In the past few weeks there has been a rash of vandalism on articles about wrestlers, from a variety of IP editors. The pattern is consistent: an IP editor with no or few previous edits will appear and quickly edit 5-10 articles about wrestlers, in each case changing the height and/or weight of the wrestler, with no sources and in contradiction to existing sources.

The number of articles affected is large. This is just a sample. In most cases, each of these articles was vandalized multiple times:
Brian Knobbs, Brody King, Chuck Palumbo, D'Lo Brown, Dexter Lumis, Heath Slater, Jacques Rougeau, Jerry Sags, Mike Bucci, Mo (wrestler), Pierre Carl Ouellet, Omos, Raquel González (wrestler), Raymond Rougeau, Rhyno, Rikishi (wrestler), Scotty 2 Hotty, Spike Dudley, Stevie Richards, T-Bar (wrestler), Taka Michinoku, The Blue Meanie, The Godfather (wrestler), Titus O'Neil.

The edits come from a variety of apparently unrelated IP addresses. Here are a few. In all of these cases you can see that the only activity from each of these editors is to vandalize the wrestler articles, so I don't think diffs are necessary.

• 1.239.177.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 39.7.57.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 61.84.146.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 125.242.31.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 175.211.224.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 182.222.2.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 183.97.240.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 218.52.15.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not sure what solution is appropriate. Given the large number of IPs involved, I don't know if this is one editor IP-hopping or if there is some off-wiki coordination going on. Blocking these IPs might just result in new IPs appearing and doing the same thing. And it's a large number of pages to protect. But I wanted to bring this to wider attention in case someone has any ideas for handling this beyond the current whack-a-mole game I and other editors are playing to notice and revert these as they happen. I have notified each of the above IPs on their talk pages. CodeTalker (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another incident just now from another IP, 121.164.25.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). CodeTalker (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of disruption is a long-term common problem, it ebbs and flows. There's an edit-filter that tags them. See [1] DMacks (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the matter is that professional wrestling promoters routinely lie about the heights and weights of their performers, to puff them up. It is called "billed height" and "billed weight". Perhaps the best solution is to eliminate height and weight from the pro wrestler infobox, so that the encyclopedia stops spreading this particular kind of lie. Cullen328 (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the same goes for nearly everything else about professional wrestling. Isn't it time we applied the basic content policies (WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV) properly to this topic and only published what is in genuinely reliable sources, rather than the sources we use now that we pretend to be reliable but are actually not? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To your list of P&Gs I would add WP:RS. Many or most "sources" used in pro wrestling articles are just soap opera digests hyping their idiotic kayfabe storylines, which our articles regurgitate as fact. It's incredible, for example, that we still allow childish in-universe garbage such as The Undertaker#Undertaker gimmick, identities and character evolution to embarrass the project. EEng 02:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of WP:PW I agree that the in-universe fluff should be brought down significantly per WP:PLOTSUMMARY. It takes up a vast amount of space in a way no other TV show would. Myself and another editor have been trying to cut it down, but unfortunately a lot of the pro wrestling WikiProject operates differently to the rest of Wikipedia, and aims to turn articles into a fan wiki. — Czello 10:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you and I and Phil Bridger and Cullen328 should talk about getting the ball rolling on fixing that. EEng 08:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a perennial problem that's been ongoing for years, now. Sometimes it might be outright vandalism by tweaking something minor to see if they can get away with it (match times are also subject to this), sometimes it might be that the editor heard a different weight announcement on the latest show but haven't got a source to prove it. I'm not sure of the solution, either - removing it entirely doesn't seem adequate to me. — Czello 10:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen these types of edits appear frequently in the edit filter and I suspect that @Czello is right, these are probably editing tests. I certainly wish that it was required to source the height when there is a change, because right now the height and weight categories are the wild west. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 04:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the Papua Conflict, in the revision page of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Papua_conflict&action=history there seems to be a Nationalist Agenda involving a couple of Indonesian users in it, reverting countries that have supported for West Papuan self-determination and removing the several commanders and leaders that have participated in the past and present conflict respectively. Can we have a third mediator, to discuss neutrality regarding the article as of WP:NPOV and keep the page protected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eustatius Strijder (talk • contribs) 11:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to me that Primefac's partial block is probably very helpful, esp. since User:Eustatius Strijder managed 120 edits to the article, with a ton of edit warring, and only 7 to the talk page. In addition, if they respond on their talk page to concerns, they then remove the query and the response soon after, another example of less than collegial behavior. I'm wondering what the best course of action is if they don't stop edit warring, and if they'll take this to other pages now they're blocked from this one. A 1R restriction might be helpful--short of a full block. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they don't stop edit warring, I suspect any pblocks will very quickly turn into full blocks, but that is an issue for at least a week from now (unless they do go warring on other pages). Primefac (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • A request was made at DRN for moderated discussion on 2 January, and Eustatius Strijder was notified of the request. I said, about 48 hours ago, on 2 January, that I would start moderated discussion if the editors would agree to the ground rules, which include no editing of the article. I am still ready to try to mediate the dispute if User:Eustatius Strijder and the other editors will agree to the rules and not to edit the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:JarrahTree, this is where you make your case, if you want to make one. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      The problem with the start of this Incident, as reported above, insufficient care has been attended to the background:

      1. The talk page of the incident reporter is an excellent introduction as to pervading issues over time - a close reading would show that WP:3RR has been ignored continually
      2. The edit history of the incident reporter gives clear cases of where the rules of WP:3RR are totally ignored on a regular basis
      3. The mission for ... whatever seems to subsume process or even understanding of instructions: -

      • [[2]] Editting consensus, agreement

      Insight as to the understanding of consensus

      • Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Papua_conflict

      Continued persistent reverting after the request to stop editing and reverting was asserted by the mediator

      • [[3]]

      Copyvio which is apparently not understood as such as editing has continued

      Further diffs are possible if it is not clear enough as to what has been happening.

      I consider that the blocks of Davielit and Merbabu are problematic, where both are long term editors with over total 30 years block free experience who took time and effort to try to consistently communicate and assert wikipedia policies and principles to the incident reporter who has shown little interest in responding or understanding the ramifications of the campaign in the style of a driven WP:SPA with no interest in due process. To place them in the same level of editing and understanding as the incident reporter is a potentially serious misunderstanding of what has been happening to date.

      From where I am watching this, the lack of interest in process, and ongoing ignoring of warnings and procedures are of concern, I do hope a reviewer of this is ready and prepared to read the background and differences to get the understanding of what has been going on JarrahTree 10:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments (from a recently and regrettably involved party)...

• Eustatius Strijder quotes WP:NPOV and WP:NATIONALIST (a lot), yet from my observations, his understanding of both is tenuous at best. To quote Eustatius from the article talk page: "I will entertain those who are progressives, but not to those who have a Nationalist Agenda as of WP:NATIONALIST." [4]
• Since 1 January, he has reverted the page 19 (nineteen) times. Over the same time, I've reverted 4 times, and not more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. Yes, a balance of 15 "against" Eustatice from other editors. User:Primefac has pblocked both of us. (my first block on wikipedia after 17 years).
• Eustatius' request yesterday for rollback permission to better "fight edit warring" Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback#User:Eustatius_Strijder
• As for my driver on the issue, far from being a "Nationalist", whatever that means, my main concern was infobox bloat/spam. And if you can indulge my rant, I don't care what "side" the info might support, I see a culture of building giant info box lists of info of dubious relevance - length/bloat for length's sake rather than for usefulness. It's like an alternate wikipedia universe to those (like me) who tend to focus on the written article.

regards, --Merbabu (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I've had a look at the material that would be added by Eustatius Strijder to the infobox. The edits are clearly contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and are largely not WP:VER. I note that there are DSs authorised (Civility in infobox discussions), though in this case, the issue is edit warring over the addition of unsourced material - an issue not specifically covered by infobox probation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinderella157 (talk • contribs)

(Non)Update on This Situation

More than 48 hours ago, User:Eustatius Strijder filed this report requesting a third mediator (presumably meaning a third-party mediator). I had already said, at DRN, that I was ready to begin mediation, if the parties would make statements agreeing to the ground rules, which include no editing of the article during mediation. Two editors have made statements agreeing to the rules, but not User:Eustatius Strijder. I am still ready to begin mediation, but am still waiting for agreement. The editor in question is partially blocked from the page in question for five remaining days, but that is not a substitute for agreement not to edit the page, because mediation often lasts two or three weeks (during which time the block will expire).

I also note that some editors have said that the partial blocks of Merbabu and Davielit are problematic. I don't want to comment, so that I can stay uninvolved in order to mediate, if there is to be mediation.

Both User:Juxlos and User:Eustatius Strijder have requested mediation, but Eustatius Strijder doesn't seem to want to agree not to edit the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing my offer of third-party mediation because User:Eustatius Strijder would not agree not to edit the article while mediation was in progress. I am unfortunately inclined to think that the request for a mediator was made in bad faith. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying, and your time spent on it. --Merbabu (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope I agree on not editting the article for 3 more days, an IP user cannot be judged by the cover. The last time I edit the article was still 4 January 2023. I did not use any sock accounts on the article of Papua Conflict, nothing. I have already talked in the talk page regarding the issue. Eustatius Strijder (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have to agree not to edit the article for the duration of the mediation. Not just until your page block expires, but potentially for weeks while this is talked out. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The OP will also need to find a neutral mediator. I have withdrawn my offer of mediation because I am no longer neutral. I made five requests for Eustatius Strijder to agree to my mediation rules, but am no longer neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from their messages and edits so far, I give it 50:50 odds that the OP simply does not have sufficient command of English to engage in discussion, and had misunderstood most of the messages so far. The other 50 is simply that WP:AGF no longer applies here. Juxlos (talk) 05:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion?

I have my suspicions that User:Eustatius Strijder‎ is using an IP account to get around his pblock on Papua conflict. I would appreciate any advice or assistance.

Refer this IP editor: Special:Contributions/180.252.169.24

The IP editor has made two edits to the Papua conflict article from which Eustatius is currently blocked...

1. The first edit was to put a link Biak Massacre as a “See also”. This article was created yesterday by Eustatius, and added it to See Also's here and here. Note the very similar edits by Eustatius and the IP. No other editor has linked to Biak Massacre
2. The second is the same addition (albeit sans references) as this one made by Eustatius (but later removed by another editor).

regards, --Merbabu (talk) 09:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this matter has been handled. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review needed ?

The failure of any reply or action to the block evasion question above

The failure of the dispute resolution process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Papua_conflict

Suggests that there is a need to review actions to date. I believe a close reading of the editing within the scope of this incident might be necessary to resolve some outstanding issues. JarrahTree 23:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome a review of my decision to fail the dispute resolution discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Papua_conflict. I note that the request was made by User:Juxlos on 2 January 2023. I requested that the parties read and agree to the usual rules, which include that no party may edit the article while dispute resolution is in progress. User:Eustatius Strijder agreed that a third mediator (probably meaning a third-party mediator) was needed, but did not agree not to edit the article. They made what appeared to be a request that the mediator not be Indonesian. The Eastern United States is about as far from Indonesia as two regions can be and both be on land on the same planet. I made five requests that the parties agree to the rules for mediation. I failed the dispute resolution after not receiving agreement from User:Eustatius Strijder. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he meant someone from South America, the antipode

I had submitted the DRN and all involved editors except Eustatius had agreed to the ground rules. So far, he seemed to have ignore an increasing amount of discussion efforts, only showing up when "threatened".

Regardless, agreement to not edit seems moot now with the one-week edit block. Juxlos (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree as to the block rendering the agreement not to edit moot. The block expires in three days, and the edit-warring may resume if blocks or bans are not extended. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have agree for a mediation and for a third moderator to "assist" the Papua Conflict article overseeing the edits from a Neutral Point of view WP:NPOV. The IP users editting wasn't me, but was rather an IP user that has tailed my previous edits in Wiki. It is the same as of this person aswell [5] Eustatius Strijder (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eustatius Strijder says that they agreed to a third-party mediator, but I made preparations to act as that mediator, and they did not agree not to edit the article. I made five requests for them to agree not to edit the article, and other editors agreed, but they did not. Their request for a moderator appears to be a distraction. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suppose we will just have to wait for the ban to expire and then conduct another ANI process then? Juxlos (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert - please understand that your decision was correct in the circumstances. Please, I was not referring to your actions in my comment. The lack of careful scrutiny of the actual incident and where it has evolved from has played out in unfortunate ways, as it has left a very strange mix of quite complex misunderstandings and unfolding array of misinterpretation of what constitutes accepted english terminology understood that is usually accepted in wikipedia. It is long past mediation or moderation. JarrahTree 04:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Topic-Ban and Partial Block

I concur with the comment above by User:Juxlos that User:Eustatius Strijder either does not have sufficient competency in English to engage in discussion, or is acting in bad faith. I propose that the minimum sanction is that Eustatius Strijder be indefinitely topic-banned from the Papua conflict topic area and partially blocked from the page to enforce the topic-ban.

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the efforts of Juxios and Robert McClenon to stay with this incident report and their capacity to remain even handed, should be considered by any reviewing person. This incident report and responses cannot be adequately understood unless a reviewer actually reads through the background of the articles and diffs given, and to not brush off the context lightly. Specially the actions and edit summaries of the 4th January in regards to the subject. JarrahTree 10:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - possible support - I think part of the problem is well-identified, but I'm not sure of a solution. The problems extend beyond the article mentioned here. They include the editor's mis-representation of sources, edit warring, either an inability to understand (or a pretence to not understand) the whole point of discussions (it's OK to disagree, but there's complete lack of comprehension), apparent block evasion as I note above, and his own description of what he wants to achieve on wikipedia is essentially an admission of anti-Indonesian agenda. All the while, he's quick to give any editor a link to the WP:NPOV page...repeatedly, when really he's about MPOV (my pov). I'm slowly putting some diffs together, but it's hard work and takes up so much of both my wiki and real life time. urghhh. --Merbabu (talk) 11:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS - sorry, I just saw Robert's suggestion is for a Papua topic-ban, not just an article ban. That is a stronger/better proposal. --Merbabu (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Having come here looking for mediation/DR, they are not prepared to engage in such in good faith. This, the edit-warring and their MPOV agenda are all disruptive with no sign of acknowledging community standards of conduct. I would also note that much of the disruption relates to the infobox and a lack of understanding of both WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and WP:VER as it applies to infoboxes. I would suggest an extension of the proposal to a ban from edits to any infobox. Whether this is further extended to TP discussions (such as a one comment/request restriction), I will leave to others to consider. I have the feeling that we are dealing with an editor that will keep pulling on the rope until they have enough to hang themselves. But that might be a solution in itself in the longer term. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen enough: User:Eustatius Strijder is p-blocked indefinitely from Papua Conflict and from Timeline of the Papua conflict, since blocks are meant to be preventative. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eustatius Strijder has twice tried to remove your comment here. That sort of interference with the ANI process seems like a cause for a wider block. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Joaziela attacks on other editors: "Once again to emphasize enough ... and any try of silence it is genocide denial and historical negationism" [6], "@TimothyBlue it’s might be not comfortable, but let’s be neutral no propaganda and historical negationism" [7]  // Timothy :: talk  18:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This month blocked twice on Polish Wikipedia and already once here. They might need a serious warning or another block (regrettably 😔), mostly for editing in a non neutral manner but also personal attacks (?) (not sure if those were PA’s) - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non of it was targeted to be any personal attack, it was only used as figurative speech.

Again @TimothyBlue in not taking part in discussion, first he removed without any reason well sourced information, than he didn’t took place in discussion. I don’t want to be involved in editing war and want to discuss the issue, I’m only attacked by him and @GizzyCatBella the meritorious discussion i try to start here Talk:Valerii Zaluzhnyi#Bandera and Verkhovna Rada but then also again been attacked here Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#User:Joaziela I’m all the time bullied and no argument about the discussion is put on Joaziela (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joaziela 🤦🏻‍♀️ How were you attacked? How are you bullied? another reason to be blocked. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, for openers, let's cut out the bloody flag-waving, shall we? Looking at the edit summaries, TimothyBlue did, in fact, give reasons for removal. Joaziela, you might not *like* his reasons, but making stuff up does not help your argument. Reading over the talk page, like GizzyCatBella, I'm failing to see where you've been "attacked" or "bullied." Do you have any diffs to proffer? Ravenswing 19:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These words are not figurative: "...it is genocide denial and historical negationism". As far as discussion goes, I've discussed your editing and behavior on many pages, so have other editors and admins and I've warned you twice about personal attacks.  // Timothy :: talk  19:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t attack you personal, you taking it from context, it was just figurative that this kind of censorship would be denial-like, but it was not about you, and I explain in main article Talk:Valerii Zaluzhnyi#Bandera and Verkhovna Rada where you not at all discuss on issues but just delete and report me to another and another discussion page about me. I write that I don’t mean anything personal and ask what part you find offensive Joaziela (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional discussion to review User talk:Joaziela#January 2023  // Timothy :: talk  19:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue why again you want to discuss me, not a topic in Talk:Valerii Zaluzhnyi#Bandera and Verkhovna Rada but again you create a topic with my name Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#User:Joaziela and here, the previous discussion also was not about the topic but just was deleted without any reason, it’s really look like censorship Joaziela (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joaziela because now (here) it’s about you? - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look Joaziela, you really need to calm down, take a few steps back and study your conduct. I suggest doing it now before posting any more comments. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

so maybe some backup? oh..🤦🏻‍♀️ [8] ... anyway. We have a passionate new editor making mistakes one after another. I give up but please keep in mind they are new around here, with time they might learn. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

huge calm and propriety, but why it’s so easy to discuss on subject of me, not on why you claiming that Bandera is not responsible for genocide. Or maybe you don’t because you didn’t respond in discussion on subject. Both of you created two new topics about me and research about me, but why you can’t discuss in subject, in subject that you delete without saying a word, don’t give any other sources and say that someone published a photo with war criminal not for long it’s okay. Just discuss on matter not go around Joaziela (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The last thin bit of AGF I had left in this editor just evaporated with this [9] and the above reply  // Timothy :: talk  19:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While this is a content issue not relevant to ANI, Wikipedia is not an advocacy organization one way or another, and is entirely and utterly neutral on the propriety (or lack thereof) of someone having taken a picture with Stepan Bandera. As to Bandera's life and actions, they are extensively covered in Bandera's own article ... and since you haven't seemed to have edited in that article, I'm unclear as to the relevance of bringing it up. In any event, whether (or not) any editor believes that Bandera committed genocide (or not) is likewise irrelevant to ANI. We are discussing your conduct, not your political beliefs. Ravenswing 20:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My take is Joaziela lacks sufficient English proficiency to contribute to enwiki and that's probably what's driving the other problems (incivility, apparent inability to understand what other editors are telling them about editing processes, etc.). I know we AGF, but a person who apparently can't compose a grammatically-correct sentence in discussions will not be able to contribute prose productively to articles about controversial topics. Levivich (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joaziela's edits [10][11] were well-sourced and written in a decent English. Arguably they were WP:UNDUE, but there's room for reasonable disagreement on this kind of things, and having a talk page discussion may be the best way to settle it. The edits were reverted with the usual incomprehensible Wiki-jargon and Joaziela, who has made 866 edits overall, may well not undestand what pov, weight, non-encyclopedic wording and [12] failed verification, no consensus, pov synth [13] are about (incidentally, I don't see any "failed verification" and "pov synth" issues here). The discussion Joaziela opened on the talk page [14] was not at all productive. TimothyBlue didn't reply and GizzyCatBella made the unhelpful suggestion You can try to create a new article about the incident if you want. Then TimothyBlue opened a thread at BLP/N for no reason at all since Joaziela's edit was neither poorly-sourced nor gratuitously offensive and the discussion on the talk page had just started. At BLP/N TimothyBlue gave their reasons: I think above mentioned article contributions are poorly or unsourced additions of serious claims to a highly visible page. I think Joaziela's replies also contain poor or unsourced material about a LP and their replies show a strong POV. GizzyCatBella rightly highlighted: Material is sourced (it did happen). Yes, materials is verifiable: General Zaluzhnyi and the tweeter account of the Ukrainian parliament have shared a photo that could result offensive (and therefore a significant view) to certain audiances, especially in Poland and Israel, where the news was reported. So it's easy to assume Joaziela's good faith when they claimed they were being censored. Had they just used the jargon, "WP:NOTCENSORED", nobody would have objected; instead they used their own words to express the same concept (try of silence it is genocide denial and historical negationism ... let’s be neutral no propaganda and historical negationism) and here we are. But there was no personal attack. Joaziela was making an emphatic parallelism to express the notion that events related to the extermination of Jews and Poles during WW2 are always significant and deserve inclusion.

I think editors overreacted to a possibly WP:UNDUE but good-faithed edit and that this series of threads at two different noticeboards is unwarranted and over the top. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:CANVASS @ [15].  // Timothy :: talk  22:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again you oversensitive. I just trying to get help, how to communicate with people not so sensitive on this matters. And really if you just focus all that energy that you put on me instead in the topic discussion. You didn’t bring here not even one argument Talk:Valerii Zaluzhnyi#Bandera and Verkhovna Rada meantime I just provide 4 new RS. It’s all started because you been removing without any reason and not participating in discussion about topic, but instead bullying me on other sites not connected to topic but focus on grilling me Joaziela (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Other editors have mentioned that this editor may have a WP:CIR issue. This is Joaziela's latest suggestion [16]. Its a mess, but I think the clear intent here is to equate the BLP Zaluzhnyi with the crimes of the Nazis; this absurdity would be comparable to saying someone supports slavery and Native American genocide because they visited the Jefferson memorial. This is in addition to their personal attacks.  // Timothy :: talk  02:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

reductio ad absurdum very cheap one. Not someone, but here we had commander-in-chief and official statement on country parliament account. I used a German analogy when “Official Bundestag Twitter post a Mein Kampf quotes with photo of Federal Ministry of Defence (Germany) posing with Adolf Hitler portrait, with strong reaction of Israel state authorities” the same happened to Ukraine and Poland.

And just in case if the same as @GizzyCatBella you going to say “Hitler and Bandera are not even close”, or that it doesn’t matter because it was “quickly removed”. As Hitler had the Holocaust, as same as Bandera had Volhynia genocide and is involved in killing Jews and Poles at Volhynia. It’s not competition how is “greatest genocider by numbers”! Some will say that Hitler is also not even close by numbers to Mao Zedong- but genocide is genocide, not a competition.

You focus too much on roasting me personally and starting new threads, so there are so many topics about me, but you couldn’t participate in Talk:Valerii Zaluzhnyi#Bandera and Verkhovna Rada talk on subject Joaziela (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. @Joaziela. Here you accused another WP contributor (Danilmay) of "forcing Nazi Ukraine historical negationism". Why? Do you think he/she has anything to do with Nazi Ukraine? My very best wishes (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That was another example of delete content without discussion in talk, even deleting talk. Yeah, so if this not censorship then what. So as unexpired editor and not knowing jargon, I didn’t know I should suggest WP:NOTCENSORED. Too emotional woman and my bad, sorry now I know. Also thanks to @TimothyBlue @GizzyCatBella I know I could start personal crusade with starting new treads to roast the person (joking of course, I hope it’s also funny for others that those 2 users, put maybe 20 words together in topics talk, don’t respond, but create 2 treads and write 200 sentences about me). So in conclusion, stupid me, now I know, my bad, sorry! Joaziela (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And also question why in article Stepan Bandera the word „genocide” didn’t happen in text not even once (sic! zero, zilch, null), but in titles of sourced it is 11 times. One again: 11 quoted article are titled “genocide” and in text itself genocide didn’t happen once. 11 works with “genocide” in title are in use, but genocide didn’t happen once in text. How other that historical negationism or genocide denial would you call it? Unfortunate coincidence? Joaziela (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see WP:AGF: speculating on the motives of other editors is inappropriate and corrosive to collegial editing. Do you agree to stop attacking (or otherwise making personal comments about) other editors? JBL (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  (Please also note that discussion about the content of the article is continuing at Talk:Valerii_Zaluzhnyi#Bandera_and_Verkhovna_Rada, as it should -- no one here at WP:ANI is going to settle the content dispute, because this page is for behavioral disputes, not content.) --JBL (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Looking at Joaziela's contributions today, I think WP:CIR, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:IDHT, WP:PA are an obvious problem; the accusations of genocide denial are particularly offensive.  // Timothy :: talk  22:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is just censorship, it was tried to be called in discussion as: minor incident, just a joke or quickly removed. Again Berlin analogy: “Official Bundestag Twitter post a Mein Kampf quotes with photo of Federal Ministry of Defence (Germany) posing with Adolf Hitler portrait, with strong reaction of Israel state authorities” the same happened to Ukraine and Poland. And there are some voices in discussion that is good for Russian propaganda and bad for Ukrainian one, but Wikipedia shouldn’t be about any propaganda, but just write how it was, and it was o huge scandal. WP:NOTCENSORED

  Taking this selfie by such a person is scandal enough, but posting it by parliament just unbelievable villainy. This is HUGE scandal, and it would be on German Federal Minister page, so it should be on Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief.

  Here is just roasting me with Wikipedia jargon and silencing the actual talk, meantime fighting between Kiev and Kjiv and other... Joaziela (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  [17] - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that Joaziela's accusation of "genocide denial" are offensive. Joaziela should aim to restore a cooperative environment here, rather than express her indignation. She should also bear in mind than users may lack her background knowledge about Bandera. However, TimothyBlue's parallelism between Bandera and Thomas Jefferson [18] is preposterous and may explain, though not justify, her harsh accusations. Thomas Jefferson is one of the founding fathers of the US, an advocate of democracy and individual rights who happened to be a slave owner, as many people of his time; being a slave owner is a circumstance of his life and not the reason why he is notable. Stefan Bandera, on the other side, is the leader of a far-right terrorist organisation, the OUN, close to German Nazism and Italian Fascism, which was responsible for a campaign against Polish farmers and Jews resulting in tens of thousands of deaths. One can argue about how relevant it is that a general circulates a photo of Bandera on the Twitter account of the Ukrainian parliament, but the fact that some user finds it very significant and edit the article to include it belongs to the normal editorial process and does not justify two parallel discussions on different noticeboards. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The only way the Jefferson comparison falls short is that being the founder and defender of a slave oligarchy (a far-right terrorist organisation) responsible for the cultural genocide and in some cases physical genocide of African and Native Americans is far more serious matter than anything Bandera was involved in.  // Timothy :: talk  14:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ...and this board is for behavior problems, not content problems. The BLP board is for content problems.  // Timothy :: talk  14:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ... and you cannot be "an advocate of individual rights who happened to be a slave owner" or "an advocate of democracy" when you create and believe in a system where only white male property owners can vote. Nope. Not even if you're President. Being an eloquent writer does not give him a pass.  // Timothy :: talk  14:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You have been editing here for over a year now. It is well past the point where you need to stop complaining about other editors citing Wikipedia policies and guidelines and start understanding those rules. If you have no idea what WP:CIR, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:IDHT and WP:NPA mean, then it is up to you to click those links, read those pages, and understand your responsibility to abide by relevant guidelines and policies, whether or not you think they clash with your politics. If you are incapable of doing so, you are a poor fit for Wikipedia. Ravenswing 13:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I said sorry for that already my bad, sorry again. But really when you read Jefferson is almost worst than Hitler, 200 000 Poles and Jews genocide is not that serious matter- with this level, when you get silenced it’s hard not to be too emotional, sorry again.

  Never my intention was to attack anybody personally, and I didn’t, if only @TimothyBlue take part in discussion on topic, just straight on topic, not open new threads again about me, we wouldnt be having this discussion in a first place. Also trying to censorship by calling it: minor incident, joke or not a big deal because quickly removed. I’m really, really done with this discussion and going to contemplate on is it still encyclopedia with NPOV or Ukrainian/Russian propaganda and of course about Jefferson, oh my... bye (for some time) WP:DROPTHESTICK Joaziela (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  going to contemplate on is it still encyclopedia with NPOV or Ukrainian/Russian propaganda

  With this statement, I think Jazeiela has crossed into WP:RGW territory, and I think this needs a block. This person is not going to stop with this behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. I reverted this persons edits on [[Talk:Valerii Zaluzhnyi]] because she says she is being attacked. When I reverted, she called me a troll, even though I do not have plans to be one for the foreseeable future. Simpsonsfan505 (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: Above (Simpsonsfan505) is a one day old account - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This revert of a talk page comment bu Simpsonsfan505 [19] was improper per WP:TPO. The removed commment by Joaziela was not harmful and the consequences of this kind of aggressive and intolerant behaviour is that an editor could easily feel surrounded by hostile users and react badly. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Liruqi seems to be making large amounts of edits via an automated script that is not manually monitored. It can also be seen that Liruqi does not seem to be aware of issues unless other users report such issues on their talk page. The user is currently blocked for one week for breaking wikitables with said script along with a BOTPOL block notice from a sysop on zhwiki. Please review if such edits comply with WP:BOTPOL, especially WP:ASSISTED, and to me it seems like a violation where the script has almost no human involvement according to my quick read and seems to have no support by discussion. Thanks with regards, LuciferianThomas 10:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, obviously running an unapproved bot. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I initially thought the rate of editing was compatible with manual review; but it's unlikely there was human oversight of each edit, since Liruqi seems to be using a Python script, and these errors should have been caught by manual review.

However, despite Liruqi being linked to the bot policy, it appears they were never explicitly warned about the need for bot approval; I let them know on their talk page. I don't believe a block is warranted (even temp) as of now; given that there is no indicating of knowingly circumventing policy. DFlhb (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With unapproved bots that are causing damage, we've got to block to limit the harm to the encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 15:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and was about to block; however, this user hasn't edited in five hours, so there is not imminent harm. As such, I'll give him the chance of explaining himself here. Salvio 15:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nein, I doubt that they do not understand such policy, they have been warned of violating the bot policy in Chinese Wikipedia already (and is currently being blocked due to it). LuciferianThomas 15:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: Hey there. It seems like the user ignored the warning and moved on running the bot there. Please action as needed. LuciferianThomas 01:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I checked to make sure no edits (of the recent spree) broke any tables; thankfully they didn't. Nevertheless, clear violation of the bot policy. DFlhb (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. Anyway, I have temporarily blocked the user, basically to force him to discuss his edits. As soon as he agrees to do so, he can be unblocked by any administrator. Salvio 08:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

209.58.196.114 decided to resort to personal attacks because they disagree with an edit I made.

For context, with my edit, I attempted to follow WP:NPOV by listing neither Russia nor Ukraine as the country this administrative entity is in in the first sentence of the article.

Relevant diff: [20]

Michael60634 (talk) 07:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael60634, in your previous edit summary, you accused Volunteer Marek of politically motivated vandalism. That is a grave accusation of severe misconduct. Please provide persuasive evidence, or withdraw the accusation. Cullen328 (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 I apologized in the AE request response. I'm not sure how or where I can withdraw something in a changeset comment as I can't modify those. Michael60634 (talk) 07:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael60634, I do not know whether or not you are aware of this simple fact, but when you come to WP:ANI with an accusation that another editor has engaged in misconduct, your own conduct will also come under scrutiny. I also did not know that you were involved in an ongoing discussion at WP:AE. There, I learned that after being previously warned against this specific type of misconduct, you have engaged in at least 12 false accusations of vandalism in recent days. So, what sort of sanctions do you think that administrators should impose on you for your repeated personal attacks after being warned to refrain from this type of misconduct? Cullen328 (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 I think you're missing context. The editor who I (wrongly) accused of has a long history of edit warring and personal attacks against other people, including myself. Did that make what I my changeset comments right? No. But context is important. And you seem to have missed that I apologized in the AE response. I'm not sure what more I am supposed to do to remedy this. If you have any suggestions, by all means let me know. Michael60634 (talk) 08:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It probably helps if you don't make claims about other editor misbehaviour without evidence when your apologising about making claims of misbehaviour where you admit your claims were false so there is no evidence. Since you've now accused Volunteer Malek of "long history of edit warring and personal attacks against other people, including myself" but provided zero evidence. Perhaps we can take their block log as evidence of a those general problems, but the one personal attack related block since you started editing in 2019 does not seem to be related to you. Nil Einne (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Link to relevant AE discussion [21]. Volunteer Marek 08:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not relevant to this specific ANI comment, but fine, there it is for anyone that wants to look. Michael60634 (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant because, as Cullen328 states, the conduct of any principal at ANI comes under scrutiny. Past ANI complaints, block logs, talk page warnings going back years can and are mentioned. With that, did you trouble yourself to look at the top of this page, which states "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems" ... ? Your diff reflects a single personal attack, however objectionable, for which you've taken none of the steps you should be taking prior to an ANI complaint. You didn't warn the IP against such conduct. You certainly didn't take into account that as the only edit the IP's made within the last year, it wasn't all that likely to be a "chronic, intractable" issue. If you wanted the edit summary stricken or the edit revdel'd (which would be a reasonable request), finding an admin to do so didn't need ANI. Ravenswing 13:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BMA-Nation2020 (talk · contribs) has been editing since July 2021. In that time they've been issued several warnings for edit warring and have been blocked. I ran into them when removing all unlinked entries of {{Skydance Media}}. I started a discussion when they undid my edit without an edit summary explaining why. I haven't revisited the template since.

In November, I noticed MaddoxDragon2003 doing the same thing at {{DreamWorks Animation}}. A couple of reverts later (see history), and WP:OWNERSHIP-ish tone in an edit summary ("they stay, no changing. Navboxes are fine like this. You shouldn’t judge them by their looks"), I issued BMA-Nation2020 a warning for reinstating entries that do not have articles, per WP:NAV and WP:EXISTING - in a nutshell, we only list articles in navboxes, because they help with navigation, we don't add everything associated with a particular subject. They gave a strange response, which I responded in detail to. I also brought up the fact that they've been issued warnings for edit warring, but that's just because "I get those because they don’t understand me or what i’m trying to fix. If you check my profile, i have autism." I replied once more and asked them to undo their revert, but did not receive a reply. Earlier today, I messaged again, this time getting a reply that they want to be left alone. That's fine, if they want to be left alone, I'll do it. But that's not an option either apparently: "STOP SAYING IT'S FOR EXISTING ARTICLES ONLY! IT STAYS AND I'M GETTING FED UP OVER IT.". I messaged them again just now, asking if this how they want to go. After their latest reply, I thought it was best to go here.

BMA-Nation2020 clearly has no intention of working with others or following consensus. They claim ownership to this navbox. They have been issued warnings for edit warring. They have used a personal attack in an edit summary. They are using their autism as an excuse not to follow editing guidelines. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quick side note, it's 20:38 where I am, I off to bed soon, I might not reply for the next couple of hours. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actully… i did what he said and fixed up the template. And i moved the short films to the related since it’s a lot to take by. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

to @Soetermans, the template is being fixed for DreamWorks as discussed from the talk page. I have removed Dog Man and Puss in Boots but i apologize by my behavior. The one that should be blocked for a while is MaddoxDragon2003. Not me. Which clearly you're accusing me over something i tired to fix. I know i did some things i should have listened to but i fixed them after this happen. I am sorry by what i said and i wanna do better than just do... that. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After several of my messages, pointing you to the relevant guideline and asking you kindly to undo your revert, after your replies in which you clearly said stuff like "no undoing. I'm tried of this. I leave it where it was and that's final. Stop bothering me and please let me do my own thing" it took me starting a discussion here for you to undo your revert. Do you understand that is not a good thing to happen?

You shouldn't point fingers at other editors like MaddoxDragon2003. They might've done the same thing like you, adding non-existent articles to a navbox, but they sure weren't uncivil to me or claimed ownership over a navbox.

Thank you for your apology. Let me be clear: I honestly do think you are trying to help, but WP:COMPETENCE is required and so is WP:CIVIL behavior towards your fellow editors. We had this whole argument about listing films without articles to a navbox, we're not even discussing actual content on articles. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, your hostile tone might scare of editors. I'll leave it up to admins for any actions they deem necessary. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to help. I had a rough day. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me how you consider your were "trying to help". I pointed you to the relevant guideline and you disagreed. If you had a rough day (or several rough days, I waited 24 hours for a response), maybe not take it out on your fellow editors. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes, issues, every day on the wiki is the same. People vandalize and i fix them. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What has that got to with the issue we're discussing? Clearly it wasn't vandalism, I referenced the appropriate guideline and I took the time to talk you. I am getting through to you at all here? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're fine. The Wikipedia sometimes either follows or ignores the guidelines you follow. Sometimes it has to be important or sometimes it has to be critical. And this is not critical to your topic. People do this every time. I'm not trying to make it worse, i'm trying to make it better. Trying to improve the pages, the templates, the info. You don't understand how this site works than what i do. Sorry if this is offense but i'm stating the truth about this situation. MaddoxDragon2003 vandalized the template cause of Meet the Gillmans. I only wanted to fix it myself, not from you to mess it up by your own guidelines you follow from the wiki. People can be fine with how the template works and i had to rework it to avoid getting blocked again. Having a short film lists and a television special list are probably unnecessary for the template. And if you let people do their thing, none of this would have happened. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you wrote your reply a bit too fast and there are some grammatical errors, but what do you mean with:

• "The Wikipedia sometimes either follows or ignores the guidelines you follow. Sometimes it has to be important or sometimes it has to be critical. And this is not critical to your topic"? The guidelines I follow? So don't follow certain guidelines? What is my topic?
• "You don't understand how this site works than what i do" - I don't understand Wikipedia?
• "People can be fine with how the template works and i had to rework it to avoid getting blocked again" - so you understand that there was a chance might get blocked because you decided not to follow the guidelines? Why do it in the first place then? Why say all those things and ask to be left alone?

Any following admins, input is appreciated at this point. I'm mentioning admins part of WP:VG I'm friendly with as well, I know them to be fair and objective: Sergecross73, Czar, Anarchyte and Masem. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"so you understand that there was a chance might get blocked because you decided not to follow the guidelines?" There won't unless it's important. You're semi-retired cause the wiki has changed years later. Guidelines keep changing and some admins are inactive and/or active. I wanna be left alone because i don't like to get bothered by people telling me what's what. Either i did something wrong that should be correct or a failed draft put in. I follow some guidelines but not some that has my POV. I follow my own guidelines to follow others. You're being too serious about me and best that you should leave me be for a while. Otherwise, things would get worse by the sec. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you pick-and-choose the guidelines you follow? That's convenient. That kind of sounds like a threat, I should leave you be or "things would get worse by the sec". soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• When policies/guidelines aren't followed and there's no repercussions for it, it's generally because 1) someone doesn't know better or 2) no one noticed that it was being done. Knowingly going against them doesn't not generally fall into the realm of acceptability, especially when it's being challenged by other editors. Sergecross73 msg me 21:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  i understand. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have repeatedly asked IP 47.17.47.199 from Brooklyn to stop removing the name of the magazine Entertainment Weekly from citations, but the person doesn't acknowledge that it is a problem, and continues make the removal. The IP is on a campaign to update the many citation URLs for this magazine, which is good, but will not stop removing the magazine name. We discussed this on several talk pages:

• Talk:Under My Skin (Avril Lavigne album)#Entertainment Weekly article
• User talk:47.17.47.199#December 2022
• User talk:Binksternet#Don Cartagena - Entertainment Weekly Review

The person has been doing this since May 2022,[22] and they show no sign of stopping.[23] I could use some help getting through to them. Binksternet (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But aren't they correct? If they're altering it to a valid web link and changing it to a secure web URL for the reference, it's not a magazine any longer and therefore the magazine property should be cleared. Or am I missing something? Canterbury Tail talk 23:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{cite web}} is for web sources that are not characterized by another CS1 template, so the {{cite magazine}} template is still the most appropriate one (and supports the URL= parameter)

Regardless, I'd rate these as improvements, since it allows us to stop relying on archived links (quite a few of which are missing entirely or broken). DFlhb (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updating the URL is an improvement, yes, but as Izno notes below the change of citation template is unnecessary (at the least) and the removal of the work is incorrect. Even if changing to {{cite web}} were appropriate, |magazine=Entertainment Weekly should be kept as |website=Entertainment Weekly rather than taken out. XAM2175 ^(T) 21:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These changes are strictly not improvements. The work/website, which is Entertainment Weekly, is being removed from the citations, even if the change from cite magazine to cite web were agreeable (it also is not). Izno (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's my position, too. The Brooklyn IP person said that they think that the authorlink parameter is "obsolete",[24] and their behavior shows they think the same thing of the magazine name. They are trying to streamline the citation template, but it has multiple parameters for good reasons—to increase the certainty that one is referring to the right publication, and to help search for similar text strings across many articles. Binksternet (talk) 08:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what they mean by saying that the author link is "unclickable", either, because being clickable is kinda the whole point of them. XAM2175 ^(T) 21:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this yesterday. I reviewed the diffs and thought quite a bit about it actually, i.e. about what could lead someone to make such changes – based on a premise that there could be a technical reason, i.e. that the IP editor is not fully aware of the result. Sadly, my conclusion is that the animus behind this was not a constructive one. The editor acknowledged that they are aware of the result, was correctly informed that it's undesirable, and still kept doing it. —Alalch E. 21:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the IP's talk page, I believe there are potential WP:CIR issues; the foundation of Wikipedia is collaboration, and the IP seems unwilling to listen to feedback or respond constructively. DFlhb (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Dealer07 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 2A02:85F:F0E5:FF86:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Dealer07 was indef blocked for edit-warring over nationalities of biographies. The person keeps coming back as Greek IPs to continue the disruption. They got blocked two days ago as the range Special:Contributions/2A02:85F:F0BD:F4A7:0:0:0:0/64, but now they are using Special:Contributions/2A02:85F:F0E5:FF86:0:0:0:0/64, Can we get a larger rangeblock than just the /64, to prevent future disruption? Binksternet (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This is getting merely ridiculous and has to end sometime. Binksternet also keeps reverting to content that goes against MOS:OVERLINK and MOS:BLPLEAD (examples [25], [26]) and no one is ever taking action of this just because they use the excuse of "block evasion". Can an admin provide a fair treatment after checking thoroughly for once? 2A02:85F:F0E5:FF86:71AA:8C7:8909:A9E3 (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not to talk about their habit of continuously trying to force edits without references or prior consenus on talk page [27], [28]. 2A02:85F:F0E5:FF86:71AA:8C7:8909:A9E3 (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh I spot and block Dealer07 IPs constantly. Usually at least one a week. They have never given up, but I want to thank them for being so obvious and easy to identify and revert. Canterbury Tail talk 01:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Canterbury Tail Did you even check my comments there other than block evasion? Highly doubt so and would really appreciate it to be objective and follow the basic structure of Wikipedia for once, at least when it comes to my edits. (For the record, last time you blocked me was three months ago so I would highly appreciate you were more sincere on your sayings from now on). 2A02:85F:F0E5:FF86:71AA:8C7:8909:A9E3 (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one will pay any attention to your comments or edits due to your massive socking. As a result of all that socking you are banned from the project. You are block and revert on sight. The only way you have out of this monumental waste of your own time is to go to your main account and request an unblock. No other comments of yours will be responded to in any way. Canterbury Tail talk 14:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It is probably the same user, with these two IPs here as well: Special:Contributions/2A02:85F:F0E5:FF86:E509:42A4:91EC:25CD and Special:Contributions/2A02:85F:F0E5:FF86:3C8B:41:4752:993A. Iaof2017 (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C. Fred blocked the /64. I would still like to see a larger rangeblock, for instance the /40 which looks like it would create zero collateral damage. Binksternet (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And right on cue, Special:Contributions/2A02:85F:F0FD:6A1E:D5BF:F913:8511:2501 shows up to evade the block. Binksternet (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By any chance are all of these IPs through the same ISP? I know there's a thing that can be done in which we contact the ISP and get them to yell at Dealer07, but I don't know if that appiles here. If so, worth a shot. SniperReverter (Talk to me) 17:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Abuse response was shut down years ago for logistical reasons, but any editor (or non-editor, for that matter) may still contact an ISP to report violations of that ISP's terms of service. In general I doubt it's much use outside of 1) small institutional ISPs and/or 2) edits that are outright criminal. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Canterbury Tail: Just an FYI they are currently globally locked. Yoshi24517 ^Chat _Online 23:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still hoping for a much wider rangeblock. More block evasion is happening with Special:Contributions/2A02:85F:F038:66B8:41E5:F9AD:BDD6:EF79 and Special:Contributions/2A02:85F:F038:66B8:BDA5:2026:CE09:218F. I would go with a /40 block in spite of some collateral damage. Binksternet (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Blocked the /40 3mo. I don't love the amount of collateral damage, but it's tolerable given the amount of disruption, especially since the range has been blocked twice before and the socking resumed almost immediately after the end of the last block. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:ChillaxIsCool is persistently and inaccurately changing other Indian languages to Telugu on a number of Indian-themed articles; appears to be personally motivated. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why haven't they been warned for this on their talk page? TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 04:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeking an admin intervention to finally put an end to constant wikihounding by user Trangabellam. I am really tired of this user's relentless pursuit of me, aggressive rhetoric, incivility and never-ending bad faith assumptions.

I do understand if some users track other users' edits for collegial or administrative purposes, and with good cause, but the aforementioned user tracks me everywhere with a sole intent: to cause irritation, annoyance, and distress. This sticks out of a mile when you check his/her attitude and these mocking statements directed at me such as (you keep writing nonsense.., you won't learn anything..., The OP exhibits a IDHT attitude and is unaware of where his competencies lie) . Besides, this user has recently posted an over-the-fence “no-edit order” at my t/p (diff 1), which grossly violates WP:NOEDIT: no editor may unilaterally take charge over an article by sending no-edit orders, and create his/her own policies. All editors have equal rights to edit all articles, templates, project pages, and all other parts of Wikipedia if not blocked by level of protection.

A couple of days ago (I took it as a point of no return and the latest evidence of her wikihounding on me, after which I decided to take my concerns here), Trangabellam again tracked me and cattily joined the discussion (diff 2) at the t/p of the page, which again, has never ever been edited by him/her since that article was created in 2005 (diff 3) (search for user Trangabellam if you find one). Trangabellam, as expected, sided against me and threw away such mocking adjectives as “ridiculous”, without presenting a reasonable argument to defend his/her stand on the issue.

This wasn’t the first time it happened. For instance, I got in on the act to figure out the reason behind the revert of my contribution by user F&F at this t/p diff 4. Just after I made my case known, Trangabellam was there before you know it, responding first and quickly siding with user F&F, again without providing any argument for doing so:

[Detailed reply incoming]. Broadly, I am in agreement with F&F. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

As expected, this user's detailed reply is still on its way since July 5, 2022. (diff 4.1)

According to WP:HOUND: "The offender usually singles out an editor by maliciously joining discussions on multiple pages or topics that editor may regularly contribute to and in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work". It continues with: "Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place-to-place on Wikipedia, and often can be identified by reviewing the offending user's contributions." Trangabellam even tracked me up to admin Yamla’s t/p to whom I appealed looking for advice to tackle his/her behavior of wikihounding (trying to resolve it without creating too much drama) and posted my concerns there (diff 5), notwithstanding the fact that I didn't even ping this user (diff 5.1). Moreover, Trangabellam’s countless false accusations, like the one where he/she accused me of adding "nonsense" to the page, she has never contributed before (diff 6 (diff 7), eventually turned out (diff 8) to be actually this user’s own contribution (diff 9).

Trangabellam wouldn’t discontinue this, and after a short passage of time he/she again falsely accused me of edit-warring here (diff 10), and distorted facts from my discussion Talk:Babur#Verse from Babur's poetry. There was no edit-warring, I didn’t undo the revert even once. The history of the page is for everyone to see (diff 11) (see June 5th, 2022). In fact, it was another, experienced editor who undid the revert (diff 12), diff 13) and actually supported my addition to that page. Instead of Trangabellam’s imaginary edit-warring, I decided to find a compromise and created a whole new section (diff 13.1) in that article, which definitely improved the page. But of course, this user won’t ever mention that and my other similar contributions.

I’m open to work and collaborate with everyone, but in a healthy, mutually respectful environment. I proved it this when recently Trangabellam claimed that addition of translated material (even if a little re-worded) was against Wikipedia’s policy on plagiarism (diff 14). I presented my opinion regarding that with civility and immediately stated that if proved wrong by a competent admin, I would have no objections to removing those sentences. This was not a deliberate disruption, since even the complainant admitted that this was in fact Wikipedia’s grey area (diff 15). Also, one of Wikipedia’s long-serving and in my opinion, outstanding editors, user HistoryofIran, also cast his doubt whether this can qualify as plagiarism (diff 16).

I strongly believe that all of the above bear a close resemblance to wikihounding. Besides Trangabellam constantly exhibit the patterns of behavior with arrogance, ridicule and satire. This is one of the latest examples ([29]). This user did his/her best trying to ridicule me and my work again, showcasing him/herself as a history expert while goofing on the Soviet academic he/she didn’t know, instead getting humiliated him/herself at the end of the day. Lately, he/she addressed in the same uncivil way to a user, who happened to be the GA reviewer (diff 17) of the page nominated to GA by me.

Furthermore, this user's ominous "I will keep a tab over your editorial activities" diff 18 posted at my t/p is basically a confession in Wikihounding for me.

Finally, this user's actions are accurately summarized in WP:Hound, which says that the important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing. Following another user around, if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions."

I kindly ask admins to take their time and look at every single diff carefully. This behavior does cause profound stress, is disruptive, and should be stopped. Thank you, Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 07:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• When you are mentioning other editors like @Fowler&fowler, you need to post a notification at their t/p. As F&F and admins like RegentsPark, Vanamonde93, Bishonen, Abecedare et al can attest to, I am among the most prolific editors of pages concerning S. Asian history including the Mughals. In contrast, how many topics on S. Asian history have you edited? As to my charges of edit-warring, I repeated what administrator Abecedare told you at the t/p (vide, @Visioncurve, I (Abecedare) am disappointed that an experienced editor such as yourself is edit-warring in article-space instead of discussing the issue here to arrive at a consensus.) It might be that you were not edit-warring but you need to introspect on why so many experienced editors including me, Ab, F&F and others tend to oppose your edits or characterize your editorial activities in an unfair manner.
  @ANI audience: This thread is a response to User_talk:Visioncurve#Turkoman_(ethnonym) and User_talk:Visioncurve#Machine_translation:_Plagiarism_and_Copyright. The OP has a long history of misrepresenting sources (see this thread for an egregious example) that warrants scrutiny. Fwiw, a year ago, the OP had apologized to me for their "frustrating response to [my] decent remarks".
  I spot that the OP has written an entire paragraph on his copyright violations where he presented [his] opinion [] with civility and immediately stated that if proved wrong by a competent admin, [he] would have no objections to removing those sentences. I will leave administrator ToBeFree to be the judge of the situation; VC's defensive responses that had incurred a block-threat from ToBeFree is emblematic of his problematic approach to editing guised under "civility". Civility does not allow you to post machine-translate of vernacular translations and then, request for evaluation from "competent admins"; civility does not allow you to misrepresent sources etc.
  As to my "no-edit-order" (huh - ?) at Tuqaq, it was a request and I was terribly frustrated with how he went about editing topics on Sejuq history using fringe (Soviet) sources which, now, appears to have been machine-translated. I regret that I have nothing but satire to offer when VC uses romantic fiction novellas to write articles on Seljuqid history.
  I will post about a dozen examples of egregious misrepresentations of source and other issues from the OP (please keep an eye at this page) but need a day to compile them, before invoking WP:BOOMERANG. Some examples can be found in Talk:Tuqaq#Maintenance_Tags, Talk:Turkoman_(ethnonym) etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  TrangaBellam, I was just looking at one of the diffs and noticed [30] and I wondering if you could explain what you meant by might I suggest that any improvements to Magtymguly Pyragy is an exercise in futility? Simply put, there does not exist enough reliable sources to write an encyclopedic biography of the subject. Gusfriend (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, @Gusfriend.

  There are many subjects who are deserving of proper historical scholarship but as of now, lacks it. The only way of writing something decent on our subject is using sub-optimal drivel sources from Turkmenistan. VC had once used such sources to push the article past GA before I critiqued the sources alongside the inaccuracies in the content; a Community-Reaasessment was launched by me, and was failed by an uninvolved editor. That section is worth reading in entirety; for every criticism I made of the content, VC subjected me to random accusations like "negative opinion against Turkmenistan arising from my stay at the country", "fondness for some [Western] scholars" etc. Despite the tonne of criticism that I presented against state-sponsored scholars of Turkmenistan, he remained oblivious to their unreliability. Though, in fairness, VC did apologize to me a year later for their "frustrating response to [my] decent remarks".

  So, a month ago, when I spotted VC devoting another round of efforts to the article (once again, using mostly-vernacular sources), I left a note. Does that satisfy you? TrangaBellam (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That makes sense. Can I suggest, were such a situation to arise again, giving the GA context, perhaps something like sufficient for the article to reach GA status." at the end? Gusfriend (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, that is very agreeable. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gusfriend In the meanwhile, I am adding to User:TrangaBellam/VC. Will like to hear your opinion. Ty! TrangaBellam (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey TB, just a note: After you've finished gathering evidence [which I presume you'll post it here or AE or somewhere relevant?], would you mind deleting that page? :) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 13:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Dax, I will be moving a boomerang proposal shortly. Thanks for the pointer to U1 though. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I clicked on every diff mentioned in the OP's post, it appears that the comments, which the OP took as "a point of no return", were misunderstood (do not ask me, how) to be against them, when they were actually in the OP's favor. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant as it doesn't cancel the fact of your latest wikihounding me.

You were quite right when you mentioned that I had apologized to you initially and gave props to your respective remarks. You knew I was open to cooperation and work with you to improve those pages (diff 2), I even posted 3 similar messages in your t/p (1, diff 3, diff 4) and waited for your positive response. Little did I know back then how mistaken I was that your true intent was not to collaborate, but undermine and ridicule as can be seen through your derisive language and uncivil rhetoric in the messages you posted at my t/p (diff 5), Tuqaq's talk page (diff 6) and countless other places (see the above diffs). Who would choose to cooperate with you after all this or reply to your respective inquiries when you always assume bad faith and exhibit patterns of disruptive behavior? Accordingly, I have decided not to respond to your latest walls of messages, but your latest tracking me to Kutadgu Bilig's talk page was "enough is enough".

Besides, I believe that all your above-mentioned reasons and explanations don't grant you an exclusive right of wikihounding others, undermining or taunting them. I am not a serial plagiarist, vandal, POV-pusher or under a temporary unblock truce to deserve the kind of monitoring enough to try the patience of a saint. Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 15:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You engaged in the same behavior with me, accusing me of roughly the same things, a year ago. Then you went on a year-long break, came back after a year to concede that your editing and responses was indeed inappropriate, and went back to similar editing. Shall I expect you to do the same now or shall I proceed to initiate a boomerang?

I expect that editors, irrespective of their skills, have integrity. That they shall not misrepresent sources. That after using machine translations, they shall not claim to the contrary. Writing must be enjoyable but only for those who can write without resorting to academic malpractices. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am active in similar topic areas. My view is that while TrangaBellam has been hounding Visioncurve to some extent, this has been done in good faith; the latter's edits needed to be brought to administrator attention sooner. Visioncurve is supremely unwilling to change their editing habits, most importantly their proclivity to misrepresent sources. This can be seen in this very ANI post, where they misrepresent the community consensus at this discussion to be that of a question from HistoryofIran, rather than the conclusive points of two administrators, ToBeFree and Dianaa. Strong WP:BOOMERANG needed — Visioncurve is capable of producing good content, but seemingly prefers not to. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, I agree with your characterisation. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The Original Post by Visioncurve is too long, didn't read. If they have something to say, they can say it concisely. If they have something to say and have to provide a lot of background (which they didn't), they can say it concisely and provide the background material on a subpage. I will read the boomerang proposal in a little while. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I am not involved in this dispute. But there is no question in my mind that TrangaBellam engaged in hounding and biting a new editor named Minaro123 all through a number of related articles over some sort of political point that apparently in TB's mind amounts to righting the great wrongs of Hindu nationalism.

While I might even agree that the latter is a problem, I noticed the dispute I am describing when TB tried to AfD an article (Aryan Valley) over its content. While doing due diligence, I noticed TB removing material in another article as "OR" that was in fact sourced to Al-Jazeera. I found, on talking to the newbie, that nobody had as yet explained the reliable sources policy to him. TB had just serially removed material while citing it. The editor, btw, is responsive and trying to do the right thing, and his work has vastly improved since I first began to work with him.

When the AfD for Aryan Valley closed as keep, TB essentially bulldozed the article's content, leaving only a discussion of how the inhabitants of Aryan Valley are not actually Aryan, which btw the article specifically had not claimed. This was cited to a genetics article. Uninvolved editors had already explained to TB at the Aryan Valley AfD that the genetics source was irrelevant to an article about a location, but apparently TB did not hear that.

Then a sock (since blocked as such) filed another AfD for an article about a subset of the region's villages, Dah Hanu, which is still open, and where TB taunted me for objecting to TB's behaviour, begging me to file a complaint and claiming that DS sanctions are not in effect with respect to the India-Pakistan line of control. I believe that I got the acronym wrong, and perhaps someone can educate me on this point, so that I can file that complaint as requested, in the proper venue.

If admins would prefer to focus on one thing at a time I can understand that, and will confine myself here in the meantime to suggesting a second look at whatever the problem is here, since I find it entirely plausible that TB has hounded and dismissed a new editor in a very high handed manner, and soon will be officially saying so. I am busy RL and probably won't have my diffs together for about a week, if that helps anyone to decide whether to ask me questions here about what I am describing. But seeing this post made me wonder if there is a pattern beyond just opposing any mention on Wikipedia of a small and remote ethnic group, and gaming AfD to remove mentions of it that do make it in. Elinruby (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder what happened at the article t/p. Maybe two longstanding editors — Kautilya3 and JoshuaJonathan — supported my edits?
  Btw, that Minaro123 has edited a single article till date, hard to prove that I was hounding him. Anyway, "gaming AfD" is a serious charge and I will prefer that you open a fresh thread with all the evidence than hijacking one. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said elsewhere, I did not ask *you*. It is indeed a serious charge, and I stand by it. But I am not going to go into it in this thread unless asked. I have had a bit of a look at this now and it looks complicated enough, and with enough of a learning curve, that it probably should be dealt with without additional moving parts. Nor does the the OP look blameless, though I am still reading. And yet there is an echo ...you seem to have claimed that "drivel" Turkmeni sources should not be used for an article about a Turkmeni writer. Surely you aren't saying that all Turkmeni sources are drivel. Who better to discuss the father of Turkmeni literature? But don't answer that, I am still digging; I find I have some time on my hands unexpectedly and am quite interested suddenly in your views on ethnic identity. Cheers. Elinruby (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a public forum; I have a right to reply to your baseless accusations that ignores a t/p consensus in my favor. That aside, do whatever without derailing the thread. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha. I am not taking that bait. I have said I would not reply further unless asked a question. However there is an error one of my facts, I have since realized, and I feel the need to mention that. However, on reading this thread and its links, I do see a familiar pattern, particularly the fixation on certain sources as correct while dismissing others. But this complaint is complicated enough on its own, and probably the two matters are better handled separately. I just came back here to note the error. I also feel a need to add that I question whether all Turkmeni sources are drivel.Elinruby (talk) 10:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that I shall thank you? You are obviously free to bring a separate thread against me.

As to the latter question, it is probably worthy of being discussed at RSN. Fwiw, I do wish to correct you that I did not claim all "Turkmeni" sources to be drivel (that will be racist) but rather "sources produced by scholars affiliated with Turkmenistan government in any manner" (which, in an indirect way, equals all Turkmeni sources after 1992) to be "drivel". I stand by my characterizations.

Regards, TrangaBellam (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang

As AirshipJungleman29 notes above, "Visioncurve's edits needed to be brought to administrator attention sooner. Visioncurve is supremely unwilling to change their editing habits, most importantly their proclivity to misrepresent sources [..] Strong WP:BOOMERANG needed."

So, without further delay, I wish to attract the attention of the community and its administrators to this subpage, where I document a multitude of misrepresentation of sources alongside use of unreliable sources, pushing of fringe POVs etc. Accordingly, I seek for appropriate sanctions against Visioncurve.

• Support as nom - I propose that Visioncurve be banned from editing any article on history for an indefinite period; however, they can propose edits to the articles using talk-page. On a succesful probation of six months, Visioncurve can appeal before the community at AN/ANI for repeal. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The problems outlined are serious and cast serious doubt on the editor's ability to contribute acceptable content in this topic area. Much of the problematic content was originally added in 2020 or 2021, but there are at least two edits that were made in the past month [31] [32]. Visioncurve, I would like to hear what you may have to say here. – Uanfala (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Uanfala Fwiw, Visioncurve took a eight-month-long break from October 2021 to June 2022. That explains the scarcity to an extent. Regards, TrangaBellam (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  AirshipJungleman29, I wonder how you'd explain then TrangaBellam's mocking rhetoric at my t/p (diff 1), bad faith assumption (when he/she called my (Soviet and Turkish) sources "shabby" and failed to recognize a well-known Soviet historian, later embarrassing him/herself) and expert on that issue (diff 1.1) (diff 2) and ended with him/her embarrassing him/herself, and false accusations of adding "nonsense" (diff 3 (diff 4), (diff 5) when it was actually his/her addition to that page (diff 6) and of edit-warring when it has never happened (diff 7), (diff 8) (see June 5th, 2022), (diff 9), diff 10) as well as maliciously joining discussion to just oppose me (without providing any argument for his/her stand on the issue) at Talk:Mughal_Empire#Persian_influence as a good cause wikihounding?

  Robert McClenon, I believe that's the reason why a couple of editors I'm happy to know advised me not to take my concern to ANI, because they believed that usually first complaint (and its respective diffs) were not thoroughly checked, and that it was better to read immediately-posted replies or the last lines of discussion, or counter accusations (like Boomerang), as in your case.

  TrangaBellam, as for you, your allegation regarding misrepresentation of sources or lack of sources were left without my attention, since:

  1) I told you before that I refused to reply to your inquiries because of your long history of disruptive behavior towards me;

  2) As the admin, and by chance, GA Reviewer of my page Lee_VilenskiUser:Lee Vilenski rightly noted (when you rushed to his/her t/p after he/she had presented my page with GA status) and employed similar aggressive rhetoric towards him/her (calling him "oblivious" and suggesting that he doesn't understand English) (dif 11) you were not a nominator of that page.

  However, I have come to conclusion to respond to your latest "allegation" in order to prove my stance. Besides, I hope respective admins would notice that your inequitable request to indef block an editor (with a probation of 6 months) who hasn't vandalized, made personal attacks, constantly edit-warred or committed similar gross violations of Wikipedia policies basically proves your true intent and disruptive attitude towards me. Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 13:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You made the same allegations when you opened the thread against me. More importantly, why are you indenting this post as a reply to me/Uanfala? What a mess. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I will address the only new concern raised against me which allegedly proves my "true intent": first things first, I did not request any indefinite block but rather, an indefinite T-Ban.

  Leave me aside. Why do you think that Uanfala, who has no bone in the dispute, finds that [t]he problems outlined are serious and cast serious doubt on the editor's [Visioncurve's] ability to contribute acceptable content in this topic area? Or, AirshipJungleman29, who found that you have a proclivity to misrepresent sources? Do every other editor - me, F&F, Uanfala, AJM - has some kind of axe to grind against you? Have you read WP:1AM? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmmm. Although that reply is a mess, and some of it doesn't make sense, there are some good points in there. TrangaBellam should have brought your issues to administrator attention sooner, instead of doing what can probably be defined as hounding, yes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Visioncurve, I appreciate that it may be annoying or even upsetting to have TrangaBellam go after your edits. However, what I'm interested in hearing from you here is your take specifically on those of the points that TrangaBellam has made on this page that relate to those two of your edits: [33] [34]. You can reply whenever you have the time and headspace, I'm not in a rush. – Uanfala (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Justinw303 is changing sourced information based on their own interpretation and WP:OR. In this diff, they state in their edit summary that the source is less reliable than their original research (own eyes). When the edit was reverted and restored to that which the source stated, they simply repeated the edit with another aggressive edit summary bludgeoning their OR and stating that YouTube is the correct way to VERIFY. I posted this (since deleted) request on their talk page. Their response once again totally fails to acknowledge that OR is not the best way to VERIFY information. I then issue a non-templated warning.

Following the warning, they went straight back and restored their edits, using a weak source that doesn't state the result and failing to source correctly. Here and here. This is following a warning and again causing disruption. I am seeking admin assistance as previous attempts to address the disruption on the editor's TP have been ignored and deleted, sometimes with severe personal attacks, as here and here, the latter of which when they delete requests to cease making edits exactly like the ones I am concerned with.

I have notified the user on their TP and warned, as you can see.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. On the one hand, this seems to be a pretty hostile fellow, and of course "watch the fight" is unacceptable as a source. But on the other, he does have a point: however reliant people are on Sherdog, it doesn't constitute an official source, and what makes it that much more reliable than SB Nation? What steps have you taken beyond "Sherdog says so" to verify your own information? I'm aware that this minor promotion's been defunct for a decade -- for which one could say, bloody hell, you're having an edit war over whether a single fight between two obscure fighters fifteen years ago in a long-dead promotion was a 'KO' vs a 'TKO??' -- but there shouldn't be anything preventing you from going to the Internet Archive or the California state athletic commission. Ravenswing 15:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While Justin has a lot to work on where Wikiquette is concerned, he has provided a source to support "TKO". As a content issue I'd say this should resume on the article's talk page, or otherwise at WP:RSN if the source is disputed. — Czello 15:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point that I think you might be missing is that Justin was changing information that was sourced to that which was not. Based on what they saw. In the Wikiproject, the guideline states:

In the column Method, do not use your personal interpretation of a fight result in the record. Using a reliable source is important. The official website or Sherdog may be useful.

What the editor did was a personal interpretation based on what they saw. It was also not sourced either to an official website or to Sherdog, but rather sourced via an edit summary to an article whose title directly contradicts the point they were making and which does not contain the official result listed in the official way. It's also worth pointing out that several posts express concern with the editor and all they get back is deletes and insults. An unofficial, unscrutinised source mentioned in an edit summary (while warring and without discussion) surely isn't correct, is it?NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a legacy official version: https://events-staging.mixedmartialarts.com/Strikeforce-Evolution:607B00D7-7553-4206-9C41-4E6B07C9C5A0 note the format. I have restored the info, too.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have now included proper, legitimate sources for the change I have been attempting to make. The body of the article indicates the fight ended in TKO; the title using the phrase 'KO' is irrelevant to the issue, as a TKO is simply a subset of the term 'KO'. All TKO's are KO's, but not all KOs are TKOs. In this case, it was a TKO, and I would imagine Wikipedia would prefer the most specific result listing possible. Nedochan reversed my most recent edit even though the sources were clearly marked/indicated. Justinw303 (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source that you have given does not state the result in the official format. The two sources I have given do. I find it interesting that now you are engaging. I suggest you restore the STATUSQUO and take the the talk page.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) NEDOCHAN and Justinw303, would both of you guys mind moving the discussion to the talk page? I think that both of you guys are now cooled down enough that an administrator's intervention is not necessary. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should BOTH take this to the talk page (or to RSN) instead of ANI, but you might want to consider what your answer to this question would be: what makes "events-staging.mixedmartialarts.com" an official source, other than that it backs up your POV? There would only be two "official" sources: the promotion itself, and the state athletic commission.

One other thing you should remember: the Wikiproject's private guidance does not constitute making a source "official." Ravenswing 17:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources given state the official result verbatim.NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to on the appropriate talk pages. Ravenswing 22:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)

I have already had several runnings with this person on the Simferopol article, as shown from my POV here (you're welcome to read the entire Simferopol talk page and form your own opinion), which in fact resulted in me significantly reducing my participation on Wikipedia because I have neither the time nor the desire to waste hours dealing with this person's accusations, given that nobody seems particularly interested in telling him off. However, today I woke up to find that he had gone through my edit list and undid 4 of my last 5 edits (I initially mistook one of his reverts for a previous user re-introducing his changes) in a handful of minutes (his diffs [39], [40], [41], [42]), without even checking what he was reverting, let alone the talk page. I reverted (manually) some of his changes trying to address his concerns and he once again mass reverted, again without checking (to the point of re-introducing stuff he had previously removed), and paid a courtesy visit to a discussion page (because I prompted him to) merely to drop a one-liner to justify his revert.

All of this, plus the fact that he had literally zero edits on any of these pages previous to this episode, suggest that he explicitly looked my profile up and went through the contribs page to undo my edits, likelier than not to spite me, as this is not the first time he comes after me following a hiatus - the last time, after 10 days without intervening on Simferopol, he came back out of the blue to accuse me for the nth time of being a "sleeper single purpose account" planted to disseminate Russian nationalist disinformation. I have no interest in engaging in an edit war with this person, or engaging with this person at all, but he seems hellbent on trying to annoy me. I'm not planning on responding to anything he has to say about this here, but I'm happy to address anyone else's concerns. Ostalgia (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. These pages were on my watchlist.

2. These were all bad edits, with the account "Ostalgia" edit warring with other users (in particular User:Mzajac [43])

3. Aside from one instance there was no participation on talk from Ostalgia

4. This is an account which was dormant until May 2022, having made only a dozen edits prior to that. Some of the edit summaries suggest this isn't their only account [44] (again? when did they interact or edit that article previously?)

Volunteer Marek 16:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have both of you guys tried to resolve the dispute via discussion at talk page or WP:Dispute resolution? I think it would be better for both of you guys to not go through ANI in this case. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ostalgia - You were told (that was only 3 months ago) to seek consensus and dispute resolution last time you were blocked, didn't you?

Quote: ..you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution..[45] - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't get your point. For starters, this is not a content dispute. If anything, you could say I'm in a content dispute with Mzajac, with whom I am in fact engaged in a talk page discussion after he reverted an edit I made to a page he had last edited weeks ago, a bold edit that was reverted by someone else and for which he, by the way, did not seek consensus.

Fundamentally, however, am I supposed to discuss and seek consensus (?) with Volunteer Marek prior to editing a page where he has never edited in the past? How exactly would that work? Ostalgia (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ostalgia please ping me if you to start arguing our content dispute elsewhere.  —Michael Z. 17:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, but since you had been mentioned right above me I assumed you were already aware of this discussion (and I assumed correctly, I suppose, seeing as you had actually already replied by the time I posted the message you're responding to). Ostalgia (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(And not that I need explain myself, but the dubious string of edits on and after December 30, that wiped out solidly sourced information on the subject’s identity, is why I came back to restore the lead in that article.)  —Michael Z. 17:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ostalgia What are you doing here? Provide links to discussions you initiated and then to dispute resolution please. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my message you'll get a pretty clear idea of what I'm doing here, and it has nothing to do with a content dispute, as I have already told you (and you seem only too happy to ignore). Ostalgia (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So no links? - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ostalgia: Then you'll need to explain what behaviour issue is so intractable that you felt the need to go straight to ANI, rather than discuss the issue at all with Volunteer Marek, or provide links for any prior discussion. Remember, ANI is a last resort. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 20:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in the very first line of my post, I have already had issues with Volunteer Marek on the Simferopol article. I provided a link to a summary of my previous interactions with him. This is the link, again - it leads to a previous ANI case. As explained there, I previously attempted to engage him by opening a discussion on the talk page, where he repeatedly and routinely dismissed sources, but fundamentally, where I was accused of pushing nationalist disinformation, being a sleeper single-purpose account, pushing putinist irredentist propaganda, being a sockpuppet and WP:NOTHERE. As can be seen in my summary, I also hit back at Marek. You can check the entire talk page discussion here. I hope you'll understand why I am reluctant to engage with him in any sort of discussion again lest it devolve into that once more. Ostalgia (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I second the call for peace talks, or at least a civil truce.

The fact is that scholarship on Ukraine is being decolonized, resulting in sources’ viewpoints being revised[46] (e.g., Degas’ Ukrainian dancers’ name corrected).[47][48] This process started in the mid 20th century, accelerated after 1992, 2014, and 2022, and will continue being an issue (remember, we retitled not only Odessa and Kiev, but also Kharkov back in 2004).

It is easy to find support for widely divergent views on these things and for conflicts to arise. I suggest everyone become familiar with the essay WP:BIAS and consider that much of Western historiography on historical “Russia” in the broad sense is dated in some ways, but also that we should choose up-to-date sources without anticipating (WP:CRYSTAL) and losing track of Wikipedia content guidelines. And if you find yourself writing a personal message in an edit summary, better pause and take it to talk.

This won’t go away soon, so we need to learn to set an example and continue cooperating, not just these two editors.  —Michael Z. 17:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, I can sort of engage in a civil debate with you because even though it is clear that we have very, very different viewpoints, at least you are open to dialogue and maintain a generally respectful approach to discussions. This has proven impossible in my dealings with Marek. Ostalgia (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You could still find yourselves needing to coexist in this website, weeks or years from now.  —Michael Z. 18:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the edits in question, it would seem the edits by Volunteer Marek and perfectly correct. Jeppiz (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I've found some of Volunteer Marek's edits in the Ukraine-Russia war space to be a bit strident and strong... Perhaps that's because they've had to put up with so much BS like this. What's in the linked diffs does not appear to be hounding and VM appears to have been willing to engage in discussion on the disputed points. The only thing that comes close to crossing the line is the "sleeper SPA" attack which doesn't appear to be justified based on the account's edit history. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Horse Eye's Back The account (Ostalgia) was dormant from 2020 until 2022 (2 years) and then they jumped straight into the edit war in Russia-Ukraine topic area without showing signs of being a new account. It’s obvious. This behaviour continues despite the recent block. GizzyCatBella🍁 20:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That justifies "sleeper" but their editing history appears to be over a wide variety of topics. I wouldn't argue with someone who called them disruptive and suggested a topic ban but a SPA they are not (even if we are only looking at their 2022 edits). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back There is a history related to an extreme harassment of VM by new sleeper and sock-puppet accounts. I’ll not go into it now. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Above does note refer to @Ostalgia - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And what the heck does that have to do with whether or not the account is SPA? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made edits more or less on a yearly basis since creating my account, but never in a sustained manner. I eventually got hooked by this event because it's an area I'm more or less familiar with in a professional capacity. I focus on topics mostly related to history (while avoiding stuff too closely related to my specific area of research, so as to not fall into a conflict of interest) and I have tried to steer clear of anything even remotely linked to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, with the except of a paragraph on my article on the Ochakovo brewery in which I mentioned the brands they introduced, after the war resulted in an exodus of foreign companies. Since you're parroting the same accusation as Volunteer Marek, and for you It's obvious, I would like for you to tell me a) what is wrong with me not having been as active on this encyclopedia until an event caught my eye and b) what my single purpose is. Alternatively, you can retract your accusations of me being a SPA and a sockpuppet. Ostalgia (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ostalgia Done - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated, although it's hard to assume it doesn't refer to me when it literally has my name. I'm not picky, though. Ostalgia (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A "new" user making Russian nationalist-like edits is reverted, rightly. Comes to ANI to complain. Seems like a rebound is in order, of a topic-ban at the very least. ValarianB (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but if adhering to WP:KYIV, MOS:ETHNICITY and MOS:PLACE is "Russian nationalist-like" then we've all lost the plot here. Ostalgia (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek following other editors to the point of WP:HARASSMENT? I'm afraid this may be a recurring behaviour. I know this is completely useless, but what can you do? So here are few diffs:

1. 03:00, 3 December 2022 I create a new article Ruslan Kotsaba, "the article is still incomplete and I will finish it in the next few days". From 18:47, 3 December 2022 to 19:15, 3 December 2022 VM makes 17 consecutive edits (!) with massive removals of sources and texts. I spend hours cleaning up the mess and bickering with him and his retinue.
2. 19:35, 6 December 2022-10:15, 7 December 2022 I restore, update and expand the section on language rights (5 edits). 07:28, 12 December 2022 VM removes the whole section. It will take lengthy discussions with the usual load of personal attacks [49] to reach a consensus on the highly reduced and revised text published at 02:31, 14 December 2022 by Masebrock.
3. 15:08, 13 December 2022 I add text and source (Amnesty) to the very sketchy lead. 17:15, 13 December 2022 VM reverts "Per talk, obvious POV and lack of balance". Human rights in Ukraine remains without a lead.
4. 12:28, 30 December 2022 I remove tag:cn and vague/unsubstantiated reference to "Russian media" citing favourably Katchanovski's theory. 05:31, 31 December 2022 VM removes four references (Ishchenko, Sakwa, Cohen, Moniz Bandeira) citing favourably Katchanovski's theory: "remove some of the usual flat fringe and conspiracy theorists". Eventually a well-researched paragraph on the reception (supporters and critics) of Katchanovski's theory is removed due to lack of consensus.
5. 15:50, 6 January 2023 I add content and sources about Roger Waters being listed in the Myrotvorets database of "enemies of Ukraine". 20:12, 7 January 2023 VM reverts "Really not significant".

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gitz6666 popping into any discussion that involves me despite having been asked multiple times to stop WP:STALKing me? I’m afraid this is recurring behavior. The best part is how he, who’s been following me around for several months now, is coming here to complain about supposedly me following someone else around. You just can’t make this up. Volunteer Marek 05:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god. Human rights in Ukraine remains without a lead. You. JUST. Removed most of the text from the lede yourself literally seconds before coming here to post your accusations [50]. So let's see. You remove most of the text from the lede. Then you immediately run over here and try to make it seem like the fact that this article "remains without a lead" is somehow my fault? Is this typical of your approach to editing the encyclopedia and involving yourself in disputes Gitz6666? Volunteer Marek 05:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if WP:HOUNDING applies to noticeboard discussions such as the current one and the recent discussion on Issues with civility regarding Volunteer Marek, in which you most recently accused me of WP:STALKing you. As Levivich noted, you don't complain about wikistalking when GizzyCatBella joins your discussions or when My very best wishes joins (by the way, for some reason he hasn't yet commented here: shall we ping him? My mistake, he had already commented here below. Thank goodness). I'm disappointed because I hoped you had appreciated my silence in this discussion at 3RR/N about your edit war in April 2022 (result: page protected) and in this discussion about your edit war and aggressive talk in October 2022.

Anyway, I don't stalk you. If I talk here and elsewhere about your behaviour, I know it's irritating and I'm sorry, but I don't do it to spoil your pleasure in editing here or to create annoyance. And I don't follow you from place to place: on the contrary, sometimes I try to avoid you, as I've done in your reign of terror at Sevastopol [51]. And I must insist: I'm pretty sure that your behaviour at Ruslan Kotsaba and also at Roger Waters and possibly at Ivan Katchanovski as well were all cases of you wikihounding me. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC); edited 17:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I don't stalk you. Gitz6666. You keep a blacklist/attackpage on me in your sandbox which you periodically update. Yeah, you're stalking me. This is as transparent as your recent attempt to remove most of the lede of an article and then try to blame me for it [52]. Volunteer Marek 18:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My recent revert at Human rights in Ukraine is based on the same reason I gave in the talk page discussion here [53] and in my edit summary here [54] after you had reverted my last attempt to engage in cooperative editing with Adoring nanny and others and to write a decent lead [55]. Apparently Human rights in Ukraine is a highly contested topic, with its powerful conciseness and abruptness, pretty much says everything there is to say on the topic, or at least everything we are able to say, as it reflects the lack of consensus that has emerged from this disappointing and unproductive discussion I opened on the talk page. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I liked your old signature more. Why did you change it? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You removed most of the lede from the article. Seconds later you came here and tried to falsely blame me for the fact that the article had only one sentence for a lede. You know people can read, right? Volunteer Marek 18:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just address the "17 consecutive edits (!)" part, because I had to stop there: Why does the number of consecutive edits matter? Wikipedia isn't edited in one-person time-alotted editing sessions where people take turns. You added content to Wikipedia, he selectively removed some of your additions while giving his reasons in summaries, and then instead of discussing it with him, and coordinating the effort, you mass-reverted him while also saying how you are "going to address the issues raised" yourself (you hadn't even provided a reason for why you disagree with his changes in the summary), as if you have some privileged role in deciding how the article will be worked on. You then complained on the talk page how it took you three hours to review his edits and respond to them, which you did at some length on the talk page, starting a whole series of sections, while also accusing him of "obstructing [your] work on the article". Basically, none of this is terrible, but his edits were normal and you could have responded to them much more "economically", in terms of the amount of reverting and talking required to get to the same end result. —Alalch E. 01:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should have done a blind revert. It was a herculean effort of AGF on my part to address each and everyone of his comments, especially because a fair share of them - let's say 2/3 - where completely groundless, and when I say "completely" I mean they were not the kind of things where different views are possible. To that end, to address all of them, on the 4 December I opened no less than 6 threads on the t/p and gave detailed answers to his edit summaries. At the end the talk page was like this - please, have a look [56]. I did my best to reply to his comments and restore the materials he had removed. And what were the reasons for this? The reason was that he had removed a mention to Kotsaba from the article Human rights in Ukraine [57] (a fellow editor and registred user had already vandalized Kotsaba's name and made it Kotsababy). I became curious about who this prisoner of conscience "Kotsababy" was, I researched it, wrote an article about it, announced it on the talk page [58] and what did I get? instead of some cooperation, I got 17 disruptive edits plus the tag:notability [59] on the page. Yep, I think it borders on harassment. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no. And how many times have I asked you to stop following my edits? Four times? Five times? Trying to accuse others of "harassment" as a deflection tactic really takes some chutzpah. Volunteer Marek 08:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Behavior that looks driven by following an editor is hounding and should be addressed. Even if it's just to admonish then to "stop doing that" which IMO (admittedly just from a read of this thread, not an in-depth research) is appropriate here. North8000 (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t follow them. All articles are on my watchlist. All were, as already pointed out by other editors here and elsewhere, bad edits. They were all of the same nature. Volunteer Marek 05:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems that main purpose of some edits by Ostalgia (such as [60] or [61]) was replacing Kyiv by Kiev. Well, this is Kyiv now, that was established during a big RfC. Please respect WP:Consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not consensus for historical topics. Quote: "For unambiguously historical topics (e.g. Kiev Offensive), do not change existing content." In other words, it wasn't Kyiv then, so don't fix what isn't broken. Next time, read the policy you cite. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 07:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I see. WP:KIEV says: "For unambiguously historical topics (e.g. Kiev Offensive), do not change existing content." But that is not what Ostalgia does. In two diffs above she substitutes names that are currently common names or correctly transliterated names (e.g. Makhnivka, Khmilnyk Raion, Vinnytsia Oblast in first diff or Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv in 2nd diff) by other (Russian) names. This goes against WP:COMMON NAME. My very best wishes (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  First of all, MOS:PLACE instructs us to avoid anachronism, so for consistency I tend to use the historical name of locations. For instance, Sacher Masoch was born in Lemberg, and Liubomyr Vynar in Lwów, not in Lviv, even though it's the same city. You'll also note it was Marek who reintroduced Makhnovka (Komsomolske Village) to the infobox, not because of any love for the Soviet period, mind you, but because he just insta-reverted whatever I did without even checking (I had made the same mistake myself in my previous edit, in fairness). Same with changing the name of the university - given that the sentence is about a historian studying the university at the time Antonovych worked there, I used the name the university had at the time. Alternatively, you can continue to cast aspersions that I'm some sort of "Russian nationalist" and just ignore anything else. Ostalgia (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see: Avoid anachronism. An article about Junípero Serra should say he lived in Alta Mexico, not in California, because the latter entity did not yet exist in Serra's time.. But the entities in the diffs did exist in previous times, this is different. Whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is it different? To use the example above, in 1836 the official name for the city of Lviv was Lemberg, as part of the Habsburg Empire, and in 1932 it was officially Lwów, as part of Poland. The city existed, yes, but not the entity, just like the territory of what is now France also existed at the time of the Romans, but the country (the entity), France, did not. I would also appreciate it if you didn't edit messages after they've been replied to. Ostalgia (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[citation needed]. I don’t believe that is true.  —Michael Z. 00:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by citation needed, but my point is that a city is not just a location marked by coordinates but a place that is also (and is fundamentally) a political entity with officially defined boundaries, an official name, within (and with) a political structure, etc., and that is what we list. Ostalgia (talk) 08:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean “the entity did not exist” is something you made up, and as far as I know reliable sources don’t say anything like it. They might tell you the official name of the city was changed, but even that is an oversimplification, only indications that a national or imperial government took control that uses a different language, and not even necessarily the one used in local government. Lviv’s name hasn’t changed during its existence, and its residents continue saying Lviv, Lwów, Lemberg, and Lvov depending on the language they’re using.

Elsewhere you’ve tried to use a version of this entity business saying that Ukraine did not exist to justify ignoring reliable sources and wiping out Ukrainian identity. It is offensive colonial nonsense, echoing Putin’s essay and speeches inciting genocide in Ukraine. —Michael Z. 15:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its not different at all... If you want edits to condemn the OP with these are not them. They actually look better and better the deeper we dive into this, which is IMO not what normally happens at ANI. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's really off-putting to have wasted 3 weeks of my life (back in September-October) dealing with Marek and his accusations, not wanting to do it again, and after posting this have him come here to repeat his accusations of me being a sockpuppet and a SPA "sleeper" and see a handful of people pop up and repeat that, and even worse, cheer him on in his fight against "Russian nationalism", without even checking what I did or why I did it. I get the impression that it's always easier to just side with the guy who has a lot of edits against the guy with <1k edits assuming the latter is in the wrong, which granted, might in general be the case, but isn't necessarily so.

Anyone who accuses me of being a "Russian nationalist", a "Putinist" or anything in that vein could check that, among other things, I have made significant contributions to the article on Drahomanov, and minor edits to the university named after him. I also made major additions to the article on Ukrainian jurist Ioaniky Malinovsky, basically doubling it in size and linking it to other articles, and helped clean up the article on the Skoropadskys, as well as dealing with presumably pro-Russian unexplained removals of content from the Brotherhood of Cyril and Methodius. I have added the Ukrainian version of the name of several historical subjects who were Ukrainian or relevant to Ukrainian history: [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], and even did so for Kuindzhi, where I was later involved in a talk page discussion with Mzajac (because I disagree with labelling him Ukrainian, but I do not disagree with his relevance to present-day Ukraine and Ukrainian art and culture) before Marek decided to just come and revert my edits out of the blue. As stated above, I have tried to work within the policies/guidelines that I'm familiar with, and while people can still disagree with my edits (that's always a possibility), I find the accusations levelled by these users to be absurd and irksome. Ostalgia (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I striked through my comment. To be honest, I did not really think about it. So, for example, one city (Saint Petersburg) should appear under three different names on the same page, depending on the period of time it was mentioned. My very best wishes (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It potentially could, yes. And even if the person was maybe born in St. Petersburg in, say, 1910, and died in St. Petersburg in 1995, in between he could've studied at the Leningrad State University, which should be labelled as such and not as St. Petersburg State University, or Saint Petersburg Imperial University, or Petrograd Imperial University. Ostalgia (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are 3 different names of the same city on one page. Looking at 4 diffs you brought to this complaint, I can see discussion on talk page of only one of them (and the matter has been resolved on talk!). So, I would simply recommend opening a discussion on talk of every page where you have a disagreement, prior to bringing a complaint to ANI. My very best wishes (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what concrete diff you're referring to, but as mentioned here, I once made the mistake of opening a talk page discussion and pinging Marek for his input. It ended in a three week edit war and talk page shitfest in which I was accused of a lot of stuff, where he refused to even look at my sources, and from which he disappeared after he received no support from any other editor only to pop up 10 days later with the same accusations and the same attitude, and continued trying to edit war. Months later he still accuses me of the same things, as can be seen on this same discussion, and I believe that is why he just blindly reverted me on these 4 pages. I am not prepared to go through the same process again, having neither the time, the effort or the patience. Ostalgia (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is what I mean. You made nine reverts on page Theodosius Dobzhansky without talking, most recently this [69] where you said yourself in summary "Millionth +1 revert". Were you right by making such reverts? No, you were wrong - in terms of behavior and even probably in terms of content - see my comment on talk. To resolve the dispute, you must start a discussion, like I did [70]. My very best wishes (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am aware of the way that works, but you'll find that a) there's a 2011 (!) attempt to start a discussion on the topic with zero replies (it's a low traffic page after all), pointing out why the current description is ok, b) I have provided more detailed descriptions of the edits, justifying it with arguments often taken from that attempt at a discussion and c) most of the changes are introduced by IP users or accounts that go dormant immediately after their edit and who do not engage in any manner whatsoever. I resorted to more laconic/despairing edit comments after the futility of trying to engage with them became evident (you can see I asked editors to at least read previous edit summaries) but even in the diff you mention I explain the reasoning behind the revert, some of which echo the arguments presented in the 2011 post.

  Fundamentally, however, the issue is that I tried to go down that route with Marek when there was a content dispute, to no avail. In this case I do not even believe there is a content dispute, it's just him chasing and blindly reverting to trigger me even against policy, and I'm not ready to waste time and peace of mind in a gruelling fruitless discussion-into-edit war with him again. Ostalgia (talk) 07:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I have restored Kiev when dealing with historical topics only, and if My very best wishes had stopped his combing of my edits in October instead of September he might've found this message correcting a fellow editor for disparaging the use of Kyiv in an edit summary. Ostalgia (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this diff shared by Ostalgia [71] shows that perhaps they are not nationalist POV pushers after all, and this diff [72] with Volunteer Marek restoring the Soviet "Makhnovka (Komsomolske Village)" is also surprising. WP:KYIV suggests that in some cases there may be room for reasonable disagreement and discussion. Since VM was not just enforcing policy, perhaps he should have been more careful about the content dispute.

With regard to WP:HOUNDING, however, I'm not sure the issue has been adequately addressed. I've checked and can confirm that VM had never edited before at Volodymyr Antonovych, Aleksey Alchevsky, Mikhail Tugan-Baranovsky and Arkhip_Kuindzhi. Could you please tell us VM why these figures of historical interest where in your WL? Or did you follow Ostalgia because you thought they were disruptive? Everyone can make mistakes from time to time and if one apologises maybe nothing too serious has happened. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that you don't need to have edited a page to add it to your watchlist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gitz, for you to demand an apology from someone who did nothing wrong, while there's a proposal for a topic ban for you on the table really takes the cake. Volunteer Marek 22:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang for Gitz6666

• A boomerang for Gitz6666 should be strongly considered; I think this discussion and their contributions and attitudes in talk discussions show they have significant behavioral issues related to WP:PA, WP:POV, WP:IDHT, WP:BATTLEGROUND. From information they've posted to their user page, I think they've had similar issues on other wikis that have resulted in community action and now they are here.  // Timothy :: talk  18:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a topic ban for Gitz6666 from the Ukrainian-Russian conflict broadly construed and a warning to be more careful in the topic area for VM and Ostalgia with an emphasis on AGF and civility. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite surprised by your view, Horse Eye's Back. Where did I make personal attacks on Volunteer Marek or anyone else around here? I believe his behaviour is uncivil and disruptive, but I've raised the issue only at the appropriate noticeboards and have tried to avoid being unnecessarily offensive in doing so. I don't follow his edits. Plus, I've always complied with WP:NPOV in that I'm not a pro-Russian user, as shown by many of my edits (e.g., a few days ago this one [73]). And I am a productive editor, meaning that I've added a lot of content and sources to the EE area articles: nearly 1/3 of War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which is a huge amount of work.

Volunteer Marek, on the other hand, in his long career has certainly done far more for the encyclopedia than I have, but on countless occasions he has been rude towards me and other users during talk page discussions and in the edit summaries. It's quite likely that he occasionally follows mine and other users' edits. In the EE area, he is openly an anti-Russian POV-pusher and always has been (at least since 2010 at WP:EEML). His work here is not so much adding content and sources as removing content, sources and users that do not fit his POV. And he performs this task in close cooperation with other users. Under these circumstances, it is hard to justify a topic ban for me and a warning for him.

However, do what you think is right: as I once said to Volunteer Marek [74] nobody really gets hurt. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the EE area, he is openly an anti-Russian POV-pusher and always has been You might want to strike that false personal attack (and probably some of the other WP:ASPERSIONS you make above) Volunteer Marek 22:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban aligning with Horse Eye's suggestion. Its seeming more and more inevitable that it would come to this, as this issue keeps popping up and has been brought up by multiple other editors as diff'd by VM (03:58, 11 January). I worry that the more times a topic ban for Gitz6666 is mentioned but unactioned the more times our eyes will glaze over the concept every subsequent time we see it. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Beyond the topic ban though, I think Gitz6666 is losing sight of the purpose of the project as seen through their attitude. This diff, curiously provided above by Gitz6666 themselves, seems to be an attempt to elevate themselves and show maturity. But I can't be the only one who looks at that comment and is shocked at the held double standard (Only I know myself but I know you too), unwillingness to accept suggestion (anyone who disagrees is categorically wrong or non-neutral), and conviction to get VM sanctioned in some way (I've done my best to expose the way you behave and will continue to ask the community to uphold its policies). Finally, their statement of If in the process I get topic banned or blocked [...] I'll work on other projects and I'll be content with myself has interesting implications when connected with their user page section on their previous blocks on other wikis. Even assuming that they won't again block-evade or use socks, I think their willingness to get banned/blocked and just go somewhere else to start the process over again raises questions of why Gitz6666 is here. Taking a block over preferred content isn't good, but its constructive in spirit at least, but taking a block because you want to powerbomb another user with you is another thing entirely. Because I hope this is the result of a slow (if perhaps repeated) mental shift and not a conscious decision, I'd like to call Gitz6666 to ask themselves verbatim if they are still here to build an encyclopedia. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The suggestion of a topic ban for Ukraine-Russia related topics for Gitz6666 has come up several times before (more or less every time this winds up at ANI): [75] [76] [77] [78]
• Also, Gitz is now using his sandbox to "send" personal attacks to me indirectly [79] [80]. Volunteer Marek 03:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, two of the diffs you shared showing users who call for my topic ban come from the same user, and another user changed their mind and said so explicitly in the very same discussion you're quoting from [81], so it's unfair to share what they said and then retracted.
  • Could you please stay away of my sandboxes? Often I write drafts of comments that I'm not sure I want to post and contents that I'm not sure I want to publish; after a few hours or days, I re-read them and decide with a cool head whether they are worth sharing or not. Since you've already shared my comment, there's no reason to keep it in the sandbox: I'll post it here below. It is absurd to interpret it as an indirect way of sending personal attacks. If it is a personal attack, which I don't believe it is, you will now have it openly expoused in the discussion; you can read and ponder it. I was replying to your comment You might want to strike that false personal attack (here at 22:41, 10 January 2023)

  Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You might be right, I can't read your mind. But there must be a forum where editors can express their concerns about the behaviour of other editors, and this looks like the right place to me. Since you have accused everyone of being pro-Russian propagandists, and you've done it everywhere (edit summaries and talk page discussions), you won't get too upset if someone tells you here, in the appropriate place, that you are an anti-Russian POV-pusher, will you?

  I could be wrong, but I sincerely believe this is the case. We've interacted closely in the EE area for many months now and I'm entitled to an opinion. I first formed that opinion when I saw you deny that shooting Russian prisoner of war in the legs should be described as "torture" [82] [83][84] and I have never had a reason to change it since. Admittedly you also make good contributions to the encyclopedia and sometimes you've been right and I've been wrong (e.g. about including the mistreatment of maurauders and migrants in the article on war crimes), so you're also helpful in your own way. But you're a POV pusher, no doubt, and an edit warrior, and you're also prone to personal attacks and incivility. This is a matter of concern for the community, since every month there is a discussion about you on the various noticeboards, and the case of Ostalgia is quite telling: you probably targeted them based on their username (Ostalgie) and a couple of their edits you had misunderstood Nationalist editing may be inevitabile, but is disruptive and must be contained.

  Having said that, I have said it all. I will never discuss your behaviour again in general terms. I mean, obviously if I don't get banned; if I do get banned, I won't even have the opportunity to discuss your specific behaviours. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Why are you surprised by Horse Eye's Back view? This is the view of one of our best administrators. I wouldn’t be surprised at all. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban for Gitz6666. This has gone on long enough and the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problems are continuing and ongoing (see for example here, pretty much a textbook case). Volunteer Marek 14:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DISRUPTIVE, WP:NOTHERE, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. This user created several articles which per WP:DOIT were merged for failing WP:GNG but he unmerged them [85][86][87][88][89], leaving the content in their targets; after another user merged them again time he unmerged them a second time [90][91][92][93][94], insisting that others users resort to the talk page but never doing so himself. He then nominated an article I created for deletion, which several users consider to have been purely retaliatory [95]. He thrice added content that does not match the information contained with the sources he cited, even after two different users reverted them, always insisting that others should use the talkpage [96][97][98]. He twice reinstated content after it had been removed by two different users, always insisting that others should start the disscussion, but never doing so himself [99][100]. He obviously doesn't care about consensus or proper procedure, only that his changes stick no matter what. I'm hoping for a resolution. Wareno (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure what's up with this user User talk:90.254.56.9 contribs (almost no contribs, so guessing it was so egregious they were all revdelled or it's the IP associated with a socking named acct). But their edits in the last few minutes look like an intent to be disruptive. Would someone mind making the block full and longer to forstall whatever it is they are planning/playing at? This one [101] was especially weird. Also, could be a joe job, per User talk:331dot#User talk:90.254.56.9. Heiro 01:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait it out. I'm patient like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.254.56.9 (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The block may need expanded to a range, but the IP is siteblocked for 72 hours. As an added bonus, the partial rangeblock has been extended. —C.Fred (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch. Heiro 02:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know Jimbo's page is a bit of free for all by his own choice, but I do not appreciate being accused of White Supermacy for declining a draft that was resubmitted without attempting improvement.

Special:Diff/1132419847 - accusation of white supremacy Special:Diff/1132439834 - clarification that it was merely 'propping up white supremacy'.

Accusations of racism or any -ism are not the way to get content published. Slywriter (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you'd talked this out with him longer first, Sly. He's working in an area where documentation was often suppressed or obliterated, and his frustrations are understandable. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I am quite tolerant of editors blowing off steam, but accusing other editors of racism is over the line. His frustrations with sources or lack thereof are not an excuse to accuse others in 2023 of engaging in the same. Slywriter (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also to the extent content is relevant, sourcing was not the issue. The low effort to summarize those sources and leave editors guessing on notability caused the decline. So, obliterated sources were not relevant here. Slywriter (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FloridaArmy has been fighting (non-disruptively to this point) for more coverage of 18th/19th/early 20th century African American people and related entities (like towns and schools), but most of his interactions to discuss this are at Jimmy's talk page, and rarely elsewhere. Due to attitudes they have taken before (trying to make lots of stubby articles that likely fail notability), FA is under a restriction to go through AFC, which as one can see at the present discussion on Jimmy's page, is sorta a double whammy due to AFC's typical approach alongside how FA tends to write. Now, while they have been bitter about this, this most recent discussion is the first I really have seen them calling out flat out racism on WP's part (though that could be read between the lines before). So while I do agree this is blowing off steam, this is part of a cycle we've seen with FA and that while they are trying to work improve WP in this topic area (an important one) they don't seem to be taking advice as to avoid AFC rejection problems. Masem (t) 04:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate FA's research and flagging articles that may benefit from other editors' input, and I have acted on their prompts on several occasions and, IMO, we've improved the project. They especially leave record of potential sources that could be used. We do have representation/bias issues that are an issue, and AfC is backlogged. That said, the state FA leaves stubs in sometimes leaves a lot of work for subsequent editors and reviewers, so there's probably improvement that could happen somewhere. A ban is not the solution and wholly oppose that or any further restriction. Star Mississippi 05:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Am I missing the part where you're mentioned in that comment? Is that because the Waters article was used as an example and you're the one that rejected it? Because FloridaArmy's general comment about a blatant racist bias in what articles are approved or supported on Wikipedia is 100% correct. As for Waters Edward Turpin, this source, which was cited in the article at the time of AfC submission, should have been all that was needed to meet the requirements of AfC. It would not fail at AfD with that source alone, not to mention this one as well in the draft at the time. So, at least on the merits of that specific draft being used as an example by FloridaArmy, you absolutely failed at your due diligence as an AfC reviewer. Silverseren^C 04:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As being discussed at Jimmy's page, there are a whole, independent set of problems with the current state of AFC, where quantity has to excel over quality to deal with backlogs, and AFC reviewers simply don't have the perceived time to properly review sources, which directly affects FA but is not limited to just FA. That's a wholly separate discussion being had at Jimmy's page right now. Masem (t) 05:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  How is that source independent? It's literally titled "Waters Turpin: I Knew Him Well" and is a first-person account of the author's relationship with the subject. Biographies of people written by their associates do not contribute to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Academic obituaries are frequently written by a colleague of the person. And they are among the highest quality of source on a biography subject. You should read the source. It discusses his life and history, information that the author would not know first hand. Because this is an actual scholarly piece. Silverseren^C 04:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  First-person, non-independent academic obituaries are not acceptable as evidence of GNG even if they're valuable as RS for filling out biography details or may be used to meet NPROF. The point is to demonstrate a subject has received coverage that is not a product of the author of the coverage having a pre-existing relationship with the subject; containing some details that were researched by the author rather than provided directly from the subject doesn't make it independent. Otherwise we could just throw out NPOV and have an article based solely on a biography written by the spouse or child of a subject. JoelleJay (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There are several points to disentangle here: Yes, the academic obituary written by a colleague is, strictly speaking, not an independent source. But the fact that the subject of the obituary would be featured within the academic journal in the first place does point toward notability in the WP:NPROF sense. (Furthermore, obituaries and biographies published in academic journals are usually subject to editorial review prior to publication, so not quite the same thing as submitting an obituary for publication in a local newspaper.) Cielquiparle (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 1: Community Ban

• Community ban This behavior at Jimmy's talk page is typical of FloridaArmy. FloridaArmy is already under restriction, and yet, complains that those of us giving our time to editing are biased. This is unfair and I think, unreasonable. FloridaArmy is a burden for AfC volunteers and a net-negative for Wikipedia. I support a community ban. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• From what I've seen, many of those "giving their time" at AfC are incredibly bad at judging notability and I'm not surprised that FloridaArmy would get fed up with many of their articles getting rejected when they shouldn't have been. Waters Edward Turpin as I discussed above being just one example. Another example I was involved in being against a new user for Mahnaz Malik, where this version was rejected despite having a large number of references in the draft directly about the subject. Oh, but they aren't template formatted, so I guess that's a failing requirement at AfC. Silverseren^C 05:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse what Silver seren says above regarding the poor ability of AFC volunteers to judging article's appropriateness for the main space. Too many subjects are rejected without any real oversight. Yes, if you reject everything, you also will eliminate the spam, but too often they err too far on rejecting appropriate articles. I can fully understand FA's frustration given that they see things like Draft:Clifton Conference get rejected, even though it cites a book length scholarly analysis and history of the conference. I mean, you can't get a better source than a full well-written book about the event, and it gets rejected out-of-hand. The kinds of bad analysis and moving goalposts of what it takes to get an article moved from Draft to mainspace is beyond frustrating for good faith editors who are actually doing it right and receiving no help. If you aren't smart enough to separate the corporate spam from good articles about historical events or the like, then maybe the entire venture needs to be shut down. Let the articles go through AFD like they used to, where at least we had many people discussing and analyzing the articles... --Jayron32 14:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• That book is by the organiser of the event, it basically is the same as some conference publishing the "proceedings of the conference" afterwards. To claim that "you can't get a better source" ignores the complete lack of independence that source has. Reviewers have again and again asked for good independent sources at that particular draft, bashing the AfC people while totally ignoring this crucial aspect is not helpful. Fram (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is also very much worth noting that it took me only a few moments to find a large number of good sources and that the topic is clearly notable and if it had been created by another person (or on a topic with a larger fan base around here) it wouldn't have even been discussed anywhere. The decision to reject it was, objectively, harmful to the encyclopedia - and I am not casting aspersions on the person who rejected it, but rather commenting on a broken process and situation. It is not the wiki way to demand fully-formed perfection in a valid stub article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So why do we spend collectively so much time on an editor who after years and years is apparently still not able to find this "large number of good sources"? As described below, FloridaArmy seems unable to make the distinction between good and bad sources, or to accurately distill facts from the sources he does find. Their approach seems to be a hit-and-miss scraping of unrelated trivia into something resembling an article, often missing the most basic facts (e.g. here their article, which you claim was "objectively harmful" to keep it out of the mainspace, made it sound as if the conference was a one-off 1908 event, when even in the sources they did find we can read "From 1901 to 1908, Hartshorn convened what was known as the Clifton Conference"[102]]. If you need recent sources, try this, or a long paragraph here, and a lot more here. Fram (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the ban proposal. FloridaArmy is a net positive to the encyclopedia. Either ignore their hostile posts to User talk:Jimbo Wales, or partially block them from User talk:Jimbo Wales. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose community ban FloridaArmy has contributed a massive amount of useful content to this encyclopedia. Yes, they take an inclusionist stance regarding African-American topics and are sometimes wrong. But they are writing a lot of drafts that do get accepted to the encyclopedia, and Jimbo has welcomed their venting about institutional racism on his talk page. I think that the editor may sometimes engage in rhetorical excess, but it is also true that we need to do a much better job of dealing with systemic bias. We can do that without banning a dissident who sometimes complains on Jimbotalk, but also inspires us to refocus on a genuine problem. Cullen328 (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I second all of this. I hope that FA will stop what you call "rhetorical excess" in no small part because it leads to people not being able to hear his legitimate concerns. Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose further sanctions I agree with Cullen328. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1071#User:FloridaArmy and accusations of racism and white supremacy, with the exact same issues. Rather surprisingly (to me), then and now most editors here don't seem to have an issue with an editor claiming again, and again, and again, that their drafts get rejected because of racism and white supremacy, even though all their drafts get about the same rejection rate, no matter the subject: this is caused by their usually terrible articles, and some too critical AfC reviewers. See e.g. Draft:Sandfield Cemetery, which mixes information about two different cemeteries (same name, different state). An accepted article like Richard Falkner (politician) has three sentences, which just state the very same thing again and again. Draft:Willis Robards is rejected despite not being about an African American subject. Draft:Jack Clifford (actor) has been rejected 5 times, by four reviewers, over the course of two years. It isn't about an African-American subject though. Perhaps FloridaArmy should stop ranting and flinging about wild accusations, and simply improve their work? Fram (talk) 09:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support community ban. An editor continually implying their fellow editors are racist without very strong evidence is not a net positive period. Systemic bias is a real thing that is significantly affecting Wikipedia in a negative way and so something we need to find ways to counter but accusing everyone and sundry is not one if the ways. It is actually extremely harmful to attempts to counter systemic bias since it understandably pisses nearly everyone affected off and is unlikely to make them consider ways they can reduce systemic bias. All that offensive posts like FA ones do is inspire editors to hate everything they stand for and dislike the parts of the community that allows such offensive comments to stand even when we know we shouldn't and that some of their goals and our fellow editors who tolerate such nonsense do good work. So they do not inspire us to do better in any way whatsoever, nor cause us to focus on anything positive for the community except the possibility of sanctions for the offender FA which while it is a positive is still a silly waste of time when FA could just stop us needing to focus on sanctioning them. Note that it perfectly possible to be inclusionist for any topic without accusing other editors of racism without evidence. It is also possible to get extremely frustrated and to let the frustration show in somewhat acceptable ways without accusing others of racism. Nil Einne (talk) 09:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Failing a cban, I would encourage anyone who feels they have been or might be falsely accused of racism or otherwise have to put up with too much nonsense to simply ignore any AfCs from FA if that's the only solution. If that results in FA's AfCs languishing I see no harm in that. A back log is less important than editor well being and we can find ways to avoid FA's AfCs overwhelming queues etc if need be. FA would still be free to improve existing articles instead if they find they've defacto banned themselves from article creation. I would strongly oppose any attempts to lift their AfC requirement simply because they alienated all reviewers. Nil Einne (talk) 10:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No community ban (yet), but I think FA should simply be informed that admins will block him for increasing periods every time he insinuates that other editors are being racist or displaying white supremacism, even if that incivility is not aimed at specific editors, but groups of them. I asked FA to redact the diff that the OP has (quite justifiably) complained about - of course they have not done that, and even continued to throw even stronger aspersions about. Regardless of any perceived unfairness, this is not acceptable, and it needs to stop. Black Kite (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Cullen. --Jayron32 14:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose sanctions per Cullen. I will also note that personal accusations of white supremacist motives are very different than systemic allegations, and we should have a very high tolerance for the latter. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative oppose per Black Kite. A ban of any sort is a last resort, and I don't think we've reached that point. With that said, WP:CIVILITY is non-negotiable, and there are no circumstances where violating it is necessary or beneficial to creating an encyclopedia. This has now become a pattern, and I think it would be reasonable for this ANI thread to be regarded as a final warning. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Per Cullen. I don't want to see FloridaArmy sanctioned further when they're a net positive to Wikipedia. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose - railing against the system and the rules that sustain it is not a blockable offense. It might be uncomfortable to some to hear that we are contributing to a project that (at least on en.wiki) reflects and reinforces the status quo of White supremacy, but it's true because we are a WP:TERTIARY source that reflects an institutionally white supremacist society. If FA wishes to vent on a page that is, for all intents and purposes, a bathroom stall wall, then that's fine by me as long as they don't personally attack individuals. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I find literally nothing wrong in anything FloridaArmy wrote on Jimbo's page, and wholeheartedly agree with the comment I understand facing our institutional bigotry is upsetting and disconcerting. I dont think FloridaArmy actually is insinuating that other editors are being racist or displaying white supremacism, you can uphold a system without even realizing you are doing so. nableezy - 18:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose community ban on these grounds. There are issues with FA's conduct (and also issues with how we as a community treat them) but I am fundamentally opposed to treating accusations of bias as a bannable offense, especially when it has been clarified that they are not claiming any particular malice on anyone's part, just that their actions end up leading to a biased Wikipedia. Are they right? Maybe, maybe not. Could they phrase things more politely? Probably. Should they try to make higher quality articles rather than thousands of stubs? I'd certainly prefer it. But this has absolutely nothing to do with whether banning them for this will create an encyclopedia where people feel less safe pointing out such issues in the future, which I think it very likely will. Rusalkii (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose. And if I'm blunt, the proposal itself is pretty silly, under these facts. I'm going to be the latest of a series of editors opposing the suggestion of a sanction here who preface that perspective by acknowledging that FA's general approach in this situation is suboptimal, to say the least. The wall of text rants are not helping their case and feels as much generated for polemic purposes (or at least venting) rather than useful editorial discussion likely to move the needle.

But nothing they said was actionable, or even really objectionable. Yes, their reasoning in the discussion in question lacks nuance, and could maybe even be called histrionic. Certainly their approach is more combative than productive there. But let's look at what they really said: they didn't imply that any editor was white supremacist. They weren't even looking primarily to apply the title to a given BLP subject. They merely said that certain actions (and here I get the sense they were implying the inclusion of inadvertent actions) can have the outcome of enhancing the effects of ideas or activities arising out of white supremacist movements. And there's nothing particularly controversial about that, even if there is a lot to be wanted for, in terms of the rhetoric FA utilizes in trying to bring attention to that fact.

Furthermore, it's not like this was WP:Disruptive in the context. They were not on a talk page or other editorial space where WP:TPG applies, but rather in a space that has long been one of our open forums for discussing broader community policy, good practice, priorities, and, yes, even editorial philosophy. If we start sanctioning every editor who feels they have occasion to imply implicit bias in how we are operating relative to a given encyclopedic subject, we are going to be at it for a long while, and I don't think we will be much improved for the changes to our community (both in terms of remaining active editors and the resulting overall neutrality of their views) when we came out the other side.

No, a sanction is not something that is needed here. Don't get me wrong, and let me reiterate, there is a lot which implies an approach that is a little too POV driven in FA's case, and it's possible they are on a longterm course for a block on grounds of WP:PA/WP:TENDENTIOUSness somewhere down the line. But in terms of what has been presented here, we're miles away from anything that supports a community sanction. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Cullen. Lectonar (talk) 08:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly oppose. FA is by no means perfect, but they have received some very prejudicial treatment at times, so it seems horribly unfair to muzzle him from Jimbo's talk page, when Jimbo doesn't object. Jacona (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why does FloridaArmy always get a free pass?

• Starting a little subsection because while I don't think a community ban is necessarily warranted at this time, I'm growing tired of the "if you're countering systemic bias you are allowed to be a jerk" attitude which Florida Army thinks accommodates them and its worthy of some discussion. At this point this is serial WP:IDHT behavior. FA should know that the reason they were forced to create limited things through draft space is because their drive-by new stubs sucked from a quality standpoint (to the degree that GNG and other notability criteria are not easily established by a reviewer) and many of them are rejected today because they still suck. It is not because these are about black or African-American topics. I know this, you probably know this, why can't FA acknowledge this? Why does FA have all this time to accuse other people about racism but can't take another 10 minutes while building an article to add a cohesive paragraph, remove unrelated trivial fluff (like this guy served in a legislature which had black members or this secondary school had a sports coach who quit after his team didn't do so well, how are these at all relevant to the main subject?), fill in citations fully, remove basic spelling and grammatical errors, and not use primary and unreliable sources to push POV? Why are we okay with FA editing like a noob editor after having been a part of the project for years? How about a topic ban from Jimbo's talk page for a start like Robert suggested above. Ranting there clearly isn't helping FA focus on improving their work, and they are wasting the community's time, as evidenced by the fact that this is not the first discussion about this issue. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As I replied above, this is legitimately the first time that possible disruption from their editing due to bad faith, etc. has actually come up, and we're trying to back them off that ledge. Everything before has been voiced but maybe not the most articulate means to express their concern about this topic area (fair), and how they can get artilces into the system (which points out the AFC issues). None of that, short of requiring them to use AFC for article creation, is disruptive to the point of a full block or ban. Nor are they the type of editor (working in a particularly weak section of our topic coverage) that we'd want to lose. Masem (t) 13:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • And as I replied above, this is false, I raised the exact same issue at ANI already in June 2021, and there indicated that they were blocked two times already, for a weeek in October 2020 for "accusing an editor of "slurring murdered victims of White supremacy and enforce punishments on those who point it out", after multiple warnings to stop accusing editors of stuff like that without clear evidence", and for 24 hours in May 2021 for "Accusations against other editors of racist behavior". After these two blocks they stopped naming individual editors and just made it appear as if it was a common, recurring issue with their AfC rejections, basically brushing everyone who rejects their articles with the same white suprematism brush: this was the essence of the June 2021 ANI section, and is the essence of the current section. Fram (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Nor are they the type of editor (working in a particularly weak section of our topic coverage) that we'd want to lose. Begs the question, if they were working on video games, animated TV shows, or some other area, would they be defended? Is crying "b-but black people" a proper defense to being completely unpleasant? FA has been told on Jimbo's talk by other users several times (myself included) that their approach is not productive. I myself have offered them resources to help in their topic area, since it's a topic area I also sometimes work in. And despite being offered links to full editions of old black newspapers in North Carolina (which have a wealth of information in them), I can't recall them ever using any. Instead they prefer to attack AfC reviewers. FA expects writing articles on undercovered areas to be easy. It's not, and they should get over it. It took me a fair amount of time and effort to write James Hamlin, Calvin E. Lightner, and John W. Winters. And I accomplished all that without spewing frustration at other editors for not accommodating my mistakes and deficiencies. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      It seems the value people are arguing FA brings to WP is their focus on creating articles of any quality on underrepresented people...and yet, a bot could go through lists of mid-level officeholders and generate primary/non-independent-sourced stubs with more extensive and more accurate information. If just indiscriminately producing stubs on minorities (and given the rate and carelessness of submissions, I don't see how topic selection can be anything but superficial), regardless of the subject's notability, is all that is needed for us to pat ourselves on the back as systemic bias-reversing anti-white supremacy soldiers, then we have much better options available than FA. JoelleJay (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a cban from Jimbo's talk page. If Jimbo doesn't like it, tough. They're free to talk to FA on FA's talk page or use email or other means to stay in contact with FA. Note this is in addition to my support for a community site ban. I'd be happy with both passing since if FA comes back in the future perhaps the Jimbo ban will help ward them off their worst behaviour but I'm also unconvinced it's enough given the level of their problem. Nil Einne (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not agree and find this to be a very unkind and aggressive way to state your position. Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps it's time instead to take a more general look at your talk page and what is allowed there. Wikid77 made hundreds of edits to your talk page before being community banned for very racist comments made on Jimbotalk, and FloridaArmy has been blocked explicitly for severe NPA comments made on your talk page as well. Neither was, as far as I can tell, ever page banned by you, or explicitly warned, or dealt with in any other way reflecting the seriousness of the issues. Fram (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm not quite ready to take a stance on the particulars, but I would like some of the respected editors like Robert and Cullen328 above to point out to me where Wikipedia's civility rules are nullified as long as someone can wave a bloody flag and cry "But systemic bias!" Quite aside from the many editors who feel that Wikipedia policies and guidelines should no more be set aside to combat "systemic bias" than any other Great Wrong, we see a couple dozen editors a week at ANI (or RfC, or Arbcom matters) who claim that it's okay for them to edit war, or launch personal attacks, or make legal threats, or give the finger to notability guidelines, because, well, reasons. For the most part they get short shrift, and rightfully so. Ravenswing 11:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd like to answer but I can't speak for either Robert or Cullen328. First, I do not think that Wikipedia's civility rules should be nullified in this or any similar cases. I think it is perfectly appropriate for people to call out FloridaArmy if they are uncivil. But I also think that people in this particular case should read more carefully what he wrote. It is clearly uncivil to accuse a specific innocent editor of racism. It is clearly uncivil to accuse Wikipedians, or a large group of them, of being racist. But it is not at all uncivil to talk about institutional racism within Wikipedia. To quote from the Wikipedia entry Institutional Racism "Carmichael and Hamilton wrote in 1967 that while individual racism is often identifiable because of its overt nature, institutional racism is less perceptible because of its "less overt, far more subtle" nature.""

  Talking about institutional matters can be very uncomfortable and there is no question that FA gets upset and speaks inelegantly at times, which upsets people. That's not ok and needs to stop. But we must also confront the institutional questions. Identified here and well understood by many are issues around how AfC has completely different standards from the rest of the encyclopedia. What this means in terms of the crucial need for Wikipedia to grapple appropriately with difficult questions around sourcing for African American history (and many other topics relating to traditionally marginalized groups) is extremely important. Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a ban from Jimbo's talk page. For better or for worse, WP:JIMBOTALK really is a kind of de facto community noticeboard, particularly in the way FloridaArmy is using it. I think we should treat this similarly to how we would if FloridaArmy was disrupting the village pump or whatever else by posting this stuff there: A ban from the problem area, and a stern warning that their behaviour (particularly regarding the racism/white supremacy accusations) needs to improve. I don't see a siteban being necessary yet for an editor who still can be productive. Also, I agree with Nil Einne that if Jimbo doesn't like people being banned from his talk page, sorry, but tough luck. Endwise (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for a regular ban (can you even ban someone from a user talk page without the input of that user?) This user has a history of accusations of systemic and racial bias over a period of time, and does not seem to be letting up. If this community is so disagreeable to them, the they should be removed from it. ValarianB (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Are they wrong to point out the systemic biases of historical documentation, epistemology, and Wikipedia (as a tertiary source) being a reflection and reinforcement of that? EvergreenFir (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think what they said on Jimbo's page is that Wikipedia is just reflective of the systemic biases of historical documentation. It's more personal than that: "none of this is in policy it's bullshit propping up white supremacism". It's pretty clear from what they said that their ire is directed at the active choices made by editors, not that editors are playing out the cards handed to them by the systemically racist sources or WP structures. DeCausa (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  With all due respect, systemic racism requires voluntary (if not always self-consciously racist) participation by members of the system. Is Wikipedia systemically racist? I think so. I am a (small) part of that system. Does that mean I participate in that racism? Yes, it does. I like to think I try to be better, though. I think FA could certainly be more civil, but I think the topic is one worthy of examination. Dumuzid (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't disagree. But that's not that point I was responding to. DeCausa (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies for my lack of eloquence, but I was trying to point out that there is always going to be some overlap between active choices made by editors and systemic racism. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Again agreed! But I didn't see that in the comment I was responding to. DeCausa (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "none of this is in policy it's bullshit propping up white supremacism" This quote, if intended exactly how DeCausa used it above, seems to decry editors, calling what they are doing bullshit, as actively and intentionally propping up White Supremacy not systemic racism or bias as the result of following WP policy. That's a regrettable turn from claiming systemic racism on the part of organizational constructs to a very personal awareness and conscious choice of editors that oppose them to be racist and make decisions on Wiki to support that position despite policy. I can understand why the OP would be upset. --ARoseWolf 15:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I can understand that too. And I wish FA would be a bit more careful in their wording. But I guess I am fearful of protecting people from upset at the cost of honest introspection. As ever, reasonable minds may certainly differ, and I am happy to go wherever consensus leads. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  For the context, the quote came from this post (last sentence) and for further context was followed up with this post where FA denied they were calling anyone a white supremacist. DeCausa (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see any words in "none of this is in policy it's bullshit propping up white supremacism" that convey the meaning of "actively" or "intentionally". I also don't think it decries editors so much as it decries editors' decisions (that what "this" referred to: decisions made by editors about notability). Anyone who is railing against systemic anything is by proxy railing against the human beings that made the decisions that built and maintain the system... but it's not the same as calling editors active or intentional white supremacists. Calling the system white supremacist is fair game--and accurate, by the way. The West is white supremacist; Western institutions are white supremacist because they're Western; Wikipedia is white supremacist because it's a Western institution; all Western people "prop up", or support (passively and unconsciously), or enable, or perpetuate, the system of white supremacy, simply by virtue of their participating in it via their ordinary lives. Oppose all bans arising out of this commentary, because they don't (AFAICS) identify any individual editors and instead are commentary about systemic bias, which is, as I understand it, appropriate for Jimbotalk. I do understand why Sly would take offense, given that the comment specified a draft Sly declined, and I think FA should avoid such personalization when writing about systemic racism on Wikipedia. Levivich (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I first encountered this user when I declined one of their drafts which I thought was not notable. I was then directed to WP:NPOLITICIAN, however these individual notability guidelines aren't alternatives to GNG but instead supplements of GNG. So whenever I see one of their drafts I just leave it because I know it'll basically be accepted regardless because basically any politician they write about seems to fit NPOLITICIAN even if it fails GNG. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose - Why are we trying to dictate the content allowed on a user's talk page when it doesn't violate specific rules? If the user is ok with complaints of systemic racism and no personal attacks are occurring, then we have no business getting involved. Jimbo's talk page is opt-in. If you don't like it, remove yourself. This seems like an attempt to punish a user, not to stop disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• To be fair, if I had been on the end of I didn't suggest they are white supremacist. I stated that their actions prop up our white supremacist encyclopedia, which they do. I would have been pretty pissed off as well, as I'm sure anyone would have been. You can't blame the OP here. Black Kite (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Eh, it really would not have bothered me (see my unnecessary harangue of DeCausa above), but I will be the first to admit I am probably unusually self-deprecating. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To be honest, our actions on Wikipedia do "prop up our white supremacist encyclopedia". As do teachers (though toss in capitalist propaganda as well). Our history and knowledge is based in a White, Western ontological stances. I, for one, would not be insulted by a statement like that. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @EvergreenFir: Now imagine that the editor that FA said that to was actually non-white (he's got no idea whatsoever, and appears to think that every other editor is a white American). He effectively said that the editors who rejected his article at AfC did so because the subject was black, as opposed to the real reason that they rejected it, which was (rightly or wrongly) it was a poorly written stub which didn't assert notability very well. It's simply not acceptable. Black Kite (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I know I am a sociologist and we are often tendentious, but I would argue that the race of the editor does not matter when talking about institutional and systemic racism (cf Racism without Racists, Code of the Streets). Individuals within a system are part of that system, even if they resist against it. Marx argued the same about capitalism. Audre Lorde famously said "For the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change." You are welcome to disagree with this view, of course, but it's an established one.

  I imagine trying to establish notability of Black Americans from 100+ years ago by our Wiki standards would be torturous. Even in my discipline, W.E.B. Du Bois was not "rediscovered" as a "founding father" of sociology until the 1990s, despite his detailing of how Black folks were intentionally erased from history, were excluded from academia, were published in "non reputable" outlets, and were otherwise removed from the White mainstream. Black women were doubly so. I have sympathy for FA and can understand their vitriol toward Wiki's standards. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I am non-white, and I am totally fine with the statement directed at me. And no, I do not think that is what he said. What he said is that because the subject was rejected, and because subjects like that are routinely rejected, the system as a whole upholds white supremacy. You dont have to be racist or have a racist intent to participate in a system whose very structure is supremacist. I think the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia editors are against white supremacy, but that doesnt change the structure as a whole, like most structures in this world, has these biases. And the effect of the rejections of drafts like that is that this structure is sustained. That says nothing about motivation or even awareness of the effect. nableezy - 19:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Unless we're actually going to start indefinitely blocking FA from casting aspersions and unsubstantiated personal attacks every time he doesn't get his way, the least we can do is limit the disruption via other avenues such as this. Systemic bias doesn't mean you get to call other editors whatever derogatory names you want, on whichever page you want. That Jimbo doesn't moderate his page specifically doesn't mean the other Wikipedia policies go out the window too. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Just FYI, I do moderate my page and have specifically banned people from posting there from time to time. It is not a wild west. It would be easy to get the opposite impression from a lot of what has been written in this discussion.

  Traditionally, I do take a light hand, because I think it is important to have a venue for people to raise extremely difficult issues. A little heat is not my personal style (or I don't like it when I do it) but I also am able to take a deep breath and be patient with others, if I see an underlying basis of good will. Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It's pretty clear that that's where the disruption is. If people are concerned by the weirdness of the sanction, you could think of it as a community-imposed one-way IBAN on FA to Jimbo, or something like that. The community can do whatever it wants. casualdejekyll 18:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose a community ban as FloridaArmy's contributions are both important and needed. I also strongly oppose a ban from Jimbo's talk page per EvergreenFir unless Jimbo says otherwise. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 18:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Jimbo has explicitly opposed a ban from his talk page in his comments in this discussion. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - Is the supporting and opposing here of a topic-ban of posting to User talk:Jimbo Wales by FloridaArmy? I think that a closer will have to read the posts carefully to verify what each editor was supporting and opposing. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That is what I was supporting. I did not realize there was ambiguity there. Apologies. casualdejekyll 19:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems this has grown into a secondary proposal for a topic ban from Jimbo's talk page? I also Oppose that. If Jimbo wants to ban FloridaArmy from his talk page, he can request it himself. If Jimbo is happy to have FA post there, I find no reason to ban them from doing so. --Jayron32 19:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this as well for the same reason as above - if FA keeps insulting people at any venue, he should be blocked in the same way as any other editor. There's no free pass to do it at Jimbo's talk page, though. Black Kite (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Black Kite - What I personally am seeing, though, is that no admin is blocking them, yet. Do I need to get my eyes checked on that one? It kind of looks like opposing this might have a similar effect as giving them a free pass to insult people at Jimbo's talk page. I think we can both agree that Jimbo is a busy man and it could be weeks or even never to get them to take notice of the events. casualdejekyll 20:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I normally read my talk page regularly, as do a great many admins. I think the reason there's not been a block for his words there is that they do not constitute a blockable offense. Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jimbo Wales: - exactly. He is, however, skirting the acceptable boundaries of civility, and I do wish he'd stop it before someone does block him. Black Kite (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It's up to Jimbo who he bans from his talk page so that should be out of the question without his input. If FloridaArmy has insulted any editor, rather than point out systemic issues, then that should be dealt with in the usual way. I am a white, born middle class (but I have no idea what class I'm in now - different indicators point different ways), British man in late middle age (that may flatter me but I will hold out for as long as possible from being described as "old"). Of course people like me have a bias, but at least I recognise that I do. Having said that I would give an immediate permanent unappealable ban to anyone who posts on Jimbo's talk page, and also (if it is possible) to anyone apart from Jimbo who reads it or has it watchlisted. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am fascinated by your ideas and would accept any pamphlets you might have. Dumuzid (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Oops, did I say that out loud? I think I must have let my inner dictator slip there. In case anyone doesn't realise, my last sentence wasn't supposed to be taken seriously, but the others were. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose any sanctions and suggest everyone goes back to their normal editing. Slywriter had a go at me here [103] for "soapboxing" when in fact the situation was rather different (I tried to advise on the use of NPROF to add notability to a non-US, on-UK scientist with external interests, and foolishly commented that we're biased against non-UK/non-US scientists in smart suits; this led to a good-faith mistake on another editor's part who called me out for racism; I was obliged to explain myself more clearly; Slywriter took offence and told me, I thought, rather robustly to stop it; this is really no big deal but I think it suggests the topic is rather sensitive, and we'd all do better to rein in our emotions and understand that FloridaArmy might be a bit frustrated. Jimbo can object if he's not happy.) Elemimele (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Baseless accusations of racism do not belong anywhere on wiki, nor do RGW attitudes. Flooding AfC with hundreds of stubs of unasserted notability isn't "ok" just because their subjects belong to an underrepresented group (and therefore...don't need to meet notability guidelines? are automatically assumed, without evidence, to have SIGCOV somewhere?), and reviewers rejecting/draftifying those articles is not "supporting systemic racism" any more than all the editors who create articles on notable white men are. JoelleJay (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Is FA "flooding AfC with hundreds of stubs of unasserted notability"? I think that's not really accurate. Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I have come around to supporting this proposal following reading up here at at Jimbotalk. In essence, pointing out systematic bias does not exempt you from policies such as WP:ASPERSIONS. That others could create a better article on a topic you identify as missing does not exempt you from such policies. I am wary of the comments in this discussion which imply that it does. Indy beetle helpfully breaks down an example below, and it is plainly obvious why the article was not accepted. Creating articles that seem somewhat designed for rejection, and then complaining about said rejection, is not a cycle we should be encouraging. When that cycle spins out into suggesting specific editors who reject malformed articles are propping up white supremacism, it is not a cycle that we should be tolerating. Perhaps removing access to a place where things spin out may break that cycle, and direct more energy into very basic article work. CMD (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Jimbo appears to be defending FA's right to be able to call these matters into question, while also stating that they need to improve at conveying their opinion. He also states, I do moderate my page and have specifically banned people from posting there from time to time. Let Jimbo decide if FA should be banned from his page. At this time, I think he sees an underlying basis of good will from FA. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - and for the first time in my life, per Jimbo nableezy - 14:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dissecting FA's latest accepted draft; basic errors and obvious competence issues

Here is FA's recently accepted eight-sentence draft on Hal W. Ayer, an erstwhile North Carolina State Auditor and state leader of the Populist Party in the 1890s (here for as it was upon being accepted and published, I've done a little cleanup on the current version). Here are the highlights of blatant issues which would be inexcusable for someone who's been writing articles for years:

• Personal discussion comments left in the mainspace (I guess FA hasn't figured out how to properly respond to a reviewer's comment on a talk page or within a template?). FA left these here because they have to argue why the subject should be included, apparently they don't know how to demonstrate it by building a half decent start.
• Obvious factual error and misreading of sources: FA writes The state auditor was an elected office from 1868 to 1955. and sources that to an official website page produced by the office of the State Auditor of NC. This office is still an elective position, it is a statewide constitutional office. The source says some duties were split off into another office in 1955, it doesn't say the auditorship ceased to be elective. FA might know this if they had read North Carolina State Auditor (an article which has been around for years but I spruced it up recently). It doesn't appear they thought to look for the article on this state office, seeing as they didn't even link it into the draft. They also write Populist Party leaders, including Ayer and Marion Butler, wrestled with whether to disenfranchise African Americans. This is not demonstrated by the source, which only suggests that Ayer said that the Populist Party should encourage black people to avoid voting in 1900 so that poor whites would be motivated to vote against disenfranchisement measures introduced by Democrats. The point of this was to defeat disenfranchisement measures which would effect blacks and poor whites (though obviously Ayer and the Populists cared more about the latter). FA tried interpreting the source too heavily and came away with the opposite of its meaning. Is that competence?
• Basic spelling/style errors: twice says "Democrat Party" when they obviously mean "Democratic Party". Anybody who has a clue about American politics, much less someone who's been writing about politicians for years, would not repeat this error twice, especially after being given the chance to review and improve their 8 sentence declined draft. Also writes The Democrats [...] tour the Democrat Party as being the true white man's party. Tour? Do they mean "touted"?
• Frequent use of WP:PRIMARY and WP:UNRELIABLE sources. Ref 2 (carolana.com) is a blog. Refs 3, 4, 5, and 7 are primary sources (transcripts of court cases, etc.). Refs 6 and 8, a book and a PhD (?) thesis lack page numbers. This means out of a stub with 8 unique sources, only 3 are really acceptable, and none demonstrate WP:GNG.

No wonder the reviewer rejected it first time around. And we apparently want to encourage this way of creating articles as an effective means to counter systemic bias? Hal Ayer was white, but FA brings the same issues to their drafts of African American subjects (Alfred Lloyd, FA literally cites a Google search result). I haven't written articles like this since my first year as an editor. An additional 15 minutes of effort could have greatly alleviated some of these issues. Am I allowed to accuse FA of writing "bullshit propping up white supremacism", since their articles on African Americans are so low quality, they damage the reputation of black coverage on Wikipedia? If you think that's meanspirited and that I shouldn't say that, then you shouldn't think it's okay for FA to say that about AfC reviewers declining their deficient drafts on one of the most visited talk pages on English Wikipedia. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can only speak for myself, obviously, but I think it's fine for you to say that and also fine to question the role of systemic racism in the Wikipedia process. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• We have tried repeatedly over the years to ask FlordiaArmy to improve, with only marginal success. I want to like this editors contributions, but it ain't happening with such sloppy work. With above in mind (FloridaArmy's demonstrated inability to write an 8-sentence sub with reliable sources, without basic mechanical errors, and without major factual errors despite being an editor since January 2017), let me ask my respected fellow editors:
  • @Robert McClenon: @Hey man im josh: Does this add up to a "net positive" for Wikipedia?
  • @ThadeusOfNazereth: Are FA's contributions "both important and needed"?
  • @Masem: Why shouldn't we "want to lose" these kinds of contributions?
  • @Cullen328: Is this kind of work really what underpins a "massive amount of useful content" and should be the template which "inspires us to refocus on a genuine problem"?
• Why do we continue to accept this? This sets an awful precedent. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not any of the above users, but from what I was told the only reason we accept their articles is because they all fall under WP:NPOLITICIAN even if they fail WP:GNG because they often survive AFD. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 03:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am certainly not arguing that FloridaArmy writes consistently high quality drafts. Far from it. Their editing philosophy is pretty much the opposite of mine. They seem to believe that poorly written stubs about topics of dubious notability belong in main space, for other editors to improve, especially if the topic relates somehow to African-Americans. My personal approach has is that every single mainspace article ought to make a convincing case of notability, based on the references currently in the article, or added promptly when notability is challenged. But consider Draft:Clifton Conference and especially its talk page. Jimbo Wales himself was able to find a lot of sources that indicate that the topic is definitely notable and an important part of the history of African Americans#Education. Perhaps someone can explain why we do not yet have an article about the exceptionally notable and important topic of the history of African American education in the United States? Perhaps those editors who want to sanction FloridaArmy will write that article before pressing for sanctions against an editor who points out glaringly obvious shortcomings in our coverage. But, of course, none of them will remedy the glaring problem. There is a natural inclination to "shoot the messenger" who brings forward unpleasant truths.

• • Nobody has yet stepped forward to expand and accept that Clinton Conference draft, perhaps for fear of grabbing onto a hot potato. Look at FloridaArmy's talk page, that shows that a large percentage of their drafts are being accepted. Who will accept this draft, about an obviously notable and important historic topic? Cullen328 (talk) 08:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen pretty much sums up my feelings on this as well; though I may state it differently: There really are two separate, almost entirely unrelated things we need to consider here: 1) Should Wikipedia have an article about a topic (without regard in particular for the text of the article, just on whether the subject itself is appropriate for having an article about) and 2) The quality of the text within an article. Insofar as FA creates an article about a subject for which it is appropriate to have an article about and insofar as the article in question is not a copyvio or other similar problems, then the article is fine for the mainspace. Every day and all the time. Deciding whether something is mainspace appropriate is only about deciding whether or not the subject matter is passes the GNG well enough to assure that it could be an appropriate article. Not everyone has the same skill set, and creating short articles that others may come along later and expand is fine. Deletion is not cleanup, and we wouldn't use AFD to delete short articles which are shown to be expandable. There should never be a rejected draft at AFC which would pass AFD. If FA's creations meet that standard, I have no problems with them. --Jayron32 12:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this stentorian pronouncement, a completely unsourced draft should be passed through the AfC queue and signed off on by NPP if sources exist. That flies in the face of every bit of good practice and every consensus underlying both AfC and NPP. It sounds like you are more interested in overhauling rather than interpreting current basic functionality. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Such a criteria for passing Articles for Creation, in which the titular article itself is ignored in favour of an assessment of GNG, would make AfC entirely moot. CMD (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are so close to getting the point, and not even realizing it. --Jayron32 12:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a disappointing response. If your point is that AfC should not exist, then go ahead and say that. Writing coyly and then making flippant remarks about what my understanding may or may not be does not help with that goal. CMD (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying a valid new topic of encyclopedic interest, by starting an article, even if the start is really bad but isn't bad in a particularly sensitive way as in a BLP vio or as in the content, apart from the title, being a hoax (as opposed to merely being factually incorrect) is a significant net advantage. —Alalch E. 13:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Jayron and Alalch. I don't see this as a competence issue creating more work for other editors, but rather as a starting point, of inconsistent quality, but which provides initial sources and content that other editors wouldn't otherwise have if it stayed a red link; thus saving editors time. It's better to have a stub than a red link, and FA's work is beneficial overall.

BTW, if anyone creates an article on the history of African-American education, please ping me; would love to contribute. History of education in the United States would be a good starting point, in addition to the section linked by Cullen. Will also help with the Clifton draft. DFlhb (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessarily better to have a stub than a red link, as a red link gives other people the opportunity to write the article. Many people want to create new articles, and would rather find a different red link than work on a low quality stub. (I admit I am one of these people: I only work on things I really care about, or on things where I can create a new article). Quality does matter, and especially so for people like FA who produces large numbers of poor quality stubs. —Kusma (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)How does it save time to have an editor write articles where 'every single claim they post has to be checked for accuracy and relevance? It would be less work if they were just allowed to post a list of titles with sources and let others do the work from scratch if they were so inclined, instead of having his rather terrible articles on (mostly) notable subjects being reviewed, rejected, resubmitted, rejected again, rewritten by others, and then accepted. An article like [[Draft:Fleta, Alabama] has been rejected and is now resubmitted, and contains gems like "The geology of the area includes hailstones" which is complete nonsense, and "In 1928, C. E. Vickers petitioned for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate as a motor carrier of freight between Montgomery and Fleta" which is completely trivial. Draft:Sandfield Cemetery succeeds in mixing informatin from at least three completely different cemeteries (in South Carolina, Mississippi, and Alabama) into one article as if it all relates to one and the same. How having this draft is supposed to save anyone time is not clear. Fram (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After checking out Clifton Conference, I agree. Substantial changes are necessary, and I believe FA should have done enough research to see whether it was the only conference, or the fifth, or the sixth, before submitting, and tried to at least frame and structure the article correctly (as a regular conference, not a one-off), even if the fifth meeting is the only one covered. I'm also concerned by Indy beetle's example of a 180° misinterpretation of a source. Not sure what the best course of action is, frankly. DFlhb (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just figured I'd say I only accepted it since Theroadislong said they would accept it if it were submitted so I figured they had checked to make sure it was ok. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

🤦🏼‍♂️ Please don't accept something unless you've checked it yourself. Levivich (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another way forward

I don't have a firm opinion on the proposal regarding Jimbo's talk page, but regardless of whether there's consensus for that, we should consider enforcing the restrictions that are already in place. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1040#FloridaArmy and AfC woes, from 2020, restricted FloridaArmy to no more than 20 pending Articles for Creation submissions at any time. This has never been rescinded and is still logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community, but FA hasn't been complying with it: he currently has approximately 55 drafts in the AfC queue, and to my knowledge it's been that way for some time. The last time this was raised, here, FA agreed to "take a break", but evidently the problem has resumed again. If we make clear to FA that the 20-draft limit is a requirement, not a suggestion (and that it'll be enforced with escalating blocks if necessary), I think that'll solve at least some of the issues here: it'll reduce pressure on the AfC process, and maybe it'll lead FA to focus on quality instead of quantity. And again, this only requires enforcing existing restrictions that FA is already supposed to be complying with. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should agree to another editing restriction requiring FloridaArmy to add a statement to each draft saying something like "FloridaArmy attests that this draft contains multiple references to independent, reliable sources devoting significant coverage to this notable topic" and enforce this restriction with escalating blocks if violated. Cullen328 (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen's option is much more fair than Extraordinary Writ's enforcement (though this isn't EW's fault). The practical effect of the current limit depends not only on FA's behaviour, but also on the vagaries of AfC. It would have been correct to limit the rate at which FA submits new articles, not the number allowed to exist in the pipeline; it's not FA's fault if the pipeline is running slowly. Elemimele (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what good that would do. He could state that just to comply with the restriction and have it not be true at all. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not the only restriction they don't follow, they still regularly create articles in the mainspace, e.g. today, and two days ago (both now in draft space: one moved by me (twice, even though some people would argue that this isn't allowed), and one after it was AfD'ed). Fram (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, WTF - why would a seasoned editor drop Draft:William L. Richter into mainspace, or submit it to AfC with any hope of it being passed? These are scrawled notes on the back of an envelope, not a defensible start of an article. Time-wasting, disruptive laziness. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add: Admittedly, looking at the history, a more charitable interpretation would be that they meant to start that as a draft and put it in mainspace by accident :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a week

I have blocked FloridaArmy for a week for violating the edit restrictions, escalating from the previous article-space only week-long block in August to a sitewide one. —Kusma (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zahamey (talk · contribs) has a long history of warnings, particularly by User:Austronesier and User:Adakiko, mainly for adding unsourced material but also for edit-warring and copyvio. I've reverted some at History of Islam, one lost giving my edit summary as "Unsourced and readers won’t understand"the passage of sidi ouqba ibn nafi in the kawar'. They also seem to have an agenda which in part may explain this, see their statement "our history is being usurped and we have realized this is where the campaign against misinformation against us that we are leading by restoring the truth the purge was carried out on other sites but here you are preventing us from restoring the truth" on their talk page. I haven't reverted this large edit[104] which contains a lot of unsourced, some but not all proper names in lower case, and text such as "The sovereign za kosto" which I doubt many of our readers will understand. The first paragraph of this edit is sourced with sfn citation styles. I suspect all of this is copied from other sources but can't trace them. Translations perhaps.

I considered blocking them myself but decided to bring it here instead. I'll go notify them now. Doug Weller talk 13:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at his talk page and it seems evident that he's translating stuff from the French. With that in mind I checked the French wiki article on the Songhai Empire and he has also been editing there, where he seems to write more clearly but he still fails to capitalise some proper nouns. At the same time, I get the impression that he may be trying to add stuff from the oral tradiiton of his people, which is of course harder to source and not encyclopaedic (this doesn't mean it's worthless, but that this is just not the place for it and at best it would be a "primary" source). I'd say he's acting in good faith, but yes, it's a CIR issue. Ostalgia (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They have returned to editing and adding unsourced text. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has a long history of adding unsourced text, or pasting arbitrary sources as reference that do not support the added text. They have been warned multiple times and simply do not care. I suggest a temporary block first. –Austronesier (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if accusing a user several times, endlessly delaying a topic on the discussion page and preventing at all costs any change in a certain article that differs from their opinion can be considered a mistake when doing all that systematically over and over again. At a point like that, it is absurd to presume good faith, since the user @NoonIcarus: opposes updating said article, sabotaging and disqualifying almost every change that opposes changing the international recognition of many countries, since it is not 'politically correct' according to their ideological thoughts, infringing on WP:OWN. An intervention is necessary to that article, since it is very biased in favor of the anti-Chavist version. I hope this complaint is worthwhile and that this serves to help prevent censorship, bias and intimidation on Wikipedia. Finally, excuse my limited English, I hope I was able to explain myself correctly. -- David C. S. (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@David C. S. - It appears to me that you have used the talk page of that article exactly zero times. Where have you and NoonIcarus discussed this before? Edit summaries are surely not an acceptable substitute for discussion. This board isn't for resolving content disputes (you might want to check out WP:DRN if that's the only issue here). If you think the user is causing issues in their behavior, could you provide examples of specific edits done by NoonIcarus that you believe are against policy? (For example, diffs.) The reason I ask this is because I am not personally familiar with the situation and I imagine most others aren't either. casualdejekyll 18:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Best regards, @Casualdejekyll:. I can offer a link to the article's talk page, where I have offered a thorough explanation on the situation: (Talk:Responses to the Venezuelan presidential crisis#Colombia and Bolivia). I have pinged David there at least twice, but as you well point out, receiving no response. Regarding the accusations of article ownership, they are demonstrably false, which can be proved by taking a look at the talk page. Several changes have been applied to the list of countries, which is the main subject of contention in the page: Colombia and Bolivia, whose change was proposed by David, were moved accordingly back in November; the United Nations were removed (see Talk:Responses to the Venezuelan presidential crisis#United Nations; and Canada's change, which was a move proposed by David himself, has been kept. Similarly problematic have been several of his edit summaries, accusing other editors of "censorship": [105][106][107][108]

Something that is important to point out is that this has been a cross-wiki pattern: David has already been blocked in the Spanish Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons for edit warring, as well as for personal attacks, in the case of the latter. As such, he has attempted to insist in disputed changes in other projects, including the English Wikipedia, engaging in a slow pace edit war to avoid sanctions under the three reverts rule. This has not been limited to the topic of Venezuela, but also Bolivia and Peru as well, even though the presidential crisis is the last one he has edited in. I filed a report back in November regarding this behavior, which can be consulted for more context: (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1113#User:David C. S.). --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the discussion, but the topic caught my eye as I'm at least superficially familiar with the topic (as much as any native Spanish speaker can be, at least). Looking at the edit history and glancing at the talk page, it's clear how or why user David C. S. could be problematic, being unresponsive in the talk page and taking a WP:RGW attitude with a bit of victimisation when he does not get his way. However, I also think you may be establishing too high a threshold for inclusion in the map, which doesn't help matters and probably triggers him. For instance, here he added Algeria to the list of countries who recognise Maduro on the basis of Algeria receiving Maduro for an official visit, a change you reverted because there was no official declaration from the Algerian side saying "we recognise Maduro over Guaidó". I believe receiving Maduro in an official capacity as President of Venezuela should in itself count as recognition. Mind you, recognition does not mean support: a country can recognise Maduro as president without repeating his crazy talk about being an anti-imperialist bastion and whatnot. As long as the category is "recognition", however, I believe at least some of the additions introduced by David were acceptable, reverting him was setting the bar too high, and this probably gave him the impression that he was being unfairly treated ("censored"). Ambassadors are kinda debatable as some countries (Spain, for instance) have actually had Maduro and Guaidó ambassadors at the same time.

TL;DR - I think you could lower the threshold for inclusion a bit (official visits could/should count as recognition IMO) without lowering the rigour of the article and, at the same time, incorporating some of this user's contribution (which would even improve the article a bit). It would also prevent what was essentially a content dispute from escalating into this. Of course, this is just my opinion. Ostalgia (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ostalgia:! Many thanks for the feedback. Part of the point that I tried to make before is that this behavior is not limited to this article and is part of a more general pattern that has affected other topics as well. However, I definitely believe that the points you're making could improve the article. I have already considering lowering this threshold lately. One of the examples is the cases of Colombia and Bolivia, which I mentioned before: both heads of state did an official visit to Venezuela, and their positions were changed accordingly, or the United Nations, that has renewed the credentials of Maduro's representative. I think that one of the main problems with the situation is that the original threshold can be outdated, and that unlike the first weeks of the crisis these changes in stances happen more quietly and slowly. Possibly other factors, such as receiving Maduro in an official visit, could be discussed among the editors that have participated recently. Kind regards! --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I understand that the user might be problematic in general, but there's always the possibility that an agreement can be reached if both sides are willing to compromise somewhat. The fact that he hasn't responded here since posting his report doesn't point in that direction, though, but we'll see. I also agree that it was correct for the threshold to be set that high when the crisis was "fresh", but after 3 years interest has waned and countries that had been sitting on the fence or were even pro-Guaidó at some point have been quietly changing their position in that time. Lowering the threshold for recognition could help reflect the actual current situation. Ostalgia (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you try to solve it in the discussion of the article, knowing the modus operandi of said user? I see that you have pointed out that the conflict comes from the Spanish Wikipedia, and as you can see, there was that discussion about it (you can also see that for years the page has received complaints of being biased, but the user blocked several attempts to neutralize it), but @NoonIcarus: delayed the matter forever, while in the course of these discussions, he continued sending me messages of warnings and complaints to my talk page, just like you do here. Likewise, if the intention is to refer to the Spanish Wikipedia, you can also see that he was sanctioned by WP:OWN. It is with this background that he opened the case in this instance and in this place, because doing it on the Responses to the Venezuelan presidential crisis discussion page is wasted time, in addition to the null interest of other users.

As for talking about diplomatic recognition: as the word says, you should write about recognition, not about sympathies or affiliations... if a government maintains a diplomatic mission at the ambassadorial level or receives an official presidential visit, it is logical Simple a demonstration of diplomatic recognition and wanting to misrepresent that violates WP:NPOV, since it can be considered bias. -- David C. S. (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to the discussion (at this point I feel "invested" in it, sort of)!

It's clear that you two have a history, and you both seem to have been blocked on the Spanish wiki for this same issue, on the same topic and on the same page! Unfortunately, I can definitely see that happening again here if you don't find a way to compromise and settle your differences, and such an outcome would be of no use to anyone involved (or uninvolved - the page would be worse off for it).

If I may be so bold as to put forward my own suggestion as a common ground from which you two could continue to develop the page, I proposed to NoonIcarus lowering the threshold for what could be taken as recognition of Maduro as president: an official visit from Maduro to a country should by itself amount to recognition (in my example above, the visit to Algeria that you introduced to the page and was later reverted). The maintaining of an embassy is trickier as some countries have actually had embassies from both Guaidó and Maduro in parallel, but that can probably be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Would this be a solution agreeable to both parties? If this can be de-escalated to the level of a content dispute, then maybe nobody needs to be blocked, banned, warned or anything, and maybe, just maybe, the article can be improved through collaboration instead of... whatever it is that's happening right now. Ostalgia (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Support. But that there is a greater participation of users, precisely to avoid monopoly. -- David C. S. (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ostalgia: If it helps as a solution to the dispute, I would not mind it as an update to the convention and to apply the changes, for example, with Algeria. If it is alright with you, I can also take the proposal to the talk page to see what other editors think. From what I understand, this would be limited to heads of state; the only point that I wanted to raise was the cases of international summit visits, and not merely state ones. For instance, visits to the United Nations headquarters take place in the United States, even if the country does not recognize Maduro; this is a similar situation in the case of Egypt and the COP27 summit, but I'm sure that borderline scenarios can be discussed on a case to case basis. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Situation: I made recent edits to this page using properly sourced documents. Those edits were deleted and replaced with poorly sourced tabloid information.

Conditions: 1. I provided truthful, accurate, properly sourced information regarding the person of Anna Paulina Luna. The information was sourced using official government websites and documents. I have, in my possession, an attributable DD214, taken as a screen capture from David Happe, producer of Pirate Nation. In his podcast, which I have also recorded on my desktop, David assets that Anna Paulina gave him the DD214 at his request and advised all other media personalities to do the same. Personally Identifiable Information has been redacted from the document, but the video produced confers the authenticity of the document. 2. Regarding the coding of the DD214, this is publicly available information from any government website, which I did also source. 3. As for comments made attributable to Anna Paulina Luna, these were taken from website and I have recorded the video of these events in order to authenticate their truthfulness and accuracy. 4. As for events occurring in Anna Paulina Luna's life, such as her marriage and divorce records, these are publicly available documents, which I have sourced from official government websites.

Threats: 1. Anna Paulina Luna has scrubbed her biographic name and information from multiple civilian search sites and is attempting to do the same using Wikipedia.

Proposed Resolution: 1. For Wikipedia to remain a credible source of information regarding this personality, the information I have provided, which is truthful and accurate and properly sourced, must be accepted.

 There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Patriot S2X (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this is quite confusing, the template is supposed to go on a user talk page, not the ANI discussion SniperReverter (Talk to me) 18:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified the editor who - I think - is being brought up here. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have pageblocked Patriot S2X from Anna Paulina Luna. They can make well-referenced edit requests at Talk: Anna Paulina Luna. Cullen328 (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You were reverted because your information was mostly unsourced, and your sources were general government pages about codes that didn't even mention the article subject, or a non-notable podcast. And lets not even get into the section about selling houses and moving homes which was completely unsourced. Any established editor on Wikipedia would have reverted those edits. Canterbury Tail talk 19:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot S2X is very unhappy with Cullen. Doug Weller talk 19:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly so. How dare we have policies and guidelines that won't let the guy do whatever he pleases, after all? We won't let him cite hearsay from a podcast as a reliable source? The horror! Ravenswing 19:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to officially register my opposite of surprise that someone called Patriot editing articles about a right-wing politician is angry that they can't do whatever they please. casualdejekyll 19:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to imply that there is a connection between users with Patriot in their name and users with Truth in their name? Hmmm, I like your ideas and want to subscribe to your newsletter. Canterbury Tail talk 20:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmph! Truth69420 (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KLG-DCPR (talk · contribs) created a misplaced page Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Brian Meshkin (2nd nomination) along with a bunch of legal statement on it. Is there any sysop wanting to deal with that? Lemonaka (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this is really a complicated case. Lemonaka (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the legal threats in the AFD you speak of here? Yes, the user has indicted that they work for a law firm representing the person on the page, but nowhere in the AFD have they threatened legal action against Wikipedia.

KLG-DCPR makes a decent point that the biography needs to be cleaned up to represent current events (as it could be someone libelous now), and they make a point that it could possibly fail WP:ONEEVENT. I'd argue the page should stay up (with an update about the court case cited and posted) because of the coverage of him outside the case. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 20:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, i misread the sentences with minor lawsuit. By the way, I have a strong sense that KLG-DCPR created a wrong page while he stated he wanted to delete the article, but the target for XFD is the talk page. Lemonaka (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update

It was clear to me that the nominator made a good-faith mistake in invoking the 'xfd' tab while on the talk page rather than on the article page, and that they wanted to delete the article. They composed a statement as to why the article should be deleted. I commented that the MFD for the talk page should be procedurally closed as the wrong venue. I then copied the deletion nomination and made a procedural AFD nomination of the article. The MFD was then closed as Speedy Keep. The AFD is now pending. Any discussion of whether the BLP should be kept or deleted should be in the AFD; that's what an AFD is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who wishes to participate, the new AfD is Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_Meshkin_(2nd_nomination). 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not really sure what to make of this. Gareth Carraway is going around deleting sourced content and changing sourced content to say stuff that the source doesn't say. For example: Special:Diff/1126608669, Special:Diff/1126608958, Special:Diff/1126610129, Special:Diff/1132795779. I've warned him several times about this, but his response so far has only been to threaten to call me "delusional" and threaten to have me blocked instead. I don't think this person is interested in editing Wikipedia according to reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]