Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

  • Before posting a complaint about a user on this page:
  • Include diffs demonstrating the problem and be brief; concise reports get faster responses.
  • Do not report breaches of privacy, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, click here.

Sign your post by adding 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end.

Closed discussions should not usually be archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. (archivessearch)

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Disrupting editing of filmographies, films, actors

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

Persistent addition of unsourced claims focused primarily on adding films to filmography tables for future projects that have not yet begun filming, but also changing release dates, adding cast members, changing budget/gross. WP:FILMOGRAPHY says Do not add future projects until filming has begun as verified by a reliable source.

Diffs and talk page links

Examples of unsourced/poorly sourced additions:

Talk pages are littered with warnings:

Note: this appears to be the same editor who was on this range:

Select examples: [23] [24] [25] [26]

I think they need a timeout.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 19:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They have resumed their chronic disruptive editing at:
  • unsourced change to the date of a film's release: [27] and [28]
  • Unsourced change to a film's gross receipts that breaks existing ref URLs [29]
Both 2A00:F29:280:BD93:0:0:0:0/64 and 2A00:F29:2B0:5D6C::/64 need blocks, or you might consider widening the block to 2A00:F29:280:0:0:0:0:0/42  — Archer1234 (t·c) 22:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More unsourced edits [30] [31] [32] from:
 — Archer1234 (t·c) 12:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Continuing unsourced edits contrary to WP:FILMOGRAPHY: [33] from:
How about a short-term block on 2A00:F29:280:0:0:0:0:0/42 ?  — Archer1234 (t·c) 22:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More from today [34] [35] from:
 — Archer1234 (t·c) 17:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More: [36] [37] [38] [39] from:
Note that edits in this range picked up minutes after another IP that geolocates to the same area was notified of an ANI discussion about the same disruptive editing behavior. [40]. That IP was subsequently blocked: [41].
 — Archer1234 (t·c) 20:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More: [42] from
 — Archer1234 (t·c) 13:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:AIV? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I considered it but have observed that editors are often reminded that AIV is only for "obvious vandalism" or "obvious spam". The "unsourced editing" I have identified above is not spam and does not appear (to me at least) to fit the definition of vandalism. Also WP:VANDAL says: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism."
In any event, HJ Mitchell took action earlier today to block the /42 for two weeks, so this topic can be closed as far as I am concerned.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 23:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: Lard Almighty

Both myself and Lard Almighty have been editing the this page Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Originally, Lard Almighty had reverted an edit and allowed a BLP disputed name to stay [here], which was undone in [this edit].

After this, there have been several issues that have happened involving Lard and their subsequent edits.

After their edit was removed, the subsequent user who added it received the following message on their talk page Darrencdm1988 [user page

"Please note that we are not naming the suspect per WP:BLPCRIME. Thank you. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)"

This would appear to go against a fair consensus building, since edits to a page should be addressed on the talk page itself, not on a members user page. Also, this would appear to be an issue with WP:OWN, since it doesn't mention trying to obtain consensus or the like.

Lard created a talk page [here], with the first post being

Please do not add the name of the recently arrested suspect to the article or talk page. See WP:BLPCRIME and the BLP Noticeboard. Thank you.
— User:Lard Almighty (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

On a prior BLP discussion [located here], Lard had stated the following.

We are an encyclopedia. We need provide as complete as possible a summary of events. That includes stating that people have been declared persons of interest. As long as we don't state that anyone who hasn't been convicted is actually guilty of a crime there is no BLP violation. Not including something that is in the public domain in RS does our readers no service.
— User: Lard Almighty (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

However, in the talk page discussion, this is contradictory to the following quote

Read WP:BLPCRIME. We need to err on the side of caution when it comes to naming people who are not in the public eye who have been accused of a crime, no matter that they are named in RS.
— User:Lard Almighty (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I started [a discussion] on the Dispute Resolution board to try to see if maybe I was misunderstanding consensus being made, and Lard said

The reason we need to be cautious here is because it involves paedophilia. There have been countless examples of innocent people with the same name as a suspect being attacked and even murdered when they are misidentified as paedophiles because they share the same name as a suspect in a case. This suspect has a relatively common name (there are almost 100 listed in the white pages in Indiana alone). Exercising caution here means not putting these people at potential risk. Wikipedia is the most read website in the world, so people are far more likely to read the name here than anywhere else if we include it. I would also point out that the last few reverts of the name prior to today were by other editors, which indicates that there is no consensus to include.
— User:Lard Almighty (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

, but this is contradictory to the statement on [this edit where they say that sexual assault was not the cause of death.

When I noted that it didn't involve paedophilia since it has never been stated in a single RS, this was the reply

It involves the murder of children (likely with a sexual motive) which is also highly emotive. These are precisely the types of case where we need to take the suggestion in BLPCRIME about being cautious seriously. Not including the name does not detract from the article, while including it could prove problematic. When non-inclusion does not detract from the article, it is best to err on the side of caution in cases involving child victims.
— User:Lard Almighty (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the revert comment, that is somewhat correct, but I believe it's skewed by the fact that the original talk page statement says not to name the suspect as the very first comment, which most people would more than likely read the first post and assume it's what should be followed without second guessing it. The name has been added 28 times, 13 of those being Anonymous edits, with 14 being registered users. One of those additions is mine, and three are the same user adding it. There have also been 29 removals, 13 of which were by Lard, and 22 of the 29 mention to see the talk page or make mention of the consensus needing to be reached. I listed the ones mentioning the talk page below.

Lard, See Talk


deleted by Lard, See talk page.

deleted by Some1, Talk page.

deleted by Lard, See Talk

deleted by S0091, See Talk page.

deleted by S0091, See Talk Page.

deleted by NtheP, talk page.

deleted by Lard, Talk page.

deleted by Lard, See Talk Page. There is no consensus on adding the suspect's name.

deleted by Lard, Added hat note to see talk page.

deleted by Lard, See hat note and talk page.

deleted by Nthep, See Talk page

deleted by Kashmiri, see talk page

deleted by Lard, see 'various discussions'.

deleted by General Ization, See Talk page.

deleted by General Ization, See Talk Page.

deleted by General Ization, See Talk page.

deleted by S0091, See Talk page.

deleted by Lard, See Talk Page.

deleted by Lard, Talk Page. No consensus to add the name yet.

removed by Beccavnr, 'per hidden text, and article text page.'

removed by Dumuzid, 'get consensus before naming the suspect, even in URLs

I personally think that several policies have been involved - - WP:STONEWALL by ignoring the concerns presented by others, and seemingly cherrypicking which arguments they would counter with brief dismissals, and nothing substantial in terms of rebuttals. - WP:TALKPOV by not staying objective, or remaining neutral. - WP:TALKDONTREVERT by reverting every mention of the name, regardless of what the consensus seems to be at the time. - WP:NOTUNAMITY by ignoring the arguments, and essentially creating a filibuster by removing every addition regardless of what the talk page has stated.

I just want to be able to have a fair consensus, which had appeared to be reached prior but I am not sure of that, and if I am wrong in any of the above statements regarding anything, please let me know. I tried to be as thorough as possible, and while I have used Wikipedia for several years, I only recently made an account, so I'm more than likely going to make mistakes.

Awshort (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It should be noted that WP:BLPCRIME is a Wikipedia policy, not a user agreement. As a policy it cannot be overridden by a consensus on an individual talk page it would need to be altered at the Wikipedia policy level. Canterbury Tail talk 16:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know what this is doing here. There are lots of people adding the name and lots of people removing it. That points to a content dispute, not a behavioral issue. What happened to your referral to WP:DRN? And why are you eager to include the accused's name in the article? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Canterbury Tail - I understand about the policy, but I would further like to point out that that said policy states that "editors must seriously consider not including material" (I cannot use tqb quoting on my reply, however it's one of the comments quoted in the original post}, which was the issue being discussed on the talk page since it does appear elsewhere when it comes to arrests in connection with murders and higher profile crimes. It should be noted as well that the policy does not outright say that it cannot be done, and it seems to be up for discussion as it currently stands. Several high profile crimes have had their suspects named without convictions, which is the issue I was trying to address. The recent Idaho college murders come to mind, as well as the Pike County murders that were updated with the arrest of the suspects who later were charged, and convicted of the murders.
@Rsjaffe - I put this here because it involves user behavior and what I feel is issues that are hindering consensus, which was the instructions from Wikipedia:Consensus "Sysops will not rule on content, but may intervene to enforce policy (such as WP:Biographies of living persons) or to impose sanctions on editors who are disrupting the consensus process.". The reason for listing the additions was to show that other people had wanted the info inserted, in counter to the argument of "I would also point out that the last few reverts of the name prior to today were by other editors, which indicates that there is no consensus to include." (I cannot use tqb quoting on my reply, however it's one of the comments quoted in the original post}, which as stated above I felt was not capable of being met based on user behavior. As for the referral, I haven't been able to follow up to the discussion there yet regarding the content issue due to not having a lot of time around schooling, and figured i would address the user issue here. In regards to your last question about why I am 'eager' to add it,it has been an unsolved murder for several years with no arrests. When the arrest happened and the suspect was publicly named, several people tried to add it (which I understand is WP:NOTNEWS, and should probably have been avoided as being sensationalism). The fact that it was almost continually removed by the same user, and the general consensus on the talk page was ignored as stated in the reasons of my original post brought me here since I felt it was damaging to the consensus process.
Awshort (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I moved this back from the archive since it wasn't closed previously.
I would also like to state that the user is still participating in behavior that seems to violate WP:OWN by almost instantly reverting any removal of, ironically enough, their statement directing people on what to do in the article before editing as being a WP:OWN issue, rather than allowing said users to edit first and discuss after revert.. [43][44] Awshort (talk) 09:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Instead of copy and pasting an old discussion here, what I would do instead is write a new discussion, with a link to the old discussion, with any new info that you want to add in it. AP 499D25 (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, I was going from the advice of Wikipedia:Teahouse#Unarchiving a page from Administrators Noticeboard Incidents which said to just copy it back over. I was worried about having multiple articles for the same thing/user, so I wasn't sure proper practice. Awshort (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, okay. That makes sense. AP 499D25 (talk) 09:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to address everything that was commented all at once, but I can't figure out how to strike text - is it not possible when a post is on the ANI?
Im currently using Chrome mobile on my phone, but I seemed to have the same problem on my PC.
Thanks in advance, for any input on this, but also for all of the input above.
Awshort (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had a few posts to follow up on, and wanted to make an effort to do it correctly, since my original post was organized rather poorly and I think some things were listed rather vaguely. I will be able to do a proper edit when not on mobile. Thank you.
Awshort (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wanted to note a few things that I believe I either didn't point out before, or that were hidden in the random mess that was my original post.
Per talk page guidelines {{}}, editors are instructed to "Stay objective: Talk pages are not a place for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a place to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral. The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material." While I understand what Lard is stating, the portion about the 'people have similar names' thing is a personal point of view that is not objective.

"And the reason we need to be cautious here is because it involves paedophilia. There have been countless examples of innocent people with the same name as a suspect being attacked and even murdered when they are misidentified as paedophiles because they share the same name as a suspect in a case. This suspect has a relatively common name (there are almost 100 listed in the white pages in Indiana alone). Exercising caution here means not putting these people at potential risk. Wikipedia is the most read website in the world, so people are far more likely to read the name here than anywhere else if we include it." When I mentioned that there are no sources stating the above re: paedophilia, and asked for a source this was the reply. "It involves the murder of children (likely with a sexual motive) which is also highly emotive. These are precisely the types of case where we need to take the suggestion in BLPCRIME about being cautious seriously. Not including the name does not detract from the article, while including it could prove problematic. When non-inclusion does not detract from the article, it is best to err on the side of caution in cases involving child victims." Again, this is not following with NPOV. I do understand the points about BLPCrime, since that was what the discussion on the Talkpage was supposed to be regarding, but saying that it cannot be included due to what somewhat believes may potentially happen to someone with a similar name is not remotely neutral, as well as being an OTHERSTUFF argument.

As for how I felt the consensus process has been prevented, if users are directed to a page with the first page saying 'Don't add this', most will see that as a rule that passed or that it isn't allowed, and NOT that it is open for debate, since it is not neutrally written. A better approach would be to have a page that states 'Don't add this until there is consensus' or similar, since it is neutral and addresses that is open for discussion. With that being said, reverting under a 'No consensus' reason is also not recommended in one of the help pages
It has been noted that I have replied several times to try to get others to change their opinions by I believe {{ping|Ritchie333}}. That is not true; everyone is going to have different viewpoints. Going by {{}}, "Asking for a clarification is fine, as long as you aren't demanding. Offering a rebuttal to a comment is also fine, although arguing repetitively is not." I have asked for reliable sources in the above example that mentioned pedophillia, and the next comment was that it involved child murder instead. I have asked if consensus had been reached, since it was unclear, and since there was one editor opposed to inclusion. I have also stated how other countries policies wouldn't necessarily affect the English wikipedia. I have tried to stay in the top tiers of the pyramid at {{}}.
Awshort (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:BLPCRIME is policy, so no matter how many people at that page disagree is not something that will change the outcome (see WP:CONLEVEL). It is therefore completely correct to have a notice dissuading editors from adding the name. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 20:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am aware that it is a policy, but it also states "{{xt|editors must '''seriously consider''' not including material}}", and from countless examples in recent ongoing crime or court cases, there are numerous articles featuring names. If it outright states "do not do this", that's understandable. But it leaves it open for debate as it's written.
Awshort (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but you've brought it up at multiple different location and each time the result has been the same. The debate has happened I suggest you move on to something else. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 21:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Respectfully, the prior edits did not address an issue about a editor not following the policies or guidelines. I've brought up different things related to the same article, as I have stated several times on this post. My post on ELN asked if BLP applied to links. My post on CR involved if consensus had been reached, since if it's unclear that is literally the only place to go and ask. I don't think it is exactly 'a debate' if a user is potentially ignoring stuff put in place to reach a common ground between editors. That was what I was addressing, since regardless of whether it is with myself or another user, if we have a policies and guidelines to remain neutral, they should be followed. Consensus can always change, either way, which is why we have the policies in place I would imagine. Either way, have a good one and thank you for the reply.
Awshort (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This looks like a content dispute. I checked out the talk page, and I can’t see any sanctionable behaviour from Lard Almighty. In particular, edit-warring over a comment that explains a consensus on the talk page is probably not a good idea. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May i ask for clarification on a few points?
Namely, how is it not stonewalling, when whatever points are brought up in the talk page are ignored and the main article seems more geared towards what one user wants? Maybe I am completely misreading the WP:STONEWALL article, but I felt this seemed to be in conflict with that, as well as WP:OWN by only allowing what they deem necessary on the page. Also, does it not involve WP:FRINGE views with stating that information can't be included due to something that has never been published in any reliable sources, and prevent a NPOV?
I'm not being disrespectful by asking, I am just trying to understand Wikipedia better. I registered an account years ago, made one or two edits and have otherwise been an inactive editor (active visitor, though).
Thanks for your time &/or reply.
Awshort (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the article's talk page, I see the following comment in one section, "Let's leave it at this, as it's pretty obvious that there's no consensus on adding the current suspect's name to the article." and in another section I see agreement. I see Lard Almighty telling you that court transcriptions are not suitable as sources in articles about living or recently deceased people, which is correct per policy (WP:BLPPRIMARY), and also says "BLPCRIME exists to protect innocent people, not just those who are suspected or even charged with crimes. We need to consider the impact the naming of a suspect my have just not on that individual's life but also on the lives of others", which is a perfectly reasonable point to make. I can't see anything being ignored.
All I can see is people disagreeing with you and you keep asking them to reconsider. Everyone else on the talk page appears to have accepted that consensus might not go their way. Sometimes you've got to accept that you're not going to get the result you want - collaborative editing is about teamwork and compromise, not pushing a dispute when everyone else has got bored and lost interest. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hasn't this been repeatedly brought up at WP:BLPN? (See archives 343 and 346) It's well past time to drop the stick. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 11:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This post was in regards to if a users behavior violated any policies, as it was suggested in one of the many guideline pages to post here for certain issues. This is not about the content of the article.
One of the BLP posts was mine, which suggested a RfC, so I'm not sure how me asking about if someone is stonewalling or anything similar is me beating a dead horse when one is content based and one is not. Awshort (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the first post at BLPN was all that was needed, BLPCRIME applies. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 18:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Something I'd like to point out that no one's quite said: yes, we like to encourage a collegial environment here, where people talk things over reasonably in order to obtain a consensus. With that, no one is under any compunction to change their mind on your behalf. You can be as eloquent as you please, your arguments may make perfect sense to you, and they might still gain no traction. (Why would I advocate something in the first place, after all, with which I disagreed?) You seem to have mistaken "stonewalling" for failure to agree with your arguments. But that happens here, as in every walk of life; I doubt I could estimate within the nearest hundred the number of eloquent arguments I've made in my time on Wikipedia that didn't budge the needle an inch. Ravenswing 21:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I'm just wondering how many more noticeboards the OP will bother in order to try and get this suspect's name back in the article. At the last count, I think we're on
  • Maybe it's just me, but it sounds like that's quite enough, especially for an account with only 66 edits in total. I would suggest a pblock from Wikipedia space, personally. Black Kite (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have posted on noticeboards that are directly related to the topics at hand, as instructed to do on the policies and guidelines pages. And out of the 5 you listed above,  I don't see how these were asking for the suspects name to be added back.  I'm not exactly sure how using the noticeboards for their intended use would be 'a bother'.
    DRN - asking if consensus had been reached, was told to address at BLP.
    BLPN - asking for clarification on wording and if something is allowable, since BLP itself is vague on what was allowed.
    ELN - Asking if links containing a name are a BLP issue, since it had not been addressed before and needed clarification for future editors of any topic that may run into similar issues, and had been mentioned in the talk page.
    CR - If a consensus is not agreeable, or clear,  it is recommended to go to CR and have a neutral party look and see if consensus has been met and rule on it. Considering that it seems to not be clear, by several other editors aside from the two people involved in this post, I followed the steps it said to take.
    ANI - I have previously went over my reasons for addressing this here, and they didn't involve content, but the user.
    My amount of edits shouldn't have a huge impact on being respected as an editor or person.
    ~~~~ Awshort (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This isn't an issue of lack of respect, but of you forum shopping to get a result that you want. You cannot just throw this at every potentially relevant notice board, in the hopes someone will agree with you.
    At this point, WP:BLPCRIME has been explained to you, and no one seems to agree with your interpretation. Please take that to heart and move on to a different topic of editing. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for the respectful reply and link. I honestly hadn't thought it could be Forum shopping, so I'll check that out.
    As for the explanation, yes it has been explained to me, but my confusion was in the fact that other pages with similar content exist with no BLPCrime issues, and BLPCrime states 'must seriously consider', not outright that something is not allowed..
    Again, thank you for being respectful in explaining stuff to me. I don't know if you can close this topic or not, but I get your point.
    Awshort (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consistant gaslighting behaviour by Freoh

Freoh (talk · contribs) is a relatively new editor, from August of last year. Since then, a pattern of disruptive/gaslighting editing has become obvious. The most recent is at Rayleigh–Jeans law, an article which they never really edited and suddenly got involved into a debate without understanding the basics of it, mostly about whether or not it should be included in the category Category:Obsolete theories in physics. From the article, it should be patently obvious that it is (and certainly is obvious to any physicist). The Rayleigh–Jeans law was an attempt to characterize radiation emitted by black bodies, and it was known since its inception that the law was inadequate. This was called the Rayleigh–Jeans catastrophe.

Some other editor removed the longstanding category, I reverted since this is known obsolete since its very inception in 1900s. Then the insanity starts where Freoh tags the category as uncited. This is patently false, Ref 1 explicitly states RJ is obsolete

When physicists tried to apply classical ideas of radiation, they could not derive blackbody spectra that agreed with the experimental results. The classical calculations yielded an intensity I(ν,T) given by

This is known as the Rayleigh–Jeans Law. [...] The Rayleigh–Jeans Law agrees with experimental results at low frequencies (long wavelenghts), but disagrees at high frequencies. [...] (The classical prediction of arbitrarily large energies at high frequencies was sometimes referred to as the 'ultraviolet catastrophe'. ) [...] In 1900, Max Planck, a German physicist produced an empirical formula that accurately describes the experimental blackbody spectra:

Emphasis mine. RJ was obsolete back in 1900. This was not good enough for Freoh, who keeps demanding sources and writes.

Headbomb stated that "this is cited" in the article, but I do not see where. I am not taking a side here on whether or not it is obsolete, just ensuring that the information in this article is verifiable.

On the talk page, the following additional source was provided, after Ref 1 was (again) pointed out

We remember the Rayleigh–Jeans law as an incorrect hypothesis superseded by that of Planck.

Freoh then writes:

XOR'easter, that looks like a good source to me. I would not be opposed to re-adding Category:Obsolete theories in physics along with a cited sentence to this effect

Emphasis mine.

Thinking we have finally reached agreement, I reinstate the category, which Freoh reverts again demanding a source, and then warning me about their disappointment of me supposedly refusing to provide a source. A source which they already agreed exists, was provided, and supports that category, and which they themselves deemed good and sufficient to re-add the category.

This is gaslighting WP:NOTHERE behaviour of the highest order. Similar behaviour was also seen at Talk:Science, Talk:Constitution of the United States and many other places as evidenced by User talk:Freoh#January 2023, User talk:Freoh#January 2023, User talk:Freoh#January 2023 and User talk:Freoh#NPOV debates.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm very new to all of this, but here are some facts relevant to what I've observed. I think it would be worth it if everyone concerned just paused and looked at some facts. I would hope these are easily agreed by all:
  • approximations are used in physics and science all the time
  • when a new discovery in science supersedes a previous one, it is often the case that the previous one continues to be used as a useful approximation
  • the word "obsolete" means no longer used. Something that is actively used is therefore not obsolete
What I have observed unfortunately is @Headbomb refusing to acknowledge any of the above. This baffles me. @Freoh and others had a good-faith, honest debate about the topic. The difference is clear, and is recorded in the talk page. Dllahr (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obsolete means out of date, not "no longer used as an approximation". RJ was never, even at the time it was proposed, ever in agreement with reality. It was known to be wrong even at the time of proposal. The attempts to salvage it involves invoking the luminiferous aether. XOR'easter explains why further on the talk page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging @XOR'easter, Ancheta Wis, Thebiguglyalien, Andrew Lancaster as others who had similar run-ins with Freoh recently for their opinion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't say I'm surprised that this has made its way to ANI. What I've seen is entirely consistent with what Headbomb has described, and I've tried to explain this on Freoh's talk page. Headbomb did not mention what I think is the largest issue in these discussions though, which is that Freoh often refuses to drop the WP:STICK. All of the discussions and RfCs opened by Freoh follow a cycle of proposing fundamental changes about the approach of the article, multiple editors explaining why it's not viable, and a subsequent back-and-forth.
In addition to what Headbomb mentioned at Talk:Rayleigh–Jeans law, Talk:Science, and Talk:Constitution of the United States (where according to Xtools, Freoh has written 87,455 bytes, almost entirely on a single WP:1AM issue over the last four months), this has also happened at Talk:James Madison, Talk:Civilization, and Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. With the exception of Rayleigh-Jeans law, all of these also have a strong WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS component to them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. His project is WP:countering systemic bias, according to a participant list.
  2. The encyclopedia is so big that it can harbor editor groups with all these points of view. So he doesn't have to "poke the bear", he can "live and let live" / ... Sorry that it got to be too much.
  3. I think we handled Talk:science by getting to a meaningful dialog on his talk page that we could agree on, and he stopped. --
Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 05:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Freoh isn't doing anything that couldn't simply be ignored by editors who don't want to engage with them. Headbomb gave them a warning for edit warring on Rayleigh-Jeans law, but they only have one single revert in the history for that page, and two edits total spaced out over a week. Their insistence on documentation for that category could be a little nitpicky, but could also be seen as an attempt to facilitate an agreement between Headbomb and the other editor. There's no behaviour here that requires intervention. Larataguera (talk) 12:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Larataguera: we sadly can't ignore it, because this behaviour occurs across the board on Science, on Raileigh Jeans Law, and elsewhere. That "only" two reverts happened on that page is immaterial. What matters is that discussion is impossible with them because they read words differently than everyone else, then revert consensus when they've agreed to it. And that's on top of the other behaviour highlighted like accusing people of espousing white supremacist views when they say the ancient Greeks has an important role to play in the history of science. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not eager to dip my toe into the ANI waters, but... I'm a bit baffled as to why the text already in the article didn't count as cited sentence[s] to this effect, and why Freoh reverted the re-addition of the category while pointing to a guideline that says the correct course of action is to add the {{unreferenced category}} template. I'm significantly more baffled by the remarks from earlier this month to the effect that it's racist/white supremacist to say that the ancient Greeks were important for the history of science [49]. XOR'easter (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was pinged here, and like User:Ancheta Wis I was part of some awkward, and needlessly long, discussions involving the history of science. I can not speak for other articles but the descriptions sound familiar. Sometimes Freoh seems to refuse to get the points being made by others on talk pages. On the other hand, I am not sure why this level of talk page awkwardness by a new editor would deserve an ANI discussion? If it is just for collecting feedback to help Freoh get perspective then I am OK with that. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm familiar with the very long discussion at Talk:Science. And it does seem like it took Freoh way too long to finally "drop the stick". But as long as the behaviour is confined to talk pages, other editors (as pointed out by Larataguera above) can simply choose to not engage. Paul August 16:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Paul August: He appears to also be tag bombing articles and reverting BRD notices while editing main pages, as he did with Dhtwiki on the James Madison article for several weeks. Binkster, in his comments below here seems to be stating that this has been the long-term edit conduct of Freoh in his edit history. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that this is a misunderstanding, Headbomb, and I wish that you would assume good faith and try to reach a consensus rather than edit warring and taking this to WP:AN/I and WP:RFPP. I do not think that the text currently in the article supports the idea that this law is obsolete, only that Planck's law is more accurate. (As Dllahr pointed out, these are not the same thing.) I do not understand why you are so opposed to clarifying this point, and you might benefit from reading the advice for hotheads.      — Freoh 18:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"this is a misunderstanding"
Then please to explain why you reverted the addition of the category because it was 'unsourced' after you explicitly agreed that XOR'easter's source was appropriate and that you would not object to the category being restored.
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I have previously explained at the article talk page and my talk page, a citation in the talk page is insufficient for verifiability, and I said that I would not object to the category being restored along with a cited sentence.      — Freoh 20:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Freoh tagging a category as needing a citation is a little odd. Categories can be wrong but category discussions need to be approached a different way. Decisions about how we structure and make Wikipedia itself are not subject to those rules in any simple way. Please do take notice of the concerns being raised. The line you could cross here would be if these types of interventions start to make it literally difficult for other editors to keep editing. It is important that in your interactions with other editors you should show that you are trying to understand them and work with them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why not just add whatever sentence you wanted yourself? I'd like to understand, but I'm at a loss here. XOR'easter (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then perhaps, we might "Seek first to understand, then to be understood"— This is an invitation for some of us to go to the problem page to perhaps work things out? OK? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additionally, per WP:CATV Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition. It is entirely sufficient to establish things on the talk page, so long as the article gives an indication as to why a category might be there. The article clearly explains that RJ was supplanted by Planck in 1900s, which is plenty sufficient to support the addition of the category (on top of the existing refs which support the same). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At the time, I chose to tag and remove the unsupported content because I thought that it would have taken more of my time to figure out where and how to describe the obsolescence. In retrospect, it would have taken less time to just write the material.      — Freoh 02:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The list of users who are arguably involved in some way with the Freoh situation, as Thebiguglyalien points out, spans far more individuals and articles than have been included and notified here, and with that in mind I think this ANI report may be premature and of too limited scope. Of respected editors, Doug_Weller immediately comes to mind and commented on this on Headbomb's talk page.

I find Freoh to be quite confrontational (e.g. with the spamming of veiled links to WP:DISRUPT against everyone they disagree with) and to themselves be a situation of probably something along the lines of WP:PUSH. The user, to be honest, seems to openly have contempt for anything to do with "white men" and feels like merely using that label is a sound argument against inclusion (e.g. the ancient greeks were white men, so their contributions to science should ipso facto be downplayed).

That said, it would be very easy to say that Freoh is bringing needed balance to articles that do suffer from institutional bias. It's the approach that's the problem. Freoh seems to be very WP:IDHT and WP:STICK and to continue plowing ahead without substantial response or reaction to others. Even when I partially agree with them, and offer some middle ground compromises, they do not seem to understand how to take advantage of that or collaborate.

I think Freoh is more of a wait and see situation, and where one should compile a list over time of examples of behavioral problems for a single comprehensive ANI report that covers all these articles and behaviors. Maybe Freoh will learn how to be a good wikipedian, or maybe their personality and approach are just unfit for this place, but I think it is too early to say - or at any rate, it would need much more thorough documentation and wider input than this report is going to get, which is actually counterproductive in getting Freoh dealt with. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • After reading Freoh's talk page I'm starting to wonder if this is an editor we can work with. That's not the talk page of someone who's here to work together in a collaborative environment. It's the talk page of someone who knows Wikipedia is wrong and is here to fix the great wrongs. Someone who has a lot of confidence in their own judgment and not much in anyone else's. They're attracted to fraught topic areas and they want to make big changes. Collaborating with this one is going to be a challenging and time consuming exercise.—S Marshall T/C 09:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @DIYeditor@S Marshall Agreed. As I said at Headbomb's talk page, there's clearly a problem that I doubt will go away soon. It looks as though this will need a more comprehensive report than this. I'm afraid I don't have the time to do that as I'm trying to devote my time now mainly to writing. Doug Weller talk 11:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Freoh: I hope you are paying attention to all this, especially to what DIYeditor and S Marshall are saying. I think you are intelligent, knowledgeable, and well-meaning, and so have the potential to make a significant contribution to the encyclopedia. But not the way you are going about it now. Paul August 12:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you explain why you characterize my behavior as plowing ahead without substantial response or reaction to others? I have listened to the concerns of other editors and made plenty of compromises. Looking just at the conversation in Talk:Constitution of the United States about how to discuss the People:
  • I listened to Allreet when they opposed my use of footnotes to clarify who the People were, so I made a new proposal that avoided footnotes.
  • I listened to ONUnicorn when they pointed out that I was blurring the lines between the people who wrote the Constitution, the people who ratified it, and the people who voted for delegates, so I made a new proposal that was less ambiguous.
  • I listened to Dhtwiki when they complained about my attempts to address length concerns within an RfC with a different focus, so I made a new proposal that I thought was in the spirit of their proposal while addressing ONUnicorn's concerns.
  • I listened to you, DIYeditor, when you recommended that I include an in-text attribution for a widely-agreed-upon estimate of the support for constitutional ratification, so I edited the proposal to include an in-text attribution.
  • I listened to you again when you suggested that I expand my in-text attribution to name one of the historians who has made that estimate, so I made a new proposal that named Forrest McDonald in particular.
  • I listened to BogLogs when they argued that it would be misleading to cite the percentage in favor of ratification without citing the percentage opposed, so I made another proposal that cited instead the total percentage.
  • I listened to Gwillhickers when he argued against making a vague reference to the people as a whole, so I made an edit that avoided the issue by cutting out the disputed content.
  • I listened to Randy Kryn when he wanted the Preamble section to mention Gouverneur Morris, so I made another edit that kept the reference to Morris while again removing the disputed content.
This conversation has gone on so long because of my substantial response or reaction to others, and I feel like I am one of the few people who is trying to compromise rather than status quo stonewalling. I know that I am in a minority among editors, but I have been taking the opinions of others into consideration when trying to reach a consensus, and I honestly do not know what I have been doing wrong.      — Freoh 13:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because you lost all of those discussions, there was no need for any deletions, and yet you keep going and going and going into thousands of words of discussions not realizing that editors are volunteers and not paid to be here or bots. You've been told this many times by many editors on many talk pages, that you seem to have no idea when to stop beating the horse. You removed most of the Preamble section, I reverted, and then you removed it again and someone else reverted - at that point WP:LETTINGITBE probably works. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I honestly do not know what I have been doing wrong. Yes, I can see that. My main advice to you is to go a lot slower and be a lot more succinct. And absolutely do not go within 100 miles of anything touching on post-1932 US politics under any circumstances whatsoever, but I'd say that to anyone.—S Marshall T/C 13:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Please, hopefully nobody requests an indef ban, or even a topic ban just yet, this editor is going to be a very good one once he stops beating the dead horses into submission and maybe stops bragging on his use page about negative reactions to his disruptions. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Since I received a ping from Freoh I'll respond. To get a definitive idea of the nature of Freoh's on going involvements all one need do is look at the the failed RfC on the U.S. Constitution Talk page which he initiated, starting on 2 February 2023 and continuing to 11 March 2023. During that RfC he introduced three other proposals on top of the one initiated under discussion, and in the process some 42 browser pages of talk ensued in an apparent attempt to obscure the discussion, and ward off any newcomers to the discussion. I would not be surprised if some sort of block was imposed, but he should at least get a stiff warning, that is, if he promises to stop flooding the discussions with endless argumentative talk first. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pinged to comment here by Randy Kryn. After reading through the last six months of Freoh's edits, then there appear to be some comments to make. Freoh seems to have made a hobby of Quantum computing, which is a timely subject, and sysops editors have apparently been pleased to have him edit the Quantum computers articles and to give him something like a 'pass' for his tag bombing and multiple reverts on other pages not dealing with Quantum computing as a type of courtesy. A closer look at Freoh's edits other than Quantum computers seems to show him as repeatedly presenting himself as a SJW for the various causes which he considers to be his own, and then to spend hours, days, and even weeks grinding down other editors who might not agree with his SJW opinions. One example which literally went on for weeks and weeks was his interaction with Dhtwiki on the Talk page for James Madison where Freoh was tag bombing the article and making revert edits against several editors, which Freoh was making against BRD on the James Madison page. At the end of weeks and weeks of interaction with Dhtwiki, the peer review nomination which was in progress for Madison at that time was fully derailed and failed. And Freoh as SJW was able to prevail over Dhtwiki for his own purposes, with regards to edits unrelated to his hobby in Quantum computers. Supporting Randy Kryn on his report here regarding Freoh's edit conduct issues made above. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "SJW" is not a good argument against Freoh any more than their "white men" argument holds water as a reason to diminish or remove something from an article. These need to be framed in an appropriate Wikipedia behavior and Wikipedia content fashion. Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND and that cuts both ways. Feeling that their calling is to address "institutional bias" or whatever is not a reason to block Freoh from editing. In fact, many would say it's a needed role on Wikipedia. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gaslighting continued

Actually, ErnestKrause's comment is right to the point, as from what I've seen in a number of cases Freoh has exhibited SJW behavior in several ways, esp when, on the Talk page, he referred to the atomic bombings in WWii Japan, which ended the war, as a "terrorist attack", a fringe POV that none of the sources resort to. Also, your statement that Freoh's activity is needed to correct "institutional bias" presents its own acute bias, and only encourages this editor to continue with this behavior. In any event, I agree that WP should not be used as a battleground, and this is indeed why this ANI involving Freoh is occurring, as explained by numerous editors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At the article Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Freoh changed the infobox template from "military conflict" (which it had been since 2010 when I put it in) to "civilian attack". Freoh was reverted and started a talk page discussion which attracted strong opposition to Freoh's suggested change. Nevertheless, Freoh tendentiously changed it back, asserting a consensus: "I've seen a few talk page comments in favor of this infobox proposal, and none opposed". That's the kind of falsehood others have been complaining about, and it makes me think Freoh is not able to collaborate at all. Binksternet (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's good to identify behaviors that indicate WP:CPUSH, WP:BATTLEGROUND, or WP:ADVOCACY issues. It's not good to label an editor in what appears to be a derogatory manner. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm uncomfortable using the third person, so I'll be direct. Freoh, responding to others is not the same as listening to what they have to say. Above, you gave examples of your willingness to make compromises. Certain things, however, do not lend themselves to compromise: specifically, the fact that Wikipedia's focus is determined by the prevailing view, meaning what most mainstream sources have to say. I've pointed this out several times, in several different ways, and I'm certain you haven't listened; otherwise, I wouldn't have to repeat myself. And to be even clearer: You say you listened to what I said about footnotes, yet changing them to text wasn't a compromise, just another tact, since the message and its effect were essentially the same. Allreet (talk) 07:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It gets back to the ability to collaborate. Freoh doesn't really seem to understand how to work with others and this I think gets into CIR territory, but it premature to claim such here in ANI. I'm not sure what the respondents here want done about Freoh. A warning? For what exactly? Let's move on to either in depth evidence supporting some stronger action, or wording on a "warning", or just drop this, because I don't think we are going anywhere. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The comment from Binkster directly above just stated that the long term harsh edit conduct of Freoh is described as: "That's the kind of falsehood others have been complaining about, and it makes me think Freoh is not able to collaborate at all." ErnestKrause (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A warning? For what exactly?  ( ? ! )  Numerous editors have said essentially the same thing and have provided detailed examples involving a lot of time and articles, and thus far there hasn't even been an acknowledgment from Freoh that there's an issue, other than, I honestly do not know what I have been doing wrong. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Freoh: Tens of thousands of words, literally hundreds of hours, have been wasted over the past three and a half months on issues you've raised that have little to no basis. Here are a few detailed examples:

  • I just pointed out that Georgia and South Carolina relied heavily on slavery..., and you contended this amounted to ambiguous synecdoche. Clearly, you don't understand the guidelines related to the term. The states and their governments are synonymous in this context, and we don't need to distinguish one from the other.
  • In illustrating a point about vagueness, I cited a passage from the Encyclopedia Britannica, and you said you wouldn't be opposed to some of this information, meaning you would oppose other parts. That puts you at odds with Joseph Ellis, the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian who oversees the encyclopedia's articles on the Constitution.
  • You contended we should be presenting a global perspective on the Constitution. Aside from a minor tweak, I have no idea what that might mean, but I do know we're accurately reporting the viewpoints of leading historians.
  • Most scholars generally concur with Yale historian Akhil Reed Amar that in the late 1780s the Constitution was "the most democratic deed the world had ever seen" (America's Constitution: A Biography, page 5), as exemplified by the Preamble's opening words We the People. Yet you've called our section on the Preamble and its emphasis on this phrase vague and misleading, even though what we've stated is consistent with the mainstream view.
  • We just concluded a five-week RfC where S Marshall ruled no changes should be made to the Constitution article without first seeking a consensus. Despite the finding, you deleted a full paragraph in the Preamble section a couple days ago. While your deletion has since been reverted, you continue to argue that your edit was justified.

What I see here is a combination of incompetence—a lack of understanding of WP's guidelines, values, and methods—and an unwillingness to heed what others tell you about them. Perhaps a formal warning will make this clear to you. If not, then IMO a topic ban should be imposed. Allreet (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Formal warning

I propose that Freoh be formally warned that they must:

  1. significantly improve their collaboration
  2. demonstrate an ability to adapt to Wikipedia practices, philosophies and culture (i.e. behave like other people here)
  3. drop the WP:STICK and not plow ahead when a discussion has gone against them, or perpetually prolong discussions that have gained no traction with other editors
  4. not try to concoct "consensus" from thin air on the premise that it is not a vote to use as a pretext for unilateral action on an article
  5. understand that Wikipedia reflects only prevailing scholarly consensus and not WP:TRUTH or what is right
  6. tone down this aggressive piped linking of Wikipedia: space policies/guideliens/essays in disagreements with other editors until Freoh gains more experience and understanding themself

and that if this warning is not heeded, a narrowly construed topic ban from history, human civilization, politics, government and science be put in place. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its not clear what you are supporting since Freoh appears to have already stated above that: " I honestly do not know what I have been doing wrong." Freoh has not acknowledged a single comments made in this list and I'm not sure what your support means given his comment. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment the general outline. That list of your six items above is, after reading it again, really a very strong criticism of Freoh and his edit disruptions over months and months; I mean that if another editor where accused of even half of those disruptions then everyone would be talking about a possible block of an editor like Freoh for a day, or a week, or even a month. I'm not for being excessive on this, but your 6 point criticism of Freoh really portrays him as being somewhat extreme in his disruptions of Wikipedia over the last several months. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For that matter, there could've been a 7. avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and insinuations that other editors may have heinous beliefs, or something like that, or even more items. It can be difficult to precisely define what the problems have been.
    I do think some acknowledgement of the issues and this warning would be appropriate, but I don't think it would be necessary to have any duration of block given such acknowledgement, even a brief acknowledgement. Not everyone "gets" Wikipedia right away. To me it's better to say "stop this general behavior, or it will be a longer topic ban, or block" than to shut out a new user right off the bat. I'm not sure what purpose a brief block would serve other than punitive. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support — Actually, the six items are points of good advice, not criticisms, given the endless arguing, (which is still in progress in at least two articles) reckless handling of an RfC he initiated, tag bombing and often times, multiple reverts (still in progress). And yes, this involves many articles over months and months indeed, and in some cases with obvious SJW behavior, in spite of his subtle attempts to dress this up as simple discussion, all of which makes his activity on the extreme side, though, albeit, I've seen worse behavior. In any case, we are still not seeing any acknowledgement from this editor, so I'm inclined to go for a topic ban, at least on American history articles, but no more than 30 days, this time.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As I (and Thebiguglyalien) mentioned above, I don't think it is constructive or appropriate to use labels such as "SJW" which is pejorative. There are many good editors who are sympathetic to "social justice" political views and who would no doubt like to see what they believe to be bias in major articles addressed. I think we should phrase this instead as WP:ADVOCACY, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SJW, which there is a WP article to which you linked, can be either pejorative or complimentary, as the case may be, and the way it has been used here was a reference to behavior, as are BATTLEGROUND and ADVOCACY behavior, – not exactly name calling inasmuch as terms like Liar or Thief. In any case, I will desist from using the term, which I didn't even know existed until someone else introduced it here, so as not to futher side-track attention away from the issue here at ANI. Just for the record, "Social justice" is a two way street. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Does this canvassing look like it might be trolling [50] or something? Hard to tell what the point of all of it would be. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Freoh's edit conduct with Dhtwiki on the James Madison page (which was just linked by DIYeditor) was very odd from before, which suggests that your concern for that canvassing should be examined. Also, it should be noted that Freoh appears to be ignoring the very generous offer made by DIYeditor above and appears to have no interest in the comments made by DIYeditor; its a large difference if Freoh acknowledges the issues which DIYeditor has raised or if he ignores them. If he ignores them, then something may need to be done in addition to a low-level courtesy warning as stated by DIYeditor. Its possible that Freoh has already calculated that he will be given something like a 'free pass' by sysops on this ANI because Freoh may think that his hobby of editing Wikipedia articles about "Quantum computing" are highly valued by sysops at this time. Its different if Freoh acknowledges the issues raised by DIYeditor, than if he continues to ignore them without acknowledgment. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak support It is clear that Freoh has irreconcilable WP:IDHT behavior issues in several topic areas. I am still concerned that the scope of this proposal is still excessively broad — since most of the science-related disruptive behavior is specific to human history, the term science should probably be dropped at the end. Also, since all of their problematic behavior involves discussions related to article sourcing or analysis of sources w.r.t. the article topic, a better alternative would be to ban Freoh from participating in discussions related to third-party sources. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 18:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Upon further review of the US Constitution talk page, I am convinced that the topic ban from American politics and history is still needed, since at least the earlier comments are primarily about NPOV and show that Freoh has a strong left-wing bias on this topic. Nowhere is this as self-evident as in the edit that started the round of discussion, where they amended wording in the article to refer to wealthy elites and to imperial subjects [of the United States] as a term for the insular areas, and asserted that the Preamble to the US Constitution pretends that the [United States] government stands for everyone. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 18:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I was initially content with a warning, because everyone deserves a second chance. Based on the lame defense Freoh has just offered and the behavior noted below regarding the Constitution article (see my comments and Gwillhickers's), I agree with you that a ban is justified. Allreet (talk) 04:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Response. I am aware that I am often in the minority among Wikipedia editors, but the personal attacks here are disappointing. Most of these conflicts have been my attempts to uphold Wikipedia's second and third pillars. The dispute at Talk:Constitution of the United States is my attempt to make the article more neutral by avoiding stating opinions as facts, especially those with widespread disagreement. The dispute at Talk:Rayleigh–Jeans law was my attempt to ensure that Dllahr (a relative newcomer) feels that their voice is heard in the face of passive aggression from experienced editors unwilling to engage in a reasonable discussion. I am sorry that this rubs some of you the wrong way, but I assure you that I am acting in good faith, and I assume that the same is true of all of you. I agree with DIYeditor that these disputes are not battles for anyone to win, and we are all ultimately here on the same team. With that in mind, I will respond to each of your demands.
    1. I am still learning the best ways to collaborate, but feel free to leave a message on my talk page. A few concrete points:
      • I see now that I have upset some people with my use of contentious labels within talk pages. I will try to avoid these in the future.
      • There have been a couple times when someone removed a cleanup template I had added, and my response was to then remove the tagged content. I have learned my lesson, and in the future I will instead re-add the tag and discuss these issues in the talk page.
      • I see that some of my comments have been unclear and at first glance contradictory, leading to the gaslighting charge. I will work on phrasing problems more clearly.
    2. The other people here have called me names, tried to drive me away, and repeatedly re-added disputed material without consensus [51] [52]. I do not and will not emulate this behavior. If you have other suggestions, please leave a message at my talk page.
    3. It is not my goal to perpetually prolong discussions. I usually make it clear exactly which changes would end the discussion, and as Larataguera said earlier, these discussions can simply be ignored by editors who don't want to engage. These conversations have dragged on for a while because I have spent a significant amount of time asking clarifying questions to understand the points of view of other editors, and then making new compromise proposals that try to address everyone's concerns. These are not subtle attempts to dress this up as simple discussion; I am honestly discussing these issues. I am getting a better sense of where my perspective differs from others', and I will take S Marshall's advice to heart and go slower and be more succinct. I will also spend more time on my responses, especially on concrete proposals rather than abstract criticisms, so that the editors I am arguing with can feel more heard. I think that these conversations might also end sooner if some of you were willing to meet me in the middle and try to understand my concerns and make your own compromise proposals.
    4. I never try to concoct "consensus" from thin air. I am aware that in many of these cases, we have not yet reached a consensus, and my edits are only attempts at reaching an edit consensus after I have better understood the concerns of other editors. I admit that I was off-base in some cases, so if you would like, I can spend more time on the D before cycling back to the B of BRD.
    5. I do understand that Wikipedia reflects only prevailing scholarly consensus. I have focused my efforts on cases where there is no clear prevailing scholarly consensus, and I have always backed this up with tier 1 sources. Wikipedia is not the place for propaganda, which is why I have pushed back against Allreet's vague and controversial content about how the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy.
    6. Piped linking is not aggressive. If you feel that I am lacking in experience and understanding, then feel free to explain.
    7. I have made no insinuations that other editors may have heinous beliefs. It is possible to criticize the undue weight that an editor is giving to white people without calling them a white supremacist. I do not believe that Headbomb is a white supremacist, but I do believe that he may have been influenced by systemic bias. Every editor is biased (myself included), and every source is biased (mine included). LaundryPizza03, I made those edits a while ago, and I was still learning Wikipedia's neutrality policies and using wording from my sources, but I think that I have improved since then.
TL;DR: Contrary to what some of you believe, I have been trying to have real discussions about good faith disagreements, and you are welcome to advise me on my talk page. I apologize for upsetting people and for being inefficient and unclear in some of these conversations, and I will work on this.  — Freoh 19:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This ANI is about your consistent and ongoing conduct, and now you're trying to drag in many of the same subjects you've been involved with in the apparent hope that we will forever be going over these things, yet again. e.g.Making the same claims about the Constitution, etc. This only tells us you've ignored the well thought out explanations of multiple editors who took the time to address your never ending contentions. Iow, all you've really done here, regardless of your apology and one acknowledgment, is to exemplify your WP:IDHT behavior, because you're still pushing many of the same issues all over again, only now it's in this forum. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Freoh, is back at the Constitution of the United States article and has just tagged the Preamble section with another one of his POV tags, which I reverted, as he was already turned down at the RfC he initiated. So much for his apology. At this point this editor clearly needs to be topic banned from US history articles, at least. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Freoh, in what amounts to a non-apology apology, is blaming other editors for most everything while accepting very little personal responsibility for the situations created. Meanwhile, the recent RfC, which ruled against Freoh's proposals regarding the U.S. Constitution article, warned editors that any changes to this article would need rough consensus before they could be made. Despite this ruling, Freoh forged ahead with adding a POV tag to the article today. What's astounding is that they did so while a vote was in progress to determine whether a community consensus favored such a tag. Frankly, I'm appalled anyone would act this way in the midst of an ANI regarding their behavior, and thus I agree with Gwillhickers that a topic ban is justified. Allreet (talk) 04:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. This ANI is about to roll over into archive without any action taken by sysops; is the assumption that this Freoh thread may roll over into archive without any sysops action. As I mentioned earlier in response to the 6-point chart presented by DIYeditor, then if any other editor than Freoh had committed even half of the disruptions listed in that chart then a possible ban of a day, a week, or even a month would be discussed among participating editors. Pinging the last last three respondents here before the chart was added by DIYeditor for a second opinion on the appropriate level of response for either of Topic ban, Page ban, Editor block, etc.: (@Randy Kryn, Binksternet, S Marshall, and Doug Weller:). I've already stated that I'm not for being extreme on this matter, and the comments from the 3-4 previous respondents I've just pinged would be useful to hear for their own opinions and their own viewpoints. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This response is tone-deaf.
  • always backed this up with tier 1 sources Tier 1 according to you, in a WP:1AM way since these sources' reliability regularly gets rejected by others, or show signs of cherry-picking/misalignment with overall scholarship (see the entire U.S. Constitution talk page). At Science, you presented six sources but seemed to misunderstand all of them, since none actually supported your claims (having the "cognitive foundations of science" does not mean practicing science, which should be obvious).
  • You've accused others of edit-warring, but that is largely caused by your own behaviour. Your approach to attempts at reaching an edit consensus consist of repeatedly boldly inserting material or tags into articles (which you frame as "compromises"), forcing others to either give up and let it stay, or continue arguing with you. It's classic bludgeoning.
The fundamental problem, in these repeated WP:1AM discussions, is that we end up with that we end up with threads with 30+, 50+, sometimes 100+ comments debating your suggestions, and those suggestions wouldn't even improve the encyclopedia or reduce systemic bias, they'd just introduce fringe or poorly sourced claims into our articles. I support the general outline. DFlhb (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I looked at the discussions at Talk:Science, Talk:Constitution of the United States, and Talk:Rayleigh–Jeans law, and in none of those was Freoh 1AM. Levivich (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't see gaslighting or a chronically disruptive user. I see a new user getting essentially bullied by more experienced editors who disagree about content disputes. For example, look at the edit warring warnings on Freoh's talk page, then look at the page histories and behold how there is no edit warring. It's not inherently problematic to challenge the use of the term "obsolete" to describe an outdated scientific theory. I don't see any problem with the Constitution RFC (the points Freoh raised are legitimate, per RS, and I agree they should be addressed in the article, although the problem is how). I don't see a problem with suggesting that the US' nuking of two cities in WWII were attacks on civilians, not military targets, and even the suggestion that they be described as state terrorism is reasonable, and supported by some RSes. (It's not the mainstream view, but it's not fringe, either.) I'd change my mind if someone showed diffs of actual edit warring, or misrepresenting sources, or personal attacks, etc. Maybe there's something more I'm missing here, but so far all I see is disagreement, and disagreement is not disruptive. And I certainly don't see any "gaslighting" by Freoh at all (that accusation seems like an aspersion to me). Levivich (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Freoh is not a new user, although their present account is fairly new. See their talk page for mention of a vanishing of a previous account (for similar reasons as are complained about here?). That makes sense, since they have a knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines that is rather extraordinary for a new user. Gaslighting didn't seem as right to me as does Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing in terms of categorizing Freoh's actions. If you are looking at only the RfC at Constitution of the United States, then you might look at earlier discussions with me where Freoh's persistence in wanting to make changes without consensus developing was pretty much the equivalent of edit warring, if not in actual fact. Dhtwiki (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Taking into account all the evidence I see here, I do not feel that Freoh's behaviour has risen to the level where a logged warning would be needful.—S Marshall T/C 16:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pinging involved editors:   @Levivich, Marshall, ErnestKrause, Allreet, Randy Kryn, Dhtwiki, LaundryPizza03, Thebiguglyalien, Headbomb, and Thebiguglyalien:
    @Hawkeye7: additional ping.
    — Levivich, multiple editors have said basically the same thing about Freoh's conduct, (habitual use of tagging, reverts with WP:IDHT and lengthy, repetitious and endless talk that has gone on for many weeks - and to lump all the involved editors together as a bunch of "bullies", simply picking on a new user, is not a very fair characterization of these editors.
    Just for the record, no one denies that mostly civilians died during the bombing, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military industrial cities, turning out weapons of war on a massive scale, where most of the weapons testing was conducted, all of which were engineered and manufactured by "civilians", and which would have extended the war indefinitely, costing more lives than were lost during the bombing. Freoh, who referred to the bombings as a "terrorist attack", wishes to focus on civilians, i.e.Civil POV pushing, while he ignores these facts, and when these things were explained to him by several editors he simply refused to acknowledge the point, and continued with lengthy talk, i,e.gaslighting.This is just one example. On the US Constitution page, he deleted a major portion of the Preamble section Diff with very little talk and no consensus, calling it a compromise. When this text was restored, he again made the same basic major deletion, Diff, with no discussion. Again this was restored by yet another editor. During this time, he POV tagged this section three times Diff1, Diff2, Diff3. The third attempt to POV tag came after he apologized to us (see above). I'll let other editors present the diffs they were involved with if they must. This editor clearly needs at least a stiff warning, if not a topic ban on American history articles, for at least 30 days.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd personally argue for an indef ban on anything history related, very broadly construed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Headbomb: The opening sentence of your original start of this thread stated that Freoh is a new editor, but Dhtwiki is now telling us above that Freoh is not a new editor and that he had a previous account. Does this have an up or down effect on your comments about his editing practices being discussed here? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It has little effect honestly. Since this ANI thread began, they got warned twice for 3RR stuff about very much the same behaviour under discussion here. If this is a returning editor from a clean start, it does not bode well, and what little good faith we could assume goes straight out the window. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ErnestKrause, I believe this user has had numerous previous accounts. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apparently Allreet and Gwillhickers were targets of Awolf's. Does this new behavior fit the pattern? —DIYeditor (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think so. Awolf's behavior was outright vandalism, repeatedly, with different IP's, unlike Freoh's, who never targeted us specifically. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Similar behavior, similar topic areas, etc. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... Perhaps an administrator can see if Freoh geolocates to the San Francisco Bay area as well? @Tamzin, you've dealt with this editor in the past. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the ping, Bgsu98. I'm rather bemused by this one. Comng into conflict with Allreet and Gw, and for that matter Randy Kryn, matches the Awolf MO, as does interest in foundational U.S. articles and broad-concept articles in general. On the other hand, interest in quantum computing is totally new AFAIK, and we're missing a lot of Awolf tells. On the third hand, I did tell Awolf a while back that if he was going to keep socking, he might as well pick a new topic and edit quietly, so maybe he's followed at least the first half of that "advice"... but I've learned a fair bit about Awolf and quantum computing really isn't the secret previously-unmentioned interest I'd expect him to have (especially since, AFAIK, he doesn't edit in the topic area he actually works in, which would seem a more logical place to quietly return). Oh and on a fourth hand, there's a significant overlap here with the GreenCows sockfarm... but on the other side ideologically. Blablubbs, do you have any thoughts? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Having read through this I agree. I’m also concerned about the “clean start” issue. Doug Weller talk 21:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm needing to go along with Dhtwiki and Doug Weller that the 'clean start' issue in a concern. Does Dhtwiki have the link which shows that Freoh has stated, using his new 'clean start' account, that he had a previous account or accounts at Wikipedia? Does Freoh state which Wikipedia articles he may have previously edited or modified at Wikipedia under the previous accounts before opening his new 'clean start' account? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The text on their talk page is: "I will say that this is not my first Wikipedia account, and I was somewhat successful on a previous account before a clean start with this one." That doesn't mean that they were blocked for disruption, especially as they freely admitted the previous account's existence. Dhtwiki (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One would have to wonder why this editor felt it was necessary to get a fresh start in the first place. "...somewhat successful on a previous account"? Without knowing the user name of the previous account I can only assume, all the (many) things considered, it wasn't because he was well received by fellow editors -- somewhat. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It could also mean that the account revealed too much personal information, among other possibilities. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anything is possible, but probable? If he was that concerned about revealing personal information I doubt he would of put much of it out there in the first place. Very few editors use their real name, and I've never seen anyone put their address, or phone number or eMail address, place of employment, etc out there, so realistically, it was likely because he was taken to task for the same reasons a dozen or so editors have done so over this latest account. In any case, this should not weigh in on whether a topic ban is imposed. We should only use the facts to do that, and there are plenty. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Maybe a two weeks history topic ban, 30 days is pretty steep and a couple of weeks will give all of the editors who are trying to reason together through tens of thousands of words a break for 14 days to go on about their business of improving the place (some very good sources have emerged from all of this though). There may or may not be another reverting-needing-talk-page-discussion situation shaping up at Mount Rushmore (trying to downgrade and now actually mock its alternate name "Shrine of Democracy", which is what the statue's sculptor and many others called and call it) which could use more readers, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:John Cummings

I highly respect User:John Cummings's contributions to Wikipedia (and Wikimedia Foundation, also as Wikipedian in Residence at UNESCO), but I'm worried about some of their contributions highly suspect that they're doing some WP:COI edits without any proper discloure. On contacting them, they have refused that clearly which is okay, but they are autopatrolled and that helps them avoid scruitny especially when they create spam page like QWSTION and its product Bananatex, Piñatex, [53], and many others. I'd leave it to the community how they would like to go with this case, but at least we should remove autopatrolled rights (not meeting guidelines such as WP:NPOV, WP:GNG, properly - visible on their creation Geeetech), so that an independent editor gets a chance to review their new article creations. Thanks! US-Verified (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) @US-Verified: As the red text 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. Notification was hidden in a slew of other notifications, and for that I apologise. (Amended 01:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC))Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did that. US-Verified (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Disclosure: I know John Cummings, having met him at editathons, Wikimedia UK AGMs, and Wikimanias]

This is an egregious failure to AGF; with none of the claimed respect on show. No diffs have been provided, and no evidence of malfeasance. US-Verified appears to have nominated a great number of John's article creations for deletion, on spurious grounds. For example, Geeetech is described as "Created by someone with a strong COI and was reviewed automatically, courtesy WP:APAT. This page is clearly a marketing piece..." and is garnering delete !votes on that basis; again, no evidence of the claimed COI is provided, and no evidence that the page is "a marketing piece". US-Verified also tagged the article with {{COI}}, again with no evidence; and without starting the required discussion on the talk page. This all occurred after John had stated in reply to US-Verified on his (Johns) talk page that he has no COI in the article and asking US-Verified to provide evidence for his unsubstantiated allegation there that John had "not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements". US-Verified did not reply. Furthermore, US-Verified had earlier `removed all the photographs from the article, describing them, falsely, as " complete spam". This kind of hounding of a good-faith editor and positive contributor is not acceptable. Administrative action is required to prevent its continuance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @US-Verified: You have yet to provide any evidence of a conflict of interest or that he has an undeclared financial incentive. Making unsubstantiated allegations is a personal attack and potentially blockable. Please substantiate your claims or strike them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do find it highly concerning that an autopatrolled and Foundation-affiliated editor would dump this into mainspace. How is that many images of products an encyclopedia page, not an advertising brochure. The sourcing is not great (largely press releases and non-independent coverage). Or why are we including text like The Simple-Strap system allows bags to be used in multiple ways e.g. from tote bag to shoulder bag to a backpack, it is used on the Shopper, Zipshopper, Day Tote, Tote and Small Tote. or QWSTION bags have multiple carrying options, for example the Office Bag can be carried horizontally, or as a shoulder bag or as a backpack. (with an image demonstrating the use to boot) or QWSTION doesn't follow the seasonal fashion calendar, they iterate on existing products, rather than creating new ones.. This reads like a toned-down PR/advertising piece. If warmed-over WP:CORPSPAM is what Cummings normally contributes, then autopatrolled needs yanked. Hog Farm Talk 19:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"How is that many images of products an encyclopedia page, not an advertising brochure." The same way it isn't on our many pages about motor vehicles, or aircraft, or video games consoles, or... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's one thing to include pictures of car makes for say, Ford Focus, to illustrate what the thing looks like, or to have a picture of a book cover so you know what the book looks like. It's another to include a picture of every.damn.product a borderline non-notable organization offers. It crosses the line and becomes problematic when we have content about how wonderful a satchel is that it can be worn/carried in many ways, and then demonstrate the many ways of carrying with images (provided by the company, to boot), of handbag models carrying the thing around in different ways. The article as Cummings left it was little better than a sales brochure. Hog Farm Talk 20:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Such conetnt issues should be discussed on the article's talk page; no evidnce has been provided of a pattern of problematic editing worthy of adminstrative action. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we're being real, if QWSTION were created by a new user, I suspect it would pretty quickly be draftified, stubified, or possibly tagged for G11. It's promotional for reasons Hog Farm explains. But while being a long-time good faith contributor doesn't make you exempt from WP:PROMO, it should buy a modicum of AGF and collaboration. Instead, US-Verified went in hot with assumptions of bad faith. It looks like before any edits to any of John's articles or any communication with John (that I can see), they just assumed bad faith that Geeetech was Created by someone with a strong COI and was reviewed automatically, courtesy WP:APAT, and continued to bang the COI drum without furnishing any evidence. The article does look like the person created it has a COI, but there's a difference between saying an article looks that way and making an accusation even after it was denied by someone who we have no reason to disbelieve (and, to the contrary, every reason to believe). Then, without any non-template messages to John that I can see, and without any talk page comments on any of the articles, US-Verified went through John's creations and nominated a slew for deletion. If they were all for promotional reasons, I'd understand, but the next link I clicked was Fidelity Communications, which is largely critical of the subject. It seems to just be WP:HOUNDING at this point. For something like QWSTION, it seems like a good first step would be "hey this is looking pretty promotional, could you take another pass?" YMMV. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Rhododendrites. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I've now read WP:HOUNDING and would not interact with them in any sense that gives such impression. My only intention was to bring it to the community's notice. I appreciate what they do and won't disturb them in future in any sense, if the community decides that their work is not problematic. US-Verified (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds good, thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that the autopatrolled right is not appropriate for an editor creating this kind of content. If you showed me the QWSTION revision linked above without any further context, I wouldn't hesitate to assume it was thinly veiled advertising. I don't think US-Verified is unjustified in expressing a suspicion of a COI just based on the content of the articles they linked above (though some of their other comments elsewhere, like describing some of John's contributions as "spam", go too far in concluding bad faith). Colin M (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Colin. I've now read WP:AGF completely (and now aware how this works), so would comply with it strictly. Also, I've striked my comments which were not per WP:AGF. Hope this helps. US-Verified (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for doing that. And for what it's worth, it's entirely possible to create poor or problematic articles without having an ulterior motive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you all for your comments. General observation: User:John Cummings created QWSTION on 20:52, 14 April 2022‎ and then on the same day they uploaded more than a dozen product photos to Wikimedia Commons (diff: [54]) and then they were verified by VRT member. Like this photo: it shows that the souce and author of this photo is QWSTION - the company under discussion. Is this normal? In my opinion, this suggests that there was some sort contact with the company and then their representative emailed to VRT team (so as part of the process, it was verified by VRT and released under creative commons license). The same is true for Geeetech, created on 13:26, 30 August 2018‎ (diff [55]), it was tagged (notablity) by @Deb: (diff:[56]), removed by User:John Cummings on 3 September 2018 (diff:[57]). Photos were added by them a day later (diff:[58]). Now, also note that these photos were uploaded by User:John Cummings, like in the case of QWSTION, and then were verified by VRT member after an email was received from Geeetech (as they were the owner of these photos), like [59]. I will share some more diffs as I find some time this weekend. Thank you all. US-Verified (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Milo Edwards, created by User:John Cummings on 6 February 2022 (diff: [60]), a photo was posted earlier, i.e. 27 January 2022 (diff: [61]) when User:John Cummings/Articles/Milo was created. Re Autopatrolled: Mahdi Gilbert, Stephen Clarke (archaeologist) (and the organization: Monmouth Archaeological Society) were created by them, but I failed to find any siginifcant coverage about these topics. US-Verified (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Is this normal? It's sometimes true that paid editors or people with a COI get photos submitted through VRT, but that requires a level of wiki knowledge that [most, I'd say] people here for promotion don't bother to learn. They'd probably be more likely to just upload the file without thinking about Commons licensing processes. On the other hand, many of us have, upon writing an article, decided to reach out to the subject for images. I've done this a number of times. More often than not they just say no, get confused, or don't reply, but once in a while you find someone happy to oblige. The first one that comes to my mind is Pocket FM. I had no connection with the company when I wrote that. I think I'd just heard a radio story about it, and now we have a bunch of relevant photos. Realistically, if the person in charge of PR/marketing/whatever is savvy these days, they should be happy to oblige when someone wants to write about you on Wikipedia. None of this is to say I agree with the use of images in e.g. the QWSTION article, but to answer your question "is this normal?", I'd say "fairly normal". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As you said, On the other hand, many of us have, upon writing an article, decided to reach out to the subject for images. This fits well in your case. You created the article on Pocket FM on 14:12, 20 January 2016 (diff: [62]) and then decided to reach out. A donated photo was uploaded by you on 25 January 2016 (diff: [63]) that means it took around five days which is reasonable. Now, take a look at the case already mentioned. QWSTION was created by them on 20:52, 14 April 2022‎ and but they started uploading photos on Wikimedia Commons before that. Around four photos were uploaded by them (exactly on 19:41, 14 April 2022) before the article creation. The photos uploaded are: 1) [64] (Text: Freunde von Freunden Qwstion Company Profile Zurich) 2) [65] (Text: "QWSTION holdall design process") 3) [66] (Text: "QWSTION minimal collection cutting pattern"), 4) [67]. All uploads on that day [68]. This is not normal. How can they be so sure — by uploading them earlier than the article creation itself — that the company will donate these photos, if they create an article — not one article, but two articles, other one is about the company's product — about them. Also, this odd editing pattern is only visible on a few articles only. Your example of a new user above makes more sense. Anyways, the community deserves a satisfactory answer from them. Let's wait for their response on this. US-Verified (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have a vague memory of tagging one of John's articles, but I also recall that I discussed it with him and explained that he needed to make a reasonable claim of notability, which the article at that time didn't do. I believe he made the necessary changes before he removed the tag. That's all I can say. Deb (talk) 08:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So the sum total of your evidence for accusing - a very serious accusation - John of COI and undeclared paid editing is a hunch based on the fact that he followoed the correct and advertised process fror getting an artcile subject to provide clearence for the use of their images? It's a pitty many more editors do not take the time and trouble to do that. Do you not realise the chilling behaviour your inappropriate action can have on other good-faith volunteers who may be considerng cnotrbition to our project? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nope. If you go through this discussion, then you will find multiple editors who concur with me (partially maybe). If we post any of above mentioned articles on WP:COIN (blind test - not possible though), then you find it clearer. WP:COI issue is not addressed yet - merely rejecting it is not enough. I'll expand on my rationale as I said above. US-Verified (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You've posted evidence that John has created some problematic articles on potentially non-notable subjects but that is not, in itself, evidence of a conflict of interest. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not one single editor has agreed with you that there is a "COI issue". There is no COI issue to address, because you have provided not one scintilla of evidence of COI. And yet you still keep casting unfounded aspersions. This needs to stop, or be stopped. 14:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)~
With no comment on this specific example, it might be a good general principle to have autopatrolled removed from paid editors, including Wikimedians in Residence. It's useful to have that second pair of eyes regarding COI. CMD (talk) 03:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It really would not, for a number of very good reasons, but that's orthagonal to the issue at hand. In none of the articles under discussion was John paid, nor acting as a WiR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes it's orthogonal. No, a number of unexplained reasons is not convincing for a very rare user perk. CMD (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to hear more from John (and less from Andy) about John's connection with the article subject, if any. I disagree with Harry; an editor creating a WP:PROMO page about a company does, in and of itself, raise reasonable questions about WP:COI, and this looks like a product advertisement. I don't think I've seen a Wikipedia article that looks so much like a brochure before. Levivich (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Levivich: for a new editor or one who has only shown an interest in a narrow range of topics, sure. John has ~17k edits to a variety of subjects. Looking at his last few hundred, it looks like he writes/edits about subjects he sees elsewhere (like the news or a social media feed or in the street) but without the deep knowledge of encyclopaedic writing and notability requirements. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Instead of asking OP to strike, we should be thanking them for bringing this important matter to our attention. Levivich (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know anything about this alleged conflict of interest, but there seems to be some original research going on here. For example, take a look at this diff of Manila hemp that adds a step-by-step description of the manufacturing process (the same material is also present at Bananatex and Abacá). Four citations are given: [69] [70] [71] [72] (I've fixed the last link, which was incorrect in the article). There is also this YouTube video embedded in the last two sources. As far as I can tell, none of these citations except the first one describe the manufacturing process in any detail (and the first source only supports the first ~6 images in our gallery). The YouTube video does briefly mention turning the fibers into paper and then into yarn, but it does not give a description as detailed as that given in our article. Am I missing something?

Also (and this is just something I happened to notice), so far three separate users have added the {{advert}} tag to QWSTION, which is not really a good look. Shells-shells (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The QWSTION diff is really bad. That revision potentially qualifies for G11, and shows a major misunderstanding of what our articles are supposed to look like (too many images), what tone to use for our articles (absolutely should not be hyping up a company/product), and what sources to use for articles (use of neutral sources would probably have avoided the tone problems). The Bananatex diff seems to violate WP:NOTHOWTO. In this user's defense, they haven't created any articles this year, and they have created a lot of species articles (which benefit from autopatrol) in the past. Overall, I'd lean towards removing autopatrol because of the QWSTION diff. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've pulled autopatrolled. COI or not, this is blatant spam that would disqualify any other editor from that user right. – Joe (talk) 09:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good move and having no autopatrol is no big deal. Just means that their new articles will get a second set of eyes. North8000 (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good call. Autopatrolled is really the only "user right" that we have that having it or not changes nothing about your own editing, it just manages review queues. Sending this editors pages through NFPP seems a reasonable choice for now. Courcelles (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I had almost pulled it myself earlier, but decided to wait to see how this discussion went. Hog Farm Talk 15:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The question of whether or not we can determine a COI is somewhat irrelevant. Any editor creating blatant advertisements and spammy pages, as Cummings is doing, is in violation of our policies, whether he was paid to do it, or whether he has any connection besides he thought it was interesting. Frankly, the idea that US-Verified should be sanctioned for failing to assume good faith when the most obvious possibility here is an undeclared COI is ridiculous and smacks of shooting the messenger because someone's wiki-friend is the one being discussed (and haven't we had enough of WMUK protecting their buddies from well-deserved sanctions to last a lifetime?) AGF is not a suicide pact, and I applaud US-Verified for bringing this up. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Likewise. I'm quite disturbed by the initial response to US-Verified's comments by a couple of users. It's pretty clear there is a problem here. Number 57 17:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs, Number 57, Levivich for your comments and calling a spade a spade. Andy's above comments are not helpful and I'm feeling disturbed reading them. US-Verified (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply by John Cummings

Hi all

I'm recovering from long covid and taking an extended break from work and going on the computer in general so haven't seen this thread before.


I have already said (as US-Verified acknowledges above) I have no COI with regard to these articles. Nor am I paid for any of my editing, other than as previously declared as a Wikimedian in Residence. I would guess maybe 5-10% of the 100s of articles I've written are about organisations or products, I mostly write about the environment/sustainability/plants, I think I've maybe had 1 article deleted as not notable in 11 years of contributing to Wikipedia (about a man who saved people from a mass shooting).


After no one replied to this post for only 10 minutes US-Verified added COI and other tags to many (I counted 18) articles that I've created and nominated 7 for deletion in about half an hour. Like others here have already said, I have experienced this as hounding.

Previously I have replied on my talk page to them explaining users must provide information on why they think there is a COI, but they have not and have continued to accuse others of COI without explanation e.g ByHours, CarSwap, Guildhawk, Jurga Žilinskienė, Relief Therapeutics and nominated a large number of pages created by others for deletion. They've nominated so many articles for deletion they've had to be asked on their talk page to slow down because they're overwhelming the system. On Thursday they sent me a message on my talk page saying I don't have a conflict of interest... so I am quite confused by their behaviour. I'd really appreciate if someone could provide US-Verified with some guidance on rules around COI because they're continuing to accuse people of COI without providing evidence which cannot be pleasant for the editors. Also to assess the article tags and nominations for deletions they've made.


Regarding the article about QWSTION I agree the tone could be much better, I asked the people who put the tags on the article to clarify which parts were problematic (on my talk page) but received no reply. I'll work on the article again taking this feedback into account when I'm physically able. Please add your comments on how to improve it to the talk page of the article rather than here so they don't get lost.

As others have said I've asked companies/organisations for photos to include in articles I've written, something I'm pretty experienced in guiding people through given my day job. We usually don't have any open license photos for products, or just poor quality ones, but articles for more masculine products like cars, trains, planes, military equipment etc often include images of every product eg Ferrari, Boeing 747. I don't think including every model of a plane or car for a company would be described on Wikipedia as advertising but I understand why it could be seen as this for articles that don't usually have so many photos available. Again if people have ideas of which images to include please add them to the talk page.


I hope this answers your questions, I will check again next week some time for any replies. I would appreciate if users could @ me in the messages if their questions are directed at me, it's a lot of effort for me to read all this text currently.


John Cummings (talk) 11:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I'm hoping you get better soon. I don't think this answers the questions asked above. RE e.g.:
  • CarSwap was created by User:Isingness who is blocked for advertising
  • ByHours, when I discovered this article (btw, I tracked your articles, this article, all other through reverse search using press release or spammy website link) it looked like this. A few problems I noted were use of press releases, ref bombing, and way the awards section was written clearly suggest someone with COI edited it. I was right about this and found that a single-purpose account User:Oneal Rock created the article.
  • Guildhawk and Jurga Žilinskienė are interlinked, much like QWSTION and its product Bananatex. These two articles, Guildhawk and its founder have been edited by someone (User:Paxlife) who is sort of maintaining these two for a year now and the tone of their edits suggests that they haven't declared COI yet -- I have sent them a message to declare it. I'm glad you brought these two here so there is a chance we can cleanup its contents now.
  • Relief Therapeutics is cited mostly with primary sources (i.e. press releases, company links, and others), edited recently by User:WaterfordWhisperer. Thank you!
US-Verified (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RE hounding: As I said, I tracked your problematic article QWSTION through reverse search and was the reason that I checked your editing history and found more articles that were not compliant with WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV (I just nominated them, so we can discuss). I've just seen your editing history for a few times and this was done for a "good cause" (as described on that guideline). US-Verified (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User: Radhey100

Radhey100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite several reverts and warnings, non-constructive editing has been done so far. Like, changing content according to their own will, not following the standard manual of style, remove portions from a page, editing per their own point of views and personal analyzing the guidelines. They've been making disruptive edits especially on Kundali Bhagya. Some of the diffs from Kundali Bhagya's page which are absolute unconstructive and needless, [73] [74] [75] [76] [77]. ManaliJain (talk) 05:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ManaliJain, this complaint is unclear. Specifically, what is disruptive in those diffs listed. Assume that I and most others here on the English Wikipedia are unfamiliar with this Hindi-language TV show to tell what's what. El_C 09:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@El C: Alright, so the mentioned editor changes content on Kundali Bhagya per their own will; is merging Kumkum Bhagya's content, mostly unrelated, with the other mentioned page; changing the style and format of the page unconstructively. The user has been reverted and warned numerous times, but no positive or constructive attempt from their side. ManaliJain (talk) 10:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is this per their own will you keep mentioning? You wrote the above per your own will; this comment of mine has also been added per my own will. I realize it's a language barrier, but it's a rather confusing phrasing. Anyway, yes, I saw that their talk page has many unreplied warnings—though the latest were all from you—but as far as the diffs you've listed, I still am unable to immediately tell what's what. So I suppose I'll leave it to someone else, maybe they can parse it better than me. El_C 10:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, there's been a communication barrier. While stating, changing content by their own will, I mean they are doing it freely or independently as per their own point of view and personal analysis, without following the Wikipedia guidelines. ManaliJain (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding the latest warnings all done by me is because the editors who have/are reverting their edit(s), for instance [78] [79] [80] [81] [82], are not leaving a warning on their page. Also, the user edits limited number of pages and majority of them are maybe not being watch-listed or checked by experienced editors that often. I check Kundali Bhagya's page on a regular basis, hence I get aware of the user's activity and warn them respectively. ManaliJain (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disruptive IP on rail-related modules and articles

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

Need a rangeblock for 2600:1700:B971:1930:B8C2:E223:29B0:E024/50 or a similar range,

IP has been warned repeatedly for the on-again off-again disruptive edits. IP never leaves edit summaries and constantly introduces false categories ([83] [84], unsourced edits ([85] [86] [87] and non-notable redlinks to disambiguation pages ([88] [89][90]).

Some prior warnings were given here:

Previous blocks can be found here.

Cards84664 07:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 6 months. El_C 08:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: Ankur D1946

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

Ankur D1946 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs [91][92] that show that the user accepted themselves to be a role account used by a professional PR team. ManaliJain (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely for WP:PAID violations: User talk:Ankur D1946#Indefinite block. El_C 08:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

QuarioQuario54321 continually disregarding MOS guidelines, despite warnings

QuarioQuario54321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I wanted to bring this to ANI because after several months of reminding this user about the Manual of Style-related issues they have introduced into articles with little improvement in their behavior (more specifically MOS:ENGVAR in recent months, which this report will primarily cover), my patience has run thin. I'm fairly convinced that this is a case of long-term disruptive editing.

  1. On 24 January 2023, in this edit to Inner West Light Rail Quario changed ... a few metres down Darling Drive ... to read ... a few meters down Darling Drive ..., and I issued a standard ENGVAR user warning on their talk page the day after. This is the only instance (I think) in which strong national ties play a role, as this article covers an Australian light railway.
  2. On 26 January 2023 Quario altered the spellings of numerous instances of "kilometers", "meters", etc. in this edit to Airport link line (Shanghai Suburban Railway) to use the non-American spelling varieties; at that point, assuming that these changes were unintentional, I had tried reminding them to preserve pre-existing English varieties.
  3. I eventually wrote on Quario's talk page that I hoped they were heeding my concerns, only for them to double down triple down quadruple down and continue their disruptive editing, as seen in this edit, for example.

Quario has had several editors contact them regarding the Manual of Style, but previous incidents appear to have largely been resolved... except for this one. With this in mind I've decided to take them to ANI because I feel that I'm out of options, and I firmly believe that Quario should hold themself to account for their disruption. XtraJovial (talkcontribs) 18:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

None of the times I intentionally changed it. QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You didn't address the issue at hand either, and you repeatedly defended your disruption by talking about how subtle the change was, how little it mattered, and how the average reader [wouldn't] even notice. This was all in spite of the style guidelines that I and others have referred you to. It doesn't take much longer to ensure that you preserve it. XtraJovial (talkcontribs) 21:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am one of those aforementioned editors who has interacted with Quario on a couple of MOS issues. His/her reluctance/refusal to change is frustrating. In the case of this latest ENGVAR issue I'm amazed action hasn't been taken much sooner. Some naughty step timeout to reflect might be warranted. If this were an employee (instead of a volunteer) I'd be suggesting attendance on an appropriate training course. 10mmsocket (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Except for the first diff, at Inner West Light Rail, where they changed the spelling in actual prose from metres to meters, all these changes seem to be from meters to metres and produced by adding the conversion template? Including the other changes within that first diff? So in essence, what's happening seems to be that they aren't adding "sp=us" after the unit abbreviation in the template? QuarioQuario54321, look at this edit by XtraJovial following one of yours. Yes, which spelling is used does matter. That is what people have been telling you repeatedly. But I'm not sure it has been explained that what you need to do is, if the article spells it meters or kilometers, add "sp=us" to the conversion template. Do you understand and can you promise to do that from now on? Yngvadottir (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or they can use {{cvt}} and it won't matter the spelling of metre. As in 1 m (3 ft 3 in). CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He/she uses {{cvt}} or "abbr=on" extensively. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If something is unabbreviated before I add the units, I keep it that way. Is that normal? QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your choice t.b.h. I tend to abbreviate very commonly abbreviated units of measure such as m, ft, km, lb, kg, etc. less so on miles (I have a personal aversion to "mi"). So km for example I might do something like {{convert|50|km|mi|abbr=in}} to only abbreviate the input not the output. However... Back to the issue in hand. If you don't abbreviate units the the default spelling is international, ie. non-American, so if you are in an article that has American spelling and you have a unit like metre, centimetre, kilometre, then you need to remember to include the "sp=us" parameter in the {{convert}} template. You have done it in the past - see the message below - but it's something you need to be really mindful of if you don't want to introduce the wrong spelling into an article. Hope that helps. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strictly speaking, there's guidance for this at MOS:UNITNAMES; mainly In prose, unit names should be given in full if used only a few times, but symbols may be used when a unit (especially one with a long name) is used repeatedly, after spelling out the first use (e.g. Up to 15 kilograms of filler is used for a batch of 250 kg), but as you can see from the rest of the that page there are a some edge-cases and exceptions.
In this particular instance I'm inclined to give a little leeway because {{convert}} is a bit unusual amongst templates in defaulting to British/Commonwealth spelling (in fact, I have a suspicion I might have even got it wrong one or twice myself). However, Quario's response to the corrections they've received is troubling all the same, as it continues the pattern established with their previous MOS issues. XAM2175 (T) 15:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This edit from 9 March (diff) shows that he/she does know about "sp=us" and has used it, but again like everything this user does it's inconsistent and slapdash, leaving others to clean up the aftermath 10mmsocket (talk) 08:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


N1C4T97 (talk · contribs) demonstrates WP:TENDENTIOUS editing - it's evident this user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Some glaring examples from their recent contributions:

  • [93] - Removes "cultural genocide" and replaces it with “vandalism” instead, despite the wikilinked article Armenian cemetery in Julfa indeed describing Azerbaijan's actions as "cultural genocide" with reliable sources. In the same tendentious edit, for no logical reason, changes the citation of George Bournoutian - an accomplished historian on Caucasus and beyond, to attributed citation.
  • Removes the sourced Azeri war crime against Armenian civilians and removes "Azerbaijani war crimes" category from the same article [94]. At the same time, adds unsourced "Armenian war crimes" category in several articles [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], previously added by a sockpuppet IP [101], [102], [103], [104], [105].
  • Reverts and edit-wars without discussing when asked for a source for his edits, does not provide a source [106], [107], [108], [109], edit-wars in another article [110], [111].
  • According to N1C4T97, the Talish, Tartar article shouldn’t have an Azeri war crime category since “places cannot be a war crimes” [112], but at the same time they restored "Armenian collaborators with Nazi Germany" category to a non-person article [113], [114], and then removed a category "Azerbaijani collaborators with Nazi Germany" in another non-person article.
  • While removing sourced Azeri war crime and category in Talish article [115], adds a partisan and unreliable archive website as some sort of apologia for Azeri Nazi legion [116]. The same website ( publishes garbage such as this: "Armenia revives myths about "genocide"" [117].

In summary, this user demonstrates WP:TENDENTIOUS editing - they edit it partisan manner, resort to reverts and edit-warring, their edits push a clear nationalist point of view and they're restoring sockpuppet edits. It’s clear that this user is here to push POV in Armenia-Azerbaijan articles, that is - WP:NOTHERE. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was going to report them myself, they blatantly refuse to abide to the community imposed extended-confirmed restriction, even though I did notify them about it on their talk page, for them just to continue tendentious editing as if nothing happened. - Kevo327 (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Proposal - Indef Topic Ban for topics relating to Azerbajian/Azeris and Western Asia Countries, broadly construed - I think based on the editors disruptive editing in this area is clear in their partisan editing, and would normally think a site ban would be warranted, but it looks like the user has made some edits outside the topic area and could still work constructively in noncontentious topics.
LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per my report.
KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I reverted the POV edit of N1C4T97 in Gülüstan, Nakhchivan - what they don't mention is that the wikilinked main article in their edit literally has 3 reliable sources for cultural genocide in the lead [118], [119], [120]. Can't comment about the other articles, but N1C4T97 defending his tendentious editing with this misleading wall of text pushes me to support a topic-ban on Armenia-Azerbaijan articles. Nocturnal781 (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LegalSmeagolian, I was not actively editing, while I created my account many years ago. So, I am new to Wikipedia, especially to the EnWiki, and I acknowledge that I unintentionally disobeyed some rules. Like, I was unaware of the community-imposed extended-confirmed limits that prohibit new editors from making edits related to the topic area. I stopped making any further alterations to the topic area after I noticed the message put on my user talk page about that.
Tendentious editing accusations against me are made-up and groundless. In this case, the "evidence" against me cannot even be referred to as such, as the difference between revisions were manipulated to deceive the admins. I am not sure why KhndzorUtogh did that, but evidently, he snipped through my edit history, and without even attempting to clarify them with me, he brought a bunch of snippets in an effort to convince admins to ban me.
For example:
1. In this difference between revisions I specified the author "Armenian historian George Bournoutian" because I thought that "primary sources" sound vague. I also changed "cultural genocide" to the "cultural vandalism" as per cited source, which clearly states "cultural vandalism" and doesn't contain "cultural genocide" term. The other source other is a website that is funded by Armenian government (note the text on bottom). I am astounded that KhndzorUtogh did not even bother to discuss this edit before bringing it up to accuse me of tendentious editing.
2. difference between revisions KhndzorUtogh accused me for removing "the sourced Azeri war crime against Armenian civilians and removes "Azerbaijani war crimes" category from the same article". In fact, I explained everything in the edit summary, but I will repeat it here. I removed the war crimes category because it is not applicable for the article which is about the village, and I removed "the sourced Azeri war crime" because it was cited to some unknown partisan website, which is based in Yerevan, Armenia. On the other difference between revisions, I was adding war crimes categories to the events where civilians were massacred. There is a difference between an article about village and an article about events. I do not think I even need to explain that to anyone. I was doing that because those events fall under UN war crime classification [121]. I am curious why KhndzorUtogh did not mention anything about the edit summary in which I explained everything. Why is he making this bogus accusation without even bothering to discuss this edit beforehand?
3. "According to N1C4T97, the Talish, Tartar article shouldn't have an Azeri war crime category since "places cannot be a war crimes" [174], but at the same time they restored "Armenian collaborators with Nazi Germany" category to a non-person article [175], [176], and then removed a category "Azerbaijani collaborators with Nazi Germany" in another non-person article." - This is totally made up; in fact, it is a clear disinformation. On 20 February 2023, I added the Armenian collaborators with Nazi Germany category to the Armenian Legion article. That edit was reverted on 17 March 2023 by Kevo327 with the "Category is for persons" edit summary. Kevo327's edit summary convinced me, and I deleted an identical category from the identical article on March 19, 2023. Before we established the consensus that these categories do not apply to these articles, there was some back and forth between these difference between revisions[122] [123], but the point is that KhndzorUtogh's description of these difference between revisions is entirely misleading. I don't know why KhndzorUtogh attempted to mislead administrators into believing that first I removed from one article and then added to another. Time, when edits were made, proves the opposite.
In conclusion, it is apparent, and I have demonstrated, that this report is baseless, and I can not believe that it was filed in good faith. KhndzorUtogh never came out to me on the talk page to discuss my edits, nor did he engage in many of the difference between revisions he provided here. From what I see KhndzorUtogh essentially glanced through my edit history, sniped some of my edits, did not even bother to discuss them with me, and did everything he could to mislead administrators and persuade them to ban me. I hope administrators will recognize this and not fall for this false information.N1C4T97 (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@N1C4T97, articles on Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts are under an extended-confirmed restriction, meaning they are off-limits to editors under 500 edits. They are contentious subjects that require a solid understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Woodroar (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I know it now, but I was unaware about that restriction until I was informed on my talk page by another user. I believe making that restriction more visible to newcomers would be beneficial.N1C4T97 (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've blocked N1C4T97 for 1 week for their violation of WP:GS/AA on March 19 (Special:Diff/1145494935, a series of 3 edits), 3 hours after receiving a notice from Kevo that specifically explained the community sanction (Special:Diff/1145468587). I haven't otherwise investigated their edits, but given GS/AA, discussion of a topic ban at this time seems moot. signed, Rosguill talk 22:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've gone ahead and upgraded to a WP:NOTHERE indefinite site ban following further investigation, considering both the evidence above and additional investigation. signed, Rosguill talk 19:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Topic ban - @Rosguill: I have to agree with the nominator, I think the report clearly shows N1C4T97’s disruptive behaviour, him editing in partisan manner - this isn't something needed in the already volatile and contentious AA topic area. POV-pushing by adding "war crime" categories and removing them elsewhere based on what/where suits their POV, and then edit warring over it - the pattern is clear. I’m sorry to see them calling the report "baseless" in the face of clear evidence - this shows no insight or willingness to improve. This leaves little hope that editing will be better after the week of block, and therefore I think the tban should be applied as a preventative measure. - Kevo327 (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Content dispute between User:Mnnie053 and User:Pichsambath, removal of sourced content, possible biting of a newcomer

Involved users:


User:Mnnie053 is in a content dispute with User:Pichsambath, citing "unsourced content" as the reason for reversion of the edits by User:Pichsambath. Mnnie053 made a report of the other user at AIV with the explanation, "Repeatedly readding unsourced content without explanation, intending to edit war." I took a closer look at the article contents that are being disputed between the two users, and on at least one article, it involves removal of sourced content (diff here). Pichsambath's contributions seem to be high-quality for a new user in general, as they are adding things like automatic date templates, and foreign language text translations here and here. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think every single bit of content addition immediately needs a source? i.e. sources needed for just substantial additions only?

Furthermore, looking at the talk page for User:Mnnie053 (the reporter at AIV) reveals they have been very recently warned and blocked in the past for disruptive editing before, with behaviour that seems very similar to what's happening above, so I probably don't know what to say between these two editors. Here's a quote from Drmies on their talk page: "Besides, on closer inspection it seems clear that at least some edits of yours are, well, vandalism with misleading edit summaries. Here, you removed a bunch of information, and you said "needs source"--but you removed the actual sources in that edit, including this article. And in that edit you also removed the basic and uncontroversial statement "The national federation is a member of ASEAN"."

I mainly intend this thread to be a further discussion thread for these two users (i.e. I am helping them out), since an AIV report is probably not appropriate here (not for in-depth discussions at least). AIV is intended for obvious vandalism and promotion/disruptive editing, and on Pichsambath's talk page I only see one warning, a level-2 disruptive editing template.

AP 499D25 (talk) 10:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The user just reverted again, in series, and passed 3RR already, despite warnings. They posted incivility in my user page and hardly showing any communication or maybe language competence. This is clearly disruption and not content dispute. Please delete my user page as I previously requested in AIV because I didn't create it. Mnnie053 (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, there has hardly been any communication from User:Pichsambath at all, so far this is the only talk page discussion they have started, and it's on their talk page, not on yours or on any articles. Though, a look at the page histories of all four pages reveals they have only just hit 3RR, not broken it. AP 499D25 (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking closer at this diff I am a bit mistaken. The paragraph changes appear to be copyediting rather than straight up sourced content addition. Indeed, no sourced content has been added. Ah I should've looked a bit closer before writing up this report, my bad. AP 499D25 (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update: 24 hours later, no response from Pichsambath on any discussion pages. As of now, this is still the only communications from them. That talk page message kind of suggests to me they aren't willing to work issues out with other editors in a disagreement. Note that Pichsambath's edits have been reverted for the third time already, so if they redo the edits and not discuss with the other editor here first, well, I think it becomes clear which party is in the wrong here. Mnnie053 appears to be willing to discuss issues with the other editor happily whenever needed, given their presence here and on the other user's talk page. @Pichsambath if you could chip in and leave your thoughts on why your edit should be restored, that would be appreciated. AP 499D25 (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update 2: Pichsambath just restored their edits yet again, without any consensus or discussion before it: 1 2 3 4 5. The lack of communication from them is a bit troubling... I made the original thread above centred around both users in the dispute, but as time goes on it seems Pichsambath is the one being the disruptor here. AP 499D25 (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think blocking Pichsambath from article space for a week would be justified, if only to force them to use the talk pages. I will wait for feedback before pressing the buttons. PhilKnight (talk) 06:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. The main issue here is the lack of communication from them. I've left another message on their talk page to point out that they should communicate with other editors when there is a disagreement, and also that the onus is on them to provide a reliable source for their edits, since that's the main reason why their edits are being reverted (they have not actually provided sources for their edits, I didn't look further and closer into this before typing up the original report).
By the way, they've just made another wave of edits today since the last reply, this time after being reverted by a different editor, Untamed1910, also on the basis of no citations provided: 1 2 3. AP 499D25 (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I have partially blocked from article space for a week. PhilKnight (talk) 07:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pls see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User:Igsiters Moxy-Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 22:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Amigao keeps mass deleting content and sources

Amigao (talk · contribs) was blocked sometime ago for mass removal, across English Wikipedia, of sources and/or sourced passages where sources have been deprecated, sometimes replacing them with <cn> tags. Obviously, this is not only vastly problematic, because often these passages formed a part of the article's logical flow, but expressly against the policy: Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately (Wikipedia:Deprecated sources).

Many editors, including recently myself, have pointed this out to them on several occasions[124][125][[126], etc. Also, I pointed out to them that they should instead use the deprecated inline template. To no avail.

The user has made hundreds if not thousands of such mechanical edits in the last months all over Wikipedia, often going faster than one article per minute. A few random examples from the last 24 hours: [127][128][129][130][131][132], but honestly, it's easier just to open their contribution list.

Is there an effective way of stopping them? — kashmīrī TALK 11:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kashmiri, you should probably review WP:BURDEN. Also, deprecated sources such as WP:SPUTNIK cannot be used to make factual claims outside of very limited WP:ABOUTSELF claims. - Amigao (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The issue is not about removing a deprecated source in individual instances, e.g., in an article you're working on. The problem is with your ongoing indiscriminate, mass removal of all occurrences of a source, in thousands articles, despite the DEPRECATED policy and objections from fellow editors. — kashmīrī TALK 14:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deprecated sources should be removed. Was there something in particular about WP:SPUTNIK that triggered this? Amigao (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Incorrect. Deprecated sources MAY be removed. And no, I don't read and have never read Sputnik if that's what you're asking about. — kashmīrī TALK 19:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No... Its pretty obviously should... Thats the whole point of our classification system, to clean our poor sources. All sources *may* be removed, thats a universal not just the deprecated ones. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for starting this report, Kashmiri. I agree Amigao's mass edits and indiscriminate removal of sources are a problem. The user has been warned many times about problematic mass edits (for example: 1 2 3 4 5). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you sure that there are warnings in all of those diffs? Maybe you linked the wrong things? The only warning I see is from ToBeFree and its a warning about being unresponsive, not about problematic mass edits. What am I missing here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not templated warnings, but in each of those discussions, other users asked Amigao to stop making specific kinds of mass edits, or to be less indiscriminate about them. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Didn't we go through all this when all the Daily Mail references where removed? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 16:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We did, the consensus was that while some people don't like such mass removals of unreliable or deprecated sources there is nothing in the existing policy or guidelines which prohibits them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For anyone interested, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1045#Editor David Gerard and the Daily Mail. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 20:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's better to keep the source and add a relevant template. Removing text is sometimes appropriate, but in Australia–Russia relations the meaning was changed. And some of the citations were not originally to Sputnik, but to RIA Novosti, which has a separate entry in WP:RSP and is not deprecated. In this case the access dates were 2008 and 2009, before Sputnik existed, but the URLs were recently changed by a bot ( Peter James (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Unfortunately doing so generally achieves nothing, as such templates are ignored. At least replacing the ref with {{citation needed}} warns readers that the text is unsupported (which is the case with deprecated sources). An attempt should be made to replace it, but that is not required by policy. So as long as the replacements aren't being done in a WP:MEATBOT fashion or errors are left in the article because due care wasn't taken, which none of the supplied diffs show, there is nothing to answer for here. This is unlike the last ANI thread where both of those issues were present. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 13:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If a source is deprecated, it should not be used as a source. The existence of a deprecated source added to support a claim in an article is equivalent to that claim being unsourced. The deprecated source is simply useless. It cannot support a statement because it has no weight, and the statement might even be false. And if there's concern about not being able to understand the meaning of a statement because the source has been removed, we should remember that if the only source supporting a statement is a deprecated source, the entire statement probably shouldn't exist in the article. The deprecated source should therefore logically be removed and replaced with a {{citation needed}} template. Nythar (💬-🍀) 13:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • And if someone replaced a deprecated source with a {{citation needed}} template and you disagree with that, please look for and add a reliable source instead of thinking about re-inserting the deprecated source. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 13:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Removing a statement can change the meaning of the text surrounding it. If a source was used we should say what it was, not hide it, until a better source is found or the content rewritten so the source is no longer necessary. And it could be that the source used is not deprecated, but the URL that the citation now links to is on the site of a deprecated source (which is what happened here). Peter James (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: WP:BURDEN = no problem with removing deprecated sources and unsourced content; it absolutely should be done when it is in a BLP or has names of living persons. Cleaning up articles of unsourced "content" should be encouraged. If you need to leave the unsourced content, it could use a cn tag to warn readers. Every removal of unsourced material increases Wikipedia's already fragile reliability.  // Timothy :: talk  03:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Once again, everybody believes that they themselves know The Right Way(TM) to handle material cited to deprecated sources, and anyone doing it a different way is being wrong and disruptive. My own take is that {{citation needed}} and {{better citation needed}} tags can sit around for ages without getting attention, deprecated sources are a blight upon the encyclopedia, content covered only in unreliable sources is by definition undue, and wholesale removal of deprecated sources along with the sentences to which they are attached can be a darn good move. Might it sometimes have costs, like disrupting prose flow? Sure. Are those costs worth the benefit not pointing our readers to disinformation and propaganda? I'd say so. XOR'easter (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ugly00015 and license violation

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

Can you please have a look at this user's contributions and decide a block is required please? This user has persistently uploaded non-free files in violation of Wikipedia's licensing policy. This account is 8 months old and seems to me as vandalism. This user does not understand the purpose of Wikipedia, and seem to lack the competence to edit here appropriately. I think temporarily blocking would be necessary. Yours sincerely, 1394ochi (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely for persistent WP:COPYVIO: User talk:Ugly00015#Indefinite block. El_C 08:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Pvmoutside autopatrolled rights

I was suggested by Barkeep49 to come here. I am trying to get a hold on the autopatrolled rights of editors who masscreate stubs and while I was checking some of the top ten article creators and I came across Pvmoutside, who is a prolific stub creator since over 10 years with an stub count of over 8000 per xtools. At the beginning of his wikipedia career they also created some start class articles. Pvmoutside was given the autopatrolled rights by an editor who is no longer editing since 2012. They create technical articles on species in danger, usually without mentioning in their articles that they are in danger like here, here or here, nor adding an image or add more prose than mentioning their existence in a country. You can see their latest articles here. A recent article not on a species didn't have an inline citation at all.

Autopatrolled mentions "clean" articles as also noted by Barkeep49.

  • I'd support to remove Pvmoutside the autopatrolled rights so reviewers get to tag them for deficiencies such as too technical, image requested etc. Pvmoutside doesn't seem to be too much aware for what autopatrolled actually is and believed that the autopatrolled rights entitles them to move pages, which doesn't seem to be correct as noted by Barkeep49 and also by Uanfala in a discussion before. Courtesy pings to Uanfala. I am not against masscreation of stubs, I believe Esculenta would be a good example of who would be a trusted masscreator of articles on autopatrolled. Courtesy ping to Esculenta. But deficient stubs on autopatrolled is not a good idea in my opinion.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support removing autopatrolled. Autopatrolled editors are expected to produce articles that do not need manual review; mass creating micro-stubs without a consensus approving their creation does not fall into this category. BilledMammal (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I don't see what is wrong with, for example, Erythrolamprus sagittifer as a stub article. All species are considered notable, so there can be no reason not to create an article. A stub is a place-holder, which this is. It has two very respectable references and a taxobox that connects it to the genus article and other higher taxon articles. The conservation status of the species is shown in the taxobox, as normal for a stub. Why would it need to be reviewed? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose User creates fully functional taxon stubs that contain all features required for this type - complete taxobox, authority, synonyms, fundamental references. Of the dozens I have spot-checked, there was not one that could not be NPP signed off. These thus do not require review through the queue, which is the sole reason for the autopatrolled right. "Did not contain all information that could have been included" is the state of all stubs, not a reasonable requirement of stub creators, and not a valid point in this regard. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong oppose. From the XTools summary linked above (prolific stub creator), Pvmoutside has created 8,775 articles, not including redirects. 118 of these were later deleted, most of which (106/118) were deleted to make way for a page move, usually to change a title between common and scientific name or due to a later taxonomic change (split or merge species). Of the remaining twelve deleted articles, nine appear to have been made in error, and were most often deleted at the users request. This has resulted in 99.9% of the articles he has created still remaining in mainspace. This level of article retention rate is exactly why the auto-patrolled status is appropriate in order to save new page reviewers time and effort validating new article creations. The articles created by Pvmoutside are all fully functional, and range from disambiguation pages to those now rated as GA or FL. Pvmoutside's article creation contributions are valuable to the encyclopedia and should be further encouraged and emulated. Loopy30 (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I haven't looked in depth, but in this, and previous, discussions, I haven't seen anyone point out any actual problems with these stubs other than the fact that they're short. Yes, the three examples given above (here, here and here) a sourced to the IUCN Red List, but their endangerment status (as prominently visible in the infobox) is least-concern, which means they're not endangered, and this fact is probably not salient enough to be worth mentioning in the prose as well.
    I don't get what sorts of "deficiencies" these stubs will need to get tagged for by reviewers. If {{image requested}} is important, then we can ask Pvmoutside to add it when creating the stubs' talk pages. As for {{too technical}}, which articles would that be applicable to? If the article goes like "X is a species in such and such subfamily, named in the year YYYY by so and so, and found in such and such countries", then that's as plain and clear as it can get. – Uanfala (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What Pvmoutside has produced is, for better or worse, the state of many species pages. If anyone feels that the bar for species pages should be higher, they really should start an RfC to update WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Yes, Draft:Jean McDonough Arts Center should never have been put in mainspace, but I can't see any problem with the species pages, which is the vast majority of their creations. As mentioned above, if something like Oxyrhopus trigeminus is not an acceptable stub (in my opinion, it's absolutely fine), that's something that needs a wider discussion rather than trying to cause issues for an editor who is only doing what many others have done previously, with apparently few issues. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's fine to create such stubs, but not on autopatrolled. The suggestion is meant to regulate the masscreation of stubs, and maybe also mention that the species are in danger, enable them to get tagged for too technical, image requested etc. Anyway, the closers seem to follow much more reason than simple majority these days and I'll hope they follow my approach to the masscreation of stubs.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment species articles are a useful magnet for subject experts. Many subject experts will balk at starting a new Wikipedia article, which is intimidating. They will, however, add information to a pre-existing article they happen to have come across, often as an IP editor, and they often give pretty decent referencing. Stub species articles fulfil a very valuable function by providing a place in which others can - easily - write about something that we've already decided is guaranteed to be notable. Elemimele (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For these species stubs, I think it would be a much better idea to merge them into the genus articles rather than revoke autopatrolled rights (for now). A lot of information is duplicated between the genera and species pages (e.g. Kingdom–Genus infobox entry and authority). I see it as a more productive alternative than what's proposed. SMEs can still improve them because the articles will still be somewhere, and make the resulting page longer and more likely to pass notability challenges. SWinxy (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Let's graciously forgo penalizing the editor for entirely conforming to expected standards, and instead screw up their output contrary to established consensus to avoid nonexistent notability concerns." Here's a better idea: let's not. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But you also oppose penalizing them? SWinxy (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Woosh. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A little update. I didn't know that least concern doesn't mean that they are in danger and they are not in danger. I figured that if they are on the red list, they are in danger. I correct me on that. Might be worth clarfifying that in he article. Too technical. But that's a point of view that one can share or not. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The IUCN Red List contains conservation statuses for (ideally) all species, so it will include species that are not threatened. This is not the same meaning that the average person thinks of when someone says "red list" which may just contain species threatened or worse, and some people may refer to regional threatened species indices as "red lists". The IUCN Red List acts more like an encyclopedia. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Draft:Jean McDonough Arts Center seems to be the only problematic diff presented (might not pass WP:NCORP). Species articles always survive AFD. And the species diffs presented above each contain multiple sources. I think creators of species articles are good candidates for autopatrolled since they tend to create high volumes of notable articles, so autopatrolling them reduces NPP workload, and the articles are very safe (no chance of UPE). –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Huh? If anything, Pvmoutside should be commended for improving Wikipedia's coverage of species, not penalized for it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Destructive editing by User:Universalsunset

Apparently there is a dispute between Nabongo and Spotts for who is the first black woman to travel to all counties in the world. From what I can tell, User:Universalsunset seem determined to make a statement on the article about Jessica Nabongo that she was the second woman to do so and bend the article about Nabongo in favor of Spotts without proper citations. From the talk page of User:Universalsunset it seems that the user has tried to push through articles stating Spotts as first. I have no problem with the Nabongo article stating she is second, if there is a reputable source declaring her so. I do have a problem that User:Universalsunset is doing destructive edits falsely claiming "promotional edits". This clearly shows the user does not understand Wikipedia policy. The user is also quite new to Wikipedia judging by their contributions so I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

  • I tried to remove the citation "CORRECTION: Jessica Nabongo will be the second black woman after Woni Spotts to travel to every country in the world if she achieves her goal." because it is based on a report for which the source is explicitly stated as being Spotts herself. My edit has been reverted twice without discussion.
  • After having reviewed all the citations in the article I could not find a single citation stating that Nabongo was declared second (except for an article starting with "CORRECTION: ..." which is based on a report by Spotts herself). I edited the article Jessica Nabongo to state that both Nabongo and Spotts claimed to be first and also mentioned the dispute. My edit was reverted.
  • I tried to add that Nabongo authored a book which User:Universalsunset has deemed twice as promotional and reverted my edits.
  • I have tried to add factual details about Nabongo's book (the actual title and the publisher), but my edits have been reverted twice.
  • tried removing all controversial text about the dispute only adding Nabongo as an author, my edit was completely reversed.
  • complete reverts

--K.Nevelsteen (talk) 07:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, about that --K.Nevelsteen (talk) 07:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article is now up for deletion for that reason.--K.Nevelsteen (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Wlwl0623 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaging in an edit war to insert a recent controversial topic which primarily cites Fox News and Daily Wire without consensus. On a side note, Matt Smith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly bludgeoning on the talk page to defend Fox News/Tucker Carlson's credibility, framing the article as politically biased because right-wing media are rejected for advancing left-wing political ideology, which is a false statement. The issue has gone so bad that I had to request a temporary semi-protection for talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack‎ due to persistent disruptive messages by ip users. Therefore I request broader administrative involvement to this incident. (Notification has been sent to both Wlwl0623 and Matt Smith.) -- -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Daily Wire material has been removed following community consensus. For Fox News, "Although a significant portion of the community believes Fox News should be considered generally unreliable, the community did not reach a consensus to discourage the use of routine and uncontroversial coverage from Fox News".
The controversy is around what the video suggests, instead of whether they are authentic. Therefore the existence of this section is justified. Wlwl0623 (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I recall correctly, consensus differentiates between regular Fox News and their pundits, of whom Carlson is one. His feature on the Capitol is also not “routine and uncontroversial” news. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The controversy here is whether several minutes of video edited down from 40,000 hours presents a full and accurate depiction of events. The video "suggests" what the editors of a highly dubious source intend it to suggest. Without reliable sources stating the video fully and accurately depicts events, anything from Tucker Carlson of Fox News must not be included in such a contentious topic area. soibangla (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FoxNews(Talkshows) is the relevant entry at WP:RSP. Further amplified by FoxNews(Politics) on same list. So no, if DailyDot and FoxNews are the sources, it is not justified. Add in WP:ONUS, WP:DUE and WP:CONSENSUS and it's really not justified in any way at all. Slywriter (talk) 03:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah Fox News talk shows are not RS, and Fox News are also not an RS for politics. So the fact Fox News may currently not be considered generally unreliable is a moot point since it isn't reliable in the case of the specifics here. Nil Einne (talk) 09:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am User:Matt Smith, and I would like to point out that User:Sameboat's claim about me is false. I have never defended Tucker Carlson's credibility in a bludgeoning way. In the discussion section, I only mentioned Tucker Carlson in two discussions:

  • The first one is with User:Muboshgu and User:Dumuzid. To see the discussion, please search for my reply to User:Muboshgu with these text: But the video released by Tucker did show that
  • The second one is with User:Slatersteven and User:Sameboat. Too see the discussion, please search for my reply to User:Slatersteven with these text: When exactly have Fox and Carlson "admitted to lying"?

The first one is relatively short and did not really involve discussing Tucker Carson's credibility. The second one is the actual one, and the only one, which involved discussing Tucker Carson's credibility.

As we can see, in the second one, User:Sameboat presented me with an old news whose heading is considered taken-out-of-content by me. After that, User:Slatersteven presented me with a few news, which I said are more or less the same. And then User:Slatersteven presented me with a few more news, but User:Sameboat suggested that this debate should not continue. I then agreed tacitly by not continuing to reply to User:Slatersteven.

Aside from the aforementioned two discussions, I also pinged User:Dronebogus to ask about his particular reason for removing an IP user's comment, which I considered reasonable, though User:Dronebogus did not reply. To see that ping of mine, please search for these text: @Dronebogus: I think the comment you removed actually looked reasonable. That is my last discussion about the article, and it also did not involve discussing Tuck Carlson's credibility. Furthermore, my intention of pinging User:Dronebogus was not discussing Tuck Carlson's credibility. Instead, my intention was discussing the article's balance between different opinions, which does not necessarily need to involve discussing anyone's credibility.

So what on earth did I bludgeon about? I think User:Sameboat exaggerated those discussions as if a bludgeoning occurred. Maybe he did not pay attention to the details of those discussions? I don't know. Anyway, I did not bludgeon nor even try to, and my tacitly agreeing not to continue the debate in the second discussion already showed that. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed the comment because it was about 90 percent complaining about media bias and fundamental principles like WP:Reliable sources that can’t be changed, and 10 percent anything relevant about the article or topic. Dronebogus (talk) 05:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wlwl0623 lacks a basic understanding of the usage of reliable sources in Wikipedia. In the article CNN, here they added an Ad Fontes Media citation. WP:RSP clearly states "Ad Fontes Media and their Media Bias Chart should not be used in article space in reference to sources' political leaning or reliability." They later reverted my removal and then added a Biasly citation (without even trying to prove if Biasly is credible) and an NYT source that doesn't even mention CNN's bias. As can be seen in the page's history, they don't seem know when to stop reverting and possibly aren't aware of WP:BRD. Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nearly all of Matt Smith's reply regarding this topic is "it's not about Fox News/Carlson's credibility; it's about the political bias of the article". The worst offender has to be casting doubt on the J6 committee's integrity[133][134] which is not backed by any reliable source. This issue is always about our reliable source policy, nothing less, nothing more, but Matt Smith shrugged it all off every time we told him about that. I find it very unconvincing from an editor active since 2014 (on Chinese Wikipedia), and conclude that it's a deliberate act of manipulation to derail the discussion. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 07:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carlson is explicitly listed as unreliable at RSPS and even if he wasn’t, as Fox News’s chief polemicist, if he told me it was raining, I’d stick my hand out the door to double check. Any editor who disagrees really needs to be bonked with the WP:CIR bat. Sceptre (talk) 08:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Just noting that I declined protecting this page (RfPP diff), deferring the matter to WP:AN3 ( {{rfpp|an3}} ), having done so unaware of this ANI thread. A thread which I have yet to review, so I'm unsure to what extent if any it'd have influenced my decision. El_C 08:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Since Wlwl0623 has agreed to retract from the edit war, a full-protection is not needed, for now. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 08:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the page is unlikely to have been fully-protected on account of one (or even two) user(s), anyway. El_C 09:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sameboat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continued to make exaggerated claim against me, for example, by asserting that nearly all of my replies regarding this topic are about the political bias of the article. But the fact is that, out of those specific 7 replies of mine, only the last one is such. Also, I felt that he went too far and likely breached WP:No personal attack by labeling me as "The worst offender". --Matt Smith (talk) 09:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, he didn't, as that's not a personal attack. For my money, you're inching ever closer to a topic ban. —  Salvio giuliano 10:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After using those words (which I consider offensive), he linked my comments. Is that not the same as including me in his targets?
The discussion about the article had already ended in the article's talk page. I came to here just to clarify his claims about me, not to continue on the topic. Therefore, I'm not sure why you would think of topic ban. Would you mind explaining? Matt Smith (talk) 11:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Isn't this one of those cases where WP:ARE might be a better bet if there are problems with user behaviour serious enough to warrant action? Nil Einne (talk) 11:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For Matt Smith, probably. For Wlwl0623 I'm not sure, because, from a very cursory examination of his edits, I'm starting to wonder whether a WP:NOTHERE indef wouldn't be be the best solution... —  Salvio giuliano 11:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah a possible community site ban or indef is one reason to continue this. Nil Einne (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not only wondering, I think it so clearly is I’ve just issued such a block. The RGW attitude coming from that editor was not changing. Courcelles (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S. I see both of the main named editors may have only been given alerts recently so maybe it's unlikely an admin can sanction under CT either unilaterally or from ARE. Even so, IMO it's probably better to just wait and see if any alleged misbehaviour improves and file at ARE if it doesn't rather than bother with a community sanctions process. Nil Einne (talk) 11:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CAT:RFU LTA needs blocking

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

2600:1001:B136:6B9:4098:C00E:999D:643B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) most recent incarnation of the CAT:RFU admin impersonator LTA needs blocking can't report to AIV, since the range is already partially blocked Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Already blocked by 331dot. Thanks for reporting! --Yamla (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: Thesaurabhsaha

Thesaurabhsaha threatened me on my talk page. They were very uncivil and i had no involvement in the conflict they are describing. They called me a terror and threatened severe action. Nagol0929 (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nagol0929: Hi, I'm sorry to hear that — could you please link to some diffs where they threatened you? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 15:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this is the one referred to. To me it looks like two fairly inexperienced editors having a content dispute, not sure this 'threat' is clear enough to be actionable. Definitely rude, though. Valereee (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, I did see that, but evidently didn't make the connection! I agree — @Nagol0929 and Thesaurabhsaha: I'd strongly recommend either finding something away from each other to edit, taking a step away from Wikipedia for a bit, or reviewing other methods of dispute resolution. Disputes like this which end up at ANI have a habit of resulting in editors talking themselves into blocks Face-smile.svgTheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 15:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright thank you Nagol0929 (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chronic addition of unsourced / WP:OR by Donmccullen

Donmccullen (talk · contribs) was blocked by @TheresNoTime: last year for "Persistent addition of unsourced content." Since the block expired, the editor is making almost exclusively unsourced edits, but more problematic, making edits based on their experience: WP:ISAWIT or WP:IHEARDIT.

@Tide rolls:, @Sammi Brie: and @Mvcg66b3r: have attempted to explain things to this editor [135] [136] with no success.

See edit summaries confirming WP:ISAWIT or WP:IHEARDIT:

  1. [137] (→‎CBS: I saw the 1985 CBS preview special)
  2. [138] (→‎CBS: I have seen the 1984 Satuday's The Place special on Youtube)
  3. [139] (I have seen clips of this show and see its smilarties)
  4. [140] (→‎Early history: I listned to this station when it was KJIM)
  5. [141] (→‎I grew up in the market and remember KXRM carrying the very CBS shows)
  6. [142] (→‎Recording: I have listened to the song and remembered its lyrics.)
  7. [143] (→‎History: I have a firend that worked for teh station.)

Talk page warnings are not getting through. Toddst1 (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P-blocked from article space to see if we can get this editor's attention; in 17 years and 3700 edits they've never responded to the multiple concerns brought up at their user talk. Valereee (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

user Joaziela ignoring sources --- Neptune777 (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

you are making edition war and dont participate in discussion page. Already @Freerow2 and @Surveyor Mount were doing the same vandalism as you and also claiming that he wasnt born in Russian Empire. Really i understand that you have war, but stop with this antirussian propaganga, removing Russian art history. Shevchenko was born in Russian Empire, work in Russian language (nine novellas, a diary, and an AUTOBIOGRAPHY), only poetry in Ukrainian, so Russian language wirter and Ukrainian language poet as it was standing before you start with your propaganda Joaziela (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think there are two issues here. From the last couple of edits I get the idea that, in this context, "Ukrainian" is not referring to the language of his works but to his ethnic origin. MOS:NATIONALITY states that [t]he opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident; or, if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was a citizen, national, or permanent resident when the person became notable. Nevertheless, it also includes the following proviso: Ethnicity [...] should generally not be in the lead sentence unless relevant to the subject's notability (emphasis mine). While Shevchenko was, indeed, a subject of the Russian Empire, and a distinguished one at that (he was even recognised as a member of the Imperial Academy of Arts), he was known to have expressed himself explicitly in favour of some sort of autonomy if not outright independence for Ukrainians, and in many ways this is what he is best known for today. Now I do not think you're acting in bad faith, and I, too, am worried about instances of blind (and wrong) "wikiukrainisation" of places and individuals, but this is quite clearly not the case. I don't think I could come up with a better example than Shevchenko of a situation in which a figure's ethnic origin should take precedence over other considerations in the lede. If you feel his works in Russian deserve more space (which could be a valid point), then come up with a way to integrate them into the article outside of the lede.
The second issue is people removing "Russian Empire" as country of birth in the infobox, or introducing placenames transliterated from the modern Ukrainian official names instead of using the historically accurate Russian (or, in other cases, Soviet, Austrian, Hungarian, Polish...) names. In those cases I believe your edits are justified in essence, and there are MOS considerations as well as Wikipedia policies that support your position, but you're not conveying this in an articulate and civil manner. I would advise you to step back a little and find a way to formulate your concerns more adequately. I get your frustration as it is apparent that many users have refused to engage in discussion in the talk page, but do understand that your abrasive style isn't conducive to discussion either, and probably puts off reasonable editors. A random IP popping out of nowhere with weak diffs won't make a difference, but you are engaging with different individual editors in an antagonistic manner, casting WP:ASPERSIONS freely, and that can't end well. You have been blocked for a week due to your edit warring recently, and it can only go downhill from there if you don't find a way to communicate more efficiently. Ostalgia (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ostalgia notice it was written neutral facts: "Ukrainian language poet, Russian language writer". The facts are that only his poetry is in Ukrainian language. All his writing including autobiography was in Russian language. See at: [144] there Russian language is called: "aggression and perpetuates crimes of the past". With this logic just reading Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Nabokov, Zamyatin, Solzhenitsyn you are committing a crime. As you notice this blind wikiukrainisation is taking place and we need to keep strict to facts. Joaziela (talk) 10:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was referring specifically to your latest revert, which I believe is what motivated this ANI thread. The version you reverted was referring to Shevchenko being Ukrainian, and not to the language. In my opinion, stressing Shevchenko's "Ukrainianness" in the lede is entirely acceptable. I agree that his works in Russian could/should be mentioned, but highlighting that in the first sentence of the lede lends undue weight to them in the overall assessment of Shevchenko's relevance, as it gives the impression of his Russian language oeuvre being somehow on par with his production in Ukrainian, which strikes me as unreasonable. Ostalgia (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is Immanuel Kant Russian philosopher? (he was born in what now is known in Russian as Kaliningrad; in my opinion is fact more for Königsberg not being Russian city, but that for other discussion). Shevchenko was Ukrainian language poet, Russian language writer that facts, i notice another example of trying of Ukrainization of Arkhip Kuindzhi at Talk:Arkhip Kuindzhi. With painters it is little more complicated, but here he have written work (written proof of what language he decided to write). And if someone writes his own autobiography and other writings in Russian he is "Russian language writer", and if his poetry is produce also in Ukrainian it make him "Ukrainian language poet". Just facts, no emotional opinions. Joaziela (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Neptune777, for the record, a notice must be placed on the other user's talk page. I've done that, but in future please read the instructions on how to do that at the top of this page when you open an edit box. Valereee (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In addition to casting aspersions, Joaziela's ranting is starting to get... disturbingly nationalistic. At this point he is well deserving of a block whether he is right or wrong on the content issue. (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After going through their recent edits, Joaziela seems to be on some kind of anti-Ukrainian crusade as most of their edits are either pointedly drawing attention to past misdeeds by Ukrainians:
Or just outright attempting to deny any historical existence of Ukraine:
I know I'm just an IP, but Joaziela is blatantly Wikipedia:NOTHERE (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear IP @, if you don't like something it doesn't mean it isn't true. Describing Bandera was "Ukrainian nationalists and convicted terrorist" (facts: he was convicted terrorist for ordering political murder of Bronisław Pieracki and leader of nationalist group OUN-B that is responsible for Volhynia genocide), describing him as politician, is as calling Hitler "watercolourists and vegetarian".
Cossack Hetmanate was created by Polish Treaty of Zboriv. And lastly: before 20 century historically Ukraine meant border region between Poland and Russia (Name of Ukraine). Those are facts, if you don't like facts it don't change them. The fact is also except poetry in Ukrainian language, Shevchenko writing including autobiography was all in Russian language. Neutral facts, not emotional opinions, this is what this is about (and again i understand war, but let don't make because of it reading Russian literature a war crime) Joaziela (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop arguing content here, all of you. We don't care. This is not the place for that.

@Joaziela, immediately stop all personal attacks and unsupported accusations here and at the article talk. If you do not have WP:DIFFs to support an accusation, keep your suspicions to yourself.
@IP73, the diffs you've provided do seem to indicate a nationalistic stance, but are any of them really egregious enough for sanctions? I looked at Bandera, for instance, and the article's short description calls him a Ukrainian nationalist leader. Terrorist seems like going too far on a dab, though, I'd agree. But to call him a politician is certainly whitewashing what he was. Valereee (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Uninvolved comment After going through these edits and comments, I agree with the IP that Joaziela should perhaps not edit related to Ukraine. Apart from a POV-tendency, the argumentation style is a clear example of WP:BATTLEGROUND, as seen already in this discussion with the downright bizarre invokations of Hitler. Jeppiz (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    While I agree with the battleground assessment, I would not speak of "downright bizarre invokations [sic] of Hitler" in this context, i.e. discussing a figure who collaborated with the Nazis and whose organisation participated in the Holocaust and in related massacres of other nationalities. In fact, it's probably one of the very few instances in life in which bringing Hitler up is not bizarre. Ostalgia (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • After going through the editor's talk page, which contains multiple warnings for similar behavior, I've indef'd for disruptive editing. Valereee (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cross wiki vandalism

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


I am a sysop on fr-WP. Hermine Horiot contacted us on the French VRTS address to report being cross-wiki harassed. The perpetrator adds libellous contents both on en-WP and fr-WP under IP 2A01:CB04:B50:A500:0:0:0:0/64 or 2A01:CB04:B50:A500:0:0:0:0/64. Can you please block them here for a significant duration? (their contributions are harmful since Jan 2022). Or protect the article?

Also, these two versions should be erased: [145] [146]

Thanks by advance JohnNewton8 (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Certainly looks like they should be revdel'd, and the article semi-protected; there are numerous edits over the last couple months from anon IPs that have already been revdel'd, and no doubt the disruption will continue. Ravenswing 19:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've gone ahead, revdel'd the edits and blocked the /64 range for 72 hours. I would suggest, if you haven't done so, to go to Meta to request a Global Block on the IP for cross-wiki harassment. Page also semi'd for a month. Hopefully that will keep things in check. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    One other thing, I've requested the edits be oversighted as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dilpreet Singh and mess at Talk:Amritpal Singh (activist)

This user has repeatedly refused to understand Wikipedia Policy about reliable sources, verifiability and assuming good faith. His activity on Talk:Amritpal Singh (activist) (which is a BLP talk page) is highly disruptive and tendentious.

  • User also claims that Page Protections have been added to this page for the sole purpose of "pro-state narrative to flourish"
    like here and here

Users like @CrusaderForTruth2023: and @Mixmon: and I have attempted to explain to him and point him to relevant guidelines and policy, but he shows no capacity what so over to understand what we are attempting to explain. WP:NOTHERE in the form of Treating editing as a battleground — Preceding unsigned comment added by Extorc (talkcontribs) 19:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding my summary on a closed DRN as a reference. Mixmon (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I belive if you rather input to construct a dialog at first we wouldn't be in this situation. I have pointed multiple times same concern and your response is in a way, like you don't want to accommodate ground reality. there's is clearly WP:NPOV and article is not balanced. If you guys understood at first point why I have to repeat so many times to make you stop on further edit that too without discussing on the talk page. Dilpreet Singh ping  20:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But you haven't cited any reliable source WP:RS you are just promoting original research WP:OR Mixmon (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:RS we will discuss this on relevant page and there's already a thread & will open another one to discuss this further. Dilpreet Singh ping  20:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Extorc @Mixmon User Dilpreet Singh has the right to claim a possible conflict of interest as per WP:COI, seeing as one of the two users have Hindutva userboxes and both the users’ editing history is related to figures related to the Hindutva movement (including creating articles for Hindutva personalities). It is not a personal attack if a user suspects another of having possible conflict of interest in-regards to their editing if it can be reasonably assumed based on their activity and information provided on Wikipedia. Therefore, this is @Dilpreet Singh asserting a conflict of interest with regards to certain editors on an article where it may interfere. Dilpreet should not be punished and the victim of a witchhunt if he voices concerns about conflicts of interest of certain editors. Diffs: 1) – draft for Hindutva internet personality, Abhijit Iyer-Mitra, by user Mixmon 2) – including viewpoints of Hindutva economist, Sanjeev Sanyal, in article by Mixmon, even after being reverted by another editor who was concerned about including the views of a controversial figure into the article. User Extorc currently has a Hindutva infobox on his user page, whilst this may not indicate an affiliation with Hindutva but rather a genuine interest in Hindutva topics, a cursory look at his editing history can reasonably lead to someone coming to the latter conclusion. His choice of words in past edits are suspect of holding certain viewpoints on issues which are sympathetic of common Hindutva talkpoints and narratives, such as that Muslims are overly-appeased in India: 1) – writing edit that discusses how a court decision relates to the apparent "appeasement" of the Muslim minority in India. 2) – contributing to an article titled "Criticism of Islam", where he changed wording slightly to claim that Muslims are more aggressive due to their religious environment and "Islamic imperialistic history", which is suspect given the above points. Therefore, is it unreasonable for Dilpreet to claim conflicts of interest based on Hindutva considering all of this? It is not a baseless personal attack as it is being presented here. ThethPunjabi (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now what is "Hindutva economist" the user who reverted again cited no source for this labelling (I accepted that edit not because of the reason cited by that editor but because of lack of good quality critical analysis in the source unlike you who are hell-bent on carrying out personal attacks and disregard to policies). You people can fall to such a low level- even if you disagree with the views of the person in draft article how is that an indication of bias? Following that logic editors who created articles on criminals have a criminal mindset? That draft is still there and I will work on that ( by the way again no source to brand him "Hindutva personality"). I am not supposed to clarify on this but it remains a proof of your meanness. Mixmon (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mixmon I am not being mean or personally attacking anyone, I am making the argument that Dilpreet has reasonable grounds for voicing concerns of certain editors on the basis of WP:COI and that his accusations are not empty, hollow, or unsubstantiated (as shown by the diffs I have provided above). Your draft of Abhijit Iyer-Mitra portrayed him positively and does not meet WP:BALANCE, it makes no mention of his past controversies, controversial views, and affiliations with extremist ideologies. The controversy section is shallow and concludes by again showing him in a positive light.
Abhijit Iyer-Mitra literally is an contributor and writer for the Swarajya Magazine, one of the the main internet outlets for Hindutva on the internet: (search the keywords "Abhijit Iyer-Mitra swarajya" on Google to find his page on the Swarajya website, I cannot link it because their website is blacklisted on Wikipedia)
Sanjeev Sanyal is associated with the BJP, working as an economic advisor to it, the main Hindutva political party of India: ThethPunjabi (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Look at the arguments you are making full of original research and lies - I can reply to this nonsense if you want but bring it to my talk page. This noticeboard is not for that. Mixmon (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mixmon This is the right place for this discussion as it was claimed @Dilpreet Singh made personal attacks by suggesting others may have a Hindutva bias. Meanwhile, an editor can suggest possible conflict of interests regarding certain editors in specific areas as per WP:COI, and these are not personal attacks if they are reasonable based on the particular editor's activity and information shared on Wikipedia. ThethPunjabi (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
same thing I have noticed about DaxServer, they kept a biased against Sikhs. no doubt our observations was correct. Dilpreet Singh ping  21:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dilpreet Singh This is a gross personal attack. I'll let it go if you strike it offDaxServer (t · m · c) 22:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What real arguments about policies and guidelines they are making? Their entire agrument is based on allegations on editors and original research about their editing. Mixmon (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dilpreet Singh if you suspect another user of having a conflict of interest, please substantiate your claim by referring to their past editing history, information they provided about themselves on Wikipedia, and the views they have shared on Wikipedia (by sharing links of examples of evidence to support your assertion). Otherwise, it may be seen as a personal attack without basis. ThethPunjabi (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ThethPunjabi Sorry, wasnt able to reply to the COI allegations in time. If you really believe that the COI allegations you have made hold water, kindly take them to WP:COI/N >>> 05:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I was just thinking of filing a report on Dilpreet Singh. The only thing the user has to offer is that [all] RS are just state-run propaganda. The user is exhibiting a crusader’s WP:RGW behaviour. Sorting thru the discussions is painful and quite a headache as the talk page is being littered with the same argument (see OP links). The user is a net negative and clearly WP:NOTHERE for an encyclopaedia — DaxServer (t · m · c) 21:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oh, and see the reply to my Contentious topic reminder here where they just repeats the same thing — DaxServer (t · m · c) 21:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC) (amended at 21:44 22 March 2023 (UTC))Reply[reply]
    and this comment is an example of his biasedness against sikhs. If you wants a constructive dialogs then you have to give space to others. Dilpreet Singh ping  21:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Let me summarise Dilpreet's major arguments -
  1. All the sources cited in the Amritpal article are state propaganda.
  2. The editors on that page are government-affiliated "state lobby".
  3. The editors are only pushing state-sponsored sources while ignoring sources offered by Dilpreet.
  4. Wikipedia is "biased against Sikhs" as they "don't have many accounts that meet the requirement for the semi-protected".
  5. Editors are not aware of the ground reality so they are defaming "drug healer" "bhai" Amritpal Singh.
  6. Protection on the page is Wikipedia's "conspiracy against Sikhs" to keep them away for the reasons mentioned in point #4. Mixmon (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Let me make it easy, there are two concerns which I have :
    1. Balanced conversation.
    2. opportunity to edit/protect the article.
    check your points they are merely an explanation that you don't want a WP:BALANCE conversation. I repeated this many times in many ways and you are going in circle. Dilpreet Singh ping  22:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have blocked Dilpreet_Singh for three days for personal attacks after my warnings earlier today. I don't have much faith that they'll contribute constructively after the block, but it'll stop the immediate disruption while this discussion continues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well it was @ThethPunjabi who made bigger personal attacks than Dilpreet here. Mixmon (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mixmon @ScottishFinnishRadish I supported Dilpreet's claim of possible conflict of interest in violation of WP:COI using diffs/links of past user history and citations. Therefore, there was no unsubstantiated personal attacks made against any user. I have remained civil in my tone of writing as well, even after Mixmon started writing uncivilly to me above, accusing me of "meanness", "You people can fall to such a low level", and "unlike you who are hell-bent on carrying out personal attacks and disregard to policies". Furthermore, I warned Dilpreet Singh above to not make unsubstantiated claims of COI without evidence (such as diffs) to support his assertions or else they will be viewed as personal attacks. ThethPunjabi (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bluntly, everyone on that article that isn't some drive-by and is actually going to stay and defend their position should be given a warning for the India-Pakistan contentious topic area, with Singh probably being one of the worse ones due to the aspersions-casting. The topic area is a powderkeg; the last thing we need is nationalist bickering. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 04:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jéské Couriano I took your point and tried to extend an olive branch at the article talk page just now but the other editors there accused me of “propaganda” now. So who is in the wrong when one tries to make amends and the others continue to attack, belittle, and argue with them? ThethPunjabi (talk) 07:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @ScottishFinnishRadish and @Jéské Couriano, I'm not standing by what @Dilpreet Singh has said or done but the fragrant and blatant abuse of the page by Hindu nationalist accounts @Extorc @Mixmon @CrusaderForTruth2023 by refusing to listen to accounts who oppose the Indian government's actions in Punjab thereby destroying any neutrality and locking the page.
User @Extorc is refusing 'Requests to Edit' that do not agree with the Indian-state narrative.
For example, I requested an edit to remove an article by Indian-state backed media that was a blatant character assassination on the individual in question. I argued that the heavily pro-India narratives of these media outlets backed by the central government renders them unreliable sources when considering the context that said individual is an anti-Indian entity. Wikipedia policy on reliability of sources when considering context: WP:CONTEXTMATTERS
In response @Extorc, rather amusingly, rejected it claiming I needed to provide another source on how the source in question was unreliable!
This is a blatant attempt to mischaracterise the article at a time when many will view it and needs urgent Administrative attention. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Uproot Tyranny: I'm not defending anyone's behaviour on that page - not Singh's, not Mixmon's, not Random Drive-By IP Editor Wot Doesn't Read Anything #134i76238596847561, and not yours. The fact that this is the fourth time in three years that this exact situation has erupted at an article under WP:ARBIPA strongly suggests to me that more restrictions need to come, and it will very likely be XCP as the result of another Arbitration case in the vein of WP:ARBPIA4. I would sooner that not happen, as it'd be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but if the nationalist griping and edit-warring does not stop, that is where things are going to be headed. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 20:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is sad, I agree. Yes there should definitely be more introspection on the rules if this isn't the first time something like this has happened. Take care. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand that you are not taking any one side, believe me. I, myself am neutral on the whole Amritpal Singh issue. The problem arises when the Wikipedia article of a preacher who does not believe in the idea of an Indian state contains unsubtantiated allegations of being 'funded by terror' 'having links with Pakistani Intelligence agencies' or claiming the preacher in question was 'making human bombs'. These claims, which are not true (As any non-Indian news article on the subject will state), have the intended effect of misrepresenting the individual in question during a time when many will seek to find out who this person was.
The problem seems to be that a particular group of Editors, some with special abilities (I am hesitent to call them Administrators as I do not know if they are) are using their powers in what seems to be a concentrated effort to dilute the truth. The fact that I have been targeted for investigation by one of these Editors(?) for raising similar points as others on the page looks like textbook intimidation to me.
I understand that this may seem like an exhausting, tiring and never-ending issue of 'nationalist griping' but the impact of how this article is displayed is enormous. Journalists, along with regular people, will be looking this individual up at this particular time. Thank you for reading. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you intended your little speech to be some form of mollification, all it does is convince me you're a partisan in the area and shouldn't be in it. No duh "the impact of how this article is displayed is enormous"; that's why the partisans on either side are trying to skew it. This isn't "Indian nationalists vs. everyone else", it's "Indian nationalists vs. Pakistani nationalists vs. everyone else". And "Everyone else" always fucking loses because the other two camps think they're Protestants or Catholics, Israelis or Palestinians, Azerbaijani or Armenians, Democrats or Republicans. The tribalism is the root cause of this, and you're just showing us that you're not as above the fray as you're claiming. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 00:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I came here to articulate the blatant injustice that I was seeing by the addition of false information from Indian media, that was then locked on the page by Hindu nationalist Admins and this is what I get back for trying to seek redress. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In response, I have an investigation thrown at me and have received ZERO support from the Admin team. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, at this point given the reaction, I'll relent with the source being there, though it is blatantly untrue, if the article had both sides shown in the interest of neutrality, but this is not the case. The whole article is very one-sided and Pro-Indian Government and the 3/4 Hindu nationalist Editors/Admins have rejected the addition of the other side.
We can go back and forth about one particular source but the bigger issue is this: At least allow editors to put the both sides in the article before locking it. The bottom line is that it is a very biased article and it needs to be more neutral. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is an open investigation about Uproot Tyranny being a sock of Dilpreet Singh Who is blocked for 72 hours here >>> 20:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What open investigation? What a joke.
What a baseless lie! Does that mean @ThethPunjabi @CalicoMo @CanadianSingh1469 @Usingh0663 or the countless others trying to seek neutrality in the article 'socks' of Dilpreet Singh?? Uproot Tyranny (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I went down a bit of a rabit hole looking this thing up (its around 5 AM in my country right now and I should probably got to sleep, so pardon any confusing english). The common theme I see on the talk page is 1) Uneccessarily wordy arguments 2) Failure to adequately separate discussions regarding different topics and 3) General disregard for the application of WP policies, instead choosing to adopt whatever felt 'about right'. The TP is a mess and is unlikely to bear fruit unless there is a drastic improvement in the actions of editors involved. Additionally, I think the page would benefit from a longer ECP; being rather controvertial with little likelyhood of improvement in the next few days. Will probably add to this later. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Of course you want a longer ECP, you completely disregarded everything I said as 'unsubstantial' even though I gave you 6 references!
    Extending the ECP only serves to solidify the Indian Government narrative over the article in question.
    Why is it so hard to accept that Indian news media is actively pro-government? You suggested that I should take up the reliability concerns at RSN; which I agreed with, you didn't need to add the petty remarks like "but I doubt you'll find any takers" or taking a jab at me for using the word 'ponder'
    Again, it is an established fact that Indian news media is state-backed. I have given you credible sources as references, extending the ECP without addressing these issue will only embolden the Hindu nationalist editors and adminstrators who had already locked the page with blatant falsehoods from state-backed Indian news media. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, it is not an "established fact." It's a widely-held presumption. I happen to agree with it, largely, but that's a long way from an "established fact." With that, you seem to be under the impression that because many people dislike the spin that much of the Indian news media uses, you and your comrades therefore justified in edit warring. This is absolutely not the case.

    If a particular source is cited in WP:RSPSOURCES as unreliable when it comes to politics, then raise the issue for that particular source. If you think a source should be listed, make your case at the appropriate noticeboard, and accept the consensus that results. Those sum up your options. Complaining because you think an article reads the way that the Modi government might like is not one of those options. Ravenswing 00:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I am not trying to 'edit-war' I am trying to showcase how Indian Press cannot be used as a reliable source for an Anti-Indian state entity. Fine, it doesn't need to be an established fact (Even though, it pretty much is), even if it is a widely-help presumption, the usage of Indian news media, which will always favour the integrity of India, to make unsubstantiated unreferenced claims that a preacher was making 'human bombs' is always going to be an unreliable source. Maybe not for everything but for this particular context, YES. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Putting aside the issue of the sourcing, which could have a disclaimer of sorts, the bottom line is that the article is very one-sided and attempts of adding anything of non-Government narrative has been consistently denied and rejected. All I am asking for is a neutral article. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)