most one could argue about is the specific wording.Selfstudier (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks to me like the talk page discussion is at Talk:Al-Shifa Hospital#propaganda campaign. I'm seeing Bri respond there, so that seems to go against the claim that Bri isn't responding to questions. Also, whereas taking this instead to DRN is one option, another is to go in the opposite direction, to WP:AE, as this is covered by CT. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

He made a response, one that did not answer the questions asked of him, and never answered them despite repeated requests that he do so. nableezy - 21:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the response to which you refer was the first of three posts he has made in that section. (So it's not like he made a single post and then walked out.) It's true that you then asked him why we should only attribute it to a single source, and he didn't directly answer that. But he had said that it would be OK with him to include the material cited to that single source, and then indicated a sort of neutrality about the other sources, so I can imagine that from his perspective, he had already answered you. Subsequently, he asks you, twice, why you (in Bri's opinion) did not address Graeme Bartlett's concerns. That exchange starts to sound, to me, like Bri asking you why you didn't address other editors' questions, and you asking Bri why Bri didn't address other editors' questions. Perhaps, you may feel that this is an unfair characterization, but it really does sound to me like editors going around in circles over that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I did address their questions though, I addressed it by asking a follow up that nobody answered. If anybody had said what they wanted, or you know, if what they really wanted was to add attribution and it was not in fact just pretext to remove material they didnt want included period, added the attribution they wanted themselves, there wouldnt have been an issue. I told them I was fine adding attribution, I just needed to know how they wanted to attribute something that was cited to several sources. Nobody ever answered, so I have put on my mind reading hat and done it myself, taking into account the view of the one user who engaged at least somewhat productively. nableezy - 22:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

You believe in good faith that you addressed Bri's questions, and Bri believes in good faith that they addressed your questions. As Timtrent correctly observes below, this is something of a back-and-forth that isn't working. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, did Bri address my questions? You yourself said he did not directly answer the question asked of him. Based on the discussion, do you think he debated productively? nableezy - 23:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

As I said, I agree with Timtrent that this isn't working. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies, @Tryptofish Whichever route it goes is acceptable, but here it is fast showing the potential for turning into an "I said, they said" tennis match which will get no-one anywhere. I have an instinctive preference for DRN where discussions are moderated to an extent, but I also see why AE can be considered to be justified.

My main point is that ANI is not the right arena for this. It appears to be a dispute susceptible to rersolution, and thus, for me at least, resolution is preferable to enforcement, though the spectre of enforcement might be used judiciously to 'encourage' resolution. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Drdpw edit warring at United States presidential eligibility legislation

Drdpw has been edit warring at United States presidential eligibility legislation over an issue whether the article should also include a law passed in California about a requirement to publicize a presidential candidate's tax returns. Two discussions have been opened up on the topic (discussion #1 discussion #2), and both discussions have resulted in an agreement that the article should include the California law.

In spite of the consensus Drdpw continues to edit war (Rever #1 on Dec 1 and Revert #2 on Dec 1). Where is Matt? (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

After Discussion #1, I edited the presidential eligibility legislation article's "See also" section in a good faith effort to reach consensus with Where is Matt? and resolve our content/article-scope dispute. In response, Where is Matt? opened Discussion #2, explicitly rejecting my compromise regarding the issue of whether California's legislation on tax returns falls within the scope of the presidential eligibility legislation article. Where is Matt? has now unilaterally declared, and without engaging, that "Consensus on talk page is now clear" in favor of their proposed addition to the body of the article, which is not the case. That said, if as stated, "both discussions have resulted in an agreement that the article should include the California law", I would ask Where is Matt?, why have you rejected my compromise? It gets the California law article mentioned, and preserves the scope of the presidential eligibility legislation article. Drdpw (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't view this as a "compromise". RFC now has 2 editors who explicitly said that the California legislation belongs in the article, so with me, that's 3 editors in support of inclusion, against the one editor who is against inclusion. The overwhelming consensus in the discussion to explicitly limit the scope of the article to birther legislation was not to limit.

Yet you continue to edit war, even though consensus is against you. Where is Matt? (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Rather, you are misinterpreting the consensus in Discussion #1 and improperly declaring consensus in Discussion #2. You also appear to be under the mistaken belief that when editors express their individual views in a consensus-building discussion they are casting "yes" or "no" votes as on an election ballot proposal. Drdpw (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

User: Anankiaushdud & List of awards and nominations received by Rakul Preet Singh

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

---

Previous ANI report and block on 26 November - [102] Reporting for similar behavior again. Obsessed with Rakul Preet Singh and is repeatdly trying to create the awards list but BLP does not have enough awards to have a separate list. Warned multiple times previously.

• Changes the image again for no reason without changing the caption [103]
• They have edited logged out after the 48 hour block WP:EVASION [104]
• Recreated the same awards and nominations list that was previously moved to draft. [105]. At this point, it has no sources.
• List is completely sourced from IMDb as mentioned by themselves [106]
• Vandalizing other lists [107] and [108]

Jeraxmoira (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Pinging active admins Aoidh and Ponyo as Anankiaushdud is currently active. Jeraxmoira (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Perennial racism, islamophobia, and personal attacks

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

---

User:Basvossen posted here in a way which immediately came off as rude at best given the person they were speaking about in their linked post. The behavior found thereafter on the rest of their talk page is clearly unacceptable, and they should likely not be here. Remsense留 23:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I was just coming here to post this Teahouse thread. Some diffs, for convenience:

• anti-Muslim statement on their user talk page
• "my band was not allowed to have a page here"
• Unsourced racist talking point at Affirmative Action, reverted by Rhododendrites, user immediately revenge-blanks Rhododendrites' user page and talk page.

That last one is from 2015. The behaviour isn't going anywhere, and their edits to articles aren't getting any more useful either. -- asilvering (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Indef as WP:NOTHERE. Scorpions1325 (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Basvossen for repeated misconduct of various kinds. Cullen328 (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by Mhoneyblog

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

---

See Special:Diff/1187894382. Uhai (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

User is blocked until they retract their threat of legal action. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 04:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

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

More legal threats from Giovanni Di Stefano (fraudster)

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

---

178.222.31.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Not the first time he's done it[109] — Czello ^(music) 09:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Blocked by 331dot and I have re-implemented the semi-protection. Daniel (talk) 09:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Beccaynr misusing 3RR exemption for edit warring

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

---

Anyone can review this revert by Beccaynr which he is making by citing WP:3RRBLP only because he does not like the content. This is after he was already told in an earlier revert that he is "not exempted from edit warring here".

There is absolutely no WP:BLP violation because the content is clearly supported by the reliable source as already discussed here on WP:BLPN.

Until now, Beccaynr has made 7 reverts in 29 hours for reverting the same content by providing misleading edit summaries.[110][111][112][113][114][115][116] Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 19:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

This was just closed at AN3[117] with no action, and a concern the OP here is forum shopping. Bon courage (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

These 2 new reverts[118][119] came after that report was closed with a note that ANI should be used if concerns are genuine. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 19:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Clicked through your link and the admin who closed that explicitly told the OP to take it to ANI if you believe there is a genuine conduct issue. I think it was a mistake to say this rather than permanently resolving the issue, to be clear, but I also don't think it's fair to get mad at AKG for doing what they were told. Loki (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

In the interest of avoiding blocking everyone involved, I've applied full-protection to the page for 2 days while this gets sorted out on the talk page. – bradv 19:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the full page protection. To offer further context, Black Kite wrote in their closure of the ANEW report at 18:31, 2 December 2023 [120] No action Apart from the fact that this filing sounds like forum-shopping as the issue is already at WP:BLPN, I am very reluctant to take action where there is a credible claim of BLP and where the filer has reverted four times in just over 24 hours to re-instate that material. Take it to WP:ANI if you believe there is a genuine conduct issue., and at the related BLPN discussion, wrote at 18:41, 2 December 2023, Note both User:Aman.kumar.goel and User:Dympies have continued to re-add this material while this discussion is underway, and the former also opened a WP:AN3 complaint against Beccaynr, which I have denied as there is a BLP concern (and the filer has been edit-warring themselves). Beccaynr (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Beccaynr, can you please, on the talk page of the article, explain clearly what you think constitutes a BLP violation? I've read through the various diffs and the sources given in the discussion, and I'm still having trouble seeing it. You are claiming a 3RR exemption because of a BLP concern – the onus is on you to clearly explain your objection. – bradv 20:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Bradv, I appreciate your mention of challenges with discussions in this somewhat complex CTOPs area; I will first add some information here that may be relevant to conduct issues that from my view, seem to have become difficult to manage only with requests to focus on the content during discussions, and perhaps if addressed may make it easier to have a more clear discussion. This BLP subject is reported by multiple sources to be targeted by harassment and death threats, so attempts to push what appears to be an inflammatory POV about her into the article, that appears to be unsupported by multiple independent and reliable secondary sources, seems to be a particular risk to her, and I can continue to try to better explain this after I finish posting here. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

You are saying that are making reverts against what is reliably sourced only because you find it to be "an inflammatory POV" and believe it is posing "a particular risk to her". This is nothing but outright personally motivated WP:POV pushing on your part. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Bradv, it is not needed for Beccaynr to do such a thing on the talk page, please see Talk:Divya Dwivedi#Unsourced contentious content and WP:BLP policy. I suspect that you have missed this discussion entirely.—Alalch E. 20:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

But Beccaynr hasn't pointed out where is the BLP violation there either. He has only claimed it exists. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

No, I read that discussion. But I also watched the interview in question, in which she says almost verbatim what is being inserted into the lede. So I ask Beccaynr again, which text, specifically, constitutes a BLP violation? – bradv 21:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Bradv, I just replied below about how you had directed us elsewhere to continue discussing the content, and how the ANEW report closed with a finding of a credible claim of BLP. And I recently added diffs below of conduct concerns that I feel have made collaborative discussion challenging, which seems appropriate for this forum. I believe within the framework and spirit of BLP policy, we need more than one sensationalized video that multiple sources have reported led to harassment and death threats against the subject of the article, and editors should not independently select content that echoes the sensationalized subheadline from the contemporary news article that published the video.

The article includes a quote from the video supported by multiple independent and reliable secondary sources and the news article; this is not an issue; the article includes content from the Indian Express essay sourced to an independent and reliable secondary source (and there is another that could be added from the Selected works section); this is not an issue. The BLP issue has been the repeated attempts to add content that has no such support - content that appears to be OR, that is not supported by NPOV, and appears to create a sensationalized narrative about the article subject contrary to WP:BLPBALANCE and BLP policy generally. And if this overview is not clear, I apologize, because this has been a tiring day, and I will plan on discussing these content issues further at BLPN after I have had a chance to rest. Beccaynr (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is using the headline but the content that is significantly supported by the secondary reliable source. This baseless claim of yours that its only a headline was refuted hours ago but you are unnecessarily repeating it instead of telling where is the BLP violation. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 22:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Beccaynr Okay, let's make this very clear, for the benefit of anyone who may be reading this thread. This is your most recent revert:

−

During the debate, in a video clip, Dwivedi was recorded making several statements, including that Hinduism was invented in the early 20th century, by upper caste leaders such as [[Mahatma Gandhi]]. A clip of the video was circulated widely, and Dwidevi became the target of death threats.

+

During the debate about [[Mahatma Gandhi]] and politics, she discussed the annihilation of caste, and in a video clip, Dwivedi was recorded making several statements, including "Hindu Right is the corollary of the idea that India is a Hindu majority population and this is a false majority. The Hindu religion was invented in the early 20th century in order to hide the fact that the lower caste people are the real majority of India...". A clip of the video circulated widely, and Dwivedi became the target of death threats.

Which part of the text you removed (on the left) constitutes a BLP violation? Is it the line about Gandhi? Or the misspelling of Dwivedi's name? What am I missing? – bradv 22:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

As a start, the sources are missing [121]; the disputed content is sourced only to the contemporary 2019 news source with the sensationalized subheadline about Gandhi <ref name="Sharma 2019"/>, while the restored version is sourced to 2022 longform journalism, a 2023 article by a professor, and the 2019 news source, which all include the quote <ref name="Raveendran 2022"/><ref name="Ballas 2023" /><ref name="Sharma 2019"/>. This was also discussed at BLPN, with the first comment from an uninvolved participant appearing to indicate this version was preferable ("...Beccaynr's version seems significantly better to me since they are quoting Dwivedi which since the only sources we have are what she has written and the report on what she said in a debate, reduces the risk we may mislead people on what she has said. (It doesn't eliminate it since it's easily possible to mislead with an entirely accurate quote by taking it out of context etc.)") [122].

So this is an example of one of the ways that NPOV and BLP have intersected during content disputes; reliance on multiple independent reliable secondary sources to determine what is due to include, and to include a WP:DUE quote to help reduce the creation of misleading content, when misleading/sensationalized/undue content appears to be a particular risk for this BLP subject.

This also may be related to another content dispute in the article when Aman.kumar.goel attempted to add a quote from the Indian Express essay without apparent support from independent, reliable secondary sources; content from this essay is already included in the article, and the SPI report linked below also outlines attempts to add what appears to be more independently-selected Gandhi-related content. This article subject has also co-written a book about Gandhi, and what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about this writing and the Indian Express essay is already included in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there are multiple reasons that your text is better. But claiming a BLP exemption to 3RR is a high bar – the relevant policy point reads, in full, Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. The text does you removed does not meet that threshold. – bradv 22:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I think in the context of the available sources, and a review of the 2019 Print source, which published the sensationalized video clips and published the reaction of the BJP youth party, it seems biased to rely on this one news source, particularly when NPOV and BLPBALNCE tells us to use multiple independent and reliable sources, and BLP says to be fair to the subject at all times. The video appears to be sensationalism, and to be connected by multiple sources to harassment and death threats against the article subject. I have sought page protection more than once for this article, filed an ANEW report, engaged in discussion on the article talk page and at BLPN, and recently had an admin state in response to the ANEW report filed against me that a credible BLP claim exists. So I also most recently relied on that to make the most recent reverts while continuing to ask the reverter to continue discussing the disputed content.

This is a complex topic area and article subject, and as I have said, this has been a particularly tiring day, so I am not marshalling sources here as I have at BLPN or the article talk page. I think with further review of the relevant sources that are available in the article and discussions, perhaps the BLP issues would become more clear; perhaps not. I think it is difficult to make a case about a multi-faceted content issue that has evolved over weeks in this article, in a conduct forum, particularly while my energy levels are this low. Beccaynr (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

And for whatever it may be worth, Gandhi-focused issues seem to have been an ongoing issue with this article; for example, after the article was nominated for deletion, I did some clean up of the article, e.g. [123] content related to Gandhi - "WaPo article is not about the book, quote is taken out of context"; [124] more content related to Gandhi - "rm non-sequitor primary source, not about book"; [125] more content related to Gandhi - "rm apparent distorted summary from book excerpt"' [126] - more content related to Gandhi "rm unsupported".

I later edited Gandhi-related content [127] "add info from book review to replace unsourced content removed in previous edit" and made edits in September 2023 that revised what more recently became an addition the IP range editor sought to repeatedly add (along with Aman.kumar.goel and another editor also adding it) until we reached an agreement on the article talk page to exclude it [128] "rm content not supported by source, ce per ref, rm out of context quote, add date, move text, ce heading", and contined to address Gandhi-related content [129] "rm content unsupported by source, and rm quote; review is already quoted contextually in relevant section"; [130] "rm unsupported by source; merge reception to relevent section, ce, rm unsupported by refs, add content from sources". The article was protected on 10 September 2023 [131], and I added a copyvio revdel request [132] on 19 September 2023. Various editing continued, and these recent disputes seemed to have begun with the IP range editor on 13 November restoring content that had previously been revised [133]. Beccaynr (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Now that I have rested a bit, I can further explain about how I have also been applying a NPOV/BLP perspective I further developed from work on the Mika Tosca and Russell J. Rickford articles. These subjects made statements in October 2023 in the I/P topic area that generated controversy. With regard to the Rickford article, I was one of the editors who added content based on multiple independent and reliable sources; with the Tosca article, content has yet to be added because we do not yet have consensus that adequate sourcing exists to support inclusion according to BLP/BLPBALANCE and NPOV/PROPORTION. On the Tosca article talk page, attempts to discuss policies and sources were occasionally met with ad hominem comments, including "outrageous censorship" and PA that have been redacted. Both the Tosca and Rickford articles have been protected.

I thought about these articles, and the experiences editing them, while working on the Dwivedi article, and how routine it otherwise is for contentious content about living people to be expected to meet sourcing standards in BLP/BALANCE and NPOV/PROPORTION. With the Dwivedi article, the content appears contentious because of sources noted in the article, on the article talk page, and at BLPN, related to recent and longterm campaigns of harassment and death threats against her, as well as recently reported distortion of her statements by biased actors. As noted above, I had removed what appeared to be distorted Gandhi-related content from the article, during what turned out to have been a recent upswing in harassment against the article subject. In this recent dispute, an IP range editor, along with an established editor appearing to use similar phrases to make nonsubstantive ad hominem responses in discussions about policies and sources, attempted to repeatedly re-add and further add Gandhi-related content, without the level of sources that otherwise seem typically used to support contentious content in a BLP.

I think with article subjects such as Tosca and Rickford, it may be easier to look at their reported statements and immediately recognize the contentiousness. With Dwivedi, we have multiple sources available that indicate for the past several years, many of her public statements are contentious, and have led to harassment and death threats. So it seems particularly important, from a NPOV/BLP perspective, to not create original research/synthesis, e.g. in the example diff above, by taking content from one 2019 news source, that states, inter alia, 'She said x about Gandhi', followed by a 2023 source that says 'she said x about the Hindu Right etc and then faced death threats', to create article content that says, 'She said x about Gandhi and then faced death threats.' No source appears to support this synthesis, and this appears to be very contentious original content to add to a BLP.

This is not the first time I have discussed concerns about placement of content and resulting misrepresentation/misuse of other sources in the article, and this is not the only recent disputed addition that seems to attempt to synthesize Gandhi-related content from a primary source with secondary sources in the article to create new contentious article content that no source supports. So from my view, this warranted immediate removal according to BLP policy, similar to the poorly-sourced contentious content that was repeatedly removed from the Tosca and Rickford articles. It is 'poorly-sourced' in the sense that while parts are sourceable, this does not seem to be well-sourced according to NPOV, OR, and BLP policies. Beccaynr (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

As I said above, I think your explanations for why your version is superior are reasonable, and if the community were faced with an RfC presenting the two options I'm confident your version would prevail. However, I'm still not seeing these edits as meeting the threshold given in WP:3RRBLP, which was the original complaint in this thread. I do hope you understand this point. Regardless, without belabouring this any further, and considering the other developments below, this thread can be closed without action. – bradv 16:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Aman.kumar.goel

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

---

In the currently-open Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aman.kumar.goel report I filed earlier today, which I had drafted before the ANEW report was filed against me, but waited to file pending confirmation that it was okay to file a public report, I outlined some conduct issues during discussions, both from the IP range editor who was previously blocked from the article for a week and opened the pending BLPN discussion, and Aman.kumar.goel, including the following:

Ad hominem

• 2402:A00:401:7C3E range:
  • Edit summary:
    • 10:16, 13 November 2023‎ [134] "clearly supported by print.in source; don't WP:CENSOR the content"
  • On the article talk page: Talk:Divya Dwivedi#Unsourced contentious content and WP:BLP policy
    • 15:59, 13 November 2023 [135] "...Read WP:DEADHORSE."
    • 17:16, 17 November 2023 [136] "... Why don't you simply tell how much are you getting paid to censor the information? ..."
    • 17:58, 17 November 2023 [137] "See WP:IDONTLIKEIT."
    • 07:52, 28 November 2023 [138] "Your wikilawyering is getting more disruptive."
• Aman.kumar.goel:
  • At BLPN: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Divya Dwivedi
    • 15:52, 1 December 2023 [139] "...Now instead of filibustering, you need to drop the WP:STICK"
    • 16:38, 1 December 2023 [140] "...See WP:IDONTLIKEIT."
    • 17:28, 1 December 2023 [141] "...But here you are simply out to WP:CENSOR the quote anyhow with this absurd WP:WIKILAWYERING which is not gonna work."
    • 17:50, 1 December 2023 [142] "...Why you are censoring the statement?"
    • 18:27, 1 December 2023 [143] "... Your entire dispute is based on nothing but WP:IDONTLIKEIT."
    • 08:54, 2 December 2023 [144] "See WP:FILIBUSTER." (this is after the non-RS portion of The Print has been discussed)

Since the filing of this SPI report, during the BLPN discussion, Aman.kumar.goel continued at 19:19, 2 December 2023‎ with what I feel is ad hominem contributions to the discussion [145] "... Your WP:WIKILAWYERING is not helping your cause." While I recognize this is a contentious topic area, I also feel this pattern of conduct is not conducive to collaborative discussion on the article talk page nor at BLPN. My comment at 21:15, 1 December 2023 at BLPN included "...I am tiring of what has seem to be a lot of unhelpful personalization directed at me during these discussions, and I think it would be helpful to improve efforts to focus on the content..." [146]. On the article talk page, at 16:07, 17 November 2023, my comment included, "...when the apparent misinterpretation of her statements is accompanied by repeated attempts to add the disputed material, and personal insults, this can make collaborative discussion more challenging, but if we focus on the content, I think this will benefit the overall discussion going forward." [147]. Beccaynr (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC) - update comment - SPI report now closed Beccaynr (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The SPI report is now closed: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aman.kumar.goel#02 December 2023. Aman.kumar.goel has been blocked indefinitely. Beccaynr (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

See WP:BOOMERANG. Turning the thread to all about me will not work. You already tried this at edit warring noticeboard as well as SPI but both failed.

You are the one who started this unnecessary content dispute by removing what is reliably sourced. You are still not answering what is the BLP violation that made you misuse 3RR exemption for making these reverts.[148][149] Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 21:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

As noted above, a credible claim of BLP was noted in the closure of the ANEW report you filed today, and we have been directed to continue discussing these content issues elsewhere; there is also a pending BLPN discussion about this article. This is a conduct forum, so I have raised issues here related to conduct that I have felt have contributed to challenges with collaborative discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

You will have to answer this since you have misused 3RR exemption to justify edit warring.

Answer the question instead of cherrypicking others in your defense. You have been asked right above by Bradv just 13 minutes ago "So I ask Beccaynr again, which text, specifically, constitutes a BLP violation?"[150]

Not to forget that you are the one who added this content on 20 November and unilaterally removed it on 25 November.[151] Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 21:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Aman.kumar.goel, what I am getting from all of these discussions, regardless of who is right or wrong here, is that Beccaynr has discussed the issues politely, whereas many of your replies are borderline aggressive and unnecessarily personal or combative. Knock it off and conduct yourself properly, please. Black Kite (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• First of all, let us be clear that you are not an uninvolved admin here.[152] It is not even difficult to find out "who is right or wrong here" because Beccaynr has aggressively imposed his page ownership by making more than 17 reverts in less than 20 days just to claim a non-existing BLP violation even after adding it himself. How about you tell Beccaynr to stop falsely accusing others of BLP violation, poor sourcing and so on? He has done that every single time and whenever his false accusations are challenged he would often resort to WP:FILIBUSTER. The WP:CPUSH of Beccaynr you are attempting to endorse over all the time that he has wasted so far it itself concerning. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 01:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you for proving my point exactly. Black Kite (talk) 10:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Based on Aman Kumar Goel's comment above, I'd support a topic ban on them from any BLPs. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of Beccaynr edit warring in that way, there's clearly no consensus for any specific text on the issue. Per WP:BLPRESTORE, if an editor has expressed good faith BLP consensus, there needs to be consensus to add any dispute material as I mentioned on the talk page and BLPN about a week ago.Since this isn't a simple case of adding or removal, it would be acceptable for someone to have removed the text entirely although from what I can tell, no one alleged Beccaynr's suggested text was a BLP issue. But re-adding the disputed material absent that consensus is most definitely a BLP issue. The fact that with all their experience and after having been specifically reminded of our BLP requirements, Aman Kumar Goel still doesn't see the BLP problems with what happened here means that IMO they cannot be trusted to edit BLPs anytime soon. It would be better for them to stick to areas of the encyclopaedia where they cannot cause such significant harm. Nil Einne (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Bradv has already confirmed that there was no BLP violation. What Beccaynr has done is that he has abused the 3RR exemption to impose his preferred version. Its him who is not understanding that he was wrong. If you want to seek a topic ban then do it on Beccaynr for his clear cut policy violation. Dympies (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's an unsurprising view, since you were also edit-warring to remove Beccaynr's edits. I note that you have also done this before in concert with Aman.kumar.goel, most notably recently on Shambuka, in September 2022 on Raju Srivastav, and in July 2022 on Murder of Kanhaiya Lal. Tag-teaming to avoid 3RR is looked upon quite dimly in most cases. As I said above, regardless of who is "right" or "wrong", this is a collaborative encyclopedia, and should be treated as one. Black Kite (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

With that logic, your comment is even more unsurprising since you have involved yourself into a number of disputes including this ANI thread merely for opposing me as clear from the links alrady provided right above in the thread.[153][154] How come you have missed the tag-team on this very article on Beccaynr's side?[155][156][157]

Beccaynr has engaged in disruptive editing by frequently misrepresenting BLP and removing reliably sourced content even after making the edit himself.[158] If you want to comment then comment on that instead of creating this unnecessary distraction. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 15:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Highly inappropriate comment from User:Thumperward

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

---

Says he hopes I would die because I was an opposing voice in a discussion whose outcome he disagrees with, as that would allow him to have his way. And doubled down when called on it. WP:CIVIL fail, with a side of WP:AGF fail. While looking for whether this was a pattern, I see I'm not the first recent editor who has taken exception to the general "opponents will die, I will wait them out" approach: [159]. DMacks (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The remarkable thing about this is that absolutely none of this was directed at DMacks. He didn't even specifically oppose the RM (thirteen years ago!) which this is purportedly about, and when he notified me of his procedural objection to the present RM I complied immediately. But apparently we're taking what I had assumed to be a pretty overt allusion to Planck's principle (on my own talk page, and nowhere else) as sanctionable now. I don't know that going onto people's talk pages, getting offended, and dragging them to Grand Central Drama is a good use of anyone's time really. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Looking closely at history, Chris is correct that I did not specifically "oppose" in that discussion. Appologies for mis-reading my own comment there. So he only wishes several of the various other editors there would die. That's...not really a strong defense. As I said in response on your talkpage, all you had to do was strike the offensive sentence and we wouldn't be here. Noting here for the continued abusive responses there, to which I do not plan to respond further. DMacks (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

If you want to police other editors' talk pages for infractions of your own personal standards of conduct, towards persons who are not yourself, then that's a you problem. Fortunately I'm a big boy and not intimidated by such, but it's definitely worth raising the question of whether that's appropriate behaviour for an administrator. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't really see why the page a comment was written on makes any difference regarding a potential civility issue. "Big boy" comments aside, I'm also not sure why raising it as a concern here could possibly be incompatible with adminship. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• While I don't see this comment as one of "I hope this person/these people die", it's definitely uncivil in my view, specially when Chris Cunningham calls the close a "head-count of idiots". Considering this is also not the first time this happens, I think a warning not to repeat this kind of commentary is warranted. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 00:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The degree to which users are permitted to express their opinions (which in this case have been demonstrably misconstrued already by the OP) on their own talk pages has historically been greater that in other namespaces. Administrators should be aware of that. It is also not very becoming of administrators to turn up on someone else's talk, get offended, immediately run off to notify other parties that they think might be sympathetic, and then head to the drama boards seeking... I mean I don't know what the OP was seeking here. An apology? I've avoided ANI for years but I doubt that the rules changed such that ANI is now the preferred venue to demand that other editors say sorry to you for perceived slights. Especially for oblique edits to their own talk pages. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Thumperward, will you agree to refrain from expression of hope of an outcome, namely, the deaths of editors you disagree with, and agree to refrain from comments like head-count of idiots, which is a blatant personal attack against the editors who disagreed with you? If you are unwilling to do so, then I think that a block will be the outcome. Please reply. Cullen328 (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Looking deeper, Thumperward, I see the disgusting and astonishing comment I spend enough of my time waiting around for editors to die already. That's repugnant. Explain yourself. Cullen328 (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative and not punitive. A block for failing to repent for comments made in clear allusion to a historically notable concept that we literally have an article for made on, I repeat, my own talk page, regarding an action that occurred thirteen years ago would be utterly inappropriate, as is threatening someone for doing so. Do you all need to go back to admin school, or is ANI so light on actual actionable things to do these days that further time must be wasted on policing a civility issue that didn't even occur? Maybe one of you might bother to examine the pointless busywork around the RM that led to this instead? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

You're right that there is generally more leeway given on users' own talk pages, but that leeway does not extend to expressing your hopes that those you've disagreed with have died. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I have issued a preventative indefinite block to Thumperward to prevent them from saying here on Wikipedia that they are waiting for specific Wikipedia editors to die since those editors are idiots. This was fresh 2023 misconduct, not 13 years ago. This editor was given the opportunity to apologize and withdraw those comments, and declined. Cullen328 (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328: It seems they have committed to not doing so again: User talk:Thumperward#December 2023 GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, by omission, at least, they are still reserving the right to call their colleagues "idiots" for the offense of disagreement. I an unimpressed. Cullen328 (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

He's now apologized for that too. I think your block has conveyed the point it was meant to convey and is no longer preventing anything. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

As is customary, I will leave it to another administrator to review the unblock request, taking into account the editor's contemptuous comments right before I made the block. Cullen328 (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

When I blocked Thumperward, I did not know that they were an adminstrator and my block was based on utterly inappropriate edits that they made in the last six months. But now I am looking back and I find that in their first unsuccessful RfA in 2007, the first oppose included Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, but we prefer our admins not to be hot-headed. In their second unsuccessful RfA in 2009, the third oppose included because the candidate with a "hot head" could be a "drama admin" And in their third, finally successful RfA in 2010, the first oppose said However, I am deeply concerned that he does not have the calm and polite temperament that an administrator needs. This editor, now an administrator, contributed heavily in the 2007 to 2012 period, with 10,000 to over 20,000 edits each year in that time frame. In the past 11 years, their edit volume has plummeted. It seems to me that what we have here is a legacy administrator from the wild and wooly days of Wikipedia who is not conversant with the behavioral expectations of administrators in 2023. Cullen328 (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I turned down their unblock request. 331dot (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Gee whiz. This can't stay this way forever - we will need to move forward with an unblock at some point, or alternatively head to the Arbitration Committee to remove advanced permissions. I personally support unblocking now that the poor behaviour has been acknowledged as not in the spirit of collaborative editing (most important) and apologised for (less important but still) - YMMV, but I assume the sentiment in the unblock request is genuine, and so the block is no longer preventative? Daniel (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I was not entirely convinced of the sincerity of the request nor do I think that the behavior will not resume. If someone else is, don't consider me to be in the way. 331dot (talk) 12:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this has been blown a little bit out of proportion - it's already been established that Thumperward did not in fact say that he hoped DMacks would die, and that DMacks has acknowledged this. He was in fact referring to a group of opposers in a 13 year old discussion and not singling out any editors by name. It was stupid to say "died" when he could have said "moved on" or "retired" and made exactly the same point. I don't know if he was just trying to be funny but it does indeed come across as highly inappropriate. Nevertheless I think an indef was harsh, and as he has apologized I think the block should be lifted. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Are we forgetting that Thumperward is an admin? GiantSnowman 13:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think everyone is mindful of their status. Perhaps, now the block has been invoked, people are less sure how to proceed.

What would make the most sense might be to lift the block as AGF, and to consider the process to be used to warn about future behaviour.

I understand that a number of people do not consider the apology to be 100% genuine, but it is likely to be the best, at this point, that Wikipedia and Wikipedians will receive.

The future? Why don't "we" (by which I mean the community of admins) allow the future to happen and be handled when and if it happens again? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Returning to this from last night. We should AGF unblock, and I think Thumperward can infer that another incident like this would probably not receive the same level of AGF. Regarding his "legacy" admin status, he's been consistently active (if not always highly active) over the years, so this is not a case of an admin disappearing entirely from the project for a decade and returning with zero understanding of the ways in which policy and culture have changed. An incident of incivility, which he has acknowledged and promised not to repeat, does not to me appear to be something that ought to require a trip to ArbCom to consider yanking the toolkit. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• If this were a non-admin, I would support an unblock. But we have higher standards of conduct for administrators, and Thumperward's unblock request does very little to convince me that this will not happen again. This does not seem serious enough to go to ArbCom over, but I need to see something more substantial than a three-sentence unblock request before supporting unblocking. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 16:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support unblock with the understanding that further problematic commentary would lead to more serious consequences, including likely a request to de-sysop. While I believe that admins should be held to high standards, I do not support indefinite blocks where one would not likely have been applied to a non-admin. I am also of the opinion that an indefinite block is ipso-facto grounds for removing the bit. While I agree that their behavior was disruptive, I do not think it rises to that level and seriously doubt we will have similar issues going forward. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• I have AGF and unblocked him. If further incivility this should probably go the desysop route. Secretlondon (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

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